A friend of mine posted a link to an article that discussed this cartoon on Facebook. Prior to discussing the article and the subsequent discussion on Facebook I want to get your interpretation of what the cartoonist is trying to convey. Please leave comment on what you feel is the message being sent by this depiction. The site that posted the cartoon that sparked our conversation on Facebook is http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy but please leave comment prior to going to the site to see original commentary.
Chris, it's completely tasteless but well within the bounds of free speech. While I don't really appreciate this kind of political satire regardless of which party it is trying to offend, we have a right to create it, disseminate it, and comment on it.
ReplyDeleteAnd that makes the USA a pretty great place to live.
I agree with Kevin on the free speech aspect but would go beyond calling it tasteless.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think the cartoon is so offensive and crude to not deserve having thought put into the meaning of it. However, setting that side, I suppose the artist is trying to say that any loss of liberty, whether actual or perceived, during the Obama administration, is viewed by the administration as being acceptable given the fact that the public elected Obama and that given the election he is free to do what he wants and no longer needs to heed the public concern. That we should have expected this “loss of liberty”, if one believes that, when he was elected and have no right to complain today.
ReplyDeleteI understand that satire used is crude and may be offensive. My reasoning for posting the cartoon was to get a sense of what people thought the message is being conveyed as it was hotly debated within the Facebook community to which it was posted.
ReplyDeleteWhich was?
ReplyDeleteTruth2Power is the group.
ReplyDeleteChris, there's nothing here worth commenting on because it's satire of the absurd and no different than when the left used cartoons to try to paint Bush Jr as attempting to establish a theocracy. Satire based on a complete mis-representation of facts meant to mis-inform isn't worth the paper it's drawn on.
ReplyDeleteBut it makes me curious, what's your take on it? Do you feel that because the healthcare bill was "shoved down your throat" that this cartoon is depicting fact?
What exactly is YOUR point in posting this?
The original conversation on Facebook's Truth2Power group surrounded the issue of race. The blogs.alernet.org used the tag line "Racism is a Mental Illness: Disgusting Cartoon Depicts Barack Obama as Rapist of Freedom and the Statue of Liberty". My point on Truth2Power, in regards to the cartoon, was that the cartoon was not racist. It was pointed out to me that the cartoon was depicting a subliminal message of that a "Black man rapes white woman".
ReplyDeleteSet aside the type of satire used for a moment, I pointed out that this cartoon could have easily put George Bush when the Partiot Act was signed. The Health Care Reform that mandates all Americans to obtain coverage violates Lady Liberty in the same manner the Patriot Act does.
Instead of debating that interpretation the conversation never rose above the race angle. I posted the cartoon without the other commentary as I wanted to see if anyone that reads the blog saw the cartoon as racist.
After several posts on the Truth2Power thread I wrote this:
My point is the Left plays the race card like a its suppose to trump the conversation and automatically win the argument instead of actually discussing the topic. Why is this? Why cannot the Left talk about issues, like the cartoon above, without invoking race into it?
As I said before, the cartoon above could have been easily done when Bush signed the Patriot Act. Perhaps a similar one was done too. To which I am okay with either way but the Left would be okay with Bush being accused of rape but not Obama and the only reason is because of race. Stop blurring the issue and acknowledge what is being done under Obama to Lady Liberty and the rest of us. All of which has nothing to do with race.
Your point, and I quote, is that "the Left plays the race card like a its suppose to trump the conversation and automatically win the argument".
ReplyDeleteNever mind the errors in your writing, why do you assume that a person who views this cartoon as racist is "playing" some sort of "trump card" and not discussing the topic? You ask for opinions and when you get one with which you disagree, you dismiss it as a gimmick, a "trump card", a cop out, an effort to avoid "real debate".
You wondered why can't "the Left", whoever this is in your mind, 'talk about issues...without invoking race"? How can you not talk about race? How can you expect someone to talk about issues when the impetus for that discussion is a racist cartoon?
Chris, I figured you were fishing for controversy which is why I asked and it appears I was right. I don't see a race card being played here overtly but I can see why people would be offended by the inferrence that the first black president is "raping" america's liberty since I don't recall similar imagery about Bush raping our liberties with the patriot act.
ReplyDeleteBut here's the thing, Obama's not abusing his powers or hurting our liberty and if he was, the "majority" have recourse through the courts. Currently, the government is doing EXACTLY what it should be - even though you and many of the fox news ilk don't like it because of the belief that the "majority" is not being listened to.
That is wrong though for two reasons and if you go back and read the constitution and the writings of founders like Jefferson and Adams you'll see that this is the case.
First off, this is a representative republic not a democracy. And as part of that, representation is elected on a consistent cycle. Once that representation is elected, it is expected to rule for the duration of it's term in office unless impeached. Therefore the majority matters during voting periods, and very little during non-voting periods. Again, vote at the next election if you don't like the current political climate but this is how our republic operates and always has and hopefully always will.
Second, the majority rule is not the order of the day nor what the founding fathers intended this country to operate under if you read their writings on the subject. As another scholar named Tocqueville wrote, the "tyranny of the majority" cannot be allowed to exist because it is the antithesis of democracy.
If majority rule (also known as Mob law/justice) was what we operated under then we wouldn't have the civil rights laws of the 60's, the women's rights laws of the 20's, and so much more. They were passed with strong opposition from the "majority". Nevermind the fact that the "majority" then as reported by the press was mainly white men much like today. But that has more to do with ego/ethnocentrism of white america who believe they are the majority if they disagree with something, simply because they always have been not because they necessarily are the "majority".
Furthermore, sometimes the right thing isn't popular as was true with the civil rights laws, women's sufferage, etc. Does that mean we shouldn't do it? Do you support majority rule even if it means tyranny upon the minority?
Clark...one thing I have noticed and experienced that when discussing a topic with Progressives or the Left and there is an opportunity to invoke race into the conversation to make a point; the race card is played.
ReplyDeleteI did ask for people to offer up their interpretation of the cartoon. On the Truth2Power Facebook group, I let the moderator know I was posted the cartoon to see if people would run to the racist angle right away as was done on Truth2Power thread.
As I stated before, this cartoon could have, and may have, been drawn when Bush signed the Patriot Act.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteObama and Congress did overstep their Consitutional powers by mandating every American to purchase a product or face fine/imprisonment by the IRS. I recognize that some will point to the supremacy rule but I am confident that as the States Attorney General make their case the entire legislation will be struck down.
You are correct that woman sufferage and civil rights were not popular changes in the law of the land but they did have bipartisan support. The only bipartisan support in the health care reform bill was against it.
They did? I didn't realize the Supreme Court already ruled on it. Again, like many times before, don't state opinion as fact.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the race card, I'm pretty far on the left, and I don't ever play a "race card." My feeling is it's either who you discuss things with or what you choose to see. Don't lump us all together because of the behavior of a few. I don't walk around say all on the right are racists because of the actions of Strom Thurman.
Anon..Where am I confusing opinion with fact?
ReplyDeleteI do agree that not everyone on the Left uses the race card; however the race card is played far more often by the Left than the Center or the Right. Yes, I understand that lumping everyone into a group based on fringe thought is not a good thing. Just wish our media and others realized that too when speaking of other movements around the United States.
As for Strom Thurman, I assume you mean Strom Thumond the Democrat turned Republican from the South, right? I'd agree that Strom does not speak for the majority of Conservatives in America...well at least those outside of the deep south.
"Obama and Congress did overstep their Consitutional powers by mandating every American to purchase a product or face fine/imprisonment by the IRS" This would be your opinion. Did means conclusive. The Supreme Court would be the only one who can make this conclusion. They have not. So no one has overstepped anything. Like I said, your opinion, not fact.
ReplyDeleteJust like you seem to have an opinion of those who use entitlement programs. That those on welfare are lazy and only seek to use the system. That everyone abuses these systems.
What actually concerns me, is that it seems to me from your statements on this blog that you don't believe there are any race problems anymore. That everything is fine and dandy and people need to stop complaining. I agree that not everything is about race, but there is far more in this country that is related to current and pass race issues then you seem to acknowledge.
Anon...
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Obama and Congress did overstep their powers and the manner in which I stated it originally it was opinion. The fact aspect is the mandate and the enforcement by the IRS.
Entitlement programs make society lazy. I know a great number of people that were/are on unemployment that have opportunities of employment but resist them because they make more on unemployment. Are these people inherently lazy, no, but the system allows them to play the game. That is where the abuse takes place.
The problem with race in America is that we cannot openly, honestly and constructively discuss it. America, for the most part, is afraid to discuss race in any manner. Cultural differences exist and our PC society will not allow us to acknowledge them without being potentially labeled racist.
We cannot dwell on the past if we are to move forward in discussing race. We cannot get bogged down in the sins of the past. We must recognize those sins and move forward or we will always have this strife. The trouble is a cottage industry exists to make sure race relations stay contentious.
Chris, I've been doing quite a bit of research on the interstate commerce clause of the constitution and here's the problem the States will run into as I see it - the supermacy clause supercedes everything else within the discussion. I've also read this from several different constitutional scholars on both sides of the political aisle - so my faith in the healthcare law being reversed is low to non-existant but I still want the states to try.
ReplyDeleteAs to women's sufferage and civil rights, yes, they had some bi-partisan support. But overall they were driven by 1 party. Sadly for republicans, in both of those cases it was democrats who drove the bus. And the "bi-partisan support" for civil rights wasn't really that 'bi partisan' with a vote record of 290-130 in the house and 71-29 in the senate. (roughly 30% against in both - primarily republicans)
Again, large quantities of the country (geographically and population) were against those movements/legislations but yet congress passed them. Congress and the president are expected to act even when the topic is unpopular. That is precisely why we don't have governments that are subject to the whims of the people but are limited by the timing of elections.
Again, I'm curious why you're still hung up on this. What about the START treaty, finance reform, cap'n'trade, etc? Those are all going on while this is history.
There is a difference between dwelling and recognizing that there are two different worlds in this country. It's not dwelling to accept that inner city schools and communities are vastly different than what is in Hamburgh. It's recognizing reality and what to do about it. Those actions from 50 years ago impact the world we live in today. It takes more than positive thinking to change those situations. Many kids don't see the alternative because it isn't around them. It really isn't a matter of race, rather the actual situation, which predominately impacts one race.
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about remedying the sins of the past. Rather, that there are really life problems that are still the result of those sins that need to be addressed. I encourage you to read the works of Jonathon Kozol to get a better idea of what inner city children deal with. They are several years old, but my hunch is things have gotten worse not better.
Kevin..I am moving forward with other topics. Cap n Trade is one I will touch on again soon. Yes the law has been signed and legal action is being sought, so the discussion is still needed as many, inlcuding those in Congress, do not know what is really in the bill passed.
ReplyDeleteAnon...I wrote a bit more about race yesterday. Let's bring you points over to that thread. I will add Jonathon Kozol to my reading list to gain a fresh prespective. Thanks.
Chris, do YOU know what exactly is in the bill that was passed? I question that sometimes when you speak about it because this bill was primarily a health insurance reform bill. No death panels. No single payer option. No healthcare take-over. None of the things that the repubs screamed about came to pass and yet they're still vehemently against it and the only reason I've heard that makes any sense at all is that the citizens are being mandated to have coverage. While I don't like that concept, I don't think that this is enough to get most americans up in arms over the bill.
ReplyDeleteI'd have more interest in discussing cap'n'trade which will amount to a tax on businesses. And since businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do - it's a tax on americans. Or I'd like to see you discuss the VAT which is highly regressive and meant to target the middle class. Or nuclear disarmament, which I (like R. Reagan) wholeheartedly support.
I bring these up because, I don't know about the rest of your readers, but I find this repeated beating of the dead horse that is healthcare tiresome.