I mentioned last week that I tuned in late to Larry Elder’s radio show. He had been ripping Aaron McGruder (the guy who draws The Boondocks) a new one, but by the time I got there, it was down to his taking calls from listeners, some of them not even on the topic.
Mr. Rilch, who listened to it for longer than I did, said that McGruder gave a speech at a college/university, and said a lot of things that the audience found offensive. Or at least Elder did. Mr. Rilch couldn’t provide details, though, just that whatever he said was real “arrogant”.
I have scoured the web, and I cannot find a thing. I’m interested in this because I respect the thinking of both men, for different reasons, and I want to know what the one said that inspired the other to such ire. I might end up agreeing with Elder that McGruder should be muzzled, or I might be inclined to see it more from McGruder’s point. (For one thing, I’m closer to his age. I’ve similarly agreed with Ted Rall when others were calling for his head.) Or I might be on the fence.
But I can’t form any opinion until I know what McGruder said. What did he say?
(I put this in the Pit because I’d like to discuss it openly, whatever it was.)
Aaron McGruder recently gave a speech at Emory University entitled, “Free Speech in a Time of War,” which stated that he thinks the way President Bush and his associates are keeping information from the public in the name of “war” is suspect, at best. McGruder argued that this wasn’t new, and includes any other information regarding the running of his administration not concerned with the war on terrorism (e.g., the still undetermined role that Big Energy had in formulating Bush’s energy policy).
In the past McGruder has made fun of Bush for securing himself in a bunker on September 11th, and expressed many other anti-Republican sentiments in his comic strip (to be fair, he does lampoon liberals from time to time), and has made himself quite the lightning rod for the right wing.
Oh boy, another of the “Not in Our Name” nutwads being ignorant in public at the top of his voice.
Yup, his speech bit all right.
“Every” law? And in only two years! It took Clinton five or six to get around to the ones on sexual harassment, and perjury.
He must have slept thru last Tuesday.
The problem is not that we don’t understand this clown’s thoughts. His problem is that we do.
Gotta love the name of the Emory University newspaper - The Emory Wheel. I suppose The Emory Paper was already taken. Too bad they don’t have a messageboard - The Emory Board.
McGruder shows a nice flare for poking fun at activism in his strip. I enjoy it. No matter what he said, I don’t think he’s a gung ho extremist. He’s got a good head on his shoulders.
BTW, Mallard Fillmore is really more of a counterpart to Doonesbury these days. I’ve seen both strips appearing in the opinion section these days.
OK, today I’m going to introduce you to a concept called ‘hyperbole for emphasis.’ He did not - and I know this may confuse you - mean that Bush had broken every law under the sun. I mean, if you think about it, there’re probably some weird Easter Island ones that he’s never even heard of.
So, really if this (and the de riguer Clinton jab - how 1999) were your only criticisms, then maybe we can conclude that firstly, McGruder gave a good speech and secondly, you’re a bit of a :putz:.
Everything has to do with Klinton, dontcha know. Recession and deficit? Klinton’s fault. Dead soldiers in Iraq? Klinton should have taken Saddam out earlier. 9/11? Klinton should have bombed/should not have bombed something else. Erosion of civil rights? If Klinton had done things right, we wouldn’t need the Patriot Act. Wife/husband’s having an affair? Klinton eroded the sanctity of marriage so much that it seems OK. Milk went bad in the fridge? Klinton screwed up the government so much that even the FDA can’t keep expiration dates right. Cable modem went out? Well, that one’s Gore’s fault, since he invented the internet.
I think that Boondocks took plenty of shots at Clinton during his tenure, so lets not be accusing McGruder of being anti-Bush as to be pro-Clinton.
Maybe he just has a problem with the reduction of the potency of “Freedom” in the “Freedom of Speech”, and seeing as how Bush is at the head of state while this is happening, and selling how good these civil restrictions are, he’s lashing out at the most public figure.
Also, I’m appauled that everyone is ready to stand up for Bush against McGruder, but no one is willing to put a stop to his mindless assaults on Mario Van Peebles and/or Pam Grier! It’s like you don’t care that they are important Americans!
Okay, here’s what I don’t understand…why almost everyone assumes that he’s projecting through Huey…or, for that matter, Huey and no one else. I think the regular jabs he takes at this character (say, the horoscope strips) tend to discredit this assumption.
That’s not to say that politically bent cartoonists don’t project; Dan Perkins has been projecting through Sparky TWP for years (although he doesn’t do it all the time; note the times they’re together). But Sparky was clearly intended as a storehouse for Perkins’ views from the very beginning, while Huey, let’s face it, is just an unusually bright kid who leans a certain way.
As for freedom of speech…my goodness, have you actually taken a good, hard look at our country lately? To speak against America in any way is verboten. And don’t even think about analyzing our past foreign policy actions which may have led to the tragedy. (Like, say, deposing the democratically elected leader in Iran…think that may have led to some anti-American sentiment?)
I’ll take an angry, hyperbolic McGruder over some dope with his head buried ten feet in the sand any day.
Amen to the Mallard Fillmore disses. It’s not just that I disagree with the guy. He’s just not funny. I mean, at all. If he were a doper, he’d be a one-trick pony. Every single one of his strips is some weirdo stupid person doing something completely ridiculous, which he then labels as a “liberal”, as if the extremist views he usually pokes fun at represent everyone who is the least bit leftist.
In return, let me introduce you to a concept called “making fun of moronic political foolishness”. Political cartoonists do it, and so do I. For emphasis, don’t you know. This is the Pit - get it?
And this was not my only criticism of his preposterous nonsense - hence the reference to the “Not in My Name” vomit to which he apparently signed his name.
The Clinton jab couldn’t have been 1999 - Clinton committed his perjury and sexual harassment years before that.
I’m not going to even mention your dumbfuck bias stance on this beaten-to-death issue, nor my wonder at what relevance it had in the context of this thread, but simply say - I’m a foreigner. The exact year that you got your little republican panites in a twist means nothing to me. Your Clinton criticism was irrelevent, useless and has already been done to death.
Besides, I’m sure you were still jumping up and down about that awful, awful man in 1999. Hell, you’ll probably still be doing it in 2099.
