Dream on, Michael.
Is this what conservatives actually believe will happen? That Benghazi is going to lead to Obama resigning?
What’s their thought process? What actual crime do they believe Obama committed that will be exposed and lead to his downfall?
“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.
Do editorial cartoonists get paid by the cartoon, or do they have a quote to meet? Is there an actual incentive for something like this, multiple cartoons about the same current event? At best we can say there’s two ideas here (how can the government not find 2% in cuts and Obama using the airplane delays for political purposes), but neither are fully formed, are they?
So I ask: what incentive did Ramirez have for making three cartoons about the same issue, including one after the issue had been decided? Heck, why not make one about Congress rushing to deal with the flight delays (which affects them) but ignoring everything else?
Cartoonist Michael Ramirez comes out in favor of gun control legislation that would be tougher than anything currently being considered. A good cartoon.
Basic question: what does Ramirez propose instead? Is he one of the ‘Let’s arm everyone and put security guards wherever people congregate’ people? Or is it as simple as blaming NWA and Generation Y?
Widespread support for gay marriage is a powerful weapon against bigotry and spells potential suicide for the GOP. A good cartoon.
Now that that’s out of the way, cartoonist Michael Ramirez wrote the following to accompany this cartoon:To listen to the mainstream media, the issue of same-sex marriage is now resolved because popular culture endorses it, Hollywood advocates it, the general public narrowly favors it (except in state elections) and 70% of “Millennials” (18-32 year olds) support it.
A majority of “Millennials” probably love Justin Bieber and listen to rap music, watch reality shows and care what Snooki does on a Friday afternoon. It doesn’t mean the Federal Government should endorse them.
Putting aside the long term consequences of a decision to have government sanction issues of private sexuality, and the impact these important decisions have on society’s structural longevity and success, since when is the Supreme Court’s job to rule by national consensus rather than by weighing an issue’s constitutionality?
More often these days, you’re better off listening to Justin Bieber than listening to the mainstream media.
So SA forum user FaradayCage hopped into his time machine to bring back this rendition, which puts it all into perspective:1960’s Ramirez posted:
To listen to the mainstream media, the issue of desegregation is now resolved because popular culture endorses it, Hollywood advocates it, the general public narrowly favors it (except in Mississippi elections) and 70% of “African Americans” (niggers) support it.
A majority of “African Americans” probably love Malcolm X and listen to rap music, watch Star Trek on stolen televisions and don’t wake up before noon. It doesn’t mean the Federal Government should endorse them.
Putting aside the long term consequences of a decision to have federal government trample over state’s rights, and the impact these important decisions have on society’s structural longevity and success, since when is the Supreme Court’s job to rule by national consensus rather than by weighing an issue’s constitutionality?
The way he slips in ‘rap music’ as an apparently modern trend supports the idea that Ramirez doesn’t follow pop culture.
And he thinks people in their 20’s listen to Justin Bieber? Really? College students are clamoring for a musician younger than they are? Is he unaware of the rise of the ‘tween’ market?
With North Korea in the news there’s been a flurry of cartoons referencing Gangnam Style, despite the song reaching its peak last year. I’ve let them pass under my radar because hey, it’s not like there’s anything else about North or South Korean culture that Americans know about. Maybe there’s one or two cartoonists familiar with Chan-wook Park, but the day I see a cartoon referencing Oldboy is the day I eat my laptop.
But this? I have to wonder if Ramirez thought ‘Gangnam… Gun ban… Yeah, they sound similar,’ or if he just learned about Gangnam style because his fellow cartoonists were referencing it and he honestly thinks it’s currently popular.
And a repetition of the ‘Doing X won’t prevent another mass shooting’ argument. What it really means is ‘Doing X won’t prevent any and all potential mass shootings,’ because due to the law of large numbers another mass shooting is inevitable. But yes, taking steps like banning high capacity magazines or assault weapons could very well prevent someone from going on a mass shooting spree, or at least mitigate the effects of the next one (the Tuscon shooting came to a halt when the killer had to stop and reload, and was thus subdued; had he not had high capacity magazines he would have needed to reload sooner). We wouldn’t know about it, most likely, because when does the prevention of a crime make the news?
A good cartoon.
Over the past week there’s been plenty of reflection on the Iraq war, marked (in certain circles) by the inability of the architects of the war to acknowledge any error on their part and the fact that they are still highly paid and respected in many circles. So it’s good (to an extent) to see people like Stantis and Andrew Sullivan admit they were wrong.
Yes, it would have been better for them to have never supported the war in the first place, but I’m not going to rehash the entire “Millions of people were against the war but they were shouted down as anti-American terrorist lovers” thing. I’m sure you’re all familiar with it.
And at least Stantis understands the mistake he (and so, so much of the media) made: it’s not his job to be a cheerleader or to fawn over those in power. Journalists, reporters and editorial cartoonists are supposed to be naturally wary of what those in power say. Trust but verify; comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable. All that jazz.
So far Stantis is the only cartoonist I’ve seen acknowledge they were wrong. I wasn’t following editorial cartoons too closely back in 2003, so I can only guess who supported it. And no, I’m not expecting an “I was wrong” from Glenn McCoy or Michael Ramirez anytime soon.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
One such confession makes up for twenty of his/her colleagues who refuse to admit they were wrong.
So Stantis has covered for twenty of his fellow cartoonists.
Um, has even ONE member of the Bush cabinet admitted to being wrong…?
Also: Nice to for once see a cartoon called “a good cartoon” sincerely.
No. His confession only makes up for his mistake (to the extent that it does). If his colleagues want to make up for it, they need to acknowledge their own error. One can’t confess on the part of others.
I’ve had it in mind to write my thoughts about guns since Newtown. Just a big post to get all my views out there a la the one I wrote about Israel and Palestine. But I kept putting it off for a couple reasons. One, the story kept dying down. Two (the big one) I don’t have strong emotional feelings about guns themselves.
I know, I know. This is the internet, and especially on Tumblr we’re supposed to treat even trivial, mundane shit as the Most Important Thing Evah and Oh My God My Feels, So Many Feels Because Reasons.
And I don’t want to play that game. Not with guns.
A good cartoon.
Over the past week there’s been plenty of reflection on the Iraq war, marked (in certain circles) by the inability of the architects of the war to acknowledge any error on their part and the fact that they are still highly paid and respected in many circles. So it’s good (to an extent) to see people like Stantis and Andrew Sullivan admit they were wrong.
Yes, it would have been better for them to have never supported the war in the first place, but I’m not going to rehash the entire “Millions of people were against the war but they were shouted down as anti-American terrorist lovers” thing. I’m sure you’re all familiar with it.
And at least Stantis understands the mistake he (and so, so much of the media) made: it’s not his job to be a cheerleader or to fawn over those in power. Journalists, reporters and editorial cartoonists are supposed to be naturally wary of what those in power say. Trust but verify; comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable. All that jazz.
So far Stantis is the only cartoonist I’ve seen acknowledge they were wrong. I wasn’t following editorial cartoons too closely back in 2003, so I can only guess who supported it. And no, I’m not expecting an “I was wrong” from Glenn McCoy or Michael Ramirez anytime soon.
