Cartoonists strain, Sorensen scores

There are a number of cartoons about the Tucson shootings, ranging from "weepers," which serve the important purpose of informing people that death is sad, to those suggesting a direct, specific correlation between the rhetoric and the action, as if the right wing had purposefully delivered a detailed "to do" list into the hands of the shooter.

I haven't seen many that managed to make a persuasive point, but I would count this as one. Jen Sorensen has, I think, done the best job of taking down the most offensive, irresponsible rhetoric with a use of sarcasm that doesn't stray from the task of mocking all the washing-of-hands that has been going on since the weekend.

As for countering her examples, feel free, but I want to see something more persuasive than the time Obama explained his planned debating style with a flippant reference to Sean Connery's advice to Kevin Costner in "The Untouchables," or a DNC map that used traditional archery-style bull's-eyes to show the areas in which they planned special efforts. Don't waste my time unless you have specific examples of times nationally-known progressives used rhetoric about "refreshing the tree of liberty" or "reloading" or encouraged people to bring firearms to political rallies.

Meanwhile, I think words can be persuasive, or I wouldn't bother writing. And, since I didn't start doing this yesterday, I know that persuasive words can sometimes have unintended consequences.

Which is why I think we all ought to watch our rhetoric and not call for revolution if we're not prepared to accept the blame when somebody -- unbalanced or not -- listens.

Comments

[ronniecat]

Good cartoon - one of the better I've seen.

I have no counterpoint to offer because I agree with you and find the mewling that "both sides do it" patently offensive. However I wanted to draw your attention to a cartoon which is raising some eyebrows and a good article that addresses why it's harder for pictures to go where words do.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/too-soon-political-cartoon-depicts-bodies-of-arizona-victims/

[Mike Peterson]

I had seen Beeler's cartoon, but didn't feel the bodies were as distasteful as the notion that it's not right to ask questions about the atmosphere in which it happened. The most horrifying thing is the comments after the article -- did anybody actually read the article, or is it just another venue to unload their vile partisan hatred?

Here's another question: This guy is so crazy that it's inappropriate to try to tie in what he did with anything happening out in the world. Fair enough. So how sane does an assassin have to be, before we can start asking those questions? Squeaky Fromme? Sarah Jane Moore? Leon Czolgosz? Lee Harvey Oswald? John Wilkes Booth? Where does a person stop being just inexplicably nuts and start becoming an assassin with motives and influences?

I would also note, by the way, that, on one hand, the guy is too crazy to have been influenced by anything but his own delusions, but, on the other hand, he's not so crazy that we can't hold him accountable and strap him onto the gurney. Now THERE'S a narrow line to draw!!