See Monkey, Go Berserk

Last week Nick Gillespie said he was beginning to suspect he was "overly optimistic" in thinking "one hope for an Obama presidency is that it ends the worst sort of racial discourse in America." Here's another piece of evidence in favor of despair:

A New York Post cartoon that some have interpreted as comparing President Barack Obama to a violent chimpanzee gunned down by police drew outrage Wednesday from civil rights leaders and elected officials who said it echoed racist stereotypes of blacks as monkeys.

The cartoon in Wednesday's Post by Sean Delonas shows two police officers, one with a smoking gun, standing over the body of a bullet-riddled chimp. The caption reads: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

The cartoon refers to a chimpanzee named Travis who was killed Monday by police in Stamford, Conn., after it mauled a friend of its owner.

At The Huffington Post, Sam Stein offers this analysis:

At its most benign, the cartoon suggests that the stimulus bill was so bad, monkeys may as well have written it. Others believe it compares the president to a rabid chimp. Either way, the incorporation of violence and (on a darker level) race into politics is bound to be controversial.  

For the next four or maybe eight years, I guess, all decent, right-thinking editorial cartoonists will avoid any reference to apes (or crime, sex, laziness, good rhythm, athletic prowess, fried chicken, watermelon, etc.) in drawings that can be seen as critical of the president. But Stein is a paragon of restraint and good sense compared to those "civil rights leaders and elected officials." According to the Associated Press, New York state Sen. Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn) called the cartoon "a 'throwback to the days' when black men were lynched." Barbara Ciara, president of the National Association of Black Journalists, declared that "to compare the nation's first African-American commander in chief to a dead chimpanzee is nothing short of racist drivel." To no one's surprise, Al Sharpton also weighed in:

The cartoon...is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this... Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him, it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?

Yes, it is, assuming that by "inferring" Sharpton means "implying" and that he thinks Delonas is implying the president (who did not actually write the bill, of course) is a monkey. I, for one, am offended—that critics of the cartoon seem to think the chimpanzee, a great ape and man's closest living relative, is a mere "monkey."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    They'll be changing their story when Obama rips someone's face off and eats their fingers.

  • ||

    No the offensive part is comparing an innocent, if man eating chimp, to members of Congress. I know the thing trying eat someone's fingures off, but that too much. The poor animal deserves better than being compared to Congress.

  • ||

    What she said. http://undercoverblackman.vox.com/library/audio/6a00cd970f81104cd500d09e662b32be2b.html

  • Elemenope||

    In other news, a guy who doesn't pay much attention to current news fails to get a joke and takes offense.

  • ||

    John, that wuz gold.

  • the innominate one||

    so you infer that Sharpton didn't mean infer?

  • Robert||

    The terms "monkey" and "ape" had currency for a long time as synonyms, it being only recently that the terms were drawn in distinction to each other.

  • ||

    I see that all of you fail to understand the cartoon. What you don't get is that it is a surrealist ode to Clint Eastwood. The cops are the vigilante cops from Magnum Force. The "monkey" is Clyde from Every Which Way But Loose. And the killing of the stimulus bill's writer represents Gran Turino by single-handedly taking care of the clearly wrong stimulus bill.

    If you look really closely at the upper right of the picture you can see where he stenciled "Rowdy Yates".

  • ||

    Ann Althouse has been going to town on the man eating chimp thing. In one of her posts she said "This is Darwin Award level stupidity. You don't keep a pet 200-pound ape around the house" to which a commenter responded

    "Please, don't ever let my wife hear you say this. I don't have any place else to go!"

  • Adam||

    I really don't get how this cartoon is supposed to be funny. In either a racist or a non-racist way. It gets about the same laugh factor as Family Circus.

  • Jonas||

    I think this is largely a case of projection. You'll notice that the people crawling up this cartoonist's ass make the basic assumption that right-wing cartoonists are inherently racist and will look for a reason to incorporate that bias into their work. But I think that they think that way because they're projecting their own proclivity for being biased onto other people.

    In other words, they're the sort of people who assume the worst about people they're afraid of, so they assume that everyone else is that way too and attack them for it. Am I making sense?

  • ||

    "Others believe it compares the president to a rabid chimp."

    Presidents don't write legislation. I can understand where some of the kool aid crowd believe otherwise, and they are the ones connecting a monkey to Obama.

    In the case of the current POTUS, all the President does is strut around like a model walking down a runway while the media swoon and take pictures.

    Sam Stein is one of Barry's fan club presidents. If you don't agree with Sam, he's not inviting you over to any of his parties anymore. EVAR.

  • Dr. Z||

    To suggest that we can learn anything about the simian nature from a study of man is sheer nonsense. Why, man is a nuisance. He spends 35% to 200% more in fruitless boondoggles than he brings in in revenue, then borrows to build green office buildings and ravages our future. The sooner he is exterminated, the better. It's a question of simian survival.

  • Bitter Clinger||

    Wait. I know how this can be fixed.

    There needs to be a Cartoonist Doctrine.

  • ||

    The visual equivalent of sticking your foot in your mouth.

    How thick a bubble does the New York Post have to be in, that nobody - the "artist," his editor, the layout guy, nobody - saw this cartoon and thought, "Ooh, people are going to think that's racist?"

    Let's say you're a city councilman in a town with a big Latino neighborhood. The neighborhood association sponsors a cleanup event. All weekend, the good people of that that neighborhood pick up litter, and paint stuff, and fix windows and whatnot. On Monday, they ask you to say a few words at a ceremony. Do you say, "Wow, you've got this place looking Spic and Span!"

    No, you probably don't. Your probably come up with some other way to make that particular point. Because you're probably not a complete idiot.

    It's probably also not a good idea to depict someone you just equated with your political opponents lying in a pool of his own blood with several bullet holes in his corpse.

  • ||

    I am sure that part of the newspaper bailout will be prohibitions against certain cartoons.

  • DannyK||


    For the next four or maybe eight years, I guess, all decent, right-thinking editorial cartoonists will avoid any reference to apes (or crime, sex, laziness, good rhythm, athletic prowess, fried chicken, watermelon, etc.) in drawings that can be seen as critical of the president.


    Well, yeah. I guess you can decide for yourself if this is an affront to free speech or just good sense in a country that is still dealing with a really horrible history of slavery and Jim Crow.

    I don't see this as unduly restrictive: people made fun of JFK and Reagan without drawing either of them as a drunken-pipe-smoking-leprechaun-with-a-clover-on-his-green-bowler-hat.

  • ||

    In other news, Sean Delonas will be the new cartoonist for Reason's Friday Funnies.

  • ||

    Jonas,

    I think a lot of people in NYC are disinclined to give the New York Post the benefit of the doubt - in terms of this being a conscious effort to depict Obama as a chimp who should be killed instead of just an impressive display of cluelessness - because they've got a history of tip-toeing up to the line of racism and strutting about how "unPC" they are.

  • Elemenope||

    I don't see this as unduly restrictive: people made fun of JFK and Reagan without drawing either of them as a drunken-pipe-smoking-leprechaun-with-a-clover-on-his-green-bowler-hat.

    If they had, it could have been hilarious. But now we'll never know, will we?

  • BPC||

    "How thick a bubble does the New York Post have to be in, that nobody - the "artist," his editor, the layout guy, nobody - saw this cartoon and thought, "Ooh, people are going to think that's racist?"

    How race-obsessed and politically correct do you have to be to assume that any depiction of a monkey in a political cartoon is meant to represent Obama?

    "It's probably also not a good idea to depict someone you just equated with your political opponents lying in a pool of his own blood with several bullet holes in his corpse."

    You do realize that a monkey actually was shot and killed by police a few days ago, right?

  • semm||

    The people who think this is racist are the same kind of people who think the term 'black hole' is racist. Who the fuck cares what they think?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20a-exAW6qc

  • ||

    Thought experiment:

    This cartoon appears in the Nation.

    The cop says "It looks like they're going to have to find someone else to be chair of the Republican National Committee."

    And don't give me this "Obama didn't write the bill" crap. Look back over the posts and comments on this very blog over the past two weeks about the stimulus bill. Seems to me that nobody had any trouble at all casting the stimulus as Barack Obama's baby, until they needed to explain away this cartoon.

    Also, what DannyK said. Ohnoes, people aren't going to depict the first black president as a monkey, because the public would object: how terrible!

  • ||

    I find it interesting that those who are outraged, or think that there is some merit to being outraged, haven't given a moment's thought to whether they've been played.

    Everybody knows the name of an obscure political cartoonist now. We've seen this done countless times by people outraging Christians or conservatives for publicity. I know you think your political opponents are dumb, but maybe they figured they could get in on the game too.

    How thick a bubble does the New York Post have to be in, that nobody - the "artist," his editor, the layout guy, nobody - saw this cartoon and thought, "Ooh, people are going to think that's racist?

    That's exactly my point.

  • ||

    We've only begun to see the beginning of the "Anyone who opposes Obama is a racist" movement.

    Fortunately, that will probably piss off a lot more people than it scares.

  • Qt. Jester||

    Monkeys, Chimps or any other simian could NOT given infinite time repeat every book in the British Library because they are incapable of producing randomness. They are irrational just like their human counterparts, Congressmen (and Congresswomen) and the majority of humans that elect them to office and keep them there once it's evident that they are incompetent.

    Initially, I did not appreciate the cartoon, but the response to it shows its inherent satirical value.

  • ||

    How race-obsessed and politically correct do you have to be to assume that any depiction of a monkey in a political cartoon is meant to represent Obama?

    On a scale of 1-10, you need to score a ZERO to think "the writer of the stimulus bill" refers to Barack Obama.

    On a scale of 1-10, you need to score a ZERO to realize that black people, and individual black politicians, have often been depicted as monkeys by those who oppose their political efforts.

    So...let's see...uh...carry the two...none. The answer to your question is "None."

    You do realize that a monkey actually was shot and killed by police a few days ago, right? Yes. I also realize that he did not write the stimulus bill, and that the entirety of the connection between a monkey and "the writer of the stimulus bill" was generated by the cartoonist.

  • ||

    This is one reason print media is not doing so well financially these days. Why would anyone pay for a copy of the NY Post, to see "creativity" such as that cartoon? I don't see any humor or profundity in the cartoon; all I notice is something that pretty obviously is going to offend quite a few people.

  • jgr||

    "On a scale of 1-10, you need to score a ZERO to think "the writer of the stimulus bill" refers to Barack Obama."

    Or, have an IQ in the same range.

  • ||

    Occam's Razor, Episiarch.

    MAYBE this was part of a fiendish master plan by the geniuses at the New York Post to put themselves at the center of a racial controversy right at the beginning of Barack Obama's term, or

    MAYBE this was a deliberate effort by the artist to depict Barack Obama as a monkey, like a cartoon from 1870,

    but most likely, they just ran a cartoon that was written to compare the stimulus bill to a chaotic mess that a rampaging animal would cause, and nobody from the white, right-leaning New York Post staff picked up on the unfortunate double entendre.

  • Orange Line Special||

    You know what's funny about this whole thing? That Reason hasn't come out foursquare for every citizen's/resident's right to own a primate.

    In fact, I intend to write an essay about that.

  • ||

    Or, have an IQ in the same range.

    OK. Virtually every writer at Reason Magazine has an IQ of zero, because over the past two weeks, they have all identified the stimulus bill as being Obama's.

    I think you insult them needlessly, jgr.

  • Qt. Jester||

    Of course, we are race obsessed. That is a very 'human' (i.e. irrational) quality. Of course, many of us are offended. Of course, that's a major point of the cartoon.

    Now I will make it more offensive for you (and maybe someone else already has.) Rememberwhen some people used as an excuse that Obama wasn't a good potential choice because he'd probably be assassinated by some racist fuck?

    I am wholeheartedly surprised that hasn't been suggested yet. Do the math: 0 + O= Infinity.

  • Sadistic Voyeur||

    What's tattooed on the inside of Obama's lip?
    Inflate to 50 psi.

  • BPC||

    "On a scale of 1-10, you need to score a ZERO to think "the writer of the stimulus bill" refers to Barack Obama."

    He did not write the bill, don't try and project your white-guilt addled conscience on everyone else.

    "Yes. I also realize that he did not write the stimulus bill, and that the entirety of the connection between a monkey and "the writer of the stimulus bill" was generated by the cartoonist."

    Oh really the chimp didn't write the stimulus? I guess I've been wasting my time writing all those letters of complaint to Travis Herold (Chimpanzee-CT).

    Seriously though, you understand that it was a freaking cartoon and not meant to be taken literally right?

  • Warty||

    Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.

    I see that all of you fail to understand the cartoon. What you don't get is that it is a surrealist ode to Clint Eastwood.

    Good...bad...the cop's the one with the gun.

  • Qt. Jester||

    Joe,

    Why is it that when certain people disagree with opposing intellectual forces, they dismiss the IQs of their opponents as zilch?

    Interesting question.

  • ||

    I don't need to project anything to note that every single post and thread about the stimulus bill describes it as Barack Obama's.

    All I need to do is scroll down the page, and click no the links.

    It's funny - before this cartoon came out, can anyone recall any instances of people saying that it wasn't Obama's bill? Anywhere, even once?

    Now, however, it's an indication of some deep-seated psychological problem (you know, one of those deep-seated psychological problems that only right-wingers can see) to identify Barack Obama with the stimulus.

    Sure. That'll work. It's just enough of a fig leaf that people who really, really want to believe it will be able to convince themselves.

  • ||

    Wait a minute, I thought the Chimp was a symbol for Bush. That's the way it's been for the last eight years.

    But I'm old, I just can't keep up with all the change.

  • Warty||

    Good point, Isaac. What would the cartoons have been if this had happened a month ago?

  • Adam||

    The first thing I thought of was, "Haha, yes, the stimulus bill IS so idiotic that a monkey could have written it."

  • ||

    Seriously though, you understand that it was a freaking cartoon and not meant to be taken literally right?

    Do you know what the word "literally" means, BPC?

    Picture of an ape. Person A says "That's an ape, and there can't possibly be any other meaning." Person B says, "That ape can be read as something else."

    Quick, which one of those people might be having trouble understanding that cartoons aren't meant to be taken literally?

    The answer might surprise you!

  • ||

    Isaac Bartram | February 19, 2009, 8:10pm | #

    Wait a minute, I thought the Chimp was a symbol for Bush. That's the way it's been for the last eight years.


    The depiction of black people as monkeys and apes in cartoons goes back a lot longer than that.

    Are you people serious? Are you actually claiming not to know this? You've never heard before of black people being depicted as monkeys?

  • jgr||

    "OK. Virtually every writer at Reason Magazine has an IQ of zero, because over the past two weeks, they have all identified the stimulus bill as being Obama's."

    I dunno, joe, I don't think that any of us think that you designed your computer, but it's still YOUR computer.

  • Eric Haskell||

    Not only do I believe that this cartoon is racist, I think it's clear that situation it is referring to was fueled by racism.

    Obviously, the cops that shot the chimp were both racist and Obama haters. When they saw the chimp they immediately made the connection, and used the chimp as a chance to carry out their racist hatred of Obama by proxy.

    That, of course, is the only possible conclusion.

  • ||

    Seriously, if the cop had said "Looks like they're going to have to find a new chairman for the RNC," none of you oh-so-colorblind hunters of THE REAL RACISTS would have had a second thought.

    If you're the editor of that newspaper, and this cartoon comes across your desk, you don't send it back. It never occurs to you that it's going to be a problem. You'd be totally blindsided when there's a backlash.

    That's pretty sad, if true.

  • Warty||

    The cartoon would have been a lot funnier if the cop was telling the dead chimp to go back to Africa.

  • ||

    So, if you saw this cartoon, and you were with your best libertarian buddy, who's black (bear with me here; it's a thought experiment), you would have nudged him and said, "Look at this, isn't that awesome?" without a second thought about how he might react to a cartoon...

    about the person behind the stimulus bill...

    being a monkey...

    shot dead by the police.


    Denial: more than a river in Egypt.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Good to see joe's back to take on MNG's challenge for Hit and Run's Most Self Righteous Busy Body crown.

    I'm rooting for you, joe, you can do it.

  • ||

    "The poor animal deserves better than being compared to Congress."

    LOL!!

    Bravo John!

  • ||

    Hey, we all know Superbama didnt write that stimulus, Queen Palosi did, and I am offended by the comparison of this poor ape to Pelosi, he certaintly does not deserve that level of hatred!

  • anarch||

    Another Chimp of Comment #259 = anarch, who couldn't wait for it to make real news, ie here.

  • Elemenope||

    Seriously, if the cop had said "Looks like they're going to have to find a new chairman for the RNC," none of you oh-so-colorblind hunters of THE REAL RACISTS would have had a second thought.

    joe, I'm sorry, but that is an excruciatingly stupid comparison. On account of

    "the stimulus bill reads like it was written by a chimp!"

    has literally none of the implications of

    "the new RNC chair sure looks like a chimp!"

    And the only person who could possibly get "racism" out of that cartoon should be able to rub enough brain cells together to understand that it was a *literal reference to something that happened a few days before!* and abort their ridiculous thought-process before it made it to their lips/fingertips.

    When you have to strain in the way someone strains when they're squeezing out a constipated log in order to read racism into a text, the text isn't racist.

  • ||

    jgr,

    I think we might be talking past each other here; I don't think the cartoonist intended this to be about Obama.

    I think there's a rather obvious, unfortunate double entendre that he, and his editor, and his publisher, were completely unaware of, that somebody at some point probably should have noticed.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    So, if you saw this cartoon, and you were with your best libertarian buddy, who's black (bear with me here; it's a thought experiment), you would have nudged him and said, "Look at this, isn't that awesome?" without a second thought about how he might react to a cartoon...

    No, I wouldn't. But that's because its not really funny, it's got nothing to do with racism. The fact that the stimulus bill is so poorly written that a chimp could write it is pretty obvious. Making a joke about that is as insightful as the stuff we see in Friday Funnies.

  • ||

    Elemenope,

    Who said anything about Steele's looks? He's been a catastrophe already, and the RNC keeps tripping over its own feet. It's like it's being run by a chimp.

    That's every bit as plausible a deflection as the ones we're seeing here.

    And the only person who could possibly get "racism" out of that cartoon should be able to rub enough brain cells together to understand that it was a *literal reference to something that happened a few days before!* and abort their ridiculous thought-process before it made it to their lips/fingertips. Have you ever known any actual, out and proud racist people, Elemenope? I have.

    There is nothing that warms their hearts more than an opportunity to say something forbidden about race and be able to deny it. I used to play cards with these guys at work. When someone stumbled over their bid - "Three, no two. Two." - they always told the same joke.

    "Are you a reneger?"

    "I ain't no reneger! You a reneger?"

    "No-ho, don't call me a reneger."

    Renege is perfectly innocent word, but so what? Those guys knew exactly what they were doing.

    Yes, there's another explanation for the cartoon, and that was almost certainly what the cartoonist intended. There's also an unfortunate double entendre there, which doesn't require the slightest bit of straining or squeezing to figure out.

  • Spoonman.||

    You used to play cards at work? With racists? The SPLC has its eye on you.

  • HammeredHead||

    Everything Obusha does offends me. Therefore, I just can't get worked up about the cartoon.

    AG Holder is far more racist than this cartoonist anyway.

  • ||

    Nice dodge, VGO.

    Let's pretend this was a funny cartoon. And, that there is a black libertarian in Vermont.

    It totally doesn't occur to you that the cartoon is in bad taste, and maybe he won't appreciate it?

    I don't believe you.

  • Elemenope||

    joe, not that I buy your equivalence between the RNC chair and the stimulus, but beyond that, if people want to giggle in the corner about how secretly and cryptically racist they can be, why should anyone else give a shit?

    It's like Carlin's joke about "cock" being a two-way word. Sure, kids think it's great they can say "cock" and have an out that it also refers to a bird, but do you actually know many adults that care when they giggle about it?

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Good going, joe.

    Way to distract us from all that change to hopeful torture and indefinite detention.

    Love the way Democrat lobbyists are saying "yes we can" to all that patronage too.

  • $||

    "I guess they're going to have to find someone else to chair the Republican Party" would have been hilarious, too!

  • Sadistic Voyeur||

    Joe is such a damn nagger

  • BDB||

    H&R always seemed "empty" without joe and Teh joe Hatedom.

    I'm strangely glad to see both have returned.

  • matt2||

    I honestly didn't make the connection when I first saw this, mostly because Obama clearly didn't write the bill, and has received much criticism recently for "turning it over to Pelosi", etc.

    That said, I showed it to wifey, who's not particularly interested in politics, without any accompanying text. She immediately made the connection and thought it questionable. I guess my conclusion is that those most familiar with the details of the bill (i.e. commenters here) would interpret this more accurately than those who see it and think stimulus... Obama... monkey. To the uninterested observer, it's borderline racist.

    So I've gotta go with Joe here.

  • jtuf||

    Isaac Bartram | February 19, 2009, 8:10pm | #

    Wait a minute, I thought the Chimp was a symbol for Bush. That's the way it's been for the last eight years.

    But I'm old, I just can't keep up with all the change.



    Great point. Comparing a politicians to an animal is a crude insult regarless of race. I doesn't contribute to civil discourse, because it doesn't point out any rational argument against the politician. There is a history of refering to non-WASPs as animals, so there can be biggotry in addition to crudness if a cartoonist called a minority candidate an animal. However, any taboo on calling politicians animals should apply equally to all politicians. This cartoon case highlights the hypocrisy of liberals when it comes to speech taboos. Google "Barack Obama" and "monkey" excluding "Bush", and the first page of results is a list of articles saying how wrong it is to compare Obama to a monkey or chimp. Google "George Bush" and "monkey" excluding "Obama", and the first page of results is a list of articles saying that Bush is just like or worse than a monkey or chimp.

    The two lists includes these gems from the Guardian.
    Bush Monkey

    Obama Monkey

  • ||

    Elemenope,

    Of course you don't buy it; you've gotten your back up now.

    if people want to giggle in the corner about how secretly and cryptically racist they can be, why should anyone else give a shit?

    1. The editorial page of the New York Post isn't a private corner. Since when is the subject matter on a newspaper's editorial page unfit for discussion?

    2. The violence. The chimp - overtly equated with the editorial page's political opponents - is lying dead in a pool of his own blood with several bullet holes in his corpse as the police stand over him. That's not cool. Oh, btw, the two cops are white, and the leader of the political movement they're opposed to is black. Let's make it a fucking Hallmark card.

  • BDB||

    My thoughts on the cartoon:

    Even if it couldn't be interpreted as racist, it still wouldn't be funny.

    This MetaCartoon states my views on the whole matter even better than I could myself.

  • Qt. Jester||

    Joe,

    You fuck! Libertarians believe in individuals. We don't care what tribe, race, clan, etc. you feel you belong to or for that matter you feel persons not yourself belong to. Race is dead! You're visiting the wrong site if you're trying to stop extra-judicial killings, lynchings, and support for putting minorities in prison.

    I don't think you are IQ-less, but you've been posting here for at least a while. What is your mission?

  • ||

    Google "Barack Obama" and "monkey" excluding "Bush", and the first page of results is a list of articles saying how wrong it is to compare Obama to a monkey or chimp. Google "George Bush" and "monkey" excluding "Obama", and the first page of results is a list of articles saying that Bush is just like or worse than a monkey or chimp.

    Oh, please. You acknowledge yourself that there is an element above and beyond simple crudeness when minorities are compared to animals, and yet liberals are hypocrites when they object to a crude, racist cartoon, but not to cartoons that are simply crude?

    Hypocrisy requires that somebody violate their professed standards. I haven't seen any liberals complain that crudeness violates their standards; I've seem a whole lot of them complain that racism does.

    You acknowledge that there is another standard that people could legitimately complain about, and then object to people complaining on those grounds? Please.

  • huh?||

    "No-ho, don't call me a reneger."

    Renege is perfectly innocent word, but so what? Those guys knew exactly what they were doing.


    Speaking of... I heard the Tyson Chandler trade was canceled. I guess the Thunder reneged.

    Then again, that trade would never have happened if the Hornets weren't so niggardly.

  • BDB||

    I fully defend the right of this person to publish this cartoon.

    I also fully support the right of people to say what a dumb-assed racist move it was.

  • ||

    I didn't realize I had a mission, but I think my point is pretty clear.

    This cartoon sucks. It reminds most people who have a passing familiarity with American history of another set of cartoons, really awful racist cartoons. That makes it suck even more.

    On top of that, it has violent content, which (taken with the previous observation) makes it suck even more.

    And, finally, people pretending not to know this, or who get their panties in a wad because I dared to notice this, can suck my balls.

    There, that's my mission: to get you to suck my balls. Happy?

  • Elemenope||

    joe --

    Dog whistles are like one's own private corner. It was a metaphor.

    On your second point, does a cartoonist have to make one of their cops black in order to banish all possibility of being wildly and ridiculously misinterpreted, or would that simply be read as "cop's black; must mean he hates his own. Cartoonist is taking pot-shots at internecine violence in the black community AND taking shots at Obama. What a racist!"

    Spending excruciating amounts of time and effort banishing any possibility of ambiguity seems like a ridiculous requirement. It also, and more importantly, RUINS THE FUCKING JOKE!

  • jtuf||

    Moving from the general standards about animals and politicians in cartoons to this specific cartoon, I don't think this cartoon refers to Obama. It was in poor taste, but it was motivated more by current news than historic stereotypes. Maybe it's a good thing that the average person is unaware of the stereotype that depicts minorities as animals. I've seen it often enough in the Victorian Era anthropology and biology articles I read for my MS, but that was the first time I encountered the stereotype. Joe seems certain that everyone knows the stereotype, but I guess my social circle just doesn't spread that type of information.

  • Elemenope||

    Also, joe, context is really important. If this were 1945 and the newspaper were an Alabama local rag, I'd be right with you.

    This is 2009. In the New York Post. Two days after an actual chimp was shot, no less.

  • BDB||

    I mean, if you didn't want to be racist, make it three chimps and give them typewriters.

    Or write "I guess the President will have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill".

  • BDB||

    I don't think the guy who drew this was a racist. He's just a doofus with a bad/negligent editor.

  • ||

    BDF - please shut up

  • ||

    Elemonope, I know you have your back up at this point, but you're making yourself look like an ass.

    It is neither wild not ridiculous to see a racial subtext to that cartoon.

    Just stop. You're going to look at this thread tomorrow, and feel like an idiot. You can see what's in the cartoon. Everybody in the world can see what's in the cartoon. Neither you, nor anyone else harrumphing and denying has answered my question with "No, I'd have no problem at all taping this cartoon to a black colleague's door. He'd think it was hilarious."

    You know what the problem is. The ridiculous, wild stretching and straining going on here is yours.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    'I, for one, am offended-that critics of the cartoon seem to think the chimpanzee, a great ape and man's closest living relative, is a mere "monkey."'

    Oh, come on, Nick, dead chimpanzee jokes are FUNNY! Lighten up!

    OK, to calm down a bit, yes, it's lame that people don't know a great ape from a monkey, but I don't think dead monkey jokes are all that funny either.

  • entomologist ||

    There is also a history of referring to wasps as animals.

  • ||

    Maybe it's a good thing that the average person is unaware of the stereotype that depicts minorities as animals.

    The average person isn't. The average person is quite aware of the racist trope comparing black people to monkeys.

  • snobbish non-liberal||

    I haven't seen any liberals complain that crudeness violates their standards

    Now why, oh why, would that be?

  • ||

    I double dog dare anyone reading this to clip the cartoon, show it to a black coworker or boss, and say "Isn't that hilarious."

    I fucking dare you. There's no way any reasonable person could take offense. It's about the stimulus bill being all kooky, and only hypersensitive (and guilty! Let's not forget the people who are bothered by racism are all consumed by guilt) liberals could possibly read a racial subtext into it.

    Go on, Elemenope. There must be some black coworker you're on speaking terms with; will you show him the cartoon and act like you think it's funny?

    I don't think you will.

  • BDF||

    Schempf-

    No.

  • ||

    You are all missing the point, and that is that we want to know why joe was mysteriously absent from a blog that he virtually lives on for a week or so. At exactly the same time that Obama pulled some fast ones on torture and other things.

    Please, please tell us you were on another cruise. Which you posted from...that time.

  • Elemenope||

    It is neither wild not ridiculous to see a racial subtext to that cartoon.

    Are you serious? We are living in the time period when NORTH fucking CAROLINA gave its electoral votes to a black guy, and you're reading racial subtexts and nefarious intents into a cartoon in the New York Post?

    Yes, there are racists in America, even still. No, none of their dialogue nor subtext is any longer acceptable in American society. If they are reduced, as you claim, to dog-whistle signaling so obscure that 99% of the people who hear/read it don't understand what they're talking about, what the hell is the big deal? Seriously?

    At *worst* some very secretly racist cartoonist got a giggle out of throwing a racist subtext into a cartoon so veiled that barely anyone noticed it.

    Far more likely is that some guy who didn't at the time he drew it either have in mind every possible thing that a person could think while looking at his cartoon or care about the same drew a middlingly funny cartoon about the hodgepodge nature of the authorship of an abomination of a bill, in the context of a readily available metaphor from current events.

    Honestly I think that the PETA people have a more legitimate complaint with this one than the dog-whistle racism people. And that's certainly a constellation of words you'll never see me type again.

  • Qt. Jester||

    Joe,

    I don't want to suck your balls. And to your credit, I don't even think you want me to suck your balls (I hope I am right, which is why I remain anonymous still).

    I am suggesting that converting the converted is ridiculous venture. There is no bevy of racism at Reason.com. What there is is a core of individuals who are passionate about remaining individuals. The racist name-calling is quite at home at so many other sites. I'm not sure why you feel so many of need to repent. We never did anything wrong in the first place

  • Elemenope||

    Since I have exactly two co-workers, neither of which are black, that will be a little hard. However, some of my friends are black. (We tread softly here into cliche territory. :)

    Tell you what, I'll ask them about it on Facebook and let you know what they say.

  • a sufficient number of chimpan||

    a constellation of words you'll never see me type again

    Cuz we'll take yur job.

  • ¢||

    we want to know why joe was mysteriously absent

    Because there was, briefly, a God.

  • ||

    I'm just visiting.

    This thread is reminding me why I bailed.

    At exactly the same time that Obama pulled some fast ones on torture and other things. Oh, bullshit, you've been singing that same tune since before he was inaugurated.

  • ||

    This thread is reminding me why I bailed.

    Mm'kay. After years (it has been years, right?) of posting on this blog prodigiously (possibly more than anyone else in terms of total volume), you "bailed" at exactly the time you would get slammed for about-faces by the guy you passionately supported.

    Sure. And I have some property in the Everglades I think you'd be interested in.

  • jtuf||

    Joe,

    The fact that a hypothetical cartoon comparing a minority person to an animal repeats historiec biggotry only makes it mildly worse. The crudeness of comparing any politician to an animal overshadows it. In my book, the cartoons comparing Bush to a chimp get a -100. A hypothetical cartoon comparing Obama to a chimp would get a -103. When liberals object only to the perceived racism of a cartoon and not to the crudeness of it they violate the principle of equal protection. A white protestant president should also be spared crude cartoons. It is just basic civility.

  • Elemenope||

    joe -

    I'm with epi on that being pretty weak. I don't agree with the whole "it's cause Obama's here and you're embarrassed" charge, but if you're just tired of posting/arguing/fighting the good liberal fight because you wanna move on to greener pastures, just say so. This thread is not markedly different from many you joyfully and passionately posted on in the past, and implying that things have markedly changed in that regard is disingenuous at best.

  • jtuf||

    Everybody in the world can see what's in the cartoon.

    This may come as a shock to you, Joe. But there are people on this planet who see things differently than your circle of friends.

  • ||

    LMNOP,

    We are living in the time period when NORTH fucking CAROLINA gave its electoral votes to a black guy, and you're reading racial subtexts and nefarious intents into a cartoon in the New York Post?

    NO! How many times do I have to say this?

    I am NOT reading intents into the cartoon! I think the guy put his foot in his mouth, and his editors and coworkers are as clueless as him... and some of you, apparently.

    I do NOT think the cartoon was intended to be about Obama. I think this is the graphical version of something you say comes our wrong, and you end up looking really, really stupid. I think the intent of the cartoonist was "the stimulus was so screwed up, it's like it was written by a rampaging monkey." He just really, really blew the joke. Badly. Offensively. Ignorantly.

    Really, somebody should have caught this. This is a newspaper going out on news stands and stuff. Idiots.

    It's a rather large, significant blind spot they've got.

  • Hit and Run reader||

    basic civility

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

  • jtuf||

    joe | February 19, 2009, 9:08pm | #

    Maybe it's a good thing that the average person is unaware of the stereotype that depicts minorities as animals.

    The average person isn't. The average person is quite aware of the racist trope comparing black people to monkeys.



    We would have to do a national poll to figure out if you or I am correct about the average person's view. I can tell you that the community I grew up in did not use these racist stereotypes. That's why I was so shocked to see them in 19th century scientific papers when I went to grad school. Judging from your different viewpoint, I conclude that you grew up in a different environment from me.

  • ||

    you "bailed" at exactly the time you would get slammed for about-faces by the guy you passionately supported.

    Which time? November? December? Early January? Late January? February?

    You people have been doing the same thing, with the implausible interpretations of Obama's every action on detention and torture, since he won the election. Probably before. This week is no different.

    It's the same good-not-great record he's been building on these issues the whole time, vastly better than Bush, but enough that you can draw a false equivalency if you're really, really eager to do so.

    If it's anything, it's the economy. You people have all gone to your happy place. You live in a demimonde where Barney Frank regulated the mortgage market into the ground so Charles Schumer could cause a recession, and history proves that the New Deal didn't get anybody a job. And that's all the blog is about anymore.

  • economist||

    "So, if you saw this cartoon, and you were with your best libertarian buddy, who's black (bear with me here; it's a thought experiment)"

    Art P.O.G. might have something to say about that. But he hasn't been here recently.

  • Qt. Jester||

    And to respond again,

    Joe, political cartoons rarely are intended to elicit laughter. They are intended to provoke debate. The political cartoon we are talking about is obtuse. Probably intentionally so. Maybe not. Maybe trying to test hypersensitivity; maybe not. Maybe intentionally hate-crime-worthy; probably not.

    So...would I show this to a colleague that you would identify as African-American (and I am aware of traits used to define such individuals although I find them superficial)? Sure, I would have no problem. But I wouldn't laugh, because the cartoon isn't funny. It's provocative, yes. And I'd continue to have a more than likely engaging conversation about its implications, limitations, etc. without suggesting anyone to suck my balls or discredit their IQ.

  • Elemenope||

    joe --

    How is it better to read *possible HYPOTHETICAL* intents/readings into the cartoon?

    The guy made a joke-metaphor out of a chimp getting shot, and all of a sudden he should know that he's gonna get read as a racist because the joke is about politics and some politicians are black?

    I mean, how DARE he be so insensitive to make a joke comparing the writing of a convoluted stimulus bill to a chimpanzee mashing at a typewriter! He should RESPECT that fifty years ago in a different part of the country, people used to use a superficially similar joke to make racist commentary, thus ruining all chimpanzee jokes forever!

    If that's the standard, it would be safer to just not make jokes at all, I guess.

  • Who gets the allusion?||

    Tim for the win. Served on a glass plate.

  • ||

    This thread is not markedly different from many you joyfully and passionately posted on in the past

    No, it's not. Like I said, it reminds me of why I left.

    But there are people on this planet who see things differently than your circle of friends.

    Yeah, whatever Randroid.

  • ||

    jtuf,

    I can tell you that the community I grew up in did not use these racist stereotypes. That's why I was so shocked to see them in 19th century scientific papers when I went to grad school. Judging from your different viewpoint, I conclude that you grew up in a different environment from me.

    Actually, no. Now that you mention it, me, too - although as an undergrad.

    OK, fair point. Let me say, any literate person, in addition to a wide swath of the country as a whole is going to get this.

    An editor should be a literate person.

  • ||

    @ Courtjester:

    So...would I show this to a colleague that you would identify as African-American

    Oh, isn't that precious?

    Yup. Out of here.

  • ||

    You people have been doing the same thing, with the implausible interpretations of Obama's every action on detention and torture, since he won the election. Probably before. This week is no different.

    Awesome. Like this? Where you were curiously absent? Yeah, you left because the blog became too much the same.

    The fact that you even think a single person believes that is entertaining beyond belief. AWESOME.

  • ||

    Hey Joe,

    You're a stupid, race-obsessed fuck.

    Just thought I'd throw that out there!

  • jtuf||

    joe | February 19, 2009, 9:01pm | #

    ...

    And, finally, people pretending not to know this, or who get their panties in a wad because I dared to notice this, can suck my balls.

    There, that's my mission: to get you to suck my balls. Happy?



    Joe,

    I have an account on www.cam4.com with the same username, "jtuf". I'm on sporadically, but I usually do a show Tuesday nights. You can check my wall for the time. I'll gladly cyber t-bag you there, provided one I'm not already busy with one of my friends by the time you show up. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not into crossdressing, so I won't be wearing any panties (in a wad or otherwise). However, if you were using the terms "panties in a wad" and "suck my balls" to express agression and dominance, then you really own me and the LBGT community an apology. I would expect a liberal like you to know better than to perpetuate patriarchal tripe.

  • ||

    "If it's anything, it's the economy. You people have all gone to your happy place. You live in a demimonde where Barney Frank regulated the mortgage market into the ground so Charles Schumer could cause a recession, and history proves that the New Deal didn't get anybody a job. And that's all the blog is about an"

    Creak - crack - crash! I think we just lost Joe.

  • Two trailer park girls go roun||

    round the outside.

  • Gilbert Martin ||

    Nancy Pelosi had a lot more to do with writing the stimulus bill than Obama did so it could logically be assumed that the chimp depicts her.

    And even if one assumes it was intended to depict Obama, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    There have been numerous political cartoons depicting George Bush as a chimp and I don't recall hearing any objection about that from the blowhards who are yapping about this.

  • Seward||

    Somewhat off topic, I think it would be a good thing if this were not viewed with any racist subtext. Indeed, we ought to be able to call anyone of any shade of hue a monkey!

    What did I see when I saw it? I thought it was referring to Congress critters, because they are the body who writes the bills that become law. We should remind ourselves from time to time that we have no single head of government.

  • Qt. Jester||

    Joe,

    thanks for leaving...with character assination, of course. Sure, you don't know me because I am anonymous. I am Qt. Jester. But I really exist.

    But you cannot fathom someone who respects people for their person without in some sorta way taking into account their physical features.

    A true racist is exposed...and it is you Joe, you fuck. Good bye.

  • ||

    People are responsible for their own thoughts and intentions. Not your projected obsessions.

  • Qt. Jester||

    assassination

  • SIV||

    Where is the Statue of Liberty with her face and hands ripped off?

  • Orange Line Special||

    I am happy that Reason is finally rid of "joe" and his LiberalRacism.

  • Hogan||

    siv wins thread

  • Hogan||

    shut the fuck up, lonewacko

  • Seward||

    SIV,

    I don't get it.

  • ||

    Where is the Statue of Liberty with her face and hands ripped off?

    LOL

    LoneDimwit, please do not chime in on anything, ever. Thx k bye

  • Get it right||

    sauce for the gender

  • ||

    It would've been a real hoot if Delonas had drawn the cops black and Hispanic. Pass the collards will ya? Over sensitive twats.

  • ||

    Joe's departure takes me back to my school yard days. We had a big bully, Vince Vianti, who was always stealing hats, glasses, etc... from the smaller kids. Once day a bigger kid stole Vince's hat and he stormed off crying to the principals office.

    Bye bye Joe!

  • SIV||

    Does anyone know what model/caliber service pistol the police shot the chimp with?

    I'm always looking for examples to denigrate the stopping power of the "fotay" and the abomination that goes by the name of ".357 Sig".

  • jackass||

    "Does anyone know what model/caliber service pistol the police shot the chimp with?"

    I believe it was a 14.88

  • porch monkey||

    I thought everyone heard of me. I'm the racial epithet that joe was alluding to.

    However, joe also made a remark that there are no black libertarians. Some guy who used to post here, ben? referred to himself as black. There were a few black Ron Paul supporters which I had met. Years ago, I met a guy from the national LP who was black (forget his name). Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell are three libertarian luminaries that I can think of.

    I probably know more black libertarians than black trade union members. The local trades are institutionally racist.

    The NY Post should have flagged the cartoon. It wasn't funny and could be misconstrued (tho maybe they didn't for that reason). That being said, I think a lot is being made of it.

  • Elemenope||

    SIV --

    If I had to guess, 9x19 Parabellum. Berettas and Glock 17s are, after all, still crazy popular among the boys in blue.

  • Elemenope||

    I do find it tangentially amusing that the only object in the cartoon that was drawn with any sort of proportion and detail was the gun.

  • MJ||

    I don't think this is particularly good cartoon but I also think it takes someone with a chip on their shoulder to conclude that the chimp must refer to Obama specifically. Somebody who has not been paying attention to the political process might likely associate Obama before anyone else with the bill. But why should the conclusions of the ignoramuses preclude certain unflattering metaphors for Democrats?

    However,even if chimp=Obama was the artists intention: So what?

    Is Obama to be sheltered from every insult that has a potentially racist connotation, which could be used against any white politician without anyone batting an eye? Does that leave much left?

    Liberals need to man up here. As the old saw goes: politics ain't beanbag. All this is showing what thin-skinned whiny little bitches populate the left.

  • anarch||

    In related news, PETA has been harassing the owner by phone, and the NY Times ran an article - mysteriously taken down? - about the creepily close relations mistress and chimp had conducted over the years, making it look like an accident waiting to happen.

  • MNG||

    Courtjester is like Stephen Colbert, he doesn't see race.

    People tell him the President is black and he hesitantly agrees, though he just doesn't see it.

  • MNG||

    As to teh cartoo, who in the world could give two shits as to what is in the frigging' NY Post? That's a sorry excuse for a paper. Let's just say that as a comic book it makes a terrible newspaper...

  • MNG||

    And shouldn't Mangu-Ward have posted about the chimp shooting writing about her desire to eat the chimp?

  • MJ||

    I suspect that joe is leaving because a couple of weeks with a Democrat administration was enough for him realize that he would be doing nothing but spinning like a top for four long years defending it.

  • Michael P.||

    I haven't read all of the above comments and don't know if it has been mentioned, but this came to mind for some reason:

    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NY_Post_depict_Iraq_Study_Group_1207.html

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    However, joe also made a remark that there are no black libertarians.

    Well, there's this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Monds

    1,000,000+ votes ain't that bad for someone who doesn't exist.

  • SIV||

    Mr. Chartreuse,

    Yes from the Great Libertarian State of Georgia.We're ready to bail on the Union again.

  • anarch||

    Sorry, PETA has denied the allegation.

    But in breaking news, the Post has apologized, giving rise to these beauts:

    [Sharpton, in a released statement:] "At this point there will be no cancellation of the rally and though we think it is the right thing for them to apologize to those they offended, they seem to want to want to blame the offense on those of whom raised the issue, rather than take responsibility for what they did.

    "However, rather than engage as they are in name calling back and forth, we will make a collective decision on how to proceed. All of us can only wish the New York Post had taken a more mature position when the issue was first raised rather than belatedly come with a conditional statement after people began mobilizing and preparing to challenge the waiver of News Corp in the City where they own several television stations and newspapers."

    During Thursday's protest, CBS 2 HD cameras captured woman carefully ripping up a copy of The Post.

    "How dare you violate the president of the United States?" she said.

  • alan||

    joe is a cynic not an anti-racist. The target of the cartoon was clearly the writers of the legislation, Pelosi's staffers specifically and more generally, liberals who went along with the porkilus bill. It attacks their intelligence to which liberals tend to pat their own backs for what they assume to possess in great abundance, so the cynical use of race to try to create a firestorm over a cartoon where they are the subject. Welcome to the Taliban, libs. You will definitely find it to your liking.

  • tarran||

    There was a Far Side cartoon, sadly not on the web, showing a dog howling triumphantly on top of an overturned car, with the caption "When dogs dream" or something. Obviously the picture showed what a dog was aiming for when it chased a car.

    The only problem was that Larson has accidentally drawn the crankcase too close to the dog's tummy. Neither he nor his editors had a dirty mind. however, thousands of readers in religiously conservative newspaper markets did; they complained vociferously about the disgusting cartoon showing a dog having sex with a car.

    The reaction of guys like Sharpton remind me of those sexophobes who are so fixated on sex that they see it in everyday objects that have nothing to do with sex.

    Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon.

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    We're ready to bail on the Union again.

    Arizona might have you guys beat though :)

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/2r/bills/hcr2034p.htm

  • ||

    Joe is leaving because it is difficult to be a one-dimensional hack when your team is in charge of all three branches and clearly going to continue more or less the same policies that you've spent the last however many years attacking.

    Better to declare yourself a victim of the unReasonable, take your ball and go home.

    I admit I don't as much enjoyment out of it as I might. Although it clearly went over the head of many of the naive fools here, it's been clear to those paying attention that Joe really didn't have as many substantive policy differences with what the Bush Administration's been doing.

    That's why in so many instances the best he could do was find some tangential or stylistic point to distinguish himself from them, which would allow him to attack in chorus with much of the Reason commentariate. And why as it became clear the Democrats were in charge he started slowly shifting his rhetoric and emphasis. By and large, he simply didn't like who were the one implimenting the policies. In that sense, now that the Democrats are instituting them he gets to have his cake and eat it too.

    So what's worse? That he's a disingenuous, sometimes clever, but nonetheless unwise little partisan? Or that he was able to fool so many people here for so long?

    Hope. Change. Fraud. Fools.

  • Elemenope||

    All the joe-hate around here is pretty gratuitous. While I think he went uncomfortably stupid on this particular subject, usually he's decently insightful and brings a perspective to the discussion that elevates the average day at Hit & Run above the ideological masturbation exercise it otherwise would be. (Lately, there have even been Libertarian stroke videos of Friedman talking economics).

    But looking around the blogs (just took a gander at Mother Jones coverage, which I have to say the coverage *itself* was pretty reasonable), liberal blog commenters everywhere have essentially gone full retard. I guess I'll have to eat my words predicting that liberals wouldn't scream racism at the first opportunity.

  • i like joe||

  • alan||

    Is this some of that 'incite' you are speaking of:

    joe | February 19, 2009, 8:02pm | #
    You would have to be a fucking idiot, slathered in moron juice, deep fried it imbecile grease, then wrapped in a floury dipshit burrito, to have every believed for a fraction of a second that the Fairness Doctrine was going to be re-implemented.

  • alan||

    BTW, the subject wasn't whether or not it would pass legislative muster, but why were Pelosi and Schumer saying nice things about it in the first place
    (hint, Clear Channel has got some deep pockets!).

  • Seward||

    Elemenope,

    All I can really say is whether one finds what joe contributes or not is in the eye of the beholder.

    IMHO, he's a mixed bag; just like most bloggers (which likely includes myself).

    As for the ideological masturbation, well, as modern liberals are often saying, we need "alternative voices" in the debate; guess what, libertarians are about as alternative a voice as one can find and the fact that we (if I can be counted as one) are edging our way into that debate should to be frank be celebrated by modern liberals.

    Anyway, the stimulus package and other related things that free market types don't like should at the very least prove to be an interesting natural experiment.

  • Elemenope||

    alan --

    Considering that the Fairness Doctrine is the GOP equivalent of Moby Dick, yeah, actually, he nailed it.

    I think I put it the other day...

    John:Fairness Doctrine::joe:Card Check

    Or maybe it was R C Dean. In any case, everyone gets one stupid thing to obsess about it, and hates being called on it being a stupid obsession. Could joe have been more polite? Sure. But polite isn't the social norm in these parts. It's like expecting a guy at a freestyle rap battle to not trash-talk.

  • WTF||

    And we're somehow different from the militant Islamists in getting upset over cartoons?

    Let's grow up a bit people. Perhaps the chimp should have had "Sharpton" or "Obama" written on it for clarity.

  • ecnomsit||

    I'm not sure. Perhaps they were taking a subtle jab at Obama's race...

    On the other hand, the current stimulus bill might as well have been written by a monkey.

    Actually, a monkey could probably do a better job by dint of not making a bill at all.

  • ecnomsit||

    Since saying Sharpton has the intelligence of a monkey would have racial overtones (and would be an insult to simians everywhere), I'll just say he has the intelligence of a donkey.

  • Elemenope||

    BTW, the subject wasn't whether or not it would pass legislative muster, but why were Pelosi and Schumer saying nice things about it in the first place
    (hint, Clear Channel has got some deep pockets!).


    And, no, alan, you are deeply twisting the context of the conversation. I was there. I commented on it. The conversation was not about whether Pelosi liked it (though some commenters desperately tried to drag the goalposts in the direction towards the middle of the convo when it became obvious their original position was unsupportable and stupid). It was about whether it was a realistic possibility of being made into a law.

  • ecnomsit||

    Elemenope,
    I think your analogy is a little bit off, because Fairness Doctrine is something John hates and obsesses about, whereas card check is something joe loves and obsesses about (although MNG is usually the bigger union promoter. joe is more the self-hating white guy).

  • Scarecrow For President||

    Very effective cartoon. In the midst of a monumental global meltdown, with Washington pushing through the most reckless legislation in a generation, the intelligentsia ask us all to stop and take a minute to be offended at possibly hidden racism. The cartoonist has given us a momentary but clear view of the absurdity of American political culture.

  • Michael Godwin, call your offi||

    an interesting natural experiment

  • Seward||

    Elemenope,

    I would note that the way to win a debate is to be the first to frame it; I have no problem with framing any initial discussion of the Fairness Doctrine early and often as a bad idea. The early bird gets the worm. Etc.

    Now was it likely to come up out of the grave that it was rightly sent to? I have no idea. I really don't know the ins and outs of how that sort of policy is made. I suspect that neither you nor joe do either. Of course, given the polling on the matter, and the general support that the idea is given for both the broadcast media and BLOGGING being subject to the rule I do suspect that the possibility is stronger than some think.

  • alan||

    Elemenope,

    I really don't know what the Republicans are saying about FD. The last time I had a great deal of contact with the politically active base was early last Summer when a friend in the Newsrag business low on manpower asked me to cover a rally for him. It was . . . interesting.

    However, I approach the Fairness Doctrine as a libertarian, and being consistent is the only thing I really care about. I wont ignore the issue just because Republicans might be stoking the issue to fire up the base, and more importantly, bring money to their coffers.

    I appreciate most of what you have said though. Not the joe part, just about everything else.

  • Seward||

    Elemenope,

    And let's face it; the powers that be (no matter what party) love content control. So I really don't put anything past them.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    This whole incident smacks of a throwback to the days when chimpanzees were lynched!

  • Reinmoose||

    What did you all do?

    Anyway, I saw the potential problem with the cartoon. I can't believe they posted it on Reason - absolutely can't believe it. While I don't think it's all that funny, it's leagues funnier than what they usually post here. How could they break their streak of F cartoons and post a D-? How!?

    What does this mean for tomorrow morning? I won't sleep well thinking about this.

  • ecnomsit||

    Perhaps my last comment concerning joe was unfair. He considers himself uniquely enlightened on race relations.

  • ecnomsit||

    My abbreviated handle.

  • economist||

    Can I still say "I've got a monkey on my back"?

  • ||

    A couple of points to summarize, all of which I'm sure have been posted already.

    1. Funny how all the detractors of the stimulus bill seem to place most of the responsibility and ownership of the bill on Obama prior to the cartoon, but those same people now start pinning it on congress. The point here being, while congress is responsible for pushing the legislation, most people, if asked to put a name on the bill would choose Obama.

    2. The NY Post, a Rupert outlet, is a notoriously right wing publication, and has no shame about blaming Obama for anything they can get away with. I think it is beyond reason to believe that no one involved with publishing the cartoon at the Post thought it couldn't be interpreted as being racist by some. In fact, I think they were counting on it, they have been getting a lot of free publicity over the past two days.

    3. One of the more odious defenses of the cartoon I have seen is that Bush was described as a chimp. And all of those people know they are full of shit. The image of a primate to depict black people has been historically invoked by racists to imply that blacks are subhuman and inferior. The connotation is significantly different when referring to a white person as opposed to a black person as a chimp.

    The Post is basically a joke, and barely a step up from a tabloid. Their writing is lazy, generally considered to be a rag and barely qualifies as news. They have a right to publish just about anything they damn well please, just as I have a right to not buy their paper and have a small chuckle when they go belly up.

  • Qt. Jester||

    Qt. Jester is not a moron. He realizes that most people identify our President as black or African-American. Qt. Jester understands why that is, not being ignorant of history and furthermore Qt. Jester realizes that the quandary created by racism should not be settled by 'payback'. This is not only self-destructive but ignores the enormous contributions of anti-racists who do not 'represent' the persecuted 'race'. That this for some reason remains counter-intuitive to 'pay-back' persecuted mentality is demonstrative of 'community' narcissim. In the end, there are persecuted within every 'community'. There are misfits in every society that are persecuted.

    Libertarians see this problem and address it. Hence the individual is king. He becomes a dork or misfit as they do in social 'communities' once they become dorks or misfits for some other reason than their physical features or ethnicity.

    People like Joe and most of humanity don't seem to see this. I understand this and I understand why a lot of people would say I am inventing this understanding. It just isn't that common. But it exists. If your cynicism prevents this fair enough. But please, give the few of us who hold this view a break. You have far worse enemies to pursue.

  • SIV||

    They used to lynch a lot of rogue beasts

    Damn well made sure the rest of them towed the lion.

  • Elemenope||

    I think your analogy is a little bit off, because Fairness Doctrine is something John hates and obsesses about, whereas card check is something joe loves and obsesses about (although MNG is usually the bigger union promoter. joe is more the self-hating white guy).

    Fair enough. I was focusing on the "obsesses" part.

    I wont ignore the issue just because Republicans might be stoking the issue to fire up the base, and more importantly, bring money to their coffers.

    True, and I don't think it should be ignored. Content control is baaaad, no matter how anyone slices it. My only thing is, seeing that there is a universe of entirely more probable things that are at least as scary, it's weird that people would obsess over such a throwback.

    It's like worrying about a bad smell in the engine room while the ship is sinking.

  • cunnivore||

    I for one refuse to believe that's the real joe. Someone is spoofing him.

    Lord knows we had our disagreements in the past but he was never THIS empty-headed and hackish.

  • Elemenope||

    And let's face it; the powers that be (no matter what party) love content control. So I really don't put anything past them.

    The rule of thumb I think is that they do whatever they think they can get away with. I think they haven't a prayer in hell of sneaking something like this past the line, and they know it. It would be like Christmas in July for the right wing.

  • alan||


    And, no, alan, you are deeply twisting the context of the conversation. I was there. I commented on it. The conversation was not about whether Pelosi liked it (though some commenters desperately tried to drag the goalposts in the direction towards the middle of the convo when it became obvious their original position was unsupportable and stupid). It was about whether it was a realistic possibility of being made into a law.


    Reading through that thread, I can see your point around the middle portion of that discussion (it starts off jokey, settles in). What left the biggest impression on me wasn't some of the penny-ante bickering that sometimes causes the eyes to skim, but the links JSubD provided showing Democratic legislatures supporting the idea.

    You may be right that some of the Republicans are MobyDicking it, but still it seems to me the liberal commentators were likely embarrassed by the words of Schumer, Pelosi and Debbie Stabenow, and desired to change the subject through the sort of peer pressure techniques that are their bread and butter.

  • Reinmoose||

    cunnivore -
    I read through *most* of the comments here, and joe's words were almost too like him to be him. I mean... they felt like I'd read them before - like they had been cut and pasted. But I don't know.

  • alan||

    The rule of thumb I think is that they do whatever they think they can get away with. I think they haven't a prayer in hell of sneaking something like this past the line, and they know it. It would be like Christmas in July for the right wing.

    Well stated. I said something similar yesterday, and I hope we don't have to eat crow on this one.

  • Edward||

    "Yup. Out of here."

    This is my LAST POST, libtards!

  • orthographer working pro bono||

    In Latin, ecnomsit would mean something like "Let it be out of [my] name," which it kinda is.

  • Elemenope||

    What left the biggest impression on me wasn't some of the penny-ante bickering that sometimes causes the eyes to skim, but the links JSubD provided showing Democratic legislatures supporting the idea.

    Fair enough. I don't tend to get antsy until a given legislator's crazy idea gets treated by a substantial proportion of their *colleagues* as not crazy. But I can understand how a guy could worry.

  • alan||

    Not only did Reason republish this but so did my local newspaper with an accompanying story.

    A few things worth nothing.

    The editor in chief of the Greensboro News&Record is black, he has voiced displeasure previously on the matter of race hustlers. The article went in some depth in a negative characterization of Sharpton though likely from the original AP it could have been excised out of the article if the editors chose. However, the criticism was about a third of the length of the entire article, so likely was intended to be emphasised by the editors.

  • Don\'t you wish||

    This is my LAST POST

    No. It'll keep publishing.

  • ||

    Mo | February 19, 2009, 7:35pm | #
    In other news, Sean Delonas will be the new cartoonist for Reason's Friday Funnies.


    Dude I hope so, that cartoon was hilarious.

  • ||

    I saw the cartoon before I heard about the controversy.

    I saw it on Chris Matthews. I thought it was hilarious. I could tell that Chris Mathews was pissed. I thought he was pissed because the cartoon showed that the people who wrote the stimulus bill were a bunch of drunk monkeys.

    That the stimulus bill was retarded at best.

    I thought that was the implication that had Chris Matthews pissed. I thought that was funny too.

    The race shit is reaching people, really.

  • ||

    It's funny - before this cartoon came out, can anyone recall any instances of people saying that it wasn't Obama's bill? Anywhere, even once?

    Joe, when I saw the cartoon, i immediately thought it referenced Pelosi and Reid, (and actually a few of the R's that had input in it).

    Why did you jump to the conclusion that it was a racial thing?

  • alan||


    1. Funny how all the detractors of the stimulus bill seem to place most of the responsibility and ownership of the bill on Obama prior to the cartoon, but those same people now start pinning it on congress. The point here being, while congress is responsible for pushing the legislation, most people, if asked to put a name on the bill would choose Obama.


    It is his bill, he signed it, and supported it.

    He didn't write it.

    The cartoon was about the people who wrote the bill. Obama, as I mentioned, did not write it.

    So, he is only being attacked in the general sense of being a supporter of it, not in the specific sense that he wrote it, which he didn't.

    You can only cry racism if the actual target is being attacked because of his race. The writers of the bill are being attacked for their lack of intelligence and the lack of content in their character for writing the monstrosity and not for the hew of their skin.

    Is that clear enough?

  • Qt. Jester||

    I would've seen humor in it if I'd seen Chris Matthews pissed. He's such a loser. But only for that reason.

    Why are so many of our pundits uncultured hacks that add luster to the word 'college drop-out'

  • ||

    Before today, if you played word association, and said "monkeys in D.C.", the response would have been... Congress!!!! Who wrote the stimulus bill? Congress!!!!

    The monkey in the cartoon obviously refers to Pelosi and Reid. Duh.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    I no longer take a professional interest in this stuff, but I think it would be a great loss for Hit & Run if Joe did in fact bail. I'm glad to see his claim of having bailed seems to be belied by the evidence (unless there's a Joe impostor, that is).

    Joe is an all-but-charter commenter, with contributions going back to the halcyon days of 2003 -- when we were all young and innocent, when Fountains of Wayne were just beginning their decades-long reign at the top of the charts, when John W. Snow still kept a firm and manly hand on the Department of the Treasury. Joe may even go back to aught-two; a lot of those early comments have been lost. His comments are nearly always insightful or witty or short. Sometimes all three.

    In the spirit of the thread: Joe is a credit to the liberal race, I wish they all could be like Joe, and I wouldn't even mind having one of them live next door to me if he was like Joe.

  • Qt. Jester||

    Brandybuck,

    Doesn't matter. Racist paradigm is already a set mold. Just like your Creepy Crawlies when you were a kid. Debate over! You're under arrest! On the ground! Hands behind the back!

  • Qt. Jester||

    Mr Tim Cavanaugh,

    You have to let people chose their path. Joe was always a strawman for libertarians. Sure we took the bait. But he never reeled us in. His bait sucked. And worse he could never set the hook. No loss really. I can think of not a few sights where I can debate fruitlessly with his jello-set mentality.

    Besides, what makes you so sure he's gone? He could always reappear as an anonymous like myself.

    Qt. Jester

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    By the way, where's thoreau these days?

  • Warty||

    What did joe mean, "you people"?

  • Elemenope||

    Sure we took the bait. But he never reeled us in. His bait sucked. And worse he could never set the hook. No loss really.

    I've never seen a metaphor beaten into shitty pulp in five sentence fragments before.

    Wonders of the world, I tell ya.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    By the way, where's thoreau these days?



    Praising reason writers (and arguing with joe) elsewhere.

  • ||

    I double dog dare anyone reading this to clip the cartoon, show it to a black coworker or boss, and say "Isn't that hilarious."

    Done, and done. And they thought it was pretty funny too. Not as funny as me, but I am more politically oriented.

  • Richard Stands||

    I have to say, I actually found it shocking. There are people that still listen to Al Sharpton??

  • wingnutx||

    So would it be racist to suggest that an infinite number of monkeys banging away on typewriters would eventually come up with the stimulus bill?

  • The Wine Commonsewer (you can ||

    I'm sorry, that cartoon is funny. And I fail to see the racial overtones.

  • JB||

    Sharpton's existence offends me. Can someone fix that for me?

  • h-dawg||

    When my wife described the cartoon to me, the first thing I thought (before she got to the punch line) was, "Damn, there are people who are going to interpret that as racist."

    joe was right--this time

  • Qt. Jester||

    Mr. Tim Cavanaugh,

    I really like Reason.com. If missing 'joe' means missing hits that affect your bottom line, please let us all know. In this exchange alone he entered the most times: 27 by my count. The next best was Elemenope @ 20 times. I as 'Qt. Jester' finished third. Jesus Christ Tim, I hardly know you, but if you please, I can more than make up for any absence. I think others can too.

    You can fill in for the new Joe as a troll. I won't tell!

  • ||

    Lifted this from another forum yesterday discussing AG Eric Holder's "cowards" speech:

    "The reason Americans don't "talk enough" about race is because race isn't an issue unless you are racist."

    Adapted to: Americans won't think this cartoon is racist unless they are racist

    Many however, will think it stupid, not funny, puzzling, obscure etc.

    ... nuff said.

  • ||

    It is his bill, he signed it, and supported it.

    He didn't write it.

    The cartoon was about the people who wrote the bill. Obama, as I mentioned, did not write it.


    No, he didn't - probably didn't bother to read the damned thing either.

  • ||

    cunnivore,

    I for one refuse to believe that's the real joe. Someone is spoofing him.

    Lord knows we had our disagreements in the past but he was never THIS empty-headed and hackish.


    Once the search function comes back up, look up the Walmart Trampling Death Union thread. He sounded like he was using Vulcan logic on this thread compared to that one.

  • etb||

    How quickly we forget the tradition of comparing presidents to chimps:

    http://www.bushorchimp.com/
    http://tinyurl.com/bnbbb9
    http://tinyurl.com/atq2sd

    And there I thought Obama would bring "change."

    etb

  • MNG||

    I have to say I think it's bizarre that everyone can't at least find Joe's comments here to be well, er, reasonable. Maybe not ultimately compelling, but surely plausible, reasonable.

    All you have to do is accept as true some, imo, pretty uncomplicated facts.

    1. The NY Post has a reputation of right wing borderline tasteless "un-PC" posturing.
    2. A common odious racist tactic has been and continues to be the equation of dark skinned people with monkeys.
    3. The stimulus bill is associated with a dark skinned President in many people's minds.
    4. Police violence with African-americans as the victims has played an iconic part in our nations history.

    Once one accepts these fairly uncontroversial facts then a cartoon in said paper (fact one) depicting a monkey referred to as the author of hte stimulus bill (fact two and three) being shot by two white policemen (fact four) can easily be seen to come across to many with racial overtones.

    I mean, those who think Joe's comments are so ludicrous as to invite speculation that tey are spoofs are saying a lot more about the cocoon they live in than about Joe. Think about it...

  • tarran||

    Wading through the long text, I am getting the impression that the people arguing that the Post was wrong to publish the cartoon fall into several camps:

    1) NY Post is a rightwing, racist paper.
    2) The NY Post should have known that some people should have known that some people might think the cartoon was racist despite the original author not intending it as such.

    I think the latter argument is baloney. Apes, primates, and simians are frequently used to parody stupid people. Government officials are frequently accused of stupidity. Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination and the presidency, there would be no controversy about the cartoon, and nobody would be surprised that the Post ran it, since it would be tying two unrelated news events together while mocking government officials.

    I think that a truly racist cartoon would be dependent on the race of the person being mocked for the cartoon to be funny: switch the target's race, and the cartoon should not work. In this case, the cartoon is equally funny/unfunny regardless of the ethnicity of the president.

  • tarran||

    MNG,

    Honestly, I am impatient with joe's argument, because the whole kerfuffle reminds me of the cotnroversy over the Far Side cartoon that I referred to upthread.

    In that case millions of people looked at a cartoon, including the guy who it and his editors, and saw a cartoon with no sexual overtones, just a dog visualizing his goal in chasing a car.

    Socially conservative people who thought "sex is teh evil", were outraged; clearly the dog was having sex with the crankcase of the overturned car. It was the people who were hypersensitive to sex who introduced sexuality into that cartoon, and claimed to be victimized by that said sexuality.

    I've known some real racists who were prejudiced against black people in my time. I've also known some outspoken opponents of that form of prejudice. The latter group have been, in my experience, been far more likely to bring up the "monkeys as a proxy for blacks" meme in discussions.

    Of course, this could well be sampling bias: I tended to avoid topics like race with the racists because they were unpleasant and tended to go nowhere. Thus it could be that I just missed out on a common simile.

    Personally, I think we should "take back" simians just as Randall took back the term "porch monkey".

  • ||

    I assume Joe was outraged when liberal caroonists routinely drew Condi Rice with big lips?

    http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/002864.php

    Or as a parriot sitting on George Bush's shoulder? Or when Doonesberry had Bush call her Brown suger.

    What makes liberals so dispicable as opposed to just stupid or mistaken is that they don't have a problem with any attack no matter how vile on someone they don't like. That is the reason why creatures like Joe have no standing to say anything about the cartoon.

  • ||

    "Personally, I think we should "take back" simians just as Randall took back the term "porch monkey"."

    That is exactly right. People don't help matters when they assume that every dipiction of a simian is referred to a black people. But I don't think the people who are "outraged" about this are interested in helping race relations. They just want to score cheap points and do what they can to keep anyone they disagree with from having a say.

  • ||

    I miss thoreau.

    I'll miss joe, too.

    Someone with their own wiki entry, with their own law, even... they can't leave without scarring those of us who remain.

    Seriously, joe, don't go!

    Would anyone here miss me if I was gone? No? See, joe, you can't leave - we'd miss you.

    And hey, i wonder where Edward took himself off to... not that I want to summon him anymore than I'd want to summon Donderhead.

  • ||

    By the way, where's thoreau these days?

    Probably under the bed looking for racists.

  • ||

    So did Joe threaten to leave? No one has threatened and insulted Joe more than I have. But if if Joe doesn't come, I might actually have to start working for a living. No one wants that.

  • ||

    This cartoon was for people who are informed on current events and non-events - news junkies. It was not written for the average uninformed baboon, so it's understandable they wouldn't understand it. A certain number of people will "not get" a joke or cartoon. Most shrug their shoulders and move on to the next one. Particularly stupid people look for offense, think they may have found it, and then shoot their mouths off before asking for or seeking clarification. Then, when their error is pointed out, they just keep running with it. Maybe they lack a sense of self-awareness - don't understand just how stupid they look to half-way intelligent people.

  • ||

    For the record, it was definitely the real Joe and not a troll on the Obama detention of terrorist thread yesterday.

  • Guy_Smiley||

    Charles Darwin has, throughout history, been depicted as an ape in editorial cartoons.

    Since Charles Darwin didn't write the Stimulus Bill either,

    I think that Al Sharpton is really missing a chance here by not being outraged on behalf of all English people.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, the entire discussion of who the chimp is "supposed to be" is wrong-headed.

    The chimp isn't supposed to be Pelosi or Reid or Bush or Obama or Congress or black people or anyone else. The chimp is supposed to LITERALLY BE the chimp itself - the chimp that ate the woman's face in Connecticut.

    The cartoon is saying that the stimulus bill is so bad that the Congress LITERALLY engaged the bill-authoring services of this chimp AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

    If there was no chimp story in the news this week, I can see scratching your head and wondering who the chimp is supposed to represent. But there IS a chimp in the news this week.

  • Wesley||

    Cops in NY shoot niggers all the time.

  • ||

    But fluffy, Obama wrote the bill, or it is his bill or something, and since most people think he wrote the bill when they cartoon says a chimp wrote it they are saying obama wrote it and that he is a chimp and... Oh nevermind.

    You are right. When I saw it I thought of the old canard about a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters and eventually writing Hamlet. I didn't even think about Obama. I guess I am just not racist enough for modern times.

  • Elemenope||

    I mean, those who think Joe's comments are so ludicrous as to invite speculation that they are spoofs are saying a lot more about the cocoon they live in than about Joe. Think about it...

    No, because the issue is not whether it is plausible that a guy could look at the cartoon and conjure racist bogeymen. The issue is whether given its context it is at all reasonable to interpret it in that way.

    I didn't think joe's comments were ludicrous in the sense that I couldn't conjure where they were coming from. They were ludicrous in the sense that it is ludicrous for anyone to think that a cartoonist making a comment about the stimulus bill would use that moment to slip racist dog-whistle code into the conversation.

    To go all philosophical for a second, all statements in language are underdetermined, sometimes radically so. We can, if we try hard enough, read anything we damn well please into any text. It is incumbent upon the reader of a text to make reasonable assumptions about the intent and character of the author of the text in order to interpret it as it was intended. Unless this particular cartoonist has a history of slipping race codes into his comics, the assumption that this is how this cartoon should be interpreted is absurd on its face.

  • ..||

    This probably has already been noted above, but Mr. Bush was often referred to as chimplike.
    By the left.

  • Elemenope||

    Also, fluffy there at 9:08 with the obvious but overlooked point that really tears the guts out of "but it's code for a black guy" thing.

  • ||

    "This probably has already been noted above, but Mr. Bush was often referred to as chimplike.
    By the left."


    Yes and in many ways doesn't that take the work monkey and make it less racist? I mean if we are calling everyone, black or white, monkeys, how is it then a code word for race? In contrast, think of the N word. No one would call George Bush that. Why? Because it only sensibly applies to one race. Monkey in contrast, at least after the last 8 years, seems to sensibly apply to both races.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    I assume Joe was outraged when liberal caroonists routinely drew Condi Rice with big lips?



    Dang it, John, don't you know that Condi Rice is a real black person.

    She's not a real woman, either.

  • ||

    The chimp isn't supposed to be Pelosi or Reid or Bush or Obama or Congress or black people or anyone else. The chimp is supposed to LITERALLY BE the chimp itself - the chimp that ate the woman's face in Connecticut.

    You'll never get tenure in the English Department with an attitude like that.

  • -||

    Seriously, joe, don't go!

    Seriously, joe, go. Go far, far, far away.

  • Elemenope||

    You'll never get tenure in the English Department with an attitude like that.

    ROFL.

  • ||

    You'll never get tenure in the English Department with an attitude like that.

    Seriously, haven't you folks heard of "the death of the author?" Intentionality is a fallacy; the only truth is how the cartoon makes you feel.

    For the record, the cartoon makes me happy that the left has some small distraction from their drunken spending spree. I'd kill, with my very own pen, a thousand rampaging cartoon apes if it would keep those fuckers out of my wallet.

  • ||

    I hate to be a party pooper, but honestly, while joe stimulated argument, he did not stimulate real discussion. He was completely eristic, often disingenuous, and absolutely partisan. If I thought for a minute he actually believed what he was arguing for, I'd completely want to hear it. But that wasn't what he did. He argued for the sake of arguing, and to score points on the chalkboard in his head.

  • Trey Garrison||

    Al Sharpton is the 800-pound gorilla of race-baiting.

  • @||

    He argued for the sake of arguing, and to score points on the chalkboard in his head.

    For years and years and years . . . .

  • ||

    EPi,

    I think he did believe it. He is just that big of a partisian. He absolutely will not say anything bad about the Democratic Party. It is like some kind of prime directive with him.

    I have had a few honorable discussions with him. But everyone of those, there are ten where he just annoyed me and I wasted my time. Frankly, Warren or Chicago Tom do a lot better job giving the reasoned liberal position than Joe ever did.

  • Elemenope||

    Seriously, haven't you folks heard of "the death of the author?" Intentionality is a fallacy; the only truth is how the cartoon makes you feel.

    I though Foucault's response was sufficient to make the theory seem laughable.

  • ||

    I though Foucault's response was sufficient to make the theory seem laughable.

    Maybe at one of your fancy Yankee colleges.

    Or, as my award-winning poem said: "blah blah blah Lacan, blah blah Foucault"

    (I love the obscure philosophical jokes we share.)

  • anarch||

    I'll take one Tim for 9 joes, thank you.

  • ||

    What a waste of time it is to try to change someone's mind who is determined to read something into a cartoon.

    How fascinating it is that, after 8 years of thousands of Bush the Chimpler cartoons, a single chimp cartoon that only maybe refers to Obama is racist.

    President Bush = Chimp is hilarious political commentary.

    President Obama = Chimp is TEH RACISM.

    Spare me.

    It takes all sides to be post-racial. Obviously, the skeptics on Obama ushering in a post-racial society were right.

  • ||

    See, joe, you can't leave - we'd miss you.

    I would miss about the first, say 25% of joe posts on a given topic. After that, its mostly semantics, dodging, goalpost-moving, unsupported assertions, and partisan stubbornness.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "3. One of the more odious defenses of the cartoon I have seen is that Bush was described as a chimp. And all of those people know they are full of shit. The image of a primate to depict black people has been historically invoked by racists to imply that blacks are subhuman and inferior. The connotation is significantly different when referring to a white person as opposed to a black person as a chimp."

    What I know is that you are hypocritical piece of shit.

    If it's OK to portray president Bush as a chimp, then it's equally OK to portray Obama as one as well.

    Period, end of story.

  • ||

    Wait a minute, I thought the Chimp was a symbol for Bush. That's the way it's been for the last eight years.

    The depiction of black people as monkeys and apes in cartoons goes back a lot longer than that.

    Are you people serious? Are you actually claiming not to know this? You've never heard before of black people being depicted as monkeys?

  • ||

    Wait a minute, I thought the Chimp was a symbol for Bush. That's the way it's been for the last eight years.

    The depiction of black people as monkeys and apes in cartoons goes back a lot longer than that.

    Are you people serious? Are you actually claiming not to know this? You've never heard before of black people being depicted as monkeys?


    Dubya was black? Who knew?

  • MNG||

    I dunno guys...I mean, look again at the juxatiposition of the rather uncontroversial facts I mentioned above.

    Does anyone want to argue that it was not and is not common for racists to liken black people to monkeys?

    Does anyone want to argue that our President is not a black man?

    Does anyone want to argue that he is at the very least strongly associated with the stimulus bill (on NPR this very morning they referered to it as "his" bill)?

    OK, well there is a picture of a shot monkey and the caption balloon refers to the shot monkey as the author of the bill.

    So it seems pretty reasonable to me that someone could read this as having racist overtones.

  • Hmm it\'s well past 1200 UTC||

    and no friday funny.

    Change we can believe in?

  • ||

    "I would miss about the first, say 25% of joe posts on a given topic. After that, its mostly semantics, dodging, goalpost-moving, unsupported assertions, and partisan stubbornness."

    Worst thing that you could do with Joe was win an argument. It just caused him to get more crazy and insulting. He was as you point out at his most reasonable when he had a point. When he didn't he just went off the deep end.

  • ||

    In the spirit of the thread: Joe is a credit to the liberal race, I wish they all could be like Joe, and I wouldn't even mind having one of them live next door to me if he was like Joe.

    But I bet you wouldn't let your sister marry him.

  • ||

    "Does anyone want to argue that it was not and is not common for racists to liken black people to monkeys?"

    Really? I honestly have never heard anyone do that. I have heard a lot of people claim that is the case, but I have never heard anyone say blacks are a bunch of monkeys and I have heard plenty of racist things in my life.

    So what if people did "assume it was racist"? There is clearly another more benign interpretation explained by fluffy above at 9 am. Why are the people who claim its racist right and fluffy wrong? Is it the case that the racist interpretation of something is the default position? That seems pretty fucked to me if that is the case.

  • Classic||

  • From the multiverse that has a||

  • MNG||

    I think of course as fluffy argued there are some obvious elements that would argue for a benign explanation, my point is just that there are also some elements in there that would certainly make it reasonable for someone to see it as racist. In fact joe himself said that he did not think the cartoonists intention was racist, just that he should have seen how people could see it that way. I think that is eminently reasonable (now whether he should care about what those folks see is another story).

    "I honestly have never heard anyone do that."

    That's a bit incredible. Maybe you've lived a life sheltered from that kind of thing, good for you, but you at least I should hope have read a history book or seen a documentary or something.

  • Howard Krantz||

    "Al Sharpton is the 800-pound gorilla of race-baiting."

    Line of the thread!

    [Clap-clap...]

  • ||

    "That's a bit incredible. Maybe you've lived a life sheltered from that kind of thing, good for you, but you at least I should hope have read a history book or seen a documentary or something."

    I am fully aware of the history. My point is that it is dead history. People don't really think that way anymore, even racists.

    To go to your above point, even Joe admits the intent wasn't racist only that people took it that way. That means it wasn't intended to be racist and there is a benign and prety obvious interpretation of it. Yet, because some people still see it as racist, the cartoonist should somehow not have done it? Basically that means that no one can say anything that could possible be interpreted as racist. That hardly strikes me as a particularly productive viewpoint or a view point that does anything to get past racism. Like RC said above, if we are going to have a post racial society, both sides have to agree to do it.

  • ||

    A post racial society is when all white people stop associating black people with apes and black people stop assumeing that every dipiction of an ape in anyway linked to someone who happens to be black is directed at them.

  • Elemenope||

    If it's OK to portray president Bush as a chimp, then it's equally OK to portray Obama as one as well.

    Period, end of story.


    Yeah, Gil. Because history doesn't exist, and nothing that has happened before could possibly matter.

    Seriously, when you open your mouth, you hurt the cause.

  • kinnath||

    Editorial cartoons in the late 1800's and early 1900's frequently used simians to represent the under class. This included the Irish as well as blacks -- probably others as well.

    Time to get over it.

  • ||

    El, you're missing the point.

    History does exist, and that history contains thousands of cartoons depicting the (white) President as a chimp.

    President-as-chimp is, apparently, not ipso facto racist. You need more than that to claim a cartoon that may or may not refer to Obama as racist, and there just doesn't seem to be any more than that.

  • ||

    There must be some black coworker you're on speaking terms with; will you show him the cartoon and act like you think it's funny?

    I avoid any criticism of Obama around my black co-workers, lest I be accused of racism. That doesn't mean that criticism of Obama is racist, or even that it's reasonable to construe it as racist.

  • Interesting||

  • Name Withheld for Fear of Job ||

    No one has yet mentioned the other racial angle in the cartoon.

    It's clearly demeaning to Italians, portraying them as violent thugs with large noses.

    Despicable.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    I avoid any criticism of Obama around my black co-workers, lest I be accused of racism. That doesn't mean that criticism of Obama is racist, or even that it's reasonable to construe it as racist.



    So, what you're saying then is that black co-workers are unreasonable, huh? Sounds like time for some EEO sensitivity counseling!

  • ||

    Yeah, Gil. Because history doesn't exist, and nothing that has happened before could possibly matter.

    Seriously, when you open your mouth, you hurt the cause.


    IOW, Obama gets a free pass against abuse that would be routine if leveled at other presidents, simply because his ancestors the ancestors of other Americans whose skin color resembles his used to receive similar abuse.

  • ||

    Are you people serious?



    No, joe, I was not being serious.

    I keep forgetting to add smiley faces and [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags for people who can't see an obvious joke.

  • Elemenope||

    Of course not, Seamus. Both you and RCD missed what I was objecting to from Gil's statement. He was making a bare equivalence, i.e. if it is appropriate to do X to Y, it is necessarily appropriate to do X to Z. It's a bad equivalence, because X intersects with a troubled history for Z but not Y.

    It has nothing to do with whether it is OK to make fun of a president. It's *always* OK to make fun of a president. It's about disentangling specific acts from classes of act.

    The whole thing is stupid in this context because, the chimp in the cartoon was a chimp, not a stand-in for Obama or any other person, it's doubly stupid because it is really unlikely that the author meant anything racist (which means people were just itching for a fight and found an excuse for one), and it's triply stupid because the cartoon isn't even that funny.

  • ||

    I think all the remaining fascist supporters of Chimprack Hussein Zeroboy's failed racist Presidency should be vigorously raped to death by niggerfaggot bonobos!

  • daveed||

    Anyone who cries "racist" at that stupid, unfunny cartoon needs to STFU and retake their high school civics class.

  • ||

    It's a bad equivalence, because X intersects with a troubled history for Z but not Y.

    Fair enough, I suppose. At some point, though, you have to let the troubled history go. Because I am deeply cynical, I suspect the main reason that so many haven't is because it serves their selfish interests not to do so.

    I have no patience with them or their facilitators, and yeah, I'm looking at the Sharptons, the Jacksons, and their guilty white useful idiots.

  • ||

    All this racism stuff is trumped by the unspoken rule:

    It is ALWAYS okay to compare a member of the government, regardless of said member's race, to monkeys, chimps, and baboons. Furthermore, it is always correct to do so.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    It is ALWAYS okay to compare a member of the government, regardless of said member's race, to monkeys, chimps, and baboons. Furthermore, it is always correct to do so.



    Only because the Simian Anti-Defamation League is woefully underfunded.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Of course not, Seamus. Both you and RCD missed what I was objecting to from Gil's statement. He was making a bare equivalence, i.e. if it is appropriate to do X to Y, it is necessarily appropriate to do X to Z."

    Ahd that is exactly right - in any and all circumstances - period.


    " It's a bad equivalence, because X intersects with a troubled history for Z but not Y."


    Blah, blah, blah - totally irrelevant.

  • ed||

    Why do black mothers name their boys Simeon? That's just throwing fuel on the fire.

    Oh, and joe's gone for good? Ding dong, the witch is dead?

  • ed||

    If it's true, it might make me the longest tenured (and suffering) crackpot here. What do I get?

  • ...||

    Anyone who cries "racist" at that stupid, unfunny cartoon needs to STFU and retake their high school civics class.

    This would be a much more pleasant world if anyone caught using the word "racist" immediately got their teeth punched out of their silly mouth.

  • Elemenope||

    At some point, though, you have to let the troubled history go. Because I am deeply cynical, I suspect the main reason that so many haven't is because it serves their selfish interests not to do so.

    I have no patience with them or their facilitators, and yeah, I'm looking at the Sharptons, the Jacksons, and their guilty white useful idiots.

    On this we agree.

  • Elemenope||

    Damnit. that should read as a quotation thus:

    At some point, though, you have to let the troubled history go. Because I am deeply cynical, I suspect the main reason that so many haven't is because it serves their selfish interests not to do so.

    I have no patience with them or their facilitators, and yeah, I'm looking at the Sharptons, the Jacksons, and their guilty white useful idiots.


    On this we agree.

    [Facepalm] Preview, damn it!

  • alan||

    The actual chimp is of course what is represented in the cartoon, but the subject of the cartoon given it is a political cartoon and not an action hero epic where the brave and bold men in blue take down a raging ape are the writers of the stimulus bill. Takes a bit of nuance but it is still obvious.

    I would also like to asks the honest liberals like MNG, should the most shrill voices be the ones that define an argument? Given the great strains of logic that have to be made to get there, why do they deserve an equal standing? Suppose Creationist objected to the suggestion in the cartoon that an ape is capable of things they believe are exclusively human, would their arguments be worth a minute of your time? They would be no less illogical than what Sharpton is arguing, but why give sanction to something that is fallacious on its face?

  • ||

    I refuse to wade through this thread.

    There is far more perceived racism than actual racism.

    Onto something important.

  • ||

    Editorial cartoons in the late 1800's and early 1900's frequently used simians to represent the under class. This included the Irish as well as blacks -- probably others as well.

    What??! The Irish were likened to apes? Well, that does it. The cartoon was clearly racist, and the New York Post should be forced to accept bailout money under terms that would effectively nationalize the paper.

  • ||

    There is far more perceived racism than actual racism.

    In America, that is.

  • economist||

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
    Don't leave us, joe!
    Now I'll have to visit Huffington Post for my daily dose of liberal shilling.

    Or Chad will have to pick up the slack on posting.

  • ecnomsit||

    Here's betting that joe will be back, no doubt to enlighten us poor ignorant libertarian boobs on the mysteries of life, politics, economics, and race relations.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Besides, if he doesn't come back, somebody will take his crown of selfrighteousness.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    What??! The Irish were likened to apes? Well, that does it. The cartoon was clearly racist, and the New York Post should be forced to accept bailout money under terms that would effectively nationalize the paper.



    Jeebus, did Cavanaugh take down the "No Irish or Dogs at H&R" while he was here yesterday!

  • Virgil||

    alan,

    "...should the most shrill voices be the ones that define an argument?"

    It's not at all clear to me that the most shrill voices (assuming by that you mean a very small minority of voices) are the ones defining the argument. My impression is that quite a lot of people (not just here, but more generally) see the possible racist implications and are troubled by them, including people who don't have Al Sharpton's history of seeing racist implications in virtually everything, but it's hard to sort out how many vs. how loud.

    "Given the great strains of logic that have to be made to get there..."

    It may not be how you intepreted the cartoon, and it may not be the most immediate, literal interpretation, but it's not by any stretch a "great strain of logic." You've got 1) a black president who is strongly associated with the stimulus bill, even if he didn't personally write it; 2) a long history in this country of racist comparisons between black people and monkeys; 3) and two guys shooting a monkey and making a crack about the stimulus bill. It's really a pretty freaking obvious logical connection, regardless of whether it's the only logical connection (clearly it's not) or whether it's what the artist meant (presumably it's not).

  • economist||

    "Besides, if he doesn't come back, somebody will take his crown of selfrighteousness."

    My money's on Chad.

  • alan||

    a black president who is strongly associated with the stimulus bill, even if he didn't personally write it

    Virgil,

    The associative property pertaining to the comic strip is in the word 'write', so it is by no means logical that Obama would be the target of the association.

    Not only do you stretch the logic out of proportion but you give the weight of validity to the most shrill
    voices and further empower the Sharptons of the world with your support. Their concerns should be far more grievous than a cartoon where the interpretation is more than a stretch of the imagination but a malicious indictment against the cartoonist and publisher, and arguments for their concerns should have far greater logical validity before you rise to the level of being a responsible human being when you do make common cause.
    In a free society erring on the side of free expression (private or public) is the right course of action, unless maintaining the libertarian nature of that society is not your goal.

  • kablammo||

    "My impression is that quite a lot of people (not just here, but more generally) see the possible racist implications and are troubled by them"

    And about 20% of Americans think the right to own a pet is contained within the first amendment. Just because a lot of people think it, does not make it true. A lot of people are just as dumb as a dead monkey.

  • Virgil||

    "The associative property pertaining to the comic strip is in the word 'write', so it is by no means logical that Obama would be the target of the association."

    It's a small step to go from being a person who wrote the bill to being a person who strongly advocated for the bill, was in close contact with the people writing it, and had at least some role in determining what went into it. Not everyone necessarily made that connection, but it's not exactly a difficult one to see. You're acting like there's some huge logical chasm there, but that's simply not the case.

    "...you give the weight of validity to the most shrill voices and further empower the Sharptons of the world with your support."

    I'm not sure what or who exactly you're under the impression I support (certainly not Sharpton), but again you've provided no justification for your claim that only the "most shrill voices" are defining the argument. I don't see any reason to assume that's the case - from what I can see there are a whole lot of people, extending well beyond the Sharptons of the world, but again it's hard to sort out loudness from actual numbers.

    "In a free society erring on the side of free expression (private or public) is the right course of action, unless maintaining the libertarian nature of that society is not your goal."

    If you're under the impression that I'm advocating any sort of censorship, you need to read my post again, because I never even remotely suggested anything like that. The Post had every right to run that cartoon, and they have every right to run any other monkey-themed political cartoon they want. And in the interests of free expression, other people have every right to express their opinions about it. My post was about whether it's possible for reasonable, logical people to disagree about what sort of racial implications there are in the cartoon, and I think it pretty obviously is.

  • Invisible Finger||

    The stupid are always in the majority.

  • Virgil||

    "And about 20% of Americans think the right to own a pet is contained within the first amendment. Just because a lot of people think it, does not make it true."

    I didn't say anything about it being true (I'm not even sure what you think "it" is here - that the author meant it to be racist? That it really was in some clear, objective sense racist?). What you quoted from me was simply a response the claim that only the "most shrill voices" were involved in any criticism, with the implication that these voices represented a very small minority. I see no evidence that that's the case.

  • ||

    Thought experiment:

    This cartoon appears in the Nation.

    The cop says "It looks like they're going to have to find someone else to be chair of the Republican National Committee."



    Better one: "He really should have just pardoned himself before the inauguration."

    Oh, how the Reds would squeal. Mmmm.

  • ||

    I no longer take a professional interest in this stuff, but I think it would be a great loss for Hit & Run if Joe did in fact bail.



    I understand we have different priorities, but for the last couple of years, joe and his Red and pinko fan club have sucked much of the oxygen out of the room with their mutual hate-fests. Most posts here, I don't bother looking at the comments.

  • ||

    Eric the .5b,

    Actually, the entire thought experiment is a failure because an editorial cartoon like that would require someone working at the Nation to have something resembling a sense of humor.

  • ||

    This just in:

    "Senator Burris says, 'Blago made a monkey out of me.'"

  • kablammo||

    Virgil,

    Allow me to spell it out more clearly for you; just because a lot of people see racist tones in the cartoon does not make the cartoon necessarily racist, nor does it mean those complaining about the cartoon have a valid point.

    You cite three potential problem, two of which are just as shrill and stupid as anything I've yet seen on the matter. Have blacks been portrayed as monkeys in the past? Absolutely. But so have whites...and more recently a white president, no less. The only "logical connection" of two cops shooting the monkey is...well, cops shooting a real monkey named "Travis" in CT. The line about the porkulus bill means that the bill was so stupid and poorly thought out it could have been written by a monkey...like the aforementioned Travis.

    If you have to strain to see the racism, its likely not there. Most people I know (and that includes quite a few black lawyers where I work) thought it was stupid and not funny, but very few saw it as racist as there was clearly no obvious racist intent by the cartoonist. His main problem was that he was stupid for underestimating race baiters like Sharpton that want to infer racism in everything they see and the mindless idiots that follow him.

  • ||

    hmmmm

    http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=bush+monkey&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

  • Virgil||

    "just because a lot of people see racist tones in the cartoon does not make the cartoon necessarily racist..."

    Again, I never said I thought the cartoon was racist, or that I thought the artist intended it to be.

    "...nor does it mean those complaining about the cartoon have a valid point."

    We obviously disagree here; speaking of which:

    "Have blacks been portrayed as monkeys in the past? Absolutely. But so have whites...and more recently a white president, no less."

    OK, this is just flat-out moronic. Bush was called a chimp by people who wanted to portray _him personally_ as stupid and funny looking. Blacks have been and continue to be called monkeys by people who want to portray them _collectively as a group_ as somehow less human than whites (more stupid, more primitive, etc.). That's not exactly a subtle difference; in fact it's such a painfully obvious difference that you have to try really hard not to recognize it. Claiming that no reasonable person could see different undertones or implications in Bush vs. Obama being compared to a chimp isn't a whole lot different than arguing that the sky isn't blue. And speaking of shrill and stupid:

    "The only "logical connection" of two cops shooting the monkey is...well, cops shooting a real monkey named "Travis" in CT."

    And the logical connection of two cops shooting the monkey and making a crack about the stimulus bill pretty fucking obviously goes beyond Travis, unless your position is that Travis was somehow involved in crafting the stimulus bill.

  • ||

    I've always thought that Texans look a bit like monkees

  • ||

    "unless your position is that Travis was somehow involved in crafting the stimulus bill"

    Ifyou don´t get the joke that Travis could have written a better one

    Maybee that would entitle someone to describe you as a monkee

  • kablammo||

    "Bush was called a chimp by people who wanted to portray _him personally_ as stupid and funny looking. Blacks have been and continue to be called monkeys by people who want to portray them _collectively as a group_ as somehow less human than whites (more stupid, more primitive, etc.). That's not exactly a subtle difference"

    Do you actually pay attention to what you write? According to you Bush was portrayed as a chimp because he was stupid. On the other hand, its wrong to portray Obama as a chimp because that would bring to mind stereotypes of stupidity. Good work chimpy.

    "unless your position is that Travis was somehow involved in crafting the stimulus bill."

    No, Chimpy. My position is that the bill is so stupid it may as well have been written by a monkey. A dead monkey like Travis could probably have done a far better job.

  • ||

    This case does remind me of an incident that happened during a Cricket match between Australia and India

    http://cricket.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3689863.cms

    An indian player Harbhajan called a black Australian player called Symonds a Monkee

    I was speaking to an Indian friend about it and we both thought it was quite dumb.

    He was saying in India its a fairly normal harmless insult, if your kid or brother or sister is pissing you off
    you call them a monkey.

    Apparently the was however regarded as racist and to get out of it Harbhajan said that he actually said a Hindi word that is actually very offensive and this was deemed OK

    Its gotta be said that all humans are actually monkees

    so we're all gonna look a bit like them.

    Getting pissed off about stupid things is just gonna prolong stupid ideas and actually give ammunition to the very small minority of people who actually do what o use malicious comparisons.

    Its no surprise to see certain people protesting because it makes them lots of money to just on any little thing they can

    but one would expect rational people to rise above childish knee jerk reactions

  • Virgil||

    "According to you Bush was portrayed as a chimp because he was stupid. On the other hand, its wrong to portray Obama as a chimp because that would bring to mind stereotypes of stupidity. Good work chimpy."

    Not big on reading comprehension, eh? According to me Bush was portrayed as a chimp because some people wanted to portray him _personally_ (as opposed to all white people, or any other racial/ethnic group) as stupid. And the Obama comparison has to do with stereotypes of _race_, not stereotypes of stupidity (except to the extent that they are race based, which was obviously not the case for Bush). Pretty fucking obvious difference.

    "My position is that the bill is so stupid it may as well have been written by a monkey."

    That's very nice for you, and I'm sure you're proud of yourself that you could formulate a coherent thought about the cartoon all on your own. My position is that your interpretation is not the only reasonable interpretation of the cartoon, given the racial connotations surrounding monkeys and black people, and given that we have a black president who was closely involved with the stimulus bill. Again, those connections aren't really that difficult to make for people who don't have their heads up their asses.

    OK, kablammo, you're obviously dead-set on pretending to be exceptionally stupid with regard to the difference between a single person and an entire race (at least I _hope_ you're pretending; God forbid you really are that stupid). And the "Chimpy" comment makes it obvious that not only are you not willing or able to engage in an intelligent conversation on this topic, you're not even capable of clever or entertaining insults. So you're pretty clearly not worth any more of my time. Have a super weekend.

  • ||

    Oh, how the Reds would squeal. Mmmm.

    Nah, they are used to it. Before Fox news, it was all there ever was on tv. Today, it is still 80% of media. Probably more.

    The daily show, the Colbert report, Saturday night live ect ect ect.

  • ||

    Gotta be careful with Obama cartoons.

  • Gambit||

    "The image of a primate to depict black people has been historically invoked by racists to imply that blacks are subhuman and inferior."

    Really? Because blacks seem to confirm that on a daily basis all on their own.

  • Buy-Curious||

    "You can fill in for the new Joe as a troll. I won't tell!"

    Maybe joe was reall Tim all along?

  • devout monk||

    But no one seems to mind slandering me, in almost every post!

    Not.

  • Fluffy||

    You've got 1) a black president who is strongly associated with the stimulus bill, even if he didn't personally write it; 2) a long history in this country of racist comparisons between black people and monkeys; 3) and two guys shooting a monkey and making a crack about the stimulus bill. It's really a pretty freaking obvious logical connection, regardless of whether it's the only logical connection

    Virgil, you stupid fucking monkey, it doesn't matter how many times you write this same thing, because all of this would only matter IF THE MOTHERFUCKING NEWS THIS WEEK DID NOT FEATURE AN ACTUAL LIVING BREATHING INSANE MONKEY.

    YOU FUCKING DUMBASS.

    Here is how it is obvious this cartoon was conceived:

    1. Cartoonist hears that an INSANE CHIMPANZEE RAN AMOK IN CONNECTICUT and had to be shot.

    2. Cartoonist says, "Gee, I wonder what else that LITERALLY EXISTENT INSANE CHIMPANZEE was doing with this time before he got shot?"

    3. Cartoonist says, "I know! He wrote the stimulus bill! I can draw a funny cartoon about that!"

    The entire joke here is that Obama DID NOT write the stimulus bill - THE CHIMP DID. And now the chimp is dead, so no more bills will be forthcoming. That's the joke.

    YOU ARE A STUPID AND BRAINDEAD COCKSUCKING LOSER.

    How is that for shrill for ya?

  • Fluffy||

    My position is that your interpretation is not the only reasonable interpretation of the cartoon

    This is where you would be wrong, you stupid cunt.

    Because your half-ass interpretation requires us to reverse the meaning of the cartoon.

    Your interpretation is only "reasonable" if we define "reasonable" as "we should expect stupid fucking cunts to interpret anything involving an ape as a slap at a black guy, so the mere presence of the ape makes it 'reasonable' to make this error, no matter how fucking stupid it is" and I hate to break it to you, but I don't define "reasonable" that way.

    You fucking purple-assed monkey.

  • ecnomsit||

    "Really? Because blacks seem to confirm that on a daily basis all on their own."

    Screw off, Gambit. You're being an arsehole.

  • economist||

    "Thought experiment:

    This cartoon appears in the Nation.

    The cop says 'It looks like they're going to have to find someone else to be chair of the Republican National Committee.'"

    If we wanted to go beyond thought experiment and look for empirical evidence, let's look at Clarence Thomas's reception by the left. IMHO not a big fan of Justice Thomas (Or Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, or the 2 whose names I can't remember and am too lazy to look up.

  • ||

    "I've always thought that Texans look a bit like monkees"

    I believe that Michael Nesmith was, in fact, from Texas.

    And you, sir, are a racist!

  • TallDave||

    Taranto said it best:

    Consider the paradox: Racial "sensitivity" requires not eradicating racial stereotypes but keeping them alive--and not only keeping them alive but remaining acutely conscious of them at all times. Delonas and his editors are under attack for seeing "chimp" and failing to think "black guy." Perhaps this is an editorial failing, but it is certainly not a moral one.

  • ||

    "No, Chimpy. My position is that the bill is so stupid it may as well have been written by a monkey. A dead monkey like Travis could probably have done a far better job."

    A dead Travis would assuredly have done a better job with the stimulus package, cause doing nothing is always better than doing something stupid.

    Actually the idea of a chimp distributing wealth could be pretty entertaining. He could toss feces around at the special interest groups who are looking for handouts and the largest volume recipients of fecal grenades would of course get the most money.

    Personally I like the death match solution better. Put all the special interest group leaders in a football field with $1 trillion and let them fight to the death for it. The pay per view right's would probably pay off the bill in half the time!!

  • sniff||

    Well, I hope joe is not really gone, even though I disagreed with him more often than agreed. Actually, on this issue, I happen to think he was right, and I'm a libertarian. (Quit modern liberalism 15 years ago and haven't been tempted back since).

  • economist||

    "Personally I like the death match solution better."

    That was MY idea!

  • ||

    Posting in a legendary thread.

  • joe is Randall Hinton||

    If you look at that cartoon and immediately think "Obama", that's happening in your racist brainpan, not someone else's.

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement