There’s no reason you should be familiar with him, Heather. For what it’s worth, he’s apparently an arch-conservative, with a history of cartoons which have been accused of dealing in negative stereotypes.

When I say “out of control,” I mean out of control spending.

But you also meant the politicians being out of control in a sense that could connect them to an out-of-control primate, yes?

Not everyone believed that THE stimulus passed was THE stimulus needed

Absolutely not. That’s why I mentioned that one possibility was a disagreement over the details of the stimulus package — which would require that the cartoonist felt his audience would connect “out of control” and “subhuman” to the people who differed with them over such details.

My guess is that you are already familiar with the organization.

Yes, I know the Heritage Foundation well, and Robert Rector has been a major voice on welfare reforms for years.

I didn’t agree with the details of the stimulus package, so I fall into the camp of of those who didn’t agree with it, too.

Have you ever read Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals and The Promise Land by Nicholas Lemann?

No, I’ve never heard of them, Heather.

When I say “out of control,” I mean out of control spending.

“Given that most economists, conservative and liberal alike, believed that the stimulus was necessary, ”

Not everyone believed that THE stimulus passed was THE stimulus needed and only three Republicans (Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter) supported the bill.

I in no way resemble an expert on anything except maybe my children and even that is a stretch…With that stated, go to http://www.heritage.org/ if you’d like to understand people who don’t agree with the stimulus plan. While you are there, read Robert Rector and his ideas about welfare reform. My guess is that you are already familiar with the organization.

I have questions for you now…Have you ever read Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals and The Promise Land by Nicholas Lemann? If so, what do you think of the books?

Thanks, Heather. We may not agree on this, but I do value your input.

I didn’t suspect that someone with as respected a position as cartoonist for a major metropolitan newspaper would not only disagree with the stimulus package, but that he might do so in such amazingly strong terms.

Given that most economists, conservative and liberal alike, believed that the stimulus was necessary, I find the idea that the author(s) of the stimulus were out of control or subhuman to be quite surprising. Could such a strong judgment really reflect a difference of opinion about the details of the stimulus bill? Or could this cartoonist have been substituting his judgment on macroeconomics for those of the nation’s leading economists? And expecting his readers to follow that?

I can accept that…

“If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the cartoonist may have thought so ill of the officials and legislators who crafted the stimulus package, that he considered them to be despicable, and thought that his readers would readily connect them with the image of a sub-human animal?”

Yep!!! Sub-human and out of control. Though I don’t believe anyone advocates or recommends the killing of any member of our Executive or Legislative Branch.

It’s not my experience, Heather. I’ve never encountered anyone, personally, making that connection.

However, it’s an historic fact in this country. Blacks have been depicted as apes throughout our nation’s history, and not merely as an expression of prejudice, but often for deliberate and sinister purposes, such as passing laws discriminating against them or rallying lynch mobs.

chimps are a polite representation of politicians in Washington.

You may be the first person I’ve heard to actually offer an alternative, non-racist explanation of this cartoon.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the cartoonist may have thought so ill of the officials and legislators who crafted the stimulus package, that he considered them to be depictable, and thought that his readers would readily connect them with the image of a sub-human animal?

I disagree. I see no US Presidential Seal, US flag, secret service, or the typical Obama ears anywhere.

I just noticed the cops are white with bulbous noses though. I wonder if that means anything?

“Second, the entire cartoon appears to be premised on the idea that the author of the stimulus bill could be shot dead and need replacing. This just doesn’t make sense, even as a joke, if the author isn’t one person, but rather a great many people. There were many, many members of Congress involved in key roles in shaping the stimulus package.”

I agree with you. The monkey should have been huge looking, like King Kong and very fat with a sign depicting who it was.

“Third, the cartoon appears to equate the chimpanzee with someone,”

Honestly, who in the United States has not heard about the rampaging monkey maiming Char Nash? You’d have to live in a bubble to not make the connection. I detest Curious George right now.

“and without any other identifying information, it’s hard to avoid the unfortunate fact that it is blacks who have traditionally been depicted as apes.”

That may be your experience. I have never known blacks to be traditionally depicted as apes. Where I live, negative stereotypes of blacks include nappy headed individuals tap dancing while eating watermelon in black face.

“Fourth, there is no other reason given in the cartoon to connect a chimpanzee with politicians in Washington. ”

You are correct. The words on the signage point to Washington not the chimp itself.

Given the size of the stimulus bill and the fact that my great-grand kids will be paying that sucker off, chimps are a polite representation of politicians in Washington. I can’t think of an animal off hand that automatically screams “Bastards”.

I readily admit that the cartoon was stupid; however, I fail to see the cartoon or cartoonist as racist. Irritating maybe but not racist.

Now, it could be that the cartoonist meant to suggest that the stimulus bill was written by Speaker Pelosi, other key members of Congress, and their staffers.

However, there are problems with that interpretation.

First, the stimulus bill was widely described as Obama’s bill, and no one else was given anywhere near as much credit for it.

Second, the entire cartoon appears to be premised on the idea that the author of the stimulus bill could be shot dead and need replacing. This just doesn’t make sense, even as a joke, if the author isn’t one person, but rather a great many people. There were many, many members of Congress involved in key roles in shaping the stimulus package.

Third, the cartoon appears to equate the chimpanzee with someone, and without any other identifying information, it’s hard to avoid the unfortunate fact that it is blacks who have traditionally been depicted as apes.

Fourth, there is no other reason given in the cartoon to connect a chimpanzee with politicians in Washington.

If the poor creature doesn’t represent President Obama specifically, then just what is the cartoon trying to say? What connects a rampaging pet with a major piece of federal legislation? Forget whether the joke is funny; what is the joke?