Payday loans for some perspective, please
Payday loans can help in an emergency cash situation. They’re great for that. But there are some things money can’t buy. Perspective is one of those.
CNN reports that the Rev. Al Sharpton appreciated the apology from New York Post Chairman Rupert Murdoch over the controversial dead chimp cartoon that ran on February 18. Sharpton considered the apology “a good gesture,” but he questioned whether the apology will “guarantee that these kinds of things will not happen again.” To Sharpton, the apology was not enough.
Blood in the water
For those of you who don’t know what this is about, the February 18 cartoon depicts a chimp that has been shot dead by authorities (alluding to a recent incident in Connecticut involving a chimpanzee that mauled a middle-aged widow). One of the two officers on the scene in the comic says, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”
Some people jumped to the conclusion that because the comic was published the day after President Obama signed the economic stimulus bill, the Post’s commentary was racist. Yet in truth, President Obama did not write the bill. Something of that nature is written by teams of cabinet members, administrative staff and other politicians. Even by lobbyists. It passes the president’s desk last, so he does have final say, but to say that the cartoon is taking a shot at Obama is very questionable, based on the evidence. Furthermore, to add another layer and assume that the cartoon’s intent is racist is even harder to come by, considering the evidence present in the cartoon. I’d wager a loan until payday that even a real chimpanzee would know that this is true.
Innocent until proven guilty
I do not find the cartoon in question funny, because I generally do not find violent images amusing in any way. But despite what Rev. Sharpton or the NAACP think, I find it troubling that the artist and newspaper are assumed guilty because someone made a connection between the cartoon and an old, horrendous racial stereotype. Furthermore, I find it even more distressing that the NAACP appears ready to campaign for the firing of cartoonist Sean Delonas. Delonas said that the cartoon is about the economic stimulus bill, and what he considers to be its incompetence – as if it were literally written by a chimpanzee. “Do you really think I’m saying Obama should be shot? I didn’t see that in the cartoon,” he told CNN.
Murdoch and the Post apologized if anyone took offense, in essence bowing to the political power the NAACP wields:
Today, I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted… I can assure you — without a doubt — that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.
Be consistent and earn credibility
The NAACP is an organization that stands up for the civil rights of minorities. This is admirable. What is not admirable is the organization’s inconsistency. Where are the cries for Bill O’Reilly to be fired from FOX News because he feels that a cap on illegal immigration is necessary to preserve a “white, Christian male power structure?” How is that not racist, NAACP? Is it because O’Reilly is a bigger target with more clout than Delonas that you abstain from campaigning for his dismissal? What about “urban” commercials from fast food giants like McDonald’s that clearly pander to African-Americans with their watered-down depictions of hip-hop culture? In its way, isn’t that also racist, NAACP? Don’t insult our intelligence by claiming that it’s merely targeted marketing.
Is the New York Post cartoon racist? You be the judge. I believe it is clear that was not the intent. I believe it’s also clear that the cartoon isn’t funny or insightful, but that isn’t the point here. Sometimes, people need a healthy dose of perspective before jumping to conclusions. Payday loans won’t buy that kind of perspective, but they can make life a little bit easier when little disasters strike.






Well, I doubt that it was intentional. A little bit more care maybe should have been taken to keep from allowing that kind of inference, but then again information is up to the interpreter. It was a bit insensitive, to be sure.
My first thought was, ‘Get over it… it’s just a cartoon. There are racist jokes everywhere.’ After reading the post and watching the video, I now have a change of heart. It’s absolutely offensive, especially to the new president. The fact of the matter is it sparked a conflict; they should have known better than that. Intentionally or not, the cartoon was nothing but racist.