|
Buried alive posted:Didn't the military itself say it needed its own budget cut back at some point? Or am I making that up? Like he said, they said they'd cut 78 billion dollars worth of growth over the next five years out, but that's nothing considering their current budget is 700+ billion and they're simply saying they won't grow as much as they'd like to, as if that matters considering continued growth is still implied as opposed to actually cutting the budget. But terrorists, etc.
|
| # ¿ Jan 8, 2011 20:01 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 26, 2013 09:14 |
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:No good ideas on Egypt yet, though. I kind of want to refrain from cliches like the pyramids and the sphinx if at all possible, and that's probably what's holding me up. Maybe something to the effect of using the comparison of this:  Click here for the full 720x1000 image. The US had no problem encouraging democracy and even toppling a government when Saddam no longer was our buddy, but since Mubarak was still doing what we wanted notice how neutral and tight lipped we are. Took Obama long enough even to say democracy much less ask/tell Mubarak to step down. I figured that's one of the biggest underlying things about the situation, but you're the awesome cartoonist, not me  Deep Hurting posted:I'm aware of this. I think that problem can be corrected simply by making sure there's a strong stars-and-stripes motif in the armor and other accessories (and maybe an eagle design on his helmet). Maybe he doesn't even need the armor, but I thought that might be a fun challenge to draw. I'm not sure if this is racist or anything since I don't know nearly enough about Japanese history outside of TV/movies/etc, but when I think of samurais I think of those awesome looking banners. Perhaps you could have a banner with plenty of symbolism to show what character you're trying to make him.
|
| # ¿ Feb 2, 2011 09:43 |
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:Concerning the US government's comments on the uprising in Egypt, how about something contrasting Obama's own "change" rhetoric with Mubarak refusing to step down? I have some catching up to do, but I thought both the Obama administration and Mubarak's have the same general tone to their statements basically calling for protests to end and keep Mubarak in power for a "peaceful transition" until the elections this year which obviously hasn't stopped the protests.
|
| # ¿ Feb 3, 2011 23:55 |
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:Actually was considering this already. Haven't rejected it because it seems like a good idea, but it's something I need to sketch to be sure it's as good as I think it may be. Apparently the protesters beat you to it  Another idea I had from someone describing a protest sign. Perhaps a sort of two panel thing, one showing the massive protest in Tahrir Square with "Made in Egypt" under it, with Mubarak in the other panel with "Made in USA." Not really clever or anything, but gently caress if it isn't true.
|
| # ¿ Feb 4, 2011 23:38 |
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:I actually do think that's pretty clever, though there might be a slightly more elegant way to illustrate the contrast. Oh yeah, that was really rough and just popped into my head when I read someone posting about the sign, figured it couldn't hurt to suggest it. I'm drawing a blank trying to think of a better way to contrast it, though.
|
| # ¿ Feb 5, 2011 00:07 |
|
|
ufarn posted:I like this one: That makes me think of another idea. What if the cartoon was some sort of map, not necessarily a Risk type map, but one that had something signifying the various US-friendly dictators and then you have Obama/Uncle Sam/Whoever sort of throwing Mubarak out, shrugging and sort of going "eh, it's just one."
|
| # ¿ Feb 7, 2011 21:58 |
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:
I think it's pretty good, especially compared to a lot of the others cartoons about the situation, but (as I was going to post at some point) I'd love to see you do another at some point focusing more on the hypocrisy inherent in how the US claims to want to spread democracy, but supports autocratic regimes all over the region. Also, yes hurry and color it and send it into AJE. Ought to even get all of the goons following Egypt to demand AJE to hire you as their political cartoonist
|
| # ¿ Feb 11, 2011 09:37 |
|
|
Pidmon posted:The "Sorry, this image is no longer available to public" one? Yeah, that was the one. I had an idea along the same lines, it's not necessarily a topical cartoon that needs to be done now and it's along the same lines as your idea. As I'm sure we're all aware, the American manufacturing industry has gone over to China, India, etc while the rise of the credit industry has caused the middle class to go more and more in debt. I was thinking of something like showing a representation of the middle class from the 50s or whatever, union workers like automotive, steel, whatever with it sort of labeled as "1950 Middle Class" and then you have another panel with "2010 Middle Class" with the people holding shopping bags, preferably obese as well maybe even in those rascal scooters, possibly even adding in a Wal-Mart/McDonalds worker or something. It's even more stark when you look at this, from a book written by Elizabeth Warren and her daughter:  (Link: http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/01/...rear end-on-the-html) Yeah, a dual income family today has $850 dollars less for discretionary spending (which includes things like food, clothes, etc) than a single income family in the 70s 
|
| # ¿ Feb 19, 2011 05:18 |
|
|
annatar posted:Is there a breakdown anywhere of how much of that is a growth in financing costs (repayments & premiums etc) and a growth in cost of living for real products/services? The article I linked to doesn't break down every bit of it, but it does go over how expenditures on things like food, clothing and even entertainment are like 20-30% lower now than in the 1970s obviously to go ahead and dispel what the article talks about, this concept of "affluenza" coined by another author where people are basically buying too much junk. To the specifics of increase in mortgage/insurance/etc it just says what they are today, not really a side-by-side comparison though. Other than that, I don't think it goes too in depth, but it is essentially an article on a book they wrote, so I would imagine you could find a lot more in that. http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Tr...98104249&sr=8-2 And apparently they have $1,500 less than their 1970s counterpart, not $850. Obviously that just makes it more depressing.
|
| # ¿ Feb 19, 2011 08:35 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I feel like the iphones or whatever they're holding don't really contribute to the comic. It just seems to be in there. The general feeling that lead to protests was, if I'm not mistaken, sort of sparked by Wael Ghonim, the Google guy, who started a page for a young guy who was killed by the police on facebook. That's not to say this was some sort of internet revolution, but I think the internet and what it allows in way of knowledge and communication to pass to one another was sort of kindling for the bigger unrest shared with the population (poverty, unemployment, oppression, etc). Orange Devil posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A Gotta love YouTube comments: quote:@ZealfortheCross The only thing worse than a zionist stooge is a christian zionist stooge. All Jew All The Time  Karl Sharks fucked around with this message at Feb 19, 2011 around 22:00 |
| # ¿ Feb 19, 2011 21:56 |
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:Well, is there a better way to argue unions are an important defense for workers that couldn't also be misconstrued as implying they're more indestructible than they actually are? Maybe instead of the wrecking ball suggestion he could be going with a different route with some explosives hooked up and his finger about to press the button, that way you can still say the unions are an important part of the country while also saying they are indeed vulnerable since dynamite > rocks. They could even be labeled as "Tea N Tea" since Walker is sort of a result as the Tea Party shifting politics to the right, correct? I'm not sure if he is a candidate or just pandered to them, though.
|
| # ¿ Feb 23, 2011 21:40 |
|
|
ReindeerF posted:I scan this thread because some of the cartoons are really great, but I don't contribute much because, well, I don't have much to contribute. Still, I've had this thing in the back of my head that I've thought for a long time would be kind of humorous. It's fairly derivative, but I feel like it could be poignant if done right. Basically, that would be updating Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms series for our current economic depression. Since this one is about freedom of speech, what about adding a bit from the whole Citizens United case showing that now that corporations can have as much of a voice as normal people they could sort of the be the shadowy figure behind the Rascal Riders obviously more intimidating than them, but the RR are the most prominent face of the the organization, much like the Tea Party itself.
|
| # ¿ Feb 28, 2011 01:23 |
|
|
sean10mm posted:"Freedom of worship" means Westboro Baptist Church types waving GOD HATES FAGS signs. I think it would be better if instead of using WBC, which is crazy even by fundie standards, you showed the hypocrisy in most Christians, admittedly on the fundamental side but I see it around here and my family is just plain Methodist, how they want to allow religion in the school, but only if it's their religion. You're free to pick any religion you want (as long as its a sect of Protestantism). It was especially highlighted with that whole Ground Zero Mosque/Park51 thing how so many kept saying "yeah, we have the freedom of religion, but c'mon Islam is about HATE  "
|
| # ¿ Mar 1, 2011 22:30 |
|
|
inkblot posted:At the core, both things are essentially about people with power abusing people without power because no one will stop them. I don't see why you are more effected by the singular case of this and not the widespread case. But maybe it is because as you said, corporate abuse is a "generic evil", an institutionalized form of abuse that is often shown as numbers and graphs and not pictures of beaten spouses and mugshots of scumbags. Personally though, I think it should be shown as less generic and more intimate. But obviously I'm not a psychologist, so I am probably missing a piece of the puzzle here. I think it may because the abuse at the hands of corporations is more abstract than domestic abuse which is often accompanied by the face of a victim of it compared to the fairly vague and faceless "people." That and if you have a wife who has a black eye and a broken arm compared to an impoverished part of society you have one thing which has a clear cause (husband hits wife, other than "well did she back talk?" type guys there's really no denying it) while another has a more nebulous cause more people are ignorant of (plenty of people will blame the government not letting the free market free, bootstraps, etc). So, yeah, it comes down to essentially putting a real face, not a symbol of general ideas and concepts, to invoke an emotional, as well as a rational, response. If you take away the face you take away part of the message, a really important part. I'm pretty sure, even though we're drat smart compared to other species, we're really not good at grasping abstract things (or long term consequences, like me having an essay due on schizophrenia in 36 hours ) seeing as we've only had civilization for 10,000 years, and without much abstract thought and such until very recently, compared to our 200,000 years as homo sapiens and like 2 million years for the homo genus. So yeah, taking away the face of the victims is something I think would only hurt. Yes, it's harder to get instantly, but I think spending a moment or two to contemplate the meaning makes figuring it out (like spotting all the little things DH includes in the cartoons) just that more satisfying.
|
| # ¿ Mar 9, 2011 11:33 |
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:I have some new ideas. Here are some sketches of them: 1. Tell them to stop being self centered dicks. Legitimate, organic democracy in the Middle East is way more important than gas going up a buck or two even if that was the real reason. 2. It's not going up because of ME unrest, but because of Wall Street.
|
| # ¿ Mar 14, 2011 08:48 |
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:The problem I have with this comic is just that the imagery would have worked better, say, sixty-five years ago. It seems to imply that nuclear energy is something new, but the truth is that at this point Adam and Eve have eaten the apple and are nibbling away at the core. We've already got nuclear power: if it is our forbidden apple, then it's a bit too late. Maybe a majority of people are just now starting to realize that nuclear power has its downsides, but this cartoon indicates that we haven't bitten the apple yet, as if we still have time to decide not to. I realize what's meant by the comic and nuclear power and I don't want to seem annoying, but Uranium-235 isn't the only fuel source, and it's not even the best as far as I can tell, thorium is. The only reason it was "chosen" was because it could also be made into a bomb and, unless the nuclear scientist in the linked video are wrong, a civilian and military research project into nuclear power and such wasn't seen as smart or something. So yeah as I said I get the message, but I do wish more people knew about LFTR because so far I haven't really seen any reason not to work to make it our main energy source (until nuclear fusion is figured out, of course, we just gotta work it out in 10,000 years or so ). If only a cartoon could be made about it without making no sense as practically no one knows about it compared to U-235 powered fission. Sorry about the little digression, but just want to spread the word about some LFTR  FactsAreUseless posted:We're not saying the metaphor doesn't work, we're saying it doesn't work now. The metaphor is fine, the timing isn't. Everyone is quite aware of the symbolism of the apple, thank you. The problem is that nuclear power isn't a new thing: we've already eaten the fruit, we're aware of the consequences. What is this cartoon trying to say? I think the timing is still pretty decent considering the fact we haven't begun to really realize how awesome nuclear power is, even U-235, considering how easily controlled the radioactive waste is compared to coal's radioactive waste which simply blows out into the air, not to mention mountaintop removal, coal ash lakes, etc. That and the whole ":herp:Japan is going to become a land of mutant Zombies everyone buy nuke pills before we turn into zombies :herp:" that's going on recently. I'm not sure if DH meant to make it because of either of those things, but I think it still stands as good reasons.
|
| # ¿ Mar 21, 2011 05:39 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Can the apple ever truly be eaten? Seeing as we are constantly learning more things, it would seem more accurate to say that we have only eaten part of the apple. Clearly what we need is some kind of percentage graph and/or pie chart indicating the amount of apple remaining to be eaten. Or perhaps the tree produces apples of many sorts and we've already eaten the ones that correspond to the technological advances we've already discovered and implemented (electricity, internet, etc) and yet the public is still apprehensive about nuclear power. Or this is going way too deep for a cartoon with a pretty clear message, I thought, heh.
|
| # ¿ Mar 21, 2011 06:13 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 26, 2013 09:14 |
|
|
Fatkraken posted:That's all well and good, but there's so MUCH nuance there that it might be too easy to just ignore it and say "apple = original sin, nuclear = sinful!". I know you can't only cater to the lowest common denominator, but it's a bit like a comedian who appropriates and examines racist imagery to illustrate the absurdity of the racist viewpoint; there's always a risk that an actual racist will come up to you and say "well done mate, for having a go at the loving Muslims!" Dominion posted:I'm positive that exact thing happens to satirists all the time. Yup: http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract posted:This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert's political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert's political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion. Who knew conservatives ignore reality because simply bending it to make them feel safe and right makes them feel better?  I think this cartoon does stick out a bit compared to most others in that generally there's a distinct message to be taken. Like one of my favorites, the one with Trig in the prop closet. There's not really another way you can interpret that, it's simply stating a fairly well-reasoned point: that Palin uses her family, specifically Trig, to political advantage. But for this one, as others have noted, it's too much of a blank slate, so to speak. Yes, much of art is nice because you can interpret it how you want, but art also doesn't involve a major policy and controversy that is endangering our entire planet. I think the stakes are too high to allow for ambiguous interpretation to fit whomever's world view that is looking at it. I like the cartoon because I understand the intended message, but I don't like it because many people who look at it could say "Oh God, nuclear power makes baby Jesus cry!" simply because they know the apple as evil from SATAN so we should never, ever touch it. Let's not question why it existed for us to eat, because that's just SATAN talking. Karl Sharks fucked around with this message at Mar 23, 2011 around 02:14 |
| # ¿ Mar 23, 2011 02:11 |
|
