I'm thinking we can, and should, question Ted Rall's patriotism

H/T to Michelle Malkin, who gives excellent advice:

Before you dismiss this anti-military hatred as marginal, I remind you that Ted Rall is not the far Left fringe:

In 1996, he was one of three Finalists for the Pulitzer Prize. He was one of the New York Times’ most reprinted cartoonists in 1997, 1999 and 2001. He also did color strips for both Time Magazine and Fortune Magazine from 1998 to 2001. He was awarded the 1998 Deadline Club Award by the Society of Professional Journalists for his cartoons. Rall received first place in both the 1995 and 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Awards for Cartoons. The award, founded in 1968, recognizes distinguished work on behalf of disadvantaged Americans.

Comments

[Erasmussimo]

Go ahead and question his patriotism; the right wing has slung that particular mud so many times that the tactic no longer has any credibility. People question the patriotism of Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Kerry, and anybody else who doesn't agree with them. The end result: questioning somebody else's patriotism is just a way to discredit yourself.

While you're at it, feel free to question my patriotism, too.

[tim]

"While you're at it, feel free to question my patriotism, too. "

OK, if the shoe fits.

[Erasmussimo]

And what makes you think it fits?

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Er...I may be taking a wild-ass guess here, but -- because this syndicated cartoonist is saying all these disparaging things about our troops, and you're saying we're abjuring ourselves of any credibility by questioning his patriotism?

Also, because you're referring to the concept of "credibility," which is a decidedly subjective thing, as a measurable attribute. Americans may have their faults, but we lead the world in keeping the objective distinct from the subjective. Just listen to the way foreign leaders talk sometime; they muddy it all up. We don't need to import any of that nonsense here.

[Erasmussimo]

Mr. Freeberg, the problem here is that some people have been so energetic in questioning other people's patriotism that the accusation is no longer meaningful. It's an overused slander that just doesn't have much punch anymore.

After all, what does it mean nowadays? That the fellow doesn't support the war in Iraq? 70% of the American public think that this war was a mistake. It wasn't too long ago that people were questioning the patriotism of anybody who didn't support the war in Iraq. So should we question the patriotism of 70% of the American public?

I agree that this cartoonist goes much further than that. Cartoonists exaggerate -- that's their job. I've seen plenty of right-wing cartoons depicting Hillary Clinton in grossly exaggerated terms. That doesn't make the cartoonists wrong or evil. A good cartoonist pushes his imagery hard, and for some people that pushing crosses the boundaries of good taste.

Consider, for example, the Danish cartoons about Mohammed. They were exaggerations, too. Most Westerners saw them as within the bounds of good taste. Most Muslims saw them as egregiously exceeding the bounds of good taste.

Who is justified to say that the Danish cartoons fall within the realm of acceptable expression while the cartoon above falls outside the realm of acceptable expression?

[tim]

Bingo Morgan.

Though apparently we don’t have any credibility, (while a cartoonist who disparages the troops does), AND yet I was still asked to defend my position.

My head hurts.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Mmkay, well, I still maintain that "credibility" is a matter to be decided between one pair of ears at a time. And the same goes for whether an accusation of lack of patriotism, is "meaningful." Everyone with a beating heart gets to form his or her own opinion.

But I will grant you this much: It is indeed difficult to see the word "unpatriotic" as retaining much useful meaning, if it isn't found to apply to Mr. Rall's cartoon.

Consider this: Hillary Clinton says something in public and tries to recruit people to her side of the issues. I say disparaging things about Hillary Clinton as a consequence. Perhaps I dig up some factual information to contradict what she said, or perhaps I just engage in ad hominem. Or some combination of those. Either way, I start attacking her...

...contrast that with the soldier in the cartoon (or the real-life anecdote he is meant to reflect). He "re-ups." He does not express a viewpoint in public, he does not try to define a campaign by which he hopes to become President. He simply makes a personal choice. And then (frame 3) prays. And then (frame 5) obeys...as he has already pledged he would do, and stands to be court-martialed if he does not.

Ted Rall attacks him. I mean, in every conceivable way. I would assert that I have not attacked Hillary Clinton in any way whatsoever, that Mr. Rall left unused in his attack on the soldier. He did everything I did, just to a different, more private, target. Every single thing.

Right?

Whoa, guys! You're putting big words in my mouth! I wrote, in effect:

"Questioning somebody's patriotism is a pretty lame criticism."

You jump to the conclusion that I really meant:

"Thou art not permitted to criticize."

Sure, go ahead and criticize anybody you choose, in any manner you choose. It's a free country. It's just that, if your criticism is dumb, then it won't convince many people.