|
Here's the Newsweek in the toilet Yahtzee, starting with my own.
MAY 17, 2005
Subject: New York Times Banner
Dear friends at Cagle.com,
Hello from sunny Athens, Greece! I'm an avid fan of your site.
I was just wondering, since we've all been informed of the New
York Times' avoidance of political cartoons, and the paper's
bout to offer an award given the name of a political cartoonist
(I hope I got the details right!), why is there an ad banner
for the NYT on top of your political cartoonists' website?
I know it's a great way to get funds for web hosting, but it
just seemed a bit peculiar to me. And that whole 'who can you
trust' concept is a bit oxymoronic, if you get my gist.
Sincerely,
Vicky Denaxa
Athens, Greece
Hi Vicky,
Of-course, you're right. We have no control over the ads on our
site --if we did, we'd certainly pick different ads!
Best,
Daryl
MAY 16, 2005
RESPONSES
Here are some responses to my
rant.
From: Dave Brown
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:24 PM
Just print some of the lousy cartoons and make fun of their terrible
technique, artwork or just plain stupid ideas and shut the hell
up. A lot of down sizing is going on, live with it, or at least poke
fun at it. db
From: Andi S-R
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005
Subject: Your "rant"
It's the same in every business.
In my day job I work for a food-industry company. Every Tom,
Dick, and Harriet wants to sell us recipes, or testimonials from
their 102-year-old grandmothers that using our product accounts
for their longevity.
At night I work as the assistant
music director of a small professional theatre company. We audition
about 350 people a year for maybe 10 spaces in the company. Wanna
guess how many of the aspiring performers have the same type
of reactions as your aspiring cartoonists? Mmhmm.
We're all in it together; I can
think of many other industries where the same thing is happening:
the number of opportunities is only a decimal fraction of the
number of aspirants, and the most vocal protesters among the
rejected are quite often those with lesser measures of true talent.
About 2 years ago the theatre company was threatened with an
age-discrimination lawsuit from a woman in her early 60s who
thought she should have been cast as an ingenue that the script
explicitly states several times is 17. The lawsuit didn't materialize,
but the thought goes to show the level of self-delusion that's
out there....
Anyway, my sympathies--and empathies.
Love your site, check it just about every time the email comes
in, to see what's new and to get a feel for what people are thinking
about the world. Heck of a lot quicker and easier than reading
foreign news! I appreciate the sensitivity of the serious ones
in times of tribute, and I love it when the cartoonists are nipping
at the heels of someone pompous or inconsistent. You're watchdogs
for our society, in a very real and immediate way.
Hang in there, and don't let
the importunate ones get you down.
Best,
Andrea Stryker-Rodda
Appreciative Fan
Andi Stryker-Rodda
New York City/New Jersey USA
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:41 PM
Subject: Cagles Rant
Daryl,
First, I'm a serious and devoted fan of your site. For visual
editorial comment, it's absolutely the best. Second, I guess
I'm a sort of wannabe; the path I chose was to have my own website,
mortoons.com, in which I post my sometimes oblique view of the
world. No, I don't make any money at it but I religiously research
and draw ten hours each week day. I do it because I love cartooning
whether it provides a living for me or not. I'm retired now,
but when I had a day job I used to tell people that if
I could cartoon on a daily basis, I'd do it for free. Well, I
do and I'm having a wonderful time. I don't know how many people
read my site, but I have had some encouraging comments from some
who do, and that makes it worthwhile for me.
Don't be too hard on wannabe cartoonists; as you know there's
a tremendous amount of talent out there that is unpublished.
So many just don't know how to get into the tiny market that's
available. I've seen numerous talented and unpublished wannabes
at our annual NCS conferences desperately pushing their work
on any published cartoonist who happens to be in their way, mainly
to get advice and an encouraging word. Unfortunately, the cartoon
market and especially the editorial cartoon market just isn't
big enough for the talent, and, yes, the lack of talent that
want to participate. In the meantime, you have some of the best
on your site. Thanks,
Mort Cohen
From: J Gee
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:50 PM
Subject: cagle rant
I never considered the wannabe
cartoonists a threat or even a nuisance. I personally am not
talented enough to think about a career as a cartoonist. Where
I work - I often come in contact with artists, sculptors and
even a cartoonist or two.
Anyway - my question or thought
is this - is there a place where wannabes can submit their work
and have some serious consideration or critique of their work
and talent. I understand this is something you yourself are not
interested in - but it seems to me if you simply pointed someone
in a particular direction there would be less hostility towards
you. You wouldn't be offering critique or judgement on their
work merely redirecting their inquiries.
In fact - seems to me you could
automate your email program to filter such emails and forward
them along without you ever seeing them.
Just a thought.
From:
Verne House
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:56 AM
Subject: Interesting analysis
As a professor who teaches students
about markets, I commend you for for analysis of the institutions
and markets for your services. Few artists understand or want
to learn the business side of their creativity. I may save your
comments to use in my teaching.
I love cartoons. I have a good
understanding of political behavior but no talent. In my next
life I wish to be a political cartoonist.
Thank you for your wonderful
cartoon service.
Sincerely yours,
Verne W. House, PhD
From:
LoutheLeo@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:09 AM
Subject: You're absolutely right
My father is the inventor of a product known as "Crackle"
nail polish by Cover Girl (he was a paint chemist all of his
life that started experimenting with nail lacquers after he formally
retired--at the age of 79!) He asked me, his son, to do all of
the footwork, in return for 50% of any profits if I could commercialize
his invention. I helped him patent it and, after two years of
phone calls, e-mails, and sending out painted samples of artificial
nails, someone finally bit (the largest manufacturer of nail
lacquers in this hemisphere, who produces the product for Revlon,
Avon, and all of the top distributors). Bottom line, at
the tender age of 85, my Dad's patented product was exclusively
leased for the life of the patent and one of that manufacturer's
clients, Proctor & Gamble, that owns the Noxell Corp. (Cover
Girl) launched our product, grossing us slightly over $250,000.00
over the next five years. We were told that my father was one
of the RARE only 2% of inventors with patents that ever actually
became commercialized and yielded any money. Unfortunately, the
crackle fad has now died out (although we are told that it could
come back--possibly stronger--at some point in the future. However,
I consider myself and especially my Dad--who I am very proud
of and feel that he should be written up in a magazine somewhere--to
be very lucky to have been one of that small percentage. Incidentally,
my father is currently working on a new nail invention that is
much broader in scope--a waterborne (not using volatile solvents)
nail polish that is odorless, non-toxic (both to people as well
as to the environment) and non-flammable (should save the people
who ship, store, and distribute it a bundle in insurance costs--putting
more profit in their pockets) plus, women can bring it safely
onboard airplanes in post-911 America. Also, if it spills, while
it's still not totally dry, it can be rinsed completely
off with water!
You can't imagine the number of companies that approached us
and wanted hefty fees to "market" our product--I'm
particularly proud of the fact that I--not having a marketing
background (I'm a Social Worker and Job Counselor for the State)
was able to bring my father's invention to market all by myself.
Lou the Leo
From: paul444
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: submissions
"we have a policy of not responding to submissions,"
Then what the hell was the whole rant all about?
I've worked for years in the public entertainment sector. The
minute you told them you were listening is the
minute you quit not responding.
Seems you had the answer already.
I still think you need a better editor for this index.
May 14, 2005
WHERE
IS THE EDITORIAL CARTOONING PROFESSION GOING?
My recent column on liberal
vs. conservative cartoonists, and the screeds by conservative
cartoonist Chuck Asay (below) have led to an increase in the
number of unsolicited submissions we receive from aspiring cartoonists.
There are thousands of "wannabe" cartoonists for every
one working political cartoonist and they dominate our email,
wanting to be featured on our site and asking, often very politely,
for career advice. We could spend all of our time responding
to the aspiring cartoonists; they are overwhelming.
On
our syndicate web site
we note that we don't accept, or review, or return, unsolicited
submissions, but still the submissions pour in. Sometimes the
aspiring cartoonists are angry or threatening; by refusing to
feature them on our site we are somehow withholding an entitlement
that would legitimize their career. A simple response saying
that we are not interested in their submission never ends the
efforts of the aspiring cartoonists, who will write in repeatedly,
asking what they need to change to get us to accept them onto
the site, explaining what we surely didn't notice about their
cartoons, or expressing their outrage at how shortsighted we
are.
Motivated aspiring cartoonists
typically can't see the quality of their own work, if we reject
them, the rejection is due to our not looking carefully enough,
or simply not understanding how good their work is. Sometimes
the aspiring cartoonists become belligerent. Most major syndicates
deal with the wannabes by sending form letter responses that
do not invite a reply. We've found that form letters don't work
for us; the aspiring cartoonists never give up, so we have a
policy of not responding to submissions, a policy that the aspiring
cartoonists often interpret to be arrogant or dismissive, when
it is nothing more than simple self defense against a never ending
onslaught.
Cartoonists often ask me where
I see our profession going in the years ahead. Editorial cartoonists
have been buffeted by a loss of jobs as the newspaper industry
consolidates and cuts costs. Despite the dot-com bust of 2000,
most observers of our profession believe that the internet will
be our salvation. Print newspaper readership has been declining
as more and more people get their news from the web. The common
wisdom holds that we will see a new market for political cartoons
emerge on the web, perhaps with more "Jib-Jab"
style animations with high tech bells and whistles. That may
happen, but there is no evidence of it happening yet; the Jib-Jab
guys are unique. With the exception of bloggers and some rare
sites like Slate and Salon, the web redistributes content from
traditional media rather than creating original content. Our
web site features cartoons that are first printed in traditional
newspapers. It is rare to find someone who makes their living
creating content for the web.
I worked for much of my career
as a toy inventor. There are many similarities between what I'm
doing now, as a political cartoonist running a syndicate, and
being a toy inventor. When I was working as an inventor in the
1980's and 1990's, there was a dramatic consolidation in the
toy industry, Toys R Us went from carrying 35,000 SKU's (separate,
different products) on it's shelves to carrying only 12,000 SKU's.
Wal-Mart became the top toy seller with very few different products
on their shelves. Toy companies gobbled each other up and inventors
found fewer companies, making fewer products and far fewer opportunities
to place new inventions -not much different than the declining
opportunities for cartoonists in a declining, consolidating,
cost-cutting print media environment.
And the toy inventing profession
is just the same as cartooning in the respect that there are
thousands of wannabe inventors for every, successful, working
inventor. The wannabe inventors share a lot with the wannabe
cartoonists, they are persistent, they have no doubts about the
quality of their inventions, they are sure that if their inventions
are rejected, it is only because the company reviewing their
invention hasn't paid attention or just doesn't "get it."
The wannabe inventors share another attribute with aspiring cartoonists,
they have no interest in business, they want someone else to
sell their inventions. The inventors and cartoonists want to
find a place in the market for what they already want to do.
Real working inventors know that you don't invent something then
look for a home for it, you learn the market, ask the toy companies
what they want, then invent what they want; this is something
that wannabe inventors (and cartoonists) never seem to learn.
I think we can see where our
cartooning profession is going by looking at the inventor community.
Inventors typically can't make a living as inventors, so they
also have a "day job." New inventors who want to place
their inventions will find many "agents" or "services"
that are willing to help them place their product with industry
for a hefty fee (not a commission, because commissions only get
paid when inventions are licensed; these businesses collect fees
from inventors who are never going to license their worthless
inventions). It is with the aspiring inventors, and not their
inventions, where the profit is to be found by selling hollow
dreams in the form of worthless marketing advice, or selling
informational ads for new inventions in databases that no one
in the industry really sees. These services also play off of
the paranoia of aspiring inventors by selling them patent advice
or legal services to protect their worthless inventions. Legitimate
invention agents who actually do license inventions typically
don't accept unsolicited submissions, or they charge a fee (typically
$300 to $500) from aspiring inventors just to look at the inventor's
worthless concept.
The cartooning profession hasn't
yet matured to the cynical conclusion that we see with the inventor
coommunity, but we're on the way there. Art schools churn out
thousands of graduates each year that will never be able to earn
a living at their chosen craft. It is the same story at almost
every art school, very few students do work at a level of quality
that will allow them to make a living, and the creative fields
that they want to enter are so overcrowded that there would be
no room for all of them even if their work was up to snuff. Art
students bring in the money, it makes no economic sense for an
art college to tell potential students to look for another career
Where is our profession going?
A first glimpse can be found at "Comics
Sherpa" a service offered by Universal Press Syndicate
that allows aspiring cartoonists to pay to have their work seen
on the Ucomics.com web site, which also, separately, features
the work of top professional cartoonists. Aspiring cartoonist
chat boards are filled with talk about how the executives at
Universal may become interested in syndicating a cartoonist's
work that they see on Comics
Sherpa, or perhaps the "big audience" on "Comics
Sherpa" will lead to other opportunities. We often get inquiries
from aspiring cartoonists who want to know how much they would
have to pay us to get their cartoons onto our web site (of-course,
we don't respond to these inquiries, and no one pays to be on
our site, except advertisers). Paying for "exposure"
is a regrettable trend that will grow.
The biggest effect of the internet
on the editorial cartoonist profession has been to expand the
community of fans and aspiring cartoonists. My salespeople are
constantly urging me to do the same thing as Comics
Sherpa. As with wannabe inventors, there is clearly much
more of a business to be made from wannabe cartoonists than there
is in selling cartoons to legitimate print outlets. The much
larger market is in selling advice, opportunity, training and
support to people who have no doubts about their own abilities,
endless motivation, and no opportunity to legitimately succeed.
This is our future: as real print
markets for our work continue to decline; fewer cartoonists will
actually make a living as cartoonists. The wannabe market will
continue to expand as more aspiring cartoonists are exposed to,
and inspired by, our work on the internet. Aspiring cartoonists
will be further exploited and the legitimate outlets for our
work will become even more insular, like us at Cagle Cartoons,
Inc., as we hide our heads from the wannabe tide.
... sorry to be so glum. If you want to comment on my rant, write
us at cari@cagle.com
May 11, 2005
C'MON BABY, DRIVE MY CAR!
It's not really a Yahtzee -cartoonists just love to draw old
cars, so President Bush driving around the block in Yeltsin's
vintage clunker was too much to resist.
May 10, 2005
With
all this talk of liberal and conservative cartoons, I wrote my
newspaper column on the topic.
Liberal vs. Conservative Humor
Daryl Cagle
Liberals see conservatives as
preachy, sanctimonious and humorless. Conservatives see nothing
funny about shrill, angry, liberal losers. Who is funny? It depends
on your point of view, but humor writers and cartoonists will
always be liberal-leaning; it is a bias that is built into the
system. It boils down to core values.
Conservatives believe that people
should be trusted; they believe that we should all take responsibility
for ourselves, that we should enjoy the rewards of our personal
successes and suffer the consequences of our personal failures.
Liberals believe that people are basically stupid, that we should
be protected from hurting ourselves by making the poor decisions
that we would certainly make, if we were free to exercise our
stupidity. As a cartoonist, I know that I can't make a living
drawing cartoons about people who take responsibility for themselves,
but I can make a career out of drawing stupid people.
The responsible vs. stupid perspective
is clear for all to see in the Social Security debate. President
Bush wants personal retirement accounts where we can make decisions
for ourselves about where our money goes. Liberals don't want
us to have the freedom to make the poor investment decisions
that could erode our retirement "savings." There is
no middle ground between responsible and stupid. The same is
true with humor.
Jay Leno is a liberal humorist.
Jay walks down the street and gives everyday folks the opportunity
to demonstrate how stupid they are, while Jay laughs at them.
David Letterman is a conservative humorist. Dave treats everyday
folks with respect, giving them the opportunity to laugh at how
silly Dave is, as he has fruit dropped from a rooftop, or when
he visits his stoic neighbor, Rupert Jee, at "Hello Deli,"
with another goofy contest. Both Leno and Letterman are funny.
Liberals and conservatives can both be funny, but it is easier
to be funny by laughing at others, rather than laughing with
others. Most humorists take the easy road.
In politics it is easy to poke
fun at the people in power. Political cartooning is a negative
art form. Cartoonists tear things down. There is nothing funny
about a cartoon that defends the people in power. With the White
House and Congress controlled by conservatives it is no surprise
that conservatives are humorless.
Demographics also favor liberal
laughs as the blue-state media centers in California and New
York broadcast their perspectives into the humorless red states.
Editors often complain that liberal
newspaper political cartoonists outnumber conservatives by a
ratio of about 10-to-1. Since cartoonists are evenly distributed
at newspapers across the country, why would this be true? Most
editorial cartoonists rely on a full time newspaper job because
it is tough to make a living only through syndication or freelancing.
There are fewer and fewer newspaper jobs for cartoonists as papers
cut back on their editorial staffs and cartoonists are seen as
expendable. The few jobs (about 85) that remain are at the biggest
newspapers, which are usually in the biggest cities which tend
to be more liberal areas. There are about 1,500 daily newspapers
in America, and the vast majority are small, suburban or rural
papers that are conservative, and are either too small or too
cheap to hire their own local cartoonist. Unless those conservative
newspapers get off the dime and decide to hire local cartoonists,
we're always going to see a majority of urban, liberal cartoonists.
Conservatives should learn to
laugh at themselves, like David Letterman; instead they choose
to complain about liberal control of the media. Rather than complaining,
what conservatives need are better jokes, a more liberal attitude
about their checkbooks and most of all, a liberal in the White
House.
May 6, 2005
CHUCK ASAY ON YOUR EMAILS
This is in from Chuck, in response to the emails that you
wrote in response to Chuck's
screed in our blog.
Whew! I'm not used to getting
so much mail. Thanks, everyone, for the encouragement, the effort
to straighten me out, and the concerns you expressed about my
worldview piece. I'd like to respond to each one of you, but
time won't allow and Daryl has allowed me to give a general response
to some of the issues you raised.
First, I need to point out, when I give my worldview, I don't
speak for The Gazette (they just pay me to express my views and
they print most of my cartoons). I don't speak for the Christian
community. Who knows what THAT is? When I say I carry the baggage
of my religion, I say that as a put down of myself. In my view,
my religion hinders the gospel. My relationship with Christ is
what gives me hope that some of the things I say may be of value.
When people ask me where I get my ideas, my response is that
the good ideas come from God and the bad ideas come from me.
This raises the issue many of you spoke to when you expressed
very real concern about people who say they are doing the work
of the Lord. I share that concern. People who say, "The
Lord told me..." are scary folks. How can you top a "God"
argument? A lot of people in prison are people who think they're
doing God's work and I'm glad they're locked up. But, sometimes,
as the bible and history point out, the Lord does speak to people.
What do we do with that? I have to sift what they say through
what I can see in the scriptures to see if it's true. If it is
"the truth," it usually calls for a response. If what
they say doesn't ring true to me, I need to try to expose the
error. My hope with the worldview I'm expressing, is that we
can find common ground and promote and protect freedom for everyone.
Some have pointed out that my view is contradictory: I say I'm
for limited government, but my view of God suggests theocracy
. It appears one could not hold both positions. It does seem
contradictory, but because of the relationship I have with Christ,
(and this may creep some people out) whom I consider to be alive
and active in this world, I believe it makes sense because Christ
lives at both extremes. He is neither liberal or conservative.
He is both. He says render to Caesar what is Caesar's (that means
to me, I should obey the government authorities placed over me)
and to God what is God's. In the whole of scripture, that makes
sense. I can't serve God and mammon (wealth). I have to choose.
In serving God, I can serve my brothers and sisters the way Christ
did and continues to do on earth.
Sinners and tax collectors are attracted to Christ, according
to Luke 15:1-2, and religious people don't like it because he
eats with them. How liberal is that? He tells the prostitute
who was about to be stoned, he does not judge her...BUT GO AND
SIN NO MORE. How contradictory and conservative is that? When
you see the religious right wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade,
or opposing gay marriage, many are not judging, they are petitioning
their government to act in its capacity as God's servant to punish
evil and reward good. Others who count themselves as members
of the religious right ARE into judging others. You walk into
any church, and you will find people who consider themselves
to be sinners or tax collectors, and who are there because
they are attracted to Jesus. You will also find religious people
who get mad because he seems to prefer to hang out with sinners
instead of judge them. He says he will judge at some time in
the future but that time has not come, in my view. I hope, in
my cartoons, that you'll find me in the sinner and taxpayer category...but
I do slip into the religious snob character from time to time.
One last point. Some of you are using the same old tired tactics
of trying to confuse the conversation to protect your turf. When
you deliberately take scriptures out of context (for example,
saying Christians take seriously the prohibition of eating pork)
and apply it to laws we would like to see government enforce,
you are setting up a straw man argument. Most Christians eat
pork without guilt. They believe the pork prohibition was given
at a particular time to a particular group of people for a particular
reason. I support religious freedom. Eat what you think is right.
Yes, the Lord told his people in the Old Testament to burn witches,
and you see people today who call themselves Christians, carrying
signs which say "God hates fags." They take things
out of context too, in my view. I believe God loves gay people
but doesn't back away from calling sin, sin. If God doesn't love
gays, why would he send his son to die for them?
If you call me a bigot because I oppose gay marriage, you would
be wrong. I do not hate gays. Christ died for them as he did
for me. I would be opposed to any government authority who might
want to take away someone's certain unalienable rights because
they are gay. I don't want the government interfering with people's
lifestyle choices, for the most part. I don't like the government
creating "new rights" for particular groups of people
either.
It's my hope we could all speak to one another about our hopes
rather than to shout over one another about our fears.
Thanks for listening. Chuck
E-mail your
comments to us here. Some samples of Chuck's cartoons are
at the bottom of the page..
May 4, 2005
YAHTZEE TIME!
When five or more cartoonists draw the same gag at the same time,
we call it a YAHTZEE! Today's yahtzee shows Social Security as
the Runaway Bride! Gotta love those yahtzees!
May 2, 2005
HERE ARE YOUR RESPONSES TO CHUCK
ASAY'S BLOG BELOW
Click
here to comment on the comments!
From: LeeAnn Regan
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:50 AM
Subject: Extremist
Thanks for sharing. I really enjoyed what you wrote. Everyone
knows I am conservative, but I am a closet extremist in my views.
Definitely a fan of James Dobson. I am not the target audience
for most of the cartoons on the site, but I make an effort not
to bury my head in the conservative sand. It is nice to know
some conservative cartoonist are out there. I heard the ranks
of the Christian stand- up comics are growing. Maybe there is
hope for the cartoonists.
LeeAnn in Newnan, GA
From:
GM Behr
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:52 AM
Subject: Asay comments
Chuck, Daryl,
Thanks for taking the time to pen your thoughts, and for opening
the floor for the discussion.
Like the rudders on a ship, I believe the left and right are
necessary elements that define the 'middle', ie the way the ship
will head. I do not believe it coincidence that we appear deadlocked
(e.g. last two Pres elections), as both sides have found voices
for their causes.
I share many of Chuck's beliefs, especially his worldview. I
would add several points where we may agree or differ:
- I believe that the majority
of PEOPLE on all sides deep in their heart want the same thing
(e.g. 'feed the hungry', 'care for the sick'), but that the leaders
of the 'parties' may have other agendas, especially after taking
a sip of the highly-addictive cocktail called 'POWER'.
- My experience working for federal
and state government - and seeing how inefficient it is - leads
me to lean to smaller government. Non-profits (the human rights
arm for smaller-governmentalists) are monitored closely by the
IRS, forcing them to make sure that a high percent of their revenue
goes to the causes they support. This is not true for the government
when it takes on human rights responsibilities, where inefficient
bureaucracies are usually created.
- Centralizing human rights functions
in the government takes away the opportunity for every citizen
to feel the needs and pain of the fellow citizens. "I paid
my taxes to take care of that problem" develops no compassion
in our society.
Anyone that has been to a little league baseball game knows that
the loudest voices (the liberal newspaper cartoonists) are not
necessarily the correct voices. Personally, I prefer to hear
all the voices, because there is almost always a morsel of truth
from each of the voices.
Thanks again for all you do.
George Behr
Mechanicsburg, PA
From:
Debbie
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:00 AM
Subject: Conservative Cartoonists
You're overlooking the major
problem with conservative cartoonists:
They're not funny.
Debbie (a devoutly religious
Liberal)
From:
Tristan Thomas
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:59 AM
Subject: Great job, Chuck!
Chuck Asay,
Thank you for your well thought out and balanced piece. As a
"conservative" (or a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist)
myself, I try to be pretty cautious in endorsing anyone's stance/opinions
in a generalized manner, but I do wholeheartedly relate and agree
with what you've written.
I look forward to seeing what other replies you receive.
In Christ,
Tristan Thomas
From:
Joe W. Milkes
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:01 AM
Subject: Slate-Diverse views good
Although I happen to be the liberal type (and in Texas no less),
I think it is more fun and eye opening to have diverse views.
Years ago, there used to be a magazine, Atlas, that culled cartoons
worldwide. Pretty interesting to see the anti-American stuff
as well as other culture and country's views of things. Recent
(today) article in WSJ would make great cartoon- apparently Brazil
turned down our AIDS grant because of the right-wing strings
attached which they described as "Shiite" policies
regarding prostitution, etc.. Now, that is great language, accusing
the Bushies of being "Shiites".
So, I vote for having good cartoons regardless of point of view-dueling
cartoons. Whether it's Kennedy raising the minimum wage to $50
per hour or DeLay sucking up lobbyist money and junkets while
he touts his moralism. People forget he used to be an exterminator
of bugs; only difference now the exterminator of Democrats.
Go get 'em.
Joe Milkes
From:
Rod Karamon
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:08 AM
Subject: AMEN!!!!
The Bible is the only source of complete and absolute truth that
we as humans have access to here on earth. We can only pray that
our friends and neighbors will come to the realization that they
need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Keep up the good
work drawing cartoons from the right perspective!!!!!!!
From:
Ruth Gable
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:02 AM
Subject: CHUCK
Chuck: loved what you had to say - Amen!
Ruth Gable
From:
Gary Blewett
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:14 AM
Subject: Good one!
Thanks for your clear expression of what you find important and
what motivates your work. I appreciate you and Cagle for inviting
your comments.
From:
Robert
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:45 AM
Subject: Conservative Cartoonists
Michael Ramirez of the Los Angeles Times. What a jerk!
Robert
From:
Davis Linda K Civ 460 CPTS/FMA
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:07 AM
Subject:
Thanks, Chuck, for providing us with another "outlook"
on life's issues. It's like a breath of fresh air. When I lived
in Colorado Springs, I subscribed to the Gazette and loved to
read the editorials-and your cartoons had a way of "summarizing"
so many of the events-indeed, a "picture is worth a thousand
words." lkd __
LINDA K. DAVIS
From:
Lana May
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:39 AM
Subject: thought on Lonely Conservative remarks
It can be scary sometimes when some people think their way is
the only right way, their values are the only right values, their
truth is the only truth, and their culture is the superior culture.
Most dangerously, they believe it's their job or they have the
right to force people who have different values to believe in
their truth. They equal being moral to being religious, and however,
it has been religious people throughout history who have waged
the most amount of wars, and killed the most amount of innocent
lives.
That's the origin of many bloody conflicts of today's world,
filled with intolerance and urge of crucifixion. There is only
one religion that is exceptional from this case, Buddhism, which
treats all living things as equal, which values lives more than
triumph of ideologies.
From:
Marcia M. Weeden
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:32 AM
Subject: I'm Curious
Where do you place the Biblical injunction, "To whom much
is given, much is expected?" For all the conservatives who
want government with limited power, I don't see them rallying
to help those who are sick, lacking health care, poor and unfunded
schools etc. etc. etc. My impression of the whole thing is. "I've
got mine. You get yours or else you deserve to suffer if you
can't do any better than you have been." What about those
with a lot who don't give to those without? It is so easy to
say, "Do this" or "Don't do that." Where
is the actual reaching out? Where are the people who leave the
comfort of their homes and work with all of God's children? Of
course that's uncomfortable, discouraging, and difficult, but
didn't God promise us that? I have the deepest respect and faith
in God. My sorrow is with those who do not see how all of His
children suffer. The so-called liberals are at least see and
acknowledge these things. The conservatives embarrass me for
calling themselves followers of Christ.
Marcia Weeden
Barrington, RI
Sent:
Monday, May 02, 2005 11:21 AM
Mr. Asay
Wow! I didn't think there were
any "practicing" Conservative Religious Cartoonists
left, especially one so willing to share his beliefs as in Slate
Magazine's May 02 newsletter. Thanks for sharing, and thanks
for the cartoon "The Parable Of The Brain-Damaged Women."
Next stop..... Chuck's Cartoon Archive.
Mike Halk
From:
Donald Bruce Wright
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:38 AM
Subject: The Parable of the brain damaged woman.
Your drawing skills are great!
You certainly know the visual craft of presenting a cartoon.
However, the thought process on display in this piece has a hole
in it big enough for a Texan's Hummer to drive through. I know
that satire is about exaggeration but the way you have presented
the situation is too far removed from the facts to make the point
I think you are trying to make. You show two lay people from
a distance making a dismissive medical diagnosis that has mortal
consequences. That's as silly as some sanctimonious Senator assessing
the neurological state of Terry Schiavo from the floor of the
Senate...
In the real world, sound legal
decisions were made about Terry Schiavo based on expert, fully-informed
medical opinions. In your cartoon and in the case of Bill Frist,
the characters involved are ignorant but still make extreme highly
consequential judgments. If anything, your cartoon inadvertently
skewers them, not the decision with which you disagree.
Donald Bruce Wright
1090 Wilderfield Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
From:
Kenneth George
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:34 AM
Subject: Feedback
Right-on! I feel exactly as you do. More and more I hear from
a governmental point of view what they feel is the "right-thing"
to do, or what the media proclaims what is right, or what is
wrong. If they can do it, so should we. Again, the main thing
here is that if someone does not want to accept what is being
said, so be it. But should we squelch them because we don't agree?
Now I will agree that there are limits to voicing our opinions
- you cannot just start spewing violence in the streets. But
if Hollywood can sell what in my opinion (and according to God's
Word) is gratuitous sex and violence, but I am to choose to see
the movie or turn the channel on the TV as a justification for
what they produce, then can't the liberals, or those who don't
agree, just turn and walk away without making a federal issue
out of what we say??? Instead, what we see is government making
laws to protect those who want to live opposite of what God states
is right, and laws to prevent those who follow Christ from doing
just that (at least publicly).
Great article.
From:
Jonathan McDermon
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:26 AM
Subject: THe turn to the right
Just thought it was worth noting, even though one would have
to draw it from left to right, or up to down, that in the "evolving
standards of decency..." cartoon it is a turn to the right
that leads the character back to the evolutionary pool from which
we came. It also seems a little odd that one would seem to draw
a line between world opinion and objectivity in the turning judiciary.
Keep up the good work, nothing says funny like the conservative
cartoonist!
JM
From: Geraldole
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: Ashay a conserative? LOL....G
It is obvious that Ashay has no idea what a conservative is in
America today....
Simply, anything that the government does is ok to today's conservatives......The
country (except for Ashay's conservatives who hanged Quakers
on Boston Common) was founded by liberals who wanted freedom
for everyone, who wrote the bill of rights and meant it, and
we scared still of absolute governmental power.
Why does he trust the government so much? As for limited government....I
can't think of one conservative in America who believes in that?
And what is the conservative view of Americans slaughtering tens
of thousands of Iraq men, women, and children? What is the conservative
view of the USAPA Act which nullifies the 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th,
and 14th amendments to the US Constitution?
The reason that there are so few conservative cartoonists is
that they have nothing of value to say....
Gerald Oleson, Bangor, Maine
From:
Randy Hacker
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:25 AM
Subject: Chuck Assay
Wow!
An essay from Assay. I live in Colorado, and am familiar with
his cartoons and agree with probably 90% of them. This letter
to Daryl Cagle was very well written, better than his cartoons
and I agree with everything in it. I wish both "sides"
would respect the others' views as Chuck stated, although it's
hard to accept the U.S. liberals following European liberal views.
This is America. We have our own laws and morals and I'd like
to keep it that way.
Randy Hacker
Monument, CO
From:
PETER RONAI
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:23 AM
Subject: Great blog by Chuck Asay!
Great blog, Chuck. But how far do you take Biblical authority?
Do you believe, for example, that the universe was created in
6 days about 5000 years ago?
-
Peter M. Ronai, M.D., Ph.D.
Salem, Oregon
From:
G. M. Sastry
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:09 PM
Subject: Comments
Daryl
I am personally a liberal and live in a conservative location,
Greenville, SC. The local news paper, Greenville News, reflects
the community's political preference and is also generous enough
to support an editorial columnist who is very effective and creative,
Mr. Harvell.
Sastry
From:
Norene Umphrey
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:10 PM
Subject: YOUR BLOG ARTICLE
I enjoyed it very much and agree
with almost all of it. As a Christian who has personally met
her savior, Jesus the Christ, I claim to be a "fiscal conservative
and a social liberal." (Not my words originally, but I like
them.) God IS in charge, yessiree, and loves me unconditionally!
However, He has never told me I don't have right to my free will-including
over my own physical body. Yes, I know the body is the temple
of God. No, I would never have an abortion. I just resent any
MAN legislating away my free will right to any decision involving
my own physical body. Male legislators are rarely if ever raped;
they are never made to give birth. Until the latter happens I
believe no man should be allowed to make my birth decisions!
Over and out.
From:
Laughing Dragon
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:04 PM
I'm a liberal but I'm very much
into having an armed population. Just to keep the politicians
in check. Guns are a good way of keeping creeps from imposing
their will on the unwilling.
The problem I have with the right
wing is that they want to force their religious ideas on the
rest of us. Sneaking "In god we trust" onto the coinage
and currency, getting a phrase put into the pledge of allegiance
all children are forced to recite in school. Trying to prevent
abortions. Sorry to tell you, women have been known to cause
their own abortions for the last 5000 years. And medical abortions
were common during most of history. Abortions, like "cutting
for the stone" were thought to be dangerous but not intrinsically
wrong. Various religionists would like to force us to live their
prescription for life, pay them taxes, and support their, often
corrupt, political agendas.
I've had a laugh about the latest
pope. He states he deserted the Nazi army in May 1945. Like VE
day? And he complains that pedophiles are only 1:100 in the church
and therefore not important. That's a high proportion. Pedophiles
are often social and fully capable of concerted activities. Like
moving into vulnerable church structures and establishing themselves
as parasites. If you don't root them out, they stay.
I have a high toleration for
the ultra-religious. I think they have all the right to spout
off in public or private, as much as they want. But, they are
often bores, and there is nothing that says I have to put up
with listening to them or that I can't criticize them and lead
other people away from them.
The problem with the religious
right is that they do want to take advantage, take tax money,
and impose their views on others. And if it ever comes to war
with them, I and my kind will win.
Yours,
Jackie Aldridge
From:
Eric Prichard
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:21 PM
Subject: The Parable of the Brain Damaged Woman
Here's another theory on why
liberal cartoonists predominate (although I will admit it is
based on just this one cartoon) - they're neither accurate nor
appropriate. This cartoon seems to attack the liberals for pontificating
but not helping. It appears to pat the conservative Christians
on the back for leaving politics out of it and just helping the
victim. I'm sure those are popular sentiments among the religious
right, but for the recent practical application, neither sentiment
is actually true. The only people in any position to help the
victim in this case were the nurses, doctors, and immediate family
members. Every other action by any party was political and nothing
else. The message I take away from this cartoon is "don't
spend so much energy on politics - just help." As a nurse,
that's a tenet I follow every day. But in Terry Schiavo's case,
the conservatives did exactly the opposite.
-Eric Prichard
From:
Howard Hodge
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:28 PM
Subject: Chuck Asay
Amen
Howard Hodge
Douglasville, Georgia
From:
WALLACE D PACK
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:42 PM
Subject: Cagle's blog & your cartoon
Right on Chuck!!! Your contribution
was well stated. Your cartoon would be funny if it were not so
true.
From:
Michael R. Adkins
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:49 PM
Subject: Blessings On You
Gentlemen,
Thank you for publishing the
"conservative" cartoon. I liked the take off of a current
Good Samaritan story that I passed it on to my pastor for his
viewing. I'm sure that he will be likewise impressed. Thanks
again. mra
From:
Amy Sullivan
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:56 PM
Subject: More Conservative Cartoons!
Hey, ya'll need to keep putting
up conservative cartoons on your website, like Chuck Asay's.
He seems like someone we need to hear from more often!!!
From:
Tygerkittn@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:43 AM
Subject: Chuck Asay
I loved your blog, especially what you said about labels. In
church Sunday the preacher said "disciples of Jesus"
and I thought he said "pychos for Jesus," and I thought
"that's ME. I found my niche." Sometimes the media
makes me feel like I'm a nutcase just because I believe in Jesus
and try to keep His commandments. I forward your cartoons to
everyone I know and they all love them. Thanks, and keep it up!
Meg Funk
From:
Larry L. Brown, R.T.(R) A.R.R.T.
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:45 PM
Subject: Your essay on the Cagle blog.
Thank you for stating so eloquently
the thoughts that I have felt for so long. We are here for a
purpose and if we spent more time finding out what that purpose
is and carrying it out, perhaps there wouldn't be time to be
mad about how others perceive us. Thanks, Larry Brown.
No matter where you go, there
you are!
From:
Carl Shupe
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:43 PM
Subject: You are right on, brother.
From:
Lois Keel
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:40 PM
Subject: Liberal VS...
Well, folks, you don't find many
places with the concentration of "non-liberal" humans
as dense as it is in Colorado Springs, CO, home of Focus on the
Family, the U S military, etc., so Mr. Asay most likely speaks
for the majority in his domain. He also speaks eloquently in
this cartoon, and I find it much easier to assimilate his rather
gentle perspective than it is Mr. Frist's arrogant, in-your-face
blather.
Easy to swallow or not, it is
only fair that cartoonists with a wide range of political and
life perspectives have access to the cartoon websites. It's comforting
to pull that protective blanket around myself, and nurse my wounds
as predominantly liberal cartoon artists strike back against
the invading forces, but it allows me to just burrow in further,
painting my world in black & white.
Yet, we are only protecting ourselves
from reality, and from potentially though-provoking images from
talented folks with differing perspectives. Occasionally I bristle
at several of the regulars on Cagle Cartoons, then need to remind
myself that I need to let those ideas in, too- and be able to
respect their viewpoint.
So, if you're looking for input,
I am supportive of a wider range of ideological perspectives-
but maybe we could just have an occasional slash and burn round
when we can sink back into that safety blanket and enjoy the
excellent pointed pens of the liberal cartoon community exclusively.
It's sort of like a drug- hard to withdraw from.
Thanks for asking.
Lois Keel
From:
Fred Baltes
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:28 PM
Subject: Chuck Asay 05/02/05
It has been 70+ years now that women gained equal rights by constitutional
amendment. The Supreme Court extended that right to allow a woman
control of their bodies including reproduction. It shouldn't
be an issue for "the public" to decide anymore than
having a vasectomy or a hysterectomy or taking birth control
pills or using a rubber. As for what a "Higher Power"
might be thinking that is between the person and her God. To
quote the writings of ancient Hebrew zealots as to what God means
is presumptive to the max. However if you want to share their
madness it is your right.
Fred
San Diego
From:
Nancy Spooner
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:27 PM
Subject: Religion
Religion is WRONG when it overthrows a government!
From:
Bob Davis
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:27 PM
Subject: The Lonely conservative
Thanks, Chuck, for a very well-stated manifesto! (Can a religious
right-wing wacko extremist have a manifesto?)
You probably explained the role of the political/editorial cartoonist
better than I've seen it done in a long time. As a religious,
Catholic, pro-life, middle of the road moderate Democrat (now
THAT'S a tough life!), I find myself on your side more often
than not, especially when it comes to issues like Terry Schiavo.
Thanks for being out there!
Peace,
Deacon Bob Davis
From:
dad tag
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:11 PM
Subject: Roadside Liberals
Just saw your rendering of the roadside girl in need of help.
Yours' is probably the most eloquent statement I have seen/read/heard
on the recent case in Florida (Sorry, can't spell the name).
I've been sitting here trying to think of a profound statement
of thanks to you for your summation of the American Tragedy of
lack of compassion for our fellow humans. I can't, so, my heartfelt
appreciation for insight and hope it will impress others. Oh,
by the way, I am not a right wing religious fanatic.
Fred
From:
Lyle Kimball
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 2:15 PM
Subject: I've been frustrated with the lack of a conservative
viewpoint as well
Hi -
My two cents (not that anyone is paying!)...
I think Daryl's take on the lack of conservative cartoonists
have some merit in that most large-city newspapers lean substantially
to the left, thus do their commentators.
However, I also feel that there are some general 'people issues'
at work. I believe it has been said that there is a fine line
between creativity and madness, in fact some of the most famous
artists in the world have been certifiably crazy (Van Gogh and
Hemingway spring instantly to mind, for example). I think creative
people "think differently" than folks who are less
creative. I believe the creative mindset lends itself to "liberal"
thinking (in today's sense, not the classic sense), thus most
artists will inherently lean to the left (we needn't look any
farther than Hollywood to see the 10-to-1 (more?) ratio of liberals
to conservatives in the arts community, New York runs the same
way).
I think a big part of today's lack of civil discourse between
the right and the left is because we truly are incapable of understanding
one another. For myself, being considerably right of center,
I can't understand what I consider to be the fuzzy logic of some
liberal positions, such as: let anyone into the country, but
let's have a living wage and everyone will have a job. And by
the way, we're going to tax the businesses to death. Or: don't
kill convicted felons via the death penalty, but go ahead and
kill innocent babies by the millions. All of these things are
possible in a "liberal" worldview, but a conservative
looks at the scenarios as completely bonkers. It devolves to
a "what, are you nuts???" kind of conversation.
I do get frustrated at the lack of balance in the Cagle slate
of cartoonists. But I also understand the economics of the situation.
The people having the gold (liberal media outlets) are going
to pay people they agree with (cartoonists) to produce work.
They are not usually going to pay someone who consistently disagrees
with or lampoons THEM. How Michael Ramirez has managed to stay
at the LA Times is beyond me, given the polar opposition of Mike's
general worldview and that of the Times.
Anyway, Chuck, keep up the good work! You too, Daryl - I read
the "liberal" toons also, though they usually just
get me worked up!
Thanks, Lyle Kimball
From:
Michael Bube
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 2:03 PM
Subject: A Lonely Conservative
Well said. My beef as a believer (Catholic) is that those who
don't like our ideas paint us as right-wing wackos as though
one must be wacko to hold such terrible positions as being pro-life
or against homosexual marriage. It's enough to have any moral
position to be characterized as a religious rightist in order
to dismiss the viewpoint. Prickly City got it right in this morning's
paper: "So, essentially you're surprised that the Catholic
Church elected a Catholic as Pope?" Apparently lots of people
are; it's just Catholics being Catholics, so boo-hiss.
I don't care if a political cartoonist is liberal or conservative
when it comes to ideas, but I do believe that while everyone
has a right to their own opinions, they don't have a right to
their own facts. I get angry when simple facts are gotten wrong
in the interest of making a point about an idea. Also, in making
a point a cartoonist doesn't have to be offensive and many of
them are very offensive to the point of being anti-Christian.
Lastly, if a political cartoonist isn't invited on to the editorial
page, he can go into the comics section, Prickly City, BC and
Mallard Fillmore. Of course, liberals are doing the same thing
and have for years, Doonesbury.
Keep up the lonely battle. Like the prophets, you must stand
at the city gates and let the people know the truth.
Br. Michael T. Bube, O.S.A.
From:
LMcDaniel
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 2:00 PM
Subject: Conservative Cartoonists
I, too, have the same worldview as James Dobson. And I think
of myself much like you think of yourself. It was SO good to
read your letter, particularly on this site. During the presidential
election I read and countered many liberal opinions about government
in general and President Bush in particular in the Cagle blog
but after the election I became so disgusted by it all that I
finally stopped visiting that site. But the 'Conservative Cartoonist'
subject line in the email I receive each week from Slate grabbed
my attention and I'm glad that I looked at the cartoon (which
is great) and read your letter. Although my head knows that conservative
thinking is with the majority, three months of reading overwhelmingly
liberal opinions had me doubting that fact.
If you ever email your work, I'd LOVE to receive your cartoons.
Thank you for 'being the minority.'
Linda McDaniel
From:
Bobwells1
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 2:01 PM
Subject: Your viewpoint
Hey, NOW you've done it...spoken the absolute TRUTH!....and the
looney left is going to fry you alive!
So, being a Christian, you really have no excuse, knowing what
THE BOOK has to say about people being on the "front line"...pastors,
teachers, ya know...AND political cartoonists who stand up and
speak for Him, in your own special way.
Bottom line, I congratulate you, and will pray for your continued
"voice" in the arena, and for your safety, cuz we all
know what sometimes happens when some of those folks out there
get their dander up. Gee, if only we didn't have a lunatic RIGHT
fringe out there, I would be even prouder of being on "your"
side. But, we'll muddle along, as "Christians Under Construction",
find out where He's working, and join Him there. Perhaps you
recognize that last thought from the Experiencing God series.
God Bless!
Bob Wells
From:
Donna Russell
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 2:49 PM
It's not the "worldviews" that concern me. People should
have different opinions. It is the imposing of a single set of
morals on everyone. Suppose I really believed that the way to
salvation was by not eating raw brussell sprouts. Suppose I felt
that eating brussell sprouts was a sin against God and man. Suppose
I felt that anyone eating brussell sprouts should be punished,
even killed. Suppose that even possessing a seed or a picture
of a brussell sprout was immoral. Suppose... One could go on
and on. Abortion is a serious thing. Unlike the silly brussell
sprouts there is no simple answer-bring an unwanted child into
the world, raise it in poverty of spirit, destroy the mother's
life for a lapse, or prevent the child from being born. No good
answers here. But it isn't just to do with pregnancy. What about
a cell that will be thrown out anyway? What about methods of
preventing pregnancy. The whole things spreads out to all sex.
Women (or 10 year old girls) who have sex (either consensual
or rape) deserve to pay for their sins (of being female presumably).
If they get pregnant, then they need to pay. A girl should have
to go to the father who raped her for permission to get an abortion
or produce necessary paper documents to convince the courts.
(What documents?)If conservatives believe in less government,
then they should stop trying to be the morals squad. Are some
people irresponsible-of course. Does one law (no abortion under
any circumstance) fit all situations-of course not. What irritates
me about conservatives is that their thinking is so simplistic
and so hypocritical. Why hypocritical?--Where are these leaders
standing in line to adopt multiple children with multiple disabilities?
Where are the social services for the women denied abortions?
These "babies" are only important until they are born
and then conservatives cut health services. That's why I say
the who thing is like the Taliban--punish females for being female.
Donna Russell Livingston TX
From: sg.cpa@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 2:55 PM
Subject: Religious, right-wing, wacko extremist
Mr. Asay If you want to wear the title you coined, knock
yourself out. But then I'm proud to be a religious, left-wing,
wacko extremist.
Point-by-point:
F You say the Bible tells us "...how
to take care of the world.." Maybe, but it doesn't say how
to take care of the Earth, and I find painful irony in the fact
that "conserve" is the root of "conservative"
and conserving the Earth's resources is the last thing conservatives
want to do.
F Where do you get the idea that government
is ordained by God? Sounds like a premise for a theocracy.
F As to the 1st Commandment, evangelize
all you want. Just don't do it in public schools or the courthouse
or the City Hall that my tax dollars support.
F We all know what right-wingers mean
when they say that the left is against people of faith. It means,
"We're Christian and they're not." And "people
of faith" is a euphemism coined by those who want government
support of their religious schools and such.
F Abortion had to come up, didn't it?
If your religion says that life begins at conception, then it
is appropriate for you to encourage all the females you know
not to have an abortion. Leave the rest of us alone. When I was
in high school, Baptists didn't dance. So if you don't dance,
don't go to a dance. Pretty simple. If you don't like alcohol,
don't drink. But the Baptists were not satisfied to do without,
they wanted all of us to do without. Then there's the issue that
the same folks who want to ban abortion want to ban contraception
and want women to stay in their place. (The first two help ensure
the third.)
F Then there's your cartoon itself. The
nerve and showboating of DeLay et al in interfering in a private,
family matter already well-settled by law makes me want to throw
up. And Repubs are the party of state's rights?
What really burns me is the way that the Religious [sic] Right
has promoted the idea that their perverse brand of Christianity
is the only way, and that they are the only ones who are "religious."
Hogwash. I work. I pay my taxes. I've never been in jail, never
assaulted anyone, never raped anyone (and, for that matter, never
felt the need to carry a gun.) I've been married to the same
woman for 43 years, raised two daughters to responsible, sober,
taxpaying adulthood. They, in turn, are in enduring marriages,
are active in their churches, and are raising their kids to be
good human beings. So how do you figure an old liberal like me
pulled that off? Oh yeah, one other thing along the way
I wasn't butting my nose in other people's business.
The real reason there are so few conservative cartoonists? There's
nothing funny about conservatives.
Which reminds me of two of my favorite quotes:
The first is from the father of Mary Kerr, a Texas author:"A
Republican is someone who cannot really enjoy a meal unless he
knows that somewhere someone is really hungry."
The other from John Kenneth Galbraith: "The modern conservative
is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;
that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
Cordially,
Scott Gregory
From: Bob Stevens
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 2:49 PM
Subject: Your cartoonist perspective
Dear Chuck,
Thanks for asking for feedback to your comments regarding "conservative"
cartoonists. I have never felt more discouraged about our ability
(U.S. citizens) to talk with one another. I guess the thing that
gripes me the most, and makes me feel most discouraged about
the future, is that I do not deny that you and others of like
mind have character, have principles, believe in God, etc., but
you and yours do seem to deny that I and my crowd also possess
these qualities. I feel so strongly your desire to make me be
like you and then you would be able to accept me as a person
of true value, with something to offer to the world. Well, you
have your right to try to "evangelize" me, as you put
it. But, I have the right (which I intend to exercise) to resist
your evangelizing efforts and to resent your thinking that you
have something better to offer to the world than I do. As long
as I have a vote and a voice, I will not allow you to control
me. I am willing to give you your freedom, but you are not willing
to give me mine, and, therefore, you and I cannot ever really
communicate with one another. I am a child of God, sir, even
though my belief does not fit yours, and even though you do not
(really) acknowledge that I am of such parentage. I have never
felt "loved" by conservative people, only judged and
condemned by them. And that is why we cannot relate with civility
and grace with each other. I fear for the future in this country
because of this bitter division between us, and it is bitter. It
truly scares me. We are all very human, Churck, and therefore
subject to wrong thinking and destructive behavior. But, what
I hear from you and your group is that you are absolutely right,
incapable of being wrong, incapable of not understanding the
Bible, and always, always more deserving of God's pat on the
back than we who are such nasty and evil "liberals". Maybe
so, actually. But it's your God doing the patting, not mine.
Why do I even bother to write my feelings and thoughts to you.
It troubles me that I waste my time in that way. Bob Stevens
From: ej adams
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 3:16 PM
Subject: Political Cartoonists
Is it significant in 'The Parable of The Brain Damaged Woman'
that the peasant who actually 'does something' for the woman
is riding a Donkey?
Political Cartoonists should not be labelled as Conservative
or Liberal. The really good ones should be like Diogenes
who believed that no one was really truthful or honest, but spent
his life carrying a lantern and looking for an honest man.
Asay says he respects other peoples right to make their own decisions.
Few Conservatives do this. With regards to Abortion. the only
people who have earned the right to an opinion are: Women who
are living in poverty while valiantly attempting to raise their
child; and' Those who have adopted a child.
The rest 'are like a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal', and
like the hypocrites they are ... should shut up.
E.J. Adams
From: Ed Redmond
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 3:25 PM
Subject: Chuck Asay
Very nice to see the open minded approach that allows all
types of cartoonists and viewpoints to be seen on your
web site. Though there seems to be minimal ground that Chuck
and I agree on, opposing viewpoints are always necessary
to gain and understand the complete picture. I especially
liked his cartoons titled "A Taxpayer's Journey"
and "Defining Moral Low Ground". This type of open
journalism sure beats the hell out of all the negative garbage
and almost hatred seen on Sean Hannity's show. A well informed
American is not a bad thing. Many Thanks.
Ed Redmond
From: carol francis
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 3:36 PM
Subject: chuck asay essay
Thank you , mr asay, for your comments. If you find out what
happened to those definitions of liberal and conservative, what
that really means please pass the info on to the rest of us.
thanks again. a fan.
From: sebastopol90210-flagpolesitter@yahoo.com
[mailto:sebastopol90210-flagpolesitter@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 4:02 PM
To: cari@cagle.com; asay@gazette.com
Subject: Conservative Cartoon, my Ass (pun INTENDED with
respect to the beast of burden in the cartoon)
I don't see the alleged conservative slant in the "brain
damage" cartoon. Not at all. I took the last
frame as an invitation to - yes - hate it when people
attempt to subvert this nation by theocratic aspirations
under a brain-damaged (cocaine and alcohol) quasi cannibal
(drinking blood from a skull, as did his father and grandfather)
president who goes far beyond Machiavelli's prince - not just
giving the appearance of piety, but condoning a vision of himself
as Messiah. I do hate it when Insincere Whackos like
Tom DeLay pander to misplaced sentiments (though having assented in
a family DNR decisions..
As for the poor, and (in my opinion) demented family of the late Mrs.
Schiavo (may she finally rest in peace), I'm surprised they didn't
file suit against the Vatican to take the late John Paul II (may
he rest in peace) back to the hospital, reopen the tracheotomy,
and insert a feeding tube.
The family's insistence that Mrs. Schiavo "communicated"
with them was belied by experts who (from blind observation monitors)
observed her making the same sounds and gestures
when no one was present.
Anyway, thanks for the cartoon, and the editorial column.
Chi - my namesake was a physician, besides being a revolutionary
From:
Randall HERREMA
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 4:12 PM
Subject: Thanks
It is always refreshing to have someone articulate what encompasses
a good dealof what one thinks and feels. Sharing that world view
doesn't eliminate individual thought, rather enourages both an
appreciation for other's thinking and a commitment/obligation
to engae in the dialogue.
God bless and keep up the good, if somewhat lonely, work.
Randall L. Herrema, Psy.D.
Licensed Psychologist
From: Abhinav
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 4:33 PM
To: cari@cagle.com; asay@gazette.com
Subject: cartoons
on philosophy i disagree with
you on everything, but on ur sheer guts
i love it. congrats man and keep up the pencilwork
-
Abhinav
Click here to comment on the comments!
April 29, 2005
I get lots of complaints from
conservative readers about how "all of the cartoonists on
our site are liberals." We have some conservative cartoonists
on our site, but for the most part the complainers are right,
there aren't very many conservative editorial cartoonists.
I got an extra dose of complaints
after I mentioned the paucity of conservative cartoonists on
Hannity & Colmes a couple of weeks ago. I was greeted by
a flood of unsolicited submissions from amateur conservative
cartoonists who seem to be very motivated to get their message
out, but not very motivated to polish their drawing skills.
I have a theory about why
liberal cartoonists predominate. Most editorial cartoonists rely
on a full time newspaper job because it is tough to make a living
only through syndication or freelancing. There are fewer and
fewer newspaper jobs for cartoonists as papers cut back on their
editorial staffs and cartoonists are seen as expendable. The
few jobs (about 85) that remain tend to be at major, metropolitan
newspapers, usually in big urban areas, which tend to be more
liberal areas. There are about 1,500 daily newspapers in America,
and the vast majority are small, suburban or rural papers that
are conservative, and are either too small or too cheap to hire
their own local cartoonist. Unless those conservative newspapers
get off the dime and decide to hire local cartoonists, we're
always going to see a majority of urban, liberal cartoonists.
That said, there are some
good conservative cartoonists in their tiny corner on the far
right; one good example is Chuck Asay of the Colorado Springs
Gazette. I asked Chuck to write a piece for the blog about what
it is like to be a conservative cartoonist in a profession dominated
by liberals.
You can email your comments to us here. We'll post a selection of comments
here in the blog. See Chuck's cartoon archive below.
A
LONELY CONSERVATIVE CARTOONIST ...
By Chuck Asay
Daryl Cagle asked me to write something for his blog about what
it's like to be a lonely conservative cartoonist in an arena
dominated by liberals. Right there I know Daryl and I have made
some of you mad because: 1. You see yourself as a conservative
and it's not lonely because conservative thought is in the mainstream.
2. You don't think the arena is dominated by liberals. If it
were, liberals would have power and wouldn't have to be so angry
all the time. 3. You don't know what these labels mean anymore.
I'm number 3. I don't see myself
as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko
extremist. Some folks see those labels as offensive. . . to me,
they're complimentary.
I am religious, and carry all
that baggage. I have a biblical worldview, which means I believe
there is a higher authority who has created us to enjoy his creation,
and has provided us with an earth-owner's manual (the Bible),
so we can learn how to take care of the world in our brief time
here. He set down rules, not for himself or because he enjoys
watching us suffer, but for our benefit, so we can live and perhaps
come to have fellowship with him.
I'm a right-wing wacko, meaning
I believe in limited government. . . kinda like Thomas Jefferson,
who said, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at
the same time." Government is necessary, in my biblical
worldview, but tends to be oppressive and addictive to many.
Government is ordained by God to punish evil, according to Romans
13, and it is God's servant. I don't separate church and state
in my thinking. Yes, I'm a church member and I'd like to invite
all who are willing, to join me in worship of the Father, but
I have to remind myself regularly that belonging to his church
must be optional. God does not want to force anyone to love him.
He's a free-thinker, in my opinion, and the state is his instrument
to maintain religious freedom. The word, "wacko," I
just threw in as a little self-deprecating humor.
I'm an extremist, meaning I take
the 1st Commandment seriously and believe it's OK to evangelize
and be aggressive in promoting freedom. I believe these ideas
are supposed to be protected by government as outlined in our
1st amendment. Freedom, like love, is something you can't force
on others. One must just hold it out and others have the choice
to receive it. So when I say I'm an extremist about liberty,
it sounds contradictory. But, in my view, it's not. It means
I can and should promote freedom; I can't force it on people.
As kids, most of us were taught that moderation is good and extremism
is bad. But I doubt if we would like to be loved in moderation.
I want my wife to love me to the extreme. . . forsaking all others,
etc. So, extremism in some areas I think is good. Barry Goldwater
thought extremism to promote liberty was a good idea. He thought
when religious people tried to inflict their moral beliefs on
others, it was a bad idea. I think freedom is a moral belief.
It's how we define freedom that
causes our divisions. Everyone loves freedom. The divisions come
when we start asking where it comes from. Are we the source and
able to define the limits, or is freedom given to us from above?
I can understand why people like Al Gore get so angry when the
religious right implies the left is against "people of faith."
The term is too broad. Everyone believes in something. We are
all people of faith. The conflict lies in what we have faith
in.
Some people have faith in "enlightened"
judges. Others have faith in the light of a higher power. The
issue about filibuster rules isn't about minority rights, in
my view; it's about judges who determined that women have a new
"right". . .the right to abort an unborn child. From
the perspective of people who believe that God gives life, abortion
is a political issue because the state is supposed to protect
the weak from the strong. From the perspective of those who believe
mankind is in charge and can do what it believes is the right
thing to do, it's a political issue because they see religion
intruding in state affairs.
So the cartoonists do battle.
Mike Keefe
and Ed
Stein depict folks like me (I have the same worldview as
James Dobson) as Puritans burning innocent women at the stake
or casting stones at others, though we, ourselves, are obvious
sinners. I depict the likes of them trying to keep religious
fanatics out of the idea marketplace. . . trying to squelch our
1st amendment rights. All this is what we do. We exaggerate the
opposition's ideas to make them look absurd so our ideas will
look reasonable. It's fun but there is risk involved because
people really get MAD. It's a battle that has to be fought, but
my hope is that in this battle, we all remember we are not fighting
with people. We are fighting with ideas. In my view, ideas rule
the world, not people. We can and must fight about which ideas
we believe are right, try to expose the ones which produce bad
things, but through it all, we should try to be civilized and
show grace to our brothers and sisters.
Thanks, Daryl. I look forward
to getting some feedback from your readers. Chuck Asay
E-mail your
comments to us here. Some samples of Chuck's cartoons are
below.
| Chuck
Asay, Colorado - The Colorado Springs Gazette.
E-Mail Chuck Click on the
cartoon to send an email postcard. Visit an archive of the artist's
most recent work in the drop menu at the right. Click on the cartoon to e-mail it to
a friend. |
|
|
|
At
the right is a plagiarism example from another Saudi cartoonist,
that was sent to us by a reader. 
