I Couldn't Let This Go...

Sam talked about it. Roland Martin talked about it. Al Sharpton was on Countdown talking about it (although to be fair, I imagine Rev. Sharpton will be everywhere talking about it, but he's getting a pass because he seems to be on a good tear right now...).

And the thing is that I really wanted to let this go. Keep in mind I will play devil's advocate for almost anyone. And in truth, had the both the Post and the cartoonist in question kept their mouths shut, I might have continued to. But both released statements and both statements together lead you to one of two conclusions.

1) the cartoonist and editor are racists that are bad at lying.
2) the cartoonist and the editor are short sighted and/or idiots.

Because really, at best they should offer a non-committal, "We're sorry if you were offended by this," statement. But no, they seem to imply that it's absolutely ridiculous to look at the image and think that somehow there was any racial overtone to it. But the problem with this, as is the case with many so-called "political satire" cartoons, is that in order to make that argument, there must be some other conclusion that can be drawn from your drawing. In reality, there should be a clear alternate conclusion, and not only was there not one, but it wasn't addressed by any of the defending parties.

Heck, I can do it if I apply myself hard enough. Earlier today I was noting that I often use the expression, "trained monkey" in sentences (i.e. "A trained monkey could do that job."). I'll note here for my own personal safety that I have been exerting a great deal of effort to cut that out of my dialogue to prevent any accidental or incidental offense of nearby ears.

So obviously, that's the clear and easy path to defusing this, right? Surely, someone at the NY Post thought to offer some explanation like that when referencing this, right? Right?

Nope. The Post's EIC notes that the carton was "...a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy." Except that it fails as a parody, as it actually depicts the event nearly as it happened, and it fails to draw any logical connection (in parody or otherwise) to the stimulus bill in Washington. Really, if the cop was saying something like, "Maybe they'll forget about that stimulus bill now..." or "Maybe that stimulus bill will keep this off the front page..." I could get in your corner on this one.

But the fact is your defense makes no sense, and your explanation has no logic. And when you fail to successfully connect something like that logically, the first and only conclusion to be drawn is that you have an ulterior motive.

So sorry, NY Post. I was going to let this go, and not manage to ramble about it for half a page. But because you can't mount anything that resembles intelligent defense, and because your only outlet was to attempt to malign Rev. Al Sharpton (who, as I noted before, is actually presenting the calm, logical argument against you in this case), I just gotta say... What the **** is wrong with you? Can no one think before they publish something like this? Because if you're telling me that a small office full of people saw this thing, and none of them thought to say, "This might not go over well..." then I've got to say that you need new people in your office.

That's assuming, of course, that you care what the general public thinks. And it's obvious that you don't consider a certain percentage of them at all when you go to press.