Is my computer bringing me views of A2K in another dimension?
The cartoon I see at the start of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with a chimp or, for that matter, Obama
It depicts two men in suits, one with only one leg, walking down the stairs of what appears to be a government building. Each is carrying a bag of cash.
To their right is a one legged bum with a sign "What About My Leg?"
Surely the original cartoon was replaced with what now appears or you are all insane.
Maybe that's part of the needed discussion that Holder was speaking about the other day. Why is it acceptable to dehumanize some people? If it is unacceptable to do it to some people, why not all people? Why are there exceptions?
There aren't. In caricature, anything goes. You can dehumanize everyone, with no exception.
0 Replies
roger
1
Reply
Thu 19 Feb, 2009 11:06 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
My God, you're right!
I strongly favor the a2k policy of not allowing edits of earlier posts. This substitution just isn't honest.
A dead chimp with several bullet holes. Caption was something like ~"Now we'll have to get someone else to write the stimulus bill".
0 Replies
Robert Gentel
1
Reply
Thu 19 Feb, 2009 11:26 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
I strongly favor the a2k policy of not allowing edits of earlier posts. This substitution just isn't honest.
Seems like an honest error. The image linked to the url of the latest comic, and the NY Post changed the comic. That's one thing to remember with images, they can change, become unavailable etc.
Last updated: 8:18 pm
February 19, 2009
Posted: 8:00 pm
February 19, 2009
Wednesday's Page Six cartoon - caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut - has created considerable controversy.
It shows two police officers standing over the chimp's body: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," one officer says.
It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.
Period.
But it has been taken as something else - as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.
This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.
However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past - and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.
To them, no apology is due.
Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.
The cartoon would be just as lacking in taste if Hillary Clinton were the president and there had been a month of headlines in that paper calling it "Hillary's Economic Recovery Plan" or "Hillary's Plan." It would be just as lacking in taste if George Bush or Ronald Reagan were still the president and it was their plan that had been in the recent headlines.
Sure. But a similarly tasteless Bush joke wouldn't have spurred passionate debates on CNN. That's the difference.
It would have if Bush were black.
That is the crux.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Fri 20 Feb, 2009 12:55 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Deb --
What you may be missing in the nether parts of the Earth is that here in America, the networks are all over the cartoon and its successor. This thread is likely an extension of this network TV brouhaha. I suspect that's what ehBeth has in mind when she wonders "what's the big deal about it."
Well, that may well be.
There is no brouhaha here.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Fri 20 Feb, 2009 12:56 am
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:
Because as some one else noted here - historically being compared to a monkey/ape/etc. has been a racist thing in the past. Especially someone working in a journalist field would know that. There was a huge deal when some idiot on radio or on the news or something compared a gorilla escaping from a local zoo as being a student waiting for the school bus - this was in a predominately africian american neighborhood.
Past schmast.
It is still common on racist sites.
This is NOT resting cutely in the past...it is alive and well.
I can't wait for total anarchy even knowing I will suffer too.
Yeah; anarchy does not = chaos,
but it sure woud bring about some changes.
I 'm not sure thay 'd all be good.
0 Replies
OmSigDAVID
1
Reply
Fri 20 Feb, 2009 03:09 am
The folks who scream the loudest against ridiculing obama for being african
are the same ones that ridiculed W for being stupid.
I wonder what the reasoning of that is ?
David
0 Replies
roger
1
Reply
Fri 20 Feb, 2009 03:26 am
@dlowan,
You are the only one.
0 Replies
mysteryman
2
Reply
Fri 20 Feb, 2009 03:36 am
What none of you are seeing is that this discussion (and any others regarding that cartoon) show that the cartoon worked.
The artist was trying to stir up debate and inflame everyones passions regarding Obama.
He used a poorly drawn cartoon to do so, and he drew it in a way that was sure to make some people angry and make others immediately cry "racism".
He accomplished his goal with a cartoon that you can see whatever you want in.
If the cartoon is so offensive to you, simply ignore it.
Why give the artist more credit then he is due by constantly talking about his stupid cartoon?
