Mr. Doonesbury
OK... this is turning in to quite a kerfuffle! But what is really telling is what Mr. Doonesbury had to say on the matter:
I regret the poor timing, and apologize to anyone who was offended by an image that is now clearly inappropriate."Now clearly inappropriate?"
Only now is such a thing "clearly inappropriate"!
As impossible as it is, let's just for argument's sake imagine that Nick Berg had not been brutally butchered by the same enemy that killed over 3000 Americans on 9-11. Would this "cartoon" be any less "inappropriate" to the friends and family of Daniel Pearl? And what about the Iraqi families who had their loved ones (mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, brother and sisters... and children) raped and murdered, or worse (and yes... there is worse) right before their eyes, at the hands of Saddam and his demon sons? What of them? And if I'm not mistaken, four Americans were burned to death and had their bodies defiled - what of them? In Gary Trudeau's view, their families must not rate any consideration at all - after all, those guys were just working for Haliburton, right? And Daniel Pearl was working for Mosad of course... must have been, right? And the Iraqis... well they just needed to stand up for themselves - RIGHT GARY???
The fact is that Mr. Trudeau is only troubled by the timing of this editorial cartoon - not the content. I don't believe he would have had an ounce of regret were Nick Berg killed six months or a year ago. For all his elitist, feel-good rhetoric about how he cares about freedom of speech - he retains that caring only for himself and his ilk. For all his liberal compassion, he reserves that only for those who suffer and die for a cause he supports. As evidence, where is his cartoon depicting someone crushed by a bulldozer?
Just a word of advice to Gary Trudeau, Ted Rall, Al Franken, et al: I wouldn't suggest travel to Iraq any time soon... or anywhere in the Middle East for that matter! I don't think the fact that you hate President Bush will obfuscate the fact that you support same-sex marrage, abortion, and the abolition of religion... nor will it protect your necks from the hatred and cold steel of OUR common enemy!
Comments
Back when I was young and there was room to err, I thought Donnesbury was interesting in a quirky kind of way. Now I find myself wondering why an otherwise rational seeming woman such as Jane Pauley is married to such a kook! But, then I am also still waiting for a plausible explanation for the James Carville/Mary Matalin union too? Seems to me that these women, (and anyone that champions Trudeau and Carville) must be suffering from a syndrome similar to that of a battered wife who refuses to move on, neither man seems worthwhile! Sic Semper Idiotarians!
Posted by: Richard | May 17, 2004 08:53 AM
You must not understand that comic strips (I'm not talking about the editorial comics) have a lead time of about 4 weeks at least before they are printed. There's no way Trudeau could have been responding to the Nick Berg beheading video because it didn't exist when he did the 'offensive' strip.
Posted by: Frank Cooper | May 21, 2004 11:11 AM
Frank, if someone "must not understand", it's you.
Read the post again - and read the several links in the post, to articles that say exactly what you've said about lead time. (See, we put those in there so you can read them, and understand.) Mr. Trudeau thought his disgusting sense of humor was appropriate until someone's head actually ended up on a platter. Then, rather than waking up from his own delusion, he apologizes... not for being ignorant and tasteless, but for 'timing'.
By tomorrow, I'm sure I'd be justified in editing out the scare quotes around 'offensive' if I chose to. But I'll leave them there so you can remain ignorant for posterity.
Posted by: Chris | May 22, 2004 11:17 AM
The Kansas City-based Universal Press Syndicate said Friday the strip, scheduled to run May 23, was drawn before Nicholas Berg's death in Iraq; it will offer a substitute comic strip. Furthermore, the head in question is NOT meant to be Nick Bergs as the link on the home page of this site would have you believe, but rather the Dean of the University where one of the characters was fired from. You have a solid arguement about the strip and the imagery, why take away your own credibility with a bald-faced lie?
Posted by: Travisty | May 22, 2004 11:31 AM
The editor of this site will apologize and correct any erroneous information as soon as someone sends him an email written in English complaining about anything specifically erroneous - I'm sorry, but I don't speak the pig-Latin that's taught in public schools today.
I still don't see any of our contributors suggesting Mr. Trudeau drew, referred to, or insinuated about Nicholas Berg or his manner of entering the afterlife. In this article and the comments defending it, Mr. Trudeau has been accused of a horrible crassness that (just coincidentally, of course) appeared at a moment of "poor timing". This is no lie.
Posted by: Chris | May 22, 2004 12:16 PM
(EDIT: tons of spam copied from SlantPoint.com removed)
But it is not Bergs head depicted on a platter. Is that written in plain enough English?
-Travisty
Posted by: Travisty | May 22, 2004 06:49 PM
You've picked up the perfect nick, Travisty. It's a travesty you've been allowed anywhere near an Internet connection.
What you're quoting is on someone else's website. Unfortunate that Scott at Slant/Point misunderstood the point Steve was making, but The Black Republican isn't any more responsible for that than we are for your senseless tirades. If you had half a wit, you could have figured that out yourself, especially after I spelled it out for you in.small.words.
I've sent a short note to Scott asking him to clarify his comments on his site. In the meantime, if you want to participate in the topics we're discussing here, please read more carefully and try to behave yourself.
And take a computer class somewhere so you don't make a fool of yourself again.
Posted by: Chris | May 22, 2004 11:03 PM