NY cartoon appears to link Obama to dead chimp

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Now there is some intellectual honesty! Bravo BH.

This was my point as well. The cartoon isn't racist or politically partisan in my opinion.

It's just a reaction to what someone deems to be a disastrous bill...nothing more.

God knows why they thought it would be funny to try and connect it with the chimp story.

Originally posted by MemoryShock

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.

Wow, you're getting all of that from a drawing of a dead monkey with two bullet holes in him and two cops mentioning the stimulus package? Partisanship? The fact that no Republicans supported the stimulus package in the House and three in the Senate supported it?

Your imagination is REALLY working overtime to be able to see all of that with this cartoon. You might as well be reading tea leaves to predict the next bank to go belly up.

I submit that you are seeing what YOU want to see.

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.

Again with the partisan lines. I seriously don't know where you see a distinction of partisanship in a drawing of a dead monkey. What is one bullet hole supposed to be Democrats and one Republican? I suppose the Republican bullet hole is bigger since Republicans tend to do more damage?

As for people not knowing what they are doing, it's very clear that no one in Obama's administration knows the first thing about how to fix this mess and that can be EASILY proven. Look at Obama's cabinet members! Here's a good paragraph from an article about Timothy Geithner's first failed attempt at the financial crisis:

The lack of a detailed plan is important not just for investors but also for the average worker, mom and student because it means there really is no easy way out of the global economic crisis. It means we have assigned the job of fixing the banking system to the smartest guy the government could find [Timothy Geithner] and surrounded him with every possible resource, and given him plenty of time to think, and still he came up with bupkis.

articles.moneycentral.msn.com...

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...

It's becoming very clear where you stand on things. You just appear to be in self-denial when called on it.


[edit on 18-2-2009 by sos37]

reply to post by nyk537


I agree.

My honest opinion:

1). The cartoon was done in poor taste.

2). I did not associate the chimp with Obama.

3). To me, the stimulus package was the target of criticism.

4). As other said, it is implying the stimulus package was so ridiculous that it must have been created by a chimp.

5). I did not interpret the image as saying someone should be, needed to me, could be, or might be killed.

6). I didn't take it as anything racial because the stimulus package was not a person.

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

My immediate impression was of the stimulus package. Then, we can further associate Obama and Congress with the cartoon if we are trying to tie it to a person/group of people.

So, yes. Poor taste but not necessarily personified, IMHO. To me it was a slam against the stimulus package. Not very wise or classy but I'm not going to lose sleep about it either.

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
I am divided about this.

On the one hand, many many times has bush been shown as a chimp, so on that note, it is perfectly acceptable to show Obama as one also.

Please show me where this cartoon says the chimp = Obama? I missed it.

I completely agree. I also missed where is says the chimp=Obama. I believe the point was that the stimulus bill was so poorly written that it must have been done by a chimp. It was a play on yesterdays news about the chimp that went nuts and was shot by police. I think people are reading too much into it. I do not think that it was meant to be a racial insult about the president.

Originally posted by MemoryShock

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".

I can more easily prove that it doesn't than you can prove that it does. Nowhere in the cartoon does it say that the chimp is Obama or Congress or a single member of Congress.

All it implies is the chimp wrote the stimulus bill. For all you know, Congress hired the chimp to write the stimulus bill, paid for with bananas.

Sounds pretty stupid? So does your flacid argument.

Originally posted by nyk537
Regardless of whether or not we've seen it's effect yet, people believe it's a massive mistake.

A huge majority of whom who can't see beyond their faces when it comes to long term societal management.

As an example of what I percieve to be short sighted perception, let's look at all the people who are so bent on ridding the nation of criminals.

Sure. Let's do that. Law enforcement would lose their jobs. Prisons would lose their jobs. Et Cetera.

Society needs a balance and I am willing to consider that al ot of people who are bsing about the stimulus bill are doing so because the money isn't going where they want it.

I'm not saying I am supporting the bill...I am saying that there is no way that one side over the other is devoid of their bias when it comes to politics and as such alot of the conflict is based on irrational endorsement or lack thereof.

And besides...this type of conflict is necessary in this society. It's a sleight of hand to keep the lower classes concerned with trivialities (in the sense that there is nothing the average person can do about it) rather than see that what is actually happening.

It is partisanship...we're arguing for the right of which party or ideology gets the right to screw us over...because personally there isn't a one here (most likely) who is personally invested in this and will see immediate and direct consequences from this.

Seems we are coming to a consensus here on what this was meant to portray.

Perhaps the fact that so many people are taking this as racist or hurtful says more about the individuals thinking that than it does the cartoon.

reply to post by AshleyD


I'm not either, and I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. But, no matter who the dead monkey represents, the cartoon was taking aim (pardon the pun) at the Obama administration and the Democrat-led Congress....via the bill they authored.

It's in bad taste and unnecessary.....and I don't like any of them, but even I can see that.

[edit on 2/18/2009 by skeptic1]

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Likewise...hence the discussion.

The only real proof evident one way or the other is the cartoon itself. No where does Obama or any other politicians name appear in it.

Any other interpretation is pure speculation on the viewer's behalf. It's like trying to interpret ink blots. What you see in them are simply constructs of the inner workings of your own mind.



[edit on 18-2-2009 by LLoyd45]

Originally posted by skeptic1
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]

I interpreted the cartoon as saying the bill was written by someone with the mentality of a chimp. They simply were making an allusion to the chimp that was put down recently.

At no time did Obama or any member of Congress cross my consciousness. I know they didn't write the bill. Who actually wrote this awful legislation is the question we all should be asking.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by LLoyd45]

Originally posted by Djarums

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.

Uh, no sir, this is how I DISCUSS. This isn't the debating forums, or have you forgotten that? And I stand by the comments I made. You and Memory Shock appear to be coming off and ultra high and mighty on this topic with your own personal opinions and on other topics I've noticed and you seem to have a problem with others voicing their opinions when they don't jive with yours.

Originally posted by LLoyd45
The only real proof evident one way or the other is the cartoon itself. No where does Obama or any other politicians name appear in it.

Any other interpretation is pure speculation on the viewer's behalf. It's like trying to interpret ink blots. What you see in them are simply constructs of the inner workings of your own mind.

Question - How is it evident that two cops saying something about the stimulus package after shooting a chimp prove that they are implying that the chimp wrote it?

Could they not have been discussing politics seperatly while shooting the monkey...making the two actions exclusive of each other?

If you have assumed an inclusivity of the actions depicted in the picture (which I did as well) then you are just as guilty of jumping to a conclusion as I am.

Why is yours more valid?

reply to post by sos37


I don't get the impression that anyone is coming off as high and mighty. The image is interpretative and people are just chiming in with their own impressions. And of course politics being such a touchy subject, people can become passionate about it. However, as long as we remember it really comes down to interpretation, there is no need for any of us to feel our interpretation is the correct one. I don't think it's fair to accuse them of being on a high horse just as it is unfair to claim anyone who does not agree is also on a high horse. As someone else said, the image is an ink blot.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Question - How is it evident that two cops saying something about the stimulus package after shooting a chimp prove that they are implying that the chimp wrote it?

Could they not have been discussing politics seperatly while shooting the monkey...making the two actions exclusive of each other?

I sincerely doubt it. Would you be discussing politics while a raging 200lb chimp was trying to bite your face off? I wouldn't, my whole attention would be on lining up my gunsight on his head.

If you have assumed an inclusivity of the actions depicted in the picture (which I did as well) then you are just as guilty of jumping to a conclusion as I am.

Why is yours more valid?

My assessment is based purely on the facts in evidence. I'm not speculating about whom the chimp was supposed to represent other than an angry chimp. Do you mentally associate Barack Obama with a chimp? I don't, so I guess that's why I failed to make the connection.

Originally posted by LLoyd45
I sincerely doubt it. Would you be discussing politics while a raging 200lb chimp was trying to bite your face off? I wouldn't, my whole attention would be on lining up my gunsight on his head.

My assessment is based purely on the facts in evidence. I'm not speculating about whom the chimp was supposed to represent other than an angry chimp. Do you mentally associate Barack Obama with a chimp? I don't, so I guess that's why I failed to make the connection. My Emphasis

If you didn't associate the chimp with a political entity then how can you state that the police were not discussing politics while seperately shooting a chimp...making the chimp representative of nothing but a literal chimp?

Is that not a contradiction?

By the way...nice edit of your previous post to delete the "I'm going on the evident proof of the cartoon" comment to establish a kind of retroactive credibility...

You know what I mean. I don't edit my posts to sound more credible...

[edit on 18-2-2009 by MemoryShock]

Originally posted by MemoryShock
If you didn't associate the chimp with a political entity then how can you state that the police were not discussing politics while seperately shooting a chimp...making the chimp representative of nothing but a literal chimp?

Is that not a contradiction?

I associated the chimp with the author of the bill who as a point of interest, no one seems to know. If Obama or Congress had actually had a hand in the writing of the bill, reading it would not have been necessary. The chimp was simply a literary allusion to the raging chimp shot the other day, no more no less.

I may be wrong, but that's my interpretation of the cartoon.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by LLoyd45]

Whoever thinks this is racist, needs to give their head a shake. Those need to stop playing the race card for everything. Embarrassing to them.

You and Memory Shock appear to be coming off and ultra high and mighty on this topic with your own personal opinions and on other topics I've noticed and you seem to have a problem with others voicing their opinions when they don't jive with yours.

Oops. I totally forgot about that. There is still a small percentage of people here who believe that if, heaven forbid, a staff member expresses him or herself in a thread that clearly means they have a problem with others voicing their opinions.

How silly of me to forget about that. Kinda funny how in a 4 page thread the only people who are accused of being "high and mighty" by you are staff members.

How boring.

I really think most here are taking this the wrong way. It is not comparing Obama to the monkey. Rather, it is implying that the tremendously flawed stimulus package was written by a crazed monkey.

Originally posted by LLoyd45
I associated the chimp with the author of the bill who as a point of interest, no one seems to know. If Obama or Congress had actually had a hand in the writing of the bill, reading it would not have been necessary. The chimp was simply a literary allusion to the raging chimp shot the other day, no more no less.

Again...how is that not a contradiction?