0
Share
Ocryx and Joe
Ocryx and Joe - emergency relevant FLASHBACK CLAWzine page
More frightening now than on Hallow'een
posted Jan 9, 2011
Sizes:
web |
email |
print
Halloween's CLAWzine panel becomes EVEN MORE SCARY in light of yesterday's events in Arizona. It doesn't matter that the murderer was a left-wing lunatic, when you start using "assasinate the opposition" metaphors in your PAC advertising, it should not be a surprise that eventually, you get exactly that. (Of course, the SARAHPAC site showing the US map with crosshairs on particular Democrat congressional seats has since been pulled, but it was there- since last March.)
Thanks to RR for this link:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_stuMq1GJnrA/SRZsZA4k_WI/AAAAAAAADGk/aPEPCiqsDZ8/s400/got+ammo.jpg
Comments [28]
 by fredo on 1/9/2011 @ 11:22am | Haha,
Vitriolic imagery from the right...BAD Vitriolic cartoonery from CLAW...GOOD |
 by The Jinxmedic on 1/9/2011 @ 11:49am | Nope, not vitriolic. Vitriolic imagery from ANY side is not good, and does not engender civilized discourse. (You should know my take on such things by now, Fredo.) The "Targeting the Opposition" crosshairs map that SARAH PAC put up last March was in bad taste, and was indirectly referenced in the above Halloween CLAWzine page back in October. Sarah Palin is like the ACLU and the NRA- all are necessary parts of our system of checks and balances, but none should be allowed to be in charge of anything or dictate policy. |
by fredo on 1/9/2011 @ 12:03pm | Oh I see,
Sarah Palin crosshairs map...BAD Crosshairs on Sarah Palin...GOOD "Sarah Palin is like the ACLU and the NRA- all are necessary parts of our system of checks and balances, but none should be allowed to be in charge of anything or dictate policy." Please bring me up to speed. What is Sarah Palin in charge of and what policies is she dictating? And who is allowing her these privileges? |
by fredo on 1/9/2011 @ 12:27pm | A few years ago a young man tried to assassinate President Reagan. His motivation it turns out was the movie Taxi Driver and his interest in Jodi Foster. I don't remember anyone saying that Martin Scorcese should tone down his imagery, or that Jodi Foster was overly provocative to the mentally ill.
A year ago a military Doctor went on a shooting spree and killed lots of our servicemen. His motivation: extreme Islamic clerics. Once again no public call for controlling Islamic messages. Yet here, where there is no correlation between Sarah Palin and the Tucson shootings there are immediate calls for control of right wing points of view. How about we wait until all the facts are known and then attempt a measured response? |
 by NineInchNachos on 1/9/2011 @ 1:17pm | our message to politicians/pundits is simply to tone down the 'crazy talk' because there are crazy people who will take action on it. that is all. |
by fredo on 1/9/2011 @ 1:45pm | so you intend to tone down your tacomics because there are crazy people who might take action on it? |
by NineInchNachos on 1/9/2011 @ 1:47pm | you should see the non-toned down tacomics |
by NineInchNachos on 1/9/2011 @ 1:49pm | its never a good sign when somebody scrubs their site reacting to bad news. Is called guilt. |
by fredo on 1/9/2011 @ 1:52pm | Interesting POV comrade, a political cartoonist calling for the suspension of the first amendments freedom of speech protection. |
by NineInchNachos on 1/9/2011 @ 2:03pm | I do no such thing. I'm calling for people to be responsible for their actions!
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/north... |
by fredo on 1/9/2011 @ 2:12pm | You're painting yourself into a corner RR.
You want the freedom to post whatever imagery pleases you, but want other people to only post responsible imagery. Who would you like to arbitrate this responsibility? I see no material difference between the screen shots on Sarah Palin's web site and the drawings you regularly post. |
by NineInchNachos on 1/9/2011 @ 3:04pm | I am a satirical political cartoon. Let me say that again POLITICAL CARTOON CARTOON CARTOON. Presumably the other people in your example take themselves seriously. I am alarmed you cannot tell the difference. |
by fredo on 1/9/2011 @ 3:11pm | my bad, i didn't realize the huge distinction between a vitriolic political cartoon and a vitriolic political illustration. please forgive me. |
 by Non Sequitur on 1/9/2011 @ 3:56pm | I feel we should rather than regulate free speech, we should remove the reasons why these nutjobs lose it to begin with.
We need out elected officials to stop passing half-baked, not-read, corporate-helping laws to begin with. |
by fredo on 1/9/2011 @ 4:18pm | "We need out elected officials to stop passing half-baked, not-read, corporate-helping laws to begin with." NS
Can you provide an example of a "nutjob" who lost it because an elected official passed a half baked, not read, corporate helping law? |
by Non Sequitur on 1/9/2011 @ 9:10pm | Sure. Please read any news site or paper about yesterday's events in Arizona. |
by The Jinxmedic on 1/10/2011 @ 6:22am | Fredo- I'm with RR on this one- there is a huge difference between the expectations of a political cartoonist (whose job is to satirize, inflame, ridicule, and sometimes shock), and that of a political movement intending to influence policy (by "political movement" I refer to things such as mainstream political parties, political action committees, and public interest groups). The political movement should behave in a fashion within the expected rules of behavior within society. (Granted, the left were huge violators of this during the previous administration. I hold the right to a higher standard, as I expect the far left to behave like little spoiled children in most cases). Besides, if one was to actually emulate RR's work, there would be a lot more people urinating on the Tacoma Dome, eating dismembered corpses of civil rights leaders, projecting explosive diarrhea into Lake Tapps (Borrrf!), and making lovable muppets into phalluses. Distasteful? Sure. Ted Rall is far worse. But then again, that's political cartoonists are supposed to do. The only difference is one of degree. I will say again, because you seemed to miss it- Sarah Palin plays a very necessary place on the national stage, empowering those in "flyover country", the very same people who feel that their voices have not been heard in many an election cycle. Now that these people have have seemingly selected a voice, Palin must learn very quickly that metaphors should be selected carefully when one is in a position to influence policy (which is what a PAC tries to do, by the way), and that a poorly chosen theme can come around and bite you in the butt. John Kerry learned this the hard way when he chose to market himself as a "war hero". |
by fredo on 1/10/2011 @ 7:34am | Jinx- I agree with much you have so say, but I'm not so quick to join you and RR in an effort to modify our freedom of speech protections. Sarah Palin might be wise to tone it down, but if she thinks that hunting metaphors are appropriate for her website, I think that's entirely her choice. And finally, who should decide what images have gone too far?
I'm a little surprised that the discussion of the last 2 days has been so focused on Palin, who has a very peripheral role, and not on the availability of handguns to mentally ill individuals. NS- you seem to be saying that Saturday's shooting was the result of some bad legislation that was passed. I didn't see any thing in the media about that. What was the legislation that caused this and can you provide a link? |
by NineInchNachos on 1/10/2011 @ 8:01am | consensus! sweet! |
by The Jinxmedic on 1/10/2011 @ 8:04am | Fredo- I have NEVER called for the curtailment of free speech. In fact, I believe I was the only Tacoma cartoonist to support Molly Norris' "Everybody draw Mohammed Day" with an O&J strip of my own.
Respsonsibility should be self-policing. When it doesn't, enter political cartoonists. Political cartoonists have served as yet another one of our country's checks and balances in the form of a voice of satirical observation for well over two hundred years. Do I agree with everything RR posts in the Tacomic? Hell no. Do I support his right to print "vitriol"? Absolutely yes. This is what political cartoonists are supposed to do- stir up discussion on topical issues. As you can see here, two centuries later, it still works. BTW- Ownership of handguns (or any firearms) by mentally unstable people is prohibited by Federal law, much as it is prohibited to felons and aliens. Works good, doesn't it? |
by NineInchNachos on 1/10/2011 @ 8:45am | OK so maybe I was wrong about John Kerry www.truthdig.com/report/item/even_lost_w... also I'd like to see AZ step up to support that fed gun law about crazy people (WA seems to be doing OK keeping real guns out of the traveller's possession) . |
by The Jinxmedic on 1/10/2011 @ 9:31am | The following excerpt is what the ATF says to licensed firearms dealers regarding "prohibited persons" (please note paragraph 6 "Adjudicated Mental Defective or Person Involuntarily Committed to a Mental Institution" below):
You MAY NOT sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition to any of the following prohibited persons or in the following circumstances: 1. Straw Purchaser: A “straw purchaser” is a person who is not the “actual buyer” of the firearm; that is, a person who obtains a firearm for another person. Straw purchases are a primary source of firearms used in crime. If you suspect that a transaction is a straw purchase or there are suspicious circum- stances surrounding the potential sale—such as one person picking out the firearm, handling the firearm, and providing the payment for the firearm while another person completes the Form 4473—you should not sell the firearm. Similarly, if one person attempts to purchase a firearm, NICS denies or delays the attempted purchase, and another person with him or her attempts to buy the same firearm, you must not complete this sale. 2. Person Under Indictment: A person “under indictment” includes any person who has been charged by indictment or information in any court with a crime for which he or she may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year. 3. Person Convicted of a Crime Punishable by Imprisonment for a Term Exceeding 1 Year: This prohibited person category includes any person who has been convicted of a felony or other crime for which the person could have been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year—EVEN if the court actually placed the person on probation or sentenced the person to a term of imprisonment for 1 year or less. 4. Fugitive from Justice: A fugitive from justice is a person who has fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime (felony or misdemeanor) or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding. 5. Unlawful Drug User or Drug Addict: This prohibited person category includes any person who unlawfully uses—or is addicted to—marijuana, depressants, stimulants, narcotic drugs, or other controlled substances. Alcohol is NOT considered a controlled substance. 6. Adjudicated Mental Defective or Person Involuntarily Committed to a Mental Institution: This prohibited person category includes any person who has EVER been adjudicated by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, a danger to himself or herself or to others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or to manage his/or her own affairs. This category also includes any person who has been subject to a finding of insanity in a criminal case, including a finding that he or she is incompetent to stand trial. Also included is any person who has EVER been formally committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful autho- rity. This category does NOT include a person com- mitted to a mental institution solely for observation or a person who was voluntarily admitted to a mental institution. 7. Person Dishonorably Discharged from the Military: A person is considered dishonorably discharged only if he or she was separated from the Armed Forces of the United States as a result of a dishonorable discharge or a dismissal adjudged by a general court-martial. This prohibition does NOT include persons with a bad conduct discharge or any other less than honorable discharge. 8. Person Subject to a Restraining Order: This prohibited person category includes any person who is currently subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner, child of the person, or child of the intimate partner OR engaging in other conduct that would place the intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the intimate partner or child. The court order must meet the specific requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) to be prohibiting. 9. Person Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence: This prohibited person category includes any person who has EVER been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence regardless of the title of the offense. The offense must meet the definition of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33). Note: Unlike other prohi- bited person categories, law enforcement officers purchasing firearms for official use are NOT exempt from this prohibited person category. 10. Person who has Renounced U.S. Citizenship: A person has renounced his or her United States citizenship if he or she takes formal steps to re- nounce her/his citizenship before a diplomatic or consular officer or before an officer designated by the Attorney General during a time of war. 11. Aliens Illegally or Unlawfully in the United States: This prohibited person category includes any person who unlawfully entered the United States or who illegally remains in the United States after his or her authorized period of stay has expired. 11a. Nonimmigrant Aliens: A nonimmigrant alien is an alien who is lawfully in the United States on a temporary basis for purposes of travel, business, study, etc. The term does NOT include a permanent resident alien (someone who possesses a “green card.”) A nonimmigrant alien may only purchase or receive a firearm if he or she: (a) was admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or presents a valid hunting license or permit issued by a State; (b) qualifies as a foreign diplomat, official, or law enforcement officer as defined at 18 U.S.C. § 922(y)(2); or (c) has received a waiver of the prohibition from the Attorney General. 12. Sale of a Firearm or Ammunition to a Person Under Age 18: You may not sell or deliver a firearm or ammunition to a person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is less than 18 years old. 13. Sale of a Handgun or Handgun Ammunition to a Person Under Age 21: You may not sell or de- liver a firearm other than a rifle or a shotgun—or ammunition other than rifle or shotgun ammunition—to a person who you know or have reasonable cause to believe is less than 21 years old. A firearm frame or receiver is not a rifle or shotgun and may not be sold to a person under 21 years old. 14. Sale in Violation of State Law or Published Ordinance: You may not sell or deliver a firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or pos- session would be in violation of a State law or published ordinance. We recommend that you refer to the most recent edition of ATF’s State Laws and Published Ordinances–Firearms. Age Restrictions As noted above, under Federal law, the minimum age to purchase firearms and ammunition from an FFL is 18. If the firearm is other than a rifle or a shotgun—or ammunition for other than a rifle or a shotgun—the minimum age is 21 [18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1)]. |
 by jenyum on 1/10/2011 @ 9:42am | I don't think he was ever actually adjudicated as a "mental defective" or involuntarily committed, although he was asked to leave his community college unless/until he got help. |
by The Jinxmedic on 1/10/2011 @ 9:51am | Perhaps not- but I thought it might be good for some people to see that there actually are some laws regarding who can and can not purchase firearms in this country. |
by NineInchNachos on 1/10/2011 @ 10:32am | so it is interesting that all the guns in arizona couldn't stop 1 crazy person. in the end it was a people swarm (bare hands) that put an end to the killing. |
by fredo on 1/10/2011 @ 10:48am | What if it turns out that the shooter wasn't inspired by Sarah Palins website or vitriolic political commentary, but rather by some political "cartoons" that he viewed on line the morning of the shootings? Will you then agree that political cartoons must be carefully regulated? |
by NineInchNachos on 1/10/2011 @ 10:49am | life is an adventure! We'll see. |
by The Jinxmedic on 1/11/2011 @ 9:10am | (Shameless promotional statement follows) The original framed and signed pen-and ink of the Palin CLAWzine page is still available, by the way... |
| Sign In to Comment: |