Cartoonists With Attitude

Click here

I find people's reaction to the raging Jet Blue Flight Attendant interesting.  Most, including me, seemed to respond, "good for him!" even though what he did was irresponsible, dangerous and abusive to the 99% of the passengers who were innocent of being surly, uncooperative jerks.

I think it has to do with an escape fantasy.   If he'd become famous for only cursing out the passengers, or quitting in some other spectacular way, such as toppling a beverage cart or flinging luggage, I don't think he'd have become a folk hero.  But who among us, feeling trapped in a degrading situation/job/fuselage, and wouldn't dream of escaping by releasing a giant inflatable slide and jumping out into the sunshine?  Every office, cubicle and work station should have a giant inflatable slide next to it for when that straw breaks the camel's back.  So long, suckers!

There seems to be something in the air that's got people dreaming about quitting.  This series of photos showing a woman quitting in a spectacular way has gone viral over the past couple of days.  It's been pointed out that it's certainly a fake, and it's decidedly less funny as a scripted comedy piece than as real termination theater.

But it takes my good friends at Boing Boing to point out the very best "screw you" to an employer ever.  And of course it's associated with the very worst job ever — slave.  Seems that in 1865, freed slave Jourdan Anderson was contacted by his former owner, P.H. Anderson with the request that he return to work at the plantation.  The New York Daily Tribune published Jourdan's masterpiece of a response.

The highlights, culled by Boing Boing's Maggie Koerth-Baker:

"I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than any body else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable.

As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost Marshall-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for 32 years, and Mandy 20 years. At 25 dollars a month for me, and 2 dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to $11,608. Please send the money by Adam's Express, in care of V. Winters Esq., Dayton, Ohio.

Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when your were shooting at me."

I'm honestly overcome with emotion when I think of what this poor man has been through, and has yet to go through.  But I can imagine that armed with this level of intelligence, wit and cool, he had a good chance to do all right for himself and his family.

And by the way, in case you feel any sympathy for the owner, now publicly revealed to have harbored rebel soldiers and killed a stranded union soldier, read the actual letter and you'll find a passage that takes an even darker turn to the story.  How Jourdan was able to maintain an ironic stance in this letter, through the bitterness and rage he must have felt, is nothing short of unbelievable.

"In answering this letter please state if there would be any safety for my Molly and Jane, who are now grown up and both good looking girls.  You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine.  I would rather stay here and starve and die if it come to that than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters."

A panelist for a discussion at the Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art (SHIELD) had to drop out, so I got a call asking if I'd pinch hit at the last minute.  Can I help out?  Am I there for a friend in a tight spot?  Every time.

The official topic:

The Future of the Traditional Comic Strip in the Era of Dying Newspapers

But I ain't talking about anything traditional or dying.  I'll be talking about tweets, monogamous gibbons, boing boing, smuggler's cape, kanye west, dr. scholl's, and whatever you ask about.

Bring your curiosity, your thirst for entertainment, and cash, because I'll be bringing some long out-of-print impossible-to-find Tom the Dancing Bug books for sale at rounded-up cover prices.

Provide proof that you follow me on twitter or facebook, and you win the right to buy me a beer afterward.

*************************************************

Thursday August 12, 7 PM

The Future of the Traditional Comic Strip in the Era of Dying Newspapers

A panel discussion with Rina Piccolo, Tony Murphy, Kevin Kobasic and Bill Roundy.  Plus Ruben Bolling.  Moderated by Thomas Baehr.

Admission: $5 | Free for MoCCA Members and Ross Douthat

594 Broadway, Suite 401

(btwn. Houston and Prince)
New York, NY 10012
Tel. 212-254-3511

In Ross Douthat's column in the New York Times, he makes what he might call "enlightened" case against the legalization of gay marriage.

Mr. Douthat

He basically argues that lifelong, procreative, heterosexual monogamy should be defended not because it is universal and natural, because it is not.  But rather because it, as an ideal, is "one of the great ideas of Western civilization."

He somehow makes the leap from an unsupported declaration that this vision of marriage is ideal to the conclusion that we need to "defend" it by excluding from the definition of marriage homosexual unions, without excluding serial and/or non-procreative heterosexual unions, without any explanation.

But I want to note a spectacular 180 degree shift in anti-gay marriage arguments here.  For years, those against gay marriage (and any gayness at all) maintained that homosexuality itself is unnatural.  Humans were given a Tab A and a Slot B, and the instruction manual clearly explains what to do with them.  And if it's natural, it's good; doing something unnatural with those thingies is an abomination.

Yet here, Mr. Douthat argues that monogamy is unnatural.

"Nor is lifelong heterosexual monogamy obviously natural in the way that most Americans understand the term. If 'natural' is defined to mean 'congruent with our biological instincts,' it’s arguably one of the more unnatural arrangements imaginable. In crudely Darwinian terms, it cuts against both the male impulse toward promiscuity and the female interest in mating with the highest-status male available."

So while some argue that heterosexuality is natural and therefore is good, in this case, Mr. Douthat argues that promiscuity and polygamy are natural, but we must rise above that, and act in a civilized, rational manner, in keeping with our finest cultural traditions.

Why is the ideal of true heterosexual monogamy so worth cherishing?

"This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship."

Isn't a commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually same human beings an even greater surrender of their reproductive self-interest?  Shouldn't that make it even more admirable?

Of course not.  And neither type of fidelity is necessarily against reproductive self-interest.  Nor would that make it any more deserving of legislative support.

This conservative obsession with what is "natural" is laughably disingenuous because it's used all the time on both sides of its own argument.  Heterosexuality, the mother-child bond, the idea that the strongest of the group leads it and takes the most rewards — they're all the natural way, and that, in and of itself proscribes it as admirable and desirable.  Violence (well, certain violence — violence against property rights), promiscuity, cheating — they're natural, primitive, animalistic impulses and it's our obligation to rise above them.  Wouldn't it be a bit more intellectually honest to say that regardless of what's deemed natural or unnatural, we're going to rationally decide on a behavior's morality on its own merits?

But this "nature" obsession is also fallacious because it's all a bunch of meaningless hooey (pardon my French) in the first place.  Humans are animals, so if humans do it, it's natural, Chester.

Of course homosexuality is natural.  We're pretty sure there's a human genetic component to it.  And various forms of homosexual behavior is seen all over the animal world.

And of course monogamy is "natural."  And "congruent with our biological instincts."  Lots of other animals practice monogamy:  countless species of birds form monogamous bonds for a breeding season or for life.  Rumor is that many mammals, such as foxes and beavers form these bonds that are "arguably one of the more unnatural arrangements imaginable."  Even our fellow apes, gibbons, enter into monogamous relationships for most of their lives. They must have heard about Western Civilization's Greatest Idea. (Our closest relatives, chimps, on the other hand, are total sluts.)

In more biological ignorance, Mr. Douthat implies that our more "natural" state is polygamy.  Actually, there is an excellent indicator of how strong a species' impulse for polygamy is:  sexual dimorphism in size.  Males are often larger than the female of a polygamous species so that they can fight off other male invaders to their harem.  One of the most fiercely polygamous animals is the elephant seal, with one male roaring and brawling his way to exclusive access to up to fifty cows.  In this species, the male typically weighs more than three times what a female weighs.

Mr. Elephant Seal, with one of the Mrs.'s

Closer to home, gorillas form polygamous relationships, and the males are over twice the size of the females.  Gibbons are monogamous, and the males and females are exactly the same size.  Where do we fall?  Human males apparently weigh on average about 10% more than females, so while there may be some propensity for polygamous behavior in humans, there may not be great evolutionary pressure on that behavior. 

All this is to say that our "natural" state is not only undefined and unknowable, but ultimately irrelevant to morality and public benefit.

But the truly breathtaking aspect of this column is how Mr. Douthat thinks it's okay to use this flimsy, sloppy bit of sophistry to justify denying millions of good Americans a right they want and deserve.

Okay, against my better judgment, I'm going to take on James Lileks's piece criticizing my latest comic strip, point by point. I've never done something like this before, and I really hope I never do it again.

"The only way you could get some New Yorkers to oppose the Ground Zero Mosque would be for Sarah Palin to endorse it. As it happens, she is critical of the idea, which is all some need to know."

The logic here is impeccable:  1. "Some" New Yorkers are so predictably liberal they'd certainly endorse the GZM.   2. The only principle that would trump that would be their knee-jerk hate of Sarah Palin.  3. Turns out Sarah Palin is critical of the GZM.  4. Therefore, Sarah Palin's opposition is the reason these "some" New Yorkers endorse it.  Because that's all "some" need to know!  Q.E.D.

 "It’s always amusing when people incensed by religious bigotry against Islam strike back with reductio ad absurdum depictions of Christians."

I'm obviously not making fun of Christians; I'm making fun of certain specific religious beliefs, and the overreaching of the state into religion, and I think Mr. Lileks knows that perfectly well.  I believe there are liberal Christians in America.  There are also plenty of conservative Christians who don't believe in the insane divine retribution mocked here.   This is a reference to the Establishment Clause; if the state stops Muslims from building a mosque, we've violated that Constitutional principle, and we may as well have a state-sponsored religion with a political agenda.

"But wait, there’s more: the Republican 9/11 memorial would also have a "Muslim-free Zone" because GOPers are racist and xenophobic, and hate ay-rabs."

Well, if the GOP wants to stop American Muslims from building a place of worship on their own land, that is the next logical step.  We can ban them from certain areas because, come on, it wouldn't be properly respectful.

"It would have “a Memorial to First Responders that commemorates their denial of health care – a reference, of course, to the Republicans' insistence that Congress might shave a buck or two from the Robert Byrd Institute for the Study of Robert Byrd to pay for the benefits."

Okay, Mr. Lileks thinks the bill to provide health care to first responders should be funded by reducing the Democrats' pork boondoggles, instead of closing a tax loophole that shields corporate income from taxation.  Fair enough.

If there’s anything amusing about the work, it’s the context: to the cartoonist, this is the Republican response to the Mosque. Which almost suggests the Mosque is the Islamic response to 9/11. Which of course it isn’t. The Cordoba Center funders were as surprised as anyone when they found out how close to Ground Zero the site turned out to be.

This is the most puzzling paragraph in the piece.  "Which almost suggests the Mosque is the Islamic response to 9/11."  I'm actually baffled.  Is Mr. Lileks being sarcastic here?  Because there's nothing in the comic that could remotely lead you to that conclusion, and he seems to know that by adding the "almost."  As in: almost, but actually not.  In fact, the comic does nothing but indicate the assumption that the community center proposal is simply about a community center being built in the neighborhood; the map is there to show that the "no-Muslim wall" goes out far beyond Ground Zero and into an actual neighborhood.

So, without this made-up context, Mr. Lileks finds nothing amusing about the work.  Which is his right as an American.

*********************************************************

UPDATE 8/6, 2:12 ET:  Yay, James Lileks responded!  Well, sort of…  he mentioned that I had a response, and said he's too busy to read it.  I truly believe it; this guy is nothing if not mind-bogglingly prolific.  Not as much fun as the full-out internet-fight I was looking forward to, but he did sic his commenters on me.

And I absolutely love what one commenter said — the highest praise a cartoonist can get — likening me to "a ten-year-old to garner[ing] laughs by placing his hand in his armpit and pressing downward."  Finally, somebody understands me!

Anyway, my comics generate all kinds of blowback, and the only reason I responded so vigorously to this piece is that I really do respect and admire Mr. Lileks's writing.

James Lileks, a conservative with whom I disagree politically but whose writing I admire a great deal, wrote a takedown of this week's comic.

I'm very proud of the comic, how many people have liked it, and the attention it's been getting.  But I do regret that some people are inferring from it a view that is generally disdainful of western or mid-western views.  The point I tried to make with that preamble is that the Muslim community center is a New York City neighborhood issue.  The "white, western right-winger" I was referring to was Sarah Palin, who had injected herself into the debate.  New Yorkers are the ones who have to live next to Ground Zero, and who live with the lion's share of the terrorist threat.  Our laws of course allow the building of the community center, and our community leaders wisely and bravely support it.  I would guess that we have the greatest concentration of ethnic and religious minorities than anywhere in the nation, and so we are the ones who have to find a way to all live together.  Right across the street from the Ground Zero site is an active, busy, diverse neighborhood, not a shrine to whatever a former governor of Alaska or a conservative blogger in Minneapolis thinks is proper and respectful.

Now, admittedly, for the purposes of satire, I conflated that neighborhood issue with the Ground Zero memorialization and actual substantive national issues, and that may have looked like I was saying that only New Yorkers have the wisdom to deal with terrorism, health care costs for responders, etc.  But I thought it was clear I was using the local community center issue as a jumping-off point to make larger points about national policies.

Anyway, I've written far, far more than I normally would about one of my comics — I think they should stand or fall on their own merits, not the cartoonists' explanations and statements.

But in case this response has gained James Lilek's attention, I'd just like to say: The Dennis the Menace artist whose detailed, tight line you properly admire is Al Wiseman, who did all of the art in the early comic book version and was superb — I regard that as some of the best comic book cartooning in history.  Hank Ketcham created the character and drew, in a looser inking style, only the newspaper feature.

Impassioned, strangely Barbary-centric comment on this week's comic, from a Boing Boing reader:

I'll gladly make the deal of not having westerners comment about what is going on in New York IF New Yorkers will please shut the hell up about anything going on in the Midwest or South. But since New Junkers treat the idea of allowing citizens to have guns as terrorist ideals (Permit? We don't follow that pesky equal protection clause here in new york) I dont think the deal will ever be accepted (I mean it was the Barbary states that introduced that 2nd amendment right?).
Though here are some hypothetical questions. Would christians cheer on a massive monument to the greatness roman gladiators in the middle of the Vatican? Would Lakota be please with a church of Custer built on their lands? How bout a victory column for hitler in Tel Aviv?
Though I guess I could go worship at one of the baptist churches at Mecca….oh wait, there aren't any.
But to many on this board their thinking seems to be "why not have a monument to the reason thousands of americans were killed right on their final resting place.". I mean you do remember the 9/11 attacks were carried out in the name of Islam right?
As for New Yorkers having balls? Please. They want the mosque built because they think it will lessen the chance of attack. Hell remember when they bitched like little choir girls when they didn't get every last dime of terrorism funding despite getting a larger percent then anyone else? New Yoerks are akin to the US government in their first dealings with the Barbary pirates. If you give them what they want and kiss their ass they surely will leave you alone.

UPDATE: 15% off THE LUCKY DUCKY T-SHIRT!   Use Code: BTSRULESHIRT   Ends AUG 8!

…here is the map I drew of downtown NYC for this week's comic.  I guess I don't want all the work that became obscured by the lettering to go to waste.