3/7: Ted Rall's "Terror Widows" cartoon

Undertoad · 03-07-2002, 12:29 PM

I like Ted Rall, and I've bought one of his books, but I agree with the folks who say he went over the line on this one, which was retracted by the NY Times.

Rall is entitled to a mistake if he agrees he made one, but I haven't heard his own take on the whole thing. He hasn't said anything on his website .

03-07-2002, 12:33 PM

People will deal with the grief in various ways. Many of them need to get over it. They do that by returning to normal - such as complimenting someone on their bitchin' tie. It's kind of disappointing, I guess, to see someone making fun of it. I don't think he'd be drawing that cartoon if he lost someone this past fall...

hairdog · 03-07-2002, 12:57 PM

Rall did not apologize for the cartoon. He told CNN that "I've done a few lousy cartoons in my time that I'd love to take back, but this isn't one of them."

03-07-2002, 01:01 PM

DAMMIT! Beat me to the punch

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/News....ap/index.html

Clutz · 03-07-2002, 02:52 PM

You can't sanction a "little" free speech.
Anyone can accept content which they agree with, but the concept of freedom and an individuals right to free speech is the tolerance of that which we don't agree.

Personnally i think it's a cheap shot at the families, and do not agree with the comedic manor it was presented. But at least Ted has the stones to stand behind his view, rather than apologizing for something he obviously believes.

03-07-2002, 03:14 PM

No one's being intolerant. The New York Times simply does not want to suffer the backlash of running this cartoon. Remember - Congress shall make no law to infringe on the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean that the newspaper has to run his cartoon.

I'm all for free speech, but some of it is going to be in bad taste. I can understand this cartoon, even if I don't condone it. However, it's still pouring the proverbial salt on a pretty big wound.

I have a rule that I try to stand by, and I wish others would do the same: If you're going to make fun of others, fine - but make fun of something that they can control. It's no fun being made fun of for something that you have no control over. Case in point: I am not slim. I don't care if you call me fatso or tubby or whatever you want that has to deal with something I have control over, but I would be a bit more if you started poking fun at the fact that I am half blind after being shot in the face 6 1/2 hears ago.

No matter what pain I may feel from people saying things like "Hey, Blind man!" and calling me "cyclops", it's nothing in comparison to the grief that losing a loved one surely brings. Over 3,000 innocent civilians were murdered on 9/11, and the plight of those that loved them is, in two words, not funny. It's simply not, and anyone that lost someone would agree.

Notice the jab at Daniel Pearl in the cartoon - "Of course it's a bummer that they slashed my husband's throat - but the worst was having to watch the Olympics alone!" - does anyone find that funny? Can that be funny at all? Imagine the suffering that Marianne Pearl is enduring right now - knowing that she will have to raise her child without a father, knowing that the man that she loved had his throat cut, was decapitated, and his dead body stabbed numerous times by his captors. She will, over the course of her life time, think about how her husband felt during the last moments of his life - and it will eat her up inside.

Here's this asshole making fun of that.

I'm all about free speech, but I've got no problem with this offensive cartoon getting pulled from a private publication. If he had to deal with the pain and suffering that those who lost loved ones are going through and will continue to experience, he wouldn't have drawn that cartoon.

I'm all about free speech, but I won't make excuses for shit like this.

hot_pastrami · 03-07-2002, 03:56 PM

dhamsaic: Amen, brother.

Hot Pastrami

jaguar · 03-07-2002, 05:15 PM

hmmm.
It certainly is black humour, but he does have a point to make. I find the woman who called the 5 MILLION dollars she got in compensation for her husband who died in the towers a "sick joke" (becuase it was too small) even more offensive. He's not so much making fun of the victims as thier reactions, some of which have been pretty damn disgusting. Good on him by standing behind it either way.

As for NYT not publishing it, i guess considering thier audiance it wasen't a bad move, at the same time, media publications have to show some guts every now and then.

*ducks for cover*

03-07-2002, 06:13 PM

I guess it never occurred to you that maybe "compensation" for losing a loved one is a "sick joke" because it doesn't begin to compensate for her husband?

There's a difference betgween showing some guts and publishing useless, offensive material. See the opinion piece Fox ran earlier today about the SSSCA (on Slashdot's front page) for showing some guts. This is nothing of the sort. I agree with you that the media should be free to publish what it wants and should show some guts sometime, but his cartoon isn't "guts".

jaguar · 03-07-2002, 07:04 PM

So....30million would make up for her husband? 100million? Please, if you die in a drive by shooting your SO gets roughly 10 grand, she should she got anything at all for crying out loud.

03-07-2002, 07:07 PM

You are missing the point, jag. It's not about how much money - it's about the notion that having money eases the suffering at all.

Griff · 03-07-2002, 07:23 PM

dh is right however I know tubby and you my friend are no tubby.

http://www.emusic.com/aasearch.html?...l_art&id=10504

sleemanj · 03-07-2002, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad

I like Ted Rall, and I've bought one of his books, but I agree with the folks who say he went over the line on this one, which was retracted by the NY Times.

Rall is entitled to a mistake if he agrees he made one, but I haven't heard his own take on the whole thing. He hasn't said anything on his website .

Living well outside of the US I can see where he is coming from.

At night here in NZ around 12pm we get to see the ABC news broadcast on one of our free to air channels. For MONTHS after 9/11, infact pretty much still now, you could garauntee that there will be something about 9/11 on the show - often some grieving person. Wah wah wah. People die every day, many horrifically, what makes these people so special that they get 5 mins of fame because of it. You don't see "Mabel, your husband died of a brain tumor yesterday, the pain you feel now must be just unbearable." - no of course not but is her suffering less than that by any of the 9/11 bereaved ?!

And for those that ask for compensation from airlines, or airports or whoever - jeez, can anybody say gold digger. I'm lucky to live in a country where suing somebody or something is a very rare occurance, infact it is not possible in this country to sue for damages resulting from an accident (we are compensated by the government for accidents). Frankly - we are much better off without it.

It's black humor people, and most of us live in a free nation where a person is entitled to say what they think which includes black humor. If you don't like it - move to china.

It's *never* a mistake to speak (or draw in this case) your mind (unless of course you're speaking it to some 7ft behemoth while standing within arms reach :-)).

(Edit : removed image .. doh.)

jtm · 03-07-2002, 08:20 PM

Hall is ridiculing the "gold-diggers" among the widowers, not all of them. The distinction isn't obvious, hence the offensiveness, but clearly there are some widowers who are more mercenary than others, and they deserve the ridicule.

Almost 3000 people died Sep 11, leaving behind MANY widows and families. Do you believe that ALL of them are good human beings with no greed?

03-07-2002, 09:37 PM

No. But it's offensive to the pain of those who are truly suffering right now and don't want money.

03-07-2002, 12:29 PM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	3/7: Ted Rall's "Terror Widows" cartoon I like Ted Rall, and I've bought one of his books, but I agree with the folks who say he went over the line on this one, which was retracted by the NY Times. Rall is entitled to a mistake if he agrees he made one, but I haven't heard his own take on the whole thing. He hasn't said anything on his website .

03-07-2002, 02:52 PM	#5
Clutz Alphabetarian Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Toronto.ca Posts: 12	Free Speech You can't sanction a "little" free speech. Anyone can accept content which they agree with, but the concept of freedom and an individuals right to free speech is the tolerance of that which we don't agree. Personnally i think it's a cheap shot at the families, and do not agree with the comedic manor it was presented. But at least Ted has the stones to stand behind his view, rather than apologizing for something he obviously believes. __________________ Go Big, or Go Home

03-07-2002, 03:14 PM	#6
dave Guest Posts: n/a	No one's being intolerant. The New York Times simply does not want to suffer the backlash of running this cartoon. Remember - Congress shall make no law to infringe on the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean that the newspaper has to run his cartoon. I'm all for free speech, but some of it is going to be in bad taste. I can understand this cartoon, even if I don't condone it. However, it's still pouring the proverbial salt on a pretty big wound. I have a rule that I try to stand by, and I wish others would do the same: If you're going to make fun of others, fine - but make fun of something that they can control. It's no fun being made fun of for something that you have no control over. Case in point: I am not slim. I don't care if you call me fatso or tubby or <b>whatever you want</b> that has to deal with something I have control over, but I would be a bit more if you started poking fun at the fact that I am half blind after being shot in the face 6 1/2 hears ago. No matter what pain I may feel from people saying things like "Hey, Blind man!" and calling me "cyclops", it's nothing in comparison to the <b>grief</b> that losing a loved one surely brings. Over 3,000 innocent civilians were murdered on 9/11, and the plight of those that loved them is, in two words, <b>not funny</b>. It's simply not, and anyone that lost someone would agree. Notice the jab at Daniel Pearl in the cartoon - "Of course it's a bummer that they slashed my husband's throat - but the worst was having to watch the Olympics alone!" - does anyone find that funny? Can that be funny at all? Imagine the suffering that Marianne Pearl is enduring right now - knowing that she will have to raise her child without a father, knowing that the man that she loved had his throat cut, was decapitated, and his dead body stabbed numerous times by his captors. She will, over the course of her life time, think about how her husband felt during the last moments of his life - and it will eat her up inside. Here's this asshole making fun of that. I'm all about free speech, but I've got no problem with this offensive cartoon getting pulled from a private publication. If he had to deal with the pain and suffering that those who lost loved ones are going through and will continue to experience, he wouldn't have drawn that cartoon. I'm all about free speech, but I won't make excuses for shit like this.

03-07-2002, 05:15 PM	#8
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	hmmm. It certainly is black humour, but he does have a point to make. I find the woman who called the 5 MILLION dollars she got in compensation for her husband who died in the towers a "sick joke" (becuase it was too small) even more offensive. He's not so much making fun of the victims as thier reactions, some of which have been pretty damn disgusting. Good on him by standing behind it either way. As for NYT not publishing it, i guess considering thier audiance it wasen't a bad move, at the same time, media publications have to show some guts every now and then. ducks for cover __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

03-07-2002, 07:04 PM	#10
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	So....30million would make up for her husband? 100million? Please, if you die in a drive by shooting your SO gets roughly 10 grand, she should she got anything at all for crying out loud. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

03-07-2002, 12:33 PM	#2
dave Guest Posts: n/a	People will deal with the grief in various ways. Many of them need to get over it. They do that by returning to normal - such as complimenting someone on their bitchin' tie. It's kind of disappointing, I guess, to see someone making fun of it. I don't think he'd be drawing that cartoon if he lost someone this past fall...

03-07-2002, 12:57 PM	#3
hairdog Simulated Simulacrum Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Posts: 39	Rall did not apologize for the cartoon. He told CNN that "I've done a few lousy cartoons in my time that I'd love to take back, but this isn't one of them."

03-07-2002, 01:01 PM	#4
dave Guest Posts: n/a	DAMMIT! Beat me to the punch http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/News....ap/index.html

03-07-2002, 03:56 PM	#7
hot_pastrami I am meaty Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 1,119	dhamsaic: Amen, brother. Hot Pastrami

03-07-2002, 06:13 PM	#9
dave Guest Posts: n/a	I guess it never occurred to you that maybe "compensation" for losing a loved one is a "sick joke" because it doesn't begin to compensate for her husband? There's a difference betgween showing some guts and publishing useless, offensive material. See the opinion piece Fox ran earlier today about the SSSCA (on Slashdot's front page) for showing some guts. This is nothing of the sort. I agree with you that the media should be free to publish what it wants and should show some guts sometime, but his cartoon isn't "guts".

03-07-2002, 07:07 PM	#11
dave Guest Posts: n/a	You are missing the point, jag. It's not about how much money - it's about the notion that having money eases the suffering at all.

03-07-2002, 07:23 PM	#12
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	dh is right however I know tubby and you my friend are no tubby. http://www.emusic.com/aasearch.html?...l_art&id=10504

03-07-2002, 08:20 PM	#14
jtm Dog O'Nine Tails Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 20	The cartoon rings a bit true Hall is ridiculing the "gold-diggers" among the widowers, not all of them. The distinction isn't obvious, hence the offensiveness, but clearly there are some widowers who are more mercenary than others, and they deserve the ridicule. Almost 3000 people died Sep 11, leaving behind MANY widows and families. Do you believe that ALL of them are good human beings with no greed?

03-07-2002, 09:37 PM	#15
dave Guest Posts: n/a	No. But it's offensive to the pain of those who are truly suffering right now and don't want money.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)