Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Goode's reaction to bloggers' rhubarb

Hey, I really want to thank that anonymous blogger who insinuated creepy beheading photos onto Waldo’s blog aggregator. Defending Waldo got the Virginia lefty bloggers off my back for a few days.

Note: the ‘toon is by F.T. Rea.
Disclaimer: Goode didn’t really say that. It’s just opportunistic satire.

8 comments:

Alice said...

I don't recall any blogger, lefty or otherwise, attacking you until some of the righties went after you during this last go-round.

Triscula said...

alice:

I think the caption is meant as a humorous 'quote' from Virgil Goode (depicted in the cartoon above).
It's a joke.

F.T. Rea said...

Alice,

The cutline (caption) is supposed to be read as if it has been spoken by Virgil Goode. Sorry if that isn't clear.

Mosquito said...

Now...it makes alot of sense F.T. Rea...I "figured" that's what they were up to since they love to deflect attention away from issues that "out" the Repbulcian party for what it truly stands for with those extreme neocons in power.

I was wondering why you would be attacked by the "reality" section of the VA blogosphere....

Colbert Rocks!!

Buzz...

F.T. Rea said...

OK. I put an update under the caption.

Actually, I've been doing cartoons in this style -- with a caricature and a cutline beneath -- for over 20 years, and this is the first time I've been aware of being misunderstood.

But I didn’t think about how blogs are different than paper publications, and how readers might get confused over whose words are supposed to mean what.

Thanks to Alice and Mosquito for making me see this difference. Now, I’m betting that some of my other ‘toons that have been posted on SLANTblog, using this same style, have been similarly misinterpreted.

I may be a geezer but I’m still learning...

Alice said...

oops
it seems I am satire impaired :)

pjgoober said...

A cost-benefit analysis, with lives being weighted the most, is the best way to approach Virgil Goode's sole policy proposal, which is a halt to muslim immigration.

Whatever the outcome of a cost benefit analysis, it will only be valid if it is actually acknowledged that muslim immigration, student studying, and tourist visits has a cost in treasure and lives, which September 11th, the Los Angeles El Al ticket counter shooting, the first WTC bombing, the London bombing, the Madrid train bombing, and numerous averted terrorist attacks show. Nearly every ledger has two sides to be acknowledged, and this is no exception. The outcome doesn't have to be all or nothing either. I believe that the optimal policy is reduced muslim immigration from the current ~40,000 per year to something like ~10,000 per year. We'd keep most of our international prestige and the psychic gain which a non-discriminatory immigration policy gives us, and US muslims wouldn't feel *quite* so hated as a complete ban would make them feel, but we'd have a far slower rate of growth in the sea in which terrorists swim and recruit. If we made sure that the reduced flow was more proportionately the cream of the crop than the current flow is, then we'd have less economic losses (they are highly educated) than pure reduced numbers of muslim immigrants alone would indicate.

Anonymous said...

I think part of the problem is that whereas most of your other portraits are really quite good, this one looks nothing like Virgil, thus fueling the confusion...But hey, it's light years ahead of what I could do, so who am I to critique?!?