A RAWbservers reader (well, one of my best friends, but if I say "reader" it makes me sound bigger) sent me this article from The Independent. The lede:

Nine months after the attacks of 11 September, leading American political cartoonists say they are under intense pressure to conform to a patriotic stereotype and not criticise the actions of Mr Bush and his "war on terror". Those who refuse to bend to such pressure face having their work rejected, being fired or even publicly humiliated by the President's press secretary.

So basically, they're saying that if they write things that people overwhelmingly disagree with, they may not be supported by said disagreeing public. If they say mean things about the President, they might get [SHOCK] attacked by the president's press secretary. What kind of times are we living in?

It reminds me of how when after 9-11, a number of people were shouting that America deserved what it got and if it defended itself it would be just as bad (neigh, worse) than the terrorists. Then, when people shouted back they claimed that people were trying to censor them. Do they have any idea what censorship really is? Losing one's job for one's political belief or statements could be considered censorship. When someone is so out of step with a publications readership, is this such a terrible thing? I remember a couple years back that a New York shock jock lost his job when he made a joke about the James Byrd dragging incident. This could qualify as censorship, but I don't recall anyone coming to his defense or complaining about politically correct totalitarianism. I'm certain there were, but they didn't get very much press and were never taken seriously. John Rocker, whose job (and ability to perform that job) was not related by his racially insensitive topics, was nonetheless run out of Atlanta for sounding off to Sports Illustrated.

I can imagine in the 1970's a cartoonist who has always written racist material suddenly dumbfounded that the cartoons that made him popular before the civil rights movement were suddenly making people mad at him and being denounced by the president. "My black maid won't even speak to me anymore!" he'd complain, evoking the charge of censorship.

The article, of course, mentions Bill Mahar and Ari Fleishman's comments that people should "watch what they say." Is that totalitarianism? Mahar made some stupid comments (that he even later said he didn't mean), people objected and voiced their objections, and... nothing ended up happening. Mahar faced the threat of losing his show, but not because of censorship of the governments part but because of lack of advertisers. Companies didn't want to be associated with his comments or his show. Isn't that their right? Or should everyone be forced to support causes, personalities, and statements they disagree with? Should I keep buying the Houston Chronicle if, time and time again, they denigrated my views and myself for holding them?

Gary Trudeau (Doonesbury) survived the Reagan years. Ted Rall, perhaps the epitome of the offensive columnist, is still published in many places (despite not even being funny). Aaron Magruder (Boondocks)and Tom Tomorrow (This Modern World) are probably not going anywhere since they, unlike Rall and Trudeau, are actually entertaining. Many of these cartoonists are entertaining only if you agree with what they are saying.

One cartoon is described as Bush planes flying into the WTC entitled "Social" and "Security." Is this supposed to be humorous? Of course not. Is it really supposed to make you think? Does it make a very large point or take something and put a new slant on it? Not really. It merely (and lazily) depends on the reader to agree to a corrolation between our president and the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans. Most people don't see the connection, don't like the comparison, and objected. They believe that the Administration (read: Americans) is not its own worst enemy. Rather, America's worst enemies aren't Americans at all, but rather the freedom-hating terrorists that have sworn our destruction.

Others, including many of the cartoonists, believe that the enemy comes from within. They believe that we are a totalitarian state waiting to happen, a nation that starves its poor, and creating hatred abroad by supporting dictators abroad and (over)zealously defending itself. Calling them "unpatriotic" would not be inaccurate. It's only now that patriotism is popular that suddenly being labelled unpatriotic is tantamount to censorship.