Thursday, June 16, 2005
Lynching, it's such a laugh riot
When I saw this cartoon on The State newspaper'sonline editorial page, I was dumbfounded. The tone of The State's written editorials is notably high-minded and lofty, to the point of being holier-than-thou even, but Robert Ariail consistently hits a much lower tone. It's not that I expect a political cartoonist to be stuffy and dignified. It's just that the sheer crassness of Ariail's recent work is such a bizarre contrast to the harrumphing quality of so many of The State's written editorials.
Mr. Ariail's cartoons usually run the gamut from merely unfunny to offensive. Today he sinks to a new low.
Yes indeed, Mr. Arial comparing the filibustering of judicial nominees to this:
A few days ago The State's editorial page editor, Brad Warthen, confessed on his blog that he hesitated before running a recent Ariail cartoon with a lame Deep Throat-Monica Lewinsky reference - he wasn't sure the cartoon, with its (dopey) sexual double entendre, was suitable for The State's editorial page. I wonder if he entertained any doubts before running a cartoon that trivializes incidents such as this:
|
When I saw this cartoon on The State newspaper'sonline editorial page, I was dumbfounded. The tone of The State's written editorials is notably high-minded and lofty, to the point of being holier-than-thou even, but Robert Ariail consistently hits a much lower tone. It's not that I expect a political cartoonist to be stuffy and dignified. It's just that the sheer crassness of Ariail's recent work is such a bizarre contrast to the harrumphing quality of so many of The State's written editorials.
Mr. Ariail's cartoons usually run the gamut from merely unfunny to offensive. Today he sinks to a new low.
Yes indeed, Mr. Arial comparing the filibustering of judicial nominees to this:
A few days ago The State's editorial page editor, Brad Warthen, confessed on his blog that he hesitated before running a recent Ariail cartoon with a lame Deep Throat-Monica Lewinsky reference - he wasn't sure the cartoon, with its (dopey) sexual double entendre, was suitable for The State's editorial page. I wonder if he entertained any doubts before running a cartoon that trivializes incidents such as this:
