I most definitely do NOT think Sean Delonas’ cartoon was about Obama. It’s a real stretch. You have to bypass all the valid and appropriate reasons the cartoon was written and drawn the way it was and then also assume he’s either ignorant or racist.

You see, as the cartoon states, it was about the people who WROTE the bill. That would be Congress. Congress wrote the stimulus bill. Congress writes all bills. “Write” is the key word here.

The President didn’t “write” the stimulus bill. In fact, there had been several news stories leading up to the stimulus bill getting passed in congress that criticized Obama for not taking a greater hand in helping craft the contents of the bill. Even though the executive branch doesn’t write legislation, they can hammer on congress to make sure that certain things are included in a bill, or threaten to veto it if certain guidelines aren’t kept in place, and in so doing they ensure that the bill that reaches the president’s desk is something that fits their vision.

But Obama didn’t do that. He basically said, “Congress, get me a stimulus bill. I don’t care how you do it, just do it.” He had been under fire a bit for the sort of “whatever” approach that led to Congress (choose your favorite monkey cliche) appearing as if they were the quintessential “barrel full of monkeys” or the proverbial monkey tapping out a manuscript on a typewriter: every billionth manuscript you get a Shakespearean sonnet, but otherwise you get what you’d expect…monkey drivel.

Congress acting like a bunch of random, screaming, frantic monkeys. Not a controversial suggestion, eh? Now add in the timely news item about the lady’s pet monkey ripping the face and hands off her friend before needing to be shot by cops during its out of control, high on pills, rampage. It’s an editorial cartoonist’s dream, this metaphorical synergy between two otherwise unrelated events.

Now, if it had been made during the Bush administration, you’d have thought it as funny as it was conceived to be. In fact, I’d wager that if protests were raised that it was “undignified” to call a sitting president, even Bush, a “monkey”, that you’d remind the protesters that the editorial cartoonist was really talking about Congress and that it’s typical of a Bush supporter to not be able to have the reading comprehension it takes to have figured that out.

Anyways, in your world and the world of Al Sharpton, it’s more important that we have the freedom to manufacture outrage in the face of what is true than it is to have the freedom to speak and challenge authority. Our total abeyance to Race Incorporated and all its attendant divisions and grievances trumps simple matters of the First Amendment whenever there’s an argument between those who “feel” oppressed and those “privileged” (read “white” and/or “male”) sorts who allegedly dish it out.

To answer your question, no, that is not the argument I made, John. You made that strawman up yourself, you clever thing.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. What I’m saying is that white people who have never as a class been called monkeys as a part of a larger systemic oppression, and have never had to even weigh the possibility that a cartoon is doing so, probably can’t understand it from the perspective of someone who has had to deal with that reality and has had to be wary of that possibility.

In other words, even if the cartoon isn’t about comparing black people to monkeys, which I don’t believe it is, the history of doing so is there. There is such a thing as context. It’s not like no one’s ever heard of that history.

(You say it’s not about Obama for some reason, even though it is. I think you meant it’s not about calling him a monkey because of his skin color, is that right, John?)

I think being defensive about it is what an inconsiderate, over-privileged asshat does, but being thoughtful and acknowledging the context is what a considerate and thoughtful person who strives to be better does. In my opinion, apologizing for the (possibly deliberate) oversight, short of simply not making the transgression to begin with, is the most ethical, dignified and upright answer.

Aside from that, funny parody.

Do I have that right, Elisha?

And I’m not using the word “professional” as an ironic joke. Ginning up these kinds of controversies, exploiting weak spots in the national discourse, is his job. It is how he earns a living. Speaking of, the NAACP is now demanding that the cartoonist who was just a few years ago depicting George Bush as a monkey be fired. His editor, too.

Would you want to be fired because a group of self-interested people were willfully misinterpreting your use of free speech?

(Links to larger image)