Lincoln 1864
"Obama" 2009?
Might it be a Federal criminal offense to suggest that the President was acting like a rampaging Chimp when he got the Stimulus Bill passed and had to be shot? This really does seem to be a direct advocacy of violence against the President because of the Stimulus Bill, whether in parody or not. Perhaps Rupert Murdock and the cartoonist should at least talk to Congress about this. What say you?
9 comments:
Let's see, cartoon elements:
Two white cops
One white cop with a smoking gun
a dead "rampaging chimp"?
shot three times
On the previous page is a photo of Obama signing the Stimulus Bill.
Oh, yes note the "Beware of Dog" sign.
with the caption: "They will have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
Here is what the NY Post says:
Here's the full statement by Col Allan, editor-in-chief of the Post:
"The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."
Which is it? Stupidity or stupidity?
As a First Amendment extremist, I think "The President should be shot by true patriots" is protected political speech, just as "There should be a revolution" (in which we presumably shoot people like the Commander in Chief) is protected speech just as similar calls to illegality like "We ought to give sanctuary to undocumented immigrants" is protected speech. Doing either of the first two is, of course, not protected speech and should be prosecuted as murder or treason, respectively. Hmm, but I think churches and political organizations ought to be RICOed for doing the third too.
Anyway, i think the cartoon chimp writes the bill - he doesn't just sign it. That puts someone else in the crosshairs.
Like the third in line for President under the 25th Amendment?
Possibly, or the staffers or whoever. I think the cartoon is just meant to say that the stimulus bill is so damn random and stupid that it might as well have been written by a crazed chimpanzee. I don't agree with at, but it's certainly defensible position. As far as I can tell, Sharpton is seeing what he always sees in everything becuase it's in his interest to see it: racial politics.
Does this count as a comment on race or should i comment on the post above too?
So far blogger has eaten my response twice.
Please comment on the AG's remark. I think it is worthy of being discuss amongst rational people even if no one actually reads this blog.
The cartoon and the AG's statement although two separate things do overlap at the edge of the ven diagram.
I have observed the subterranean thoughts surface so many time when engaged in race discussions that i can't dismiss the subliminal intent in the cartoon. Murder and racism oozes out of it.
As the radical right becomes more and more frustrated, I expect that this will get much worse. Question is, will it be tolerated?
The cartoon has no subliminal intent. It was marketing in a time of high anxiety for newspapers generally and Murdoch's News Corp. specifically. Leaking money.
Otherwise we would have to believe that the veteran Post cartoonist and the grizzled NY editors were very, very naive. But they are nowhere near that dumb or innocent.
Yesterday they had a boost in cash, viewers, and free advertising. The Post and the Daily News are very old hands at this and do it periodically and they know their area customer base well.
They knew full well the margin to walk and what could be left for the reader to write.
F: "They knew full well the margin to walk ..."
If such malice took place and could be proven then they would be criminal felons. Pictures of dead president metaphorical or symbolic are on the other side of the margin.
The last forty years of life in this city teaches one how to make very, very fine lines.
The NY Post Apologizes Sort Of.
Posted: 8:00 pm
February 19, 2009
"Wednesday's Page Six cartoon - caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut - has created considerable controversy.
It shows two police officers standing over the chimp's body: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," one officer says.
It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.
Period.
But it has been taken as something else - as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.
This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.
However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past - and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.
To them, no apology is due.
Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else."
Murdock has a worldwide policy not to apologize for nothing ever. What is this?
Post a Comment