Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling for March 30, 2012

A brutal comic, but spot on and no less brutal than the world we live in.

Ruben Bolling is a brilliant cartoonist, and I’ve been reading (and admiring) his work for years.  Unfortunately, he’s also a hard-core left-wing ideologue (whereas I’m just a liberal).  And this sometimes lessens the quality of his work.  As it does in this case.  Here’s why:  he doesn’t yet know the details of what happened in Florida.  And yet, he’s more than willing to make significant pronouncements about it.  A lot of people did that during that case involving the Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape.  Why not learn something from that?  Let’s reserve judgement until we know all the facts.

pbhact1: the text referring to the Trayvon shooting does not make any “significant pronouncements” that I could find. Bolling describes what happened, based upon the current reports. But then again, facts have a hard-core left-wing ideological bias.

That may be the most hard-biting editorial cartoon I’ve ever seen. Wow. That hurts.

icky mung-mung:I think use of words like “vigilante”, and “stalked” definitely make a significant statement – namely, that Zimmerman was doing something “bad” that he shouldn’t have been doing… that he’s guilty.  We do not at this time know this, although many people, including Mr. Bolling, seem to feel that way.  Just as many people felt that the Duke lacrosse players were guilty.

Also, to portray Martin as a “child” buying candy sends sends a clear message that he’s an innocent victim.  We do not yet know this, although many seem to feel this way.

I simply think that in such a serious situation, we should refrain from definitive judgements until we really do know the situation.  Just as many people should have done in the Duke rape case.

He conveniently “forgets” the Ford Hood. shooting

@pbhact1cbs tries to lay out the “fact” as currently known, people will draw their own conclusions as usual. ruben in this strip is combining numerous incidents, maybe you shouldnt focus on just one and wonder why we have so many to choose from.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57407115-504083/trayvon-martin-shooting-what-do-we-know/?tag=cbsnewsTwoColLowerPromoArea%3Bfd.morenews

It would take me too long to list all the specific things Mr. Bolling has said in his work that give me the impression he’s what I refer to as a “left-wing ideologue”. But what I mean generally is that he seems prone to having what I would call “knee jerk” reactions to the events of the day, which seemingly without exception fall on the “far left” side of the political spectrum. One always knows what his political opinion is going to be about something. He’s a left-wing version of the right- wing ideologue Laura Ingraham. I think reality is more complex than the ideologue would have it. And the Florida case is a good example of this, as was the Duke rape case.

When I said I was "just a liberal” I was saying that while I generally lean toward the left (and thus appreciate Mr. Bolling’s viewpoint) I try to be as objective as possible about things, and therefore don’t have the “privilege” of having the rock-solid certitude that ideologues (on both the left and right) have. That is, I’m “merely” a generally leaning liberal struggling hard to be open and objective about things. It’s nice to have Mr. Bolling’s certainty in a sense… but I don’t think I’ll ever have that.

Eryx:

I’m not sure what you mean by this. I do not see how the GOP is relevant to my point. Also, I have never voted for a Republican

pbhact1: You mention two words as example of Bolling’s “hardcore ideology”—one is his use of the word “vigilante.” From Wikipedia: “A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker.” The other was “Stalker”—again, from Wikipedia: “Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them.” You then go on to suggest that Bolling is a left-wing version of Laura Ingraham. Really? You generalize, mischaracterize, and damn Bolling with faint praise. You’re a liberal? Icky indeed.

Eryx:Thanks for the clarification. But, I actually think that “rock solid certitude” is pretty evenly distributed across the political spectrum.  The further out you go (toward the extremist wings of the right or the left) the worse it gets.  

@Icky mung-mung:

I’m simply saying that Mr. Bolling’s use of words like “vigilante” and “stalk” in this context clearly impart the message that Zimmerman is guilty of a heinous crime.  And he may very well be.  But at this point in the proceedings, we do not have enough information to make such a claim.  And therefore shouldn’t make it. Just as such a claim shouldn’t have been made in the Duke rape case.

You seem to doubt that I’m a “liberal”.  I think anyone who has never voted for a Republican, who believes in such things as universal health care, legalization of all drugs, abortion on demand, as well as many other “liberal” things can fairly say that he “generally leans toward the left”, or characterize himself as a “liberal”, which is what I said.  But that doesn’t mean my position on every possible issue can be characterized that way.  If it could, then I’d be an ideologue, which I’m not.

And yes, I do think Mr. Bolling is the “left- wing equivalent” of the right-wing ideologue Laura Ingraham.  They are both brilliant, extremely funny, and highly articulate.  Their opinions are strong and passionate.  But… their views are highly predictable, and seemingly locked in stone.  It never seems to occur to them that someone on the other side of the political spectrum might be a thoughtful person who simply sees the world differently.  Those are but some of the characteristics of an ideologue, as opposed to those of the thoughtful liberal or conservative.  In fact, the ideologue can’t conceive of the idea that someone on the other side of the political spectrum could be thoughtful.  I simply disagree.

You say I “damn Bolling with faint praise”.  I began my comments with the statement  “Ruben Bolling is a brilliant cartoonist, and I’ve been reading (and admiring) his work for years”.  Do you really regard that as “faint praise”?

Finally, this is the first time in a long while that I’ve heard the word “icky” used in an intellectual discussion :-)

@underwriter

Yes, that is a not unreasonable intellectual analysis of the use of those words.  I would still argue however, that since these words are “loaded” in a negative direction, and also have great emotional power, they should not have been used in this context, since (among other reasons) people are supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. So to use words like “stalk” and “vigilante”, and to depict Martin as a “child buying candy”, while perhaps technically accurate in some way, was obviously used by Mr. Bolling to convey a strong (and unfair in my view) judgement against Zimmerman: namely that he’s a rotten, stalking, vigilante who is guilty of killing an innocent child buying candy. And he may well be.  But, until that has been proven in court, why not tone things down a bit?  Haven’t we learned anything from the Duke rape case?

@Eryx

There are very few facts (especially when it comes to political issues) that are not subject to varying interpretations by reasonable people of vastly different political persuasions.  Amazingly, many people really don’t seem to understand or appreciate this.  

And, the older I get, the more obvious it seems to me that there is an equal amount of facts and belief all across the political spectrum.  I see no essential difference between the “left” and the “right” when it come to facts versus belief.  Interpretation plays a critical role on both sides.

Everyone’s commenting on the Florida case. How does this even compare to killing sprees in Afghanistan and France?

Why was a veteran suffering from PTSD sent back to a war zone? Is the US army so short of troops, or do commanders not care about their mens health and the safety of those around them?

Why have French Muslims become so radicalised? Is French society really so racist and stratified? And why did everyone immediately assume it was another Neo Nazi attack?

And why do some commentators feel the need to list horrfic acts of violence by African Americans? Do they feel this justifies the Florida gunmans actions?

Bingo, man.

oh, puh-leezzzz