Apparently we're a nation of cowards now

[whiteboyskim]

AG Eric Holder renders his judgement henceforth.

Here's the difference between Obama and McCain - Obama will likely turn a blind ear to this and blow it off. McCain immediately throws Phil Graham off his campaign when he calls us a "nation of whiners." And amazingly enough there are people out there (primarily on the McCain team) who wonder why the man lost.

[warning]

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said.

That doesn't seem like a reasonable, qualified (i.e. "in too many ways") statement?

[Autistic Angel]

Phil Gramm's "nation of whiners" comment was used to illustrate his belief as John McCain's top economic adviser that the economy was perfectly fine, all the economic indicators of a gathering storm were either played up or outright fabricated to sell newspapers, and that the populace was just gullible enough to believe it.

Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" comment here is used to illustrate his belief as the Attorney General that Americans have been tricking themselves into believing the existence of a great melting pot because it's easier than confronting racial issues head-on, and that we need to become more courageous about engaging in candid discussions about sensitive topics.

In other words, one was chiding people for paying attention to the evidence all around them, while the other is warning people that ignoring problems don't make them go away.  If that's a good example of the differences between Obama and McCain, illustrating why the latter lost his bid for the presidency, thank God for it.

-Autistic Angel

[Scuzz]

AG Eric Holder renders his judgement henceforth.

Here's the difference between Obama and McCain - Obama will likely turn a blind ear to this and blow it off. McCain immediately throws Phil Graham off his campaign when he calls us a "nation of whiners." And amazingly enough there are people out there (primarily on the McCain team) who wonder why the man lost.

Apples and Oranges I think...

[Blackadar]

AG Eric Holder renders his judgement henceforth.

Here's the difference between Obama and McCain - Obama will likely turn a blind ear to this and blow it off. McCain immediately throws Phil Graham off his campaign when he calls us a "nation of whiners." And amazingly enough there are people out there (primarily on the McCain team) who wonder why the man lost.

Apples and Oranges I think...

Exactly.

It's pretty accurate to call the country a "nation of cowards" when discussing race.  Most people avoid it and the discussion is usually less-than-honest when it does happen.  I've been astounded at the amount of race baiting I've seen at times on this board, but I'm also guilty of closing off the discussion when I point the finger at someone and call them racist.  There's very little open and honest dialog about race, including the fact that there's not just black and white.

Gramm's "nation of whiners" comment was essentially saying that we weren't in a recession.  A year later, I think we can safely say that this certainly wasn't a "mental recession" and that people aren't "whining" when they talk about losing their homes, jobs, savings, etc.

[brettmcd]

AG Eric Holder renders his judgement henceforth.

Here's the difference between Obama and McCain - Obama will likely turn a blind ear to this and blow it off. McCain immediately throws Phil Graham off his campaign when he calls us a "nation of whiners." And amazingly enough there are people out there (primarily on the McCain team) who wonder why the man lost.

Apples and Oranges I think...

Exactly.

It's pretty accurate to call the country a "nation of cowards" when discussing race.  Most people avoid it and the discussion is usually less-than-honest when it does happen.  I've been astounded at the amount of race baiting I've seen at times on this board, but I'm also guilty of closing off the discussion when I point the finger at someone and call them racist.  There's very little open and honest dialog about race, including the fact that there's not just black and white.

Gramm's "nation of whiners" comment was essentially saying that we weren't in a recession.  A year later, I think we can safely say that this certainly wasn't a "mental recession" and that people aren't "whining" when they talk about losing their homes, jobs, savings, etc.

To define it much better and easier then all the blather Blackadar just posted, one was said by a republican, and one was said by a democrat.   That the only difference really in the minds of the Obama supporters, anything else is just a smokescreen.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm more inclined to agree with Blackadar on this one. 

As a white male, I have felt trapped between the whole "celebrate our diversity" versus not speaking about a topic because too many people on all different sides are more than willing to use a Godwin's Law-type argument-ending racism comment if I have any comment about any issues outside my own race. 

[Blackadar]

AG Eric Holder renders his judgement henceforth.

Here's the difference between Obama and McCain - Obama will likely turn a blind ear to this and blow it off. McCain immediately throws Phil Graham off his campaign when he calls us a "nation of whiners." And amazingly enough there are people out there (primarily on the McCain team) who wonder why the man lost.

Apples and Oranges I think...

Exactly.

It's pretty accurate to call the country a "nation of cowards" when discussing race.  Most people avoid it and the discussion is usually less-than-honest when it does happen.  I've been astounded at the amount of race baiting I've seen at times on this board, but I'm also guilty of closing off the discussion when I point the finger at someone and call them racist.  There's very little open and honest dialog about race, including the fact that there's not just black and white.

Gramm's "nation of whiners" comment was essentially saying that we weren't in a recession.  A year later, I think we can safely say that this certainly wasn't a "mental recession" and that people aren't "whining" when they talk about losing their homes, jobs, savings, etc.

To define it much better and easier then all the blather Blackadar just posted, one was said by a republican, and one was said by a democrat.   That the only difference really in the minds of the Obama supporters, anything else is just a smokescreen.

You must make a career out of being shortsighted and incorrect.  I just wonder who pays you and how you live off of $40 a month.

[Scuzz]

I am a republican, not a democrat. I didn't vote Obama.

[warning]

To define it much better and easier then all the blather Blackadar just posted, one was said by a republican, and one was said by a democrat.   That the only difference really in the minds of the Obama supporters, anything else is just a smokescreen.

Again I ask...

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said.

That doesn't seem like a reasonable, qualified (i.e. "in too many ways") statement?

[brettmcd]

To define it much better and easier then all the blather Blackadar just posted, one was said by a republican, and one was said by a democrat.   That the only difference really in the minds of the Obama supporters, anything else is just a smokescreen.

Again I ask...

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said.

That doesn't seem like a reasonable, qualified (i.e. "in too many ways") statement?

No.

[Doopri]

well this issue can actually be put to bed because holder was, in fact, wrong



thank god were not a nation of cowards, we still are "in too many ways" a nation of racists

[Farscry]

Exactly.

It's pretty accurate to call the country a "nation of cowards" when discussing race.  Most people avoid it and the discussion is usually less-than-honest when it does happen.  I've been astounded at the amount of race baiting I've seen at times on this board, but I'm also guilty of closing off the discussion when I point the finger at someone and call them racist.  There's very little open and honest dialog about race, including the fact that there's not just black and white.

Gramm's "nation of whiners" comment was essentially saying that we weren't in a recession.  A year later, I think we can safely say that this certainly wasn't a "mental recession" and that people aren't "whining" when they talk about losing their homes, jobs, savings, etc.

To define it much better and easier then all the blather Blackadar just posted, one was said by a republican, and one was said by a democrat.   That the only difference really in the minds of the Obama supporters, anything else is just a smokescreen.

Hrm... who to agree with, the guy who took time to elaborate on his opinion, or the one who simply posted a broad generalization?

I agree with what Blackadar said, and yet I was a Ron Paul supporter. You know, the real Republican candidate.

[ATB]

well this issue can actually be put to bed because holder was, in fact, wrong



thank god were not a nation of cowards, we still are "in too many ways" a nation of racists

The cartoon is not racist. I'd have to check my constitutional history, but I'm pretty sure the legislative branch writes the laws, not the executive branch...and they pretty much are a bunch of clueless monkeys...or perhaps we could default to the old saying give 1000 monkeys 1000 typewriters and they'll eventually write Shakespeare.

I guess the cowardice extends to those looking for anything to cry about (not pointing fingers at you Doop)  rather than saying, 'you know what, I'm not offended by this. No need to make a fuss over nothing'

[ATB]

One more comment. This reminds me of that controversy a few years back where a history teacher almost got fired for using the word niggardly.

[Doopri]

i hadn't thought of the cartoon that way.  id heard so much talk in the news, in the newspaper headlines and on the radio the past few days of "obamas stimulus bill" "obamas first congressional victory" "obamas difficulties of working to get the bill through congress" "obamas promises of bipartisanship on the bill" "obama reneging on said attempts at bipartisanship" etc etc etc

so i was shocked when i learned it wasnt obamas stimulus, but that of an angry out of control monkey

[Ironrod]

This cartoon fails because it's trying to evoke "monkey" sayings. Chimps are apes. Apes are not monkeys. It's as if somebody who wanted to "bug" me drew a spider. Spiders aren't bugs, so you wouldn't get it. Chimps aren't monkeys, so I didn't get it.

FAIL

[Autistic Angel]

The cartoon is not racist. I'd have to check my constitutional history, but I'm pretty sure the legislative branch writes the laws, not the executive branch...and they pretty much are a bunch of clueless monkeys...or perhaps we could default to the old saying give 1000 monkeys 1000 typewriters and they'll eventually write Shakespeare.

I guess the cowardice extends to those looking for anything to cry about (not pointing fingers at you Doop)  rather than saying, 'you know what, I'm not offended by this. No need to make a fuss over nothing'

As Doopri pointed out, political news coverage over the last month has centered almost exclusively on Barack Obama's stimulus proposal: his town hall meetings to sell the package to the American people, his meetings with Republican law makers about changes they wanted to see, the concessions he made in a fruitless attempt to garner their support, his primetime press conference about the stimulus, etc.  The president invited the American people to hold his administration directly responsible for the bill's performance over the next few years.  This bill is intractably wed to Obama, and whether you get your news from NPR, Rush Limbaugh, or the Lucky Charms leprechaun, Obama is its highest profile advocate by a wide margin.

Now, you can choose to pretend that a cartoon in which two white cops gun down a commonly known racial stereotype is somehow supposed to evoke some anonymous member for the legislative branch, but everybody knows exactly whose corpse that primate is supposed to represent.  I can't imagine what sort of poignancy or political insight you see in that cartoon that would make you rally to its defense, but suggesting that this textbook example of race-baiting is cleverly undone by some cute procedural technicality is not going to help your cause.

-Autistic Angel

[CeeKay]

and here I thought the comic was referencing the Infinite Monkey Theorem.

[whiteboyskim]

Now, you can choose to pretend that a cartoon in which two white cops gun down a commonly known racial stereotype is somehow supposed to evoke some anonymous member for the legislative branch, but everybody knows exactly whose corpse that primate is supposed to represent.  I can't imagine what sort of poignancy or political insight you see in that cartoon that would make you rally to its defense, but suggesting that this textbook example of race-baiting is cleverly undone by some cute procedural technicality is not going to help your cause.

-Autistic Angel

I would hardly consider Nancy Pelosi, the target of the cartoon, to be "some anonymous member for the legislative branch." Also, while Obama may be the champion of the bill, which he has to be since he's president and this was a bill he wanted, he never wrote any of it. Last I heard, presidents don't write bills - Congress does. Now, presidents certainly take the blame for bills as well as lay claim to the successes of them, but they certainly don't write them. Yet here we get into a matter of symantics.

Question though, and this is just throwing something out there for further discussion - this blog has several thoroughly racist cartoons of Condi Rice which it compiled back in 2004, basically to scream that Rice was being unfairly singled out and so forth. My personal belief in any argument is that as soon as you racial, you lose. Plain and simple. So why is it that these cartoonists haven't quite figured that out (regardless of who they are mocking)?

[ATB]

The cartoon is not racist. I'd have to check my constitutional history, but I'm pretty sure the legislative branch writes the laws, not the executive branch...and they pretty much are a bunch of clueless monkeys...or perhaps we could default to the old saying give 1000 monkeys 1000 typewriters and they'll eventually write Shakespeare.

I guess the cowardice extends to those looking for anything to cry about (not pointing fingers at you Doop)  rather than saying, 'you know what, I'm not offended by this. No need to make a fuss over nothing'

As Doopri pointed out, political news coverage over the last month has centered almost exclusively on Barack Obama's stimulus proposal: his town hall meetings to sell the package to the American people, his meetings with Republican law makers about changes they wanted to see, the concessions he made in a fruitless attempt to garner their support, his primetime press conference about the stimulus, etc.  The president invited the American people to hold his administration directly responsible for the bill's performance over the next few years.  This bill is intractably wed to Obama, and whether you get your news from NPR, Rush Limbaugh, or the Lucky Charms leprechaun, Obama is its highest profile advocate by a wide margin.

Now, you can choose to pretend that a cartoon in which two white cops gun down a commonly known racial stereotype is somehow supposed to evoke some anonymous member for the legislative branch, but everybody knows exactly whose corpse that primate is supposed to represent.  I can't imagine what sort of poignancy or political insight you see in that cartoon that would make you rally to its defense, but suggesting that this textbook example of race-baiting is cleverly undone by some cute procedural technicality is not going to help your cause.

-Autistic Angel

I think if he was taking a racial swipe at Obama he would have said 'sign' instead of 'write'.   Political cartoonists are usually pretty savvy from what I've read- and they know their material- and I bet that choice of word was deliberately intentional.

And regardless of what all the talk is and has been, the executive branch doesn't write legislation. Arguing that common ignorance of this fact (again not pointing fingers) somehow construes the cartoon to mean something it doesn't isn't a persuasive argument, imo.  Again, I'd refer to the whole niggardly episode a few years back.

As for the animal, if the news story had been about a pet tiger that had gone on a rampage, the guy would have drawn a tiger and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Of course refering to congress as tigers isn't funny nor accurate .

[Autistic Angel]

Now, you can choose to pretend that a cartoon in which two white cops gun down a commonly known racial stereotype is somehow supposed to evoke some anonymous member for the legislative branch, but everybody knows exactly whose corpse that primate is supposed to represent.  I can't imagine what sort of poignancy or political insight you see in that cartoon that would make you rally to its defense, but suggesting that this textbook example of race-baiting is cleverly undone by some cute procedural technicality is not going to help your cause.

-Autistic Angel

I would hardly consider Nancy Pelosi, the target of the cartoon, to be "some anonymous member for the legislative branch." Also, while Obama may be the champion of the bill, which he has to be since he's president and this was a bill he wanted, he never wrote any of it. Last I heard, presidents don't write bills - Congress does. Now, presidents certainly take the blame for bills as well as lay claim to the successes of them, but they certainly don't write them. Yet here we get into a matter of symantics.

The original House version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was sponsored by Representative David Obey and cosponsored by Barney Frank, Gordon Bart, George Miller, James Oberstar, Charlie Rangel, John Spratt, Ed Towns, Nydia Valazquez, and Henry Waxman.  206 proposed amendments were settled over the course of eleven votes to produce the final version that passed.

The original Senate version was sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and cosponsored by Mark Begich, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Robert Casey, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Amy Klobuchar, Frank Lautenberg, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, Robert Menendez, Chuck Schumer, and Debbie Stabenow.  Several amendments were requested by Republican leaders to cut out spending projects in favor of more tax cuts, and with support from President Obama, many of these changes were implemented.

At that point, the final Senate version was reintroduced by Senator Susan Collins as an amendment to the House version so the differences could be reconciled and a final bill passed.

With so many people involved in the creation and passage of the stimulus bill, what specifically leads you believe that the real target of the cartoon is supposed to be Nancy Pelosi?  More importantly, given Obama's extremely high profile ties to the stimulus bill and the long history of racists comparing black people to apes, what makes you think that other people would somehow see this broad and churlish cartoon as a nuanced reference to the Speaker of the House?

-Autistic Angel

[Autistic Angel]

I think if he was taking a racial swipe at Obama he would have said 'sign' instead of 'write'.   Political cartoonists are usually pretty savvy from what I've read- and they know their material- and I bet that choice of word was deliberately intentional.

Yes: it's a transparent attempt to create plausible deniability, allowing him to invoke an obvious racial epithet against a popular black leader while arguing that he was technically referencing "someone else."  It's just like when Rush Limbaugh plays "Barack the Magic Negro" on his nationally syndicated talk show and then claims that his *real* target was some columnist from the L.A. Times -- nobody actually believes him, but there are enough like-minded people willing to play along that it creates the illusion of doubt.

-Autistic Angel

[whiteboyskim]

I think if he was taking a racial swipe at Obama he would have said 'sign' instead of 'write'.   Political cartoonists are usually pretty savvy from what I've read- and they know their material- and I bet that choice of word was deliberately intentional.

Yes: it's a transparent attempt to create plausible deniability, allowing him to invoke an obvious racial epithet against a popular black leader while arguing that he was technically referencing "someone else."  It's just like when Rush Limbaugh plays "Barack the Magic Negro" on his nationally syndicated talk show and then claims that his *real* target was some columnist from the L.A. Times -- nobody actually believes him, but there are enough like-minded people willing to play along that it creates the illusion of doubt.

-Autistic Angel

Considering the LA Times ran the article wherein the columnist referred to Obama by that term came before Limbaugh's song, which was crafted as a parody of that article, then yeah I'd actually be inclined to believe him. Also the song spoofs Rev. Sharpton more than anything else just to clarify.

[whiteboyskim]

Now, you can choose to pretend that a cartoon in which two white cops gun down a commonly known racial stereotype is somehow supposed to evoke some anonymous member for the legislative branch, but everybody knows exactly whose corpse that primate is supposed to represent.  I can't imagine what sort of poignancy or political insight you see in that cartoon that would make you rally to its defense, but suggesting that this textbook example of race-baiting is cleverly undone by some cute procedural technicality is not going to help your cause.

-Autistic Angel

I would hardly consider Nancy Pelosi, the target of the cartoon, to be "some anonymous member for the legislative branch." Also, while Obama may be the champion of the bill, which he has to be since he's president and this was a bill he wanted, he never wrote any of it. Last I heard, presidents don't write bills - Congress does. Now, presidents certainly take the blame for bills as well as lay claim to the successes of them, but they certainly don't write them. Yet here we get into a matter of symantics.

The original House version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was sponsored by Representative David Obey and cosponsored by Barney Frank, Gordon Bart, George Miller, James Oberstar, Charlie Rangel, John Spratt, Ed Towns, Nydia Valazquez, and Henry Waxman.  206 proposed amendments were settled over the course of eleven votes to produce the final version that passed.

The original Senate version was sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and cosponsored by Mark Begich, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Robert Casey, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Amy Klobuchar, Frank Lautenberg, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, Robert Menendez, Chuck Schumer, and Debbie Stabenow.  Several amendments were requested by Republican leaders to cut out spending projects in favor of more tax cuts, and with support from President Obama, many of these changes were implemented.

At that point, the final Senate version was reintroduced by Senator Susan Collins as an amendment to the House version so the differences could be reconciled and a final bill passed.

With so many people involved in the creation and passage of the stimulus bill, what specifically leads you believe that the real target of the cartoon is supposed to be Nancy Pelosi?  More importantly, given Obama's extremely high profile ties to the stimulus bill and the long history of racists comparing black people to apes, what makes you think that other people would somehow see this broad and churlish cartoon as a nuanced reference to the Speaker of the House?

-Autistic Angel

My bad. Remove "Nancy Pelosi" and substitute every person you just named and the cartoon actually becomes funnier in that its saying even a chimp could write something better than the people who actually did.

Regarding the idea of "the monkey as racist," I agree that the stereotype is so omnipresent that just about anybody could draw that conclusion. I believe it to be the wrong conclusion, but it is easy enough to see how one gets there. As such, I do think cartoonists need to go back to their own personal wells and really think about how to make fun of Congress, which is pretty easy to do actually, without a) coming off as blatantly racist, and b) mocking an event where a woman basically got her face torn off.

[RuperT]

This cartoon fails because it's trying to evoke "monkey" sayings. Chimps are apes. Apes are not monkeys. It's as if somebody who wanted to "bug" me drew a spider. Spiders aren't bugs, so you wouldn't get it. Chimps aren't monkeys, so I didn't get it.

FAIL

So you think chimps would submit a pretty good rough draft? 

Now, you can choose to pretend that a cartoon in which two white cops gun down a commonly known racial stereotype is somehow supposed to evoke some anonymous member for the legislative branch, but everybody knows exactly whose corpse that primate is supposed to represent.  I can't imagine what sort of poignancy or political insight you see in that cartoon that would make you rally to its defense, but suggesting that this textbook example of race-baiting is cleverly undone by some cute procedural technicality is not going to help your cause.

I see two generic cartoon people, looking fairly aghast, shooting the least human-looking depiction of a fellow anthropoid I could imagine.  I don't know what 'textbook' you're using, but I think your interpretation says much more about you than it does about the artist.  Is this the 'cowardice' to which Holder is referring (hyperbolically and uselessly, IMO), do you think?

[RuperT]

Regarding the idea of "the monkey as racist," I agree that the stereotype is so omnipresent that just about anybody could draw that conclusion. I believe it to be the wrong conclusion, but it is easy enough to see how one gets there. As such, I do think cartoonists need to go back to their own personal wells and really think about how to make fun of Congress, which is pretty easy to do actually, without a) coming off as blatantly racist, and b) mocking an event where a woman basically got her face torn off.

My first impression of this cartoon (even after a 'racial' context had been firmly established by the linkage I followed) was, as you say, "...what I horrible event to try to milk some humor from!"  Maybe I'm overly fond of my genitals... although I'd prefer to keep the face.

[Autistic Angel]

I would hardly consider Nancy Pelosi, the target of the cartoon, to be "some anonymous member for the legislative branch."

My bad. Remove "Nancy Pelosi" and substitute every person you just named and the cartoon actually becomes funnier in that its saying even a chimp could write something better than the people who actually did.

A great many people believe the dead ape represents Barack Obama because he is unquestionably the number one person the public would associate with the stimulus bill, and it plays neatly into a festering racial stereotype of black people as unevolved humunculi.  You're pretty confident that interpretation is bunk, but the far more complicated one you're pitching seems a little shaky.  The idea of an oblique reference to Nancy Pelosi didn't hold water, but now you've discovered an even more elaborate explanation?

If this cartoon is so nuanced that the simplest explanation is not the correct one, I guess I'm just not savvy enough to untangle all its incredibly subtle threads by myself.  Who knew the New York Post could be so high-brow and erudite?

I don't know what 'textbook' you're using, but I think your interpretation says much more about you than it does about the artist.  Is this the 'cowardice' to which Holder is referring (hyperbolically and uselessly, IMO), do you think?

Only if you believe that the cartoon I'm denouncing represents the sort of candid discussion about race that Holder envisions.

-Autistic Angel

[RuperT]

A great many people believe the dead ape represents Barack Obama because he is unquestionably the number one person the public would associate with the stimulus bill, and it plays neatly into a festering racial stereotype of black people as unevolved humunculi.  You're pretty confident that interpretation is bunk, but the far more complicated one you're pitching seems a little shaky.  The idea of an oblique reference to Nancy Pelosi didn't hold water, but now you've discovered an even more elaborate explanation?

If this cartoon is so nuanced that the simplest explanation is not the correct one, I guess I'm just not savvy enough to untangle all its incredibly subtle threads by myself.  Who knew the New York Post could be so high-brow and erudite?

I think maybe you're too savvy if you consider your racial assassination metaphor as more obvious than 'cops shoot a monkey, interrupting his characteristically inept crafting of stimulus legislation'.  I mean, it's a pretty old joke, right?  Monkeys running government?

I don't know what 'textbook' you're using, but I think your interpretation says much more about you than it does about the artist.  Is this the 'cowardice' to which Holder is referring (hyperbolically and uselessly, IMO), do you think?

Only if you believe that the cartoon I'm denouncing represents the sort of candid discussion about race that Holder envisions.

Do I believe the cartoon itself represents the discussion?  No, I don't suppose I expected the discussion to particularly concern primates, or to concern any one topic atomically.  I do think a denunciation of the cartoon based on it's perceived level of insult to some theoretical demographic would fit Holder's application of the word 'cowardice'.

[whiteboyskim]

But would the cartoon hold water (so to speak) if the dead animal were a pelican? That's what I'm now wanting to know.

[Autistic Angel]

I think maybe you're too savvy if you consider your racial assassination metaphor as more obvious than 'cops shoot a monkey, interrupting his characteristically inept crafting of stimulus legislation'.  I mean, it's a pretty old joke, right?  Monkeys running government?

If the slain monkey had been escaping from a big room full of typewriters and cop had said, "Great, now they'll never get the housing bill done!", that would be a joke about monkeys authoring legislation.  Fill the halls of congress with apes, and then you have a visual gag about monkeys running the government.

This comic contains neither.  It has one monkey (an image with a long-standing racial connotation) gunned down by two white cops (feeding that racial connotation) who then specifically invoke the first major legislation championed by the nation's first black president.  We're not talking about George Allen trotting out some obscure slur here -- this is pretty straightforward stuff.

I do think a denunciation of the cartoon based on it's perceived level of insult to some theoretical demographic would fit Holder's application of the word 'cowardice'.

"Theoretical demographic?"  I don't think all those people spent hours marching around outside the Post's building because they were concerned about a potential insult to any ancient Mayans in the metropolitan area -- they peaceably assembled to speak up for themselves.  What part of that do you find cowardly?

-Autistic Angel

[RuperT]

If the slain monkey had been escaping from a big room full of typewriters and cop had said, "Great, now they'll never get the housing bill done!", that would be a joke about monkeys authoring legislation.  Fill the halls of congress with apes, and then you have a visual gag about monkeys running the government.

No, it's not purely a visual gag.  There's a shot monkey, and the verbiage is the punchline of the creature being a legislator.  Requiring that every gag be spelled out or drawn in a way such that hundreds of people in New York aren't significantly offended?  That's probably a good example of Holder's 'cowardice'.

I do think a denunciation of the cartoon based on it's perceived level of insult to some theoretical demographic would fit Holder's application of the word 'cowardice'.

"Theoretical demographic?"  I don't think all those people spent hours marching around outside the Post's building because they were concerned about a potential insult to any ancient Mayans in the metropolitan area -- they peaceably assembled to speak up for themselves.  What part of that do you find cowardly?

Yes, theoretical.  Beyond those hundreds marching with Sharpton, you are theorizing about who is offended.  I'd say demanding that the Post shut down due to their hurt feelings over a questionable interpretation of a cartoon is a good example of Holder's 'cowardice'.
Do you have a better one?

[Brendan]

I'm not sure why the apologists here are ignoring the long history of offensive cartoons that Delonas has put out.  This is not a guy who would've missed the racist subtext he was creating.

[Autistic Angel]

If the slain monkey had been escaping from a big room full of typewriters and cop had said, "Great, now they'll never get the housing bill done!", that would be a joke about monkeys authoring legislation.  Fill the halls of congress with apes, and then you have a visual gag about monkeys running the government.

No, it's not purely a visual gag.  There's a shot monkey, and the verbiage is the punchline of the creature being a legislator.  Requiring that every gag be spelled out or drawn in a way such that hundreds of people in New York aren't significantly offended?  That's probably a good example of Holder's 'cowardice'.

Yes, I understand the "joke."  However, I'm not making any requirements of the New York Post's hilarious editorial cartoonists -- you suggested that this particular comic was making a point about monkeys running the government, so I described two examples where that would actually be true.

It is not true here.  If Sean Delonas was intending to make some satirical point about monkeys with typewriters publishing talking points for Nancy Pelosi (or "someone else"), there's absolutely no evidence of it in the final product.  

On the other hand, if his goal was to employ some racially-charged imagery that's easily recognizable, but timed to hide behind the claim that he was simply making light of a brutal animal attack that critically wounded an innocent woman, then he should be very proud of his success.

"Theoretical demographic?"  I don't think all those people spent hours marching around outside the Post's building because they were concerned about a potential insult to any ancient Mayans in the metropolitan area -- they peaceably assembled to speak up for themselves.  What part of that do you find cowardly?

Yes, theoretical.  Beyond those hundreds marching with Sharpton, you are theorizing about who is offended.

No, I'm pointing to the hundreds who are explicitly stating their personal disgust for this comic and reasonably extrapolating that, based on the overt racial imagery employed, their view is shared by many more who lack the time or proximity to join the protest.

Here's an easy way to settle this: how about I print out that New York Post cartoon on a big sandwich sign and you wear it during a nice long Saturday afternoon walk through the streets of Harlem?  If you return and continue to feel the reaction to the comic is "theoretical," I'll owe you a Coke.

I'd say demanding that the Post shut down due to their hurt feelings over a questionable interpretation of a cartoon is a good example of Holder's 'cowardice'.

As far as I know, the harshest penalty anyone has seriously suggested is the NAACP's call for the cartoonist and editor to be fired, but Al Sharpton disagreed and said that would be too much.  Who exactly has been demanding that the New York Post be forcibly shut down over this?

-Autistic Angel

[Doopri]

wow ill admit when i posted that cartoon i thought thered be some debate about the prevalence of racism still in america but i NEVER thought thered be talk that the it wasnt uncomfortably racist

and to answer ruperts question - while  personally i wasnt exactly offended i was certainly disgusted.  not that i read the post that often but it makes me feel even more lucky to have a free source of the ft!

[brettmcd]

Meh, its a political cartoon in poor taste, its not like we havent seen a few thousand of those over the past 8 years without a word from the people now outraged.

[Knightshade Dragon]

wow ill admit when i posted that cartoon i thought thered be some debate about the prevalence of racism still in america but i NEVER thought thered be talk that the it wasnt uncomfortably racist

and to answer ruperts question - while  personally i wasnt exactly offended i was certainly disgusted.  not that i read the post that often but it makes me feel even more lucky to have a free source of the ft!

While I don't feel uncomfortable about it, I do believe that racism is incredibly prevalent.  I have a friend whom I've known for a little over two years now that was as normal and well adjusted as I could have asked for in a friend...until Obama won.  Now I can hardly talk to him - this whole different racist person emerged and sends the most offensive propaganda and racist nonsense to my email on a fairly regular basis.  If you peel away the layers, I'm sure we'd find a lot more racist people than we think.

Me personally?  I'm not racist.  I'd have to actually care to be racist.  I don't.  I think that idiots come in all colors. (and most of them drive BMWs)

[Farscry]

If you peel away the layers, I'm sure we'd find a lot more racist people than we think.

In the course of my life, I've found this to be unbelievably true, far more true than anyone would ever want to admit. Especially people who manage to convince themselves that they're not racist through contortionistic measures of rationalization.

[RuperT]

Super, now I'm an apologist for an indisputable and egregious racial attack.
This is the part where I exhibit the OP's 'cowardice' which you don't seem eager to discuss much and a bit of a dramatic tendency, and leave you with a suggestion that using their skin color to generalize or theorize excessively about folks' stances on issues is a particularly insidious form of racism.

[cheeba]

If we are a nation of cowards, which is plausible, imo, it has a lot to do with the advancement of political correctness. It is so difficult to talk about race because of the fear of the racist label. The left has been incredibly and unfortunately successful at silencing opposition, shaming them to not express their opinions under threat of demonizing and socially exiling any variance from their groupthink-formed norms.

It's been on display many times on this forum, where nearly every member who has expressed any right-wing tendencies has been called racist by those on the left.

Edit - I should add that those who allow political correctness to silence them are also cowards.