Off Topic Messages

Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:56 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Now, now, let's keep the peace... :D



Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:01 pm


Beautiful, Howth Head was the scene of ancient battles:-) See photo ten for the panoramic view. ... lin/Howth/

Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:03 am

Greg -

You wrote:
My bet is that gay "marriage" ain't gonna fly but tolerance will increase of gays.

Well, in the UK [& elsewhere no doubt] there is now a 'civil' ceremony which gays can have.

OK, not 'marriage' exactly, but pretty damn near.

And there are laws being introduced that recognise 'partners' in relationships in a similar way to 'spouses'.

With many entertainers and even politicians now openly gay, I think the last vestiges of prejudice against them are finally crumbling.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:13 am

ColinB wrote:With many entertainers and even politicians now openly gay, I think the last vestiges of prejudice against them are finally crumbling.

we shouldn't make our cultural progressions based on what celebrities do
lest we all be popping pills, high on drugs and cheating on our spouses...

oops too late.

Last edited by Graceland Gardener on Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:19 am

Gene -

he didn't draw her picking cotton.
He drew her looking angry.

She never gets angry? get real!

at what point in the act of the drawing itself,
does the artist face the quandry:

this stroke of the ink pen will have a racial result
but a different stroke of the pen will not have a racial result.

either you can caricature black people/celebs/politicians
or you can't.

I'm in the camp that says you can.

Freedom of Art.

another example of such inequality:

I think Martin Lawrence is an idiot.
But he's black so therefore my disliking him must be........racial.

But I also think David Spade is an idiot.
He's it's ok, not racial.

I can't stand Kid Rock (white) = to dislike him is ok

I can't stand P Diddy (black) = to dislike him is not ok

an artist draws Bush = ok
an artist draws Conde Rice = not ok

is that the unfair unbalanced terms we live with today?
Who really supports that?
I thought it was a free country?

Fri Sep 09, 2005 5:26 pm

GG, these are the contradictions of our times. Some of it
is just a delayed over-sensitivity. It's laughable.
I'm thinking that will change
and everyone will calm down. Until real problems with racism
are changed (poverty,etc.), it may take time for the sillier
symbolic over-reactions to go away.

Colin, that "civil union" stuff is flying here, too. But in a case
of "over-reach," some have attempted to foist gay "marriage"
on the public. I think the issue itself helped bring us another
four years of Mr. Bush. People just don't want gay marriage
and Senator Kerry hailed from a state where it is was ruled
kosher by a state court.

For Democrats to ever win again, they have to stop adopting the
most radical goals of what are already essentially fringe causes.
Instead, they must champion
broadly-popular economic and social policies that don't strike
at the heart of some folks' religion. It's all electoral poison. There
is room for middle ground but they need to find it- fast.

Governor Arnold Swarzenegger (can you believe that? :roll: )
just vetoed one such bill in California yesterday that would have gone
over the heads of what people voted on a few years ago.

Any back door (sorry) or end-run around the public on this
hot-button issue will backfire. That's not how you increase tolerance.
Besides, the "hate the sin, not the sinner" view isn't disappearing anytime soon here. Lose these people and you'll have 40 more years of the GOP. :shock:

Fri Sep 09, 2005 5:50 pm

Let me ask you this GG..or anyone else. Have you grasped the fact that my assessment came from the Racial context of the artist as well as the gross dis-likenesses?

Why do the two continue to be separated? You say was she picking cotton...well no, but is that the only mark of racist intent?

Though I have stated it before, I will state it again. I do not think the artist rights should be taken away. Just like my rights to criticize the artist work as having racist intent as well as being offensive to post here. Those kind of crap cartoons have no place here. Funny how Doc can jump all over you for saying..."homies" but something like a person in black face and drawing a gross racial interpretation is ok?

I wonder how you can defend such crap. Calling our president a Racist is enough, but considering recent past behavior, I would think that you would cry foul.

And no Greg..I don't just call it over-sensitivity. It is horrible "comedy" plain and simple and if it was never printed again, that would be fine by me. This should be criticized, not championed.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 5:59 pm

(From Colin B.'s post of a cartoon in the UK's Independent newspaper):

It's a tough case. If I hear the Gardener right, he's pointing
out that cartoons are by definition (like humor) full of exageration.

Are there not differences between the races as commonly-defined
and understood?

Surely an anthropologist would confirm that those who derive
from African origins have distinctive facial features (broader
nose, lips, etc.), compared to, say, a Norwegian?

It's not easy to be cartoonist in this era as we are currently
probably over-compensated for past sins and past hurt feelings
of "inferiority," etc. In the USA, you cannot even go there.
We still have a "hands-off' attitude about characterizing blacks.
Some of it, probably necessary.

Not to mention: I recall that the point of the cartoon
was itself to play on the Bush team "minstrel"-like use
of Condi. If you don't know about minstrelsy in history, you'll
never get the cartoon. :roll:

That said, it's a bit of a
cheap shot, as Bush is doing a pro-minority thing by having
a diverse cabinet. And besides, Rice went to her native
Alabama, while Janet Chao went to New Orleans, etc. They
dispatched the cabinet all over lately for these "photo ops"
of them "helping." :roll:

Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:14 pm

It is true that there are certain African features, but at the same time this is where the racism steps in.

Instead of drawing Rice the way she should be drawn, because she actually does have a thinner top lip and doesn't have the "norm" features, it is my belief that she was purposely drawn that way.

This was a talented enough artist that could have got it right. Considering the minstrel aspect of the cartoon, he knew damn well what he was doing.

The final result is that "black" people need to be put in their place by constantly reminding them of the past.

For shame that Rice would have actually made a conscience decision....oh no, she is just being duped and should recognize that this was a clear racial motive. She herself being the dumb "blacky" that she is. :roll: This to me is no different then the "meathead" arguement I spoke of in another thread. Us poor ol minorities need to be taught....look what they are doing to you. You just don't understand....let me belittle you even more and show you what is going on. Just let us speak for you...cause you obviously cannot on your own. :roll: :roll:

Nevermind the fact that she is a African American that is in a power position and could very well be a presidential candidate if she ever wanted to run. Nevermind the fact that she obviously does know better then that and is a pure credit to her race and is in stark contrast to the supposed "norm".

Her statements I believe were correct. Though it doesn't matter because there are always going to be people like Jesse Jackson ambulance chaser who will ring the racist bell no matter what.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:31 pm

Good points. And absent her debacle of a foreign policy, she
may well be remembered as a pivotal figure for Blacks in America.

But really, part of full equality is taking your lumps, fair or not.
Many blacks have tired of the Jesse Jackson/ Al Sharpton brand
of racial extortionism in reaction to a perceived or real sleight.

Even idiots have free speech.

If that guy is a lousy cartoonist, folks may call him on it.

If he has one turkey in awhile, so be it, too.

If he really screws up, he'll get the pink slip.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:52 pm

And Greg that was my point. Not to take away his freedom, but to expose the cartoon for what it is. I don't feel that I have made a specialized a group..but let me put it like this.

I remember a time when I was younger I listened to some kids playing a game of picking on someone's mother(I forgot the word used for this great activity). lol Now there was a minority in the mix and the first thing that came out of the others mouth was racial arguments.

This I believe was crossing the line. It went from calling the person "so fat" "so loose" "so drugged up" to a...... "racial expletive"

That is the intent of the cartoon. It is a low blow in several forms. It isn't simply making fun of a person...and Ugly alone I wouldn't have a problem is making fun of their racial stance to the point of implying that they they are too dumb to know the difference.

But speech, like he is free to recieve the flack for it.

It would be interesting to see the artists other work, I imagine that this is indeed a pattern and with more evidence I am sure I could form a more solid opinion. Though I do not believe I am wrong on this one. You don't have to agree, but I do appreciate you Greg at least aknowledging my stance.

p.s. Good point about Jessie Jackson and people probably knowing his motives for themselves. But what others think is not my approach, it is what I think. I am offended by Jessie Jackson and his constant race riot attitude. Even if people do know the intent, I for one will also speak my mind when it comes to opportunism at its worst.
Last edited by genesim on Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:55 pm

You makes some good points, again. (This is getting contagious. :lol: )

To me, the best response to bad speech is more speech.

Talk back to it.

But like you say, some of it is by nature out of bounds, especially
as kids.

I also think it's possible that the cartoonist's depiction itself
was "in quotes." Meaning, this is how (he thinks) the Bush
views Condi or Colin (when he was around..)

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:02 pm

Sorry I edited.

I can see your example..but how about this. Madonna had a anti-racist attitude on the Like A Prayer Video. It showed a great message....she too has been a semi spokes person for minorities and never gets her due in this respect...especially being the "white trash" that she was.

Still when you see her dancing in front of burning crosses for a Pepsi just simply has no place for prime time TV! Despite the fact that it is part of the video that was taken out of context, it just simply should never have been chosen for the selling point of a Pepsi product and she got canned because of it...of course the controversy helped her anyway, but that is another story.

The facts are that for good or for bad, these kind of jabs weaken our society, and they don't help. You will always have the asssholes that will shout the racial expletive, I am well aware of that one.

Probably gave this cartoon too much exposure as it was. lol I should have learned from Madonna and not gave Colin his weeks worth of fame. :lol:

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:07 pm

Colin B wrote:From the UK's Independent newspaper):

You mean this cartoon? :roll: :D

I agree. Madonna has specialized in "controversy." I dare
say she ran out of "outrages" after she was seen engaging
in sex with dogs in her "Sex" book, which flopped.

Even that moronic rapper Kanye West definitely spoke up
at least in part to hype his new album on NBC's special last week
("George Bush hates black people," etc.). I was flipping the channels
when I stumbled up on that rant. I turned it again within a minute.

Can you believe the networks are letting him be on tonight's multi-
network Gulf charity show?

Randy Newman doing "Louisiana 1927" makes sense though.

And I"m glad Fats Domino is playing the September 20th MSG
concert for New Orleans.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:22 pm

Madonna never had sex with a dog..I have that book and it was more then disssapointing in that regard. :lol: Wait..were you speaking of Vanilla Ice?

But as far as it being a flop..well if you find one you in the package you better hold on to it. That book goes for hundreds on ebay.

Still I admit, that the Erotica period was a serious mistep in line with the mid 60's for Elvis...or was it? Just like the 68 spurred on Madonnas comeback and gave her yet another string of successful Albums like Ray of Light and Music which both garnered Grammy Awards as well as setting up the #1 smash of Take A Bow from the very next album Bedtime Stories. I don't think any of these things would have the impact, had it not been for the "flop" of the Erotica album(which by the way was a #2 album and sported 6 top 10 singles).

Thats the problem with Madonna..she never stops calculating. Even the spoiled American angle seems so surreal with her latest effort that tanked worse then anything. As an artist to me she has never faultered and her album seems to go over the head of the listener. Though her next comeback is in terms of "will she" opposed to "could she".

She is a mother of two and seems to have gotten bored with the whole thing. But who knows...I know I hope she continues her incredible career.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:25 pm

Well, she flirted with the dog.

I swear I saw a Great Dane on top of her
when I flipped through it back then. :shock:

Even the Canine community was outraged.

Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:48 pm

LOL the pictures in question were her "flirting" with the dog. Nothing wrong with that as long as there is no touching in a sexual way.

The purpose of the book...well at least as she has said it...that she wanted the myth of "night in shining armor...rose petal" conception fantasies in favor of what women are really turned on about.

Though not exactly profound, and really an avenue not even worth exposing, I still don't think she deserved all the crap she got for it. You and I have no doubt heard worse in the dating scene.

Or to use a famous line..."we all go a little crazy...sometimes".