“As a Nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” – 8 to 1 Supreme Court decision case of Snyder vs Phelps…even speech that is repugnant must be protected in a free society…
Apparently Mona Eltahawy, favorite liberal pundit of MSNBC and CNN morning talk shows has a different view, as shown in the below video:
President Obama may be regretting his decision in February 2011 to hold the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina…
The state’s Democratic Party is mired in a sexual harassment scandal. Voters just approved a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which conflicts with Obama’s view on the issue. Convention fundraising has been slow, and labor unions tapped to fill the financial gap are angry the convention will be in a city — Charlotte — with no unionized hotels and in a state where compulsory union membership or the payment of dues is prohibited as an employment condition.
Read the full article…
This piece in the Washington Post by Jennifer Rubin on how to gauge the depth of the tank the media is in for Obama caught my eye…follow the link to read the whole story, but I’ve included the first couple here to give the flavor of the piece.
3. Interest in the recall campaign against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) declines in inverse proportion to his chances of winning. The race is now considered simply “local” politics.
6. When Romney declines to discuss the distraction of the week (e.g., paycheck “fairness” legislation), he is ducking an important issue and refusing to tell us his position. Obama’s decision to offer no concrete plan on entitlement reform is either smart politics or, once again, ignored.
7. Story after story on Mormonism are, we read, essential to understanding what makes Romney tick. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is old news (and verging on racism to bring it up), and it’s none of our business how frequently Obama goes to church.
8. There is next to no coverage of the defense sequestration cuts. The president is not asked about his defense secretary’s assertion that the planned cuts are “devastating” to our national coverage.
You can read my online interview HERE but you’ll have to scroll down till you find my name…or, you can just read it here:
Interview With Political Cartoon Author Dean Turnbloom
1. Dean, how did you go about selecting the cartoons that you included in prize winning political cartoons: 2012 Edition (Pelican Publishing)? It was actually quite simple. All I had to do was to wait until the major prizes for political cartoons were awarded, and then beg, cajole, grovel and beg (did I say that already?) the major talents who won those awards for their permission and cooperation to display their work in my book. Remember, they receive no compensation. I’m constantly humbled by their generosity.
2. What makes for a good political cartoon? One of my all-time favorite political cartoonists, Mike Ramirez, once told me it was important to have something to say about an event or idea and not just celebrate it. I think that is key. Anyone can witicize some political event or situation, but the best cartoons go further. More than providing a comic headline, cartoons should, in my opinion, provide commentary, to point out the foibles and the folly of serious topics in a unique and unusual way.
3. What are some of the topics covered by the book? Some of the obvious topics are the war in Afghanistan, Health Care, Global Warming, Haiti, etc. Of course there are the throwback “Blame Bush First” type of cartoons, but truly they run the gamut of the social fabric over the last year.
4. Is the current presidential primary race great fodder for political cartoonists? Why? Every election is a treasure trove of people and ideas to lampoon. Of course, many in the media tend to back certain horses rather than trying to find the humor in the process itself. If you pick up ten newspapers on any particular day and flip to the political cartoons you’ll more than likely find great commonality in the subject matter chosen. These are usually the low-hanging fruit of the political day. I always gravitate to the outliers that pick up on an idea missed by their colleagues, that have something important to say.
5. What should a good political cartoon do to the reader? Should it make them laugh or cry? Change their views? A good political cartoon, a really good one, should cause the reader to look at an idea in an unexpected way, a way in which the reader wouldn’t normally think about. Whether they agree or not, they at least for one moment realize a new perspective. That is a good political cartoon.
6. Is it sometimes hard to see the humor in pathetic leaders, corrupt politicians, and poor policy initiatives? Finding the humor in pathetic leaders, corrupt politicians, and poor political decisions is woefully easy. But it’s the kind of humor that has a little sting to it. The truly unfortunate thing is the abundance of material and that is no joke.
7. Your own political cartoons have been published in papers such as USA Today. What approach do you take to practicing your craft? I haven’t cartooned for some time now, but when I was active, I tried to put into my work some of the things I’ve mentioned in this interview. I also tried to learn from other cartoonists, particularly technique. I was fortunate enough to have several heavyweights in the business take enough time to give me encouragement and advice. I’ve mentioned Mike Ramirez, but there was also Steve Breen, Tony Auth, and Paul Conrad. Too often, though, as I look back I find that I fell into the trap of seizing the low-hanging fruit. It’s so tempting. Occasionally, I’d like to think I struck gold, using humor to point out a perspective that was unique and that couldn’t help but take the reader by surprise and make him think. A cartoon that does that is truly a Prizewinning Political Cartoon.
There was a WashingtonPostonline.com story today that talks about Mitt Romney bullying a fellow student was “presumed” to be homosexual. This story runs a day after President Obama declares he’s personally in favor of same sex marriage. That’s suspect enough, but if you read the article, you see how the writer attempts to portray Romney as not only intolerant (who of us weren’t intolerant of someone or something in high school?) but also as an elitist, with his “prestigious” school with its “handsome” campus and “manicured” fields and “Tudor brick” buildings. All this in the first paragraph, no less.
Mitt Romney was eighteen years old. This was 1965 and the Washington Post reporter was able to locate no less than five of Romney’s classmates who can attest to the validity of the story. Contrast that with press coverage of President Obama. The President was born in 1961, so he was eighteen in 1979, yet even during the eighties, when he attended college at Occidental College in LA first, then Columbia in New York and finally Harvard Law. Little is known or published of President Obama’s life during this time. No instances of college friends telling tales of the President. His biography is typically written in this manner,
“After high school, Obama studied at Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years. He then transferred to Columbia University in New York, graduating in 1983 with a degree in political science. After working in the business sector for two years, Obama moved to Chicago in 1985. There, he worked on the South Side as a community organizer for low-income residents in the Roseland and the Altgeld Gardens communities.”
It doesn’t take an overly suspicious mind to wonder why no fewer than five “witnesses” from 1965 can be found for a relatively minor incident as reported by the Washington Post and no one can be found to speak of Barack Obama the student at Columbia, twenty years later.
The difference is that the mainstream media is too busy making their man look good to look for what might be wrong…