Bringing the InToonFada Home…

Reason's own Chip Bok, the prize-winning editorial cartoonist for the Akron Beacon-Journal, is embroiled in a skirmish in the InToonFada due to this gem from a while back:

That image begat this wonderful follow-up:

Go to Chip's excellent blog for a discussion of this episode, some very good cartoons related to same, and more (including some good gags re: Rolling Stones at Superbowl).

Tim Cavanaugh looted the Cartoon Wars for meaning like they were the Iraqi National Museum here.

Comments

[linguist]

Re: Chip Bok

When I first started getting Reason I was pleasantly surprised to see him carried so frequently. Remember him well, having grown up in Akron and working for the Beacon Journal through college.

I really am starting to think that for some reason northeast Ohio is some kind of libertarian hotbed! Cheers, Chip!

[happyjuggler0]

Last week CNN showed some of the offensive cartoons the Arab press has shown, theory being to show the hypocrisy of the Arabs/Muslims (I know they are not the same, but as far as the rioting is concerned there is a huge overlap).

My problem with this was that CNN itself was being hypocritical by only showing cartoons that insult Jews, bu tnot Muslims. This contrasts with the hyporcrisy of Europeans who won't show insulting Jewish cartoons (sometimes by choice, sometimes by hypocritical law) but seem proud to show the cartoons that insult Islam.

I admit I thought it was a hoot when I first saw CNN pixelating the cartoons though. Why bother? Why not just not show them?

[Jeff P.]

Way off-topic, but one of the news stories that came out of this weekend's Wondercon was that Frank Miller's next project was Batman: Holy Terror, where the Dark Knight goes up against Al Queda operatives looking to blow up part of Gotham City.

[andy]

On a different note, linguist, if you haven't already, go check out the Ann Coulter thread from Saturday. Your input would be helpful!

[dhex]

what the hell was so offensive about his first image? he's making fun of CNN. why is his blog filled with people talking about how insensitive that cartoon is?

did i miss something?

[anon]

happyjuggler0, check this cartoon , it takes a swipe at the hypocracy of European countries.

[Don Myanck]

I salute the brave Egyptian press, which ran the infamous cartoons early last year, which caused exactly zero rioting. Congrats to you, Egyptian press!

[linguist]

Andy,

Don't have time to read all 183 comments right now but from what I saw it was an interesting discussion.

You're right. So is Jennifer.

And whoever said this about definitions or semantic meaning has got it down pat:
"They also change. Then the new ones count. Then at some point they may change too. Language is a bitch that way."

An interesting case (which touches on racism) is the continuing morphing of race identity terms in America. First Negro, then Black, then African-American, to Americans of African Descent, and so on. Likewise we've gone from ghetto to inner-city to underprivileged area and, now, are heading back toward ghetto (or so I've read).

Literal semantic meaning and contextual semantic meaning will change rapidly in highly-publicized societal debates. Even more so when people intentionally try to shift the context by shifting the term.

So can "racist" be used to refer to a cultural bias? Sure! Why? Because it is!

[joe]

This is just like when Newsweek's story about the desecration of Korans in Gitmo was used by some radicals to spark riots.

You all remember how conservatives urged Newsweek to stick to its guns and not back down in the face of violence, right? And how they made sure to point out that the violence was the fault of the rioters themselves, and defended press freedom?

[eoj]

The "conservative" objection to the publication of the Koran-flushing story was that the story was a probable fabrication, and as such an incitement--and incite it did. "[Newsweek] lied, people died," as the standard formulation goes.

Now, if all these cartoons didn't exist, "conservatives" wouldn't support their publication as part of a news story either.

They're weirdly consistent like that.

[R C Dean]

This is just like when Newsweek's story about the desecration of Korans in Gitmo was used by some radicals to spark riots.

Except that the Newsweek story was, you know, wrong.

Its perfectly consistent to support press outlets publishing cartoons and other opinion pieces that provoke violence and thuggery and while declining to support press outlets that publish false and distorted news stories that provoke violence and thuggery.

[Ed]

What's important here is that our Muslims are not rioting. It's a point surely lost in the batshit-crazy world of Islamist walking bombs.

[joe]

Except that the Newsweek story was, you know, true, and backed up by sources within the military, including the military's own investigation into the matter.

The abuse of the Koran has been thoroughly documented, and the military's procedures changed as a result. But, like, a big book won't fit through a narrow pipe, so la la la la la la la la I can't hear you!

[The Truth]

This is an appropriate time to make a humble suggestion for Reason magazine.

Please give Peter Bagge's large allotment of column inches in the monthly dead-tree-mag to Chip Bok at once.

As far as I can tell, there are only three differences between Bok and Bagge:

(1) Bok is funnier. That is to say that Chip Bok is actually funny.

(2) Unlike Peter Bagge, Chip Bok can draw. Yes, I know, ever since Beavis and Butt-head drawing ability is not merely optional but discouraged in cartoons. That really pinches my scrotum. Take a sketch class, Peter Bagge, you goddamned hack!

(3) The Chipster knows how to make his stuff punchy and sharp. In conveying his message, he's not an uneconomical gasbag like that walking snoozefest Peter Bagge.

Please, please, please do the cause of liberty a favor and replace Bagge with Bok. If you can't save freedom you may at least be able to make a modest contribution to the defense of my withering sanity.

[VM]

"you may at least be able to make a modest contribution to the defense of my withering sanity."

cancelling the subscription and spending those weeks at Trembling Hills didn't help much there, did it, Mona...

[Timon19]

linguist,

I think NE Ohio has a long way to go before it can be even remotely considered a "libertarian hotbed". Just take the People's Republic of Cleveland as but one argument against that notion. Their latest offense (besides re-electing Kucinich): red-light cameras.

Anyway, one of the few things I miss since I stopped reading the ABJ is Bok's cartoons. It's probably the only stuff worth reading in that paper anymore. It used to be a great paper for its circulation.

Hooray for Akron! We've got Chip.

[R C Dean]

Except that the Newsweek story was, you know, true,

That would explain why the first Google hit on the search "Newsweek Koran story" is a WaPo article on Newsweek apologizing for the inaccurate story they ran.

The second, third and fourth hits are about Newsweek retracting the story.

[R C Dean]

and the military's procedures changed as a result.

Actually, I think it was Newsweek that changed their standards for sourcing as a result of this particular scandal. Which was more of a scandal for Newsweek than anyone else.

[Gen. "Buck" Turgidson]

Mr. President, we cannot allow a cartoon gap!

[Pro Libertate]

Don't worry, General. We've still got Watterson in reserve. He's the reason we won the Cold War, after all ("Hobbes? Is he real? What of transmogrifier gap? And the fearsome Spaceman Spiff? Must give in to all-superior Westerners").

[joe]

So you don't remember the military's investigation into the practice of mistreating Korans, and the report that was issued?

It's amazing how little you can know when you set your mind to it, RC.

[joe]

Here, RC, you can find the Google search results for "Koran Abuse."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&domains=time.blogs.com%2Fdaily_dish&q=koran+abuse&btnG=Search&sitesearch=

Interesting that you would search on "Newsweek." People with a basic understanding of logic usually try to focus on the details of a statment and determine their objective truth, rather than thinking the story is about the messenger's political reliability.

Even your googling gives away what a hack you are.