Panel two. “We lost the election because our tax exempt status was not applied as quickly as it could have been. If only we’d had it sooner, Romney would have looked so much more charismatic.”
“Man who did bad thing is bad.” Gee, thanks for informing us.
***
Also, this
Earlier today Ted Rall tweeted this cartoon and one or two others which are all about the recent “Don’t bury the dead Boston bomber. He’s garbage.” idea going around.
I find these toons to be revealing a level of impotence unto itself. There’s so much anger and self-righteousness behind these cartoons, but it really means nothing. “Bad man is bad. I don’t like bad man. He a doo-doo head.”
A couple weeks ago I dismissed a Bill Day cartoon that said nothing about the Boston marathon bombing other than “Bad thing is bad. People are sad.” Which isn’t saying anything. It’s like saying “It’s a nice morning.” That’s not a substantive comment, it sure as hell is not an opinion or point of view. It’s a simple statement of fact. So many cartoons fall into the “illustrate the news” formula, but some take a step to the side with a “People are sad/happy/angry because of this story” riff.
We don’t need to be told people are in mourning after something like the Boston marathon bombing. It’s a given. You contribute nothing by drawing a crying Statue of Liberty, no more than you do when drawing a lone sneaker with blood on it.
But these ones… There is a personal element to them, yes. Beeler and Englehart are expressing a point of view by showing that they are angry, and that does manage to almost climb over the bar (as low as it is) for editorial cartoons.
But what are they saying? “I’m angry! I don’t like bad man! I will reduce him to an evil caricature and demand an impotent, utterly pointless act of vengeance.”
Yes, the kidnapper and the Boston bombers were evil, and they did despicable things. But getting yourself riled up like this does nothing, since you have no power to affect anything directly related to these issues. It’s just as empty as Randy Bish’s cartoon that says “Oh, these evil guys are going to get it when they get to hell.” A cheap, childish concept of vengeance, a lame attempt to console oneself with the idea that all bad people will eventually receive punishment.
And on an intellectual level, I just can’t stand the pure, visceral reaction here. As Ted Rall points out, Beeler is trying to explain the kidnappings as nothing more than ‘evil.’ Is that the best we can do in terms of comprehending these actions? And if all you can say is “Some people are evil,” well news flash, Beeler: We already know this.
The majority of bad, or at least ineffectual, editorial cartoons can be summed up as
1) Illustrating the news.
2) Echoing the predominant sentiment(s) in the wake of a story.
3) The cartoonist expressing/reinforcing an absurdly simplistic view point about a person, thing or event they do or do not like.
So few cartoons actually say anything or make any kind of argument, and as much as I rag on Chuck Asay or Michael Ramirez, I do sincerely give them some (small) measure of respect for having opinions. Sure, they do produce plenty of shitty cartoons, including ones that fall into the latter two categories I just listed. But at least they can make me feel something when I look at their work.
Bill Day’s not the only one to plagiarize, of course, nor is he the only one to self-plagiarize. Just last week we had Dick Locher passing off a decade-old cartoon referencing the first Hulk movie in complete disregard for the idea of ‘timeliness.’
And now here’s Bob Gorrell. The image of the pencil-selling homeless man/beggar is one Gorrell has used before, but while I’m not entirely positive this art is reused from an older toon, there are a couple questions:
1) Is that guy selling pencils? There’s a random one in his cup, but the sign indicates he’s looking for work. Or is he supposed to be looking for work while selling pencils?
2) If the cartoon is in the mold of Chuck Asay’s favorite talking point - the layabout who lives high on the taxpayer’s dime - shouldn’t the guy be the exact opposite of what we’re presented with? Shouldn’t he be in a cool car, wearing an Italian suit, some curvy blonde clinging to him? And then he’s saying “Yeah, I’ll look for work once my welfare benefits run out.”
Oh, wait. Now I notice the 2010 copyright. But now I’m wondering if Gorrell just took the art and changed what the sign said, or if the entire cartoon is reused (and if so, did he take the art from an even older cartoon and change the sign from that third, original one? We’re getting into Inception territory here.)
I have to come down on the side of ‘self-plagiarism’ here, because of the aforementioned problem of the guy bragging about his benefits despite looking like a Depression-era hobo. He’s reused his own art without giving a thought to how the argument being made doesn’t match the visuals.
Way to be at the forefront, Chuck. Not only are you late to weigh in on this, but other cartoonists have already pointed out the hypocrisy of Congress rushing to grant the FAA special treatment in what is supposed to be across the board cuts due to the sequester (but not when it affects them).
Also: TWEET! Unnecessary invocation of ‘Obama as a false idol’ meme.
Aw, isn’t that cute? Chuck Asay now has a friend to come over and play “Fast and Furious is a serious issue that will bring down Obama” with.
Like Chuck Asay, Chip Bok seems intent on ignoring that handguns exist.
If your argument relies on selective knowledge, it’s probably not a good argument. If your hypothetical scenario to support your argument relies on selective knowledge, it’s a stupid scenario.
Hell, I wonder if Bok is actually serious about this. I mean, the robber has a bandit mask on, for frack’s sake. Is anyone supposed to take this seriously?
“People who don’t like the idea of poor people having medical insurance. You know, Christians.”
(And I wonder what took so long for Asay to dress Obama up as a Redcoat. Unless I’ve missed some earlier cartoons that did that.)
Chuck Asay concedes that Republicans, having failed to win elections or affect their preferred policy, have nothing left to do but hide in the shadows and snipe—idiomatically or literally—at Barack Obama and Democrats. A good cartoon.
Isn’t that what they’ve always been doing?
“People who don’t like the idea of poor people having medical insurance. You know, Christians.”
(And I wonder what took so long for Asay to dress Obama up as a Redcoat. Unless I’ve missed some earlier cartoons that did that.)
The Republican Statue of Liberty is standing behind a fence meant to keep Hispanic people out. Its sign welcoming them to the land of the free is mocking them.
I never expected Asay to be so honest about Republicans.
(And apparently he thinks free education is a bad thing. I’m interested in how, exactly, America is supposed to remain competitive with China or India when we don’t invest in teaching the next generation about science and technology.)
Wow. Is Chuck Asay really trying to contrast free birth control with domestic violence? Because that’s what comes to mind when I look at the first panel. Women who have been beaten or threatened and they need somewhere private to hide.
Why is Asay bringing safe houses into this conversation? What the fuck is wrong with him? It’s been ridiculous enough to see conservatives get up in arms about Democrats et al wanting to provide free birth control, but at least there was something resembling logic as it’s usually been on the grounds that they think it somehow violates religious liberty or will encourage teenagers to go out and have sex (as if teens need encouragement to have sex).
But this? What the fuck is Asay thinking? Why… Where…. What is going through his mind that he sees the issue of birth control and his response is ‘Women who have been beaten by their spouses”?
I know this is old, but I’ve been getting caught up on your awesome Tumblr, and I just had to say something: Has Asay never, uh, TALKED to anybody who ran or worked at a safe house before? Because they are OVERWHELMINGLY of the opposite opinion on literally everything he believes. I mean seriously overwhelmingly. Like, if demographic research sliced down that narrowly, probably the only groups more likely to vote for Democrats are: A.) single black Catholic lesbian mothers on welfare who are members of unions and living in urban areas, and B.) half-Kenyan lawyers who have been elected president.
Considering how conservatives like to invoke Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus (a guy who told the rich to sell all their possessions and give the money away), I think their concern is simply connecting themselves with figures/institutions universally seen as good, regardless of the cognitive dissonance like you highlight here.
