New Cartoon: Damn those pesky civil rights victories!
Let's just sit around quietly until they're so impressed by our meekness they decide to give us our rights

(click detail to see full cartoon)

Seriously, STOP blaming gay marriage and get your act together, people.

P.S. If you want to get new cartoons by email, please join my mailing list by sending a blank message to newtoons-subscribe@mikhaela.net. And yes, I'm still selling signed books.

Transgender Day of Remembrance

I would have posted this on Saturday, but I was away on a trip. Anyway, as regular readers know, one of the issues I am most passionate about is transgender rights, and this Nov. 20 was the 6th annual Transgender Day of Remembrance for paying tribute to the countless transgender people who have been brutally murdered for daring to be truthful to themselves. If you haven't before, please check out Gwendolyn Smith's Remembering Our Dead web site. Also, a reader points me to the following cartoons that had special DOR themes on Nov. 20: A Wish for Wings, Misfile, and Venus Envy, Second Stage, and Venus Ascending (scroll down and you'll see more remembrance cartoons).

Here's mine, Shallow Grave, from a few years ago.

New Cartoon: A Really Sick Joke

But it's not particularly funny.

You can't beat the Republicans by becoming them

Ted breaks it down.

Suggestions, please
Help me refute the "we have to clean up our mess" argument

So I got into an argument the other day with a friend who was excusing that Marine who executed an unarmed man in the head by saying "well, he was really stressed out from being shot at, we don't know what it's like to be under that kind of pressure, I think putting him in jail was an overreaction." I tried to make an argument about the importance of human rights, the Geneva Convention, and so on, how we can't exactly claim the moral high ground when we're killing innocent civilians, torturing people and shooting unarmed men, but I didn't make a dent. We reached an impasse, but I felt I had made a good, strong case.

But where he really stumped me was, I was talking about civilian casualties, how the Iraq war was illegal and unjustified, based on a lie, and so on, and his response was "Yeah, but it's too late for that--we're already there, and we have to finish the job, clean up our mess, etc. We can't just leave the country in chaos." And then he asked "Do you have a better plan?" And I got a bit flustered. I think the U.S. needs to leave Iraq as soon as possible, and that the U.S. occupation is only making things worse, no matter how many schools they paint or cities they "secure." But I also think that after bombing Iraq and killing thousands of people for a lie, the U.S. has a certain responsibility.

Granted, with Bush elected there's no real chance that we'll ever do anything sane regarding Iraq in the foreseeable future. But I'm curious--does anyone have any really solid and persuasive arguments or articles about actual PRACTICAL (if theoretical) ways to pull out of this mess without leaving Iraq in total chaos? (And I don't mean appointing U.S. puppet governors.) Kerry had made arguments about enlisting the U.N., but it doesn't seem like many other countries are really that enthusiastic, to say the least.

Watch this space...

... my computer has been repaired for now, so I'll have a new cartoon for you folks by Thursday.

Out of the frying pan...

Dan Wasserman summarizes the difference between Ashcroft and Gonzales.

Sorry for the silence

My cat chewed through my computer cable (and my sewing machine cable, just for extra fun) while I was sleeping, so no new cartoon this week. Maybe he's got a different set of moral values.

Letter from a law student

Daniel writes:

Dear Mikhaela:

I enjoy the dialogue on your website and your political cartoons. In regard to marriage amendments that were passed in various states, I have been mystified by the statements of politicians and their ilk who state that we need to preserve the sanctity of marriage (whatever that means). My wife and I cannot figure out how a same-sex couple getting married will affect our marriage. With the divorce rate at around 50 percent, straight people seem to being doing a terrific job themselves at ruining the sanctity of marriage. Same-sex couples getting married do not ruin the sanctity of marriage if they are faithful and loving to one another. What ruins the sanctity of marriage is when one person in the marriage commits adultery or spousal abuse; but we never seem to care about how those things ruin the sanctity of marriage. It is ironic that politicians are the ones condemning others for ruining marriage, when they are the most frequent violators. I am a law student living in Illinois, and one of the things they teach us at law school to compromise so that you don't have to go to trial in the first place. Would it really behoof politicians who are not comfortable with same-sex marriage to at least compromise; meaning allowing them to visit one another in the hospital, allow them to make life saving decisions if necessary, allow their partner to receive their social security when they die, etc.? What scares me the most is that many of my fellow classmates think in a very narrow minded away, and to compound the problem they are oblivious about the way our government conducts itself (not only today, but throughout our history). I sincerely hope that they do not become the future lawyers who take the place of those currently in the Justice Department and elsewhere who work with the president to circumvent human rights and dignity. Thank you for reading my e-mail and allowing me to vent.

Daniel

The Good News
Yes, there really is some

Michael Moore has 17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists (found via Robert's Virtual Soapbox). And Joe Conason says "only people suffering from historical amnesia could believe this election proves that liberalism is dead."

Regarding Moral Values
A letter from Kentucky

Casey has some interesting thoughts:

Hi, Mikhaela.

I really enjoy reading your cartoons and your blog. I just wanted to comment on your post about "moral values." Towards the end of your post, you ask three questions about the rightness and goodness of conservative religious values. As a progressive living in the Midwest who was raised in a fundamentalist Christian church, I will tell you this: You don't want to hear the answers to those questions. You don't really want to ask those questions. You won't be satisfied with the answers, they won't make sense to you, and you'll only solidify the views of the people answering. Seriously. Part of the problem with arguing with fundamentalist Christians is that they are *convinced* that everyone is out to get them. They preach this every single Sunday. Every week, pastors tell their congregations that their rights to worship Jesus are on the brink of being taken away. They use homosexuality and abortion as their primary pieces of evidence that the rest of the world is coming to get them. Arguing with them about whether or not abortion or homosexuality are okay is pointless. You will never win them over. The best you can hope for is that they will just decide to pray for you.

That isn't to say that they will never vote Democrat! And no, I am definitely not one of those people who think the Dems need to move further to the right to win voters. The Democrats will never be right-wing enough. Alternatively, we should be re-framing these "moral issues" using language that isn't so divisive. When religious folks are forced to label themselves as "pro-choice" or "pro-life," they will pick "life" every time. It's part of their belief system: You give up certain choices (sins) for eternal life. Seriously, the language of the abortion debate does not work in our favor. We need to re-frame it as a public health issue, not a civil rights issue. You will never convince a conservative Christian that abortion is anything other than killing babies, but you may be able to convince one or two that the Democrats are actually more effective at preventing abortions by offering more assistance to disadvantaged families and more access to contraceptives.

Gay rights is a little trickier, in my opinion. I think what it comes down to is that fundamentalists intentionally isolate themselves from secular society, and many of them have never even actually met a gay person. . .or at least, they've never met one who's out. That makes it really easy to dehumanize homosexuals. I'm honestly not sure how to address this. Some people I've spoken with seem to genuinely hate gays and, sadly, I don't think that is going to change for a while. Others, though, seem to cling to the sickeningly patronizing "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality. I'm not sure how to win Christians over on this issue. That's something that really concerns me on a very personal level. I'm Quaker and it really unsettles me that I can read the Bible and interpret it so differently from my Wesleyan relatives. I think if fundamentalists ever budge on this issue it will be because of a reform movement within churches, not because of external pressure.

This email turned out to be a lot longer than I intended. Sorry about that. What I want to get across is that Christians really are thoughtful and concerned people. Progressives just need to start speaking their language.

Thanks for reading.

Casey

Thanks Casey! I'd just like to add that it's not that I don't think Christians are thoughtful and concerned people--I don't doubt the depth of their beliefs, concern, and thoughtfulness. But you're right that as an extremely secular person I'm really lost when it comes to speaking that language, especially when it comes to gay rights. Anyway, thanks so much for the great letters and comments, folks, and keep them coming.

Not a mandate
In case you were starting to get fooled

Just a friendly reminder--51% is NOT a mandate. Then again, this is the guy who thought being appointed by the Supreme Court was a mandate.

Go to this graphic, click on "previous results" and "1984 General." As disgusting as it is, Reagan had a mandate--the man won Massachusetts, for crying out loud, and Mondale got a mere 13 electoral votes. Then look at this year's map. Kerry BARELY lost, and Bush BARELY won. Not a mandate.

Back to Work + Don't Give Up the Fight

Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman know where it's at. Sez Krugman:

Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.

Because if we don't it's goodbye, New Deal. Goodbye, separation of church and state. Goodbye, Roe v. Wade. And that's just the beginning.

Krugman also cautions the left not to abandon their support for gay rights and abortion rights in a misguided attempt to appeal to the religious right:

So what should the Democrats do?

One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition.

Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.

But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base.

Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage. Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base.

Yeah, what he said. As for me, I already had more cartoon material than I knew what to do with... sigh.

From the Mailbag

So I haven't been particularly up on posting the email I get lately, whether positive or negative, especially now since I have that handy comments function. But I figured I might as well start with this letter from abroad, since we have no political capital in the world anymore. Remember that global test? We totally FLUNKED.

Hey, Mikhaela!

I've been reading your blog for a couple of months now, you're the only foreign link on my own blog. I want you to know that Europeans wanted anything but Bush, and I haven't thought of *any* positive way to interpret 'four more years'. Most of us Europeans - except for Italy, Berlusconi being as stupid, stubborn and arrogant as Dubya - have mostly thought of Americans as stupid. I think you are a good exception to what today has been confirmed to be pretty true, unfortunately. Keep protesting, keep fighting with your pen, Europe's on your side. Oh heck, at least I am.

Pimmez
Utrecht, the Netherlands

I will say, however, that I'm not so sure the main problem is stupidity--I think it's the rise of right-wing ideology. Yes, I'm sure many people were influenced by Bush's campaign of lies and fear (there's always that ridiculous percentage of people who still believe Saddam was involved with 9/11). But I think a lot of people knew exactly who and what they were getting, and voted for him anyway (link via Atrios). And we need to be afraid, very afraid.

Anyway, keep the emails and comments coming, folks. You're not alone, and you're not insane.

Bush's Immoral Values
Or, My Personal Prelude to the Culture War

Well, it looks like Operation Heterosexual Freedom is another mission accomplished.

For me, one of the most annoying sound bites of the 2000 presidential campaign came from a speech by Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman. Lieberman made frequent references to God, and even told one audience that "George Washington warned us never to `indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."

I completely disagree.

As a cartoonist for a gay Massachusetts newspaper, I figure I'm already headed for an internment camp in this brave new America, so I might as well go whole hog and admit that I'm what Dubya would call "a person of faith". Call me an atheist, or call me an agnostic, but no, I don't pray, and no, religion and spirituality are just not significant parts of my life and no, there's nothing wrong with me. I'm not sorry about it, and I don't think it makes me a less moral or ethical person in the least.

Now I deeply respect other people's religious and spiritual beliefs, and I greatly admire many of the religious leaders who have played such pivotal roles in liberation movements--in fighting against slavery, poverty and racism. I think the United States needs to be a safe place for people to practice a diversity of faiths. But it also needs to be a safe place to be a person of no religious faith at all, and a place where fundamentalist religious ideology is not allowed to trump civil rights and constiutional freedoms. Anyone remember the separation of church and state?

Personally, I consider the following to be deeply immoral (i.e. wrong):
• Spending billions to kill tens of thousands of civilians in an unjust war... spending billions on bombs that could be spent on health care, education, fighting AIDS, fighting hunger, and so on...
• Lying in order to get the billions. Lying about that lying.
• Guantanomo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Torture, torture, torture.
• Rounding up immigrants on minor visa violations, detaining them for days, months, and years without charging them with anything and without allowing them to see their families or a lawyer... and finally deporting them
• Blocking global access to life-saving information about AIDS prevention and contraception in the name of morality, blocking access to the condoms that could save lives and help stem the pandemic (again in the name of morality, always in the name of morality), blocking access to cheap generic AIDS drugs under the pretense of concerns about "safety", and so on...
• Allowing the interests of corporate polluters to take priority over the future of the planet and all the living things on it, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on the dangers of global warming. We all have to breathe, and we would all like to live on dry land, thank you very much. And so on.
• Working to ensure that billionaires pay less taxes instead of working to ensure that everyone in America has access to healthcare and housing, ensuring that no child goes hungry, that every worker makes a living wage, and so on.
• Executions, particularly juvenile executions.
• Stirring up anti-gay hatred and bigotry.
• Did I mention LYING?
• I could go on, of course. And I'm sure my regular readers can think of plenty more to add to this list.

As for the so-called "moral values" of Bush's anti-gay religious base, I'm curious:
• What is right and good about preventing a loving couple from visiting each other in the hospital, from inheriting property from one another, from adopting children, from publicly proclaiming and sanctioning their love for one another? (HOW DOES THAT HURT ANYONE ELSE?)
• What is right and good about believing that anyone who doesn't believe the same things you do is bound for hell?
• What is right and good about turning your child out on the street or refusing to speak to your brother or sister because he or she is gay?

That's all for now. And as the Daily Show noted earlier this evening, this is your LAST CHANCE to commit same-sex sodomy or go to the library, so you better hop to it.

(See Xoverboard as well on this).

A quick word about "Unity" and "Healing"
As in: fuck it.

We've heard a lot of pretty platitudes today from Bush (and Kerry) about the"need for unity" and "healing" and "coming together." So I'm wondering... what exactly does that mean, and do any liberals actually think it's a good idea? Letting the extremist right-wing run roughshod over the demoralized remaining Democrats? Letting fundamentalist Christians and big business set the agenda for America without any opposition? Letting Bush appoint as many Scalia clones to the federal bench and the Supreme Court as he wants? Letting him cut taxes for the rich, restrict civil liberties, gut education, demonize gay people, wreak environmental havoc, chip away at a woman's right to choose and bomb whoever he wants? How does that benefit us?

If that's "unity", if that's "bipartisanship", then fuck unity and fuck bipartisanship. Let's put up a fight. Unity makes for nice sound bites but Bush isn't talking about true bipartisanship or compromise, he's talking about liberal capitulation to extremist right-wing rule. Just look at what a great job he did of uniting the country in the LAST four years.

P.S. I know I don't usually use this type of strong language in what is generally a "family-friendly" blog. But I feel it's warranted under the circumstances.

So-called "Moral Values"=homophobia and anti-choice values...
... in case you weren't aware

In 2000, the Democrats blamed Nader for their loss. That's up for debate. But now it seems that they're blaming the Supreme Court of Massachusetts for ruling in favor of same-sex marriage (I've already heard several people on NPR making this argument).

Yes, that's right. Apparently the voters who turned out were more concerned with stopping sinful homosexuals visiting each other in hospitals and eating wedding cake and being loving parents than with, say, HAVING A JOB or HEALTHCARE, or BEING PAID A DECENT WAGE or NOT BOMBING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS TO KINGDOM COME. (Update--Scott Bateman nails it in his cartoon today).

I can't tell you how comforting that is. And I can't tell you how angry that "blame the Massachusetts court for advancing civil rights" argument makes me. If anyone's at fault, it's George W. Bush for shamelessly flogging his homophobic agenda while giving lip-service to tolerance, and the Kerry campaign, for not being consistently anti-war, and not speaking enough to the Democratic base (minority voters, for example). And it's the 23% of openly gay voters who VOTED FOR BUSH, presumably because tax cuts meant more to them than civil rights. Yes, you heard me--it's Mary Cheney's fault. Check the exit polls and you'll see that I'm right.

Would anyone now go back in time to tell the courts that made landmark civil rights decisions in the 1950s and 1960s that they should have waited until the whole country agreed with them? Hell no. Grrr. I think I'm going to vomit.

Update. Kerry conceded. My temptation is to cry and call him a loser, but as the Nation reminded me in an email today: "don't mourn, organize."

New Cartoon: Well, Wasn't That Fun?
... It's not over until it's over, but it's looking pretty damn bad right now

Yesterday on the radio I said that Bush was staking his election on turning out the homophobe vote. I was hoping I was wrong, but I've heard a lot this morning about how "moral values" was the sleeper issue in this election. When I got up at 5 this morning I thought about just writing "oh shit" or "we are so screwed" in large letters, but in the end, I actually drew a cartoon:

(click detail to see full cartoon) ...Sigh. We are SO screwed. Americans have actually legitimately given the popular vote to a man who stole the presidency the first time around. A lot of people have tried to cheer me up by saying "we survived eight years of Reagan, we can survive anything", but that depends on your definition of "survive." It was the most vulnerable who were hit the hardest—children, the poor, people with AIDS, the mentally ill, and so on—and that's what's going to happen again. Not to mention Bush's fondness for bombing people.

P.S. If you want to get new cartoons by email, please join my mailing list by sending a blank message to newtoons-subscribe@mikhaela.net. And yes, I'm still selling signed books.

KQED show now online!
A minor correction...

Listen to it here. Not that it matters, but I just noticed that the Forum referred to me as "gay" and as a "self-described Bush-hating lesbian." My dad called me very confused so I thought I'd note that I've never described myself that way and it's not exactly true (except the Bush-hating part).

Mikhaela on KQED (NPR) Nov. 2, 1-2 p.m. EST!
Listen live online, or check out the archive afterwards.

I think I may faint again from all the excitement. I've been invited to appear by phone on the Forum, a show hosted by Michael Krasny for San Francisco's National Public Radio member station, KQED. I'll be talking about political cartoons and the election, of course, and will appear alongside two other cartoonist guests. This is my first radio appearance, so please politely ignore any tendencies I might suddenly develop to randomly inject the words "like" and "totally" into all parts of my sentences and to replace silence with pointless sounds such as "ummmmmmmm..", "er...", "I mean..." and "like, you know..." I really am articulate, I swear.

The show airs from 10-11 a.m. in California, and 1-2 p.m. on the east coast. Yet another reason to chew off my fingernails with nervousness over this election.

P.S. To any KQED listeners reading this, welcome! Most of my cartoons can be read here (for Women's eNews cartoons, just keep scrolling in this blog). If you want to get new cartoons by email, please join my mailing list by sending a blank message to newtoons-subscribe@mikhaela.net. And yes, I'm still selling signed books.

As November 2 approaches...

"Oh, I'm registered, but I have better things to do with my time than vote."

I actually overheard a woman telling a friend this at a stoop sale today as I was walking to the subway, and I nearly tripped in surprise. I've been so obsessed with this election I sometimes forget that some people don't seem to realize THAT THE FUTURE OF THE ENTIRE PLANET IS AT STAKE. OK, deep breath. But that's really not too far off the mark.

Ted Rall breaks down the differences between Bush and Kerry. Ruben Bolling tells a gloomy story about the Most Wrong Man in the World. And Stephen Notley (who I had the good fortune of hanging out with recently on his latest journey to the U.S.), has an outsider's perspective on us Wacky Americans. Scott Bateman has oodles and oodles of reasons not to vote for that guy who never really got elected in the first place. Jen Sorensen reports on the Young Republicans' Wreck the Vote tour and gives us a handy Voter Guide. Keith Knight has a Voter Guide of his own. And Kirk Anderson has plenty of Election Fun for all.

Plus, my dad went to a Kerry rally in New Hampshire today (Sunday) and took some pictures.

OK, that's all for now. I'm going to go chew off my fingernails with nervous anticipation now.