Not an apologist for either man, but I can make the distinction. Simply put, there have been years of racist connections between chimps and African-Americans. I think both are stupid, but I do think connecting a black man with a chimp is on a different level than Bush with a chimp.

 

:thumb:

Did anyone see the story about the woman who had the pet chimp that went crazy and attacked the owners friend. The chimp was put down. This cartoon was suppose to poke fun at the stimulus bill by impling that that chimp wrote it.

 

It did not go over well for obvious reasons.

 

 

I am glad to know I wasn't the only one that made this connection.

I am glad to know I wasn't the only one that made this connection.

 

Who didn't make that connection? I mean...the monkey in the cartoon is being shot? :confused:

Who didn't make that connection? I mean...the monkey in the cartoon is being shot? :confused:

 

 

I didn't see anyone else explicitly mention it, hence my opinion that most did not.

I didn't see anyone else explicitly mention it, hence my opinion that most did not.

 

I don't know, I think it is rather obvious where it came from. Racial undertones aside, the cartoon is terribly unremarkable for this reason, in that is a nonsensical connection and not particularly humorous. Considering the cartoonist had to make such a stretch between incidences for such a lackluster work, the racial aspect becomes even more salient.

Well, if our president that is supporting the stimulus plan was not black, then there would be no racial connection. Additionally, if perhaps it had been a goat that had attacked someone and had to be shot by police, then it probably wouldn't have had any racial connotation to it at all.

 

I'm sure that it is entirely funny if you think that the stimulus plan won't actually stimulate the economy and that it must have not been written by someone with any understanding of economics...thus, written by an animal.

 

I didn't see anyone else explicitly mention it, hence my opinion that most did not.

 

I mentioned in this post.

It's a ridiculous, humorless cartoon ... and I can see why some would be offended by it.

 

Perhaps the artist didn't make his point very clearly, but it's still a pretty poor effort to connect two wholly unrelated events.

In light of this website that has been existence since 2000 and the widely emailed pictures, is the stupidity of the cartoon mitigated?

One huge difference ... the website you reference is pretty obscure, and about as credible as a lot of similar sites.

 

The cartoon appeared in the New York Post, which is (somewhat of) a reputable newspaper.

I mentioned in this post.

 

Why can't I catch these things when I can still edit them? :idunno:

 

I mentioned IT in this post.

One huge difference ... the website you reference is pretty obscure, and about as credible as a lot of similar sites.

 

The cartoon appeared in the New York Post, which is (somewhat of) a reputable newspaper.

 

 

According to the counter on the George Bush/Chimp website, it has had over 5 1/2 million hits. That is a larger number than the circulation of the edition of the New York Post that contained the offending cartoon.

 

I probably received at least 10 emails over the years comparing pictures of George Bush to chimps. Those emails were the first thing I thought of when I heard of the controversy and it made me unsuccessfully try to connect being POTUS to being a chimp.

 

If the Cartoonist did intend for the chimp to represent the POTUS, then I am more offended that it is a dead, shot-up chimp. While the racist intent of the Cartoonist may be debated, the depiction of the death of the leader of our country is even less funny and less debatable.

So your saying it rather made reference to Congress than O.

 

That's how I took it, as Congress being a bunch of monkeys. However, given that Obama is the face of the stimulus plan I now have to wonder about the cartoonist and whoever approved publishing it.

When I read about the negative response this cartoon had gotten, the first thought I had was that there were several cartoonists who endowed George W. Bush with monkey-like characteristics over the past 8 years. One who came to mind was Mike Luckovich. I don't think this cartoon was intended as a racial slur, but I can see how some might say it was. I'm surprised it made it to print.

 

Most editorial cartoonists draw a caricature of their subject, and the content is meant to lampoon or criticize. Since Barack Obama is our first black president, what will be acceptable? Will any caricature or exaggeration of features or characteristics be acceptable? Or will everything offend? Just a question.

 

 

This might hold the answer:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LqxEhC9EEg

 

It's funny and worth the time IMO.

I don't know, I think it is rather obvious where it came from. Racial undertones aside, the cartoon is terribly unremarkable for this reason, in that is a nonsensical connection and not particularly humorous. Considering the cartoonist had to make such a stretch between incidences for such a lackluster work, the racial aspect becomes even more salient.

 

Oh I agree with you. I probably should have made that clear. With two issues that are really unrelated it makes little to no sense that they would be connected in a cartoon like this. It is pretty obscure in that sense.

 

I mentioned in this post.

 

 

My bad TB&G, I didn't catch it the first time around.

When I first saw this cartoon I thought of the Chimp that went nuts and was shot. When I saw it again, I thought of the chimp that went nuts and was shot. Ironically I thought the same thing the third time I saw the cartoon.

This might hold the answer:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LqxEhC9EEg

 

It's funny and worth the time IMO.

 

That was VERY funny.

 

The lines about being late and Kool Aid were good.