You still have no quote from WAPO and you have no evidence whatsoever that they were afraid of violence.
How were Falwell’s followers insulted, by the way?
Many Cuban-Americans are anti-Castro. Therefore, in the eyes of Oliphant, they are nuisances. They tend to vote Republican. This is what he means by “interfering” with elections.
The point of the cartoon is that an ethnic group that won’t vote Democratic should be expelled from the country. It’s rather the equivalent of somebody saying that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to vote, because they vote Democratic, except the Usual Suspects will make excuses for Oliphant.
Regards,
Shodan
They weren’t, just like Muslims weren’t. But the Washington Post pulled the strip about Islam, and ran the one about Falwell without hesitation.
Because, as the cite mentions,
But what bring up the Falwell strip at all? It’s a non-sequitur. It has no analogous value to the Muslim strip. What is your point in saying they ran the Falwell strip? Why wouldn’t they run the Falwell strip? You’re saying “they ran this strip which doesn’t insult anybody but they didn’t run this strip which some Muslims felt insulted by. Hypocrites!” Even though I don’t think they should have pulled the Muslim strip, the Falwell strip is neither here nor there because it could not have been construed as insulting to anyone but Jerry Falwell (and only mildly so, at that…it did say he was in Heaven).
Pulling the Muslim strip might have showed a certain degree of cowardice but it didn’t show hypocrisy. That’s just your imagination.
Why would anyone defend Oliphant? I admit it’s a puzzling strip. It seems to be a comment on this Op Ed piece in the Miami herald by Barack Obama in which Obama advocates loosening some restrictions on Cuban-Americans being allowed to visit relatives in Cuba and send money to them, but I can’t really figure out where Oliphant is coming from in this strip. Obama was certainly suggesting nothing like what’s in the strip and I don’t get why Uncle sam is the entity depicted as kicking Cubans out. That doesn’t make sense either literally or ironically.
I think he may be implying a certain level of ingratitude on the part of Cuban immigrants but I’m not prepared to say that his intention is necessarily as simple minded as what you’re attributing to him. Maybe it is, but that interpretation has so little relationship to any social or political reality (it does not reflect or lampoon either liberal or conservative political thought in any way, shape or form), that I would find it very odd.
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one puzzled by it.
There’s more to it than that. To appease the die-hard anti-Castro Cuban-American vote in Florida, the U.S. has refused to even consider lifting the economic embargo or resuming diplomatic relations with Cuba despite the fact the Cold War ended long ago. The tighter travel restrictions imposed on people who want to visit their home country is just a recent example of this pointless policy.
The “interfering” with elections charge refers to the groups of Cuban-Americans who, during the Florida election recount in 2000, tried to disrupt precincts where they were recounting ballots.
Wait, I can tell you that the tighter restrictions were not to appease Cuban-Americans in Florida. Those restrictions are very, very unpopular among Cuban-Americans in Miami. As to the political influence of the Cuban-American vote, I would guess that it is not as strong as you think. Otherwise Cubans leaving Cuba and intercepted at sea would not be automatically returned to the island.
Was this something only Cuban-Americans did? Did they even do it? Wouldn’t some of them have been arrested and charged with something? I really don’t know, I only heard about the 2000 election from Granma, the Cuban newspaper.
The Rocky Mountain News published the cartoon linked in Post #3. The Rocky’s been pretty fearless when it comes to “Opus,” the old “Bloom County” and “Doonesbury” strips. I don’t think it’s because they’re necessarily liberal or conservative – I’m pretty good friends with a few of the editors, worked with 'em in Longmont and Boulder years ago – but they care a whole lot more about what their readers want than what special interests think. They’ve managed to stay alive by convincing advertisers that readers want honesty and integrity. Well, of course, the JOA with the Denver Post didn’t hurt any, either.
By now it should be pretty clear that this is not about “liberals”, but rather hypersensitivity on the part of a handful of people who work at one particular newspaper.
And there’s nothing liberal about political correctness.
To add to what I just said, it is the hyper-conservatism of several Muslims that led to the WaPo pulling the strip.
Look, I realize you are pretending to be puzzled so as to try to minimize the point, but for the benefit of the rest of the board, it runs like this -[ul][li]There were two instances of cartoons[]One might offend a subset of Christians, the other a subset of Muslims[]Both cartoons are equally within the bounds of legitimate political debate and not offensive to any reasonable person[*]But they run the one, even though it might offend the unreasonable, and suppress the other, because it might offend a different set of unreasonables[/ul]See how it works? (I know you don’t, but work with me here.) The Washington Post does not suppress cartoons out of a fear of offending people; only out of a fear of offending certain people. This is regardless of whether or not the offense is reasonable.[/li]
If they were serious about the position “a free and open debate is important, even if it offends unreasonable people”, they would have run both strips. They didn’t, so they must not be serious. What their position actually is is closer to “let’s not do anything that might make the Muslim extremists riot like they did in Denmark, and besides Muslim feelings are important, while the Moral Majority is really stupid and contemptible - everyone says so.”
Interesting, though, that the hyper-conservatism of Jerry Falwell followers didn’t lead them to pull that strip. Maybe the WaPo is hyper-sensitive. But they seem awfully selective about it.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not puzzled. I’m trying to be as clear as possible in getting you to see how fallacious your own comparison is.
[quote]
[ul][li]There were two instances of cartoons[*]One might offend a subset of Christians, the other a subset of Muslims[/li][/quote]
This is false. The Falwell cartoon had no potential to offend any Christians. it did not comment on Christians. It did not comment on “Falwell followers” (whatever those are). Once again, the punchline of the strip was only that Jerry Falwell might be annoyed to find out liberals were in Heaven with him. That is a comment on no one but Falwell and does not even really insult Falwell. It is not a shot at Christians or any subset of Christians.
[quote]
[li]Both cartoons are equally within the bounds of legitimate political debate and not offensive to any reasonable person[*]But they run the one, even though it might offend the unreasonable, and suppress the other, because it might offend a different set of unreasonables[/ul]See how it works?[/li][/quote]
Your premise is false. The Falwell strip had no potential to offend ANYONE. That’s where you keep tripping yourself up. Where is there even a POTENTISAL for Christians to be offended by the Falwell strip? How could even the most unreasonable, reactionary Falwell fan be offended by it (and since when are Jerry Falwell fans a group analogous to an entire world religion)?
You have utterly failed to support this premise because you have not provided an example of the Post running a strip which had the potential to offend Christians.
The Falwell strip didn’t say anything about the Moral Majority but the Moral Majority is a political group anyway, not a religious group. It’s not the same thimng.
The Mortal majority had no reason to be offended by that strip. It made no comment on them.
Cite?
I agree that the majority of Cuban-Americans likely think the tighter travel restrictions are pointlessly draconian. However, the more vocal (and rabidly anti-Castro) members of the Cuban-American community were so livid toward Obama’s suggestion that travel restrictions be loosened that even Hillary Clinton backed away from the statement and assured everyone that she’d continue the “get tough” policy toward Castro’s Cuba if elected (and if Castro’s still alive).
Getting back to the topic of the OP, perhaps the Washington Post got cold feet toward the “Opus” strips because it was *Lola Granola * who converted to Islam. The character’s a bit of an airhead and perhaps they feared that Muslims would object to having such a dim-witted person join their faith.
Your cite does not say what you are pretending it says.
Nose rubbed in what? Your inability to read for comprehension?
However, the Washington Post Writers Group is an independent organization within the larger Washington Post Company and, other than the warning, it did nothing to suppress the comics, continuing to distribute them to any paper that would accept them. Now, you may come from some one-horse town where all decisions within every corporation are made by some single individual or some monolithic group that always speaks with a single voice, but out where I live in the real world, corporations are often composed of multiple divisions that have their own agendas and directives and decision-making bodies.
The person quoted in your citation is Amy Lago of the Washington Post Writers Group. You will note that her name does not appear anywhere on this linked page of the Washington Post Editorial Board. You will also not that in the description of the Washington Post Company The Washington Post Writers Group is listed separately from the other (multiple) newspapers.
I am quite willing to draw some inferences about you, based on your snide insistence that you have answered a question I posted when you have not.
I think the decision to suppress the cartoon was dumb. It is possible that your inferences regarding the way that decision was made are correct–or they may not be.
However, your repeated effort to claim that you have answered a question that you have not answered with all your hostile insinuations directed at me because you are simply desperate to score points on anyone you consider “liberal” is little more than you having a hissy fit because I would not accept your erroneous claims in regard to the fairly simple question to which I sought an answer: has The Washington Post, (that would be the actual newspaper, not a separate division of the company–a division that did not, itself, suppress the cartoons), issued a statement regarding its decision to drop the strips?
Sheesh, yourself. When come back, bring reading comprehension and leave your shoulder chip behind.
Being a follower of Jerry Falwell is not an ethnic or tribal identity the way being a Muslim is. Most Christians don’t regard satirical criticism of Falwell as a prejudicial attack on “our people”.
You are right, however being a Cuba-American is an ethnic identity, and it seems the Washington Post had no problem publishing a cartoon that is outright offensive and hostile to them.
Sometimes, they publish depictions of Republicans as corpulent elephants, or Democrats as braying jackasses. It’s awful! :eek:
Did you actually see the cartoon I was referencing? Now substitute the men in the boat with Jews, Irish, Blacks, Italians, Mexicans, whatever group you feel most attached to.
Dont forget hypocritical since he was against gay rights!