|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
                 
|
 |
JULY 29, 2004
CARTOON TURMOIL FOR RANDY
BISH
LETTER 1: I am disappointed at the recent two-word vulgar phrase spoken by Teresa Heinz Kerry to Trib editorial page editor ColinMcNickle. However, I am even more disturbed by Randy Bish's political cartoon of July 27, with a doctor staring under a patient's gown, with the implication that he has a ketchup bottle in his rectum. This belongs in Hustler magazine, not the Trib. How can one explain this political cartoon to a child? As one of your daily subscribers, I beseech you to recognize your community responsibilities. The editors must get us out of the gutter. A conservative newspaper simply must do better. Frederick L. Porkolab
LETTER 2: The H.J. Heinz Co. has a very healthy sense of humor. We've won advertising awards for playful commercials and consistently display ingenuity in marketing such diverse products as ketchup and pickles. We always try to communicate with taste and style. Unfortunately, Randy Bish failed to follow commonsense guidelines in his July 27 cartoon. The editorial staff at the Tribune-Review is well aware of the Heinz Co.'s nonpartisan status and the fact that no member of the Heinz family is involved in our management. There is no excuse for portraying our flagship Heinz Ketchup in such a tasteless and offensive manner. Debora S. Foster Tom's appearance is part of an
ongoing exhibition at the Schulz Museum titled, Mad Parodies
of Peanuts Strips and Characters. The exhibition runs through
November 8th. For more information visit the museum site at www.schulzmuseum.org.
That's Tom's Harry Potter spread from Mad below. It is better
without the words. I seem to be among a small minority of my
cartoonist colleagues who think that Mad is better now that it
runs in color and has advertising. Of-course, Mad is better because
it has Tom Richmond. JULY 27, 2004
I thought I would explain today's cartoon, so that our readers can write their reports that are due tomorrow. Want to complain to Alan
Lauzan about his view of America? You can e-mail him at:
alauzan@hotmail.com He offers support for the claim of bias on the part of the Pulitzers by saying that no conservative has won in the past ten years. I do agree that most recent winners are liberal, but the 1998 winner, Steve Breen, is more of a moderate, and is unabashedly anti-abortion. Going back a little farther, I can think of several Pulitzer winners who are conservative... Mike Ramirez, Jack Higgins, Dick Locher, and Jeff MacNelly, a three-time winner. Conservative cartoonists have also been among the finalists-Chip Bok and Robert Ariail. Beyond the Pulitzer, conservative cartoonists have definitely been represented among the other award recipients in our profession. John Cole won this year's Fischetti Award, joining Chip Bok, Bill Deore, Jack Higgins, Dick Locher, Scott Stantis and other conservative winners. Just off the top of my head, I know that Steve Kelley is a recent National Headliner Award winner, and John Trever has won the Sigma Delta Chi Award. Steve Kelley has been a Pulitzer finalist, and both Chip Bok and Bob Gorrell have won the Berryman Award from the National Press Foundation. Nor are conservative cartoonists slighted elsewhere in our field. In addition to those already named, there are other right of center cartoonists who are both employed on newspapers, and syndicated as well. They include Dick Wright, David Hitch, Randy Bish, Gary Brookins, Mike Ritter, Jeff Koterba, Rick McKee, Mike Lester, Larry Wright, Mike Shelton, Bob Gorrell, Gary Varvel and of course Henry Payne and Wayne Stayskal. While the popular perception remains that most editorial cartoonists are liberal, I think our field has a much better record of philosophical diversity than it has achieved to date in bringing women and minorities into the business. I found it somewhat ironic that conservatives such as Henry Payne, often decry the culture of victimhood, yet he plays that to a faretheewell in claiming that conservative cartoonists are not being given a fair shake. Cheer up, guy, there are a lot
of talented conservative cartoonists doing first rate work that
is widely seen, and the Pulitzer is not the be all and end all.
I can think of a number of liberal cartoonists who have not won
it, but definitely deserve to, also.
Detroit - When editorial cartoonist Wayne Stayskal retired from the Tampa Tribune last December, he left as one of his profession's most admired craftsmen. (He still draws for a syndicate.) For four decades, Stayskal's distinctive, loose style and razor-sharp wit have thrilled his admirers, enraged his political targets, and explored the frontiers of political satire. In short, Stayskal embodies those qualities that make a great newspaper cartoonist: He draws both blood and laughs.
He is an unapologetic conservative. As Stayskal's experience shows, "diversity" -- today's media mantra -- applies exclusively to race and gender. At a time when news organizations have aggressively diversified their newsrooms by hiring more minorities and women, they have also become much less politically diverse. This monolithically liberal press -- and the intolerance it has bred -- are affecting one of the most outspoken, dynamic art forms: the political cartoon. In the last ten years, not a single conservative editorial cartoonist has won a Pulitzer. In fact, of30 nominations for the prize during this time (three are sent to the Pulitzer board every year), only five have been of conservatives. And it's not because the judges eschew strong opinions. In fact, the Pulitzer trend (echoed in other industry contests) has been to reward the most provocatively left-wing cartoonists in the business. In the last five years, Joel Pett, Anntelnaes, Clay Bennett, David Horsey, and Matt Davies-- Stayskal's sharp-penned peers on the far left --have all won the award. The Pulitzer establishment's bias has become so predictable that many conservative cartoonists simply refuse to submit for the prize. Award submissions, after all, require preparation and thought (and cost$50). Why waste one's time and money if the result is predetermined? Stayskal himself admits that he has not bothered to submit in recent years because of this prejudice. Glenn McCoy of the Belleville (Mo.) News-Democrat, Stayskal's heir apparent as perhaps our funniest conservative cartoonist, also has stopped submitting. Explains McCoy: "Because of their obvious bias, I believe the Pulitzer is a totally illegitimate judge on the art of cartooning." This current leftist dominance betrays a tradition of American cartooning that has historically been rich and varied in its political opinion. During the 20thcentury, for every Paul Conrad or Herb Block on the left, there was a Bruce Russell or Rube Goldberg on the right. Two- and three-newspaper cities fed readers' thirst for a variety of political views, and by the 1960s American editorial cartooning had matured into the best in the world. The creative fires were further stoked by Australian Pat Oliphant, who created a splash when he came to the U.S. in 1964 and treated Americans to comic scenes punctuated with biting, hilarious cutlines.
In the 1990s, the increasingly partisan liberal press rallied behind an embattled Bill Clinton. Faced with" the Democrat's Nixon," newsrooms demonized Kenneth Starr, and, incredibly, gave Clinton more favorable press coverage than the prosecutor investigating him, according to the (non-partisan) Center for Media and Public Affairs. Cartoonists, less inclined to embrace the herd instinct than their newsroom peers, bucked the trend. Regardless of their politics, they smelled snake-oil salesman -- and Clinton proved to be a rich source of cartoon material. But the emergence of a uniformly liberal press --accelerated by the 1990s consolidation of the industry into one-newspaper cities -- was closing off opportunities for conservative satirists. The zesty menu of political cartoonists was being reduced to just one entree: liberal. And that's a pity, because American politics has changed, and satire needs new blood. Unlike their colleagues in America's newsrooms (Dan Rather: "When you start talking about a liberal agenda and all the 'liberal bias' in the media, I don't know what you're talking about"), editorial cartoonists are actually quite refreshing on the point of leftist bias. They, at least, admit it. And they wear it as a badge of honor. Liberalism is necessary, these cartoonists say, because a good cartoonist is anti-establishment; he is suspicious of power and authority. It's no wonder, they say, that the anti-establishment '60s bred such a fine generation of cartoonists. But "the establishment" is a moving target. The notion that liberalism is anti-establishment is a nice illusion, but it's 30 years out of date. Today, the hypocritical, self-satisfied protectors of the status quo are on the left. The welfare state has failed, with its liberal champions denying their legacy of fatherless, unemployable children and tattered inner cities. The civil-rights movement has become desperate quackery, abandoning Martin Luther King's ideal of "the content of their character" for a permanent racial spoils system. "Green" pols park their SUVs at the curb and then bloviate about America's wasteful consumption. And fantastically rich trial lawyers claim to represent the "little guy" while looting 50 percent of their clients' winnings. Imagine the possibilities! This grotesque menagerie is as worthy of satire as the fat cats of Tammany Hall or the railroad barons of yore. But this kind of commentary requires a conservative's eye, and today's liberal press is blind to it. There are simply too few opportunities for conservative cartoonists in today's newspapers. Where metropolitan areas once offered readers at least two newspapers and at least two editorial opinions, most of today's metro papers enjoy monopolistic control over their markets -- and are predominantly liberal. St. Louis, Memphis, Des Moines, Atlanta, Charlotte, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Louisville are typical examples of conservative, middle-American cities that have only one cartoonist: a liberal one. Even in metropolitan areas where two newspapers do exist --Philadelphia and Denver, for example -- both newspapers boast just a liberal cartoonist. And in Chicago, the Tribune -- which was once home to generations of America's finest conservative cartoonists, such as Joseph Parrish, Vaughn Shoemaker, MacNelly, and Stayskal -- no longer even employs an editorial cartoonist. In this parched landscape, the weeds of political correctness threaten to strangle cartoonists not only on the right, but also on the left. These left-wing newspaper monopolies are increasingly sensitive to special interests representing minorities, women, unions, and civil-liberties groups, and they see conservative cartoonists as a liability -- as politically incorrect rabble-rousers who provoke letter-writing campaigns and canceled subscriptions. Liberal cartoonists have been largely free of these concerns, continuing to attack conservative special interests -- the religious Right, gun-makers, industrial manufacturers -- with impunity. But the left-wingers are looking over their shoulders, wondering how long it will be before publishers feel compelled to avoid all controversy. Liberal Ann telnaes -- one of only three nationally syndicated female cartoonists in the nation, and a Pulitzer Prize winner -- strongly believes that a woman's point of view brings a different perspective to editorial cartoons, and is outspoken about the need for more women in cartooning. But if gender diversitymakes editorial cartoons stronger, why not political diversity? A commitment to politically provocative andideologically diverse cartoons would invigorate newspapers and ensure that editorial cartooning remains at the forefront of satirical invention. If the newspaper industry wants to take that commitment seriously, it can get off to a relatively easy start: by recognizing Wayne Stayskal's brilliant career with the 2005 Pulitzer Prize. Won't someone nominate him? Mr. Payne is the editorial cartoonist for the Detroit News and a freelance writer.
MY (Baltimore Sun) WORLD AND
WELCOME TO IT A Blog Note about Mike Lane's disappearing act from The Baltimore Sun On July 30 I will happily leave my job as an editorial cartoonist for 32 years from the Baltimore Sun. A short story of me and The Sunpapers (as we call it) follows. The Baltimore Sun and the deceased Evening Sun are the stories of modern America: the family farm, the neighborhood store and the local hardware store replaced by trophy homes, Wal Mart and Home Depot. Our papers were scooped up in a frenzy of empire building. Some time after the eighties Reg Murphy was brought in to jazz up the papers, he did and they were readied for sale. The papers were locally owned by the Abell and Black and Schmick families, no public stock and they were sold in 1991/92 to the L.A.Times as the families cashed out. The Abell family created a huge philanthropy vital to the city of Baltimore. Oddly enough, this sale was to another family, the Chandlers who controlled most of the L.A.Times while there was common stock. The L.A.Times brought in a genius by the name of Mark Willes who had made his name at General Foods, just right for newspaper management. In 1995, Willes made his name in the newspaper business by killing two fine papers, New York Newsday and The Evening Sun in Baltimore. He will forever be remembered on the Sun as the Cereal Killer (General Foods?) The Evening Sun was Mencken's and many fine distinguished journalists' paper and mine; I was the editorial cartoonist there for 24 years. Don't mourn the loss of a newspaper cartoonist's slot; mine disappeared nine years ago. The project of empire building didn't work out so well for the L.A.Times and besides, the large Chandler family (or at least a majority half of it) wanted to cash out, too. So, the folks who are really GOOD at it, the Chicago Tribune (they own the Cubs, don't they?) bought the whole L.A.Times group. I ended up bunking in with KAL; two cartoonists on a 250,000 circulation newspaper, not a good idea and bad feelings from management prevailed. But the most tragic stories of all had to do with the ruin of many long-time newspaper careers by buyouts, firings of non-union people (I'm guild) and assassinations in the cold dark night. I've been targeted for a buyout four (count 'em, four) times in six years. The Tribune is championed as the picture of tight-fisted fiscal management. The word was there would be no buyouts from this group, oh, no. Notwithstanding that there had been large scale buyouts at the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, two well run papers Tribune executed excellent money finding measures where they could, such as these two:
One of the positive aspects of being targeted for a buyout is that it focuses your attention. I stayed focused as the chaos ensued around me (there is only ONE old Sun guy left in top management; all the rest are Chicago Tribune. A little insecure, are we?) and waited for the buyout. And why did I know it would come? See the end of this letter. In closing, a little favorite story of mine about the famed cellist, Pablo Casals. He was visiting a home and in the morning, his host came downstairs to find Casals playing his cello. The host asked what he was doing and Pablo responded I'm practicing. The host said: You! Pablo Casals! PRACTICING??? And Casals responded, yes, I think I'm getting the hang of it. And that's they way I feel about drawing editorial cartoons: I think I'm getting the hang of it, and I'm going to continue drawing for Mr. Cagle, without the damp hand of editing I've known lately and without the sword of Damocles hanging over my head. I'm now free to actually create. Where will it take me? About that buyout feelin': the Tribune stock is currently down 17.9% ytd and Cox Cable (which it owns) is down 19.3% ytd . Does that say: DO SOMETHING!!! I own Tribune stock and Cox stock. I fervently hope my buyout helps out, I hope, I hope. Regards,
YOUR SIE IS FANTASTIC, AND WE HAVE RECCOMMENDED IT TO EVERYONE THROUGH OUR CLUBS AND ORGANIZATIONS. WE ALL ENJOY THE INSIGHT INTO BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL EQUATION. HOWEVER, TO US, A POLITICAL CARTOON SHOULD HAVE SOME ELEMENT OF TRUTH AND FACT. FAIRINGTON'S ABSURDITY (LIBERAL DEMOCRATS) TODAY IS, AT BEST, A DISPLAY OF STUPIDITY AND IMMATURITY. AT WORST, IT IS A HATEFUL DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH BY A PETULANT CHILD. AND PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT WE ARE MOSTLY REPUBLICAN IN OUR CIRCLES! WE HAVE NO IDEA IF HE IS SYNDICATED, OR MERELY CREATING HIS TRASH AS A MEANS TO FIND GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT SOMEWHERE. WHATEVER THE CASE, HIS "EFFORTS" DO NOT BELONG IN WITH THE OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO YOUR WEBSITE. ED LANG ;-)) Werner lober Shawn Someone who's too cowardly to
take sides so he just hurls clever little epithets at those of
us who've joined the fight. Marsha Vilt D. B. Burgess Shame shame on you. What are you trying to do, start a Civil War? Ron Burr Send me a line if you run out of crayolas... Regards, Yvan I loved your cartoon today-very funny! Ryan Conover, ACSM got tired of just looking at the cartoons and not saying something about them. bit confused by the right winged view that liberals are deluded. how about your next cartoon be titled: extremus rightwingus? you could pen in some quips such as: a.. likes embryos, but does not care much for living women or children b.. kisses the feet of large corporations and campaign donors c.. shows affection by wrapping himself in the flag d.. thinks war is gee-golly fun e.. despite being educated still cannot think rationally f.. cannot see more than two colors, black or white g.. worships Reagan and thinks dubya is a genius h.. has no frontal lobes i.. wears blinkers to make it easier to ignore the working poor j.. is terrified of both liberals and gay folks some of your toons are dead on, but this ain't one of them. M. Larkin Vancouver, WA Wow, you sure are adding to the intelligent debate. Let me sink to your level, since this is the only level conservatives can understand and respond: Characteristics of a conservative: Sees morals as a weapon to beat his opponents over the head with, but not necessarily anything they need to live up to themselves. Can't see that there are two sides to a debate. Not sophisticated enough to think that others might reasonably disagree with them. Hypocritical to the nth degree. (To call liberals elitist is laughable. Who started that? Some rich republican, I bet) Fears knowledge. Considers name calling intelligent, reasoned debate. Doesn't want the government controlling
everyone's lives, but is perfectly Would happily return to the fifties,
including segregation, religious Isn't concerned that their president
actually believes he talks to God, but Chris Russo Thanks again. Ryan Conover There is a real 1850s feeling out there Your cartoon is the latest installment: a piece of work worthy of John C. Calhoun. Your cause is so wrong. You are part of the tragedy. Scott McArthur I love satire, and I love cartoons. That's why this was so disappointing. Webster:
"Attack of the Political Cartoonists: Insights and Assaults from Today's Editorial Pages" has just been released to bookstores everywhere. The J.P. Trostle-edited volume not only features an extensive sampling of cartoons by 150 artists, but also bios of these creators and contact info to reach them. "It's a nice way to meet the cartoonists," said Matt Davies, incoming president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC), the organization that came up with the idea for "Attack." Trostle added that the book -- which has an initial print run of 14,000 copies -- is the first editorial cartoon/creator bio compilation in 42 years. Some of the cartoonists featured are Pulitzer Prize winners -- including Davies (this year's recipient) as well as Tony Auth, Clay Bennett, Steve Benson, Steve Breen, Walt Handelsman, David Horsey, Dick Locher, Mike Luckovich, Joel Pett, Ben Sargent, Ann telnaes, Tom Toles, and Signe Wilkinson. But "Attack" also spotlights dozens of lesser-known artists. "There are a lot of very smart people doing a lot of good work who only appear in one newspaper or regionally," said Trostle, who's also editor of the AAEC's "Notebook" publication. "Attack" is arranged alphabetically rather than in a "hierarchy" of famous cartoonists first, added Davies, of The Journal News in White Plains, N.Y., and Tribune Media Services. While the 160-page book is aimed at the general public, it's also hoped that newspapers might hire some of the lesser-known freelancers profiled in it. "They're not demanding diva salaries," noted Davies. Trostle said the work displayed in "Attack" shows editorial cartooning "is not a dying art" even though jobs are scarce. The timing of publication is certainly right. "This is the most contentious presidential election in decades. I can't think of a better time to sell a book on political cartoons," said Trostle, a page deSigner and illustrator for The Herald-Sun in Durham, N.C., and cartoonist for that paper's Chapel Hill Herald edition. The idea for "Attack" dates back to 2000, when members of the AAEC (<http://www.editorialcartoonists.com/>http://www.editorialcartoonists.com) expressed dissatisfaction with various book collections, newspaper roundups, and magazine roundups of editorial cartoons. "Attack" is published by Dork Storm Press, the Madison, Wis.-based company founded by cartoonist John Kovalic. It includes a foreword by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and an introduction by Lucy Shelton Caswell, curator of the Ohio State University Cartoon Research Library. Will there be future editions of the book? "Maybe every two or four years," said Trostle, "if it does well." Dave Astor is senior editor for E&P.
JULY 13, 2004 Our regular readers know that Howard Dean writes a weekly column for my syndicate. Howard's most recent column is about America's poor image abroad and it fits nicely with David Horsey's piece below. You can contact former Vermont governor, Howard Dean, at: howarddean@democracyforamerica.com U.S. Losing Status in the
World, By Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.
But the Americans in this audience won't vote to re-elect George Bush. Many of them are deeply concerned about the perpetual half-trillion dollar deficits spawned by the enormous tax cuts for the top two percent of Americans. They are feeling the impact of the falling dollar personally because they get paid in dollars, and it is harder for them to make ends meet. But the reason they are so upset with this Republican president is because, as one participant put it, America's status in the world has shrunk to its lowest point in a century. The British conference participants lauded Prime Minister Tony Blair's political skills, despite acknowledging the political trouble he's in for support of the Iraq war. There were no such kind words for President Bush. Every day, these American business people face hostility in the workplace and in their lives, simply because they are American and live abroad. One American businessman told me he felt obliged to begin every conversation with the statement that he was an American, but that he very much disliked the president. That was, he said, a great icebreaker, and after that he could discuss business in a friendly environment. It is not that Europeans are ungrateful for all we have done to help them over the past seventy years - rather, our traditional allies feel that they have been treated with public contempt by this president and his cabinet members. The damage done in Mexico is even greater. The president began his term with the long overdue American pledge to turn attention to Latin America. He then abandoned Mexico's first truly democratically elected president in many years over thorny immigration issues after 9/11 and then finally put Mexico in the deep freeze over disagreements on the Iraq war. The real problem is that the president has made America a less important country to the rest of the world. For example, the Russians announced they would sign the Kyoto Accords, thus pushing the number of nations who have Signed it, to the required number for enactment of a treaty the U.S. opposed. It was previously thought that U.S. opposition would kill the treaty. Europe is becoming much more independent of the United States and was recently able to block a major merger of two American companies - Honeywell and General Electric. Two decades ago, that would have been unthinkable. The irony here is that instead of making America a stronger nation by exercising American military power unilaterally, the president has made us a less powerful nation in the court of world public opinion, and that matters a lot in the long run.
Our viewers often write to me to complain that the cartoons are biased. Yes! The cartoonists have opinions --that's the whole idea. Get with the program, people! Our site is no more "fair and balanced" than Fox News. I got lots of angry e-mail
in response to my cartoon at the right. Here is a sampling. You seem to be a very angry young
man. It's easy to see why you just don't see the person that
more then half of the average American sees. Buy Liberalism BLINDS
even the best, All the Talk of Peace & Freedom & Equality,
your guys hate for the Right seeths with venom,(SO MUCH FOR TOLERANCE
& LOVE) you just end up lacking CLASS! SO YOUR A DEMOCRATE! TACKY! Shame on you!!! This kind of
political jingoism and character assassination, should get you
sued. And offering this garbage to schools and web sites accessible
to children, should get you jail time for child abuse. This is
not a cartoon! Cartoons are supposed to be funny, not spiteful.
Please clean up your act! HOW CRUDE! THIS ONCE AGAIN SHOWS
THE DISHONEST LIBERAL MEDIA! Mr. Cagle, You obviously have an authority
figure that has mis-treated you somehow. Apparently by not extending
the salutation to you that you thought you deserved. How else
could you depict Mr. Cheney in such a situation. Your cartoons are hateful with
poor taste just like the party you support. Your party is falling
apart and most Americans are seeing this hateful trend and will
support Bush! Did you run such cartoons when
Kerry thought he would be "hip" and use the "F"
word in his Rolling Stone interview? I didn't think so! Daryl, Please know that it was John "F" Kerry who made the "F" word famous some time ago. I don't remember seeing a cartoon on that one. Hmmmm, cartoonist bias, huh? Freedom of speech works both ways. Hope you can tolerate mine... Eve One of our fans, Mary Evans of Seattle, was so galled by this last batch of angry emails, and my lack of response, that she pretended to be me and wrote the responses that she wished I had written. Mary writes
So, here is what Mary Evans thought I should have replied to the people who wrote in about my Edwards/Cheney cartoon. Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004
1:24 PM How do you know I'm a young man? I could be your grandfather's age! And why do you want people to "buy Liberalism BLINDS"? Are they better than mini-blinds? From: Nancy Stewart Dear Nancy, When you write to a publication, it is always best to check your spelling and grammar before you send it out. If you don't, and especially if your writing is published, you're at risk of appearing ignorant, uneducated, or at the very least "tacky.". From: Nancy Stewart Indeed! From: Susan Key Dear Susan, In Political Cartoonland it is crucial to make cartoon characters as simple as possible to be readily comprehended. We are not sexist here, but for clarity's sake little girls wear skirts and little boys wear pants. Since you have interpreted the cartoon child (with very short hair, and wearing pants) as a girl and also feel I should have had someone tell her to "*&)+ her self", I am curious if men have been unkind to you in the past. If so, this need not continue. I can recommend several good therapists who can offer you hope. From: PAUL BLOCZYNSKI Dear Paul, If you view many political cartoons, you will see that "political jingoism" is a standard element. As for character assassination, we only mimic what public figures do in real life. Yes, it is unfortunate that some political candidates seem to be campaigning against themselves of late, but please don't blame the cartoonists - we only use the material provided. Perhaps you're right that children should not be subjected to politicians, but that's where good parenting comes in, isn't it?
From: Pat Dear Pat, You are referring to a political cartoon, not an altered photograph. There is a big difference. An altered photograph would be considered dishonest, liberal or conservative - but cartoons are humorous parodies. Most people know that, why don't you? From: Tracy Fisher You obviously have an authority figure that has mis-treated you somehow. Apparently by not extending the salutation to you that you thought you deserved. How else could you depict Mr. Cheney in such a situation. I think they call it, "transference". At any rate - please remember that what you and all of us put out for consumption does reflect on the one that puts it out. Best of luck with that! Dear Tracy, The term you are looking at is "projection". It is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one's negative qualities are falsely seen in another because it is too painful for the person to recognize their own faults. "Transference" is a term used in Psychoanalysis and is quite a different story altogether. Also, I think what you meant to say was: "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you". Perhaps early authority figures wouldn't allow you to use such language. From: Mike Exum Dear Mike, How do you know which party I support and which one do you think it is? I'm a little confused, but I'll do my best to respond to your convoluted, yet seemingly kind comments. If you think I'm a Republican (you say the party I support is falling apart I've been hearing rumors of dropping the Vice President from the ticket - that is a good indication of such disintegration) and also that my cartoons are hateful. Then you say the "hateful trend" is helping people to support Bush. Well, then I guess I would be a good Republican. Now granted, I'm not saying that I'm a Republican ( I never divulge my party), but I do thank you for what certainly appears a compliment. Thanks, Mike! From: "Kelly Traylor" You,re right, Kelly, I didn't run a cartoon for Kerry's Rolling Stone interview! Guess why -- because it wouldn't be FUNNY to hear the f-word in Rolling Stone; we read it in there all the time. Things aren't funny if they happen all the time, are they? But, now the f-word in Congress, Kelly - - uh, Kelly, do you get it? From: "Eve Davis" Please know that it was John "F" Kerry who made the "F" word famous some time ago. I don't remember seeing a cartoon on that one. Hmmmm, cartoonist bias, huh? Freedom of speech works both
ways. Hope you can tolerate mine... Dear Eve, Of course I can tolerate your free speech, Eve, it's just your sense of humor that's a problem. I'd explain, but please just see my response to Kelly. By the way, are you two friends?
Oh, the things we find when we Google ourselves. This article from Iran "quotes" me ...
I've never heard of this contest but it is nice to be "prestigious." If the Iranians had looked at any of my cartoons about Palestinians, I don't think they'd want to "quote" me.
Many of the e-mailers took me to task for suggesting the Corpulent One was "anti-American," and I suppose that's a criticism that deserves explanation. Over the past few years, Moore has created something of a sideline for himself traipsing about Europe telling crowds of enraptured French, Germans, Brits and whomevers what know-nothing, uneducated, xenophobic, violent and willfully ignorant nation and people we are. David Brooks of the New York Times did a nice little summation of Moore's pronouncements in a recent column (linked here, requires registration at the NY Times site -ed). Moore got a lot of free publicity from the mainstream press prior to the release of F9/11; I'd personally like to see a little more reportage of his speaking engagements. If Moore "loves" his country, I'd hate to think what he'd say if he hated it. The Dems had better think hard about how they'll fly this fall, 'cause this dirigible's full of flammable gas. Take care! John Very funny(and accurate) cartoon
on Michael Moore's fictional movie.
Respectfully Yours, Hello, i saw your cartoon and
it sucks, Michael moore is incredible and the film he has made
is amazing, George Bush is probably the worst president that
America has ever had, and the people out there that think he
is great would enjoy this cartoon, but look at how bad he has
messed up america, I'd love to see anyone in the office except
George bush, OHHHH and by the way i dont know if you heard since
you've been making these ridiculous cartoons, but Fahrenheit
9/11 was number one opening week, and broke box office records
for a documentary, just thought you might want to know that before
you say anything about michael moore and his MASTERPIECE! I understand your skepticism,
we need skeptics so we as a group can deduce truth. But, all
I ask is take a look at your life and what you criticize (is
it worth it). life's Meaninglessness is a hard thing to deal
with, you need your opinions to keep you sane because the system
gives you nothing else. Daniel Quinn the author of Ishmael understands
humanity better than you or I ever will. So, I ask that for at
least a week you trust not your Politicians with there guessing
games. But trust those like Quinn and I that can teach peace
and relive the stress of the mind through a scientific look at
human existence. We need skeptics like you to keep the path from
getting worn thin. I'm not a man that believes in the universal
definition of god. I could care less about souls and angles.
But what I do believe has roots in science that lead me to be
at peace and spiritual. It can only help and it can sooth your
analytical mind. Email me if you read this far and give any sort
of a damn of what I speak. who the are you to say what the truth is. Have you ever been to Iraq, have you ever met a solder. Micheal Moore, unlike Mr. Bush does not tell us what to think or how to think. Instead he interviews solders, politicians and average people who do not have any media support or right to speech, because they are deemed controversial. My brother was an American soldier
in Iraq. He is now dead. People like you, should think before
they make stupid comments. If you support the war why not go
fight it yourself. Instead of complaining about it, why don't
u actually do something. It must be fun to draw cartoons, because you really don't need to explain what truths you felt were being stretched, just sketch away and let your right wing readership chuckle as they conjure up opinions about a movie they'll never see, because Rush told them all about it. Well done. Best Regards, In court today Saddam wasn't worried about his own skin, he made it very clear that this is a testing by God, for all of us. Saddam's main issue to the judge wasn't so much about what would happen to him personally, but whether or not the judge was following the law or doing the dirty deeds of the occupiers, because Saddam knows the real judge is God Almighty, and he knows that man is not God. It was also very clear that Saddam has had many conversations with God, and is very comforted by the Holy Spirit. If you had read the scriptures instead of making fun of them you would have known that Saddam is God's servant and is in this situation for God's purposes, not because of the crimes some American's say he committed, but to test the minds and hearts of the people in Iraq, America and in the rest of the world. Bush says, "We will win the hearts and minds of the people", but in truth "All souls are mine sayeth the Lord". And no matter how many people Bush, Kerry, Nader and their supporters kill, lie to or rob, they cannot win peoples souls. Just as God told Satan, that he could persecute Job, as much as he liked, God also made it very clear that he could not touch his person, (his soul). The only thing that Bush/Kerry/Nader followers may be able to achieve is mass murder, deception, black gold and a ton of other stolen treasures, but in the end God gets the real victory. That's why Saddam is not worried, he's walking with God. If you think voting for Kerry or Nader will make a difference, think again because Kerry also supports the war, and everybody knows that Nader is helping Bush by staying in the race. In fact Kerry is gonna ask other countries nicely to send in more troops and more money. $416 Billion plus! is not enough. If I were you, I'd be on my knees, asking God for forgiveness for following after the works of the devil by supporting more murder and mayhem. The Iraqi people didn't trespass against America, but we went over there and slaughtered many thousands of innocent people, theirs and ours. Shame of face belongs to you. Repent! Because whatever you do to the least of God's children you do to Him. Your 2 witnesses Stephen and Deborah Gliksman
(Bondservants of the Lord Jesus Christ) Amen!
From: "Stephen Raydon"
From: "Max" From: "Jesse Anarde"
From: byte From: "Sean Shinners"
From: "Chris Junker"
From: Sophy Pich From: E FOX From: "David Pawlisz"
Date: July 1, 2004 5:30:06 PM
EDT From: Puig, Luis From: "Robin" From: P B From: "Chris Russo" Date: June 30, 2004 9:18:21 PM
EDT From: "Jensen Lovelett"
From: "Shefchik, Thomas"
|
CAMPAIGN CARL
And
yet Wayne Stayskal has never won the newspaper industry's top
honor: the Pulitzer Prize. For Stayskal made one crucial career
mistake.
While
Watergate unleashed a new generation of liberal activism in America's
newsrooms, cartoonists -- both conservative (Jeff MacNelly, Stayskal)
and liberal (Mike Peters, Don Wright, Jim Borgman) -- were creating
funny, hard-hitting, visually playful cartoons in metro dailies
across the land. This diverse stable of talent coincided with
the presidencies of Nixon, Carter, and Reagan, and produced some
of the best political art ever seen. Oliphant's Nixon, MacNelly's
Carter, and Borgman's Reagan were sophisticated satires that
visually defined their presidential targets.
The American expatriate community traditionally
leans Republican. Many Americans who live in Europe work for
big multinational corporations and tend to be conservative on
fiscal matters, support American military abroad and free trade
-- because it is good for their employees.
Stalin, Hitler and
Bush one French student's axis of evil. 
America
is a country that rose to pre-eminence through force of arms,
from Yorktown and Gettysburg to Omaha Beach and the Persian Gulf.
Conversely, Europeans ravaged each other through centuries of
disastrous wars over religion, land and ideology. Although military
solutions still can be sold to Americans, the average European
is convinced that war is virtually never a sane alternative.
They want to believe that all problems can be resolved in rational
discussions at pleasant meeting places. That's why the Bush doctrine
of pre-emptive war is anathema to them. 
JULY 10, 2004
JULY
3, 2004
