Today’s cartoon is already my most popular of the year. Here’s a look a the original, which was drawn on 8.5 x 11 bristol board. If you are interested in owning it, I’m putting it up for $175. Shoot me an email to reserve it. I will letter it before I send it out.
Update: SOLD
If you would like to order a signed color print, click here.
Post what you want, when you want, with whom you want, want not what you want, want post want want post post post want. Self-promotion is cool.
A new Wanderlost page is coming. But while we wait, here is a new Learning Curve cartoon I did for PCCFFAP, my teacher’s union, all about the trend of school reforms, at least in my life time.
My editor, a dear, sweet person, politely requested the next cartoon be a bit more hopeful. I think I can do that.
I’m too busy to write bonus commentary this week, aside from saying that it’s pretty strange whom we decide to allot Godlike power to in this country.
Mitt Romney, the Washington Post alleges, bullied a boy he thought was gay. The Obama campaign stands to benefitâbut let he who has not bullied cast the first set of sanctions cast the first Hellfire missile.
Today on Cartoon Movement we publish “Tibet’s Sacrifice: Exiled Lives“ by Dan Carino, a multimedia piece of comics journalism examining Tibetan activists living in India and their willingness to die for their cause through self-immolation.
In New Delhi, India, Carino interviewed activist Shibayan Raha, who was arrested in 2007 for attempting to self-immolate, and visited the refugee settlement Majnu Ka Tilla to see why so many Tibetans seem willing to die for their homeland.
“The fact is that self-immolation now transcends Tibet and protesting monks,” Carino says. “Everyday exiled citizens in the diaspora feel so anguished and frustrated with the Chinese process that they are willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause. Meanwhile, Tibetan settlements serve to truly support the welfare of Tibetans born in India and preserve their culture.”
“Tibet’s Sacrifice” blends numerous multimedia aspects, including navigation, an audio/visual slide slow, and outside links to supplemental material. You can use the multimedia navigation with the latest Chrome, Safari or Firefox browser. Otherwise, you’ll be presented with the comic as a static page.
According to the census, non-white births now outnumber white births, which, despite being predicted for decades, is upsetting to racist ass racists. Here’s what some of them had to say about the matter.
It is not a good thing.
…
The NY Times liberals seek to destroy the American family of the 1950s, as symbolized by Ozzie and Harriet. The TV characters were happy, self-sufficient, autonomous, law-abiding, honorable, patriotic, hard-working, and otherwise embodied qualities that made America great. In other words, the show promoted values that NY Times liberals despise.
Literally: “an ideal fantasy word created for television and advertising is going away and that upsets us.” Also, there is nothing “hard-working” about immigrants, as evidence by no restaurants existing and the complete lack of tomatoes available for your salad.
It will be interesting in coming decades to see how white people react to this shift. By interesting I mean “great cartoon fodder.” No doubt white supremacists like Pat Buchanan will complain loudly and often as they become increasingly outnumbered and irrelevant, finally relegated to oddball entertainment instead of being a political and cultural force to be feared. See ya later, old bigots!
[Another outtake from my correspondence with "Linus." I've edited it somewhat, so it is not identical to the email I originally sent Linus.]
Can someone believe that God is against people having homosexual sex, and still treat lesbian and gay people with substantive dignity?
There are three issues here, I think.
First of all, can you hold the view that lesbian and gay people within your particular faith should be celibate, while treating them with substantive dignity?
On the surface, it seems like you can — after all, people make the choice to join your faith, and if they freely choose to be celibate, who am I to question it?
But I’d argue you cannot, because it’s inherently cruel for lesbian and gay children (by which I mean, all children who will grow up to be lgb, regardless of if they’re aware of their sexual orientation during their childhood) to be brought up in a faith that teaches them that their own sexuality is so “disordered” that it’s against natural law/God’s plan and they must never, ever practice it. Many of their deepest desires are — they are taught — immoral and against God.
For many people, sexuality — including expressing sexuality — is an important part of their self. There is nothing more cruel than a child being raised to believe that part of their core self is inherently unworthy of love. Many children raised this way take years or decades to grow beyond the self-hatred that they are taught; some will turn to drugs or alcohol to dull the pain; some will commit suicide.
You may believe that it’s possible to bring up children to both believe that they are fine, lovable, and worthy, and that for them to ever have sex is disordered, immoral and wrong. I think it wouldn’t take much time listening to lgbt people raised in traditional Christian families to learn that for many, that’s not so. Most will spend huge portions of their live plagued by internalized self-hatred, arguably the worst pain of all.
Raising people in that way is unjust and cruel. I don’t think it’s compatible with substantive dignity.
The second question is, can you hold your beliefs and avoid devaluing those lgbt people who aren’t members of your church?
Again, I’d argue the answer is no.
When a traditionalist Christian says in effect “God considers your family and love life wrong, and the only acceptable way for you to live, in God’s opinion, is as a celibate,” of course that Christian is devaluing lgbt people. It’s saying that a core element of their being is inherently immoral.
No matter how sincerely the words are meant, no matter how kindly they’re put, telling someone that their love is immoral devalues them.
Now comes the third question: Can you treat lgbt people with real dignity while calling for them to be legally second-class citizens, by banning them from equal treatment under civil law?
I think here, the answer is self-evident: No. Without legal equality, we cannot have real dignity of treatment.
I know my answer may seem hurtful to those who oppose marriage equality, yet think of themselves as a friend to lgb people. To those readers, I say: I don’t doubt your intentions or your good will. But there is no substitute for equality. Someone treated unequally — no matter how kind the heart or sincere the intent of the person treating them unequally – is still, at the end of the day, being treated unequally.
A heads up for comics fans: Volume 1 of The Graphics Canon is out now. (I’m in Volume 3, not 1.)
They asked cartoonists to illustrate literary classics in their own styles.
Also worth noting, for New Yorkers, is the launch party tomorrow night at the Rubin Museum.
An auction house claims to be auctioning off a vial of Ronald Reagan’s blood.
Is it a vegetable?
I don’t understand why people are mad. Except I sure wouldn’t pay thousands of dollars for old ice.
Having a bad day? At least Reagan is still dead—so we’ve got that working for us.
