Here are my top five political cartoon picks for the week…
By TobyToons at RedState.com [HT: Carder]…
Like Toby was saying, by liberal Tony Auth at GoComics.com…
And one more along the same lines, by liberal Don Wright at GoComics.com…
When in reality, when what conservatives and the Tea Party are trying to avert, by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
By Mike Lester at Townhall.com [HT: Laura Loo]…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
So Jill, I assume that you have a nice, cozy relationship with Town Hall and have permission to use their comics. But GoComics? If you haven’t received permission from GoComics and the cartoonist, you’re violating copyright rules because comics are protected by copyright.
I think the first one is just plain highly inaccurate. All those other events received wide and loud coverage. None of them actually killed 76 people though so it stands to reason that the Norway massacre warrants more coverage.
CC – you see an injustice with Jill using cartoons without permission and you feel the need to speak up for GoComics and the cartoonist/s? That sounds like the pro-life movement in a nut-shell ;)
I think it would be stranger if the motivations of the Norway shooter weren’t mentioned? And really, that shooting was horrible, and was unusual, it stands to reason it would get more attention.
I must say Jack, that I get the sense that there was quite some restraint regarding the Norway killer’s motives. There appeared to be general hesitancy to launch into anti-conservative or anti-christian tirades on the basis of the first causal ‘signals’. I found that many pundits took the same approach as myself. The perpetrator was a genuine loonie way ahead of being ‘christian’ or conservative’. Mind you, I’ve seen a few um, ‘strange’ comments from the likes of Glenn Beck.
Hmm, I am glad that it was more restrained. I think it’s really annoying when a whole group gets tied to the actions of a nut. Beck really, really irritated me with his dead teenagers = Hitler youth thing. But of course, I dislike 99% of everything that man says.
I think many people are extremely fed up with extremist responses to extremist actions :-)
What does concern me is that when nutters go nuts because they’re nuts, the decisions about what or who they target appears, in some instances, to be driven by some of the more idealogue rantings that we see and hear. And would they ultimately be driven to actually commit the acts that they do if those rantings weren’t there? What drives the difference between a person verbalizing their extremism and acting on it?
“What does concern me is that when nutters go nuts because they’re nuts, the decisions about what or who they target appears, in some instances, to be driven by some of the more idealogue rantings that we see and hear. And would they ultimately be driven to actually commit the acts that they do if those rantings weren’t there? What drives the difference between a person verbalizing their extremism and acting on it?”
I think that imbalanced people like the shooter, in general, will act out if not helped, regardless of what they hear. I think that violent rhetoric may have a part to play, but ultimately I think it is more personality and mental illness driven than anything. Societal and social factors play a role, I am sure, but it seems to be more driven toward shaping whatever delusions that person harbors towards a specific ideology rather than causing the behavior in the first place.
But I don’t really know, it’s just my observation. I just think that it is strange that people can grow up and live in almost identical circumstances and react completely differently. I find it shocking when I see people on the news who have committed horrible crimes use a childhood similar to mine to excuse their actions. Really? It has got to be more than just environment, in fact I would strongly argue it has more to do with nature.
“I find it shocking when I see people on the news who have committed horrible crimes use a childhood similar to mine to excuse their actions.” – a very salient statement Jack.
Some people have terrible childhoods, possibly with cruelty or abuse. Some respond by working to alleviate the suffering of others whilst some go bananas and then try to use their experiences as an excuse.
Nature versus nurture, intrinsic versus extrinsic, what a dilemma.
CC, actually I do pay a fee to GoComics.
As for Townhall, I always give complete attribution, including a direct link, and have never received a complaint.
Glenn Back has turned into a complete kook about some things.
I do think that radical Islam will continue to garner various types of notice. They do have a “mission” and many people don’t like it. Not saying anything specific about the Norway deal or Beck, there.
The “Tea party” = Pffft. People talking about fiscal concerns and what do they do as soon as they get in Congress? Start adding their own expensive pet projects to gov’t spending. The Pork Barrel is alive and well. GOP Freshmen members of Congress are packing on the pork, and this year’s additions are as much as last year’s.
The Norwegian shooter was a kook just like Jared Loughner.
He was about as ‘christian’ as b o.
80% of Norways population is ‘christian’. In Norway the custom is to register newborns that way at birth. [Clue: No one is conceived or birthed a ‘christian’.]
If the shooter was concerned about preserving “Norwegian’ culture, why did he deliberately targete cutural and ethic Norwegians?
If he was sane and concerned about the rise of Islam in Norway then why didn’t he target muslims?
Maybe his ‘manifesto’ attempts to answer those questions.
The dominant medica culture is all about perpetuating their convoluted view of ‘christians’, which says more about the dmc than it does about the followers of Jesus the Christ.
CC: Do you always act as net nanny? As with Jill and cartoons here, this from a few days ago with me:
“And Rasqual, if you are a state employee, you do know that if you are blogging from a state computer, on state time, that’s stealing from taxpayers – even if you’re on your coffee break. Let’s hope that your mysterious ‘organization’ isn’t part of the state system because if so, you’re not in compliance with policy.”
What warrant did you have for suspecting mischief, either on Jill’s part or mine? Yet you think it important to jump in as nanny.
It’s just a bit . . . weird, CC.
It might not seem so weird if your hunches would prove correct — but to voice them without warrant suggests a prior belief that your pro-life interlocutors are likely to be dishonest or otherwise demonstrably vile.
In the end, it just looks as if you’re seeking pretexts to impugn.
What proportion of the numbers are attributable to freshman tea party types?
http://endingspending.com/earmarks/map-2011/
The tea party would be some proportion of the Republican numbers right? And the Republican numbers are a mere fraction of the Democrat numbers, right? Ergo, the tea party’s piece of the pie is hardly the wolf howling at the door (pardon the mixed metaphors).
Seems to me that Democrats are by a huge multiple, the prime villains at the moment.
yor bro ken: I don’t think the Norse guy was a nut job like Jared. From what they’re saying, he seems pretty sane.
Christianity can explain that. The secular order is welcome to fretfully ponder that to their heart’s discontent.
Rasqual, good points, and I think the Democrats should be horse-whipped for all the pork. I don’t know the percentage of the GOP figures that are attributed to Tea-Partiers, but what’s galling is that specific congresspersons that campaigned against the practice immediately flipped 180 degrees and started in getting their own earmarks.
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/tea-party-betrayed/
Well, two things. First, if the Pentagon is taking bids or funding particular things, should Congressional persons with suitable businesses in their districts just sit on their hands? I didn’t look into the particular issues, but were the bills just some out of the blue, whodathunko’that throwing about of money? Because I’m curious how spending money for good reasons connected to ongoing affairs would be visibly differentiated from gratuitous party-animal spending, in the case that someone with an axe to grind or naive ideas about all this were just yammering. Not saying that’s the case here, just asking.
Related to that is just that I don’t find it remarkable that Congresspersons would create bills to spend money in their districts. Congress’s Constitutionally enumerated duties include spending money. And they’re supposed to be the representative branch. What I’d consider odd would be if my elected representative created some bill to spend money in someone else’s district. So I don’t understand at all how some folks see a smoking gun: “Ha! The bill benefits his own district! The bastard!”
Darnit, I forgot what the second thing was going to be. Oh, wait, I remember: So in another thread, Biggz is asserting that abortionist murderers are, after all, really pro-life people and so pro-life folks are inherently violent. Well here in this headline I’m reading that pork-mongering is a betrayal of the tea party. Why not insist that because the pork-mongers (if so they are) are, after all, tea party candidates owing their gained office to their tea party courtship — that they are just as much “tea party” people as abortionist murderers are “pro-life” people? “See? Tea partiers are really pork-mongers.” Or that Obama is “far left” and Daily Kos nutroots should be happy with him, because his betrayal of their zealotry on some issues doesn’t change things — he’s still the far leftist they thought they were electing (in their vernacular, of course, that would mean he’s a centrist and centrist independents who also voted for him are rabid right-wing nut jobs).
But I digress. You see my two points, I think. You can raise ’em or call. Your choice. ;-)