NY cartoon appears to link Obama to dead chimp

reply to post by vor78


I am not sympathetic to any of those yahoos in DC.

But, Congress should not be depicted as monkeys. I could say that was an insult to the monkeys, but that would be off topic. No matter how sorry those people up there are, we put them into office....so their sorriness reflects on us.

The President shouldn't be depicted as a monkey, no matter who the President is.

And, none of our elected officials (or animals, for that matter) should be depicted as being killed....just for humor or satire's sake. It's tacky.

And, neither situation that this cartoon is based on are funny matters. They are sad commentaries on our country today....true, the monkey less so than the "stimulus" package, but still.....



[edit on 2/18/2009 by skeptic1]

reply to post by LLoyd45


No, I think that because people have been conditioned to think that way. The obvious racial implication is enough for people to think that. And it's not their fault in my opinion.

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by vor78

 

I am not sympathetic to any of those yahoos in DC.

But, Congress should not be depicted as monkeys.
[edit on 2/18/2009 by skeptic1]

Please show me where the cartoon implies that the chimp = any member or members of Congress? I missed that.

Originally posted by sos37
MemoryShock, you and the OP can get off your high horses, sir. For one, the cartoon does not directly imply that the chimp = Obama.

Yes it does. As far as it represents the Administrations pushing of the bill and the party lines that were clearly shown in the House's vote.

The cartoon clearly implies that even a chimpanzee could have written what was in the stimulus package and now that the chimp is dead, they're going to have to find another monkey to do the dirty work.

A picture is worth a thousand words...and implying a devolved mentality could have written the bill is ignorant...as many people aren't versed in the legalese and business rhetoric to accomplish such. Which highlights further the partisan lines being played.

That's it. That's all it implies. If you see more to it than that I would say it's a reflection of personal issues that you, yourself have. Perhaps some counseling would help?

I implore you to not assume my personal issues; an indirect Ad Hom isn't going to gain my ire.

On another note, you can argue that this administration is different, the people are different, blah blah blah blah blah but the fact is if this were a political cartoon about killing Bush you would probably be laughing it up or finding some means to justify it, so I'll thank you not to play the wounded advocate.

I don't advocate the death of another individual and I don't advocate partisanship. Again with the assumptions...

reply to post by sos37


Then, if the monkey isn't representative of Congress, and it isn't representative of Obama, then what the hell is it representing, in your opinion?

Originally posted by sos37
Please show me where the cartoon implies that the chimp = any member or members of Congress? I missed that.

Prove that it doesn't. The very point that many seem to interpret it as such gives the thought validity and deserves more attention then a "nuh'uh".

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I don't advocate the death of another individual and I don't advocate partisanship. Again with the assumptions...

You don't, but many others do and have.

These people didn't speak up then to stop it with Bush.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


I agree with you, I don't believe that this cartoon is making a direct correction between Obama and the monkey. I think it is really implying that the stimulus bill was such a piece of crap, that it appeared to be written by a chimp...so in that sense, it is more directly bashing those representatives and senators that shoveled all of the crap into this bill.

reply to post by skeptic1


I absolutely agree. In fact, I think the cartoon is highly offensive.

The reaction to it is something I find equally ridiculous and in fact, offensive. Most of the ones complaining now condoned this for eight years. They've contributed to the lowering of political discourse of this country and now they're whining about it when it comes back to bite them.

Well, what did they expect?

Again, I am not at all supporting this type of behavior. I'm just saying that I think there's a good dose of hypocrisy on this type of thing.

reply to post by vor78


Of course there is hypocrisy. It's politics.

But, just because it seemed "ok" to do it with Bush (for the liberals) doesn't mean that it should be fair play with Obama (for the conservatives).

It isn't right either way.

Originally posted by skeptic1
But, just because it seemed "ok" to do it with Bush (for the liberals) doesn't mean that it should be fair play with Obama (for the conservatives).

Do we know this is a conservative cartoon?

I don't know that it is.

It could just as easily be drawn by a liberal at the magazine.

Originally posted by MemoryShock


Prove that it doesn't. The very point that many seem to interpret it as such gives the thought validity and deserves more attention then a "nuh'uh".

In America I always thought a person was innocent until proven guilty.. It's not anyone's job but the accuser's to prove guilt.

Why should the artist be criticized because of what someone assumes his cartoon means? When you can demonstrate some real proof, not just your opinion, that it's portraying Obama or any other member of Congress for that matter, then I'll agree with you.

Originally posted by sos37
MemoryShock, you and the OP can get off your high horses, sir.

Perhaps some counseling would help?

Is this how you debate? Seriously? Other people should get off their high horses but you will decide based on people's opinions in a discussion who is in need of counseling?

Perhaps a review of what conversation is before you return to this thread would be helpful to you. This is a discussion forum and we're discussing an issue. If that upsets you, log out.

reply to post by nyk537


You misunderstood what I said.

I was referring to the reaction in this thread from people. The reaction of "Well, it happened to Bush, so turn-about is fair play".

We shouldn't feel that way. We shouldn't lower ourselves that way. We shouldn't play the same games that the other side played.

I repeat: It isn't right, no matter what side is doing it.

What my point is seems to be missed here...many people bombed or condoned Bush bashing after he had made mistakes.

Obama's Administration has yet to do anything and we haven't started seeing the results of their actions.

Such a heavy hitting implication as depicted in the cartoon is drawn only from the party division and isn't substantiated through example (if one assumes that the shooting is meant to express displeasure and not a literal advocacy for assassination) and fact.

This is an example of reactive thinking...not objective and rational analysis.

reply to post by MemoryShock


No, it's based on how horrible people think this bill is.

Regardless of whether or not we've seen it's effect yet, people believe it's a massive mistake.

I'm still not saying the cartoon is right, but I don't think it's strictly based on partisanship either.

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by vor78

 

Of course there is hypocrisy. It's politics.

But, just because it seemed "ok" to do it with Bush (for the liberals) doesn't mean that it should be fair play with Obama (for the conservatives).

It isn't right either way.

My initial post was largely sarcastic in nature. It was meant to make those who supported this type of thing for the last eight years stop and think that perhaps their actions have contributed to what we're seeing now, where this type of thing is becoming publicly acceptable.

That's probably my fault for not making it more clear initially that it was sarcastic in nature, but as I've stated repeatedly, I do NOT condone or support this type of thing. I just think that some people are complaining awfully loudly for something they themselves are guilty of.

Originally posted by LLoyd45
In America I always thought a person was innocent until proven guilty.. It's not anyone's job but the accuser's to prove guilt.

In a court of law where one's freedom is being decided.

There is no innocence or guilt here as the ambiguous nature of the cartoon is intended to cause controversy...so yes, the virtue of proof in regards to the expression of an opinion is a moot point since neither side can do it.

Which is why I say the discussion is better served objectively looking at this rather than people showing up and saying "No it isn't".

I'm trying to stimulate discourse as opposed to those who are so certain that there isn't a need for discussion.

When you can demonstrate some real proof, not just your opinion, that it's portraying Obama or any other member of Congress for that matter, then I'll agree with you.

Likewise...hence the discussion.

My view is that "offense", like beauty and comedy, is in the eye of the beholder. We can argue all day about whether the idea behind this cartoon is offensive or not, but it's ink on paper and that's really all it is. Beyond that, it's just an idea. In different parts of the world and in other cultures, things are thought to be offensive that we do every day. And vice versa.

Personally, I don't like the cartoon. Not because of its political message, but because of the chimp story. That was tragic and I don't understand the mindset that would find it funny or even politically meaningful to connect the 2 news stories.

But I am not offended. Art and personal expression do not offend me. In fact, unless it is something directed at me personally, I rarely get offended.

I don't see a racist element in this cartoon. But I do think the chimp was supposed to represent Obama.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by LLoyd45


I'll ask you, too. If the dead monkey is not representative of Congress or Obama, then what does it represent?

And, if it represents neither, then what's the point of the cartoon to begin with?


[edit on 2/18/2009 by skeptic1]