CNN: Editorial cartoon offends Sept. 11 widows

[Dood]

CNN article

Very tasteless....

 

[Hammer]

Yes, defintely bad. A few bad eggs gave the group as a whole a bad rap. Its only a few that are behaving poorly.

 

[Optimus]

Before I clicked on the link I knew it was going to be Ted Rall - and I hadn't seen that cartoon or anything.


Ted has every right to portray the Sept. 11 widows as money-grubbing opportunists. He has every right to avoid issues, and rather continue to portray Bush as 'a dummy-head'. He has every right to be a poor cartoonist and lousy human being if he so chooses.

Question - do I have the right to call him a worthless, unfunny, piece of garbage so entrenched in his own bias that he cares nothing for any other human being other than to try to further his career on taking cheap potshots at everyone he doesn't like?

Hypothetically speaking of course.

 

[pyonir]

everything offends someone out there 100% of the time. i don't find the comics offensive, i get what the artist is trying to say, but i do find them distasteful.

 

[punkrawket]

<< Yes, defintely bad. A few bad eggs gave the group as a whole a bad rap. Its only a few that are behaving poorly. >>

very true..... yet there are those bad eggs.. and because of those i feel families of vitims should('ve) receive less money

kinda like they spoiled it for them all type of thing

 

[BDawg]

I thougth the cartoons were very humorous. They played to the money grubbing ways of a handfull of the Sept 11th victims' families.

Unfortunately, by making this point, he's also angered the rest of the victims' families (the vast majority of people) who really don't care about the money, just their dead loved ones.

The key idea is that this cartoon doesn't apply to all of them.

 

[MichaelD]

<< everything offends someone out there 100% of the time. >>



Well-put, Pyonir. I have a very thick skin. I don't find this cartoon inappropriate or distasteful. What I would find distasteful, for example, would be a cartoon depicting rescue worker pulling bodies from the wreckage and making fun of what some of the dead were wearing. That's just an example, OK? Don't shoot.

As coarse as it may sound, I"m sure there ARE men and women that are GLAD their spouse died. Maybe a woman was in an abusive relationship she just

couldn't get out of

Could it be that possibly some people got a new start on life BECAUSE thier spouse was vaporized?

Before you flame, I personally lost two friends that I went to HS with in the Tower horror. I miss them. So do their wives and kids.

I just don't think anyone has the right to "damn" this cartoon as distastefull...at least consider all the sides first.

 

[Electrode]

I don't care what you people think, that was funny!

 

[Ns1]

what they said ^^

 

[AdamDuritz99]

<< everything offends someone out there 100% of the time. i don't find the comics offensive, i get what the artist is trying to say, but i do find them distasteful. >>



Agreed


peace
sean

 

[pyonir]

Michael:
i completely see your point. and for the most part i agree with you. offensive to some, not to others, but the sae goes for distasteful. distasteful to some, not to others. i did look at the comic from both sides...and that was what i meant by understanding what the artist is saying. but i just don't think it was appropriate to make fun of a very small part (the bad egg wives) of the bigger picture (those that lost loved ones very dear to them).

but i digress, i am extremely thick skinned as well...and could care less what someone says or writes or draws for that matter...but this particular cartoon, about this particular subject, i find it distasteful. maybe disrespectful is the more correct word: disrespectful to the victims families that aren't money grubbing and getting all the fame they can from the tragic events.

no trying to start an argument, just stating my .02 a little more clearly.

 

[TheBlondOne]

Wow. That is very very sad. I hope those cartoonists find themselves out of a job very quickly.

--Sarah

 

[Optimus]

A good political cartoonist uses satirical humour to illustrate issues and problems in the political world. You may not always agree with them, but they communicate effectively and with humour.

Others... coughRallcough... just draw some political figure they don't like and write "Doody Head" under it.

That isn't political satire - its pathetic poo-flinging by a humour-less monkey.

 

[Peetoeng]

Cynical, but funnily appropriate to some.
It's like: 'it's better to be killed by arab terrorists than by domestic terrorists (OK city)--$3 million better'.

 

[Peetoeng]

Cynical, but funnily appropriate to some.
It's like: 'it's better to be killed by arab terrorists than by domestic terrorists (OK city)--$3 million better'.

 

[Arschloch]

It's pretty easy to see why people would be offended by that.

What I don't understand is why the NY Times thought the correct response was to censor it.

September 11 + John Ashcroft = free speech is no longer important.

 

[jjones]

Unfortunately and probably intentionally, Rall is not singling out individuals but the group as a whole and the satirical cartoons reflect their attitude upon all involved. It would be different if he would choose an individual rather than the ambiguous "Terror Widow" representation. But then again, I'm sure he doesn't care about stepping on the feelings of bereaved widows to make a buck. At worst he does this intentionally and at best he does it thoughtlessly; and in either case it is pathetic tastelessness.

 

[TheOmegaCode]

I've been waiting to see how long it would take before people stopped babying the sitiuation of 9-11. Now we just have to wait how long it will take for Hollywood to make a movie.
As for my opinion, this guy obviously made this comic for a reason. I don't think hes just an overly cynical person who thinks everyone is money grubbing... some people probably are...

 

[BDawg]

<<

Wow. That is very very sad. I hope those cartoonists find themselves out of a job very quickly.
>>



Yes, I think we should be censoring and firing anyone who's opinion we don't agree with. Start with this guy and continue with J. K. Rowling.

How about we all just all get copies of the cartoon and burn them in a large bonfire?

 

[MichaelD]

<< How about we all just all get copies of the cartoon and burn them in a large bonfire? >>



Ah yes, reminiscent of the infamous "book burnings" of WWII. Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing; we must continue to fight for it's existence.

 

[Carbo]

The sentiment towards the widows/friends/families of the victims of this atrocity are changing rapidly. And with good reason, I might add. A growing sense of entitlement has emerged from these people. Not everyone, I realize, but speaking generally. They have begun to come off as whining, self pitying opportunists who demand to be treated with kid gloves and an open pocketbook for the rest of their lives.
My question to them is, "Why?" People lose their spouse on a daily basis and their lives are forever damaged. Get a job if you have children to take care of.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

<< Ted has every right to portray the Sept. 11 widows as money-grubbing opportunists >>

Well said. It doesn't apply to everyone involved, though; not all of the widows blamed and tried to sue. Some people just don't understand, I guess. In leu of grieving widows, I can easily see that in bad taste. But in leu of those stupid people who wanted to sue people who were not at fault to get a little money -for whatever reason- I find that comic absolutely hilarious.

nik

 

[CKDragon]

I can completely understand the point Rall was making and I agree that some of the widows are acting greedy, as he implies. I think the problem is that it was done carelessly and perhaps he could've added something to signify that not all those who lost someone are acting inappropriately.

How he could effectively do this, I couldn't tell you. I'm not the most creative person, I'd be no help, but I don't think it was wise to stereotype the entire group.

CK

 

[JohnnyReb]

Please forgive my ignorance, buy why did the Red Cross give some widow 3.2 million dollars?

John

 

[Cosmickarma]

<< Please forgive my ignorance, buy why did the Red Cross give some widow 3.2 million dollars?

John >>



becos of garbage and trash from nonstop idiots such as O'Rielly etc who poison the american mind. either way the widows will be made fun of. i remember this guest a woman came on O'Rielly show and was very graceful and classy when she spoke abt her coping with the situation and her expectations from the organizations, yet O'Rielly was pressing her with thoughts and Questions which would make her look greedy, He repeatedly kept asking questions like "why be satisfied with 1 million when your supposed to get 2 million, it is your right to get all that money, have your spoken to a lawyer, these people are ripping you off, you should make sure that you get all the money anyway possible, are the organizations brushing your teeth, bathing you, wiping your ass and putting you to sleep and cr@pp like that".yet with all that pestering the woman was ver classy and kept saying "no im happy with what i got"...i dont need more money..this will be enough for my family. so what am i sayin..claim hard then ur greedy...claim not then someone ripping u idiots off....