Setting the groundwork, I consider much of what Ted Rail has done to be offensive and beyond the pale…so I “get” being offended by idiotic editorial cartoons.
But then I look at what the Joint Chiefs are in a snit over and I say huh? I don’t see the offense in what Ted Toles has done.
Look at the damn cartoon…it’s NOT really focused on the “soldier” per se, but Dr Rummy’s reaction. The “soldier” is almost featureless in the context of the drawing.
It is NOT a “…callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation, and as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds . . .”
How soon until O’Reilly touts the “outrage” on The Factor?
Could it be that they are trying to distract from the bite of the cartoon by attacking it from a completely oblique (and incorrect) angle? That’s the only reason I can see for even acknowledging the cartoon at all.
The wounded servicemembers in this war are a pretty diverse bunch, coming from a bunch of different backgrounds, having different wartime experiences, and having vastly different opinions on this war.
They are individuals, and Toles did not treat them as such in his piece.
Yeah, but as I noted in the concurrent GD thread, that’s because the “wounded soldier” depicted in the cartoon isn’t actually a wounded soldier: rather, he’s just a symbol for the US Army as a whole. (Look at the chart at the foot of his bed that says “US Army” where the patient’s name would be.)
As I said in the other thread, I thought the cartoon was pretty gross and tasteless in general. But I don’t see a problem with simply using the figure of a soldier to impersonally represent the entire Army. The cartoonist Herblock used to do that all the time, with a G.I. Joe-type figure standing for all the troops in Korea or Vietnam or somewhere.
Which, at the risk of echoing Moto, is the whole problem AFAIC. There are a hundred different ways to take a shot at Rumsfeld (a perfectly fair target); the way he chose to do it was to use wounded vets as props. “Offensive,” no. In very poor taste, yes.
I’ve spent way too much time among actual servicemen and women to see them as faceless. Furthermore, I’m not a fan of using them as political props on either side.
Sorry. I’m not going to join any big outcry to pull Toles off the opinion pages. But the cartoon was tasteless to me, and I won’t apologize for feeling such.
Oh for fuck’s sake. Moto, there is a centuries-old tradition in the United States of using generic symbols in political cartoons to represent a greater whole. No offense was meant to any wounded soldier in the use of a generic wounded soldier to represent the US armed forces. Get waaaaaay the fuck over yourself.
So…refering to the actual consequences of war is “in poor taste”? Sending people to get there arms and legs blown off is ok but suggesting that that is what might happen to them is…tacky? It’s ok if we don’t talk about it?
Toles wanted to make a comment about the cavilere attitude Rumsfeild had to the war and how can he do that except to show the real consequences?
Oh wait. I’m sorry. American soilders don’t actually get blown up or lose limbs in combat. To suggest that that they do is wrong. Very wrong. We are invincible. Our soilders are invincible. If you want me I’ll be at the Chestnut Tree Cafe.