Meet me at the MoCCA Art Festival!
This Saturday and Sunday in NYC (June 26 & 27, 10 AM to 6 PM)
Buy Attitude 2, Eviction Notice 2, etc

Sorry for the short notice, but it's time once again for the annual Museum of Comix and Cartoon Art Festival, now expanded to two whole days. Buy signed comics, meet your favorite comics artists and discover new ones, and check out these exciting panels and speeches. The details:

WHO: Tons of amazing people, including Ruben Bolling, Howard Cruse, Ted Rall, Ariel Schrag, Nina Paley, Joe Sacco, Steve Brodner, Peter Kuper, Kyle Baker, Mickey Siporin, Megan Kelso, Robyn Chapman, Sarah Dyer, Gina Kamentsky, August, and me, just to name a few.
WHAT: MoCCA Art Festival
WHEN: Sat. June 26 + Sun. June 27, 10 am-6 pm
WHERE: The fabulous Puck building at 295 Lafayette Street in Soho (New York, NY). If going by subway, take the 6 train to Bleecker station or F, V Broadway/Lafayette station or N-R to Prince Street. For driving directions, see this site.
WHY: Because it'll be fabulous, that's why.
HOW MUCH: $7/day or $15 for the weekend. Plus whatever you plan to spend on comics.

I'll be selling and signing Attitude 2, as well as some old Wartime ABCs posters and Eviction Notice 2, my second self-published cartoon collection.

Justice denied (or at least delayed):
Gwen Araujo murder case ends in mistrial
Apparently juries can't decide whether long slow brutal torture, beating, and strangling is murder when the victim is transgender. The case will be retried, but still, this is awful

I don't understand. It should have been such an obvious murder conviction. Long-time reader Brenda Ann (who first let me know about the mistrial by email) writes:

A sad commentary on the state of mind of our fellow Americans on the value of the life of a transgendered person versus the righteous indignation of her murderers, the following articles point up that a jury of eight men and four women from among our peers could not bring themselves to find these three men guilty of an obviously premeditated murder. Indeed, they did not even seem to consider any of the lesser included offenses of second degree murder, or even manslaughter, instead, bringing forth a hung jury resulting in a mistrial.

One can only hope that during the retrial that is planned that the prosecution makes a more compelling case, and that the new jury will not be so seemingly swayed by homophobia as to look upon the perpetrators as the victims.

As an aside, how in the world could these men have anal sex with Ms. Araujo without seeing with their own eyes that she was not post-operative? Are we to believe they are all blind as well as ignorant of anatomy? The mind boggles.

Anyway, I am extremely grateful to Brenda Ann and Gwendolyn Smith for sending me links to all these articles about the mistrial. From the San Francisco Chronicle (see their sidebar of previous articles on the murder case):

A judge declared a mistrial Tuesday in the trial of three men accused of killing transgendered Newark teen Gwen Araujo after jurors said they could not agree whether to convict the men of first-degree murder.

Judge Harry Sheppard said he believed that the jury was "hopelessly deadlocked" after the jury foreman told him the panel of eight men and four women have been "unable to pass over the point of reasonable doubt. In my personal opinion, further deliberations would not yield a verdict."

The panel had been deliberating for the better part of 10 days.

See also the L.A. Times ("Mistrial Declared in Transgender Murder" and the Associated Press via AZcentral.com.

(See previous posts and responses to the cartoons "Make It Stop" and "Shallow Grave": part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, and part 8)

Mikhaela in In These Times
My first magazine cover!

A long time ago, when I was maybe 13 or 14, my Zadie (that means "grandfather" for those not in the know) bought me subscriptions to his three favorite periodicals: In These Times, the Nation, and the Liberal Opinion. I really wish he was here to see this:

I realize that thumbnail's a bit on the small side, so feel free to look at my original drawing before the logo and type were added.

Keep an eye on your local newsstands for the issue when it comes out. Oh, and in case you're wondering who the puppets are, they're the president, prime minister and vice presidents of the "sovereign" Iraqi interim government. You probably have no clue what these guys look like, but trust me, they're fair caricatures.

New Cartoon: Pentagon Memo Comics

(click title to see full cartoon)

Another cheerful torture cartoon. Read the original Wall Street Journal scoop (also available for free at Common Dreams) and read the actual text of the torture memo (or at least the portions that are available).

Attack of the Political Cartoonists
How exciting! I'm in another book!

**COMING JULY 4th**
ATTACK OF THE POLITICAL CARTOONISTS: Insights and Assaults from Today's Editorial Cartoonists

Foreword by Senator Russ Feingold.
160 Pages, $15.99, ISBN 1-930964-47-1 o Edited by J.P. Trostle, with an Introduction by Lucy Caswell, curator of the Cartoon Research Library at Ohio State University
With laser-like insight and rapier-sharp wit, the political cartoonist is alive and kicking in the 21st Century. Here 150 members of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, whose work has appeared in every major newspaper in North America and beyond, join in this celebration of the art form. The cartoonists collected here have won hundreds of journalism awards, including a dozen Pulitzer Prizes. More importantly, they do not suffer fools lightly -- in politics, religion or culture -- and are always the first to step forward to shout "The Emperor has no clothes!"

A hugely important release any year, but a timely one this election year! Available July 4th at all Borders, Barnes & Nobles and Waldenbooks, or pre-order today at Amazon.com.

Attack Of The Political Cartoonists includes the work of Mike Luckovich, David Horsey, Ann Telnaes, Tom Toles, Ted Rall, Walt Handelsman, Lalo Alcaraz, Tony Auth, Dick Locher, Jack Ohman, Bob Gorrell, Ben Sargent, Jeff Stahler, Mike Thompson, Mark Fiore, Kirk Anderson, Signe Wilkinson, Joel Pett, Mike Ritter, Clay Bennett, and 130 other editorial cartoonists (such as Mikhaela Reid).

Ray Charles forced to entertain Ronald Reagan in Heaven
I'm sorry, that's just wrong

Poor Ray Charles. By a sad coincidence of timing, the news of his death was lost in a sea of Reagan death porn. And the mainstream media had so much trouble pulling themselves away from Reagan adulation that they noted Charles's passing by showing historical footage of him playing "America the Beautiful" for the Reagans and digging up random photos like this one.

Some cartoonists also saw fit to force Ray Charles to share cartoon obituary space with Reagan. So let me state for the record--Ray Charles did not decide to die last week because he wanted to play piano for a racist white ex-President in Heaven. Thanks.

Africana.com has their priorities straight, relegating Ronnie to 4th place on the A-List. Body and Soul has two nice Reagan-free posts about Ray Charles.

New Cartoon: Other Memories
Infectious optimism takes on a whole new meaning
Plus, feeling like an outsider, and--what is up with the HRC and the Log Cabin Republicans, anyway?

"He was shamelessly patriotic and infectiously optimistic."—Justice Antonin Scalia

(click panel to see full cartoon)

Not everyone remembers the Reagan years so fondly. For more on Reagan's AIDS and gay rights (or lack thereof) legacy, see The New York Blade, which has a great piece by editor Steve Weinstein called "Mourning the ‘Teflon President’? Not me!". Weinstein is particularly disturbed by the moderate and conservative gay groups that have been praising Reagan after his death. A small excerpt:

If I sound angry and bitter, it’s because I am. Oh, I don’t blame the mainstream media. They don’t even rise to the level of sheep. At least sheep bleat when they’re being led to slaughter. The media have simply lied down and vomited up their lies about Reagan’s sunny optimism and bogus accomplishments.

But what about our gay leaders? Here is our real shame.

The Human Rights Campaign sent out a message praising him for opposing a statewide referendum. No mention of his AIDS policy.

But I reserve special opprobrium for the Log Cabin Republicans, who have sent out a message praising Reagan... . Patrick Guerriero, who heads LCR, is probably too young to remember the worst of the epidemic. Perhaps he has never held a friend’s hand while listening to the man’s death rattle. Perhaps he has never awoken in the middle of the night to clean his lover’s shit and sweat and blood from the sheets. Perhaps he has never had to comfort parents at their young son’s funeral. That doesn’t absolve him from his craven response to Reagan’s death, calling him “one of our nation’s greatest presidents.” This is criminal and a complete rejection of his members’ most basic interests.

The AIDS crisis is far from over. If anything, we’ve only moved through the first stage of an ongoing crisis that will probably last longer than the lifetime of anyone reading this newspaper. Whole families, whole villages — even nations — have lost their populations. In much of southern Africa, better than one-quarter of the adult population is infected.

You should also see the Advocate, which has a several different views on Reagan and AIDS, including the Michael Bronski piece I've already linked to several times and a controversial not-yet-published piece by Larry Kramer called "Adolf Reagan."

Also, the mainstream media, after over a week of non-stop "everyone loved him" coverage, seems to be noticing that might not be the case. See, for example, the Washington Post ("Gays Recall a Silent Great Communicator").

In case you didn't catch all those links above, one was a remembrance by Boston Globe columnist Derrick Jackson ("He Brought Back Black and White"). Some choice bits:

Calling Reagan an "all-American" insults the millions of Americans whom he deprived of his sunlight. Reagan far too often invited the nation to live down to its lowest common denominators. Reagan tried to make America younger, all right. He tried to return us to the days where we sat before black-and-white televisions, in separate black and white neighborhoods, where white people saw only white people and black people were represented by Buckwheat and the only time you saw lots of people of color were dead Indians in Westerns.

The Los Angeles Times said Reagan's "optimism was catching." Tell that to black folks, the poor, unions, people with AIDS, environmentalists, college students needing aid, Holocaust survivors, and pro-choice activists. They all caught hell. You could hardly call the Iran-Contra arms scandal an "honest and open debate."

and

That is not an "All-American" legacy. Reagan projected the sun to mask a scowl. His presidency is indeed extraordinary. It is extraordinary for how easily Americans hail his "optimism." For African-Americans, and all Americans who were targets of his policies, it was open season.

Exactly. Africana.com's A-List also sums it up nicely:

Witnessing the vast national mourning taking place this week for Ronald Reagan, we feel more and more like outsiders. How to understand the weeping throngs, the staunch conservative faces that twist into genuine grief when contemplating the death of their hero? We don't doubt the sincerity of their feelings, but find them impossible to share. The president who embraced apartheid South Africa, who abandoned the poor and mentally ill, who turned his back on the cities and who never mentioned AIDS as that disease first rampaged through this country — that's a president we couldn't stomach then, and can't mourn now.

By the way, this is the second version of this toon--friends suggested that the first version (which more directly blamed Reagan for the global AIDS epidemic getting out of control) might be a stretch for a lot of readers. Decide for yourself, but if Reagan had devoted resources to fighting the disease and sanctioned safer-sex education and prevention campaigns back when AIDS cases numbered less than 2,000, I can't help wondering if maybe we wouldn't have 25 million dead and 40 million people living with AIDS today.

Sure he supported apartheid--but he had a GREAT SENSE OF HUMOR!
My favorite Reagan legacy cartoons so far + a few non-Reagan toons
And other alternative views on Reagan

When I wrote my earlier Reagan post, "Jellybeans in Heaven", almost every cartoon (and column) I could find was a glowing Reagan tribute, and this was symptomatic of most television and newspaper coverage of the Reagan legacy. Even in mourning, there must be space for the truth.

My favorite Reagan-related cartoons:

Kirk Anderson ponders the whole "sure he did bad things, but HE WAS SUCH A GENTLEMAN" phenomenon. When I saw this brilliant toon, I (a) cried because I hadn't done it, and (b) printed it out and hung it on my wall (update: he's got another great one, "Supply Side Journalism"). Ted Rall imagines what the afterlife might look like under the Reagan administration (see also his column this week, and his second toon on the subject). See also: Tom Toles, and this sketchbook piece from Scott Bateman. Joel Pett has a great one, wrapping in the whole "Reagan on Rushmore" angle. Signe Wilkinson finds history getting fuzzy. Mark Fiore says: "Don't be sad, we've got President Reaganesque!".

And there's more! Lalo Alcaraz isn't so sure Reagan will be getting into Heaven. Rob Rogers has his own idea for a Reagan memorial, and Matt Wuerker has another. Also, Brian McFadden did a Remembering Reagan toon over a year ago in prediction of this event. Tim Kreider gets out his stake and gets ready for the hate mail. Kevin Moore picks up a broom. Ann Telnaes is getting a bit tired of the non-stop Reagan news coverage, and so is Rob Rogers.

Update: Tom Tomorrow is impressed by Reagan's optimism, and Aaron McGruder apologizes for all his lies.

Ted Rall, by the way, has been royally blasted by Rush and thousands of rabid, homophobic, and often dimwitted Republican email-writers for a certain quickly-written blog post. And he also explains why liberals really can't wait until the funeral is over to be critical. (Counterpoint: Body and Soul isn't so sure about that.) (Update: oddly enough, another cartoonist found this controversy exciting enough to cartoon about, but concluded in the toon that Ted was boring.)

Stem-Cell Research Cartoons:

I of course support stem-cell research, and I do think it's hypocritical of conservatives to talk about how much they love Nancy and Ronald while ignoring Nancy's pleas for stem-cell research. BUT I'm a little nervous about focusing on stem-cell research when talking about the Reagan legacy--this seems like it could be a way of deflecting criticism by avoiding what Reagan actually did and stood for before he got ill, an odd way of using a conservative's legacy for liberal ends. That is, it's a way to draw a cartoon that's both liberal and pro-Reagan. So it's a good point to make, but it shouldn't be the only point. That being said, Scott Bateman's got a good one, and so does Jeff Danziger. See also: Bill Day, Matt Davies, Joe Heller (and others). (Counterpoint: August has a compelling argument for why this IS an important angle to take.)

For the tribute cartoons, and my initial thoughts on the coverage of Reagan's legacy, please return to the "Jellybeans in Heaven" post.

A few good blog posts:

Over at No False Medicine, Amardeep Singh has a great roundup of "Alternative Views of Ronald Reagan" (found via Yves). Tom Tomorrow always has good stuff to read. So does Atrios, who's frustrated by the factual errors in all the media fawning (please scroll down and go into his archives for more excellent Reagan-related commentary). See also The Bitter Shack of Resentment, and Wonkette, who has some interesting posts on what she calls "Gipperporn." Demagogue also has a lot of good stuff (start here and scroll up for more).

A few good articles and columns:

Women's E-news has a commentary piece from Martha Burk about Reagan's war on women (link via Ms. Musings). Over at Truthout, William Rivers Pitt writes on the triumph of image over the truth. Salon.com's Eric Boehlert has a must-read article on "Reagan porn"--the unprecedented gushing over Reagan by the so-called liberal media. One particularly relevant quote:

The media's blissful coverage this week "serves a strategic function," Parry says. "When the press is under attack for being liberal, the logical response is to prove you're not." If ever there's been a time when the press handed the reins over to the Republican sensibility, it was this week.

Salon also has great pieces, from Joe Conason, James K. Galbraith, and others. The Nation has a whole new issue devoted to "The Real Reagan Legacy". The Village Voice is at it too, with "Death of a Salesman" and Bush Takes a Ride in Reagan's Wake. And there's so much more out there--try Alternet and Common Dreams, for starters.

More later, including my own cartoon.

Non-Reagan-related cartoons I just had to share. Steve Sack has a great one on "The First Heterosexuals." And Ruben Bolling takes Lucky Ducky to Iraq.

Gratuitous Cat Pictures Again
Please scroll down if you'd rather read more about Reagan

I went to see Shrek 2 yesterday (fantastic, please go see it, you will love it) and the Puss in Boots character (above left) reminded me that I hadn't posted gratuituous cute cat pictures of my new kitty Riley (above right). (Don't worry--Mombi's just fine, but my parents missed her and wanted her back). I got Riley from the wonderful folks at KittyKind over a month ago, but the poor furry orange thing has only been living with me for a week now, as several days after I originally brought him home he developed kitty pneumonia, and spent several weeks at the shelter vet on an IV unable to eat on his own.

He actually came with the name Riley, but by happy coincidence that's also the name of a certain thuggish young cartoon character. OK, enough sappiness. I have to go cuddle with my cute furry baby kitty now and ponder how to capture Reagan's shameful legacy in a hardhitting yet tasteful cartoon. Hmmm.

New Non-Cartoon: Wedding Invite
Yes, you heard me--this is purely a happy and non-gloomy illustration.

Not a cartoon at all. Congratulations to Genea and Todd on their approaching wedding. Just wanted to share that I do other things besides cartoons.

William Greider on the War on Terror

Please read this. Thanks.

Bush: Well, SOME Iraqis are grateful
... for example, the ones we installed in office...

You may have already seen the Brokaw interview with Bush. But this quote bears a little examination:

Bush: “I think it's fair to say that, you know, that the enemy didn't lay down its arms like we had hoped.”

Brokaw: “And you were not greeted as liberators like Vice President Cheney said that you would be.”

Bush: “Well, I think we've been -- let me just -- I think we've been thanked by the people of Iraq. And I think you'll hear more of that from people like Prime Minister Alawi and the foreign minister, who both have repeatedly, ‘Thank you for what you've done, and by the way, help us.’

Now let me see here. Prime Minister Alawi is an exile with close ties to the CIA who was appointed Prime Minister to Iraq thanks to pressure from the U.S. Of course he said "thank you"--"thank you for appointing me Prime Minister"! How exactly is his gratitude proof of the gratitude of Iraqis as a whole? Just saying...

Now, this brings us back to Reagan's death and its potential benefits for Bush. From the New York Times:

For Mr. Bush, the blackout may have been a blessing as well as a curse. Had Mr. Reagan not died when he did, the world might have focused more intently on Mr. Bush and on the contrast between the consensus that surrounded World War II, and the doubts and recriminations over the war in Iraq. When asked about the prewar planning in an interview with Tom Brokaw on NBC, Mr. Bush said, "I think it's fair to say that - you know, that - the enemy didn't lay down its arms like we had hoped."

Yes, that's right--Bush is trying to compare his War on Terror to World War II. And some cartoonists seem to agree, with plenty of digs about the "ungrateful" French and wimpy liberals. Ugh.

Jellybeans in Heaven
Reagan cartoon roundup
Plus: Reagan's death boosts Bush campaign

Certainly people who admired or agreed with Reagan have a right to mourn, and to focus on what they saw as Reagan's positive qualities if they want to. But they shouldn't whitewash history in the process, and those of us who were horrified by his policies and actions shouldn't fall over backwards pretending we miss him. I've heard this a lot: "I disagreed with his everything he did, BUT he was such a gentleman" or "BUT he had such a great sense of humor" or "BUT he brought dignity to the White House" or "BUT he loved his wife" or "BUT he was such a DECENT man." But NOTHING. A charming personality does not make up for atrocious actions.

Look, I'm not gloating. But I'm not going to pretend I liked Reagan when he was alive, and I'm not going to start waxing nostalgic about chimps, jellybeans, or "Morning in America." Yes, I was 9 years old when Reagan left office. But I remember how angry he made my parents, and I've read up on my history. I know about Iran-Contra, and trickle-down economics, about Guatemala and Grenada and his murderous silence on AIDS, about turning the mentally ill out onto the streets, about Star Wars and ketchup as a vegetable, about supporting apartheid, about trees as polluters, about arming Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Most of the tributes (hell, most of the media coverage in general) I've seen emphasize vague personality traits like "optimism" and "leadership", and gloss over what he actually DID as president (except when giving him credit for tearing down the Berlin Wall, but let's not go there right now). But no amount of cowboy hats and jellybeans will bring back the tens of thousands who died as a result of his actions or inactions.

So as I did when Strom Thurmond died, I'll try to do a cartoon roundup:

Jellybeans in Heaven cartoons: here, and here.

Horses in Heaven and other cowboy cartoons: here, here, here and here.

Reagan saluting cartoons: here.

The Big Gipper.: Here.

"Mourning in America": here , here and here. What, you mean there are even more? Wow...

Cartoons that credit Reagan with single-handedly taking down the Berlin Wall: here, here and here.

This one is just odd. A whole new meaning to trickle-down economics (though really, the people who should be crying here are the poor and disadvantaged harmed by trickle-down... puzzling).

And of course...

Reagan tearing down the Berlin Wall in Heaven cartoons: here, here and here.

Gasp! Cartoons that are actually critical of Reagan. So far, I've only seen this cartoon from Tom Toles, and this sketchbook piece from Scott Bateman. But I'm sure Ted Rall will have something to say soon. (Update: for more toons critical of Reagan, see my more recent post.)

And in the in-between category: Stacy Curtis might emphasize the "Reagan as gentleman" angle in his cartoon, but he actually acknowledges alternate views and memories of Reagan.

Speaking of Strom Thurmond and Ronald Reagan and cartoons, here's an old Boondocks cartoon about both of them.

For more thoughts on Reagan, I kindly direct you to This Modern World, Atrios, John Nichols, David Corn (" 66 (Unflattering) Things About Ronald Reagan"), Ted Rall, Daily Kos, and Greg Palast and BET (yes, BET).

P.S. Reagan Boosts Bush No surprise: Reagan's death is shifting American attention away from Bush's failures and scandals and giving Bush's campaign a boost. Kerry says he's going to TONE DOWN his campaigning for a week in deference to Reagan, including cancelling fundraising events expected to bring in millions--you can bet Bush won't be doing the same (see August for more, though I'm surprised by how nice he's being to Reagan). Some relevant quotes:

Political observers say Reagan's passing provides a stellar opportunity for the Bush campaign to remind voters of GOP strengths.

and

Advisers to Mr. Bush said they had not determined how prominently Mr. Bush should identify his presidency with Mr. Reagan, whether Mr. Reagan's image should be incorporated in Mr. Bush's advertisements and whether Nancy Reagan might appear on Mr. Bush's behalf in the fall.

But don't forget, Mrs. Reagan might not be all that receptive:

Several Republicans added that Mr. Bush's hopes of enlisting Mrs. Reagan might be complicated by the differences between Mrs. Reagan and Mr. Bush on the issue of embryonic stem-cell research. Mrs. Reagan has been vocal in arguing that the research might help others suffering from Alzheimer's disease, which doctors diagnosed in Mr. Reagan after he left office, while Mr. Bush's policy restricts public financing for this kind of research to existing cell lines.

And of course:

Aides to Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry said they did not want to do anything that would make it appear that they were exploiting the news of Mr. Reagan's death. But in one sign of what may lie ahead, Republicans circulated old quotes from Mr. Kerry in which he criticized Mr. Reagan. Democrats promptly dug up instances of the first president Bush speaking unkindly about Mr. Reagan in 1980, as the two men competed for the Republican nomination.

Truly heartwarming. So let's see--they're digging up one of Kerry's proudest moments in the Senate (his pursuit of the truth about Iran-Contra) and making it look like he was being cruel and insensitive for insulting a dead man... who of course was not dead at the time? Help, my head is hurting...

Oh, and one more thing. I've seen a lot of comments on liberal blogs suggesting that a good way to attack Bush would be to make him look inadequate next to Reagan. But I beg to differ. Bush truly is Reagan's heir on many levels--and I mean that as an insult. I almost NEVER agree with Mike Ramirez on anything, but in this case he has a point.

Join my e-mail list...

... and get cartoons like this one or this one in your inbox every week, plus updates on signings, events, etc. How can you lose, really? Just send an email (subject doesn't matter) to newtoons-subscribe@mikhaela.net.

Enough with the lefty pro-draft talk already
Katha Pollitt explains why it's a terrible idea

Katha Pollitt has an excellent Nation column ("Do You Feel a Draft?") on why the new liberal/leftist romance with the idea of a draft is so misguided. Please read it, think about it, and email it to all your lefty friends who suddenly seem to think forcing thousands of young men and women to put on uniforms and kill people is a progressive thing to do.

As you probably know, the basic liberal pro-draft argument has two parts. First, the current army is largely made up of Have Nots, which allows the Haves to make decisions leading to war without worrying about the safety of their own children (you know, the whole chickenhawk thing). Second, a draft would create opposition to war. Pollitt rebuts both these arguments (go read her piece to see how), but she takes it a step further:

Supporters of the draft are using it to promote indirectly politics we should champion openly and up front. It's terrible that working-class teenagers join the Army to get college funds, or job training, or work--what kind of nation is this where Jessica Lynch had to invade Iraq in order to fulfill her modest dream of becoming an elementary school teacher and Shoshanna Johnson had to be a cook on the battlefield to qualify for a culinary job back home? But the solution isn't to force more people into the Army, it's affordable education and good jobs for all. Nobody should have to choose between risking her life--or as we see in Abu Ghraib, her soul--and stocking shelves at Wal-Mart. By the same token, threatening our young with injury, madness and death is a rather roundabout way to increase resistance to military adventures. I'd rather just loudly insist that people who favor war go fight in it themselves or be damned as showboaters and shirkers. I'm sure the Army can find something for Christopher Hitchens to do.

The main effect of bringing back the draft would be to further militarize the nation. The military has already thrust its tentacles deep into civilian life: We have ROTC on campus, Junior ROTC in the high schools, Hummers in our garages and camouflage couture in our closets. Whole counties, entire professions, live or die by defense contracts--which is perhaps one reason we spend more on our military budget than the next twenty-five countries combined. (Did you know that the money raised by the breast cancer postage stamp goes to the Defense Department?) Conscription will make the country more authoritarian and probably more violent, too, if that's possible--especially for women soldiers, who are raped and assaulted in great numbers in today's armed forces, usually with more or less impunity.

If we want a society that is equal, cohesive, fair and war-resistant, let's fight for that, not punish our children for what we have allowed America to become.

Hear, hear!

New Cartoon: Untitled
Please keep "sovereignty" in quote marks. Thanks.

(click image to see full-size cartoon)

Back to my usual doom and gloom, but in only one panel. Now listen, and this is important: NO ONE SHOULD SAY SOVEREIGNTY WITH A STRAIGHT FACE. "Full sovereignty" without control over the military and security, without control over the economy, without the ability to make legislation or alter/overturn laws created by the U.S. occupation, without freedom of the press, without democracy and elections, and with the U.S. still pretty much in charge of absolutely everything is not sovereignty. Iraqis will have "sovereignty" on June 30th in the same sense that we have an "elected" president or the world is a "safer place" since that "president" took office.

For more, see the Nation's Jonathan Schell "It's Time to Politicize the War in Iraq". Also, Steve Sack has a good visual representation of Iraqi sovereignty,

The Counting Game, take 2
Some thoughts on who gets memorialized, and who doesn't

I'm a perfectionist. So it's not unusual that after I've scrambled to finish a cartoon on deadline, I have regrets. Usually they're stylistic--I should have drawn that panel better, I should have had a better punchline, I should have used different lettering or a different pen. But there's one that's been bothering me for a while about The Iraq Counting Game. When I originally drew the cartoon (and yes, the numbers have changed since), it went like this:

• (Panel 1) Weapons of Mass Destruction: Too few to count (0).
• (Panel 2) Bush Admin Lies: Hard to Count. A lot. (237+).
• (Panel 3) U.S. Military Dead: Too Many, and Still Counting (628).
• (Panel 4) Iraqi Civilian Dead: Is Anyone Counting?

The original point was supposed to be--how horrible it is that these hundreds of soldiers have died. And how horrible that we don't even know how many civilians have died. As you might have noticed, in the final cartoon I switched the order of the last two panels to put the U.S. military dead last. I did this against my own better judgment because cartoons are propaganda, meant to persuade, and I thought U.S. readers would probably be more concerned about U.S. military dead than they would about then tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians (and nevermind dead Iraqi soldiers). I should have left it.

I was reminded of this when I read Ted Rall's column this week ("A SELFISH MEMORIAL DAY: Remembering 1% of the Fallen"), and I felt ashamed. A few small excerpts (though you should really read the whole thing, it's not that long):

The left nags us about the bloodbath; the right ignores it. Pro-war or anti-war, however, both sides are the same in one respect: Death only matters when it happens to Americans. It's a cliché of journalism: a single murdered blonde scores screaming headlines while "2,000,000 Chinese Die in Floods" gets a column inch under the fold on page 19.

But chronically insular Americans have become so myopic since 9/11 that they only mourn their own soldiers--they don't even care when their allies bite the dust... . A total of 122 non-U.S. coalition troops have died since Operation Iraqi Freedom began, 12 are missing and 125 have been wounded. Thirty-six journalists have died. So have an uncounted number of U.S.-trained Iraqi policemen.

Major Memorial Day observances didn't include them.

and

An inclusive Memorial Day would have referenced the innocents who died during our bombing, invasion and occupation. In his Bush-approved book "Plan of Attack," Bob Woodward says General Tommy Franks estimated that 30,000 Iraqis died during the first three weeks of the war. According to the Associated Press, Iraqi morgue records lead to a low-balled rough estimate of 33,000 additional civilians killed between May 2003 and April 2004. (This doesn't include those killed in explosions or those who were buried without ever going to a hospital.) These 63,000-plus people--yes, people--paid precisely the same price as our soldiers for deposing Saddam Hussein. But unlike our soldiers, they didn't volunteer.

No one, even Michael Moore, talks about the dead Taliban and Iraqi government soldiers, many of them conscripts... . The fact that their side lost cannot diminish the horror of their destruction, wipe away the grief of their wives and children, or dishonor their sacrifice. God knows we try. We pretend that our 880 dead soldiers, followed at a distant second by civilians reduced to "collateral damage," are the only losses that matter out of nearly 100,000.

Iraq Body Count has an online memorial with the names of some 600 of the 30,000+ Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But most of their names will never be known.

So here's how I would do the cartoon today.