Patterico's Pontifications

5/16/2013

Ted Rall’s Cartoon in Opposition (I Guess) to anti-SWATting Legislation

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:18 am



Ted Rall compared U.S. soldiers to suicide bombers; mocked widows of terror victims; profited from Pat Tillman’s death; assumed the voice of Iraqi soldiers talking about killing American soldiers; made leftist political hay out of the Nick Berg beheading; lied about lefty blogger vitriol; and sued a guy for making him appear to be a “rude, petty, self-absorbed writer/cartoonist” (which is what he is).

He’s also unfunny — except for the time he called me a “generic warblogger,” which was pretty funny.

I guess what I’m saying is, he’s the perfect cartoonist for the L.A. Times.

Now Rall is (as best as I can discern) mocking an anti-SWATting bill in his typically unfunny and pointless manner:

I don’t get the point, to be honest. Unless the point is that Ted Rall is worried about being outlawed.

73 Responses to “Ted Rall’s Cartoon in Opposition (I Guess) to anti-SWATting Legislation”

  1. Yeah, I don’t get it.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  2. If I had to make a guess, on this cartoon alone, the point would be that it is easy to make a law against something that is obviously something that you don’t want done, but simply making a law against something doesn’t do much.

    Hence, it would be nice if no one would be a moron, but making an anti-moron law really wouldn’t help. Sort of akin to the impact of Obama saying his transparent administration will get to the bottom of all of these scandels.

    I don’t think it is particularly funny, either; just giving my quick take on what it might mean.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  3. if they were to actually pass an “anti-moron” law, Ted Rall would be facing life in prison without parole.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  4. I don’t think Rall takes swatting seriously. I think he’s positing that if it’s a celeb no big deal. He used the word prank. He thinks the people pushing the ant-swatt law are morons to take on what he considers to be a frivolous bill.

    elissa (04d91b)

  5. Nasty piece of work, Ted Rall is.

    nk (875f57)

  6. “Pranksters” reminds me of “troubled youths” to describe the Boston bombers.

    harkin (0636cb)

  7. I never got this guy. I wonder how he’s able to make a living doing this schtick. Another leftie cheerleader the Koch’s could do without.

    AZ Bob (c11d35)

  8. Ted Rall has never gotten over gays actually wanting to serve in the military.

    nk (875f57)

  9. Rall fails to grasp that SWATting is not done as a prank, at least not in many instances. It’s done in the hope that the mark will be shot by responding officers.

    Teddy boy, SWATters aren’t “total morons.” (Technically they are probably rather intelligent, or have anti-trace workarounds built by people who are.) They are attempted murderers.

    Who’s laughing now?

    Mitch (341ca0)

  10. Looks like he’s stealing from Teh Simpsons and he’d better hope/pray that anti-moron legislation doesn’t pass or he’s a goner.

    Colonel Haiku (61a8ce)

  11. Well, you have to excuse Rall. There’s really been a dearth of good fodder for political cartoonists in the last couple of weeks or so.

    elissa (04d91b)

  12. Ted Rall essentially views everything through a Marxist prism.
    His unspoken context in this cartoon is that “celebrities” are wealthy, pampered, wealthy, fortunate—and did I mention wealthy—?
    Therefore, if something bad happens to “celebrities,” (i.e., the SWAT team showing up at their front door at 2 in the morning as part of a ‘prank,’) then Teddy Boy is cool with it.

    Of course, not everyone who has been SWATted has been a traditional celebrity. Many people (including the proprietor of this esteemed website) have been targeted by left wing kooks simply due to politics.
    …but Teddy Boy wants to pretend that doesn’t exist, because in his Saul Alinsky fantasy world, all left wingers are sweet, non-violent souls who wouldn’t hurt a fly.

    Elephant Stone (65a34b)

  13. I’d rewrite this to be about the fatuous gun control bills that Obama, Biden and Bloomberg are pushing.

    SPQR (768505)

  14. It’s like he wanted to do a cartoon about SWATting, couldn’t think of anything, and did the cartoon anyway.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  15. CrustyB, you summed up all of Ralls’ work.

    SPQR (768505)

  16. CrustyB — you’ve described his entire body of work.

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  17. This falls right into the body of law the CA leg has passed in attempting to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
    Duh, criminals don’t obey the law, which is why they are criminals.
    But that doesn’t stop our intrepid Progs applying criminal sanctions against people doing what was since the Founding considered normal and legal.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  18. Comment by Elephant Stone (65a34b) — 5/16/2013 @ 9:56 am

    Teddy needs to find out what it’s like to be “swatted”, then he might have more respect for the saying that “A Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged!”

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  19. I didn’t even know Ted Rall was still alive.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  20. Patterico, maybe you could clarify something:
    I assume that making a false 911 call was already illegal. And perhaps that was what Ted Rall had in mind. But could it be that the existing law did not anticipate the terrifying and possibly deadly consequences of SWATting?

    pst314 (ae6bd1)

  21. If I didn’t have any background on Rall, I would take the cartoon as a comment on passing laws to address high publicity ‘problems’ that are already very illegal under existing law. Let’s face it, SWATTING somebody could be interpreted as against, probably, dozens of laws. It’s certainly reckless endangerment. Submitting a false police report also springs to mind.

    Now, Rall used up any benefit of the doubt he to which he might once have been entitled a long time ago. I’m not suggesting giving him any kind of pass. But I’m not convinced that this cartoon is an appropriate club with which to beat him.

    C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd)

  22. The better question is whether he’d even notice being beaten with a club. He’s so insensitive I am beginning to wonder if he’s a dysfunctional psychopath.

    htom (412a17)

  23. do people really say leanin’ in?

    the latest douchespeak I hear is “let’s circle back around” and “let’s start off by having Jennifer download what she learned at the conference for us”

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  24. I thought Ted Rall was a POS over a decade ago when he mocked our sorrow over 9-11.

    I see he hasn’t changed.

    Aaron "Worthing" Walker (9c4b9d)

  25. Who?

    mojo (8096f2)

  26. Commenter #21 is correct. This cartoon is conservative libertarian in orientation. Why do we need a new law here? Anyone who pulls such a boneheaded stunt is guilty of several crimes, including filing a false report and harassment. If anyone gets hurt, it’s reckless endangerment. If there are property damages, you can sue.

    I thought conservatives opposed showboating, redundant, unnecessary laws?

    Ted Rall (a6ce63)

  27. Also: the above characterization of my lawsuit is so willfully wrong as to be actionable.

    I sued a guy for impersonating me online – and then, when I demanded that he quit, continuing to do so. It’s called identity theft, and every judge who has seen the case has said that my case is airtight. Sadly, the miscreant defendant has abused a screwed-up legal system by delaying the case for 14 years, denying me justice.

    Patterico would sue anyone who did the same thing to him; so would anyone.

    Ted Rall (a6ce63)

  28. And back to the subject at hand:

    Anyone who “SWATS” is a total goddamn idiot and should go to jail and pay a hefty fine.

    But we already have laws for this sort of thing.

    Ted Rall (a6ce63)

  29. The drawing is powerful ugly. Look at the hands on the table for instance. Makes me cringe.

    These things used to be done by artists, meaning people who could draw.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  30. Yet the hideous aesthetics of this blog don’t bother you?

    Ted Rall (a6ce63)

  31. It is my opinion Ted Rall is a mendoucheous twatwaffle, and is slightly lower on he evolutionary scale than paramecium.

    JD (ee8414)

  32. Ted Rall sez:

    Also: the above characterization of my lawsuit is so willfully wrong as to be actionable.

    I sued a guy for impersonating me online – and then, when I demanded that he quit, continuing to do so. It’s called identity theft, and every judge who has seen the case has said that my case is airtight. Sadly, the miscreant defendant has abused a screwed-up legal system by delaying the case for 14 years, denying me justice.

    Patterico would sue anyone who did the same thing to him; so would anyone.

    Yes, that is explained at the link, where it is also explained that you claimed damages in part for making you appear to be a “rude, petty, self-absorbed writer/cartoonist.”

    But you are. As the links in this post make perfectly clear.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  33. And back to the subject at hand:

    Anyone who “SWATS” is a total goddamn idiot and should go to jail and pay a hefty fine.

    But we already have laws for this sort of thing.

    Could you explain to us, from the vast depths of your knowledge of the law, what laws we have, what the possible punishments are, and why you believe them to be adequate?

    (This ought to be good.)

    Patterico (9c670f)

  34. And no, the generic description above is more like a list of what someone might imagine are criminal violations, as opposed to a list of actual Penal Code sections.

    Tell me the Penal Code section for “reckless endangerment.”

    Patterico (9c670f)

  35. I read Ted Rall’s blog so you don’t have to. But you may, if you wish, by clicking on his signature.

    This was from his callow youth, May 9, 2013: “This is Israel in a nutshell. It’s a nation dominated by “nice guys”. And by “nice guys”, I mean entitled, hypocritical, opportunistic, rageaholic predators with persecution complexes.” He showed remarkable kindness by leaving out “bloodsucking usurers”.

    Google is also your friend. (Reads Rall so you don’t have to.)

    nk (875f57)

  36. I sued a guy for impersonating me online – and then, when I demanded that he quit, continuing to do so. It’s called identity theft, and every judge who has seen the case has said that my case is airtight. Sadly, the miscreant defendant has abused a screwed-up legal system by delaying the case for 14 years, denying me justice.

    SO Ted. Given your experience, what do you think the chances are of Peter Gleick being extracted from the body politic for his identity theft of Heartland documents? IN that case we have a complete papertrail and a confession.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  37. Ted is as entitled to his opinions as the next guy. What galls is that apparently the real Ted Rall receives pay and has a national platform to spread his bile–and that people cannot avoid it if they subscribe to certain papers.

    elissa (2fda5f)

  38. I was just thinking the same thing: the L.A. Times actually pays him for this clueless nonsense.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  39. And ugly. They don’t have to be clueless AND ugly.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  40. Clueless and nasty. That is the thing. Dancing on the bodies of dead soldiers? That’s pacifism?

    nk (875f57)

  41. (Re: Rall’s drawing ability)

    To paraphrase Tyrion Lannister, I’m not QUESTIONING your artistic ability. I’m denying its existence.

    This is the enormous difference between artists like Picasso or Mike Mignola, on the one hand, and Rall, on the other: they could draw a photorealistic human figure if they wished to. They draw grotesquely because they wish to. Rall? This is really the best he can do. Jeeze, Ted, at least your mom was a good French teacher. What do you do well?

    Mitch (341ca0)

  42. Ted Rall is making a snide remark about aesthetics? That’s rich. Hi Ted, just thought I’d mention that you are a pathetic, no-talent hack. Your cartoons suck, and your politics are boring, one-dimensional, predictable, and about as deep as a Kardashian book club discussion. You’re a sniveling, attention-starved, spineless, pathetic excuse for a man. Go back and crawl up into the fetal position and cry out your daddy issues, make a few more kindergarten-level doodles, and try to crawl your sad self back into whatever fraction of relevance you might have had in the past.

    Jack Klompus (ddf2d4)

  43. This Ted Rall person surely can’t be this pathetic, can he ?

    I love how the screaming left wing sociopaths of the world such as Teddy Boy Rall love to dish it out, but they fold like a cheap suit when someone puts it right back in their face.

    And yes, Teddy Boy, I did call you, “Shirley.”

    Elephant Stone (65a34b)

  44. Ted is too partisan to be good without the help of genius.
    Unfortunately he gets paid to provide an alternative point of view, partisan, if you will, rather than providing genius.
    I still can’t believe he got away with how he self exposed his racism in his not funny and very racist graphic renditions of Sec State Rice.
    Plus he is a coward. Obama is a great target and Rall won’t touch him. Pussy

    SteveG (794291)

  45. Re #37: Maybe you DO have to. Read my blog. Cuz I didn’t write that post.

    Ted Rall (a6ce63)

  46. Defending the indefensible, this Denebian slime devil, would find a way to excuse the death of those caught in one of those swattings, he’s like Callahan, without the talent,

    narciso (3fec35)

  47. Or even the motivation,

    narciso (3fec35)

  48. Re #37: Maybe you DO have to. Read my blog. Cuz I didn’t write that post.

    You returned to comment but dodged my questions.

    I knew you wouldn’t answer them.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  49. Re #37: Maybe you DO have to. Read my blog. Cuz I didn’t write that post.

    Comment by Ted Rall (a6ce63) — 5/18/2013 @ 6:17 am

    You’re right. It does say “Posted by jenmatsui” when read on the main page. The “Posted by” is left out when the post is opened from the sidebar. For me, anyway. I am not Obama and therefore I will not quibble that I did not explicitly say you wrote it but only attributed it to your blog — I was attributing it to you under the wrong impression that you wrote it because it was on your blog.

    nk (875f57)

  50. Well he does cheer the campaign against Israel, waged by scum like Chomsky, so the comment is in character with the thread,

    narciso (3fec35)

  51. Uh-huh. There’s never a “good point, I was/we were wrong in this forum.

    Ted Rall (a6ce63)

  52. Ted Rall is making a snide remark about aesthetics? That’s rich. Hi Ted, just thought I’d mention that you are a pathetic, no-talent hack. Your cartoons suck, and your politics are boring, one-dimensional, predictable, and about as deep as a Kardashian book club discussion. You’re a sniveling, attention-starved, spineless, pathetic excuse for a man. Go back and crawl up into the fetal position and cry out your daddy issues, make a few more kindergarten-level doodles, and try to crawl your sad self back into whatever fraction of relevance you might have had in the past.

    Comment by Jack Klompus (ddf2d4) — 5/17/2013 @ 8:50 am

    Late to the party here but I’ll be laughing about this all day. Now that’s what I call invective. lol

    no one of consequence (f14b28)

  53. Is that an apology?

    narciso (3fec35)

  54. Ok, let’s go there. It’s only your blog. http://www.rall.com/rallblog. I had no right to assume that you have any control over its editorial content. Or who your co-bloggers are. It’s just too vast for one blog owner to manage. Or [given your history], that you would possibly write crap like that. Or that you would approve crap like that. Just because it’s on your blog? Dang, I was silly.

    nk (875f57)

  55. I thought conservatives opposed showboating, redundant, unnecessary laws

    — So . . . you are opposed to hate-crimes legislation, then.
    Correct?

    Icy (64e97d)

  56. Uh-huh. There’s never a “good point, I was/we were wrong in this forum.

    Comment by Ted Rall (a6ce63) — 5/18/2013 @ 7:16 am

    No, that’s not true. People sometimes do change their minds and accept good points here. I doubt you pay much attention to those threads, though. You can tell when a thread is good when the trolls go away.

    You may not recall this, but a couple of years ago I criticized one of your cartoons. You actually replied, but as I said then, your reply did not back your view up. You didn’t want to have a conversation. You wanted to insist I was wrong, and on the power of your word and your apparent contempt for those you disagree with, you were satisfied that I’m even worse for not conceding that I’m wrong.

    That’s essentially what you’re doing now.

    Patterico asked you for specifics about the current laws so that the conversation could be intelligent. You have an opportunity for your strange cartoon to lead to a discussion of current laws with someone who is experienced with those laws.

    This is the time to actually have the meat of the debate, but you refuse to. This could be because you have a deep emotional problem (your cartoons are often obnoxious and appear trollish). It could be because you are aware that current laws that SWATting violate are in some cases imperfect fits and unlikely to lead to convictions (attempted murder, for example), or very weak in penalties and not really reasonable for a hoax that wastes resources and time, putting people in real emergencies in further jeopardy, as well as officers and families of victims, and of course at times terrorizing victims in hopes of shutting down their criticism of the bad guy (at other times, this element is absent).

    SWATting is an unusual, particular crime, with different elements and different results from current laws. It’s also getting worse. I applaud those who are trying to fix this, but I would love to see their attempts brought into scrutiny. I don’t like redundant laws, but I also don’t like laws that have other flaws or aren’t strong enough or specific enough.

    It’s a shame you weren’t up to an adult level conservation about this. When challenged, you seemed to just ignore that aspect and resorted to insults. Of course, that’s basically all your cartoons ever do.

    What I suspect you’re not saying is that you liken SWATting prosecution to prosecuting silliness (hence to ‘anti moron bill’ comparison). Ted, I think you just don’t care about this crime. Be honest.

    Dustin (2da3a2)

  57. #57: correct.

    I have written about that, much to the disdain of my liberal readers.

    Ted Rall (1e4492)

  58. #58: no. Swatting isn’t silliness. It’s disgusting. It’s already against the law, though.

    Ted Rall (1e4492)

  59. Also: the above characterization of my lawsuit is so willfully wrong as to be actionable.

    Laughable should not be a synonym for “actionable”.

    I sued a guy for impersonating me online – and then, when I demanded that he quit, continuing to do so. It’s called identity theft, …

    No, its not, actually.

    … and every judge who has seen the case has said that my case is airtight. Sadly, the miscreant defendant has abused a screwed-up legal system by delaying the case for 14 years, denying me justice.

    Patterico would sue anyone who did the same thing to him; so would anyone.

    Charles Carreon level silliness. Is Carreon your counsel? It would explain a lot.

    SPQR (768505)

  60. I have written about that, much to the disdain of my liberal readers.

    Brevity is teh soul of wit…

    Colonel Haiku (4e91b0)

  61. At what point does Rall show up here; declare intellectual superiority, and then leave?
    Or will he trot off back to his own blog to declare victory over the knuckledraggers?

    Either way, he’s still an unfunny partisan hack who makes a living feeding mean spirited red meat to his liberal sycophants… you know, the tolerance and coexist prius people whose inner asshole has extruded

    SteveG (794291)

  62. Ted Rall (53) writes “There’s never a ‘good point, I was/we were wrong[‘] in this forum”. This is demonstrably false. I put “I was wrong” in the Search field in the right-hand column, subtracted all the ironic and sarcastic uses and (though Rall wrote “in this forum”) all those authored by Patterico’s cobloggers, and still found two clear cases:

    1. This post (9/14/2012) includes the following paragraph: “Note well: I was right to be mad about the comments about Tony Snow. But I was wrong to use that episode to paint Malcolm as a lefty. I regret that now.”

    2. this post (7/27/2011) is three-quarters apology.

    If two apologies isn’t a lot for so productive a blogger as Patterico, maybe that’s because he seldom writes things he has to apologize for – things like demonstrably false statements that could easily have been checked before posting.

    Of course, as A. E. Housman once put it, “Three minutes thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time.”

    Dr. Weevil (841ed6)

  63. fit for a crayon
    in his crappy world he’s King
    is the head dead yet?

    Colonel Haiku (4e91b0)

  64. Ted, in that case, you should correct your cartoon to compare anti swatting to “Anti disgusting crime that was recently developed bill”. But then I guess it’s still not clear what you cartoon is saying.

    You say SWATting is “against the law”, but you still haven’t gotten into which laws you are citing and how they and their penalties are appropriate.

    Maybe because you haven’t looked at them in detail? Maybe you should before you dismiss the issue.

    Dustin (2da3a2)

  65. Teddy Boy’s punch-and-then-run-and-hide-in-the-woods is so typical of the left wingers—they can dish it out, but they have no stomach for return fire.

    Makes sense then, that they always demonstrate such a thirst for an authoritarian left wing state.

    Elephant Stone (bcf0e3)

  66. Ramirez was the cartoonist of the LA Times when I lived out there. How do you go from best ever political cartoonist to worst ever political cartoonist? I guess it’s possible that I’m being politically biased in saying that, but I don’t think so.

    j curtis (69845a)

  67. j curtis:

    Political cartoonists are simply the actors of their jobs. How they choose to exhibit their opinion through their work may something about them, but that is what they do.

    For example, I don’t appreciate Ted Rall’s cartoons. He is a left-wing hack. But he does have a talent for expressing his view.

    I happen to like Ramirez because he is a right-wing hack. I appreciate his views and he does well in expressing such.

    They both do what they are paid to do. I can recognize the tilt of each.

    So, you are being politically biased regardless of what you think by your own words.

    That is the default position of the left: We are right, and it is up to you to prove us wrong.

    That is not the way the world works.

    If you don’t believe me, name me one thing the left has done right without naming Bush.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  68. Well we have Jim Moran, in our fishwrap, who has more talent then Rall or Tom Tomorrow, but theit jaundiced perspective.

    narciso (3fec35)

  69. and that people cannot avoid it if they subscribe to certain papers.

    True, true, but… really.

    I mean, if you actually subscribe to those bird droppings, is this not *just* punishment…?

    I pity those who have no choice for some reason… like multiple trepannings.

    Smock Puppet, Reactionary Thug and Bon Vivant (1eded0)

  70. #58: no. Swatting isn’t silliness. It’s disgusting. It’s already against the law, though.

    Comment by Ted Rall (1e4492) — 5/18/2013 @ 11:28 am

    Uhhhh, Ted… this isn’t a liberal blog, which you appear to have realized at some point…

    As a consequence, you should long since have also grasped that merely restating your unsupported contention isn’t accepted as proving your point.

    I’m not even arguing who’s right and wrong here, though I’m betting Patterico knows the Laws better than you do.

    But if you’re going to claim he’s incorrect, then it behooves you to make some semblance of an argument in that direction. Hell, you can probably contact the LAT’s in-house legal counsel for a list of potentially applicable statutes rather than researching them yourself.

    Smock Puppet, Reactionary Thug and Bon Vivant (1eded0)

  71. Of course, as A. E. Housman once put it, “Three minutes thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time.”

    You might want to source that better. Most liberal twits reading these comments probably think you’re talking about the guy on The Paper Chase… LOLZ

    Smock Puppet, Reactionary Thug and Bon Vivant (1eded0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0817 secs.