Illustrated quite nicely here.
Guess I’m just being dense (but, being a newbie, I have an excuse! :)), but what is your point? I understand the cartoon, but if you are trying to say something definite, I’m missing it…
Dunno…just that nothing’s ever as black or as white as we like to make it out to be. The captions are fairly representative of the sentiments expressed by the two “sides” in the issue; it seems like once the media and the politicians and the public get hold of something, all middle ground evaporates. Which strikes me, frankly, as dangerous–it’s hard to resolve a conflict if each party only acknowledges the facts that support their particular position.
To make this a debate topic, then, let me pose this: Is there any way to facilitate more even-handed debate on public affairs in this country, or are we pretty much doomed to factious sensationalization?
I love This Modern World and read it all of the time! But I do not see this cartoon as not saying things aren’t black and white because I think that cartoon (series) sees that as a given. I see it as what it always does - takes an issue, shows the differing views in absurd extremist dogma, and you laugh at how not-far from reality it all is.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One month, 20 hours, 18 minutes and 37 seconds.
1233 cigarettes not smoked, saving $154.23.
Life saved: 4 days, 6 hours, 45 minutes.
…and with Dan Perkins (Tom Tomorrow). I linked it because it’s a great illustration of the “absurd extremist dogma” (nicely put, Satan) omnipresent in today’s politics and culture. Trust me, I got the joke. 
(By the way, Satan–ever check out Ruben Bolling’s Tom the Dancing Bug?)
The middle position–the shades of gray–on just about anything is harder to understand than either of the extremes. It requires thought, and sorting through the conflicting claims…but the media are set up for sound bites and quicky-quotes, and politicians are busy pandering to certain constituencies, so neither are particularly interested in analysis. (The catch-phrase is “paralysis of analysis,” which is nothing more than shorthand for “don’t think, just take our word for it.”)
So to actually answer your question, Gadarene, I’d have to say no–you’re not going to get true even-handed debate. You can do it yourself, of course–actually investigate matters–but most people won’t bother. About the best that happens is the public is exposed to both of the extreme positions on a given topic, and somehow the more ridiculous claims cancel each other out.