posted February 25, 2009 09:45 PM            

The conservative view is that the monkey writer of the stimulus package is an absolute tie to Congress only. It doesn't make an iota of difference that Obama is the face of the stimulus package, or that the stimulus package is his first legislative victory, or that the stimulus package will become part of his Presidential resume (to a much greater degree than any of it's writers). That's why some people see the cartoon as racist, because they don't associate Congress with it. In fact, it could have been passed through Congress, and met with a veto in which case this cartoon wouldn't exist. Did you guys catch that? This cartoon would not exist without Obama's signature on the stimulus bill! So, of course, it's completely outrageous that anyone would suppose for a second that the cartoonist may have intended the monkey to be seen as Obama despite speaking of the "writer" of the stimulus package. Of course, we all know now that this cartoonist isn't too bright, so he likely meant no such thing, but surely some of you can understand how it can be seen as racist.

posted February 26, 2009 08:21 AM              

quote:

---

I am a minority of a very small population- mixed blood to be exact- Spanish / American Indian.

I do not believe in using my ethnicity as a crutch nor do I allow it to make me different.

Do I feel the pressure of a group? YEP..for years now the liberal party has told me that I am intellectually inferior which is why me and people like me need extra points on standardized tests or to get into college.

For years they have told me that I am not "as good" as others so I need to be given preferential treatment when it comes to work so that my employers can meet their quota.

For years I have been told I cannot make decisions on my own for my own welfare so that a party can compose legislation for affirmative action to help me get ahead.

I am not even going to go into the fact that I have a vagina so that means I need even more help from a certain political party to get my voice heard because having that genitalia predisposes me to not being as sufficient as say one with a penis...that is according to a certain political party.

{{ Music, sweet Music...aaahhhh i can hear Hillary's shrill notes }}

What I do know, is that I have had to work harder to PROVE I am not stupid, that I did not get my job because of a quota or to make some lefties happy they pushed affirmative action down corporate/ educational America's throat.

---

even better - the truth about racism and liberal theories of fixing " IT "

quote:

---

I come from a family - my fathers- that had to work in the fields in order to put food on the table. My mom's peeps were poor farmers that made good. All of my father's siblings went onto to work hard, get college degrees and become successful (without Affirmative action). Their children, my cousins, felt that the white man owed them - and they deserved all the breaks..Funny, out of my dad's 12 brothers and sisters- all but one is successful -out of about 80 cousins -only 15 or so of us went on to get either good jobs or get into / graduate from college.

Too many times I see minorities feel that "we" are entitled. It is that sense of entitlement, which is blasted by these groups, that leads to their downfall. Why is it when a minority succeeds and retains a conservative stance we are called "traitors to our race" or "sell outs?"

Why is it I watched hispanic communities and high school kids NOT take home their school books because other people in the barrio called them "coconuts" or said they were trying to "act white". But then in the same breath they would say it was all because of the white man? One can't have it both ways.

Do I feel the white man owes me? No..I cannot change what happened so many years ago- but, I (we) can become successful and work to effect a change. Affirmative action does not stop the good ol'boys. Laws and People willing to put their necks out is what stops those people from ruling corporate and scholastic America. I worked for two very Liberal entities- would it surprise you to know that both 1) hated minorities and 2) made sure women never rose above a certain level - money and grade wise? One was a big liberal university and the other was a publically traded company in the very liberal state of Maryland.

Keep in mind, affirmative action and the quota system is what I am against, I am not against civil rights. There is a HUGE difference!!

---

Bravo for speaking the truth - this girl doesnt need crutches because she is a woman or a minority.

posted February 26, 2009 11:27 AM            

You really gave me a run for my braincells there. Take it easy on me, will you?

And you know very well that I can be very literal sometimes. We should catch up soon.

Now that the fog has set, I must agree with you on the irrelevance of whether the chimp had worked on the bill or not. The message is still pretty clear.

Moreover, I wanted to state that I am also of the opinion, as you are, that the cartoonist had a prescience of the cartoon's interpretation being directed at Obama to some extent. That is exactly why I do not consider this cartoon "racist" at all. (I know that you, Eleanore, don't either. I'm just bringing this up for the thread.) I believe that the cartoonist deliberately did everything in his power to keep the concept of tying in the two news events without directing it at Obama. I feel that he did this out of respect for the black community, just as cartoonists all over are not making (and will hopefully never make) depictions of Obama as a monkey for the same reasons. If that's "racist", well then I don't know what isn't.

The suggestion brought up by Daryl Cagle and advocated by AG is ridiculous and Orwellian. You can't just make an "untouchable" checklist. That's not a solution, it's atrophy.

posted February 26, 2009 02:41 PM            

quote:

---

Of course, we all know now that this cartoonist isn't too bright...

---

How the **** do you know what I think about the cartoonist's intelligence? You're being a little arrogant there, don't you think?

quote:

---

...but surely some of you can understand how it can be seen as racist.

---

Of course we can! How the **** else could we be involved in this discussion if we couldn't put ourselves in their position and understand it?!?!

It's precisely because of that understanding that we know that the cartoon may be many things, but "racist" isn't one of them.

Now, stop trying to change the topic of discussion! The contention of some posters here is that this cartoon is racist. Not whether or not it may be seen as racist, but that it is, in fact, racist.

quote:

---

If it's not racist, then it's devoid of coherant thought.
-AG

---

Well it's not devoid of coherent thought because even you can follow its message, AG. So, logically, you must think it's racist.

quote:

---

However, I can assure you all that the monkey reference WAS/IS intended as a racist jab a Obama and black folk. I am black myself and the whole monkey issue is DEFINITELY a reference to blacks and Obama, at least that is how most blacks would view this. I don't care what the cartoonist said, that is absolutely what he meant to do.
-GotGemini

---

quote:

---

GotGemini,

I appreciate you for your candid response!

...

I agree with you 100%!

-Glaucus

---

You want to keep bringing up the idea that because it can be perceived as racist ("misconstrued" would be more appropriate) that the cartoon can be validly labeled as such. That's a bunch of horse **** !

The cartoon isn't racist, despite it hurting the feelings of a lot of people that misinterpreted it.

Period.

posted February 26, 2009 02:49 PM            

Delonas' depiction of the bullet-riddled primate – an obvious reference to the berserk chimp recently gunned down in Connecticut – as author of the congressional stimulus package reflects, however clumsily, a common view among conservatives: that the monster spending bill was so stupid that even a monkey could have written it.

Yet more than a few people saw it as a bigoted slam against Barack Obama – and let the newspaper know. Was the chimp cartoon Sean Delonas drew for the New York Post a racist provocation? Absurd.

"Every line was lit up for several hours," a Post employee told The New York Times. "The phones on the city desk have never rung like that before."

Actually, that's not true. I'm pretty sure it was as bad or worse on the morning of Aug. 31, 2001, when a column I'd written in that morning's Post caused the switchboard to all but melt down.

What had I written? A throwaway column about the funeral of the young pop star Aaliyah, who had just died in a plane crash. I'd found the lavish plans for the public ceremony – the horse-drawn carriage up Fifth Avenue, the white doves – a bit much and used the occasion to comment critically on funerary rituals and the cult of celebrity worship in contemporary America.

Admittedly, it was in questionable taste. But racist? Please.

That wasn't the view of two deejays for a black New York radio station, who whipped listeners into a frenzy. When I reached my desk, more than 200 phone messages waited for me. Most were extremely foul-mouthed and racist. A few contained explicit, violent threats. One caller left a chillingly detailed vow to wait outside the Post building and strangle me.

Did I mention that my photograph ran with my column?

After I declined my editors' offer of bodyguards, they decided I'd be better off staying at home for a few days. Then, to no one's surprise, Al Sharpton got involved. I sat in my Brooklyn apartment listening on the radio to Sharpton promise his followers, "We will bring down anybody who tells us how to mourn our own." This, from the bully whose racist fat mouthing led to the deadly Freddy's Fashion Mart fire in Harlem.

A concerned friend from L.A. called and offered me a plane ticket. "Get out of town," she said. I got.

Under pressure, the Post waffled on defending me. There's no telling how my situation would have ended had the Sept. 11 attacks not changed Sharpton's subject. Now, even though the paper disgracefully apologized for Delonas' cartoon, Sharpton's still hitting them hard. Yesterday he demanded a government investigation of the Post's hiring records to see if it's sufficiently, ahem, diverse. See what you get for giving in to a thug?

My 2001 Aaliyah column was mean, and I regret it. But as with the Delonas cartoon, the race-specific reaction it sparked was asinine and disproportionate. Even Nation writer Katha Pollitt, no advocate of right-wing columnists, penned a qualified defense of me. "I can't think of a more important issue than celebrity funerals for a self-described national black leader to be addressing right now," she deadpanned.

The Delonas controversy erupted on the same day U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder delivered a speech describing America as a "nation of cowards" too afraid to have "frank conversations" about race. Is he insane? When people have their jobs and even their lives threatened for crossing invisible lines of racial sensitivity, you'd be crazy to take that risk.

posted February 26, 2009 03:28 PM            

quote:

---

How the **** do you know what I think about the cartoonist's intelligence? You're being a little arrogant there, don't you think?

---

I didn't say anything about what you think specifically, but, no, I don't think that's particularly arrogant. I think the case is quite well made that this cartoonist isn't terribly bright.

quote:

---

How the **** else could we be involved in this discussion if we couldn't put ourselves in their position and understand it?!?!

---

It seems to me you could very easily be part of this discussion without understanding why it appears to be racist. You yourself have claimed a super simplistic view on the cartoon, which presupposes that you aren't viewing it in the same light as the people who find it racist.

quote:

---

Now, stop trying to change the topic of discussion!

---

I haven't been trying to change the topic of discussion. The topic is, "Is this racist?" and we're discussing the validity of that perspective. Doing so is NOT in any way changing the subject.

quote:

---

Well it's not devoid of coherent thought because even you can follow its message, AG. So, logically, you must think it's racist.

---

I've already stated the ways it is lacking in coherant thought. Don't tell me you skipped those parts I wrote about the message of the cartoon also seeming to be one where the police shoot the writer of the stimulus package. Logically, it can be assumed that I think the cartoonist is a moron, because as I've said from the beginning this cartoon should have been rejected by the editor in favor of a more rational cartoon. You should take a look at Cagle's work sometime if you want a concise message conveyed clearly.

quote:

---

How's that for "headway"?

---

posted February 26, 2009 06:57 PM            

Keeping Hate Alive
By Bob Weir

When the New York Post went ape in a cartoon, the enemies of freedom and equality showed their colors. Apparently the time has come to silence all critics of President Obama! He is the leader of our country and must not be questioned! Therefore, anyone who dares to make a critical reference to him or any of his policies is an enemy of the United States and should be destroyed.

Furthermore, every word or phrase used to challenge his authority will be meticulously parsed to discover hidden meanings. As for Rupert Murdoch, the News Corp Chairman, who recently apologized for a cartoon at his New York Post that critics said likened a chimpanzee to our president: force him to accept bailout funds and then control his every move. The cartoonist, who had the temerity to think that he had the freedom under the Constitution to use political humor as his creative offering: sentence him to six months of sensitivity training seminars.

In case you just got back from a trip to another planet, the Post printed a cartoon depicting the body of a bullet-riddled chimp named, Travis and two police officers. The violent chimp was shot to death by police in Connecticut after horribly mauling a woman. The caption read: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

Well, you would have thought the Ku Klux Klan had been given the keys to the White House. Julian Bond, of the NAACP, said the cartoon was inviting the assassination of the president, so he wants the editor and cartoonist fired. Then there's that highly principled arbiter of moral values, the Reverend Al Sharpton, who wants to shut down the newspaper for, among other red herring reasons, choosing February, which is Black History Month, to insult the first African-American president. (It couldn't be because The Post has often written about the Harlem rabble-rouser and his many legal and ethical challenges.)

Sharpton wants the Federal Communications Commission to investigate The Post. Investigate what? Are they going to decide if the paper was comparing Obama to an ape? What in Heaven's name is going on in this country? When George W. Bush was in office, he didn't get a minute's peace for 8 years. Day after day he was bombarded with the meanest, slimiest, most vicious comments and caricatures ever heard or seen in the political world. Not only was he drawn as a monkey, he was regularly viewed as a clown, a child wearing a dunce cap, a war monger and the devil incarnate, just to cite a few of the scurrilous attacks. He just shrugged it off and continued doing his job.

My feeling is that Obama is doing the same thing. He's not squawking about something as innocuous as a cartoon because he's too busy, too confident and has too much class to waste time with such nonsense.

But charlatans like Sharpton would like people to believe that they're still living in the 1960's with Sheriff Bull Connors in Mississippi, using dogs to attack black demonstrators, and Alabama Governor George Wallace standing in front of a school to stop integration. Now that Barack Obama and Eric Holder, the days when charges of racism could be thrown around like baseballs during spring training, are gone. Those who made a small fortune by using the race card as a credit card are as outdated as the dinosaur.

Bond, appearing on the Keith Olbermann Show on MSNBC, said the connection between simians and black men is an old canard. (Evidently, it's not old enough, since Bond wants to introduce it to a new generation who undoubtedly never heard it before.) Of course, Olbermann, who, during the Bush presidency spent every second of air time on his show foaming at the mouth with a rage that often made him look like a candidate for a padded cell, was in his glory as he eagerly asked leading questions of his guest, always getting the anticipated response.

As I watched the President address Congress on Tuesday evening I couldn't help thinking that this elegant, well educated man is embarrassed when race hustlers like Sharpton go to the airwaves to "defend" him with a contrived, pretentious display of indignation. Demagogues like "Rev. Al" lose contributions to their causes when the racial climate is friendly and the dark clouds of bigotry are being dispersed. He needs friction between the races in order to add to his personal treasury and be relevant in a country that has abandoned such anachronous behavior.

We have many serious challenges to face in the future; we don't need race baiters trying to drag us back to the past.

posted February 26, 2009 07:00 PM            

quote:

---

Apparently the time has come to silence all critics of President Obama! He is the leader of our country and must not be questioned! Therefore, anyone who dares to make a critical reference to him or any of his policies is an enemy of the United States and should be destroyed.

---