The Assassination Cartoon
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
The Assassination Cartoon
I'm all for freedom of speech, but there are limits. Along with freedom comes responsibility, and the New York Post demonstrated the complete absence of responsibility with the publication of their cartoon depicting the assassination of the President of the United States.
While freedom of speech and expression are indeed a cornerstone of American democracy, it is against the law to shout "fire" in a crowded theater-and with good reason. It is necessary for a free society to protect itself from those who don't have the common sense to recognize that what they consider funny, or a practical joke, can get people killed. Thus, even in a free society it is sometimes necessary to jail a free citizen for behavior that amounts to criminal stupidity. While I'm not an attorney, I think they call it criminal negligence.
That is exactly the rationale that should be used to prosecute, and jail, all those responsible for the publication of this criminally ill-considered cartoon. Most of the criticism that's being lodged against this cartoon seems to have more to do with its incredibly poor taste. But it's one thing to petulant, immature, and bigoted-we expect that from ultra-conservative extremists. But when you begin to advocate the assassination of the President of the United States, you've crossed the line-a line that separates the merely stupid, from that which is criminal.
That cartoon literally sent a message out to every deadbeat, bigoted loser in the country that they can finally make something of themselves. They can finally find purpose in their previously miserable and lackluster lives by assassinating the President of the United States. Thus, what the New York Post is calling a meaningless joke is actually a clarion call to every bigoted fool in the United States. It says that there are people in this country who will consider you a hero, if you bring violence against the president-and they know it. Can you imagine the hue and cry coming from Republicans if the New York Times had run a cartoon depicting the assassination of Ronald Reagan?
The mere thought of perpetrating violence against the President of the United States shouldn't even be a part of the public discourse. It serves to desensitize the public to a possibility that should be unthinkable in a civilized society. But history has clearly demonstrated that one of the most lethal weapons in the conservative arsenal is subliminal suggestion--along with suggestions that aren't so subliminal--such as, liberals are aligned with drug dealers, criminals, and welfare cheats; Obama sympathizes with people who hate America and "pals around with terrorists;" and anyone who is against spying on American citizens, torture, or the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is un-American. Now we have this, and they're complaining, "What's all the uproar about? It was just an innocent joke."
We've had enough experience with neo-cons and radical conservatives where anyone with even an ounce of common sense recognizes that nothing is a joke with them-especially when they're out of power. They're dead serious, and they're desperate. Conservative Republicans know better than anyone that considering their atrocious eight years of governance, combined with President Obama's competence and responsible statesmanship, that the Republican Party faces an extremely bleak future. So they've gone to plan B, to eliminate Obama at all cost, and by any means necessary. As ugly as it seems, anyone who doesn't recognize that reality has blinders on.
Look at the facts. Their proven method of operation is to demonize, dehumanize, then eliminate. When the neo-cons decided to exploit Iraqi resources instead of going after Osama, as was the intent of the American people, they first began to demonize, then dehumanize Saddam Hussein-a former ally--in order to prepare the American people to accept the idea that it was necessary to take him out.
Now look at what the conservatives are doing with respect to President Obama. First, they portray him as a monkey, then they have two police officers (respected members of the community) killing him, with a captions suggesting that it was justified based on his political activity. Then here comes Allen Keyes slithering from under his rock, saying that "Obama is a radical communist," and that "He's going to destroy this country." He then went on to say, "We're either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."
Again, it's a blatant attempt to call all fools to arms. His malevolent intent couldn't be more evident. He's effectively given every fool in America carte blanche, indicating that "stopping" President Obama would be an honorable and patriotic act.
The American people simply can't tolerate what's going on here. It's time to send these lunatics a clear message that we're not having it. This is not a third world country, and we're not going to allow them to turn it into one. So at the very least, we've got to insist that the people responsible for creating, and allowing that cartoon to be published, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Let them explain the humor of the cartoon to a jury.
In addition, congress should introduce legislation clearly outlining what constitutions criminal negligence in exercising our freedom of speech. We already have a precedent for it-while I do have freedom of speech, I can neither incite a riot, nor advocate the killing of my neighbor with impunity, so I'm amazed that we don't have something on the books about advocating the assassination of the president.
But of course, the New York Post's defense will be, "What's the big deal? We didn't mean it that way at all. Those liberals are just overreacting." But presumably, there'll be some older people on the jury, with that quaint, but pointed wisdom that we tend to be losing in this nation. They aren't as caught up in technicalities as we are, and they have an adage regarding such nonsense. They'll say, "You're peeing on my head and trying to tell me it's raining."
So I'm confident that they'll send a message to both the New York Post, and the world of conservative anarchists in general. They'll make it clear that we don't find jokes about the assassination of our president funny in the least--and you're going to pay for it, dearly.
The NY Post overstepped any excusable boundary of journalistic propriety with this editorial cartoon. It is overtly offensive to such a degree that I would have probably accepted an apology from their corporate board alongside an excuse that it was unaware that the paper's editorial management were reprobate racists, and that the publishing of this cartoon had been the cause of their termination of employment at the paper. Instead the NY Post's asinine unapologetic rationalisation for the cartoon would be comical under different circumstances. "Oh hey, we're not racists, we're derelict journalists without an 'effing clue about reality in America"
Still, I disagree with an underlying assumption in your post, and would ask you to contemplate why I believe it is not only false; it is also counter-productive in working towards a society that does not make assumptions about humans, based solely upon easily discerned external differences; a goal I believe both of us share.
This is not an artifact of true conservatism. "Radical Conservative" is an oxymoron. You made a distinction between neocons and radical conservatives. It would be better to further divide the political right into a more truthful classification. I grew up in Las Vegas in a very politically conservative family. When I was young, Vegas bore the shameful nickname: "Mississippi of The West", and was a very segregated city. In 1964, both of my parents became registrars of voters, and went to the other side of the tracks into the Black neighborhoods to register voters there, stating loudly that the disenfranchised Black population in The Nation was not only Un-American, it was an obscenity to anyone who believed they belonged in The Party of Lincoln. My parents had also supported Vegas headline stars, led by Sinatra, when they threatened to boycott the showrooms unless the Hotel/Casinos welcomed all visitors without regard for the color of their skin, and backed the local musicians who pressed for inclusion of Blacks in the Musicians' Union and in showroom orchestras. Back then, at least in Las Vegas, the integration debate wasn't divided on party lines.
It is also worth remembering that it was the Warren Supreme Court that unanimously decided Brown v Board of Education, and Chief Justice Earl Warren was Eisenhower's appointee. It was President Eisenhower that sent the National Guard into the South to enforce Brown. The truth is that no Real Conservative, nor Old School Republican is racist. This is not the same as saying that some of the policies that were borne from a Conservative political world view does not aid in perpetuating racism though, and there are many places where Conservatism deserves to be harshly criticised.
When Nixon played the Southern strategy in 1968, the GOP decided to turn away from principles seeking electoral wins instead, and welcomed into their midst the racists, and right-wing extremists. The Neocons turned away from their conception by former Trotskyists hard right, when President Carter had the temerity to stand up and say that Palestinians, whose homes were adjacent to centuries' old cemeteries in which their ancestors had been buried, had a natural right to live free upon that land. The Republican Party's embrace of the New Right, The Religious Right and the Neocons runs against the grain of true conservative thought, which posits at its very foundation axioms that a proper government is the smallest one necessary to insure the Nation's Defense and domestic tranquility; that a state has no business interfering into the private matters of its citizenry, as long as their public actions do not violate the liberties of other humans.
Over the past four decades, what is defined as being conservative has been drastically changed, and has now become nothing more than a synonym for all things that are mapped to the right-side of a linear political model. This has aided in the polarisation of America, and turned politics into an either/or distortion of reality. Scalia and Thomas are not conservative jurists, they are right-wing activist judges who actively seek to radically change precedence settled a long time ago. Conservatives do not believe in radical change; they believe in a steady-state status quo. Radical change, be it to the right or the left is antithetical to true conservative theory.
American Conservatism is presently facing a dilemma, and many conservatives are doing some deep soul-searching about where contemporary conservatism has gone wrong. Many are very unhappy about the manner their political ideology has been jacked by the radicals who hide their true being under conservatism's mantle. They want to separate themselves from it. The best course of action is to give Real Conservatives some breathing room; to help them differentiate themselves from the racists, the theocrats, the warmongers, the pro-torturers, the thieves of human rights. If they are forced into a corner, grouped together with all of the right-side, then forced to choose between that or the left, they will have no other option than to remain on the right.
There are people with whom we disagree with politically, and there are also people who are enemies of freedom and justice for all. It's a propitious time to separate the wheat from the chaff here. Choose your targets wisely.
February 22, 2009 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
PseudoCyAnts,
I fully agree with every point you made, to the comma. Your criticism is right on the money and very well stated (in fact, so much so that I'm going to take this comment and send it to everyone in the "Progressive Network" who regularly receive my column. I also intend to post it on "Your Black World", along with this response.
It was remiss of me not to make it clear that I didn't intend to paint ALL conservatives with the same broad brush. You are also correct that the phrase "radical conservative" can be construed as be oxymoronical when applied in a political context. I should have used the phrase "reactionary conservatives." That would have been much more specific in pointing out those in which I was referring.
But I was using the term "radical" with respect to the American Heritage Dictionary definition,
"Departing markedly from the usual or customary." While that should have covered the point that you are making in your response, the fact that I was sufficiently unclear to motivate your need to respond clearly demonstrates a failure on my part. As Ms. Emmel, my old English teacher, used to constantly tell me, the point of writing is to communicate. If you fail to do that effectively, the entire exercise is meaningless.
Therefore, I want to thank you for bringing this issue to my attention, and relating this shortcoming on my behalf with such civility and eloquence. You've taught me something that I'll never forget--to never assume that the reader understands what's going on in my mind. If it is my intent to communicate effectively, I have a responsibility to avoid intellectual shorthand.
February 22, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, language is a very imprecise method of communication, yet it is still the most concise means humans have to facilitate that end. Often I find myself having to explain the contexts, nuances and meanings of words I chose to use, in response to persons who misunderstood what I was attempting to communicate. The American Heritage Dictionary is my default primary source when doing this. I is amusingly illuminating to find myself on the other side of this dialog.
February 22, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
PCA,
I think that learning to communicate clearly and effectively is both a challenge and reward to those of us who choose make writing our primary endeavor. It should literally force us to in a more efficient and organized manner. That's the art of it, and that's what I love about it.
When I read you're response to my post, all politics becme a non-issue. You became a fellow writer who had obviously mastered the craft, and who was doing a flawless job of laying out your point of view. For me, that transcended everything else.
That's something that we have yet to learn as a society--that there are many other ways of relating to one another other than race and political beliefs.
I'm also a jazz musician--I play saxophone--and when I'm playing with another musician, the only thing that matters in the world, is his or her artistry. The way that they navigate the chord progressions to a tune tells me everything I need to know about them. I've seen people who have absolutely nothing in common other than their mutual love for music, get on stage together as total strangers, then leave the stage as lifelong friends.
February 23, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome comment, PCA. This deserves to be a blog entry all its own. I would have made (and have made) the same general critique, but such comments are rarely accepted from a "conservative" with such aplomb and acknowledgment.
February 22, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the problem is not so much WHAT we say, as it is how we say it. PCA came forward with a reasonable argument with reasonable facts to back it up.
Trying to argue against well presented facts is an exercise in futility. And besides, I'd much rather walk away from a debate more informed than as a winner.
February 22, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it's as you say as I am mostly in agreement with the most "liberal" of policy positions.
It has long been my main contention that it is the presentation of those ideals that can sometimes get in the way of the message. Delivery is an important part of actually communicating an idea to an audience.
I, too, am a fan of learning something new as a consequence of debate.
February 22, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then we're on the same page, Jason, and we shouldn't have any problem discussing any issue, regardless to where it leads. One of the reasons that I'm a critic of political correctness is that it stifles open discussion, and worse, it prevents people from truly understanding one another. As I mentioned to one of my more conservative friends, if he feels that he has to walk on eggshells every time we discuss racial issues, for example, that makes it impossible for us to ever truly explore our mutual misconceptions.
When I was in my twenties one of my closest friends in life was a sixty year old Reagan conservative by the name of Larry Kelly. He literally became a member of my family. My kids used to call him "Uncle Larry." One of the things that made our bond so close was our mutual recognition that our friendship had to be more than just routine for it to overcome the fundamental differences i our political philosophies.
We wore those differences with great pride, and we felt like we represented what America should be. It gave us a sense of idenity, and it allowed us to look over the political landscape with an air of self-righteous condenscension at the world's inability to come to terms with their differences.
While condescension might not have been the very best foundation for a friendship, it worked for us like a charm. After a while, it no longer was a matter of liberal versus conservative, but more about enlightened versus unenlightened.
February 22, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, I've tried to explain to you before that my political point of view cannot be mapped onto a model of a bipolar polity. When I criticise what passes for conservatism presently, it is best to understand perspective(s). A life of straddling fences, never really belonging on either side, and a strong tendency to observe from asymmetric elliptical orbits provides non-standard positions from which to view reality. The Path of the Wanderer is not one many are able to traverse. Alienation of unbelonging is at times a heavy burden.
February 22, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I spent most of my neophyte political existence as a fence straddler as well until I decided one had to pick a side in a two-party system before they could change it. Even now, I am joining with people who are trying to change conservatism, so I am still being contrary to current leadership until we can change it. I would agree with you (on this and many other things) that there has been too much capitulation to conventional "wisdom" on both sides of the fence.
February 23, 2009 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I greatly appreciate your comments. All conservatives should not be summarily grouped together, but it is difficult to do so otherwise, when 'Real Conservative' and 'Old School Republicans,' shun their responsibility, instead of making their voices heard. Certainly during this past election, some prominent Republicans openly supported Obama and more moderate points of view, reversing the long time trend of not contradicting candidates and ideas of the Republican party, and 'publicly' supporting only candidates and ideas generated by the same. Prominent Republicans who supported Democratic Party candidates and ideas, did so quietly, in effect contributing to the ascendancy of Radical Conservatism in the Party.
As a democrat partial to moderate views, I am concerned about the lack of honest debate in our politics and the current state of the Republican Party. I believe substantive debate between both parties is vital to our success. We suffer as a nation without a Republican Party that is able to present substantive ideas and solutions, rather than the demagoguery, ideology and obfuscation that have been all too common.
I look forward to a more vocal contribution from 'Real Conservative' and 'Old School Republicans.' I believe there is much they would contribute to our political discourse.
Likewise, I would look forward to contributions from more radical Republicans if they would abandoned their 'justice for some' strategies.
February 22, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Tonnyb. A one-party America wouldn't be healthy, but I fear that we're rapidly moving in that direction.
Every political philosophy needs balance. Balance is what has made America great. While we need those who have dreams of utopia, we also need pragmatists, and just as we need people like Martin Luther King to make this a more loving society, we also need people like Gen. MacArthur to make it a more secure one.
So the key is to recognize, objectively assess, and respect one another's point of view. Because we are all Americans, and our diversity makes us more, rather than less.
February 22, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Publishing cruel, boorish, racist humor is not a crime, nor should it be. Your whole premise is that the cartoon was clearly celebrating or advocating assassination of the President, and that's not true. The cartoon was an atrocious specimen of the art because it has no apparent point while raising a grotesque image that seems to evoke the President. But you can't crimininalize disturbing resonances or inflammatory images in themselves. On the other side of the ideological divide, Nicholson Baker was not prosecuted for writing a novella in which the main character muses at length on the ethics of assassinating Bush.
February 22, 2009 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your position, and I also recognize that we're dealing the most slipperiest of slopes. But at some point free speech becomes incitement and/or advocacy. we need a mechanism for dealing with that--even if it's on a case-by-case basis.
February 22, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
To elaborate just a bit, the right of free speech brings with it the responsibility to not incite the suggestible, when we know full well they are both there, and a large component of our audience.
February 22, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, at some point free speech becomes incitement. Here's the current standard, according to wikipedia:
Imminent lawless action is a term used in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to define the limits of constitutionally protected speech. The rule overturned the decision of the earlier Schenck v. United States (1919), which had established "clear and present danger" as the constitutional limit for speech. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Here's wiki on the "clear and present danger" standard:
The doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, "imminent lawless action" (such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection. As of 2008[update], "imminent lawless action" continues to be the test applied in free speech cases.
Clear and present danger is a term used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the unanimous opinion for the case Schenck v. United States,[1] concerning the ability of the government to regulate speech against the draft during World War I:
“ The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. ”
Following Schenck v. United States, "clear and present danger" became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech[2][3] and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen's First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a "clear and present danger". However, it should be noted that the "clear and present anger" criterion of the Schenck decision was later modified by Brandenburg v. Ohio,[4] and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an imminent lawless action.
The Post cartoon is not incitement by either standard. It's too vague, indeed too incoherent.
February 22, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not at all vague. There is a political leader with two bullets in him/it, one who turned wild after appearing to have been tame. It is incoherent. It doesn't make a clearcut political point related to the text bubble.
That combo leads people to read their own stuff into it, or to make up stuff to read into it. I think Wattree makes a reasonable argument about what's going on beneath the surface, whether the Post intended to offer that suggestion or not.
I didn't see the cartoon as significantly racist. I saw it as poor quality political commentary which should have been sent back to the artist instead of being published. But I can see it the way Wattree describes it.
February 22, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you X,
Your post was very instructive. I'm going to follow up on your research and probably do an article on what I think congress should revise the standard to be.
But even without congressional intervention, I think that considering the fact the President Obama is our first African American president, advocating his possible assassination should be viewed using a slightly different standard.
This is a unique situation, and it should be viewed as such.
February 22, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free Speech is an ideal. We certainly have a good amount of it in our country.
But the responsibility is thus. When someone or some organization makes a statement that communicates something that seems unjust, or dangerous or maybe even just bad taste; the statement must be answered.
Without response, what is the good of an ideal like Free Speech?
February 22, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus. What a horrible, irrational post.
February 22, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd sure like to hear why you think so.
February 22, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, let's give the cartoonist the benefit of a doubt.
But every day, editorial cartoons get spiked over the possibility of misinterpretation. And rightly so.
Here's what Boston Globe cartoonist Dan Wasserman had to say (via Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix):
"The editor's got to save him. The editor's got to say, 'Whoa, what you're saying here is going to be widely misinterpreted. Despite your best intentions, you're calling the president an ape. That's like drawing drunken Irishmen or hook-nosed Jews.' ... [The image] has a history. You've got to know that. The cartoonist was ill served by his editor."
One hundred per cent right. The cartoonist can plead ignorance of how his work would be interpreted; the Post cannot.
Dereliction of its public duty.
February 22, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cartoon suggests a monkey wrote the stimulus bill. It was in poor taste and subject to an interpretation of racism. Why is this not the end of it? For goodness sakes, why not?
February 22, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing about the cartoon suprised me given the paper it was published in. Any decent person would have to conclude that the depiction was beyond the pale by any measure. I am surprised only by how few such depictions we have seen thus far since Obama became a candidate. I think everyone should be quite prepared to see a very great deal more of this crap. And I certainly agree that such illustrations are suggestive to the dimwitted yahoos out there. I don't think that is an accidental feature of such trash either. So, be prepared folks. This is literally the very tip of the ideberg. It is going to get much, much worse.
In my opinion, no legal restrictions can or should be placed on this sort of dishonorable smear over and above those already in existence. But, institutions such as newspapers and radio stations need to be prepared for a public backlash that heretofore in American history has been relatively absent. It has always been the extremist right that put fear in the hearts of advertisers, publications and stations. Now, our most effective means of striking down this sort of reprehensible garbage is by organizing effectively and following through on boycotts of businesses that support this kind of hateful, racist message.
February 22, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wattree is completely irrational and sensational. There's no way that this was an "assassination" cartoon. Give me a break.
Most people think that the "chimp" was representative of Congress, not Obama.
February 22, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most people? Now you're making stuff up.
February 23, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously there are many people who think otherwise. At the very least, with all benefit given to doubt taking it to somplete idiocy, this cartoon made light of the causation of a violent death. If it was a Far Side cartoon, that would be one thing, but it was political.
Assassinate the President, a Senator, a Congressman, a congressional page, ALL of these options are worthy of our contempt and disgust. This was a cartoon about a violent death and indifference to it. Deplorable!
February 23, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
This, time and again, has been the starting sentence of someone who doesn't want to censor but actually does.
Skokie, IL had a much larger issue in terms of freedom of speech. Because there they were preaching hate. And yet the ACLU backed their right.
The cartoon was political, commented on a chimp event the day before (when cops took down the chimp) and made a weak attempt to tie the idea that the stimulus bill was written by idiots.
The outcry on this cartoon is loud probably because it was in the Post. Would we still be talking about it, I wonder, if it were in the New Yorker instead? How many people boycotted the New Yorker last summer?
This is another example of diverting our attention from real problems. If the chimp were done as an actual caricature of Obama (you know, the way the Bush was drawn as a chimp), perhaps some of the outcry would have a solid, reasonable base. Instead, we are endlessly speculating about what is going on in a cartoonist's -- an artist's -- mind. Is the cartoonist a known racist? Does he have a record of using chimps for representing African Americans? If so, then that's proof of something deeper. But without it, it's all pure speculation that doesn't contribute much of anything.
As for Holden's comments that people wanted to tie into here, even Rep. Maxine Walters said on Bill Mahrer this week that as AG, Holden has to choose his words more carefully. And just as a reminder: Maxine is black.
Here's the deal: the comments I see about this cartoon are no more convincing than the comments I saw from the right-wing about the Piss Christ. This discussion would have no legs at all if it were done in public with a mixed political background crowd.
February 23, 2009 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
As yes, the poor poor persecuted right-wing press. That this argument still carries with it any validity at all in contemporary America gives testament to the rampant intelligence failures who exist on the political right.
I do not believe the NY Post's publishing of this cartoon was unlawful, but then I am a fervent supporter of free-speech. Yet free-speech is a very sharp double-edged sword. If you say something outrageously hateful to an individual without any apparent cause, and they respond with one good punch, well know what pard'ner, you had it coming, so you better be sure I'm not sitting on the jury if you file a civil lawsuit about it.
If the NY Post experiences a substantial drop in circulation and/or a loss of ad revenue because of this cartoon, even if this was caused by an organised campaign, they are just on the receiving end of a free-speech downside, and are getting what they have coming to them. It's hilarious to see them attempt to spin this out with paranoid whining about their being persecuted.
February 23, 2009 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You say
which is pure ad hominem.
It conveniently allows you to side step the question that I asked (and you quoted).
Tell me again, what is the "right-wing" press. All press is corporate, and it all tends to the right-wing. But by falsely applying your statement, you now can feel much better about still subscribing to the New Yorker, can't you?
You insisted on seeing that cartoon with your right-wing-paranoia glasses on, because of the source. Let me ask again:
Did you try to organize against the New Yorker last summer. That cartoon was on the cover and there was no doubt about who it was.
February 23, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not "sidestep" your question; I ignored it, because it was an attempt to grayscale the NY Post's publishing of a racist cartoon, by comparing it to the New Yorker's July 21, 2008 cover that comically portrayed Obama and Michelle as late-60's/early-70's revolutionary radicals, doing a fist bump, in an issue that destroyed the GOP's Obama/Ayers talking points. The New Yorker's covers are often parody roasts of the main topic in that issue, and many Obama supporters were up in arms about it, but the most significant factor which makes it an inapt comparison to the NY Post cartoon is that 60's/70s radical revolutionaries had backgrounds from all segments of society. In the context of its time, the counterculture movement was very egalitarian about racial, gender, class and religious divides. Also of note: there were multitudinous variations of greetings floating around at the time, a simple fist-bump gesture was not one of them.
Another factor the need be considered here is that Delonas has past work product that could easily cause persons to believe he games with vulgar racist stereotypes.
As I said before, I do not believe the NY Post cartoon was unlawful, but if the Post gets beaten up financially for publishing it, they are only feeling the effects of lawful free speech dissenting against their questionable morality, and it is comical of them to hide behind the first amendment as an excuse, while they whine about incoming free-speech rounds targeting their flabby hypocritical asses.
February 23, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your reply is the literal equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "blah, blah, blah" very loud.
I knew you would defend the New Yorker. Double standard to be sure. So tell me, tell me, was the uproar last summer created by the right-wing press to support Obama?
Your argument has no legs because you insist on drawing very fine lines that have no meaning except to those who like to label.
February 23, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And applied in reverse, you just justified everything you hate about the Republicans. Because they all believe that you had it coming!
What a stupid attitude.
February 23, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
What's been overlooked . . .
I'll take this in an entirely different direction.
The cartoon depicts two officers of the law shooting and killing and wild and pissed off chimpanzee.
That chimpanzee could represent hundreds if not thousands of unarmed, deranged and or mentally disturbed individuals in the past who have been dealt with summarily in this way.
Screw the political overtones of what each individual reads into this depiction relating to the caption. Take the caption away. And it is still a very ugly cartoon.
Shooting a mad chimpanzee.
Ugly!
~OGD~
February 23, 2009 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink