[Timesink]

(I would link to it but Sullivan's Web site uses frames in such a clumsy way that linking to individual items is impossible.)

The Impossible Link:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/text/archive/2001_12_09_archive_dish.html#7907444

[Timesink]

The original thread, which includes the cartoon in question, can be read here.

[SoDak]

Shouldn't Scott be out on the nearest corner hawking apples to make the next payroll? Daylight's burnin', pardner.

[AlguyA]

Who reads Salon, anyway?

[js1138]

Garry Trudeau and our own Tom Tomorrow

Now THAT'S a pair of fair-haired beauties!

[Timesink]

Ping!

[RightOnline]

How Clintonesque, Rosenberg.

Tell ya what, slick: I'll write about you getting skinned alive. Of course, it'll be in the context of a nightmare within a nightmare, so you'll just have to deal with it. If you complain, I, too, will look down my nose and snort about what an unsophisticated, shallow rube you are.

P.S. Hey, Rosenberg......one other point. I know for a fact that folks have received visits from the Secret Service for less. Chew on that.

[Timesink]

Indexing for Salon Deathwatch bump list.

[Timesink]

Indexing for Andrew Sullivan bump list.

[mlo]

All you have to do is actually read Lay's comic to see that Sullivan is simply wrong. (If you don't want to, you may rest assured that what happens in the comic -- in a nightmare sequence -- is the following: A President Bush who has been magically converted to the cause of oil conservation is suddenly shot by faceless assassins. The violent act is presented as a Bad Thing, as well as a dream within a dream; when the narrator says she "liked how [the nightmare] started out," she's obviously referring to Bush's new conservation stance, not to his murder.)

I hate to say it, but I read the comic yesterday when it was posted here on FR and this is exactly the way I read it too. Salon is right on this one and Sullivan is wrong.

[Richard Axtell]

"All you have to do is actually read Lay's comic to see that Sullivan is simply wrong. (If you don't want to, you may rest assured that what happens in the comic -- in a nightmare sequence -- is the following: A President Bush who has been magically converted to the cause of oil conservation is suddenly shot by faceless assassins. The violent act is presented as a Bad Thing, as well as a dream within a dream; when the narrator says she "liked how [the nightmare] started out," she's obviously referring to Bush's new conservation stance, not to his murder.)

So, Scott, since the murder which you say was not depicted, is shown as a "Bad Thing", then it is ok to depict, dream or no dream, the violent assassination of a sitting president? What are the boundaries of free speech? Could those boundaries be somewhere near the threshold of outright fraud, as your entire tortured explanation seem be deteriorating into? Rather than a puerile and dissembling response to Andrew Sullivan, you might have saved some shred of your doomed e-rag's dignity if you had penned an apology to President Bush and your erstwhile readers for running that factually vacant and embarrassing "cartoon strip", and fired that talent less and tasteless cartoonist, whats-her-name. But, leave it to Salon to make it's own death that much more agonizing by poisoning the very swamp it is currently drowning in. Ta ta, suckers.

[flushed with pride]

Rosenberg's comments about Lay's cartoon is just more leftist vomit about leftist vomit. Both of these fools are irrelevant.

[Howlin]

I would link to it but Sullivan's Web site uses frames in such a clumsy way that linking to individual items is impossible

Not for intelligent boys and girls.

[NYCVirago]

Carol Lay makes Tom Tomorrow look like Thomas Nast.

[Leisler]

Hey, maybe I'll write a story about a non-temple going, leftist jew who runs a loser website and his kids get snached by pickup driving klansmen. Very funny. Ha,ha,ha. Free speach and all. Think Solon will run it if it is done well and provacative and "gets people thinking?"

[Paul Atreides]

What do you want to be that this author thinks there was subliminal advertising in the "Rats" ad?