Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling for May 01, 2015

Like Trudeau’s comic. Hate his politics

I don’t think Trudeau advocates the murder of cartoonists even if they “punch downward.”

You know, you can deplore murder, and support free speech, without actually lauding every instance of free speech. Including those that were (horribly and criminally) “answered” by murder.

The “mes fesses, tu les aimes, mes fesses?” (naked mohammed as porn bottom) Hebdo drawings are only be funny if you think it’s funny to mock islamic people for kneeling, butts-up, during prayer. (Or, I suppose, if you think it’s intrinsically funny to imagine any religious figure as a naked, ass-up gay porn figure, with dripping genitals.)

I completely support the right to print those particular cartoons. The ACLU supported the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, for the same reason: Free speech matters above all. But I don’t therefore have to support giving the publication, overall, a special commendation, or a gold star for the quality of their speech.

Over the years, some of the Hebdo art has been brilliant. Most of it has been puerile T&A. Some of it has been small-minded…unfunny to anyone who doesn’t find T&A intrinsically groundbreaking and funny…and, yes, bullying in tone (that being the core of “punching downwards”).

The “crying mohammed” is brilliant, but if you listen to the video where they decided on that cover, one guy first says, “we can’t just run another Mohammed as camel-f*cker cover, they’ll all be expecting that.” Problem is, he’s right. Most of the publication was at exactly that (very low effort, very low effect, very repetitive) level. It’s a shame, as each of the cartoonists could, and sometimes did achieve brilliance.

All I see are people exerting their 2nd Amendment rights.

Wow, so criticizing a murder victim three months after the murder, is equivalent to criticizing someone who is dying right in front of you? Thanks for your opinion, Ruben, but I disagree. (Unless somebody murders you, of course; then you’re automatically retroactively correct.)

And for those who haven’t read Trudeau’s comments, here they are: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/the-abuse-of-satire/390312/

Wheels within wheels. Political correctness is a slippery slope

Greet comment, Joy Sabl.

I assume Trudeau’s remarks were made with respect to the PEN American Center’s giving Charlie Hebdo an award. I think both sides of that controversy have made decent points, which probably makes me the most objectionable of all.

I think Ruben is on the wrong side of this, to the extent I can discern his position here, but the strip is pretty good anyway.

Meant great comment.

I have been an admirer of Trudeau and Doonesbury since it appeared in the Toronto Star in 1970. I have just read his April 10th speech and while I sympathize with his point of view, I must side with Ruben and Salman Rushdie. The response to these murders always seems to include a “but” by some, such as, “We deplore violence, but they insulted our (pick your sacred cow)”. Sorry. No buts. When they declared a fatwa encouraging true believers to murder Rushdie, I heard a lot of buts. Now are we wringing our hands and saying the Hebdo cartoonists went “too far”? I don’t care if the cartoons were not funny, if no one laughed, if they were bad, crudely drawn or without wit or genuine satire. Go ahead and pan them with criticism. But please don’t back pedal or boycott PEN with these mealy mouthed apologies. Enough. There are absolutes, and good and evil in this world. These cartoonists were not “guilty” of anything that justified ANY violence, The murders were evil. Period. No buts. Greg Kokko, Toronto, Canada

If you can’t criticize religion, you end up having to walk around the enormous turd it leaves wherever it it is unimpeachable. A gigantic ca ca it is, larger than the entire planet.

The point (my point anyway) wasn’t that you couldn’t criticize speech, or even criticize posthumously, the victims of murder about their speech, just that you shouldn’t blame people for the illegal reactions of others to their speech.

And Bolling is right (though he pulled his punches a little), if the artists at Charlie Hebdo are responsible for her own murder, then abortionists are responsible for their murders, and even the murders of innocents near by caught in the crossfire.