This is a disgusting cartoon, and Toles should be ashamed of himself. It isn’t funny, it doesn’t advance a cause or heighten any awareness, and it is in poor taste.
Reader Interactions
264Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
An Offensive Cartoon?
Michelle Malkin’s pissed-off over an allegedly offensive cartoon over at the Washington Post. So is John Cole (whose blog I enjoy exponentially more than Michelle’s). Unfortunately, both of them are wrong. Michelle simply mounts her high-horse and le…
Steve
Ok, I think that was inappropriate. Although you really need a “faux outrage” tag for links to MM.
rilkefan
Given the admin’s attempts to cut veterans’ benefits and all the rest, this editorial cartoon seems fine to me.
SeesThroughIt
Pretty much, yeah. It’s harsh, but not nearly as harsh as this administration’s treatment of the soldiers it so desperately needs to be thought of as “supporting.”
Mr Furious
You did notice that the doctor is Rumsfeld didn’t you? I also have NO problem with this cartoon. Your “outrage” is wasted on the messenger, John.
chopper
i dunno, if i were an injured soldier i’d be a helluva lot more offended at having my medical benefits cut than some cartoon.
Lines
yep, not feeling the outrage here, seems appropriate when the new budget cuts the VA more, when the numbers of injured is one of the only stats rising faster than the dead, and when Rumsfeld seems to think that everything is hunkydory.
Maybe if you or Michelle were able to explain your outrage, I might be persuaded to agree, but kinda doubt it.
Faux News
I thought were outraged only bt Mother Cindy Sheehan?
What up wit dat yo?
The Other Steve
Ohhh… Political Correctness hits Balloon-Juice.
DougJ
It may be in poor taste, but it does heighten awareness of the plight of injured soldiers.
Rob
When you think Michelle is right, it is time to step back and re-think the issue; baring some catastrophic freezing of Hell, I doubt it.
Pb
Well you’re right about one thing–it isn’t funny at all. The cartoon isn’t either, but it’s instructive to see which one outrages you and Michelle Malkin.
Steve
I guess from the patient chart I’m supposed to get that the guy in the bed symbolizes the U.S. Army. Okay, I get the political point of the cartoon now, at least.
I think it’s worth noting, while MM gets outraged over every little thing (and John has a way of playing along), it’s not exactly common for the Joint Chiefs of Staff to write a complaint letter. Gen. Pace, in particular, seems like a stand-up guy (you might recall the incident where he corrected Rumsfeld publicly on torture policy). So I’m inclined to think yeah, in spite of my predisposition to defend the liberal point of view, maybe this one crossed the line.
I do agree that the way our government has sold out its troops, and particularly its veterans, is by far the greater outrage. If a big controversy erupts over this cartoon and it ends up focusing attention on all the budget cuts that have hurt veterans and the military, I’d imagine the cartoonist won’t feel so bad about having ruffled some feathers.
Charlie Murtaugh
Any time “Michelle is right” refers to Ms. Malkin, it can be pretty much assumed to be mistaken. The “patient”‘s chart clearly reads “U.S. Army,” which by the centuries-old logic of editorial cartoons, pretty much (as it were) cuts the legs out from under Malkin and the Joint Chiefs’ suggestion that he is a “likeness” of a service-member. Not only is the cartoon not offensive, it is (like most of Toles’s output) acutely cutting, and I suspect that this accounts for the outrage being drummed up here.
Jorge
Yes, the cartoon is disqusting.
So is the war in Iraq.
I’ll save my outrage for the war and its architects.
srv
As a wise man once said, Freedom is messy.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’m sorry John, but asking me to be made about that cartoon is asking me to have sympathy for Rumsfeld.
Sorry, no can do. That cartoon is spot on infact.
Rumsfeld is a piece of shit–end of story.
Jim Allen
It’s not supposed to be funny, stupid.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*mad
Bruce Moomaw
I agree…I don’t see how you can possibly deny that Rummy has mangled the hell out of the US Army, and in the process contributed personally to the mangling of individual US soldiers in Iraq. An ugly cartoon, all right, but one with a very definite — and correct — point about an ugly reality.
Bruce Moomaw
And, by the way, like a lot of effective political cartoons, it wasn’t INTENDED to be funny.
jg
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/
Read this guys blog. In the last week or so he’s had a few posts about cartoons and how people react to them.
Pooh
I’m going to have to say “What Steve said” and then add “what SRV said”.
It’s ugly, and there’s nothing funny about it. But there’s also more than a grain of truth there, which probably leads to why it offends you. Because of the partial accuracy, you can’t instantly dismiss it.
Caleb
It appears the cartoon has had it’s intended effect.
RonB
John, I too was like WTF! when I first saw it, but the target is Rumsfeld from a quote of his six days ago-Toles is fucking with Rumsfeld from his denial that the army is stretched thin and broken:
Battle-Hardened Military Not Overextended, Rumsfeld Says
Though the cartoon works on another level, clearly the object of antagonism is Rumsfeld’s apparent denial of the fact that our military is strained, which cannot be denied.
RonB
Shouldn’t post at 5am after all night on the night shift. Shit.
Pb
Oh, one more thing Malkin doesn’t do–context:
Here’s a little more for you:
And that was just from the second debate–you should have seen him in the first debate.
Jim Allen
Oh, don’t bother trying to explain it. I’m sure John just thinks this is another example of lefties throwing bodies (if not corpses) to try to score political points. Maybe we should just all settle back and wait for the government to come up with some kind of study to find out if there really are amputees coming back from Iraq.
MI
I agree that it’s not funny, but like everyone else is saying, it’s not really supposed to be.
RonB
Well, at least I found it first. I can’t write worth spit at 5, but I can damn sure Google like Wild Bill Hickok.
MI
Jim Allen, I think you have to give John a lot more credit than that given is track record.. This smacks as one of those things he’ll revist with a clearer head and realize it’s not what he thought it was.
Kimmitt
The cartoon would be more effective if the soldier were merely obviously wounded and out of action, rather than so badly maimed. As it is written, we are so distracted by the extent of the soldier’s injuries that it take us time to realize that he is supposed to represent something else.
neil
Makes sense to me. But perhaps we should arrest Toles, just to be sure.
Clever
Editorial cartoons do not have to be funny.
You might want to rethink that. This has just opened the door for discussion on the state of the armed forces. Toles is plainly stating some things in the cartoon, which I hope you will at least acknowlegde, in a very striking, and to some people very personal, fashion. You seem to be very aware of the cartoon itself, but not of the message it tries to convey.
That is a matter of opinion, as one would have to see it as derogatory towards the soldiers whom have lost motor function due to conflict. The only derogatory thing I see is Toles depiction of Rumsfeld. I see no denegration, explict or implied, of soldiers in the large cartoon…only that of “Dr. Rumsfeld”. In the lower cartoon, I can see how someone could tie the picture to a larger group of people by the use of the word “We” in the “We don’t define that as torture” statement…but I personally do not ascribe that as an indictment of the caricature of the Army on the bed, or of any real person who was injured in combat.
As Malkin says, it will be interesting to read the response of the paper, and of Toles. Personally, I see this cartoon as kicking the door in on a topic that no one wants to talk about plainly. Its not a comfortable subject, and I think the imagery was reflective of that.
Rex
Nothing outrageous, just cutting accuracy.
On a separate note, I am glad this blog is not just read by a bunch of mindless cheerleaders that agree with everything the host posts. You really have something excellent going here, Mr. Cole. You are a refreshing harbor amid a storm of reactionary partisanship.
J.E.
As I recall, Michelle Malkin sat idly by while the good folks at the Republican National Convention scored political points by making fun of the purple hearts. I fail to see how that pales in comparison to this.
Jim Allen
One of the reasons I respect John as much as I do is that he’s quick to call bullshit when he sees it. Well, I see whining about a hard-hitting political cartoon (a cartoon, for crissakes) because it’s “in poor taste” is also bullshit, and I’m calling it.
John Cole
Alright, folks. I didn’t say a political cartoon has to be funny. I said it wasn’t funny. I also said it doesn’t heighten any awareness. Nor does it advance a cause. Usually they want to do one of those things.
I also saw the Rumsfeld bit, and am fully aware he is the target of the intended, umm, ‘point.’ I think Kimmitt is spot on:
It was in poor taste, and I will take the opinion of the Joint Chiefs over you all as to what might be offensive to military folks.
John Cole
JE- I lambasted the people who wore the purple heart at the Republican convention.
John Cole
JG- Interesting link.
jg
It does heighten awareness and I’m sorry to say you were involved in that since I never saw the cartoon or heard this issue until you posted it.
Vladi G
Forgive me for asking, but what, then, was your point with that statement?
And it doesn’t heighten awareness? I for one wasn’t aware that Rumsfeld had made such an asanine comment until this thread based on that cartoon brought it to my attention.
In regards to this part of the letter:
I don’t see anything denoting the patient as a service member. No uniform. No medals. No nothing. Hmm, guilty consciences, perhaps.
Lines
Would you like to actually clarify your position, John, or just defend your early reaction to the cartoon? I think many here are giving you the opportunity to reflect on your first thoughts instead of lambasting you for your inability to recognize the comic/commentary for what it is.
Would it be any different if it were written as a Editorial/blog post about the callousness of Rumsfeld’s comments and would it have generated nearly as much notice?
Jim Allen
Re: “I don’t see anything denoting the patient as a service member. No uniform. No medals. No nothing. Hmm, guilty consciences, perhaps.”
In fairness to John on that point, the chart on the end of the bed is clearly labeled “U S Army”.
DougJ
I think it does. I don’t think it is funny or that it is in good taste. But look, we’re all talking about wounded soldiers, aren’t we? That’s raising awareness.
I am also in favor of having moments of silence for soldiers during sporting events, etc. In my book, anything that makes us think about the plight of our soliders is a good thing.
It’s outrageous to me that the bond traders who died in 911 were mourned so much, while the 22 year-old, mostly working class kids who die in Iraq are mourned so little. That we had a special fund that gave billions of dollars to the people who died in 911 and a comparatively meager payment for the soldiers who die in Iraq.
Before you tee off on me for talking about the bond traders who died in 911, let me say I know they weren’t the only ones who died. Let me also say that being a bond trader doesn’t mean you deserve an awful fate or anything like that. (Two of my best friends work in bonds, by the way, and one of them dealt extensively with Cantor-Fitzgerald and knew several of the people who died there.) But neither does being wealthy mean that your death deserves 100 times the press coverage of the death of a working class kid.
It’s a disgrace when the government evokes 911 at every turn, when he won’t show up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. It’s a disgrace when the president accuses others of not supporting the troops, when he won’t pay for their body armor or health benefits.
And it’s a disgrace when people like John Cole and Michelle Malkin get more worked up about a cartoon than they do about the way this government treats out soldiers.
Doug
It’s fine. A prior report said the U.S. Army was broken. Rumsfeld looked at the same thing and said it was “battle hardened.” Now we have a cartoon where a wounded soldier is used to represent the broken Army (not an unreasonable metaphor, simile, or whatever — my grammar skills have deficiencies.) Rumsfeld looks at the soldier who is obviously in no condition for fighting and still calls him “battle hardened.”
I’d like to know how you would illustrate a soldier that was so wounded that it is visually obvious the soldier is no longer fit for battle and not have the cartoon be in bad taste? Because that’s the image you need to make the point.
Jay
Of course the moon-bat left contingent defends the cartoon.
Typical.
Jim Allen
Oh, look, everyone, Jay got a new shipment of pith.
Lines
Ah, another moronic short trollish post from someone that might have had a point to make, but evidently didn’t have a high enough grasp of the english language to make it.
Jay must be another example of that “Is our children learning” type of education.
Don
So the core of the outrage here is that the cartoon portrays the Army as a servicemember whose injuries result in quad-amputee? Um… okay. So? Are we too delicate to be made to think of injured soldiers? Suggesting that the cartoonist should have made the injuries less extreme strikes me as pretty self-serving – perhaps the whole point the cartoonist is seeking to make is that the military is that badly battered.
I’m hard-pressed to imagine someone being offended by the imagery in this cartoon who isn’t really offended by the message and standpoint.
Richard Bottoms
Except that maimed is precisely the condition of the Army post Rumsfeld. Certainly the Resevers have taken a hit.
“One weekend a month my ass”, the sign says:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/bliraqoneweekendamonth.htm
John Cole
You are out of line DougJ. I give you wide latitude here, but that is just pure bullshit.
Vladi G
Bingo.
jg
No. The outrage is that this guy has made other cartoons that disparaged the troops in the rights opinion so everything he says must be shunned especially if it looks like hes taking a shot at the troops again.
And this is a great tool for enforcing the whole ‘the left sucks, they hate the troops’ thing. Malkin’s just making sure the base is properly offended, some might have missed this.
DougJ
John, that’s really what I think. I’m making an effort at honest communication here because I don’t like the idea of snarking about wounded soldiers.
Get angry at those who are arguing with you here if you like, but I bet if you put this down and come back to it in a few hours when your initial negative reaction, you’ll agree with me.
You’re way wrong on this, IMHO. And I don’t say that to you often.
jg
Malkin also has to make sure the base reads this properly as an unhinged dishonest leftist lefty attacking the troops. Left on their own there is a chance they might see it as an attack on Rumsfeld blowing off the condition of the military as something that just happens. Obeyance of the second law of thermodynamics is not an excuse ofr bad management.
DougJ
And look, John, nobody’s perfect. I have written and said many things that I considered disgraceful on later reflection.
RSA
DougJ
Maybe “disgraceful” was too strong. I take it back. It’s not my place to come on your blog and insult you.
But I think you’re way, way off base here.
srv
On a semi-related subject. Anyone notice the stories about the troops being unhappy about all the coverage Woodruff is getting? I find that interesting. Because if all 2245 deaths had been treated the same way, what would Rummy, the republicans and many in the military be saying about it?
Vladi G
Has he. I don’t see all of his stuff, but I’ve never seen a Toles cartoon that bashed the troops. Maybe there’s stuff from Ted Rall like that, but Toles is generally a lot more subtle.
jg
Crap. I think I confused the two. Nevermind. I’ll stand by my second answer instead:
:)
Lines
John, why did you single out DougJ? He’s giving you an honest opinion without snark and seems to be honestly trying to understand where you are really coming from. Threatening him like that seems to indicate your mood may not be rational enough to discuss this at this time.
Steve
John, I think we will all stipulate that you are pro-military, and in the sense of actually looking out for the troops in and out of war, as opposed to the yellow-ribbon sense.
Let’s instead talk about our friend Michelle. Can you show me where she has ever complained about the treatment of troops by anyone other than protesting lefties? Can you show me where she has ever complained about issues of military pay, or cuts to veterans’ benefits? Can you show me where she has written on the topics of Gulf War Syndrome, PTSD, or the problems of depression and suicide that so often affect our returning troops? Cause you know, I’d love to see some evidence that she supports the troops in any other capacity than as a liberal-bashing cheerleader.
chopper
yeah, they don’t have an agenda in this. not at all.
if i want to find out what’s offensive to military folks, i’ll ask regular military folks. and so far, the ones i know have no beef at all with this cartoon.
ppGaz
I’m with John on this. What he said.
DougJ
Really, ppgaz? I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t even like Toles nor am I crazy about this cartoon, but it does heighten awareness.
Maybe it all comes down to how much of a problem you think awareness is here. Maybe that’s why I’m having a hard time understanding where John’s coming from here.
Par R
In reading through these comments, it’s rather startling to see so many “concerned” about the well being of the troops. This is surprising given that virtually all of them are chickendoves, who likely have never been closer to a soldier than spitting distance. One suspects that there real interests lie in finding another avenue with which to attack the President and the Iraq war.
DougJ
Actually, Par R I think most of us do know people who are over there.
I think people like you are treasonous scum who care more about the political success of Lord George Jesus Bush than you do about human lives.
But that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Lines
Ooooh, DougJ came up with a new word : “Chickendoves”.
Can we get a ruling from the judge on this?
One second, the judges are discussing the possibility of word creation here and now their back. Their ruling?
FOUL, unlicensed usage of a conjunction that holds no weight or water in the discussion at hand.
jg
I think its startling that some feel what is said about the troops is far more important than what is happeneng to them.
Steve
A chickendove is what, someone who thinks veterans should be taken care of, even though they don’t know any veterans? Wow, how terrible. Someone who fights for better veterans’ benefits just to embarass George Bush, that person would be utter scum.
My father served honorably in the Air Force, for whatever it’s worth. My grandfather was responsible for the capture of Goering (and he must have loved getting it from a guy named Shapiro). I hope I’ve earned the right to, um, suggest that our veterans should get good health care.
John Cole
He singled me out when he claimed I don’t really care about the troops and instead am more concerned with this cartoon.
Lines
Actually, I think he implied that your outrage at this cartoon gives the impression that your outrage about the post-war treatment of the troops isn’t worth noting, which isn’t quite the same.
Or maybe I assumed because I like DougJ, but that doesn’t make sense because I like you too…..
Oh well, damned if you don’t, fool me again and shame on you.
DougJ
John, I didn’t mean to suggest that.
neil
I think it’s disgraceful that the Joint Chiefs would attempt to intimidate a newspaper for editorializing. Although to be fair, the Washington Post is quite the pushover, so they were pretty much asking for it.
The Joint Chiefs certainly have their share of responsibility for causing the troops more unnecessary suffering than any cartoon could ever do.
DougJ
That’s what I meant.
Look, I’m beginning to see where John is coming from here, but I don’t agree.
The bottom line for me is that if you think there isn’t enough awareness of the plight of injured troops, then you see what the point of this cartoon is, even if you find it offensive.
Far North
I didn’t see anything wrong with the cartoon when I looked at it. But before I even clicked on the link, I already had a bias through which I was going to judge. See, John, as soon as I saw the the name Michelle, I was prepared to disagree with you. As an extremest shrieker of the far right in the vein of Coulter and Savage, Malkin has very little credibility with anyone near the center and certainly anyone to the left of center. You mentioned that you condemned the little purple band-aid stunt and the convention but Malkin thought it was great and applauded it with vigor.
I would have preferred that you refereced the cartoon without mentioning Malkins. But hey, it is your blog.
Lines
Off Topic, but is this bizarro day at Balloon Juice? things are far too civil and the discourse is far to self-effacing (for a large part).
Oh, wait, no Darrell, no Stormy and only drive by shit throwing from Par R and kl. That would certainly explain the reasonable discussion tones.
Richard Bottoms
Unlike that commie Senator Murtha who visits the VA every week.
Ancient Purple
I would be quite surprised if you did find anything. But that is the M.O. for Malkin and company. Liberals are traitors because we want better pay, benefits, health care, and body armor for our troops. Malkin and Co. are for putting a $2.00 Chinese-made “I Support The Troops” magnet on the back of the SUV and voting Republican as their show of support. For that, they are the true patriots.
If only there was as much concern from Malkin about things like this nation doing stop-gap measures or cancelling enlistment bonuses or requiring veterans to pay co-pays for VA assistance.
But there won’t be. They are too busy getting the SUV gassed up and polishing the magnet.
Malkin’s New Army Motto: “Suck It Up, Soldier!”
neil
Although to be fair, readers of this weblog know that John feels much more strongly about cartoons than he does about politics.
Here, and here, and here, and here.
Oh, but not all cartoons are bad. Some are downright awesome.
Par R
It is another typical left wing lie and distortion to claim that Bush has cut veteran’s benefits. In point of fact, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush’s budgets. That’s hardly a cut. The following data from the U.S. Budget: Table 5.2 – Budget Authority by Agency shows amounts by year:
1994 – $36.8 Billion
1995 – $38.1 ”
1996 – $38.7 ”
1997 – $39.9 ”
1998 – $42.8 ”
1999 – $44.1 ”
2000 – $45.5 ”
2001 – $47.4 ”
2002 – $51.9 ”
2003 – $58.9 ”
2004 – $60.3 ”
2005 – $65.3 “
Perry Como
Day by day has to be the funniest cartoon ever written. Right wing humor at its finest.
DougJ
Yes, we do.
I wish I could say the same of Michelle Malkin.
DougJ
Whoops, I didn’t read that — I thought it said “much more strongly about the troops than about cartoons.”
DougJ
Uh, Par, you do realize there are many more veterans now than when he took office because he started a big war. That’s what happens when you start wars, you have more veterans.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Spoof! SPOOF!
No way in hell this guy, Pat R., is legit.
Lines
Just to attempt to see if Par R is intelligent enough to read:
Democrat Plans/Arguments about the VA and insufficient increases to the VA budget.
Darrell
The left is just showing how much they support the troops
Pooh
And some thought that
electedappointedannointed officials would be too embarassed to come back anymore. Afternoon Senator.Kimmitt
Um, Par R — if you adjust those numbers for inflation, you find that the ratio of benefits to soldiers who need them is going down. That really isn’t a good thing.
That’s as may be, but I stand by my impression.
jg
How do you figure that?
Ancient Purple
Because you can only support the troops if you meet the “Darrell Guideline Patriotism and Support The Troops” test.
Stormy70
Yes, this cartoon heightens awareness in the Amerian public. They are aware that the leftists still look down on the military, and could never be trusted with National Security.
Lets poll the military on how they view the Mainstream press. Also, if they hate Rummy so much, why is he treated like a rock star when they see him?
SeesThroughIt
She doesn’t care about these things and never has, just like she has never cared about the PVS people she claims she’s fighting for. She only cares that these are abstract issues, complete with slogans that have been rendered meaningless (“Support our troops!” “Culture of life!”), that she thinks she can use to simultaneously rally the right wing and bash the left wing.
Her sadness is quite transparent.
Perry Como
btw, anytime you lefties criticize the civilian military leadership, you are kicking a US soldier in the groin. You are either with us or against us. Allowing criticism of policy decisions is pre-9/11 thinking. Some people need to watch what they say.
jg
How exactly does this cartoon depict that?
No lets ask them why they feel the way they do about the press.
Because they careful screen the servicemen who will be meeting him. Same with Bush’s townhalls.
ppGaz
Uh, yeah, really, DougJ. In case you hadn’t noticed, I just say what I think and I don’t care which “side” I am on or who agrees or doesn’t agree. So why would it surprise you that I disagree?
I tend to take the most conservative view of things like this. People who have sacrificed their limbs for their country are not fair game for cartoonists AFAIC. Or, for that matter, for politicians to exploit, either.
Mac Buckets
Seriously, John, you are maybe expecting an expression of shame from the Dean/Galloway/Sheehan leftians who post here? Ha! Without power or ideas for so long, they subsist solely on unfiltered hate and snark. Shame and propriety don’t enter into the equation anymore — only attacking the other side matters, and the more vicious and tactless, the better.
You’re no rookie. You must know these guys better than this by now.
jg
Shame? For what? Enlighten me. I need to learn more about shame from folks who support swift boaters.
ThirdGorchBro
I don’t share Malkin’s outrage at the cartoon itself, mostly because I think Rumsfeld has been a terrible Defense Sec. However, I do think she makes a worthwhile point in her preceding remarks – that the Joint Chiefs sent a letter of complaint about the cartoon rather than issuing threats, unlike some other people who have been offended by cartoons recently.
rachel
There’s a lot of argument about whether the cartoon is offensive to soldiers. I wonder what the troops really think of it because it strikes me as the kind of bitter, black humor that might appeal to some of them. Also, I’m only acquainted with a few military people, but they all think Rumsfeld is a dick.
So any of you in the military out there, what do *you* think of it?
Perry Como
Mac is 100% spot on. They just had Rep. Murtha (Traitor – PA) on Hardball a little while ago. Murtha was screeching the entire time, “I hate Bush! I hate Bush! I hate Bush!”. Not a single idea was uttered from his terrorist loving, troop hating mouth. It was nothng but vitriol aimed at the President and this great nation of ours.
People need to remember: if you criticize the President, you hate America.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hey where did Senator Darrell go?
Mac Buckets
Because if you criticize John Kerry, you hate America!
Mac Buckets
Does “RUN AWAY!! RUN AWAY!!!!!!” technically count as an idea, or is it just a base reflex?
jg
Leftys hate the troops, they have no ideas, they only want to attack Bush. Anyone from the right going to say something related to the issue the cartoon is about or are you going to continue deflecting the issue with talking points?
Reports on the state of the military have said the military is in bad shape. Rumsfeld blew off the reports with a shit happens comment.
Discuss.
jg
No, you hate John Kerry. Criticize him all day, have fun. I don’t care, neither does anyone else as long as you don’t make shit up or smear him.
Its the smearing of Bush you hate, not the criticism right? I hope.
So when does the lesson on shame start or did you really have no point and just wanted to get your 2 cents in.
Vladi G
I believe you mean “Fowl”.
Andrew J. Lazarus
First, I like the cartoon. No, it isn’t funny. It’s mordant. Second, I think the soldier is wounded the way he is as a pun on hardened—that he’s full of casts and hard prosthetics.
Pooh
jg,
You go to ballon juice with the talking points you have…
(I don’t think that one is ever going to get old)
Mac Buckets
Hey, the next time a Republican uses a depiction of a hilariously wounded soldier to get a shock laugh, you just let me know. As the Joint Chiefs said, “…While you or some of your readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices.”
There endeth the lesson.
jg
I bet Rush was on the radio today making sure those who hadn’t seen the cartoon and most likely wouldn’t see it, hate it accordingly.
Joey
Political cartoons aren’t used for laughs, ass. They’re used to make a point. Which is something that not a single one of your comments has had.
Bruce Moomaw
One other thing about Toles: he isn’t as obsessed as some political cartoonists at making every one of his cartoons into a Laff Riot. His intention is, instead, to just to try to expose hypocrisy or stupidity in high places — and that kind of exposure can incorporate all sorts of emotional tones, of course. The impression I got was that he was damn mad when he drew that cartoon.
And, John, are you telling us with a straight face that you trust the JCS to deliver an HONEST opinion on what they thought of that cartoon — and thus on what they really think of Rummy?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hey, thanks for the new word and the link, Andrew.
Your analysis was nicely done as well.
jg
Its not a soldier. Its the army. Its called symbolism. A symbolic depiction of an event or situation. The man in bandages represents the state of our military. Its not an attack on our troops. Its a commentary on the management of the war.
Do you need more help?
SeesThroughIt
Have you noticed that not one person thinks the object of the cartoon is to be funny? because the object of the cartoon is to make a point, not to be funny. So there goes your false piety about “shock laughs.”
Change the incorrect “make light of” to “downplay and dismiss,” and you’ve got a lesson the Joint Chiefs should be teaching Bush, Rummy, etc.
Here endeth the lesson.
Davebo
Err.. No.
Because you hated John Kerry you had absolutely no qualms trashing his documented service with no evidence whatsoever.
And as I veteran I can tell you, we know. If you’ll do it to him for petty partisan gain, you do it to that guy with no arms or legs for partisan gain.
Heck, we know because you already have to the guy missing arms and legs.
But hey, carry on with the self loathing mock outrage. It’s cute.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Dude, Mac…purple heart bandaids.
Seriously.
Otto Man
The Joint Chiefs have actually sent a letter to the WaPo in protest.
Not surprisingly, they completely miss the point of the cartoon: “Using the likeness of a service member who has lost his arms and legs in war as the central theme of a cartoon is beyond tasteless.” The central theme of the cartoon is that Rumsfeld isn’t respecting those troops. If Toles had represented the Army as a hale and hearty soldier, then it wouldn’t have made any damn sense. Sheesh.
Anyway, I’m glad they got that off their chest. Maybe now they can focus on the two wars we’re still trying to win.
Otto Man
Nah, they just joke about the reasons soldiers get wounded. You know, like Bush’s hi-larious routine about not being able to find the WMDs?
Mac Buckets
Here’s a discussion for you:
With our soldiers active overseas, it’s a super-smart idea to go on and on about how bad a shape you think your armed forces are in, and how you think we can’t possibly act against any other threats right now. That kind of speculation can only have positive outcomes.
Discuss.
Pooh
In all seriousness there is a degree of having cake and then eating it as well. Some political cartoons are bad if they might cause offense, but some are just fine, because we don’t care about who we’re offending in the battle for hearts and minds…
Otto Man
Must’ve been a quorum call down at the Dairy Queen.
Bruce Moomaw
Note also that not-so-clever little 180-degree distortion in the JCS’ comment: when Toles attacked Rummy for contributing to the unnecessary mutilation of the US armed forces — and thus to the unnecessary mutilation of a lot of individual soldiers — he was REALLY “making light” of the mutilation of those soldiers themselves. Rightio. This administration is fond of using that particular switcheroo — remember Cheney announcing that anyone who criticized the administration for legalizing torture was actually viciously attacking Our Boys, and McClellan announcing that Murtha was calling Our Boys cowards (before they realized that that line wasn’t selling and hastily backed away from it)?
If Toles has any brains and guts (which I think he does), he will not only refuse to apologize for that cartoon, but will elaborate in detail on what he meant by it. Which wasn’t sneering at maimed US soldiers, lest we forget the fact.
SeesThroughIt
Nice distraction, Mac. Is that always what you do when you get your ass handed to you? It’s so very…Republican.
Perry Como
For Liberals, it’s their only reflex. We need to stay the course. If we were to withdraw troops now, it would only embolden the terrorists. Unless Sec. Rumsfeld says we are going to withdraw troops, then it means that we are winning. But any Liberal that suggests withdrawing troops is a terrorist loving traitor who’s only instinct is to “RUN AWAY!! RUN AWAY”.
Running away is not a policy decision.
ppGaz
Maybe you are the one missing the point. Using the likeness of a service member in this way is tasteless, no matter whose “side” advances it or whose “side” complains about it. It’s either tasteless, or it isn’t. The cartoon stands alone, without the baggage associated with party, movement, ideology, or whatever. It’s either an honorable thing, or it is not.
In this case, it is not. One does not need to have an opinion about the Join Chiefs, or Rumsfeld, or Bush, or Malkin, or Cole, to come to this conclusion. The cartoon is either an honorable thing or it is not, all by itself.
All the rest is just churn and bullshit.
Mac Buckets
Yeah, I remember…Bush put a picture of a quadriplegic soldier on the screen, and said, “I wonder if the WMD are under one of his bloody stumps!” No, wait, that’s what a lefty would’ve done. You know, because of the respect for the troops.
Besides, WMD weren’t the reason soldiers got wounded.
Bruce Moomaw
Mac Buckets:
“Here’s a discussion for you: With our soldiers active overseas, it’s a super-smart idea to go on and on about how bad a shape you think your armed forces are in, and how you think we can’t possibly act against any other threats right now. That kind of speculation can only have positive outcomes. Discuss.”
Why, of course. Obviously, if you think the government is letting the armed forces go to hell and/or using them in the wrong place, it’s a super-smart idea to keep silent about it and let them continue to go to hell and/or be used in the wrong place. That kind of silence can only have positive outcomes.
No need to discuss. At least we now know what those Buckets are full of.
Mac Buckets
Too dense to get the point? So very…Democrat.
jg
I don’t see any reason why we can’t discuss the state of our armed forces just because they are overseas. Talking about may force action concerning it. You’re reasons for avoiding the issue are laughable at best, dangerous at worst. Don’t you get tired of finding reasons to avoid uncomfortable topics? How do you move forward?
nyrev
Rachel,
I’m not in the military, but I grew up in a military family. Both of my grandfathers and both of my parents were in the military. One of my parents is a retired E9. I have active duty friends and family members, and one family member and two friends have served in Iraq in the past two years.
Every person I’ve talked to thinks that Rumsfeld is an incompetant SecDef. Most of them have thought so since the early days of “Shock and Awe” when the average man on the street thought the war was going to be another Desert Storm despite every branch of the military’s insistance that it was going to be a long-term commitment. There is, in fact, very little that Secretary Rumsfeld has done right, and it is an awesome testimony to the US military that they’ve done as well as they have in spite of him.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Uh oh!
Seems as if Pooh just put Malkin to shame.
Oh who am I kidding, she is shameless. Afterall, we’re talking about the bitch who wrote a book arguing that the Japanese intermint camps were a good idea in WW2 and that we should bring them back for the A-rabs.
Mac Buckets
Agreed, in bad taste, but nowhere in the same galaxy as that cartoon.
Davebo
Look, I think I have the answer.
Toles should add a disclaimer at the bottom..
But wait, this disclaimer is much more succinct.
And it does basically the same thing.
Otto Man
Maybe. If that really were the “likeness of a service member” — a specific representation of a single soldier — I’d agree with you. But it’s not. It’s a metaphorical representation of the U. S. Army, as made clear by the large sign on the patient’s bed that reads “U. S. ARMY.”
Davebo
Well, it’s a more realistic idea than “If we leave Iraq Osama will take over the country”.
And didn’t Dubya basically say exactly that last night?
Bruce Moomaw
Er, Buckets. WMDs WERE the official reason those soldiers got sent there — the Administration explicitly denied at the time that democratizing Iraq was an adequate reason to do so, as did their top GOP Congressional supporters. After we were already in there for a while, of course, we started hearing instead that it WAS an adequate reason to stay in, because we had already lost so many troops and so much money that it would be wasteful for us to pull out at that point. This is called the Camel’s Nose Technique, and it’s a long-time classic for dishonest governments.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Somehow I have a feeling that the servicemen who have recieved the purple heart would disagree…
Perry Como
The Liberals think the cartoon is some type of allegory, but us Righties know better. We know it’s just another troop bashing stunt, making light of the fact that some brave soldiers have given up their lives and limbs to protect us from Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Mac Buckets
There’s no avoiding anything. I’m explaining why Rumsfeld is forced by duty to pooh-pooh these “stretched thin” studies. They don’t serve a national security interest — rather the opposite.
And what a surprise! One of the studies was run and funded by Albright, Perry, and the Democrats! I’m sure it was a perfectly non-partisan study!
ppGaz
Well, you are giving the cartoonist more leeway than I am.
I am looking at through the eyes of a guy lying in the bed with no legs. If I’m that guy, my reaction is, hey, fuck you. My wounds are not yours to employ for your purpose.
The guy in the bed without legs is the only guy who counts here. The cartoonist has no right to speak for him.
Davebo
Well, considering it was Rumsfeld who commissioned the study. And considering Rumsfeld is directly responsible for our Military, I’d say Rumsfeld should be either
A: Forced to deal with the facts produced by the study he requested and take steps to resolve the problems.
or
B: Resign
But then, I’m more concerned about our military and it’s readiness than I am about how a stretched thin military makes Dubya look.
It’s a priority thing. And you’ve made yours clear.
Davebo
Which one? And by that I mean which one that Rumsfeld responded to questions about?
I smell BS here.
SeesThroughIt
Bingo.
Davebo
Well, that’s your right.
But frankly, I know Michelle and doubt John would be upset about an anonymous wounded soldier (ie: a drawing, not a real person) in a bed with a caption of “Don’t make my sacrifice count for nothing”.
Whaddya think?
Perry Como
Please don’t put me in the same sentence as America haters like former Secretary of State Albright and the DemocRATS. I love the USA and support our troops. The yellow magnet on my Hummer proves it.
Perry Como
Next week I’m getting an American eagle flying over the American flag airbrushed on the side of my Hummer. All of us America lovers are making sacrifices in this war.
ppGaz
Well, two things. One, to me this is not about what Michelle and John think. It’s about what I think. This type of context is not a team issue AFAIC.
Two, the characterization of the figure as anonymous only works if you are not that guy. If you are the guy in bed with no legs, that figure is you.
And that’s my point.
SeesThroughIt
This post is totally fucking awesome.
rilkefan
TDV, from the WTF? thread – could you link to the Kos dustup you had?
neil
This thread is seriously awesome. In case anyone missed these two:
We support the troops.. we just don’t, y’know, think about them.
DougJ
I just didn’t understand where you were coming from here. And you didn’t elaborate.
ppGaz
I don’t like the cartoon.
Pooh
ppGaz,
I get your point, and it is a fair one. But what, specifically, about the plight of an anonymous wounded soldier makes that image taboo when any number of characatures have been standard fair for political cartoons over the years? Can I not depict a homeless person in making a cartoon critical of a lack of a social safety net? How about a black man excluded from voting by new Georgia’s ‘ID law’?
DougJ
I agree that it may be tasteless, but I don’t think it is about which “side” anyone is on. It is about criticizing Rumsfeld’s insensitivity towards the troops.
Look, it seems to me that we’ve had a bunch of leaders like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who seem not to give a damn about the troops. They use words like “fungible” to describe them and can’t even remember how many casualties we’ve had. They have machines sign the death notices that go out to families.
All of the suffering and death of the American troops as well as the Iraqi civilians is hidden from view. So when someone points out that some of the “fungible”, “battle-hardened” troops who have suffered only “light casualties” have been crippled and maimed, he’s not using them.
Otto Man
True. But you’re leaving out the most important part — from now on, veterans will only be able to get two years of VA health coverage, as opposed to the old program of lifetime coverage.
(If you’d like to put that in percentages for comparative purposes, let’s say the average vet might leave the military at age 25 and live another 50 years. He used to get 50 years of health care, and now he gets 2, so that’s a 96% cut.)
So, yes, more veterans will be getting health care — thanks to the two wars we’re fighting — but each soldier will be getting much much less of it.
Tim F.
Mac,
Your response takes for granted that Rumsfeld only dismisses these studies in public. An alternative possibility is that RUmsfeld dismisses these findings both in public and in private in which case his policy would reflect a grossly distorted understanding of our military status. The latter case would be counterproductive at best, and possibly disastrous.
In all honesty, tell me which possibility you think more accurately reflects Rumsfeld’s character. I don’t want to call it naive to choose the former because of the obvious negative connotations of that word, but you’d be giving them far too much credit.
rilkefan
ppGaz:
I get where you’re coming from, but I think you’ll find a consistent application of that viewpoint is going to get you into all sorts of beyond-pc identity politics knots.
And, frankly, people who don’t understand the basics of reading editorial cartoons (like identifying labels) shouldn’t be reading them. Just as people who don’t understand basic fictional conventions and realities should avoid novels.
rilkefan
I see I’ve abstractly echoed Pooh‘s concrete point above.
muddy
It’s best to honor wounded troops by sweeping them under the rug. Shhh!
Steve
I don’t think ppGaz has any more authority to speak for the fictional guy with no legs than Michelle Malkin has to channel Casey Sheehan. For all I know, the “guy” is lying in bed thinking “those fuckers in the Pentagon sold me out.”
A better way to think about the sensitivity issues here is to ask, “How do you suppose Kristin Breitweiser feels about Bush constantly invoking 9/11 for political advantage?” At least no one ever tried to tell her that her dead husband would be ashamed of her.
DougJ
If I felt that the wounded soldiers from this war were being given a chance to speak for themselves, I would agree with you. I guess here’s what gets me about this — I watch a fair amount of news and the only place I’ve really seen someone talk to wounded soldiers at length about the war was in Fahrenheit 911. And Michael Moore became the whipping boy of the right and a good part of the left for making that movie. And one can say that he was just trying to push his “his side”, but it seemed to me that it was just about the only time I’ve seen anyone in the media try to tell the story of the war from the perspective of the people who are actually fighting it. Maybe he only talked to soldiers who shared his perspective, I don’t know. But I just don’t think we hear enough about what our soldiers really sacrifice when the nation goes to war.
Jill
The point of the cartoon is that Rumsfeld can’t see the truth. Only narrow minded people will look at this cartoon and say that it disses the troops. What it is saying is that Rummy disses the troops.
rilkefan
“The guy in the bed without legs” is a representation of the US Army, which doesn’t have feelings to be hurt. It’s that metonymy thing again that ppGaz hates.
neil
But dissing the civilian leadership is the _worst thing you can do_ to the troops! Don’t you know anything?
ppGaz
People who make this kind of sacrifice deserve special deference. It’s a special case. It’s about the sacrifice and the privacy of it. It’s their sacrifice, not ours to employ as we see fit.
rilkefan
Digby on the Pentagon Ladies Embroidery League.
Olly McPherson
This is a disgusting book, and Trumbo should be ashamed of himself. It isn’t funny, it doesn’t advance a cause or heighten any awareness, and it is in poor taste.
DougJ
That’s a good point. So if one takes the position that Toles is just trying to make a point for his side there, then I think this is indeed tasteless and wrong. If it were Bush in the picture and not Rumsfeld, it would seem pretty clear that that was what Toles was trying to do. But since it’s Rumsfeld, I don’t think that’s the point here.
rilkefan
Ok, so whenever a politician invokes their sacrifice, that’s pandering? And whenever anybody not in the armed forces mentions troop losses for whatever reason, that’s expropriation of their sacrifice?
rilkefan
Olly McPherson, I had thought about bringing up Metallica’s “One”…
DougJ
I like that Malkin said “if you are offended by this…you do not chant death to your opponents.” If only that were true.
ppGaz
Pretty much, yes. Soldiers gon’t give up their legs for politicians.
Tougher. One can represent the loss with a symbol, like a cross. It’s not as personal.
This cartoon fails because it is personal, IMO.
ppGaz
There are hundreds of ways to represent that subject, without using a personalized-looking image of an amputee.
It’s unnecessarily personal with regard to something that the cartoonist doesn’t own. It’s not his to use.
ppGaz
It’s the cartoonist’s authority that is in question here, not mine, or Malkin’s.
The cartoonist does not have that authority, no matter who “agrees” with whatever point he is making, or disagrees with it.
Pooh
ppG,
Thanks for explaining your position. We probably have to agree to disagree at this point, but your view is certainly defensible.
DougJ
What would you say, ppgaz (or others), if it turned out Toles had spoken with someone who was badly hurt in the war and told Toles he was pissed about what Rumsfeld said?
ppGaz
Go fuck yourself, man. You are full of shit. I have worked as a political cartoonist. Have you?
A long time ago, and far far away. But my point is, I don’t need any leture from the likes of you to decide what I think about a cartoon …. or to defend my opinion.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’d rather not. Oh what the hell, fine.
I should note that I was drunk last night. LOL.
Started drinking during the SOTU.
rilkefan
So those images of guys shot up and dying in Saving Private Ryan and so forth – that’s personal, right? And none of Spielberg’s business?
And those actors representing Holocaust victims in those movies and paintings and so forth – expropriation?
Hell, that photograph of the little naked girl running from the napalm attack – invasion of privacy?
The Disenfranchised Voter
I should also note that a lot of my comments are gone as they were troll rated shortly after I troll rated kos himself.
LOL.
ppGaz
Are you trying not to get this? It isn’t about Toles, or Rumsfeld. It’s about some nameless guy in a hospital bed somewhere that is alone with his upside-down life and missing limbs and doesn’t deserve to be used as somebody’s prop on a political stage. If he chooses to come forth and make a political speech, then he’s earned that right, no matter what position he takes. But nobody else has earned the right to employ his situation for their purposes, I don’t care how righteous they sound or for that matter how much I sympathize with their point of view.
rilkefan
wasn’t addressed at you, but rather the people who would be offended. On whose part I suppose you are offended.
DougJ
BTW, I’m not trying to argue with my question. I don’t have a very clear idea of exactly how the media should deal with these kinds of things and you seem to have thought about it a bit more. It seems on the one hand that no one should exploit the troops’ sacrifice to advance their own cause, but on the other if no one ever depicts the troops’ sacrifice, the public becomes callous to the idea of the sacrifice itself.
What’s the right way to discuss this issue, in your opinion?
ppGaz
I don’t believe that your comparisons are apt.
So you disagree. Did you want me to call CNN, or do you want to do it?
ppGaz
Oh, you were misunderstood? Maybe you can become a successful blogger, then. Bloggers seem to thrive on being misunderstood.
The Disenfranchised Voter
You know what? I’m reading some of the comments by the DKos folk and a lot of them were completely ridiculous.
They accused me of hating homosexuals and being a bigot because I pointed out the fact that all John A. at America blog cares about is gay rights. That his blog is basically one issue.
The people can be pretty fuckin ridiculous sometimes…
DougJ
TDV, you are a bigot. Deal with it.
ppGaz
Are you going to argue that it’s not possible to illustrate Rumsfeld the callous asshole WITHOUT the drawing of the quadraplegic?
Okay, you have the floor ________________________
rilkefan
TDV, thanks for the link, that’s kind of hilarious but also kind of like the crow-picked skeleton of a formerly hilarious but now gibbeted king’s fool who went a little too far.
DougJ
No, I mean the issue that we have 15,000 soldiers with serious disabilities as a result of this war.
rilkefan
TDV, saying John A. is just about teh gay is like saying John C. is just about Cindy Sheehan. Some days it’s true, some days it’s not. Or like saying Andrew Sullivan’s blog is just about homosexuality.
ppGaz
And?
Is there anything in opposition to that war that I haven’t already said around here? Ad nauseam? At the top of my lungs?
I’m not sure I can help you.
DougJ
Okay, so I guess your point is that even if one thinks that it is terrible that war casualties are hidden from view, that this cartoon is really an attack on Rumsfeld using an image of a quadraplegic soldier and is thus exploiting the nameless soldier’s sacrifice. Fair enough.
spearNmagicHelmet
are you off your meds? what the fuck?
that offends you?
how about the act of actually making it happen?
putz.
rilkefan
Re “just a representation”:
ppGaz
No, my point is (a) I don’t like the cartoon, (b) for the reasons I’ve stated, and (c) I really don’t need a translator to restate it in your words for me.
But thanks anyway.
The Disenfranchised Voter
For example (not that anyone probably cares):
To which I replied with:
sighhhhhhhh
Are you serious? If so get help.
My comment suggests that I think John only cares about gay rights and is a single issue voter. If the Republicans were better than the Dems on gay rights, John would vote Republican.
That is what I was saying. He isn’t truly against the Administration like most others.
D. Mason
I understand why some people think this cartoon is in bad taste and of course they have different experiances that guide their opinions. I would however like to point out that we live in a nation where there is an eerie sanitization of reality in the news related to the war. The fact is that soldiers ARE being maimed in Iraq, they ARE losing their limbs and lives, but there is an active effort to filter out mentions of such things in the public discourse. Anything that actually makes people stop for a moment and think about what kinds of sacrifices these soldiers make is a good thing… Not because it’s pleasant to think about or even that the soldiers deserve to be thought about. People who are aware of the realities of war will be less inclined to send soldiers(even when they’re other peoples children) off to fight in wars or to support politicians who do so with little care. War is horrible and should be a last resort but in todays society we’re encouraged to glorify war… This cartoon was a minute taste of the reality that many soldiers experiance and I find it very telling that so many people who cheerlead for the war then recoil at the realities it brings. Every American who lives in the comfort of these soldiers protection should be willing to face the realities visited on soldiers in war.
neil
He isn’t truly against the Administration like most others.
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparklemotion.
ppGaz
Well, that rant is just completely dishonest.
The issue here is whether the soldiers, having made the sacrifices, are then public property to be unwillingly and uwittingly employed as avatars in other peoples’ campaigns. While this cartoon employs a fictional soldier, it personalizes the image in such a way that it has its toe on that line of unacceptability.
And I would not characterize John Cole as “cheerleading” for the war. At all.
DougJ
Ppgaz, it is not normal to try to understand someone else’s arguments by attempting to put it in different words?
Steve
I understand how a wounded soldier should not be used as, for example, a political prop to elect Republicans or Democrats.
I totally don’t get why a wounded soldier cannot be used to make a point about wounded soldiers.
DougJ
I agree — accusing supporters of the war of “cheerleading” for it isn’t a whole lot better than accusing those who oppose the war of wanting to “cut and run”. People can have different opinions without being war mongers on the one side or cowards on the other. It’s too bad people like Mac, Stormy, Par, and Darrell haven’t figure that out yet.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Cheerleading for the war? Enh, not so much.
A pretty strong believer of the Neo-consevative foreign policy? I’d have to say yes.
ppGaz
Not for you.
DougJ
I don’t think that is necessarily true either. You may be underestimating how out there the real neocons are. Don’t forget, the movement came out of the American communist movement.
ppGaz
By that I mean, you understand me perfectly. You are just being DougJ. The ….. imaginary …. DougJ. If you get my drift, which I am sure that you do.
DougJ
Most people who don’t know neocons have a hard time realizing how extremist they are. I have a friend whose father drank the Kool-aid and even though I’ve spent a fair amount of time talking with him, I still can’t wrap my head around how rabid he is.
These people really think we should go around the world invading countries and forcing them to adopt our way of life. I don’t think John believes that.
D. Mason
I take offence to being called a liar. I could call you dishonest for feigning sympathy for soldiers while trying to sweep their plight under the rug, but that would be a cheap shot. It’s pathetic that you think you can imagine the point of view of a soldier who has been maimed. Would you actually have the balls to say that to one of them? Yeah probably so since you’re painfully disingenuous.
Just like there are surely some injured soldiers who were offended or maybe even who experianced some real discomfort in seeing this cartoon, there are bound to be some maimed soldiers who appreciate that someone is willing to speak out in a pointed way that might benefit their bretheren still on the battlefield and couldn’t care less what imagery is used. So please, stop speaking for every injured soldier.
I never pointed to John as being a war cheerleader but you can undoubtedly scroll through these comments and find a few, who could clearly not give a shit about the soldiers, puking up plenty mock outrage. I also guess you forgot about Michelle Malkin.
Maybe if the “journalists” would address some of these issues honestly and openly then cartoonists wouldn’t have to do it. As it is they do have to and I say more power to ’em. The effects of war are not pretty and ignoring the plight of soldiers is not patriotic nor appreciative.
ppGaz
Whatever you do, don’t tell Darrell that. We’ll be here all night again.
ppGaz
I said your rant was dishonest, not that you are liar.
If you can’t parse that, then you are in over your head here.
DougJ
Truthfully, ppg, I only started to understand your point towards the very end. I wasn’t trying to be a smart alec.
John — sorry I said what I said about you and the troops. I was wrong.
D. Mason
6 of one or half a dozen of the other eh?
Steve
I think there definitely are cheerleaders. There are plenty of people who have no understanding of the costs of war, who view it as completely irrelevant if we blow up some Iraqi neighborhood, who think it’s all a big game and if another country looks at us funny we send the U.S. military over to prove America kicks ass.
I certainly wouldn’t put John in this category, nor would I put most pro-war people there. I think most people who favor the war are thoughtful people who are simply misguided. But some of the extremist blogs and bloggers are definitely in the “cheerleader” category.
ppGaz
Okay, if you say so. But your reputation sort of precedes you. Doug.
Maybe you should post under a different name when you are being serious.
The Disenfranchised Voter
We I can hardly argue that he isn’t a sane Neo-con (on Foreign Policy alone, I don’t think he agrees with the rest of the NeoCon philosophy. Though it should be noted that the NeoCon FP is directly related to their idea on big government. You can’t have one, without the other).
Those would be the insane ones.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*We=Well
DougJ
Those are the real ones.
DougJ
I was being completely serious this entire thread, ppg. I would never joke about wounded service men.
BumperStickerist
Well, the poster that mentioned the patient’s name on the medical chart is ‘US ARMY’ and that the graph shows what Toles would claim is a enlistment or troops strength chart.
So, the person in the bed is not a depiction of a US Soldier – it’s a metaphorical depiction of the ARMY.
This is reinforced by the ‘stretched thin’ comment by the rip off of Oliphant little character at the bottom. You cannot literally ‘stretch’ an actual person thin, especially a person who’s suffered four avulsions.
So, I’ve got no problem with the cartoon as depicted. Though I find Toles work both derivative and, judging from his Army enlistment/reenlistment figures, misinformed.
But no matter, Toles draws stuff so he gets the facts pass.
Here, on the other hand, is a real editorial cartoonist that dealt with military, civil rights, and societal issues. Bill Mauldin:
Say what you will, but Toles is no Mauldin.
.
BumperStickerist
Bill Mauldin
kenB
I’m not sure I exactly understand where people are coming from here.
To those who are objecting to the cartoon: would it have been any better if he had just depicted a guy fully bandaged, say, in traction, but with all four limbs? That seems like a fairly common visual metaphor.
To those who are defending the cartoon: do you think it would have lost any impact if the soldier had simply been all bandaged and in traction, but with all four limbs? Obviously not as controversial, but the point itself would, ISTM, have come through just as well. Toles was asking for trouble with this, and if I were the editor, I would’ve turned it down. Unless I actively wanted the controversy, that is.
ppGaz
If it’s about the cartoon, it’s peoples’ gut reactions.
If it’s about war-Rumsfeld-Malkin-etc then it’s about …. those things.
The former has nothing to do with the latter.
Otto Man
Heh. I had the exact same thought.
Wasn’t he the one who insisted the Nazis were socialists?
The Other Steve
Seriously, this is just more Faux Outrage from the Political Correct right wing.
It might have meant something had it not been posted by Michelle “Insincere” Malkin. But not now.
StupidityRules
Actually, someone else insisted it somewhere else. Might even have been a senator. Then Darrell copied it and pasted it here trying to pass it off as an original thought.
The Disenfranchised Voter
People who argue that piss me off. They are buying into 1933 Nazi propaganda.
You know what really does it for me though? When they literally come out and say “Of course the Nazi’s were socialists! Nazi–the National Socialist German Workers Party. DUH!”
I just wanna smack those people.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hahaha, Post of the Day(POTD)!
Pooh
Hence his new nickname.
Steve
I believe Jonah Goldberg’s forthcoming book is going to argue that the Nazis were leftists. I am really baffled by the obsession over this point, as if there really are these two sports teams “left” and “right” with which we all must identify until the end of days.
Maybe Caligula was a right-winger. Who gives a shit?
SeesThroughIt
You and me both. It’s one of the dumbest arguments to come down the pipeline in quite some time, but the people who claim it are absolutely immovable on it–and their sole defense is, “It’s right there in the name!” It’s like the word “truthiness” was brought out just for those people.
But it’s also part of the ongoing right-wing attempt to rewrite history to fit their “everything good = right wing; everything bad = left wing” world view. It’s really pathetic that grown people are involved in such a pursuit.
Sirkowski
It’s funny because it’s true.
Otto Man
To which you should reply, “Well, East Germany’s official name under the communists was the Democratic Republic of Germany. Are you saying they weren’t commies?”
Sends ’em running as quick as they can run.
The Disenfranchised Voter
You know, not that it really matters, but Hitler would probably fall as a liberal capitalist in economic terms. However, that the important aspect of Hitler’s rule is that he led a very authoritarian state, and authoritarianism is something that Liberals are much more critical of than Conservatives are…
The Disenfranchised Voter
But liberal capitalists are still capitalists. They aren’t socialists…
Pooh
I’ll see your DRG and raise you a People’s Republic(an) of China. Why does Google hate the Democrats?
Pan Pan (anon)
The shortcoming of the cartoon is that it is drawn in a more ‘comic’ style, complete with bubbly line-figures, awkward expressions, and a little caption at the bottom. Perhaps the author wanted to depict the soldier in the most generic possible way, but a little more detail and grimness would have prevented people from interpreting it as a light-hearted quip.
…not that I think it is one.
Gary Farber
Please forgive me that I’m not going to read 242 comments before posting one, so maybe someone already mentioned this (though a “find” on “Muslim” doesn’t show the word coming up), but is it just me who has a touch of cognitive dissonance (save that it’s Malkin, so that’s redundant) that just a few entries over she’s busily standing up for the rights of cartoonists to be deeply offensive?
I guess it’s okay to do cartoons that Muslims think are blasphemous, but the Joint Chiefs and you are a bit more touchy. Reconcile that one for me if you like, but not if you don’t like.
Joey
That’s what makes the political compass so great. Economics are in terms of left and right (Right being less control, left more control), and general governing beliefs are in terms of up and down (up being fascism and down being anarchy). They really are very different, and left and right isn’t descriptive enough. It drives me nuts when people bring up communists to bad mouth liberals, when those commies brought up (Stalin, Castro, etc) are almost always authoritarian, which is more readily associated with conservatives. You have to take economics out of the picture sometimes.
Pb
Joey,
Indeed. For example, economic fascism is actually corporatism, which is not necessarly what people associate with fascism in a political context.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Gary Farber
Very good catch, and yes someone did mention it already.
Joey
I hear ya. Personally–in terms of politics in the US at least–I’m much more concerned with the up/down scale than the left/right one, and given how high up Bush and the current batch of Republicans are, I think that most people should also share that concern.
Otto Man
And I’ll reraise you with Saddam’s Republican Guard.
Pan Pan (anon)
BTW, if fascism is understood as an economically centrist ideology, with libertarianism being economically right and socialism being economically left, the faux/neo conservatism that rules the day would have to be placed accordingly – slightly right of center.
SmilingPolitely
What he said.
Pooh
Gary, aye I did note the strangeness. Something about oxes and goring comes to mind.
Otto,
I’m all in with the Republic of China. [Scotty Nguyen voice]You can’t call. Scotty Win![Scotty]
And anyone who is still with me, you are a degenerate. The first step is admitting you have a problem.
The Disenfranchised Voter
libertarianism usually refers to the down part of the up/down scale.
I believe the term you are looking for is capitalism, the far-right version of capitalism being laisser faire.
Basically this is how I would label the left-right scale.
Communism——Socialism—|—Capitalism——Laisser faire
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well that was fun.
I think I’ll do the up/down scale too.
Totalitarianism
|
|
|
Authoritarianism
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
Libertarianism
|
|
|
Anarchism
Now let’s put them together! No, just kidding. I’m not that lame.
Peter
What would a ‘battle hardened’ soldier say in response to this cartoon?
It’d probably be something like:
Pan Pan (anon)
That’s right, DV, but in the U.S. libertarianism is generally seen as a right-wing free-market ideology, while left wing anti-authoritarianism is known as anarchism or some variant of anarcho-socialism. And I would not consider ‘communism’ to be the generic entry for the far left, since extreme-left anarchism is starkly different from the ideology we know as Communism.
The Disenfranchised Voter
It should be noted that every singlw type of Communism ever put into practice (that I know of at least) was done so in an Authoritarian state.
My guess would be that your view on Communism is influenced by these governments. Communism doesn’t necessarily have to be authoritarian. It’s just that all the leaders who were Communists just happened to be Totalitarian bastards as well.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Not to mention corrupt SOB’s too.
:)
Perry Como
If the thread ends at 256, the programmers have won.
DougJ
The point isn’t that neoconservatism is like communism, the point is that its founder (Irving Kristol) was a communist. He was at the the Third International.
Nikki
And I read every comment. Yea me!
Smitty
Hesiod
Ummm…excuse me. But where were you yahoos when old bitties at the Republican National Conventon were mocking JohnKerry (and by extension ALL veterans) with those dumbass Purple Heart Band-aids?
I bet Ms. Malagaladingdong was snorting redpop thorugh her nose when she saw this photo:
http://www.projo.com/blogs/shenews/photos/purpleheart.jpg
So, please sut the F up. M, kay?
Hesiod
I believe Jonah Goldberg’s forthcoming book is going to argue that the Nazis were leftists.
Gee. What a surprise. I guess that’s why the arch enemies of the Nazi Party in Germany were the Communists not the conservative parties.
Jonah is a tool.
Smitty
WaPo’s pending retraction viewed here.
The Disenfranchised Voter
They do share the same type of interventionist foreign policy, that is likened to most all authoritarian states, though.