So I thought this Dan Perkins strip could do with a bit of a makeover.
Not the drawings so much. To be honest, I kinda like the drawings. But the commentary needed a little bit of tweaking, that’s for sure…
[link found via Walter in Denver, who writes of TT’s original strip: “I can’t decide if he’s really worried about the state of the country or if he just hates conservatives, and religion by extrapolation. Modern World, Tom? Christian-bashing has been around for, like, millenia.]
*After “This Modern World” by Tom Tomorrow.
That’s pretty funny. The fourth frame is my favorite.
:D
I think your’s is funnier.
Perfect, love it…
While Tom’s orignals are often at least thoughtful, this one was straight outta Chomskyland and deserves the “remix”. Brilliant.
Somehow saying “It’s idiotic to believe in God” is not exactly the same as “hey, atheists are Americans too.” If one claims to be better than Ann Coulter, one might want to rethink that.
Jeff, you are doing the Lord’s work!
Why doesn’t the guy just say, “Hey assholes, the Federal government thinks you’re an idiot!” instead of taking the trouble to do a cartoon? (When is Salon finally gonna go broke??)
Your version is much funnier than the original. The lefty concepts in your version are taken straight from the Guardian, NYTimes, etc. The original is full of those straw men the left love so much.
Perfect. Completely perfect. I have absolutely nothing worthwhile to add to this. You just said it all.
Thanks–the cartoon annoyed me, but my response was mostly to spew. Your version is on target and pithy.
Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest.
– Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) Education and Citizenship speech, 5/14/1908
Nice work. Thanks for reassuring me that it’s okay not to delve too deeply into the complexities of the state of the world today. It’s so simple: Us = God’s New Chosen People. Them = Rabid Drooling Freedom Haters (well, we won’t have to worry about that for too long, since the Ashcroft Gang are doint their very best to strip us of the very freedoms that make terrorists hate us. Oh, but only for the duration of the war, of course – say, how will we know it’s over, by the way?).
Anyway, thanks again.
Way to go! You really showed them atheistic, hippy, clown loving, un-American bastards who really has a grip on original satire. Sit and spin you sinning curs! Sit and spin!
“-<i>say, how will we know it’s over, by the way</i>?”
Dunno, Torquemada. Buildings stop blowing up? Fat ladies singing? Alec Baldwin tells us so…?
So, since the unelected George W.Bush and his rabid slavering freedom-hating henchman Ashcroft are at work dismantling the constitution, we are much safer?
Sorry, I don’t get it.
I also like Mark Twain quote in an earlier post. He is one of my favorite atheists and a Christian-basher in his own right. Will common sense prevail? It’s doubtful, based on most of your posts. This was a classic Tom Tomorrow strip that has apparently ruffled a few angel feathers. Is sniping easier than thinking?
Granted, Dan Perkins seems to be an atheist, but there was nothing atheistic in the original cartoon. It only criticized the idea that many people seem to have the people of the USA are God’s new chosen people who may smite whomever wherever in his name.
Remember: two knee-jerks don’t make a cohert thought.
Hmm. Might your “not getting it” have something to do with your initial premise being a bit, y’know, <i>slanted</i>, Not Bubba. I mean, I didn’t vote for Bush, but that hardly makes him “unelected.” And for all that constitutional “dismantling,” the Supreme Court just keeps on upholding shit. I know, I know, blah blah Clarence Thomas blah Conservative Court blah.
Here, read <a href=”http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/405cxgrz.asp”>this</a> and tell me what you think.
Oh, and yes, Kenneth. You’re exactly right: the God-fearin’, gun-totin’, uppity rubes here in the U.S. think they can run around the world spittin’ tobacc-ee and smitin’ whoever wherever—all in God’s name. Absolutely. ‘s not a caricature at all. I should have thought this out better.
postscript:
Why the association of “hippy” with “atheist”? I keep seeing this in various forums, and I don’t get it. When I think “hippy”, I also think “Jesus people” and “Buddist” and “New Agers”…. all of whom are hippy stereotypes and none of whom are athiests.
Stereotypes can be load of fun, but they’re most fun when they have some relation to reality and are not just the usual coagulation of things one hates. Though, if you read the mirror-image polemics of patristic champions of orthodoxy and heresiarchs, you find that there’s nothing new under ths sun.
All this back-patting over your revised cartoon is a bit misplaced. The original cartoon was far funnier and made its point in a much crisper way. This poor-man’s (and rather watered-down) imitation only makes one respect the pen (and creativity) of the original that much more (whether one is on the Left or Right), as in cartoons such as: http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/02/25/tomo/index.html (on Ann Coulter) or http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2001/10/22/tomo/index.html (on American values). Sorry, Jeff, Perkins gets the nod here. Better luck next time, as they say.
“Head up your ass?” We teach what we most need to learn….in your case, how to wipe feces off your eyebrows….I filed it in the index under, “Doy!”
Warbloggers: proving that they’re incapable of irony, one lame trick at a time. And yes, Tom did sting the elitist wingnut hordes this time, didn’t he? Gotta love it.
Incapable of irony? Me? I dunno. I found “R.E. Tard’s” (get it? It’s <i>retard</i>
use of an emblematic name thigh-slappingly brilliant. Like Phil McCrackin. Or R. U. Pissin.
Gold. Absolute Gold.
Oh. And what’s a “warblogger,” anyhow? I discuss the war here on this blog, sure—but then, so does Tom Tomorrow discuss the war on <i>his</i> site.
Wait, I bet this has something to do with my thinking that our enemies are serious and not just cute little Others in exotic dress who’ll get with the Kumbaya-in just as soon as we Americans embrace Kyoto and switch to a lower-fat diet.
Please don’t equate liberalism with atheism.
Tom’s cartoon in question is vitriolic satire at its best, especially in light of Anne Coulter’s response (”…real Americans are behind our troops 100 percent, behind John Ashcroft 100 percent, behind locking up suspected terrorists 100 percent, behind surveillance of Arabs 100 percent”)
Also, as another post or two has mentioned, there is no reference to Atheism, nor do I see any real Christian-bashing, just skepticism at the idea that the piece of Earth we live on has somehow been chosen by a god to rise above all the rest. Looking at the history of the world and its centers of trade and commerce, it would seem that this god has jumped around quite a bit.
Finally, the cartoon “remix”, or whatever it is, is a stale rip off at best. Many of the panels oversimplify “liberal” policy, and it is obvious that Jeff Goldstein needs to reread the original strip.
I thought Tom’s cartoon was pointed and funny. I thought your cartoon was pointed and funny. I found most of the responses, on either side of the political fence, to be pretty petty and juvenile. The thing is, I lean pretty far left, but I can sympathize as a devil’s advocate for the sentiments Jeff expresses here.
The thing is, the truth is _always_ between any two extremes like this. If you read Tom Tomorrow’s weblog, he expresses somewhat more moderate opinions and admits his cartoons exaggerate for effect. It’s _easy_ to present a ridiculous version of your opponent’s opinion and then, well, ridicule them. And it’s damned funny. But it’s not intelligent debate.
The sad truth is that tightening up security during wartime and detaining people with demonstrable links to terrorist cells is NOT some kind of creeping fascism. But expressing concerns about the possible effects of expanding FBI and CIA authority—when there’s ample historical evidence they’ve used that power against peaceful dissenters—isn’t just a sign of some kind of persecution complex.
Yeah, people, there are “wingnuts” like Noam Chomsky and Ann Coulter on both sides. So yeah, they’re wingnuts. WHY THE HELL ARE YOU PAYING SO MUCH ATTENTION TO THEM, when the left and right are both full of intelligent moderates?!
Why don’t you _approach_ some of these intelligent people, freakin’ _talk_ to them, politely and maturely? Try to express your reasons for believing what they believe, and listen sincerely when they do the same back to you.
That’s why I’m so disappointed with the Bush administration so far—not because I think a hard-line military stance is such a bad idea, but because I feel they’ve patronized the public and refused to engage the public in a real debate on the issue. They’ve called their opponents names, and used every logical fallacy in the book*, while failing to explain in any detail _why_, say, we shouldn’t blame them for collaborating for so long with extremist Arab governments in the first place. All I want is an answer. I’m an American citizen and proud of it. They work for ME. I think I deserve that much. (*And FWIW, most of their critics aren’t doing any better.)
Sorry this comment’s so long. But I’m sick of smartassed one-liners. This isn’t the freakin’ schoolyard.
I don’t equate liberalism with atheism, Jim. Honest. Just as I don’t equate conservatism with bible thumping. And I certainly don’t think that all those who supports the military campaign do so because they think God is on their side. Some of us just believe that preemption, regime change, and military force (coupled with other strategies) is the best course of action against this particular kind of threat.
I read the original strip just fine, Cntrlcomment. And yes, I intentionally oversimplified liberal policy in response to what I took to be a gross oversimplification of the conservative ideology re: the war. That was the point, genius.
Besides, I wasn’t being critical. I was merely evincing my “skepticism” over the kind of intellectual half-thought and pop-psyc claptrap that ends with the rape victim checking her clothes to see if she somehow deserved that big Al Qaeda gang rapin’. Wrongheaded approach, it seems to me.
(Oh. And Ms. Coulter’s column was in <i>response</i> to TT’s comic, not the comic’s <i>raison d’etre</i>.)
That being said, thank you, Hannah, for injecting some civility into the procedings.
If TT’s themes seem redudant in parody form, just imagine how much they get on some of our relativism-laden nerves in everyday life.
And another thing—I thought Tom’s jab at organized religion was a little over the top, too, but I think his main point was to poke fun at the arrogance of believing uncritically that America is “God’s chosen land.” You really have to bend over backwards to find evidence for that in the Bible, and let’s face it, every superpower or empire thinks it’s The One (even if it just thinks it’s Marx’s Holy Chosen). :p
God didn’t pick the USA to be the best. Our ancestors made it that way. Unfortunately, our enemies’ ancestors chose to made their nations their way.
I haven’t heard any conservatives say that the U.S. was “chosen by God.” sounds like another straw man…
Hi Jeff, yours is wittier than TT’s, handsdown. I have to ask the same question of TT: When you ask, “Are you a real American?”, do you mean “Are you a real American taxpayer?”
I think both cartoons were good caricatures of the nutters on either end of the spectrum: the bbible beating ignoramus righties, or the self-loathing whiny lefties. The middle’s where it’s at, slim.
posted by Jeff G:
“Dunno, Torquemada. Buildings stop blowing up? Fat ladies singing? Alec Baldwin tells us so…?”
That’s my point. This war isn’t like WW2, in that we knew the war’s over when Germany and Japan surrendered. al Qaeda is not going to wave a white flag and book a hotel room in Versailles or Appamattox for the formal signing of a peace treaty. It’d be easy enough for the government to convince us to “temporarily” forgo some of our rights (like the right to a speedy trial, or the right to legal representation) for the duration of the war. And it’s true that citizens must make sacrifices in wartime. The problem is that it’s possible for the government to make the case that we’re still at war against terror, even if no buildings have blown up for a decade, because it’s possible that it might happen.
Ideally, *we* would decide when the war is over (by “we,” I mean a national consensus, and not just fringe elements of one wing or the other of the politcal spectrum). But we can’t, because we can’t get any information on the war. Our own media can’t or won’t report on the war in any way that might be percieved as critical, and most Americans don’t know enough about the foreign press to effectively filter fact from bias.
What’s my point? My point is that I’d feel a bit more comfortable making sacrifices to support the war effort if I had any real assurance that those sacrifices would, in fact, be temporary.
And as for Alec Baldwin, I know no lefty that cares a whit what he thinks. I liked him in “The Hunt for Red October,” but beyond that, he does nothing for me.
Hmm, isn’t the cartoon missing the point? Tom’s only point is that America has a wide range of views, and that should be encouraged- so why the need to “mock” liberal values?
I mean we liberals start talking about root causes, sure, but it makes logical sense! I mean anyone with an ounce of logic can follow it through-
terrorists are not born, they are made
there is therefore an endless supply of terrorists, in the form of people
so even if we could find out where they come from, which we can’t, killing them all won’t work
therefore, we have to try and see how terrorists are made
therefore, we look at root causes.
There.
Well, Jeff, Tom respected your wit enough to link to here from his site. Tom provides critical dissent. Limbaugh’s ‘America held hostage’ was neither insightful or fair. If you can look at what is going on and say, ‘no worries’, great. The point is that we are a free country, which necessariliy implies dissent and the freedom of dissent.
When Tom’s cartoon was published, the U.S. Senate was seriously discussing a Constitutional amendment to allow “under God” in the pledge in response to a 9th Circuit opinion that was appealable and that only affected 5 states—at the exact same moment the Supreme Court opined that declaring a US citizen to be an enemy combatant with literally no due process (no attorney, no judicial process, no airing of the evidence against) is no problem under the Constitution. Not one senator mentioned that. That struck me as wrong; including or strking “under God” in the pledge is borderline meaningless, while vitiating the rights of a US citizen affects literally all of us. Obviously, I am in the minority on that thinking.
Torquamada–
Much more reasoned a response. Thank you.
I disagree with you that the press can’t or won’t report critically. I think you can find plenty of critical discussion should you wish to—and I don’t believe that anyone is being censored or manipulated (outside of the kind of disinformation governments at war prudently leak from time to time). True, some ideas voiced in public have received a solid civic spanking, but that’s hardly the same as uncritical line-toeing.
We’re all out in the dark to some degree—and I don’t WANT to have to run a war by national “consensus.” There are people trained to make these decisions who are put in place by elected officials. We can be critical and we can help shape strategy, but I don’t feel like I need to be consulted at every turn. I think it boils down to the degree of trust we’re willing to put into the goverment. And for me, the system of checks and balances we have in place is protection enough for the time being.
I liked Baldwin in <i>HRO,</i> by the way. Also in <i>Outside Providence.</i>
Um, Jeff G., unelected means he didn’t win an election to hold the office of the president. He might have won if the Supreme Court had not forestalled the election process by installing him.
It doesn’t matter whether I voted for him or not, he didn’t win the election, therefore he is unelected.
Dismantling the Constitution:
Suspension of habeus corpus
Illegal searches and survaillance
Hidden proceedings
Secret evidence
So, there you go, definitions for my terms. Sorry you couldn’t figure it out for your self. You must be a Republican.
I liked Baldwin in Miami Blues.
Tom’s response to Ann Coulter’s pointed analysis of this cartoon:
Ms. Coulter argues that the point of my cartoon “was simply to convey all the proper prejudices of elitist liberals against ordinary Americans.” Actually it was exactly the opposite. The vast majority of people who read my cartoon live in places like Dayton and Austin and Athens and Des Moines and Missoula and Milwaukee and Buffalo and Savannah and Springfield, and while they may not believe that twenty-first century Americans are God’s chosen people, and while they may find cause to disagree with Republican policies and priorities, I think they’d be very surprised to learn that they are anything but ordinary Americans. The point is, Americans are a hugely diverse people, with a far greater range of opinions and beliefs and ideas than conservative elitists like Ann Coulter give us credit for–which she might find out, if she ever got out of the self-contained wingnut lecture-and-conference bubble and actually talked to some of the rest of us.
Jeff–
I for one found your cartoon to be quite amusing. I always appreciate a good parody. And I’m amused by the response of some of the liberals who are commenting: as is typical, they can dish it out but they can’t take it. Tom Tomorrow’s really funny and really balanced until it’s directed at you, ain’t it, guys?
Yes. <i> Miami Blues</i>. Forgot that one. Fred Ward and Jennifer Jason Leigh were also excellent. Underrated flick.
Still Not Bubba—No, I’m not a Republican. But just about every recount would’ve put Bush in the White House. Time to move on. “Unelected” President (or “Resident Bush”) just ain’t a clever designation. It isn’t clever when Ted Rall says it, it isn’t clever when Mike Moore says it, and certainly isn’t clever when you parrot them.
The definitions you provide for your terms all beg the question. Sure, illegal searches violate the law. That’s what makes them “illegal.” Clearly, the question is over whether or not the searches Justice asked for are indeed “illegal” under the constitution. Good thing we have the Supreme Court to decide. “Secret” evidence? Sounds sinister. Secret to whom? Etc.
Padilla filed a writ of Habeas Corpus. The courts will review his case and he’ll be denied. Not the same as a “suspension” when case law and the Constitution both support the rights of the President to declare guys like Padilla enemy combatants.
Thanks, Bobby A-G.
Some might want to argue that TT sometimes presents an exaggerated caricature of Republicans, but this case is hard to make when Coulter et. al. are so desperately trying to show that the satirist’s vision of their position is NOT CARTOONY ENOUGH.
Sigh. Poor Tom Tomorrow, parody is no longer a viable profession. Reality outstrips it every time.
That’s deep stuff, Slactivist. You’re like the Buddha or something. I bet you have followers and stuff. And wear cool robes.
I simply adore silk.
TT’s cartoons often depict most of the goings on as accurate as say “the Daily Show.”
The petty name calling above indicates that very few really seem to grasp the concepts of irony and exaggeration.
There is some truth to both cartoons, and if you took offense to either, you might find that your head is “up your ass.”
What gives Ann Coulter the right to lecture Americans on who is more American than anyone else, anyhow? Where does she get off defining the criteria under which one can consider one’s self a real American? Who in hell does she think she is?
Insofar as Tom’s cartoon made fun of Coulter’s obnoxious, presumptuous, accusatory re-definition of what it means to be American, it was right on the mark.
I’m greatly entertained by the fact that a lot of your traffic today is probably coming from your call-out in Tom Tomorrow’s own blog.
Yeah, but silk’s a <i>bitch</i> to clean. The dry cleaner bills!
Anyway, I have a couple of questions. 1) Why do so many liberals (or, a better label might be “not-conservatives-or-republicans”) have poles up their butts? I can see how that might put a damper on one’s sense of humor; it must be painful to laugh with a pole up one’s butt. What I don’t understand is why they don’t remove the poles from their butts.
2) Why can’t Dan Perkins sign his name to his comment? I only knew that was him because he talked about “my cartoon.” And how he’s the People’s Cartoonist, and all. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I just wonder why he didn’t sign his name.
3) If we (supposed) conservative warmongers should lighten up and ignore leftist wacknuts like the Choam and Sontag etc., why can’t the not-conservative-not-republicans ignore rightwingnuts like Coulter and Limbaugh? It’s not like they even have highly-respected academic positions (like Chomsky) or decades-long reputations in the literary field (like Sontag). They’ve <i>always</i> been regarded as somewhat buffoonish; Coulter at least has great gams, but that’s about it.
(Full disclosure: I thought I was a liberal, but then one day they brought me this pole and told me I had to stick it up my butt, and I said, “Uh, no thanks,” and they said, “You aren’t a liberal anymore!” and tore up my liberal card.)
The post where it mentions “my cartoon” is someone else’s post which quotes what Perkins has on his site. The post itself was not from Perkins, so the accusation of “not signing” his words should apply to the quoter, not Perkins himself.
Ann Coulter’s Real American (from Liberalism and Terrorism, July 5, 2002, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1694):
“real Americans are behind our troops 100 percent” – Amen, Brother Ben!
“behind John Ashcroft 100 percent” – Err…have you heard this guy sing? What about his placing a cover on the statue? I have a hard time getting behind this guy.
“behind locking up suspected terrorists 100 percent” Hmm, with due process rights if they are American citizens, right?
“behind surveillance of Arabs 100 percent” – even US citizen Arabs? Without complying with the ‘probable cause’ requirement of the 4th Amendment? I have no problem with racial profiling, but don’t think that a citizen should forfeit rights because of their religious or ethnic background without more. In other words, fine, conduct surveillance, obtain evidence, but know that the 4th Amendment may bar that evidence at trial. The important thing is to prevent future terrorist incidents, not convict citizens on illegally-obtained evidence.
“Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.” – Why do you question liberal’s patriotism? Isn’t that an end-run around the substantive issues addressed by dissent? Liberal: “shouldn’t Padilla get some level of due process, just to make sure that any citizen can’t just be tabbed an enemy combatant and put in a hole indefinitely?” Coulter: “Shut up, you unpatriotic terrorist!”
Coulter also manages to vilify liberal critics for comparing conservatives to the Taliban while comparing the liberal critics to the terrorists themselves. That is nice.
Lot’s of traffic from TT’s blog, Pogue. Lots from <a href=”http://www.instapundit.com/”>Instapundit</a> and <a href=”http://www.denbeste.nu/”>Steven den Beste</a> and <a href=”http://www.vodkapundit.com/”>VodkaPundit,</a> too. Why would this “entertain” you so much?
Frankly, I was hoping some of this traffic would move to <a href=”https://www.proteinwisdom.com/archives/001365.html#001365″>this</a> thread. Much more to discuss there, I think.
Boring. Simply substitute the word ‘communists’ with ‘terrorists’ and we’re right back in the McCarthy era. This is progress?
Re: the poster who didn’t sign his name. Ah, that explains it—Mr. Noname is <i>not</i> Mr. Perkins. I misread the post—easy to do when someone either doesn’t put the material he/she is quoting in quotemarks (” “
or use the “blockquote” tag. Made it look as if Mr. Perkins himself was posting. Learn to cite properly, Mr. or Ms. Noname. It’s easy if you try.
When I first posted this on my blog with the comment about christian-bashing, my pont was this: I find myself agreeing with Tom’s strip until he tries to tie in rising fascism with religion. Clearly an unfair swipe, I think.
That’s right. We don’t have to figure out the deeper reasons for terrorism. There can only be two possibilities. Either they just don’t like freedom or else it’s our fault. So since it isn’t the latter, obviously it’s the former. No more thinking necessary. Who’d have thought being a conservative would be this easy?
What I don’t get is the ‘hate’ – Ann Coulter’s Real Americans “who love their country and hate the enemy”—that is such an elementary schoolyard response to a very complex problem. Hating ‘the terrorists’ back does nothing to alleviate the threat of terrorism. Anger and justified military force, sure, those are good. If historians are at all accurate, most soldiers confirm that hate is not what drives them, but rather camaraderie and hope. I don’t hate the terrorists; I don’t know them. I am disgusted by their acts, I am angry at the justification for the attacks that I see in Arab culture and media, and at the demonization of America, Western culture, and modernity in general. But I’ll kill you before you kill me does not address the real problem and will—I think—prove largely ineffective against a foe so fluid as ‘terrorists’. What is a twenty-year old man with no job and no prospects? In America, he is likely a criminal. All of us search for ego and meaning in our lives whereever we can find it. If we cannot find it through productive channels, we will find it—it is linked to the drive to reproduce. Ego and esteem separate us from the herd and give us better and more opportunities to mate. Apply this to the dynamics of most (read, all but Turkey) Arab states and you get dynamite. And a burgeoning crop of potential terrorists. That is why ‘liberals’ say that there must be some solution beyond bombing, disrupting, and terrorizing the would-be terrorists into peace.
We are human.
Somebody get on the phone to Usama. “Patriot Games” and Tim think Al Qaeda’s motives for wanting us all dead are, well… just too simple. And frankly, they’re bored by them. Tim and Patriot Games crave <i>complexity</I> and socio-economic catchphrases. Simplicity is the lie of the power entrenched. Occam? Fuck him <i>and</i> his stupid razor.
No, Tim and Patriot Games long for argument larded with neat-sounding jargon—words like “dialectic” and “hegemony” and “wage slave.” Stuff that people who wave flags from the antenna of a pickup truck don’t find much use for…
Yawn.
Walter, Tom was not “tying in rising fascism with religion.” He’s criticizing the knee-jerk responses that refuse to entertain any notion of critical thinking. It rings as false as the notion that saying the Pledge of Allegience really means you’re patriotic. (You’re not. You’re patriotic by what you do, not what you say.)
And Tom has mentioned before that one problem with doing comic strips is that you HAVE to boil down the commentary, which eliminates some shadings. That’s one reason why he started his blog.
I think that’s absolutely fair, Bill. And as I’ve said, I offered my revision as a corrective to TT’s caricature. Hopefully we’re each living somewhere in the middle.
It seems to me that “christians” like to stand behind their personal effigy of “god” and pronounce noble truths for their own benifit. I see this everywhere. I wonder… where in the “word of god” does it say drug war? Where does it say bomb the shit out of people? Where does it say nuclear holocaust? I find that christians most often than not use their membership to christianity as an excuse for selfish and terrible actions. I’m sure anyone can twist the TEXT of the bible to say anything they want it to say. That’s what scares me about judeo-christo-islamity, a text-book. ATEXT book. A rewritten, retranslated, impersonal word from GOD. Is that a joke? Is god TRYING to incite wars? Is god handing us this TEXT and saying “I won’t tell you anything, just figure it out on your own?”
The most I can see is that UNAMERICAN activity is a crybaby telling mommy that the lefties won’t play anymore. UNAMERICAN is not allowing the re-evaluation of the activities and actions of our “LEADERS”. It’s scary isn’t it. We actually are the ones that might show up at a conservative jerk’s house and find that he’s been stealing from his employees and stock holders for years.
But then again that’s true capitalism, truly american and christian, too.
Hey, IT”S BABYLON BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regarding Mark Twain’s plagiarism of Samuel Johnson’s “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” into “….is USUALLY the last…” – I prefer Johnson’s original as being more evocative of the desperate scoundrel trying everything and finally saying “But I’m a patriot…!!!”…much like the liberal scoundrels who now profess to be such in the face well-earned suspicion as to whether their actions are, in fact, treasonable, or just a product of continuing membership in the “useful idiots” club.
Also, where Dan Perkins exclaims that Ann Coulter is the elitist and “The vast majority of people who read my cartoon live in places like Dayton and Austin and Athens and Des Moines and Missoula and Milwaukee and Buffalo and Savannah and Springfield….”, and his being featured, according to his Bio, in “The New York Times, Spin, Mother Jones, The Nation ,US News & World Report., Esquire , The Economist, The New Yorker..(and Salon)” hardly provides a venue for avid readership in the “heartland.”
Although we can’t be held to account for those who hold us in high regard, that Noam Chomsky, arguably an American hater, states:
“For years, Tom Tomorrow has found a way to shine a bright light on what our world is coming to be, ….. His work entertains, enlightens—and inspires,” surely provides an insight into who finds his cartooning on target – and it ain’t in Missoula or Buffalo.
I sure hope you were wearing a bib just now, fernando poo… Mommy? Babylon? I think you’ve confused coherent discourse for…well, “Star Trek” pajamas, if I’m reading you correctly.
By the way, what does “the lefties won’t play anymore” even <i>mean,</i> exactly? And what’s with all the caps and exclamation points? Does that mean that instead of just reading your rantings as idiotic I should be reading them as REALLY REALLY IDIOTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????
Go home. Take your meds. You’re gonna hurt yourself.
We are not at war. Being at war requires that the United States Congress declares war with a recognized sovereign power. Without a declaration of war, the Executive branch of our government does not have wartime powers. Without wartime powers, there is no such distinction as “enemy combattant” that has any valid legal ramifications. Also, without wartime powers, things like the Sedition Act do not apply, and thus our press is free to print articles critical of our military efforts.
In short, none of what the Bush Administration has been trying to push on us in the name of the “war effort” has any legal precedent.<blockquote>First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
Jeff,
Honestly. I hate to say that I know your intentions for drawing your cartoon better than you do, but. Seeing as how there’s hardly anything so extreme put for in TT”s cartoon than A) “Terrorists uh, probably quite LIKE freedom, and have motives beyond its destruction” B) “The president does not have unchecked constitutional rights to declare war, or detain U.S. citizens without charging them with a crime or honoring their right to due process” and C) “We are not, counter to the administration’s claims, a divine nation that has been given the right by God to wage a holy war against our enemies. Maybe the irony of such a belief should be a little embarassing”—there is hardly any explanation for your cartoon that makes sense other than your desire to have a wacked-out liberal bashing.
I have not heard a single intelligent criticism of any of TT’s statements, and while his claims are counterculture (at least when heard after reading Ari Fleischer press conference transcripts for 4 hours)—they are not even one-tenth as extreme and alarmist as the claims that: A) “Anyone who disagrees with anything that the president, Pentagon, and Justice Department does is in favor of wrangling about sociological phenomenon, rather than trying to take action against our attackers,” B) “Because Bush is a Republican, liberals favor the terrorists he is ostensibly fighting against,” and C) “Queasiness against our not-unsimilar-to-Jihad sentiments about how God is on OUR-side-damnit, stems from existentialist Camus wankery and light-night latte discussions about metaphysical theory, rather than any sort of reasonable or intelligent opinion.”
In short – because TT’s cartoon deals with very simple realities of what our government is doing, it is automatically less extreme than your straw-man attack—no matter how “balanced” you think it makes the debate to present it.
That fact, and the fact that the punchline was about having one’s head up one’s ass, makes your stance that you were only trying to steer things towards a more “intelligent center,” appear a bit… well. Stupid.
Oh yeah, I did read that Jesus once said TURN THE OTHER CHEEK.
Christians are appalled when I say that.
I never said I wanted things to be complicated. I don’t even use words like “dialectomy” or “hegelectic” or whatever.
I just can’t figure out why:
a) the terrorist attacks could possibly be the fault of the US,
b) anyone would just hate freedom for no other reason than just hating freedom,
c) there could not possibly be even a third reason out there without making the issue unduly complex.
I mean that.
Traveler: another silly canard. Not worth responding to.
John: The revised comic of itself wasn’t meant to steer things toward the middle. I said it was meant to caricature the left the way TT’s caricatured the right. Though I mentioned how I hope we’re both closer to the middle.
Fernando: right there on your chin, a big glob of spittle. Go on, use your sleeve. I won’t tell anybody.
Yeah, I too hope we’re closer to the middle. Options A and B in my post above just don’t make sense to any but the looniest of the extremes.
“his being featured, according to his Bio, in “The New York Times, Spin, Mother Jones, The Nation ,US News & World Report., Esquire , The Economist, The New Yorker..(and Salon)” hardly provides a venue for avid readership in the “heartland.”
Because nobody in the heartland reads magazines and newspapers..?
We dont need to read, man. Folks who reads dont no nuthin.’
Tim: Islamism places virtue over freedom. Freedom in the sense we use the term in the U.S. puts a strain on virtue. This isn’t me speaking, it’s Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb.—who has been called “the brains behind bin Laden.”
When someone blows shit up, says he’s going to blow more shit up, and bothers to tell me why (over and over and over again), I listen. I don’t feel the need to psychoanalyze him.
But TT didn’t caricature the right, he criticized specific statements and actions of our government. His comic criticized reality, yours was a straw-man attack against non-existent beliefs. There is no symmetry in your response, therefore your claims that it’s doing remotely the same thing as the original are total gaff. Get it?
Dear whoever you are,
No, not that they don’t read magazines and newspapers, but rather that they don’t universally read THOSE mags. and newspapers.
Does it make you uncomfortable when you recieve those left-of-right-of-center arguments? Is it easier to call them quack and move on to the next argument? Give him the prozac he’s nutty. Wipe away any truly deserving thought.
I would like to read a real response to the fernando poo post. I want to know what part of God’s word allows us to “bomb the shit out of people” and not “turn the other cheek?”
I want to know.
Why, JeffG. You’re RIGHT!
In fact, both A and B are right. Jerry Falwell suggested (and later apologized, God knows why) for pointing out that it IS the fault of the US, or, rather, the fault of those IN the US who value freedom over virtue! Perhaps if we were more like the terrorists they WOULD leave us alone. Hmmm…
Yeah, John. Whatever. You’re the king of divining intentions, the duke of deconstruction, the final arbiter of all linguistic disputes. But more importantly, you’re absolutely correct: “do you draw strength from your unwavering faith in an invisible, onniscient diety who favors those born in the middle of the north American land mass above all others?”—not a caricature at all! Whereas, “do you think it original to poke fun at religious Americans because your intellectual superiority has convinced you that the only universal is the absense of universals”—an unfair persnickity caricature of the knowitall atheist looking down his nose at religious types.
Quite nuanced, your reading. Ass.
If Jerry Falwell blew shit up, I’d say the same things about him, Tim. You can believe the sky holds 72 virgins waiting to blow you if that strikes your fancy, but once you start blowing up innocent people in the service of your story, I’ll support an effort to turn you to goop.
KLF: No. Yes indeed. None that I’m aware of, but then I’m not religious.
It’s funny, I had no intention of inciting some sort of playground name calling session with you, Jeff. You did this. YOU turned it into a childish pick and prod.
Let’s look at the correlation between this very action and the actions usually sustained by the conservative-right….
It’s playground politics.
It’s the same old story, those popular kids LOATHING the wierd and eccentric, calling them nerds and freaks and continually harrassing them to keep them subdued.
Sounds alot like the right wing, Those with money and brass LOATHING the rest of us for thinking differently than them and being a threat to their status.
Playground politics. It never ceases to amaze me.
John? Disagreeing with you here. There, there, wipe your tears—the world won’t come to an end. So you believe that saying that the president wants “unchecked authority to do whatever he wants—until he decides that the war on terror is over,” claiming that supporters of the war are “blissfully untroubled by secret searches, indefinite tribunals” etc., and that anyone who supports the war <i>also</i> believes that an omnipotent deity favors us especially, are “reality,” but Jeff’s satire is nothing but straw men. So all conservatives are christians and also think that turning the US into the Fascist States of Amerikkka is a small price to pay to defeat the uppity Ay-rabs, across the board, no exceptions allowed, is a perfectly rational, well-thought-out, completely researched belief, but stating that maybe this TT cartoon was a little insulting to the many middle-of-the-political-spectrum people who think that maundering on about “root causes” and how it’s all the US’s fault that Spain was wrested from Muslim control in the fifteenth century is just a little beside the point is nothing more than McCarthy-like posturing. Right.
What we actually have here is called a “disagreement.” Get used to it. Having someone disagree with and criticize some idea or notion you hold hear isn’t the same thing as being dragged off to a gulag. Rather the opposite. And just because YOU agree with one viewpoint does NOT automatically make the other invalid. It’s called the “marketplace of ideas.” Uh oh, I said “marketplace.”
Oops. I didn’t mean be more like the terrorists by being terrorists. I meant by valuing virtue over freedom. (Gotta put my foot in my mouth.)
Fernando wrote: “<I>The most I can see is that UNAMERICAN activity is a crybaby telling mommy that the lefties won’t play anymore. UNAMERICAN is not allowing the re-evaluation of the activities and actions of our “LEADERS”. It’s scary isn’t it. We actually are the ones that might show up at a conservative jerk’s house and find that he’s been stealing from his employees and stock holders for years.</I>
Nope, no name calling there…
As to the rest of your comments…I don’t know what story you’re wandering around in, but it ain’t this one. Money? Brass? Right Wing?
G’night John Boy.
Oh—and Fernando? It’s true—you’ve uncovered us. We’re loaded. To the <i>gills</i> with money. <i>And</i> brass, so get yourself in line, civilian, before I have the black helicopters over your house pronto. Because I know where you live. My omniscient, Judeo-Christian White Male Patriarchal Deity told me. So I don’t want to hear any more of your “different” talk—it’s weird and freaky and I’m getting all upset which means I’ll be late to the country club to meet Muffy and Buzz for tea. Now, I’ve got to go warm up the Jag and remind cook to hold dinner back an hour tonight.
Mrs. Priscilla “Kiki” Bannister III
Jeff, Andrea,
Here, this is from just a cursory search on CNN.com with the phrases “Bush, Speech, United, God”:
“The terrorists call their cause holy, yet they fund it with drug dealing. They encourage murder and suicide in the name of a great faith that forbids both. They dare to ask God’s blessing as they set out to kill innocent men, women and children. But the God of Isaac and Ismail would never answer such a prayer.” – G.W. Bush, to the United Nations, November 10th 2001.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/10/ret.bush.un.transcript/index.html
Andrea, I don’t have the balls to make ridiculous comparisons to an entire group of political believers. I do not attack all conservatives or assume this or that about them. If you’d read my writing, like someone who claims to be intelligent ought to be able to accomplish without such wild misinterpretation, you’d see that I’m relegating all criticism to the sentiments and actions of the officials of our government. Period.
What I, and Tom Tomorrow, are saying, is that for a president, or any other government official, to insist that God Is On Our Side is highly DUBIOUS and IRONIC.
Because Bush is actually saying this, Jeff, TT’s criticism is valid. Because liberals at large AREN’T saying the things you blather on about senselessly in your comic, your criticism is invalid. I have not attacked conservatives at large, yet you have attacked liberals at large. Who is truly guilty of stereotyping?
Certainly not me. Show me proof to the contrary.
<blockquote>Traveler: another silly canard. Not worth responding to.</blockquote>Suit yourself. The facts remain that this “war” is about as much a war as the “War on Drugs” is. It’s Bush giving himself carte blanche to depose regimes he doesn’t like. Very Reaganesque. We don’t need another decade of willful dismantlement of nations. Remember, this is the sort of foreign policy that gave US sanction and CIA training to such men as Augusto Pinochet and Osama bin Laden. It’s the brand of thinking that produced the infamous School of the Americas. Very simply put, it’s not a very forward-thinking way of doing things, even if you ignore the absurd notion that Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rumsfeld hold concerning wartime powers in a non-war.
John–
Bush says that the God of Isaac and Ismail would never answer such a prayer in order that he might draw the connection between Judeo-Christian and Islamic monotheism. What he’s hoping to suggest is that no reading of the sacred texts of these major religions allows for the slaughter of innocents. What this has to do with “do you draw strength from your unwavering faith in an invisible, onniscient diety who favors those born in the middle of the north American land mass above all others?”—nothing.
Oops, nope, I take that back. It’s a caricature—and not a particularly on target one, either.
Oh, and one final note: if another moron makes mention of how conservatives seek to stifle the speech of “dissenters” even as they drop their barely coherent notes to that affect on a blog that I pay for and maintain (and allow them to comment on under poorly thought-out pseudonyms)—I’m going to piss myself from the pressure of the irony kicking at my kidneys.
Assume a yoga position, let your mind wander to what you imagine is Sept. 11 and assume the thoughts of a passenger on the Airliner that crashed in Pennsylvania, where they knew that they were to be crashed into a building, or to one of the terrified people that fell or lept from the world trade center to escape the heat and flames. There yet? OK, now chant “but there’s really no war ‘cause it ain’t declared and Bush is a jingoist” until the horror disappears (presuming you got to the empathy state first).
There, all better.
What fun!
I can understand the building of a federal or even international effort to curb terrorism. That is not in dispute here. What I cannot understand is calling it a war, and treating it as such. The terrorists certainly don’t fight it in such a manner, and consequently we can’t either.
We also cannot adulterate what used to be simple and self-evident freedoms, things that our country was founded upon.
This is not a situation of “with Bush or with the terrorists”. I refuse to accept that there is not an alternative, and I refuse to accept that there is no place for debate concerning our country’s methods of dealing with terrorism.
My statements asserting that this is not a war are not meant to degrade the seriousness of the threat we face, nor to suggest that we do nothing against those that have caused the deaths of innocent Americans.
Rather, I am pointing out the simple wrongheadedness of claiming that this is a war effort, or that the administration should be granted special dispensation that countermands our laws and our Constitution. President Bush does not, and should not have wartime powers in this situation, nor should his cabinet, or their subordinate agencies.<blockquote>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
<i>–Benjamin Franklin</i></blockquote>
You have a computer, right, Ms. Harris?
You live in america, right?
You have money.
More than me. I am using a computer at the university here, in Mexico.
I AM poor. Mostly because of YOU americans.
I am not a conspiricist.
Oh for God sake, you are such a ridiculous git. So, panels 1-4 attack the Bush Administration, but you insist TT suddenly shift gears in panel 5 to blindly attack all of Christian America.
How about this, from a couple days ago:
“”The anniversary of America’s independence is a day for gratitude, and a day for celebration,” Bush said. “On the Fourth of July we count our blessings. And there are so many to count: We’re thankful for the families we love, we’re thankful for the opportunities in America, we’re thankful for our freedom, the freedom declared by our founding fathers, defended by many generations, and granted to each one of us by almighty God.”
-G.W. Bush on July 4th, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/04/homeland.fourth/index.html
Or this, from September 20th, 2001:
“The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
I think really that the implications are quite clear. God doesn’t agree with the terrorists – he agrees with us. I don’t really care if you get all academic and say “but that’s true if you read the books.” The point is, that’s what Bush is saying – and seeing as how it matches Religious Belief with a Moral Mandate, that’s good enough to support Tom Tomorrow’s criticism, and to make you look like an arse.
Oh, and apparently Jeff talks to bush personally and knows exactly what he means when he talks about “God of Isaac and Ismail would never answer such a prayer in order that he might draw the connection between Judeo-Christian and Islamic monotheism.”
This is the problem with all of these arguments, we all decipher our own meaning from the words of others.
John—“Because liberals at large AREN’T saying the things you blather on about senselessly in your comic”—where have you been lately?
Just because <i>you</i> have dedided that the Tom Tomorrow cartoon was being “critical” of government officials <i>only</i> does not make that true. I read it as being “critical” not only of the government, but also of anyone who supports the war. It basically claimed that: if you support the war, you also defacto support fascism, draconian abuse of government powers, are a fanatic fundamentalist Christian, and probably like to kick puppies. Please.
Oh, and Traveler? I guess you’ve been travelling for a while, or else you would have known that your citing of that Niemoller quote is number 5,978,233,976 so far. You may want to find another one—and also you may want to reread that “turn the other cheek” passage in the Bible and find out what Jesus really meant by it. Hint: he didn’t mean “turn your other cheek and when they hit that turn your grandma’s cheek and then your kid’s and then the neighbor’s down the street.”
Kee-rist, what do I have to do, start an Atheists and Agnostics For the War support group?
So, you parodied Tom Tommorow’s comic by attacking a liberal straw-man? ::shrugs:: Well, hey, more power to you then, enjoy your freedom of speech, that’s totally your right. It’s too bad that you didn’t really say anything in the first place, though, just more liberal bashing for it’s own sake. Kind of a waste of bandwidth, really.
Wow, Jeff G., you sure are skilled in the art of debate. I’m so impressed I’m going to emulate your technique. See, I’m already using smart-assed sarcasm instead of intelligently responding to the issues raised. And I guess I should calling you an ass or telling you to wipe to drool off your chin instead of providing a valid counterpoint. And what else? . . . . Oh yes, I should emphasize my “regular folks” attitude by makin’ fun of them fancy-dancy words like “Islamofacists” and “preemption”, ‘cause them “intellectuals” are trying to spoil our plans for installing a “Christiofacist” regime by thinkin’ or questioning our gov’ment (when its a Conservative gov’ment anyhow). And I want to be sure to attack any attempt to find underlying motivation or complexity in regards to politics or human interaction, ‘cause we all know that the world is quite simple (“them bad, us good”) and that people are always transparent in their motivations, right?
How was that, oh wise master?
By the way, in regards to the “Islamism places freedom over virtue” quote, that is true of ANY religion – it is essentially the whole point. You ain’t gonna see “And God said, ‘Live free and do whatever the hell you want’” in any religious text.
And to Andrea Harris: “Before you plunk the pole from your neighbor’s ass, remove the giant redwood tree from you own”
Oh, poor Fernando, boo hoo hoo—he has to post from a university computer, America stole all his money, whine, whine, whine. Fernando, how the hell do you know where I am posting from, or how much money I have? How did you get to go to university anyway? Do you pay your own way or is it free? It ain’t free up here, bud—and I make <i>just enough</i> money not to qualify for grants, so I have to pay my own way or borrow money. Sorry, crying poormouth, “it’s America’s fault I’m poor” won’t wash with me. I have more respect for those of your countrymen who struggle across the desert illegally into this country to work their butts off than I have for some whiny little pampered university student who lives off his still semi-marxist government’s largess. Cry me a fucking river.
<blockquote>and also you may want to reread that “turn the other cheek” passage in the Bible and find out what Jesus really meant by it.</blockquote>I’d address this if I was the one that cited that passage. I didn’t. Please, if you’re going to disagree, at least take me to task for the things I said, not the things other people said. It’ll make your argument substantially more coherent and logical.
Oh, wow, “Free Thinker,” I am sooooo impressed at your acumen and quick wit! I’m just devastated! Totally floored! I mean, I wish <i>I</i> could come up with zingers like that!
Andrea,
If you’re going to drop the argument that the goverment is NOT SAYING OR DOING anything that can be criticized relevantly by TT’s comic, then we don’t have any further disagreements.
As to Tom Tomorrow’s intentions, I don’t see the American public arresting US citizens, or illegally giving itself wartime powers, so I’m going to assume that Bush was the one being lampooned.
Also, I’ve been in the United States of America. Thanks for asking.
Andrea was overheard saying-
“– and also you may want to reread that “turn the other cheek” passage in the Bible and find out what Jesus really meant by it. Hint: he didn’t mean “turn your other cheek and when they hit that turn your grandma’s cheek and then your kid’s and then the neighbor’s down the street.”
Because she and Jesus hung out at starbucks, had a MochaCino* and discussed what he meant by turn the other cheek…
What Jesus really meant, not what he said.
’Also, where Dan Perkins exclaims that Ann Coulter is the elitist and “The vast majority of people who read my cartoon live in places like Dayton and Austin and Athens and Des Moines and Missoula and Milwaukee and Buffalo and Savannah and Springfield….”, and his being featured, according to his Bio, in “The New York Times, Spin, Mother Jones, The Nation ,US News & World Report., Esquire , The Economist, The New Yorker..(and Salon)” hardly provides a venue for avid readership in the “heartland.“‘
Christ, he’s not the ridiculous Grenwich Village liberal carictature you make him out to be. The vast majority of his subscribers are those little alternative newspapers scattered all over Texas, Iowa, Indiana, what have you: small-town liberals.
You’re right, Traveller—mea culpa, it was KLF or something that cited that particular passage. So to you, KFD (or whatever) my previous statement.
However, Mr/Ms. Traveller — that Ben Franklin quote has made 4,987,243,065 appearances on the internet since September 11th. Just a heads up—not that I’m criticising the idea or anything.