Chris Britt by Chris Britt
- September 30, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Editorials A-Z Navigation
Steve Breen by Steve Breen
Stuart Carlson by Stuart CarlsonAbout Chris Britt
A self-described liberal, award-winning editorial cartoonist Chris Britt nevertheless delights in skewering deserving politicians of every persuasion. Britt's sardonic, biting cartoons are sometimes controversial, often outrageous and always thought-provoking.
© 2009 Chris Britt - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (32) Jump to Comments Form
scottfreitas
said,
about 1 month ago
Yes, ignore Glenn Beck etc and do only what all your slave masters tell you!
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the entire Demoncrat Party–listen only to THEM!
Because Obama never lies…. noooo… and the Demoncrats never lie, deceive, twist, distort…. noooooooo….. so IGNORE all the “right wing” people (without ever refuting their ideas) who claim Obama ISN”T God, ISN’T the answer to your prayers, ISN’T going to save you from CLIMATE!!! CHANGE!!!, or whatever other make-believe fantasy has you wetting your bed in fear at night…
deadheadzan
said,
about 1 month ago
No, just try to get some facts straight, maybe show some reasoning ability. That would be a step in the right direction.
scottfreitas
said,
about 1 month ago
How bout instead we just ignore your racist cartoon where all white males (well, the non-feminized ones who don’t vote Demoncrat) are depicted as drooling crazies.
I’ve seen so many variations of the above cartoon in my life from Leftists (always depicting white males) that if I had a dollar for each one i could retire and live off the proceeds…
believecommonsense
said,
about 1 month ago
Good toon, can imagine some posters fitting this bill quite nicely.
toasteroven said, about 1 month ago
Soooo… scott.
“Feminized”
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
From what I have seen. That location looks like the hood and/or the extreme poverty stricken parts of town. If you ever been their you would see Obama signs, shirts, numerous Obama slogans on merchandise and a large majority of these people would know no facts about anything.
They would say things that are far from the truth. Such as Obama is a Christian, Obama is Pro-Life, Obama is Pro-Family, Obama is for the military, Obama is for lower taxes and other false statements.
Their would be a very large population of career welfare participants, people whom have never worked their entire life, NAACP, Black Panthers, gang members, drug dealers and prostitutes.
You would see little or no conservatives in the above atmosphere.
Kylop said, about 1 month ago
Chris, while I certainly recognize them I bet the “rabbit ears” on top of the TV will be a source of confusion to the younger readers.
believecommonsense
said,
about 1 month ago
^^ Rush Limbaugh followers don’t fit your racist description but rabid right fundamentalists who do not know how to think fit the toon perfectly.
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
Believecommonsense,
Here is one issue the obamacare will cover. It was on afa.net. I am sure you will be proud of it.
Under an innocuous-sounding section titled “School-Based Health Clinics,” H.R. 3200 will authorize Planned Parenthood, as a “sponsoring facility,” to run a clinic during school hours on the grounds of public schools, with absolutely no accountability either to parents or school administrators.
Clinics would be accountable only to the Secretary of Health & Human Services, the radically pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius, who was a fervent supporter of late-term abortionist George Tiller
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
Edzeb and seniorbull,
Here is another democrat bill that will make you proud.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 (ENDA) is a proposed federal law which would have the effect, according to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), of “making it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote employees simply based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”
ENDA (H.R. 2981 - H.R. 3017 - S. 1584) has been changed from the “gay-only” version the House passed in 2007 to include language banning job discrimination based on “gender identity” as well as sexual orientation - complete with special protections for the transgendered. It would mean your child’s teacher, if he were a male but “felt” like a female, could go into the women’s bathroom.
ENDA is aimed at providing heightened protections for a particular sexual behavior - homosexuality. It would grant special consideration on the basis of “sexual orientation” that would not be extended to other employees in the workplace.
ENDA violates employers’ and employees’ Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from taking their deeply held beliefs into account when making personnel decisions. This would pose an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into people’s lives.
ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting marriage and family.
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
Dr. Cannuck,
I cannot forget about you. Here is something Pepsi is doing. It sounds so Canadian.
PepsiCo requires all employees to attend sexual orientation and gender identity diversity training where they are taught to accept homosexuality.
Loco80 said, about 1 month ago
Scott, after reading your posts, I’m almost embarrassed to be a conservative. I agree (sort of) with some of your thoughts, but jeez! Switch to decaf. I think that you inspired this strip. Striper77 has a much better approach that will get much more respect.
BCS, very smooth.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago
striper: What a wonderful idea! I love it. Accepting people for who they are as opposed to what we think they should be. Makes me proud.
tpenna
said,
about 1 month ago
While I think that absolutely every comment striper77 typed on this page is absolute poppycock and fabrication, I will agree with you, Loco80, that almost everything he wrote was uncharacteristically respectful.
Almost, that is.
His first post, particularly the part about “a very large population of career welfare participants” smacks distinctly of racism (as he relates it to two minority groups) and ignorance.
Having lived in “the Lower Bottoms” of Oakland, CA, and having come to know and respect my neighbors there, I can tell you that striper77 doesn’t have the first clue about inner-city people.
tpenna
said,
about 1 month ago
To say nothing of his racist insinuation that Black inner-city people all live in the kind of filth depicted in this toon.
Get a clue, striper77. Britt is rather unsubtly using the trash and vermin as a metaphor for the “trash talk” radio and tv.
Loco80 said, about 1 month ago
tpenna- Initially I was taken back by stirper’s first post, but as a welfare caseworker with a caseload of almost entirely single-parent, zero income families, I have an interesting perspective. Insulting or degrading these people would be absolutely wrong. There is a wide spectrum of clients ranging from those who sincerely need help because they are not capable of supporting themselves, to the other extreme of birthing “fatherless children” by their 18th birthday to carry on the family “business.” Everything in between those, with varying degrees of honesty and sincerity, also occur. An interesting thing occurred during 2008, however. We are to encourage clients to register to vote every time we see them, and usually with no results. They tell me that if they register to vote, then they are also registered to the jury duty polls, something they would not do. However, in 2008, when I asked, all of my African-American clients wanted to register so they could vote for Mr Obama. If I asked what they liked about him, they said “he’s black.” I cannot say that is wrong, they are citizens entitled to vote as much as more informed voters are. Just some food for thought.
tpenna
said,
about 1 month ago
Interesting observations, Loco80. Thanks for sharing. I agree that welfare recipients are dynamically represented on the range you described. I found (and still find) striper77’s comment to be racist because it played into harmful stereotypes about black people who live in an urban setting. As I said, my own experience living in an economically disadvantaged urban setting allowed me to see that his glib oversimplification is both inaccurate and offensive.
On another note, I’m not entirely convinced that the motivation you heard voiced for voting for Obama is completely bad. I’ve had a number of discussions with friends about the enfranchising power of a face in government that looks like you, particularly for those who don’t typically see such faces.
The neighborhood where I lived in Oakland had very few adult black male residents who were educated and successful. So the young black males had very few people to show them that they, too, could succeed in school and business (or journalism or politics or whatever).
Having an inspiring role model can be a powerful motivator. While it isn’t on its own sufficient for success, I contend that it is very nearly necessary.
believecommonsense
said,
about 1 month ago
loco, did you see my response to you on Steve Kelley 9/27?
Loco80 said, about 1 month ago
Yes I did, thanks very much.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago
Hey, Loco; how can you be so involved in helping the less fortunate and still be a conservative?
(Or do I hold an inaccurate stereotype?)
tpenna
said,
about 1 month ago
DrCanuck, most conservatives I know care deeply for those in need and want (every bit as much as I do) to see them succeed. As a matter of fact, my AmeriCorp team was half-composed of Republicans.
The main differences tend to be divergent understandings of the causes of and remedies for need.
That said, there are some folks who give conservatives a bad name by vilifying and scapegoating those in need. Unfortunately, I think that these people have gotten more prominent as media venues and congressional districts have grown more polarized over time.
HOWGOZIT said, about 1 month ago
DrC–shouldn’t you be in class?
charliekane said, about 1 month ago
Did Scottie, or Tripe, pose for this?
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
I thought it was Charlie or seniorbullwinkle.
Jam_t78 said, about 1 month ago
I suppose striper77, living up in the ivory tower, assumes that only blacks/Afro Americans are welfare recipients, gangsters, dope dealers, etc. (” very large population of career welfare participants, people whom have never worked their entire life, NAACP, Black Panthers, gang members, drug dealers and prostitutes”). Well, just wondered where your nazi symbol is branded, on your forehead or your azz?
“Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women
Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are White
Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1995). The majority of the recipients are White (38 percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans) (McLaughlin, 1997). However, African Americans are disproportionately represented on public assistance because they are only 12 percent of the population (O’Hare, Pollard, Mann, & Kent, 1991).”
Read some more:
http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html
Magnaut
said,
about 1 month ago
SO WHERE DO YOU GET YOU “FACTS” BRITT? OLBERMAN?
Magnaut
said,
about 1 month ago
SO WHERE DO YOU GET YOU “FACTS” BRITT? OLBERMAN?
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
Jamt78 stated,
I suppose striper77, living up in the ivory tower, assumes that only blacks/Afro Americans are welfare recipients, gangsters, dope dealers, etc. (” very large population of career welfare participants, people whom have never worked their entire life, NAACP, Black Panthers, gang members, drug dealers and prostitutes”). Well, just wondered where your Nazi symbol is branded, on your forehead or your azz?
In your breakdown you had 38% are whites and 37% African American on welfare. Then you stated African American is only 12% of the population. You answered yourself.
As far as a Nazi symbol you will not find that on me or in my possession nor will you find KKK, rebel flags, the south is going to do it again or any racial items in my possession.
As far as the hood goes and Obama supporters go, I was just stating the facts.
The picture itself just reminded me of what I seen for four years of volunteering in the hood. I repeat volunteering with the youth. Helping them out with food, making good choices and helping them out with their school just to name a few.
You also failed to mention that I went to a 98% African American school. I fought on a daily basis just because I was white. After I won numerous victories the fights slowed down, but never stopped. I know first hand about racism, the one that is never spoken about blacks against whites.
Loco80 said, about 1 month ago
Dr Canuck, I wasn’t always a conservative, I evolved over time on politics. Some values I was raised with, though, never changed, and that included helping someone in need. I took a bit of a pay cut going from the private sector to my current job, but it was well worth it. I’ve heard stories in the interview booths at work that brought tears to my eyes. I’ve also heard such obvious lies that I have filed charges for welfare fraud.
I think the stereotype you hold is not completely unfounded. There is well publicized resentment that welfare dollars are given to individuals perfectly capable of supporting themselves, albiet, in modest means. This is a stereotype that many conservative hold towards welfare recipients. However I think you don’t see that almost ALL people have sympathy for those truely in need, even conservatives. The resentment comes from being FORCED to give.
Loco80 said, about 1 month ago
Jam and Striper, I am only one cash assistance worker out of 12 in my office, only one office out of 5 in my city, etc, so my experience is a small demographic, but for what it is worth: I have 140 single parent households, only 5 of those parents are the fathers. Of the mothers, the division racially is very close to half white, half black. However, the “absent fathers” of the children on my caseload are close to 80% black. What is the significance of that? I don’t have any idea. Just supplying some little bit of data for you guys to ponder. Knock yourselves out, but please don’t get ugly.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago
Loco: You’re sure asking for trouble posing questions like that! (I admire that.) So let me get the ball rolling here and see who screams.
“Black” is not a race; there is no such thing as race. However, there is a “black” culture, independent of “skin colour” (yet possibly correlated with it), a collection of values, perspectives, goals etc, common to the group. Due to the destruction of families and social networks in the past, this group may not put as much emphasis or value on family and social responsibility as other cultures do. And after generations of being victimized, the perspective of “getting something back” has become the accepted narratives and ways of doing things, prescribed and reinforced by the group.
Again, you’re dealing with culture, independent of “race.” Millions of dark-skinned folk share your values and millions of light-skinned folk don’t. Skin colour is innate, but culture is learned.
mustbeunique2 said, about 1 month ago
Hey Loco80 if you want a change in that, 1% father scenerio or whatever that percentage comes to with only 5 fathers and others mothers of that 140 count, we should look to the court system. How that mother gives birth to that child and if that mother doesnt want anything to do with that father of that child, then that father has to go get a lawyer. Fees are ridiculous. $1500-$2700 retaining fee, just to get a lawyer, another $500 to find out if that child is in fact theirs, then that parent gets to go to court to find out if that father is worthy of getting visitation right, another boo koo amount of cash.
Court should be paid for, lawyers should be paid for. Than there wouldnt be so many fatherless children. That situation is that problem. That way those court costs and lawyers demand cash from an individual, not because that is what is necessary, simply because their greedy self seeking self profiting, through a system designed by mans law.
With bills and necesseity items, how many single fathers or mothers have $2000 to lay down.
I say its bulljunk to have ignorant laws. Go to the source of that problem and uproot it. Then we wont have polls telling americans baaaad, bad americans with 50% divorce rate, baaaad.