First, the cartoon:

http://i.azcentral.com/commphotos/view/575468.jpg
____


The exchange:

"Steve,

"Some will complain your cartoon is sacrilegious, some will complain your cartoon is disrespectful of Mike Wallace.

"I believe your cartoon not only is a tribute to Mr Wallace's pursuit of the truth, but also is an excellent commentary on those who see only the good in religion. For example: 'It was a MIRACLE that more lives were not lost on 9/11 because some folks (evangelical Christians, no doubt) missed their usual train to work that morning.' ('God' somehow neglected to cause all others to miss their train) . . . ."
___


My reply:

"The thing about art is that it can be interpreted any which-way the viewer wishes--and that interpretation is often colored by the viewer’s own personal views.

"Thanks for writing."
_____


*P.S.--While I think Wallace left a great legacy as a journalist, I do think he unfortunately dropped the ball on his 1996 "60 Minutes" interview with Hinckley (I didn't do a cartoon on that angle because, outside the Mormon and ex-Mormon world, people seem not to have either noticed that interview or at least to have forgotten about it).

I remember when Wallace interviewed myself and several other dissidents back in 1996 for that "60 Minutes" segment.

The show's producer called and asked me to send them some background Mormon historical and doctrine material for their research purposes (this was back in the day of fax machines), so I gathered up quite a bit of info (including documentation of the LDS Church's official racist positions over time) and shipped it on to them. As far as I could tell, they used none of it, which might go to show how unseriously they took the Mormon Church.

Anyway, Wallace met our group for the sit-down interview in Salt Lake City. We were situated on low risers and everyone was given a chance to express their views.

I remember Wallace as being charming, pleasant and smiling. In short, he was a gracious host who asked relevant questions in a gentle sort of way--but he totally gave Hinckley a pass by not responding to Hinckley's aw-shucks ducks and dodges with informed or persistent follow-up inquiries.

That complaint noted, I still don't think Hinckley came off all that well in the final program cut. He looked and acted way too slick 'n pat--and Wallace, unfortunately, let him pretty much get away with it.

Wallace had done better interviews, by far. His one with Hinckley did not live up to his well-earned reputation of being a relentless, truth-seeking, interrogating journalist. Guess we all have our bad days. :)



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2012 07:31PM by steve benson.

That's a brilliant doodle, Steve!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2012 06:28PM by spaghetti oh.

My only possible nag is that I *think* it's "whomever."

Heee hee

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2012 06:27PM by steve benson.

Doxi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My only possible nag is that I *think* it's
> "whomever."

No, "whoever" is correct. Wanting to put "whomever" there is a common mistake, what linguists call "hyperurbanism": trying to be too correct, but ending up being wrong. It's in the same category as "It was a pleasure for my wife and I to be here."

Specifically, "whoever" is the subject (therefore nominative case) of the verb "is in charge." That clause "whoever is in charge" is a noun clause, the object of the preposition "for." But that doesn't make "whoever" objective, since it is not an object; the clause of which it is the subject is the object. Is that clear now?

- Richard
(retired language teacher)

Still doesn't really matter, though, cuz that's how people often, like, talk, ya know, dude?

:)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2012 07:27PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still doesn't really matter, though, cuz that's how people often, like, talk, ya know, dude?
>
> :)


Totally, dewd!

And a beautiful tribute to Mr. Wallace.

RPackham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>It's in the
> same category as "It was a pleasure for my wife
> and I to be here."

So true. Most people think that "I" is always correct. If you say, "my wife and me," people will think it's bad grammar, so I just stick with the "I" rule anyway. LOL

Love the cartoon, Steve. It's perfect.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2012 06:44PM by steve benson.

"Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care;
Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care;
I don't care, and I don't care ..."

"That's not how that song goes."

"I don't care."

(Courtesy of the Smothers Brothers)

My mother taught me the easy way to know if I was using the correct pronoun. Remove the other person from the phrase and see how it sounds.

My mother and I went to the store --- I went to the store.

Dad took my sister and me out to dinner --- Dad took me out to dinner.


PS - I loved the cartoon!

>>trying to be too correct, but ending up being wrong.<<


Aw, hell, story of my life!


That's what I get for thinking!


:::::::::::slinking away to go out in the garden and eat worms:::::::::::::::::



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2012 01:52AM by Doxi.

That's a good cartoon.

It does a good job of celebrating Mike's controlled pugnacity as a newsman. I think that he would be very proud of it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2012 09:01PM by summer.

but you knew some folk would take offense.

still, excellent work.

as usual.

Indeed, Benjamin Franklin (who was a founding father, a newspaper publisher and an editorial cartoonist for his own paper, "The Pennsylvania Gazette"), observed:

“If all printers were determined not to print anything til they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.”

Game on, all you thin-skinners. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2012 08:39PM by steve benson.

If it wasn't for all those things guys like Wallace wouldn't have a job.

That is a great cartoon. I was a huge fan of 60 Minutes growing up and you've captured the essence of Mike Wallace. :-)

This was a great cartoon. Thanks for sharing with all of us who grew up with Mike Wallace and remember the "60 Minutes" LDS show!

Even in my "most TBM-est" times, I would have appreciated the irony--without perceiving any irreverance--of a God running from a confrontation with Mike Wallace. And I think a VERY few would find this cartoon disrespectful to Wallace--to me it was simply a warm, humorous tribute to a hard-working pursuer of the truth!

I also noticed your even-handedness--portraying an angel with wings (from mainstream Christianity) and a God with a "body of flesh and bones" (solidly "Mormon," LOL!). ; )

I'll bet Mike Wallace would have enjoyed the cartoon.

Funny as usual. Thanks