Comments on: “It’s just a cartoon”

By: neal

neal — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:52:24 +0000

Well, in fairness to Jeff, I’ve been pretty critical of his work here on this site. He and I seem to have very different perspectives on cartooning. I think many would think he’s got every right to be flippant toward me, even though I do try to ask legitimate questions.

I completely agree with you on the “just a cartoon” part, though, and I think that’s probably the biggest surprise lesson from this conversation. That attitude devalues the power of cartoons, and it also absolves the cartoonist of any responsibility (though probably only in his or her own mind).

By: lnkwebguy

lnkwebguy — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:51:33 +0000

Neal, why do Jeff’s responses seem so flippant? Does he have some sort of problem with you? Also, isn’t it unusual for people in your profession to view their work as “just a cartoon”? Doesn’t that line of thinking undercut the relevance of your entire profession?

By: Mike Honcho

Mike Honcho — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:55:09 +0000

And I’ve asked this in previous discussions…suppose bin Laden was to find a cure, or a new treatment for a widespread disease like cancer or AIDS. And suppose he was invited to speak at the UNMC about this new cure/treatment. Highly unlikely scenario, I know, but for the heck of it, let’s just suppose this happened. Would we want bin Laden to come talk about his research knowing that he intentionally killed over 3,000 U.S. civilians, policemen, and firefighters?

I feel that, for the sake of argument, we can equate this scenario with the Bill Ayers scenario. While many may believe that what Mr. Ayers did was not that bad (I disagree), his contributions to society are also not all that groundbreaking. Conversely, what bin Laden did was very bad (I think we all agree), and a cure to cancer/AIDS would be EXTREMELY groundbreaking…so the bad:good ratios would probably be comparable.

By: nathan

nathan — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:35:10 +0000

The problem I have with the comparison is that in his other life, Ayers is a noted education reformer and bin Laden is what? Comparing the acts of terrorism is fine with me, in terms of the satire. True, bin Laden has murdered thousands, if not tens of thousands, and Ayers bombs did not kill anyone, but I can see the connection, in a totally satirical and stretched way. My question is what would the University invite bin Laden to talk about besides terrorism? Islam? His views of Islam directly lead into the terrorism he supports. Ayers views of education have no extreme connections that I can see.