"Sedition?" Are they serious?

How's that old poem go again?

"First they came for the Department of Veterans Affairs nurses, and I did not speak out because I wasn't a Department of Veterans Affairs nurse..."

I thought investigating Americans for sedition merely for speaking out against government policies went out of style along with powdered wigs and muskets (except for when it came back for an embarassingly bad encore in 1918). I guess everything old really is new again. Jesus, what the hell is going on in this country?

From the Associated Press:

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico wants the government to apologize to a nurse for seizing her computer and investigating her for "sedition" after she criticized the Bush administration.

...

Berg, a clinical nurse specialist, wrote a letter in September to a weekly Albuquerque newspaper criticizing how the administration handled Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War. She urged people to "act forcefully" to remove an administration she said played games of "vicious deceit."

...

Even if Berg had used an office computer, neither that nor her criticism approached "unlawful insurrection," said Peter Simonson, executive director of the ACLU.

"Is the government so jealous of its power, so fearful of dissent, that it needs to threaten people who openly oppose its policies with charges of sedition?" he said.

Even the government should be able to understand the substantive difference between the word "forcefully" and the word "forcibly."

About those Mohammed Cartoons...

Lynn Johnston, the cartoonist behind one of the most-loved comics in history (a strip I've read since I was three feet tall), has issued a press release about the Mohammed cartoon controversy. Lynn, like most cartoonists, is torn on this issue. On the one hand there's the desire to defend freedom of speech, and on the other hand there's the desire to respect different cultures and faiths. It's a tought balancing act, and here's where Lynn comes down on the issue:

Kansas City, MO (02/07/2006) A Statement from Lynn Johnston, cartoonist of "For Better or For Worse"


As a cartoonist with over 30 years' experience, I am outraged by the way cartoons are being used to inflame a world religion.

Freedom of speech does not give us the right to ridicule, to flaunt power, or to invent explosive cover stories for the sake of sensationalism.

Freedom of speech allows a controversial point of view to be published. If this point of view is derogatory, is it "free speech" to then publish it again and again and again?

Like pornography, inappropriate material can be found if inquisitive people want to find it. I am therefore appalled by the lack of respect and total disregard for human life-- all for the sake of a headline.

People who wear the apparel of their faith live their faith 24 hours a day as a statement of their constant and unwavering devotion. Comedy and sarcasm of our concept of God may not be liked by many, but we have a history of tolerating it.


They do not. Can we not respect this deeply religious way of life?

I believe these cartoons have a right to exist. The media does not have the right to use them callously in the name of freedom. Freedom for whom? If one innocent person dies because of this capricious incident, publishers must accept the blame.

On behalf of conscientious humorists and illustrators worldwide, I want to say to the nation of people who have been understandably offended – an apology is due. This is not comedy. If a cartoon or a statement causes such pain, it enters the category of hate literature and should be treated as such.

Laughter is a language we can all understand. For the sake of decency and good taste – stop reprinting this inflammatory image and allow a people already in crisis to heal.
-Universal Press Syndicate press release

Most of the cartoons at the heart of this controversy are poorly-though out, childish, amateurish and off-target, as far as I'm concerned. Some are mild and inoffensive, unless you're the type who suddenly decided to get offended that the prophet has been depicted at all (despite the fact that centuries of artwork and sculpture depicting Mohammed have passed without any ensuing rioting and torched embassies).

That said...

I can't agree with what (I think) Lynn is saying. I respect when other people observe their own sacred edicts, for the most part (e.g. not depicting the prophet Mohammed in a derogatory light, fine by me... stoning women to death for adultery, not fine by me). I understand when the faithful demand that others of their faith respect such an edict. That's their business. But when people demand that those who *don't* share their faith also respect those edicts, that's where they lose my support.

It's the same reaction I had when Giuliani and some Catholic groups temporarily went ape-shit over a painting of the Virgin Mary that incorporated elephant dung (which is sacred in the part of Africa that inspired the painting) back in '99. The big difference is the degree of the overreaction, but the nature of that overreaction is the same. It's irrational to expect people of other religions (or no religion at all) to obey the rules of your own. People of any religion need to be disabused of the notion that their orthodoxy can be forced on outsiders. I think Lynn's approach - and the condemnation so quickly handed out by our government, does the opposite -- it only reinforces that deadly notion.

A couple of the cartoons are ok, but the offense committed by the majority of them is that they're boring. I wish the images at the center of this controversy were better cartoons (click on the image to the right to see them), but I don't believe you can effectively defend free speech if you only stand up for it when you agree with it. I also don't believe that suggesting something has the right to exist but shouldn't be shown to the public is the same thing as defending free speech.

And it's an odd suggestion that papers should stop reprinting the cartoons as part of their reporting on the story. Papers have to balance their mission against the desires of their communities, but their mission remains one of educating the public. You don't educate the public by hiding important facts. And speaking as someone whose cartoons have been misinterpreted by reporters, I believe when the story is about reaction to a cartoon, you have to show people the cartoon so they can decide for themselves.

Lynn and others who share her argument are essentially using the "yelling "fire" in a crowded theater" rationale. But that assumes that the cartoonists didn't believe what they were saying. How could they possibly know what those cartoonists believed? They forget that people have every right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if they really think there's a fire.

•
•
•

Reader Mailbag - The Army's Recruitment Numbers

The Army reported meeting its recruting goals for 7 months straight. Last Friday's Candorville lampooned the contention that meeting those goals was tantamount to a vote of confidence in the Presiden'ts Iraq policies. A few readers have e-mailed to ask a couple questions in response: a) Where did I get my facts, and b) why don't I go #@% myself. The answer to the latter is, it's not physically possible. If it were, nobody would ever get any work done. The answer to the former is best summed up by this newsgroup exchange I had with a poster at rec.arts.comics.strips (cleaned up the grammar just a bit):

Detox wrote:
(Regarding Friday's comic strip)

Sorry Darrin. I don't believe that to be the case.

The Army's recruiting goal this year is 80,000. Same as last year.

The Army met its June goal only by lowering it from 6650 to 5650.

They went on to miss their annual goal by at least 6600 soldiers.

"Fiscal 2005 marked the first time the Army fell short of an annual recruiting goal since 1999 and was one of its poorest recruiting performances since the birth of the all-volunteer military in 1973
during the tumult of the Vietnam War era."
-Reuters

Detox wrote:
Additionally, the entire recruiting story was a big nothing last year. If you look at total military recruiting, the shortfall was pretty minimal. The Corps exceeded expectations and I'm pretty sure the Air Force and Navy did as well.

If you look at this graphic from Stars & Stripes, you'll notice that recruiting goals for the other branches are significantly lower than those for the Army. And not to disparge the Air Force or the Navy, but in this battle, neither branch faces the conditions faced by the Army or Marines. Marine recruitment met its targets, but the story was about Army recruitment, not the entire military. The Army National Guard fell even shorter.

This is troubling because of the increased signing bonuses and other lengths the Army went through to expand their pool of recruits.

"After missing its recruitment goal this year by nearly 7,000 troops, the widest margin since 1979, the Army has announced a revision of recruitment tactics. It is now accepting a greater number of less qualified applicants, doubling the amount of so-called Category 4 troops, those men and women who score low in the aptitude tests from 2 percent of the class to 4 percent."
-General Barry McCaffrey

Detox wrote:
Also, all of the military did very well in terms of re-enlistments for FY2005. In the case of the Army, re-enlistments almost covered the shortfall in new recruits. And....here's the big surprise....re-enlistment rates were strongest among units that had served in Iraq.

That's re-enlistments. Stop-loss programs and the beratement many get when they decide to leave aside, here's a good article about why some soldiers re-enlist. It may have less to do with support for Bush's policies than with the comeraderie abroad and the respect they receive when they come back home.

Re-enlistments are entirely different than new enlistments. I'd like to see someone do a study examining whether the re-enlistees are mostly career military who plan on staying in the army long enough to earn a pension, or whether they're mostly the short-timers who serve 6 years or so and then go on to a civilian career. My guess is it would be the former.

Detox wrote:
Curiously, there seemed to be more stories about the shortfall in new recruits than there were about the increasing retention rates.

The Army did cut their recruiting goal for May last year, but kept the overall 80,000 goal for the year.

It missed its recruiting goal last year. And the Army lowered its recruiting goals for the first few months of fiscal year 2006 (which is when it reported meeting its goals). They are keeping the 80,000 annual goal, but only hope to meet it by increasing their summer goals, when it may be easier to recruit soldiers.

"Even within the Defense Department, few suggest that the Army has seen its way through the crisis. Instead, what the Army has done is backload the goals for its recruiting year, which runs from October through next September.

For instance, last fiscal year, the Army's October recruiting goal was 6,935 recruits; this year it dropped to 4,700. To make up the difference, the Army will look to sign up more recruits next summer: Last July it sought to bring in 7,450 soldiers; next July it is seeking 10,450, an extra 3,000."

I don't know if missing the goal suggests a widespread lack of support for the President's policies, but I do know it does not suggest the opposite. Which is what that strip was about.

•
•
•

Reader Mailbag - Abortion?

One interesting part of this job is, the comics you're sure will cause a shitstorm often don't, and the ones you think couldn't possibly offend anyone often manage to draw out the crazies who get offended by the weirdest things. A reader wrote to me a few years ago, for instance, to complain that one of the characters wears sunglasses at night. Why, he asked, would I so callously encourage our nation's children to do something that would cause blindness, accidents and horrible mangled suffering? There are some readers who surprise me, not because they write in about stupid things, but because they were able to read the comic strip in the first place.

A few days ago, I posted an e-mail exchange with the "Stupid Reader of the Day." Thankfully, most of Candorville's readers are more intelligent, and even when they disagree with the strip, they manage to present that disagreement in a respectful, thoughtful way.

Today's strip was conjecture about one side effect of the State's decision to allow pharmacists to deny birth control to women if it violates their religious beliefs. I received a few e-mails about it, but surprisingly, they were all thoughtful and polite. Here's one that's representative of those e-mails:

Mr. Bell --

I imagine you would prefer to receive comments about your strips on your message boards, but I hope you don't mind -- I preferred to contact you directly.

I'm assuming that the comic I will refer to below ran on Jan 5th everywhere, but my paper -- the Chicago Tribune -- accidentally ran the same page of comics on Jan 3rd and 4th, so it may be off by one day. It was the strip that contained panels that showed:

2002 -- a reference to pharmacaists that choose to follow their conscience and not prescribe drugs that they feel destroys a living human being

2020 -- a reference to the Republican party being projected to do well in an election


I want to thank you for this creating this strip as a "cautionary tale" for the Democratic party -- (I would also say for the black community, but since I am white, I will not presume.)

Unless the Democratic party wakes up and realizes that the generation of those saved from the tragedy of abortion began voting around 1993 -- not some point in the future, let alone 2020 -- they will continue to founder.

These children realize that it is primarily the Republican party that did not condemn them to a death sentence simply based on their color, their economic status, their parents' age or marital status, their own size/age, their physical deficits, their father's evil actions, their mother's treatable mental or physical status, etc

You don't need to tell me all that is wrong with the Republican party -- I am aware that all political parties should work for better conditions for women, children, and families -- but they alone defend what is really at stake -- the right to be born and given a chance at life.

The Republican party doesn't deny the unborn a chance to prove that every child (and their mother and/or father) has the potential to rise above all temporary setbacks and live a great life -- if given that chance.

I am a member of Feminists for Life (which you can find our more about at feministsforlife.org) which is not affiliated with any political party. It sometime pains me to that I have to vote Republican, but until the Democratic party allows for even the slightest reconsideration on this issue, it's where I'll stay -- and where the growing pro-life community will continue to gravitate.

In closing, I don't always agree with your strip, but I read it everyday as I find it relevant without being rude (most of the time) unlike The Boondocks (most of the time!) while remaining funny (ditto!)

Thank you for your time,

C.M.

What I try to do with Candorville is contribute to the national dialogue, to get people to think. I don't really care whether people agree with me, I just think there isn't enough critical thought in this country. Since 9-11, asking questions, connecting dots and doubting the intentions of government have become taboo, and I'm trying to do my part to chip away at that attitude. So I appreciate when people who disagree with me take the time to tell me why, because it tells me it's working.

These days, I still receive a few e-mails telling me to "Shut up," or that "nobody wants to hear that," or asking why I hate America, and after I exchange an e-mail or two with them to confirm that they're idiots, I add them to Mail's "nut" list and they automatically get the following form reply from me from then on:

Dear reader,

While we try to answer every e-mail, even the crazy ones, some are just way too crazy to bother with. If you are on this list, congratulations, you have joined the incredibly small handful of nuts who've been blocked by this e-mail address:

THE LIST:

1. You are a bigot.
2. You are just WAY too easily offended.
3. After we've sent you several links to our sources, you continue to deny that a recent comic strip was factually correct.
4. You believe the numbers on the bus stop signs in Candorville are communicating secret messages having to do with aliens.
5. You believe you speak for God, that your religion is superior to all others, and that anyone who disagrees with you is hopelessly lost.
6. You began your e-mail with "I believe in free speech, BUT..."
7. You spelled "loser" or "stupid" incorrectly.

Your e-mails will not be answered unless they are accompanied by a note from an accredited psychiatrist.

Good luck to you.

Sincerely,

Darrin Bell
Cartoonist, "Candorville"
http://www.Candorville.com
---------------------
BUY the first CANDORVILLE BOOK! - "Thank God for Culture Clash", by clicking here: http://www.rudypark.com/candorville/book1.asp

Sign up to the new CANDORVILLE NEWSLETTER by sending an e-mail to
candorville-subscribe@googlegroups.com
You'll get news, updates and discussion with other Candorville readers, and you'll be notified about appearances/signings in your area.

But when they write to me, as "C.M." did, to present their views thoughtfully, I respect that. Even if I think they're dead wrong. My response to "C.M.":

Ms. "C.M.",

Thank you for taking the time to write.

I'm confused about why you say a generation of Americans "saved from abortion" began voting in 1993. After all, the generation that began voting in the Nineties was the first generation born after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationally.

I'm also confused by the language you use, which seems to suggest you believe Democrats are anti-life and are engaged in some sort of genocide against people based on their economic status, race, etc...

That simply is not the case. Democrats seem to have two major arguments, one based on practicality, the other based on principle:

The practical argument is that women have always sought abortions. Always. And when it wasn't legal, women still obtained them and in many cases this resulted in severe injury or death. Legalizing abortion has virtually ended the back-alley abortion industry and its horrible conditions.

The principled argument is that government has no right to decide what people do with their own bodies. People do not agree on when life begins or when it ends, and that such a decision is a personal one to be made by those directly involved. Whether it's with the issue of abortion or the issue of discontinuing life support, the principled argument is that that's personal, and shouldn't be used as a political football for partisan purposes.

That said, the comic strip you mentioned was not about abortion, it was about birth control pills and the morning after pill (neither of which aborts a fetus; rather they both work to inhibit ovulation, fertilization, and implantation of the egg in the uterus. In other words, the woman never becomes pregnant in the first place.). If you are against abortion, you should favor both the birth control pill and the morning after pill, because they prevent the formation of life in the body of a woman who would otherwise be likely to abort it.

As for the pharmacists, I believe that if they're going to let their personal beliefs prevent them from providing any legal drugs to adults who are legally allowed to purchase them, they should go into another line of work. In my opinion, they, and government, have no right to make such a personal decision for women.

And as for the Democratic Party foundering because of their support of the freedom to choose, that's unsupported by the facts. Most Americans are pro-choice. If that were the issue people were basing their vote on, Democrats would control all three branches of government right now. The Democrats are foundering because they don't fight as hard as Republicans do, they don't articulate the morality of their position (it's moral to ensure safe working conditions for miners, for instance, rather than ensuring the mine companies can avoid penalties for unsafe working conditions - look up the cuts the White House has made to the Mine Safety and Health Administration since 2002).

Thanks again for taking the time to write, and for reading Candorville!

Best,

Darrin Bell
Cartoonist, "Candorville"
http://www.Candorville.com

•
•
•

Candorville Comes to the Bay Area

After getting into the largest papers in the country, every cartoonist's dream is to appear in his hometown paper. One reason is so you can make sure your work looks as good in print as it does on your monitor (because newsprint isn't the highest quality medium, ink sometimes spreads, dot patterns sometimes become ugly moire patterns if they're too fine, and colors look like shit if they're too saturated). Another reason is, when you meet someone and they ask what you do for a living, it's a lot easier to say "you can see my cartoon in the Tribune" than to say "you can see my cartoon online at www.candorville.com or if you go to comics.com and select Candorville from the drop down menu in the top right-hand corner of your screen."

After more than two years, the dream's come true for me -- Candorville debuted today in the Oakland Tribune and the other East Bay and Peninsula papers that are part of the Alameda Newspaper Group (The Argus, Hayward Review, San Mateo County Times and the Alameda Times-Star).

These aren't the first Bay Area papers to pick up Candorville - that ignominy belongs to the San Francisco Chronicle. But they're the first to run Candorville daily on the comics page, where it belongs (the Chronicle runs Candorville every Monday on the opinion page).

I subscribed to the Tribune last week so I can check on the print quality of the strip every day. The only downside is, now I'll have to get up before Noon to get the paper before someone in my building steals it.

•
•
•

WONDERCON news

I'll be manning the NCS booth at Wondercon in San Francisco again this year. If you'll be in the area and haven't picked up a copy of the Candorville book (or just want to meet me), I'll be there at Moscone Center sometime during the weekend of February 10. The final schedule's not nailed down yet, so I'll post the exact date and time here as it approaches.

Happy New Year!

•
•
•

Stupid Reader of the Day

I spend a couple hours each morning answering my e-mail. I figure, if people are generous enough with their time to read Candorville each morning, the least I can do is take time to answer them when they write to me. The best part of this job is hearing from people all over the world whom I'd never meet otherwise. Whether readers agree with me or not, I appreciate hearing from them. And if they write to me even to respectfully disagree, I return that respect. If people write because they don't believe a fact they read in Candorville, I respond with my sources, so that even if they continue to disbelieve it, they'll know where I'm coming from and why I say what I say.

But there are a few different types of e-mails that tick me off. People who begin their e-mails with "I believe in free speech, BUT..." are the worst, but luckily they're among the least common. Most people seem to understand that freedom of speech is absolute except in extreme cases, and that political satire isn't one of those extreme cases. E-mails telling me to stop saying what I'm saying are almost as bad, because they're usually followed by poorly reasoned nonsense, faulty assumptions and whining -- in short, they're a complete waste of time. ...Or they would be, if they didn't provide me with an endless source of ideas for the strip.

Here's one of those, which wins the coveted spot of Stupid Reader of the Day (for the sake of authenticity, I left in his spelling mistakes):

Hey Mr. Bell,
I was offended by words in your last version that appeared in my paper of December 25th. All people of color are not that gullable to believe the lies of the liberal press. We don't all hate our courty and our president. Although you made it look as all us folks are depressed and hopless, people I talk to say things were much worse years ago. Stop making us look like a bunch of un-American loosers who constantly complain and are full of hate. Merry Christmas
Roger.

After a few years of politely answering e-mails from a wide variety of readers, I've developed the superhuman ability to tell which ones deserve a polite, thoughtful response, and which ones deserve to be summarily dismissed (a.k.a. "spanked"). Here's my response:

First of all, it's spelled "loser."

Now, who told you Lemont represents "all people of color"? When Homer Simpson overeats, do you think White people are ridiculous enough to write to the Simpsons producers and tell them "You made it look as if all of us folks are obese and overeat"? Well, I'm sure some of the more obtuse audience members do, but they're just as off-base as you are here. Just as Homer doesn't represent skinny, self-controlled White men, Lemont doesn't represent anyone who's not like him.

Furthermore, you need some more education in citizenship if you think satirizing what's wrong with society is the same thing as "hating America." People who bother to criticize today's state of affairs LOVE America, and don't appreciate what our current leadership is doing to it. If you think wanting our country to do better than it's doing is "full of hate," then you don't need any help from me to look like a loser.

Sincerely,

Darrin Bell
Cartoonist, "Candorville"
http://www.Candorville.com

•
•
•

New designs, products in the Candorville shop!

As part of our ongoing efforts to attack Christmas, we've created three brand new designs, in time for the holidays, that do not feature Santa Clause, and bear only a passing resemblence to Jesus. We also have several new products that you can have these designs printed on, including custom-made stamps, black t-shirts, and magnets (because your refrigerator's looking kind of empty).

Happy Christmahannukwanzaramadanurnalia!

This way to the Candorville shop!"
•
•
•