Comments on: On The Obama-Chimp Cartoon

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:12:29 +0000

I’m with Mande on this! I think she has Mike by the balls!

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:09:19 +0000

If your larger point is the fact that intellectual honesty is becoming rare (or practically nonexistent) in modern American political debate, we are in total agreement. I would take it one step further and say that most of what passes for debate these days is either a talking head, emotionally-driven screaming match that make Maury Povich or Jerry Springer proud, or an organized exchange of intellectually dishonest (there you go) talking points. My only beef was your interpretation of the cartoonist’s intent. Your article made me read way more of the cartoon’s reaction pieces than I ever would have otherwise, and your intellectual honesty point is well-taken; much of the rabid, accusatory responses from civil rights leaders appears to me to be opportunistic grandstanding. They know better, or should.

By: Mande Wilkes

Mande Wilkes — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:19:59 +0000

Mike -

You know what? You’re right.

You and I are on the same page…you’re calling it nuance and I’m calling it intellectual honesty. The appreciation of either relies on the capacity for both.

With that in mind, it’s quite possible that I conceded the racial issue in order to further my larger point.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:20:02 +0000

Sorry, the cartoon is only as “racist” as are the views of the beholder. No obvious secondary reference to some “second point” exists because none is required; the cartoon is a simple reference to two points. The first (and most glaringly obvious) is the heavily cycled current news piece attendant to the tragic chimp attack, while the second (almost as obvious) inference would be that the now-dead chimp had written the flawed stimulus bill.

For humor to work, some teeny-tiny level of subtlety must exist. For example, many folks ruin the old W.C. Fields / Winston Churchill anecdote regarding an exchange between the protagonist and a woman of high society by killing the subtlety thus:

Lady: You, sir, are drunk!

W.C. / Winston: Aaaaah, but you, ma’am, are ugly, and in the morning I’ll be sober.

The “I can’t do subtlety” crowd routinely adds the unnecessary and nuance-killing “and you’ll still be ugly” to the concise, brilliant, and witty response. Only the brain-dead need the added diagram.

Likewise, and asterisked disclaimer across the bottom of the cartoon indicating that, as any “halfway discerning person” knows the Democratic Congressional Caucus wrote the stimulus bill, thus the comparison is between the recently euthanized chimp and that group of similar intellectual ability would most certainly drain the last drop of humor from what was an otherwise entertaining analogy.

So, you’re obviously not (by definition) refraining from the “is-it-or-isn’t it” musings, you’re just on the wrong side of the argument. Your logically fallacious abortion debate reference/analogy is nothing more than poisoning the well, as they say in freshman logic courses, so it can’t be debated.

Sorry to get so long-winded, but I obviously disagree with your premise wholeheartedly. A racial undertone may exist here, but it’s not in the cartoon. If we have to be THIS guarded for the next four years to avoid every crazy, tenuous interpretation in political speech, it’ll be along four years indeed.

By: Pat Hendrix

Pat Hendrix — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:51:54 +0000

As for “drive by partisan shots”, let me introduce you to the Olympic Gold Medalist:

Mande, meet fitsnews.

By: Pat Hendrix

Pat Hendrix — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:47:05 +0000

Mande,

You are so correct. I think. You’re writing is so incomprehensible that I often get confused. Perhaps I’ll spend more time deciphering your posts in the future if you promise to take a remedial writing class.

Lesson 1) Try writing a post without using an ellipses or exclamation points. Okay…Mande!!!!

By: Mande Wilkes

Mande Wilkes — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:44:27 +0000

Pat -

Right-wing talking points?? I specifically called out conservatives on this one.

Your drive-by partisan shot proves the articleâ€™s point . . . thank you!

-Mande

By: Pat Hendrix

Pat Hendrix — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:15:16 +0000

Not racist, just dumb. As for “national outcry”? Ugh, where? I see a couple of the usual suspects pissing and moaning about another irrelevant issur is once again conflated into something it isn’t at fits.

If you guys could get through a day with resorting to strawmen arguments and fact-free right-wing talking points it would be a miracle.

By: Patricia Jursik

Patricia Jursik — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:19:08 +0000

I’m not going to go ape over this anti-cop, gun totting pig story in wolf’s, er chimp’s, clothing. Everytime conservative’s want to justify cop brutality they do it by calling out the libs. Wait til the NRA weighs in.

By: CL

CL — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:24:01 +0000

The cartoon is racist only to an ignorant person of limited intellect. As the 1st poster highlighted, Obama had nothing to do with writing the bill. That is part of the problem with the bill. I was somewhat optimistic when Obama claimed he was going to upgrade infrastructure, such as fiber optics. I believe this is a pressing need, and I was glad that if government spending was going to skyrocket, at least it would go to something useful. But instead, the President outsourced the drafting of the bill to Dumb (Reid) and Dumber (Pelosi). I think the cartoon is actually an insult to the chimp, since it compares him to the Dems in Congress.

Setting that factual problem aside, have you ever heard of the infinite monkey theorem? The meme of a writing (or typing) monkey (which play off of the theorem but fundamentally misinterpret it) is well established in popular culture. One of my favorites comes from the Simpsons, when the producer of Itchy & Scratchy said, “You call this writing?!? If I puked in a fountain pen & mailed it to the monkey house I’d get better scripts!”