Where Are His Pants?

I ran across the cartoon below today.  While I'm a little tired of the whole "From Penn State to the State Pen" witticism, I thought that this cartoon was interesting only in the sense that the artist made it look like Sandusky isn't wearing any pants!  I can't imagine that this was on purpose, but come on!  Doesn't it look like he's pantless?!  You know it does. Behold! 
  

 

And again, I realize that it's not a misrepresentation of anything that went on, it's just weird. And kinda funny. That's all I've got.

Sphere: Related Content

They're A Little Racist, But It's OK

Finally! The WB has gotten it right. They're not trying to change or ignore "history". (I'm using the quotation marks because I'm about to start referencing cartoons and giving them a "historical" status felt a little weird.) They're just showing it for what it is. And what it is is Tom and Jerry cartoons that weren't always politically correct.

Look, there were some things in older cartoons that were fairly racist. Now, I'm not a big fan of the word "racist" because it gets thrown around all of the time lately, usually in the context of things that are so not racist, but it's appropriate here. Take the character Mammy Two Shoes. Yep, that was her name. Behold!

Yeah, that doesn't look all that great. And usually, Mammy Two Shoes didn't have a face. She was usually depicted as such:

See? Not much better. And that's not really the extent of it, but you get my drift. And while I personally don't think that it's a big deal, you know that there are people out there who would think it's a big deal. (Or, at least, they're going to want to make a big deal out of it. Big difference.) And those are the sorts of people that usually complain until something is taken off the air because they find it sooooo offensive. And unfortunately, a lot of companies simply comply because they are afraid of offending people, even though the number of people who are NOT offended greatly outnumber the nimrods who are offended. But not The WB. Nope. When they were airing a bunch of Tom and Jerry cartoons recently, they came up with this "disclaimer" or warning label or whatever you want to call it. Behold!

It's brilliant. Simply brilliant. You can't ignore this sort of stuff. And just because there might be something in it that isn't acceptable in current times, doesn't mean that it still can't be enjoyed in the proper context. Or even the improper context. Hell, they're freaking cartoons! They're going to be enjoyable in spite of the unflattering depiction of the maid (who, by the way, is NOT REAL). And I cannot even tell you how grateful I am that The WB is still showing these cartoons. It might not seem like much, but trust me. It's a lot. And now, we sit back and wait for the complaints to roll in. And they will. Roll.

Sphere: Related Content

Hmmm....

There's a lot of stuff going on right now. I can't quite figure out which one it is, but I think that it's one of the two things Fry is wondering about below. I hope it's the latter, but I don't know how to figure out the difference.

Sphere: Related Content

Now We're Talking

I don't know that I can just keep yammering on about the Jared Lee Loughner being a nutjob situation much longer. Granted, things are starting to simmer down a bit, but people are still giving way too much credit to a bunch of things that don't deserve ANY credit. Thus, I thought that today I would go with this caricature/cartoon which I found on Facebook at something called Chris Spangle's Blog. It's about the most accurate piece of "reporting" that I've run across so far on this topic. Behold! (And thank you.)

Sphere: Related Content

The Worst Cartoon Ever

The awesome folks over there at Urlesque had a little feature called "13 Old Cartoons You Didn't Think Anyone Else Watched". It was awesome. But after reading it and watching some of the old cartoons, I'm fairly convinced that no one watched them. That is, except The Ant and The Aardvark, which aired during episodes of The Pink Panther. That was awesome. The rest of those cartoons are simply crap.

But the one which I found to be absolutely awful as well as inexplicable was The Gary Coleman Show. Yes. That is correct. The Gary Coleman Show. From what I can tell, the Gary Coleman character is an angel that is sent back down to earth by some school marm looking angel who wears gladiator sandals (which is strange since she's an angel and lives in the clouds where there really isn't a pressing need for footwear). I guess he's supposed to do good deeds. I'm not really sure. I'm more interested in what the story was behind the dead kid, but I don't really think that they got into that very much back then. (By the way, I'm merely assuming that he's a small child in this cartoon. For all I know, he could have been an adult. Hard to tell with that guy.)

The point here is that is appears to have been terrible and I cannot believe that anyone watched it. Actually, I can't believe that anyone thought that this thing was a good idea in the first place. Who comes up with these things? What was it that made someone think that what the world was clamoring for at the time was a Gary Coleman cartoon where he's an angel? And after whoever it was voiced this opinion, who in the world was it that agreed with that individual?

I've included a sample of this madness below. It's only the opening credits, but it's enough for you to grasp just how horrible it was (and still is, in a way). If you need some of the actual crap show, do a You Tube search. There are a few on there for you to gape in amazement at.

Sphere: Related Content

Another Cartoon Fakeroversy

I guess that whole deal that some Muslims do with freaking out over cartoons that they find offensive or blasphemous or whatever the heck they want to call it, must work for them. And it must have been noticed by other groups as well. Or at least some Mexicans who are flipping out over "An American cartoonist's rendition of the Mexican flag" which depicts a "...normally a regal-looking eagle at the center of Mexico's flag riddled with bullets and bleeding." Uh-huh. And they've got their tortillas in a wad because why? Because they claim "...it's offensive to taint their national symbol with images of drug violence." Wait. What now?

Correct. According to AOL News, a one Daryl Cagle, who is employed by MSNBC.com (I'm not sure why that's important, but AOL News included it, so I figured that I would, too), drew the cartoon of the flag with the gunned down eagle as a "...reference to the drug wars that have riled Mexico and left more than 28,000 people dead there in less than four years. " That seems like a pretty reasonable visual metaphor to depict. Oh, but not for everyone. No, there are plenty of asshats out there who think that because they don't like something that other people should give a crap. And a lot of people don't. Oh, and by the way, here is the cartoon drawing in question. Behold!

One reader of some sort of a Mexican newspaper called el Universal (I have no idea what that it. It could be like The National Enquirer for all I know. After all, in that picture over there on the left, they have prominently featured a one Rihanna. Who knows what that's all about?), wrote in to say "It is a shame that a patriotic symbol like our flag, which is so beautiful to me, can be mocked by a stupid cartoonist...I think there are many other ways to graphically protest what's happening in our country." Unfortunately, he did not give any suggestions as to what those other ways might perhaps be. And really, the guy shouldn't just single out "stupid cartoonists". It can be mocked by anyone, regardless of intelligence and/or the ability to draw, and it probably has been.

Cagle has a blog which I have perused and found to be most excellent. A sample of his work can be seen on the right. He has several of his political cartoons which feature Mexico and it's impact/relationship on/with the United States. He's definitely right on target. But the fact that he has a blog means that people have easy access to communicate with him. It goes along with the blogging. (You should see some of the emails that people write me. They're not always happy if you can imagine that!) And on this issue, they certainly did. A one Ramon De Leon wrote, "I think your idea of bringing the violence in Mexico to light is excellent. Too bad you butchered it along with the Mexican flag. Laws in Mexico with regards to the use and depiction of the flag are in place to prevent this sort of stuff. Please consider taking it down and issuing an apology to the Mexican American community." Um, are you kidding?

See, laws in Mexico are different than those in the United States. Take your immigration policy, for example. Much, MUCH different. We don't have laws against freedom of speech, even when in regard to the flag. And even if we did, I doubt that those laws would extend to the flags of other nations. I can only hope that Mr. Cagle will not issue an apology. I'm pretty sure he's the kind of guy who isn't going to take it down, but a lot of people find themselves with their back against the wall and are sort of "forced" into apologizing for something that isn't worthy of an apology in the first place.

So, they're upset because someone doesn't respect their flag? Tell you guys what. How about you start respecting anything having to do with America and then we'll talk about your flag? Or, perhaps, do something about your drug violence and then we'll talk about the cartoon. But with over 12 million of your countrymen living illegally in this country and having zero respect for our laws, I'm not going to feel all that bad that you folks are all bent out of shape about this flag cartoon. It didn't get the Muslims anywhere and it isn't going to get you anywhere, so just pipe down. Or draw a cartoon about the American flag if that makes you feel better. I really don't think I care what you do, just stop making it out to be a big deal because it might be a lot of things, but a big deal certainly isn't one of them.

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Everybody Draw Muhammed Day

Look, I'm not an overly political activist-y type of person. But if I can make some sort of a stand whilst sitting from the comfort of my walled-off compound, I'll think about it. And today, I've decided to sit here in front of my computer and take a stand.

Today is "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day". According to the self-proclaimed fair and balanced folks over there at Fox News, "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day" was the brainchild of a one cartoonist from Seattle, Molly Norris. Molly was appalled (as anyone else who values the freedom of speech and expression should have been) at Comedy Central's decision about a month ago to censor an episode of South Park which showed the prophet, Muhammed, in a bear suit. Wait. In a....?

Correct. In a bear suit. See, it's apparently against some sort of Muslim or Islamic tenet to depict the prophet Muhammed at all. And so even though he was in a bear suit, that was enough for a bunch of tools over at something called RevolutionMuslim.com to post a message which read “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show…This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.” I see. (By the way, Theo Van Gogh ended up dead in the street. Oh, but it's not a threat.)

You know, they can say it's not a threat, but it certainly sounds very threat-ish to me. You know, radical Muslims or Muslim extremists or whatever you want to call them sure do get awfully riled up over cartoons. Wow. And of course, their solution is to just kill people who don't agree with them. Yeah, that seems perfectly normal. Or not.

Molly explained that she had felt "...that Viacom or Comedy Central had overreacted to a veiled threat from a tiny blog or website that not many people even belong to, and I think it just set a precedent for a slippery slope in censorship." She also said that "If artists have to be afraid of what they draw, then what’s the point of even living here? That's what really bothered me." Good point.

Her solution (since we're really kind of grasping at straws with how to handle nutjobs that can't be reasoned with because they justify all of their actions as being under the guise of some sort of religion that sanctions their killing anyone who breaks rules that they don't even have to follow) was that if the market was saturated with images of Muhammed then it would be a demonstration of some sort of solidarity by people who "....will not be intimidated or silenced by those who want to subjugate us simply because they find what we do offensive." I couldn't agree more.

Look, if you've ever watched an episode of South Park for more than a few minutes, you know how ridiculous it is for a group to issue a veiled death threat over some dude in a bear suit (some dude, by the way, who isn't even real as it's a freaking cartoon!). There are FAR more things that are FAR more offensive to get yourself all worked up over. Seriously. I watched an episode last night that had me cringing at times. I'm just going to say that there were gerbils involved and leave it at that. Well, and I wanted to stab my eyes out before it was over. (You can click here if you want to know more. But I'm warning you, that episode should have been rated NO for No One!) But my point is that threatening someone's life over their drawing a cartoon bear is insane. And Comedy Central was insane for editing and censoring the episode.

Therefore, I am totally supporting "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day". I'm not an artist. I don't play one on TV. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But today, I am drawing Muhammed and posting my drawing here. I'm not afraid of backlash or veiled threats. I am afraid of the First Amendment to our Constitution being squelched because of fear. I'm not going to just sit here (figuratively speaking, of course) and be OK with a group of people trying to scare others into submission. This isn't a stand taken out of disrespect. It's a stand taken sitting down and it's one that's taken out of necessity.

Here is my Muhammed. He's at work. And he's tired. So he's taking a little nap. The office is bright, so he needs that newspaper over his face so that he can get some proper rest. Happy "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day". Now go out there and stand up for something! Even if you have to do it sitting down!

Sphere: Related Content

Censoring Bears In The Name Of All That Is Muslim

Well, we've lost. I thought maybe there was a chance this wouldn't happen, but it did and we lost. So close, too. So very close. What's that? Oh, yeah. The South Park guys were going to have Muhammad in their episode this week, but the network censored it, presumably because they were afraid that the Muslim extremists would come unglued (like they always do) and end up killing someone over it (like they always want to do).

Here's the scoop: According to an article over at the LA Times, "...after an ominous threat from a radical Muslim website, the network that airs the program (South Park) bleeped out all references to the prophet Muhammad in the second of two episodes set to feature the holy figure dressed in a bear costume." Wait. In a bear costume? You can't have Muhammad in a bear costume? Are you kidding me?

Whether you can or you can't probably isn't the issue. But what became the issue is that over at something called revolutionmuslim.com (a site which seems to have since been taken down), the following had been posted: "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show." A photo of Van Gogh's body lying in the street was included with the original posting. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them." Uh-huh. I see. So they censored the...bear? The bear. OK. What the hell?

In the same article, it explains that Matt and Trey did not agree with the decision to censor the episode (a position which I can't help but to admire the heck out of). It says that they "...clearly disagreed with their bosses' handling of the situation. A statement posted on their website said that executives "made a determination to alter the episode" without their approval and that the usual wrap-up speech from one character didn't mention Muhammad "but it got bleeped too." Great. What a bunch of wusses.

Now, look, am I saying that I would want to be the first one in American media to just come right out and mock Mohammad? Uh, no. I don't think I would. But depending on my position, I just might. Here's the thing: We can't bow down to extremist Muslims. We can't. We can't compromise our own freedom of speech because extremist Muslims issue vague death threats which they could probably find some nutjob to carry out for them. We can't be afraid of them. But that doesn't change the fact that the executives at Comedy Central are clearly very afraid of them.

When you censor something like that in this country (or anywhere, for that matter, but I'm just saying) all it does it make it so that it's easier for it to happen again. So, now, the next time that something is made fun of that a particular group doesn't like, are we going to hear death threats over it? OK, that's probably a bad example to use because the answer is most likely NO. But the answer will increasingly be "YES" when it comes to making fun of the Muslim religion. It's not like this is the first time that this has happened. And, unfortunately, it's unlikely to be the last.

You know what would have been great? What would have been great is if this threat (and it was a threat) had been made and then all that is American media (or media in general, I'm not going to be particular about it) had just saturated all of their shows and papers and magazines with references and depictions of Muhammad. Just have it everywhere. One big show of solidarity. That's what would have been great. But instead what we got was a cartoon of a bear that allegedly had Muhammad inside of it censored. Sure. That makes a lot of sense. We're doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Easter From Super Chicken

Happy Easter from Super Chicken and a rather felonious Easter Bunny. (Jay Ward was the greatest.)

Sphere: Related Content

Cartoons That Really Take Things Down a Notch

From what I can tell, the Internet is good for a couple of things. I don't know what all of them are, but I know that one of them is porn. Porn. Porn. Oh, did I mention the porn? Yeah, there's porn on the Internet. All sorts of porn. There's porn that I didn't know existed. That's right. Little known porn. Obscure porn. Hidden porn. Need I go on? Good. Because I'm here to talk about a particular type of porn and a particular person that became ensnared in it's yellow, toon-ish, porn-y ways.

Let's go down to Australia and see what Brisbane Times has to report. They're telling us that a one 28-year old and old enough to know better Kurt James Milner was "....handed a 12-month suspended prison sentence and is now a registered sex offender after pleading guilty in Ipswich District Court to having the bizarre images on his computer." Clearly porn, yes? Yes. Porn. And plenty of it. The only thing is that this porn is one of those "different" sorts of porn that I alluded to earlier. That's right. This would be cartoon porn. The Simpsons to be exact. Wait. What now?

Hold on, hold on. (That really wasn't intended to be a pun, but take it how you may.) Before we delve into the issue of cartoons being able to be porn-ed (if that's the correct term, I have no idea and I'm really just makin' stuff up right about now), let's take a gander at Mr. Milner first, shall we? Behold!

OK. That seems about right. Carry on! Where were we? Oh, right! The Simpsons. Yes, there is porn that involves those colorful yellow caricatures of a crudely drawn family from the geographically undefined town of Springfield, USA. Yes, I thought that it was a little weird myself. But apparently it's pretty prevalent on the Internet. (I have no idea if it's prevalent in other venues, those being not the Internet, and I'm not about to do any sort of research.) Oh, and it wasn't just The Simpsons, because that would be weird. No, it was The Simpsons, The Powerpuff Girls and The Incredibles. Um, yeah. OK. So, what now?

You got it. Simpsons, Powerpuffs and The Incredibles. (Really? Powerpuff Girls? But they're so small! What in the world would you want to see them...look, never mind. Sorry I went there. Please continue.) All in some sort of tangled, sexual positions. It's unclear as to whether they're engaging in inter-cartoon sexual shenanigans (because that might be strange). But what became a bit more clear to me is that this sort of thing is rather popular on the Internets. Don't believe me. Do a Google Images search for "Marge Simpson". Even better, do a Google Images search for "Marge".

Here's the thing: While I find this weird and all of that, I can't really say that I'm totally against it. I'm certainly not for it, but I don't think I'm against it. I mean, wouldn't it be better to have these guys (or girls, I suppose) that enjoy this sort of oddity to just enjoy it? I can't see really where it's hurting anything (other than the pure and wholesome imagery that cartoons are supposed to conjure up) and I also can't really see where it's hurting anyone.

Look, I'd prefer that all of these pervos out there who enjoy their porn so much just not enjoy it so much. But would I rather have this guy looking at images of The Simpsons characters doing it than I would have him look at pictures of little kids? Absolutely! The Simpsons screwing would win hands down, every day. (There's a sentence I never thought I'd write.) I have to say though that having this guy register as a sex offender for the rest of his life is a bit much, don't you think? They were cartoons, after all. How does that effect his day to day life? As a registered aficionado of cartoon porn? Is he allowed in to see Pixar movies? I'm thinking that would not be a wise thing to allow this sort of individual to participate in. Video games should be out as well. Lord knows we wouldn't want him fantasizing over Mario and Luigi in San Francisco or something. (They look kind of gay as it is.) Keep him out of the Disney store while we're at it. There's stuffed animals galore in those places! I doubt he'd be able to contain himself. Ooh! And the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade! All of those big ol' balloon characters, bouncing around? Not to mention the fact that they're tethered, so it could invoke some sort of bondage fantasy. All I'm saying is that you can't be too careful and it sounds like a trigger if you're asking me! (And keep him away from Trigger, too. You know. Just to be safe.)

Huh. I appear to have strayed a bit from my original point...whatever it was. Oh, that's right. It is asinine for one to have to register as a sex offender simply because they enjoy watching cartoons do it. That was my point.

Sphere: Related Content

Vampires, Shmampires

So a few days ago, "New Moon" the sequel to the movie "Twilight" opened and it has already been a huge success. Holy crap, the first day that thing came out, it made $72.7 million. Overall, I'm pretty sure that the entire series is going to make right around, oh...say...lemme see...carry the three...yeah, about a gazillion dollars. And why is that again? It's because of the subject matter, of course! And what, exactly, is the subject matter you ask? (OK, maybe you didn't ask, but I sure as hell did because I had not a clue.) That would be vampires. Vampires? Yes. Vampires.

Why vampires, you ask? OK, again, maybe you didn't, but I sure as hell did because I'm remembering vampires being around, oh, forever, and I don't recall them being $72.7 million worth of popular. But they are. And apparently they are because they're (get ready for it) sexy. That's right. Vampires are now sexy. Behold!

Wow. They kind of are sexy. And sparkly. They seem to sparkle just a little bit. Is there such a thing as a sparkly vampire? Huh. Well, there is now! Vampires that sparkle! It's a great time to be alive!

No, seriously, when did this happen? The sexy vampire thing. I'm not recalling vampires as being presented (in the strictly historical sense, of course) as a sex object. Let's take a look at some of the vampires of yore and see if we can spot any sexy ones. I'm pretty sure they're making this whole sexy, sparkly vampire (the ol SSVs) thing up.

One of the most, if not the most famous vampire would be that portrayed by a one Bela Lugosi. Behold! Bela!

Yeah, I'm not quite seeing it. No, that strikes me as kind of creepy, actually. And being a vampire, I find that to be rather appropriate. Vampires are supposed to be creepy. AND scary. Granted, most of the time creepy in and of itself automatically denotes the scary, but considering that people are suddenly finding them to be sexy, I thought I should point that out.

Speaking of vampires that are scary and that are absolutely not sexy, here we have Bram Stoker's Dracula. Or, at least, we have the movie poster from it, but it's still pretty darned scary. Behold!

Yeah, I'm not finding so much sexiness in that crazy looking thing. Hey! All of you teenage girls who are flocking to see the skinny dude that looks like he hasn't seen the sun since 1997! What do you think of this vampire, eh?! Not so sexy now is he?! I didn't think so. Moving on....

Speaking of not so sexy and kind of scary is this guy from something called Dracula: Year Zero. Behold!

OK, I'm pretty sure that if I saw that standing over me in some field somewhere, I'd be way too easy prey for him because I'd either pass out or just die right there on the spot from fright. I'd probably pass out and on my way down to the ground I'd probably croak, but I'd definitely be dead shortly after witnessing that. Oh, and in the middle of my demise, I would, in no way, think how sexy that was and boy, am I lucky! What a way to go! (By the way, I don't know why I'd be in the field, but in these sorts of movies, the characters always end up in a field. I don't know if they're just that softheaded or if they're always disoriented farmers of what, but there's usually a field of some sort involved.)

Next up on the List of Vampires That I Do Not Find Sexy would be Count Chocula. Behold!

What? Are you kidding me?! Of course he counts as a vampire! He has that long face and those teeth that are supposed to be fangs! And he has that hood with the turned up collar! That is definitely a vampire trait! But see, I don't find him sexy. I find him to be delicious. Sexy? No? Chock full of chocolaty goodness? Oh, yeah!

Then there's my favorite vampire from childhood, the one, the only, Count von Count! Behold!

The Count is the reason I love math. Nothing gave me more pleasure than watching him noodle through how many of something that someone had, all by way of counting. Again, not so much sexy. Not so much sparkly. But very, very useful when trying to do math quickly. I love The Count.

Next up, possibly the least scary vampire that is not a Muppet, nor on the front of a cereal box, Grandpa Munster! Behold!

Grandpa Munster was sort of like the Joey Tribianni of his time. Very, very lovable, but not so well endowed in the smarts department. Definitely not so well endowed in the sexy department either. (My point here has been way too easy to make so far.)

And how could I get this far on my List of Vampires That I Do Not Find Sexy without mentioning Count Duckula! Behold!

Aww. I heart Count Duckula. He is far from scary and even farther from sexy. He doesn't have fangs and his favorite food isn't blood, it's broccoli sandwiches. He doesn't exactly fall into the sexy, sparkly vampire mold that the "New Moon" folks are trying to sell us, now does he?

And finally, we have Count Blood Count. I'm thinking he might be a cousin or other distant relative of Count von Count. He's not a muppet, but rather he's the vampire that starred opposite of Bugs Bunny in "Translyvania 6-5000". There was the famous duel of magic words between the two of them where Count Blood Count announced to Bugs, "I'm a vampire!" To which Bugs replied, "Oh, yeah? Well, abacadabra! I'm an umpire!" I really don't know what one has to do with the other, but it was definitely funny. Very funny. Not sexy. Not sparkly. Funny.

While I can appreciate the whole SSV concept that the "New Moon" folks have going on, you have to admit that they certainly aren't basing it on anything of historical fact. It is completely unlike anything that I have just demonstrated here. Vampires are one of two things. They're either scary as hell, or they're funny as can be. They are not sexy. But hey! If anyone out there wants to pay me $72.7 million to do something that I'm not, I'm in!

Sphere: Related Content