I just got a call from a very upset individual who said that I shouldn't be commenting about the hate crimes perpetrated in Overland Park, Kansas--the ones, of course, allegedly committed by Frazier Glenn Cross/Miller against three innocent people (a grandfather and his grandson--both Methodists who were attending an audition for the grandchild who was wanting to perform in a local musical production--and a Catholic woman who worked with visually-impaired children and who was visiting her mother at an assisted-living facility). All three of theses victims were, at the time of their shooting deaths, at Jewish community centers in Overland Park where Cross/Miller allegedly went on his murderous rampage in the name of God (reportedly using illegal firearms in the process, given that, as a convicted felon, he is a prohibited possessor).

The argument of the upset individual was that I should. instead, be reporting on what is "really happening" in Washington, D.C. to "the common people." (As if the 14-year-old boy and his grandfather, along with the woman victim, were somehow not "common people"). What the supposedly far-more important D.C. news was, the caller did not bother to say.

But for me to speak out against such hate crimes, I was told by the complainer, was "not funny." I responded that I did not regard the mass killings as "funny," either, and explained that editorial cartoons, as historically intended, carry political messages. I recommended that the complainer go to the comic pages if they were looking for "funny." The grumper's response was that they didn't think comics today were all that funny. So, I suggested they start drawing their own comics.

The upset caller declared that what I drew was simply my way of "spreading hatred." Huh? I replied that, as noted in the drawing, the person actually spreading the hate was the individual who apparently went out looking to murder Jews but ultimately ended up murdering three Christians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oops.

I further noted that this accused murderer was:

1) a rabid anti-Semite (who was into amassing stockpiles of arms and building paramilitary compounds in preparation to wage war against Jews);

2) an open. avowed supporter of Hitler (who, in fact, yelled out "Heil, Hitler!" from the backseat of the patrol car where he was cuffed); and

(3) a White supremacist (who, I should have added, was also a former Grand Dragon of the KKK).

In making my case that it was this alleged gunman who was the real hate-monger, I noted to the complainer that I had quoted (in the cartoon itself) the alleged murderer's anti-Jewish rants made in a letter to the editor he had written to an Illinois newspaper. (Except for lack of space, I could have extended the quote, which more fully read as follows: "The Jews are our main and most formidable enemies, brothers and sisters. They are truly the children of Satan, as Christ tells us in St. John 8:44. The Jews are destroying our Race thru-out the world. He who fights the Jew, fights the devil. He who refuses to fight will invoke the wrath of Yahwey").

The complainer replied that they (the complainer) just wanted this kind of political cartoon commentary "to stop." I replied that this kind of commentary crops up in America all the time, where open debate cannot simply be "stopped" by edict, given our individual constitutional right to free speech. I reminded the caller that suppression of individual speech occurs in countries like North Korea, to which the complainer replied, "This country is becoming North Korea." I answered that given the caller's positive attitude toward suppression of free speech, if they were in charge here, America would, indeed, be North Korea.

The complainer claimed that "half the people" who would see my commentary would agree with the complainer that it should be stopped. I asked the caller where they got their statistical data to make such a claim. The caller responded that they had talked to their friends. Well, then, that settles it.

The angry protester went on to accuse me of being "angry." I replied that the protester was the one who angry enough to call me in the first place to complain. The caller denied that they were angry, which led me to ask if their complaint to me simply represented a peaceful skip through the meadow. I acknowledged that, yes, I am justifiably angry that such an atrocious and unjust act has been committed against innocent people--and that I have every right to publicly say so. I noted that discussion about this horrible crime is actively and legitimately taking place across the country and that the accused will ultimately be subjected to a public trial to answer for the murders he is charged with having committed.

The caller ended their defense by claiming they were 70 years old. (For chrissakes, the accused murderer is 73. So much for rational thinking at an advanced age).

The whole exchange reminds me of Mormons who claim that to point out the hateful racist doctrine embedded to the hilt in the Book of Mormon makes those who dare point it out the haters.

Anyway, here's the cartoon that caused the caller's meltdown:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/steve-benson/2014/04/15/steve-benson-overland-park-kansas-shooter/7727543/
_____


Another day in paradise.



Edited 15 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2014 04:15AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The caller ended their defense by claiming they
> were 70 years old. (For chrissakes, the accused
> murderer is 73. So much for rational thinking at
> an advanced age).
>
> The whole exchange reminds me of Mormons who claim
> that to point out the hateful racist doctrine
> embedded to the hilt in the Book of Mormon makes
> those who dare point it out the haters.

Is that the Big 15's excuse for continuing to hold up the Book of Mormon's racism as God's racism?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2014 06:48PM by Elder Berry.

Wow, Steve, your cartoon is kind of frightening. Perhaps it was too intense for your accuser. I'd say the cartoon is brilliant because the subject matter is terrifying anyway. Why sugar coat the horror? It should be disturbing, to say the least. You nailed it.

Bravo. Its sickening to realize that there are still a fair number of white (straight/cis) supremecists still, and they dont take kindly to being called out for it.

On this defense/excuse of being old, all of 70 (ooh), that's no excuse! 70 is old enough to know better. Its hardly doddery, unless the person has dementia, which isn't common at that relatively young age. The older I get, the less patience I have for the "I'm old, therefore I can do and say what I want with impunity."

I dont care if they're 85, 95 or whatever, if they're racist, sexist, homophobic assholes, they're still assholes at any age, and should have gained enough life experience by then not to be.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I think I may understand this guy, which scares me.

> But for me to speak out against such hate crimes,
> I was told by the complainer, was "not funny," and
> simply was my way of "spreading hatred."

Some people think that "cartoons" are supposed to be "funny". They miss the fact that political cartoons are meant to be incisive social commentary, at least in part, and the "humour" is often subtle and wry or even black and sometimes (or often) they're not funny in a haha way, which is understandable due to their subject matter and the 'toonist's message that they are trying to impart.

Re the "spreading hatred" part, I agree with Don Bagley's comment. Seems like the guy couldn't see the nuances in your cartoon. Maybe to him it looks like *you're* the one saying these things, or maybe he thinks that illustrating (literally) what the killer said and believes is a way of passing on his message. Rather, putting these things out there allows for people to gain knowledge about what happened, or that it happened, but especially allows for discussion instead of covering it up. Of course the public needs to know what the killer did and why. Keeping things secret (not sacred!) is what leads to problems and negative consequences like oppression and loss of freedom of speech.


>... the person actually
> spreading the hate was the individual who
> apparently went looking to murder Jews but who
> ultimately ended up murdering three Christians who
> happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong
> time.

Yeah. I was shocked to hear what happened but gobsmacked when I heard the guy didn't kill Jews at all, despite wreaking havoc at two Jewish institutions. These things are random and who knows why one person becomes a victim while others escape injury. What a tragedy. How can anybody kill a child/teen? Or anybody? Too bad he wasn't stopped before he got a chance to use his weapon.

> The whole exchange reminds me of Mormons who claim
> that to point out the hateful racist doctrine
> embedded to the hilt in the Book of Mormon makes
> those who dare point it out the haters.

I'd be interested to see this or to know where you've read or heard it. I've seen instances of even the most benign questioner being accused of being a hater. I imagine that this hater accusation is a standard defence that for the Mormon who uses it is a thought-stopper in that they call someone a hater and then they think that ends the questioning or the conversation or that it negates an opposing view.

Re the racism in the BoM - I didn't even know about it until I started to read this board. I remember after reading threads about it being very upset to think I'd joined a church that included racism in its dogma. I felt sick about it for a long time. Despite reading church material and the BoM (in a skimming sort of way) I had not noticed it. I don't recall hearing about the curse of Cain, etc until I read about it here. I knew nothing about the early church leaders, such as BY, who is the most egregious example of much harm.

Anyway, back to the cartoon. Yeah, you generate lots of reaction. Your editor must love you. Keep it up! And maybe I don't understand this guy at all. Here's hoping. (By "understand" I do not mean "identify with" - at all. He and I share zero beliefs in common).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2014 07:56PM by Nightingale.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2014 08:13PM by steve benson.

{{jk}}

Did I miss a clue in the OP I wonder.

It's amazing that people can get straight through to you. It's nice of you to take the calls. They should at least appreciate that!

Still, regardless of gender, I think I could be right about the way she's thinking. But who will ever know?

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


Even sadder.

I gave the complainer the benefit of the doubt, assuming she was a he, loaded full of testosterone (granted I didn't know his age either).

Instead of calling someone an anti-Semite, it would be a better idea to call that someone a Jew-hater. The term "Anti-Semitism" was coined by a Jew-hater in the 19th century in an attempt to make hatred of Jews seem scientific. The term used before "Anti-Semitism" was "Judenhasse," literally "Jew hatred," which is more accurate.

Anti-Semites (i.e., Jew haters) often attempt to defend themselves against the charge by saying that Arabs and Jews are Semitic cousins, with Jew haters therefore claiming that the term "anti-Semite" is being unfairly misapplied against them. It's a tedious and not-so-clever ploy that simply doesn't wash.

In terms of current vernacular, it is a well-established fact that contemporary usage of the term "anti-Semite" refers distinctively and unquestioningly to those who hate Jews. For all intents and purposes, they are synonyms without a difference. Indeed, the most prominent, well-known organization, both nationally and internationally, involved in combating anti-Semitism--the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith--regularly uses the term "anti-Semitism" to refer to Jew-hating (and, in fact, is doing so in relation to the recent killings at Kansas City-area Jewish community centers):

http://www.adl.org/anti-semitism/



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2014 05:41PM by steve benson.

I had checked the source and found the history of the term "anti-Semite," which is why I asked if you could use the more proper term. My source is a book by Telushkin, which is why I mentioned the term.

A little too hard for some of the H8ers. Making them squirm.

GOOD.

I'd say "Don't stop" but I know you won't so it's an unnecessary redundancy!

Your Big-Time Fan with the Wagging Tail,

Reggie The StalkerDog™

To emphasize the serious role of political cartoonists, I recall that more than one British national daily covering the trial of the nazi Eickmann in 1961 sent their leading cartoonists to accompany top reporters covering the trial in Israel. My own favorite was the late great Vickie, then with the mass selling Daily Mirror. Could there be anything more sombre than the trial of such a war criminal and yet the cartoonists added a inciteful element. A well crafted cartoon can say much that words cannot.