(Click on the cartoon to see a larger version.)
Thanks to Mandolin for suggesting the inset panel at the end.
When capitalized, "Sie" is the formal way to address adults of either gender in polite German. I majored in the…
-
If one assumes that a person is making their money, including enough money to have no incentive to "work", by…
Ob sie wirklich Deutsch spricht. Normalweise, kommt die US Soldaten nicht ins Stadt und spricht nicht so oft mit denn…
As for being a Nazi, ich spreche fliessend deutsch und wohnte in Deutschland fuer drei Jahre mit der americanishe Luftwaffe…
And of course this "incentive" only applies to poor people: Rich people who already have enough to live off of…
-
Yeah that pretty much sums it up.
lolsobsobsob
excellent cartoon. nail-head.
Backed into a corner by their own rhetoric, some pro-lifers are now claiming that their position wouldn’t allow for assassinating Hitler in order to stop the Holocaust, either. In other words, rather than stop comparing legalized abortion to genocide, these folks say that attempts to kill Hitler in order to stop the Nazis (and killing Hitler would have been a significant blow to Nazism, because it was a strong cult of personality and Hitler had killed his rivals and thus was left without an heir apparent) were just as immoral as the murder of Dr. Tiller.
Some people would make their political position one that 99% of Americans would disagree with, so long as it means they never have to say “I’m sorry” or change their ways.
Thanks for the comments! :-)
PG, your link didn’t post successfully — please try it again?
This post by Hilzoy is the best repudiation I’ve read of the “if they really believe it’s killing babies, then they’re obligated to shoot doctors” argument.
The missing link: http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/8644/comment-page-1#comment-367063
I think Hilzoy slightly misreads McArdle (fair enough, since McArdle grossly misread Hilzoy and also apparently isn’t aware of the Constitutional amendment process, along with a vast amount of Constitutional history such as the fact that prior to Dred Scot, African Americans WERE considered not just persons but citizens under the law, or that fetuses NEVER have been considered persons in the Anglo-American legal tradition; see here for more of my exasperation with McArdle’s insistence on making ignorant claims without so much as a link to back them up).
McArdle did not say that people who see injustice are obligated to kill those committing it; on the contrary, she says that she considers terrorism categorically wrong, regardless of the motive.
McArdle especially highlights the actions of Palestinian terrorists as an example of many people on the Left excusing violence on the basis of people’s feeling powerless to stop an injustice.
Once again, Amp, you excel in drawing a toon that would be funny if the subject matter didn’t make me depressed/angry. Perhaps the problem is that the character is barely an exaggeration of “pro-lifers”.
Regarding the cartoon: a dissent.
Imagine we post this cartoon above Fecke’s post about “hate fuck,” in which presumed progressives fantasize about acting out sexual aggression against conservative women. We change the words to have the guy alternatively expressing dismay and glee about this practice. What a clever illustration of liberals’ hypocrisy, right?
Why stop there? Let’s create a cartoon that’s an amalgam of MLK and Malcolm X, alternatively expressing high-minded opposition to resorting to violence while also expressing militant resolve to employ “any means necessary” in the pursuit of black liberation. See, they share certain political aims, so it’s perfectly fair to regard them as the same person, right?
If you find that Rush Limbaugh has been talking out of both sides of his mouth about the appropriate tactics for opposing abortion, hey, more power to you. But the fact that different people who oppose abortion adopt different tactics, and may not approve of each others’ tactics, strikes me as unremarkable.
I’d like to claim that I oppose this style of argument for purely rationalistic grounds. But I have self-interested tactical concern, too. This style of argument is most easily employed against the group with the greatest diversity/least discipline. If you’re looking for me during a public policy debate, just find the guys with good haircuts, blue suit and crisp talking points: I’m the rumpled guy across the table, sitting next to the ascetic Franciscan monk, the Spartacus Dyke for Justice and the half-naked transsexual in feathers. As Roy Rogers remarked, I don’t belong to any organized political party; I’m a Democrat.
So if you want to ridicule any “side” for speaking and acting inconsistently, look no further. I just hope you won’t want to do so.
nobody.really,
It’s not that the “side” is speaking/acting inconsistently; it’s that I can point you to specific individuals who on the one hand have done all they can to publicize as much as possible about the lives and perceived murders of abortionists, and on the other hand profess themselves shocked when someone uses the information and kills the murderer of innocent babies. It’s not that the whole pro-life side has inconsistencies — duh, of course there’s inconsistency between the Catholics’ insistence that abortion is never ever permissible, and every “pro-life” Republican president’s making an exception for rape and incest. It’s that particular individuals have been internally inconsistent.
Nobody.Really, I’d be in favor of a cartoon making the connection between “hate fuck” attitudes and a rape culture that makes increased prevalence of rape inevitable. I’d have no objection at all to that cartoon.
I’m not sure who you think I’m saying is the same person. Are you complaining that I’m obscuring the difference between Bill O’Reilly (who some of the dialog is quoted directly from) and Operation Rescue (which does, indeed, give out information like the home addresses of abortion clinic doctors and employees, as well as using O’Reilly-like rhetoric)?
There are some responsible pro-lifers who don’t say the sorts of things mentioned in this cartoon. This cartoon isn’t about those pro-lifers. It’s about the pro-life leaders and organizations who use the most extreme rhetoric, such as equating Dr. Tiller and Hitler, and make personal attacks on abortion providers inevitable by publicizing personal details about their lives (such as where they go to church, and their home addresses).
This wasn’t even the first time Dr. Tiller was shot by a pro-life extremist. If people like O’Reilly and Operation Rescue claims they didn’t realize they were endangering Dr. Tiller’s life through their actions, then they’re either fools or liars. I don’t mind criticizing them on that basis.
I frankly don’t think you got the point of the cartoon (which, obviously, may be the fault of the cartoonist). The point wasn’t “ha ha, they’re saying contradictory things.” The point is, they’re acting in a way that is so clearly going to cause violent, criminal attacks on abortion providers, that they’re either deliberately trying to create such attacks, or they’re idiots.
nobody.really: I see your point. I’ve made your point, sometimes in regards to liberal criticisms of conservatives, in private conversations. But it indeed is the same groups condemning this attack and calling OB/GYNs Hitler-like.
But who is they? That’s the weakness I find in the cartoon. Who exactly is the character in the cartoon supposed to depict? An individual? A movement?
Let me suggest that there are at least three categories of pro-life advocates. There are people who oppose abortion and oppose violence or threats of violence against abortion providers, and are forthright about both. There are people who oppose abortion and favor violence against abortion providers, but deny that they favor such violence. And there are people who oppose abortion and favor violence against abortion providers, and are forthright in their support of that violence. Arguably the cartoon is intended to depict the middle group. But that’s not a very distinct group in my mind; when I see the character in the cartoon, I suspect it’s intended to refer to the entire anti-abortion movement.
If the point of the cartoon is simply to note that many people in the anti-abortion movement have acted in a way designed to promote violence against abortion providers, not to point out the duplicity, then fine: remove the final panel depicting duplicity. Just leave the cartoon showing the character advocating violence. Ah, but then the cartoon loses its sting, doesn’t it? Your protests notwithstanding, I still see this cartoon as saying, “ha ha, they’re saying contradictory things.”
I see this as a separate point to the one raised above.
And my reaction is, so what? Specifically, do we wish to declare as a point of rhetoric that any effort to compare someone to Hitler is, like burning a cross in the lawn, an invitation to kill that person? I don’t. I do equate calling OB/GYNs Hitler-like with murder.
Yep, you got it pretty spot on. Also love how the anti-choice groups, people, etc. have been repeatedly going on about how they are in no way to blame for Dr. Tiller’s murder. Very nice.
nobody.really,
Did you click on PG’s link @ 8? Personally, I took the character to be the type of person who publishes photos and addresses of abortion providers and their family members along with said inflammatory rhetoric, or perhaps a Randall Terry type, who says that he condemns Tiller’s murder, but Tiller reaped what he sowed and his death should be a “teaching moment” for what happens to child-killers, but oh, he condemns it. There are Web sites that have literally followed the script in this cartoon. Not just that they compared abortion providers to Hitler, but provided all the information you would need to attack the individuals. They said oh so sad too bad the day Tiller was killed, and this week have photos up of the remaining late-term abortion clinics. The target is not mushy or indistinct in the least.
Pingback: Murder verses Murder « Liberal Hippie Chic
Look, there’s a difference between actively soliciting acts of violence against someone, then disclaiming that violence when it occurs and, say, being in favor of government regulation in one situation and opposed to it in another.
This is trivially true, and lumping them all together under “saying contradictory things” is disingenuous (also: bullshit).
Operation Rescue walks an extremely fine line, deliberately, when it comes to inciting violence against abortion providers in general and Dr George Tiller in specific. They want their rhetoric to be as inflammatory, violent, and hateful as possible, just so long as when a murder or bombing occurs, they have enough plausible deniability to avoid criminal charges.
Ampersand’s cartoon was pointing out that the creation of violence is their point, and I agree.
As a side note, did you know that Operation Rescue’s senior policy advisor Cheryl Sullenger gave Dr. Tiller’s assassin, Scott Roeder, updates as to Dr. Tiller’s location and schedule? Ah, right, but of course, “who could have known that this violence would occur,” etc, etc, etc …
—Myca
Just to clarify: This is because there are no criminal penalties for opposition to government regulation, and because there are criminal penalties for running a campaign of violent terrorism against health care workers.
—Myca
Another way to look at this is to consider how fringe Operation Rescue — or even O’Reilly rhetoric toward Tiller — is compared to the overwhelming majority of pro-life people. Most pro-lifers do not want to personally harass abortionists, their support staff, women obtaining abortions or the businesses that work with abortion providers. Heck, it’s difficult to get most people who identify as “pro-life” to sign on for legislation that would punish women for obtaining abortions, which is why all such legislation, whether it’s the “partial-birth” abortion ban or the new suggestion to bar race and sex discrimination in abortions, puts all criminal penalties on the abortionist and none on the woman seeking the abortion. (This is particularly bizarre in the proposed anti-discrimination legislation, as the abortionist could not give a damn about whether you give birth to a boy, girl, black, white or purple — any discrimination that occurs is necessarily enacted by the woman who decides not to complete that particular pregnancy.)
In going to Tiller’s dry-cleaner to try to get him to stop serving Tiller, and driving vans with giant pictures of aborted fetuses around a clinic worker’s neighborhood (causing at least one startled driver to rear-end another), and sending postcards the clinic worker’s neighbors telling them to tell her to stop helping to kill babies, the Operation Rescue folks have been doing everything short of physical violence to harass and intimidate abortion providers. And even after the string of murders of abortionists during the Clinton Administration, they have continued to publicize the information for committing violence to those who will take that extra step. They’ve just become legally savvy enough not post that information next to a list of abortion doctors’ names, with the names greyed for the wounded and strikeouts for those who have been murdered.
By the way, the anti-discrimination bill in the House is titled the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2009.” Of 29 sponsors, they have two women (including, you guessed it, Michelle Bachman) and no people of color.
It may just be me, and I hope I’m not misinformed, but it seems to me that OR has gone whizzing by that fine line and over the cliff 3 miles further on.
This is a little bit tangential to the interpretation of the cartoon, but still, I think, relevant to the discussion.
In Judith Warner’s very fine piece on Dr. Tiller and the importance of the work he did, she discusses the relationship between the harassment experienced by doctors and clinic workers, vandalism on clinics, etc., and the eventual physical assaults on doctors and workers. The treatment of these acts as political rather than criminal creates the atmosphere of impunity that encourages the more fanatic among their ranks to keep escalating and escalating.
I guess I disagree.
If the point is to decry people soliciting acts of violence, that is made perfectly clear in the first five panels; there’s no need for the sixth panel. But in the absence of the depiction of duplicity, the cartoon doesn’t seem very clever.
I sense some people think I attach too much importance to the punchline, and not enough to the “this guy’s a monster” lead-up to the punchline. For better or worse, that’s how I read political cartoons. If you depict a some guy’s faults, and then hold him up for ridicule for reasons unrelated to those faults, the ridicule strikes me as simply gratuitous. You might as well have him slip on a banana peel or split his pants. Because I don’t want to read the cartoon as heaping gratuitous ridicule on someone, my mind looks to link the source of the ridicule to the broader topic. The source of the ridicule is duplicity, not monsterity (?). Ergo, that’s where I focus.
Again, great. As I said, if you find that Rush Limbaugh (or whoever) has been talking out of both sides of his mouth, that’s fair game. But then I’d suggest labeling the cartoon with the name of the person being depicted so that there’s no confusion about it. Or if some official Operation Rescue media has been publicizing Tiller’s photo, home address and church, and then has expressed remorse over his demise, that’s fair game too. So label the character Operation Rescue.
But let me ask you this: What did you think of the Bush Campaign’s 1988 Willie Horton commercials about a black man who attacked a white family while on a prison furlough? Recall that Willie Horton was not a myth; he was a real guy who committed real heinous crimes. To me, the problem with the Willie Horton commercials was not that they were inaccurate. The problem was that the Bush Campaign took a rare event blew it out of proportion for political purposes – even though doing so would foreseeably have a detrimental impact on black men everywhere.
I don’t doubt that there exist abortion proponents who have promoted Tiller’s murder and are now professing shock and dismay. For all I know, Amp’s cartoon may be a perfectly fair depiction of those individuals. Similarly, the Willie Horton ads may have presented a perfectly fair depiction of Willie Horton. Yet I find it foreseeable that an audience will not limit their understanding of these characters, but will generalize these depictions to a larger group. Consequently I find such depictions detract more from public discourse than they contribute.
And speaking of people who detract more from public discourse than they contribute, some yahoo wrote the following:
That should say that I do NOT equate calling OB/GYNs “Hitler-like” with murder. Hey, I only left out three little letters, so how much confusion could that sow…?
…Convicted terrorist and Operation Rescue senior policy advisor Cheryl Sullenger…
She was convicted of conspiracy to bomb a clinic in 1987.
nobody.really: I thought that’s what you meant, what with the appearing to undermine your own argument (though Franklin Pierce Adams, I seem to recall without looking it up, said “a liberal is a fellow too open-minded to take his own side”). As for the corrected version, of course calling someone Hitler isn’t murder per se, but doing so suggests you believe that murdering that person is justified and even good.
Excellent cartoon if it makes even one person turn off people like Bill O’rielly and Glen Beck then it was worth the effort!