Al Sharpton Goes Ape Over NY Post Cartoon

[NorfolkAtheist]

When Obama/chimp pictures get over 500,000 hits on google as Bush/Chimp pictures do then we can talk.

You do realize that when you search Bush/chimp google will return results where the "bush" portion of the search is a reference to actual plants and wild areas, right?

Typing in "george bush chimp pictures" gets you down to about 150,000 hits.
Typing in "barack obama chimp pictures" gets over a 1,000,000.



ETA: If you google "obama chimp pictures" (like you originally requested) you get over 10,000,000 hits. That's twenty times the result of "bush chimp pictures" (assuming all of those hits are relevant to G.W. Bush) and Obama has only been POTUS for about a month!

 

[KingMerv00]

So what? Obama is the POTUS. He is a grown man that has to get used to the idea that he will be lampooned. He and his supporters have bigger things to be worried about beyond a stupid cartoon that doesn't even resemble Obama. You are all sounding like the the Muslims reacting to the cartoons in Denmark.

Gotcha, criticizing Obama is OK. Criticizing author of cartoon is fundamentalist lunacy.

Wait, I'm sorry. Maybe the author isn't a "grown man".

 

[KingMerv00]

I just ask for a level playing field - especially in political discourse where it is presumably our responsibility to become engaged.

No problem, just go back in time and make sure all races are treated the same way up until the present.

A level playing field is the goal but it is a lot harder to achieve than just declaring flatness by fiat.

 

[332nd]

Sure. I'll even agree that we --as a society-- can agree that some of those mannerisms are in bad taste or condemnable. What I think should be the standard is a uniform nature to those mores. Lots of things in daily life offend me but I have to be a grown up and kind of power through it. I'm not excusing racist behavior - in fact, I'd be the first to confront it in most instances. I just ask for a level playing field - especially in political discourse where it is presumably our responsibility to become engaged.

Ok, I agree that one has to power through/rise above the vast majority of insults, but, we still have people with us that lived through the times where this was a common insult. Turn the other cheek/bury them with logic only lasts so long. We as a people are leaving that behind, but those that can't (On either side) are still here. Yes, we should fight to destroy these remnants, but it's going to take time while there are still people who lived through the hell of (in many places) desegregation. (on both sides)

 

[Texas]

You do realize that when you search Bush/chimp google will return results where the "bush" portion of the search is a reference to actual plants and wild areas, right?

Typing in "george bush chimp pictures" gets you down to about 150,000 hits.
Typing in "barack obama chimp pictures" gets over a 1,000,000.

Yes and almost every one is in reference to this single cartoon. That is a level of outrage only experienced by the Muslims reaction to the cartoons of their "prophet". When a cartoonist draws a caricature of a person you can see the person in the caricature . The chimp in this cartoon looks like.....a Chimp. It has NO human characteristics. As I said Obama and his followers had better grow a thicker skin because he is going the face the same ridicule that every president has faced since the beginning and the race card has been played way too often as it is.

 

[Texas]

Gotcha, criticizing Obama is OK. Criticizing author of cartoon is fundamentalist lunacy.

Wait, I'm sorry. Maybe the author isn't a "grown man".

When you can show me how the cartoonist is criticising Obama then you may have a point. I see a cartoon rendering of a chimp. It is not a caricature it is a straight up rendering of a chimpanzee.

 

[KingMerv00]

When you can show me how the cartoonist is criticising Obama then you may have a point. I see a cartoon rendering of a chimp. It is not a caricature it is a straight up rendering of a chimpanzee.

My point remains basically unchanged. If it makes you happy, I'll make some changes for you:

Gotcha, criticizing the creators of the bill is OK. Criticizing the author of cartoon is fundamentalist lunacy.

Wait, I'm sorry. Maybe the author isn't a "grown man".

 

[Texas]

My point remains basically unchanged. If it makes you happy, I'll make some changes for you:

You have now been reduced to grasping at straws.

 

[KingMerv00]

Let's review:

You didn't associate the chimp with Obama, but certainly, by now, you must recognize that some people did. Do you think, given his history, that Delonas could have foreseen this? Do you think he might have been trying to get a rise out of some people while leaving himself enough wiggle room to shake off the criticism? I can't read Delonas' mind, but, given his past cartoons, I wouldn't put it past him.

So what? Obama is the POTUS. He is a grown man that has to get used to the idea that he will be lampooned. He and his supporters have bigger things to be worried about beyond a stupid cartoon that doesn't even resemble Obama. You are all sounding like the the Muslims reacting to the cartoons in Denmark.

You are using a double standard. The target of the cartoon is being criticized by the author. You think there are bigger things to worry about. Fair enough

In your next breath you say that targeting the author for criticism is GIANT DAMN DEAL.

 

[Smackety]

It is funny to me that so many people (incl. Sharpton) confuse monkeys and apes.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

Yes and almost every one is in reference to this single cartoon.

Wait, are you moving the goal posts on your already ridiculous google request?

That is a level of outrage only experienced by the Muslims reaction to the cartoons of their "prophet".

Until Delonas' cartoon causes riots resulting in deaths, this comparison is going to appear idiotic to almost everyone.

When a cartoonist draws a caricature of a person you can see the person in the caricature . The chimp in this cartoon looks like.....a Chimp. It has NO human characteristics.

Really? I'm not so sure. I think the ability to write a stimulus bill is a human characteristic, but maybe I'm wrong. Nevertheless, I never claimed that the chimp was a caricature of Obama. I only said the Delonas might have known his cartoon would ruffle some folks' feathers.

You see, this isn't the first cartoon Delonas has drawn. He has actually been doing this cartooning thing for years. So, he has experience with the myriad kinds of reactions a single cartoon can elicit. If you look at some of his past cartoons you'll notice that he often draws cartoons that are highly likely to upset some liberals. It's even like he does it on purpose! And maybe, just maybe, he was doing that this time. That's all I'm saying.

 

[PitPat]

Yes and almost every one is in reference to this single cartoon. That is a level of outrage only experienced by the Muslims reaction to the cartoons of their "prophet". When a cartoonist draws a caricature of a person you can see the person in the caricature . The chimp in this cartoon looks like.....a Chimp. It has NO human characteristics. As I said Obama and his followers had better grow a thicker skin because he is going the face the same ridicule that every president has faced since the beginning and the race card has been played way too often as it is.

Look around, there are plenty of in-depth, fact-based conversations about every issue. It's what drew me to this forum. So a few people want to talk about some peripheral political stories, why are you so rambunctious about it? Yeah, it'll be forgotten in about a month. Admit it, you're worked up about it like everybody else.

 

[kallsop]

Comparing monkeys to politicians is demeaning - to monkeys. The Connecticut chimp never took money from me or executed an Economic SwindleUs bill.

 

[Bluegill]

It's a stupid cartoon, first off. And you have to think what kind of idiot would let it run. Yes, I don't like Sharpton, but the quote isn't outrageous at all.

Those are my feelings on the matter. At the very least, the cartoon was in poor taste and isn't funny. I think it unlikely that the cartoonist meant it as any sort of racial commentary--unless it can be demonstrated that he was wanting to be labeled a racist--but surely he or the editor should have realized that lots and lots of people would interpret it as such.

 

[WildCat]

Typing in "george bush chimp pictures" gets you down to about 150,000 hits.
Typing in "barack obama chimp pictures" gets over a 1,000,000.

Your inability to google is not evidence. First of all, just do an image search instead of using "picture" as a term in a web search.

A image search of "obamachimp" yields 154 hits, none of which actually is a pic of Obama made to look like a chimp and several of which are actually Bush made to look like a chimp, and inexplicably one is Rudy Giuliani in drag. "Bushchimp" results in 3,470 hits, most of which are actually pics of Bush made to look like a chimp.

As for the cartoon, it was immediately obvious the cartoonist was saying a chimp could have wrote that stimulus bill, and used a well-known current event to illustrate his feelings on it.

Seriously, if you didn't get the connection to the police shooting the chimp in Connecticut you haven't turned on your TV all week. The Today show is practically the "Connecticut chimp shooting show" this week.

 

[johnny karate]

The rule of law in comedy is that actually being funny forgives all transgressions. This cartoon's greatest sin is not being funny.

 

[BPSCG]

The chimp was writing stimulus bill? Yeah, I got that. That's not a connection. That's just random association of unrelated events. How is anything that is represented in the meaning of the chimp incident, or chimps in general, related to the stimulus or the writing thereof?

Agreed. There's nothing that even loosely connects the chimp with the spending bill. The cartoonist might just as reasonably worked Alex Rodriguez holding a syringe into the cartoon, instead of the chimp.

It would have made a lot more sense to show a donkey writing the bill (donkey = Democrats), and, if the cartoonist wanted to say it was a stupid bill, get the word "ass" into the cartoon. It's not racist. It's just lame.

This works a lot better, IMHO.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

Your inability to google is not evidence. First of all, just do an image search instead of using "picture" as a term in a web search.

Personally, I thought the googling request was ridiculous, but I did it. I was not instructed to do an image search; I was instructed to type in "picture".

A image search of "obamachimp" yields 154 hits, none of which actually is a pic of Obama made to look like a chimp and several of which are actually Bush made to look like a chimp, and inexplicably one is Rudy Giuliani in drag. "Bushchimp" results in 3,470 hits, most of which are actually pics of Bush made to look like a chimp.

I get these results from a google image search:
Obamachimp = 142
Obama chimp = 125,000
Bushchimp = 738 (don't know why our numbers are so different on that one)
Bush chimp = 119,000*

*The further back you look in the results the less frequently George Bush appears in the images.

Personally I think this googling stuff is silly, and pretty much meaningless. I'm not sure what conclusions you and Texas are able to draw from these searches.

As for the cartoon, it was immediately obvious the cartoonist was saying a chimp could have wrote that stimulus bill, and used a well-known current event to illustrate his feelings on it.

A completely reasonable reading of the cartoon, but not everyone interprets these things the same. Delonas has had a long career at this and I imagine he knows that a single cartoon can manifest many reactions. I've only proposed that he may have foreseen this one, and he may have even welcomed it because a strict reading of the cartoon isn't racist and he could paint those who cry foul as knee-jerk reactionists. I only wanted to float this as a possibility, and I don't think it's much of a stretch given Delonas past cartoons.

Seriously, if you didn't get the connection to the police shooting the chimp in Connecticut you haven't turned on your TV all week. The Today show is practically the "Connecticut chimp shooting show" this week.

I don't have a TV, but I still got the connection to the chimp shooting in Conn. Where did you get the idea that I didn't get the connection? If you go back and read my posts you'll see that I've never claimed the cartoon was racist, or that the chimp was meant to represent Obama or anything along those lines. Rather, I said that I could see how people could jump to the conclusion that the chimp represented Obama (is it really a complete mystery to you how some people jump to that conclusion?). I've also suggested that Delonas may have seen a way to get a rise out of people and taken the opportunity.

 

[Pardalis]

Very true. I also found it funny that a lot of my students didn't get the joke because the first thing they thought of was "1,000 monkeys with 1,000 typewriters will eventually write Shakespeare."

[OT] Where did that 1K figure come from? Isn't the theorem about any single monkey typing at random for an infinite amount of time? Otherwise the way your students wrote it, the theorem doesn't work. [/OT]

 

[Cicero]

Travis the chimpanzee actually had talent, whereas Pelosi/Reed & Company are just baboons. But if Al Sharpton hadn't seen fit to through a fit over this cartoon, Sean Delonas wouldn't be getting the exposure of Gary Larson.