Replies

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.

I think the cartoon is poorly written enough that it can be interpreted either way, yours or Sullivan's. A lot of people consider the "starting out" part to be the entire first dream, not just the very first panel.

In any case, I still think the main problem is that it's illegal to discuss assassinating the actual living president at all, even as "humor." You want to write a story about President Bartlet taking a bullet, go right ahead. But not President Bush. The Secret Service is supposed to investigate ANY such incident, no matter how benign. This cartoonist obviously is no actual threat, but all that means is she shouldn't end up arrested. It doesn't mean she shouldn't be paid a little visit, just like any other American would be.

I guess, in short, this bugs me because they're acting elitist. If one of us got drunk in a bar and started spinning such a tale, the guys in sunglasses would be pounding at our door within hours. But because she's a writer for a prestigious publication [barf], Salon thinks she, and they, are above the law. And I say the hell with that.

(This is mainly a cut-and-paste post from the other thread; if you've read the other thread's many posts in full, you may skip this one; I've done only minor editing.)

"It started out well" means the BEGINNING of the dream, not the end that woke the cartoonist up. You're correct and Andrew Sullivan is wrong.

The strip didn't delve into things political prior to 9/11. It never *was* particularly FUNNY but sometimes it was *true*. Here is an example:

I loved a Carol Lay strip called UNHAPPYLAND. It was about a guy who from time to time had to take this miserable bus to a "theme park" called Unhappyland. He'd get stuck in the "Veil of Tears" ride, spend days on end in the "PIt of Despair," and so on. It said everybody had to go there now and then. Well, that's true enough. Even if you dont' tend to get depressed, you've still been in Unhappyland a few times.

One day this guy decides he ain't going, and he pulls the cord on the bus, and the driver lets him off. Suddenly he's being greeted by loved ones who predeceased him, and the sign over the beautiful estate beyond says "HEAVEN" and "VACANCY." The boxover says something like, "Good thing the rest of them don't know they can get off the bus, or everyone would do it." Anyway, I loved that particular strip; it seemed so true and so profound, indeed! I know that what comes after this life is so much better than what we're plugging through now! I don't think Unhappyland is exclusive; conservatives are more than welcome, alas.

So: I was a fan; I braved the slums of Salon to go every Tuesday and read this strip. I liked 101 Demons, too, before that writer's horrid election strip. Note the use of the past tense. I was a fan. While I don't believe that Ms. Lay wants the President shot, I nonetheless don't have time to read liberal irony (it isn't humor, that's for sure.)

Once upon a time my parents collected Streisand music. Now, they cannot listen to her. Celebrities and entertainers of all stripes make fearful mistakes when they decide to crusade for a very divisive cause. Animal rights? Generally they can get away with that. World hunger? AIDS? Great. We will generally keep buying their records, reading their books, and watching their movies if they adopt such causes. But to militantly embrace liberalism is to lose audience. I imagine that the few prominent conservative entertainers sacrifice some fans too. I suppose it doesn't matter much if you've made and properly invested your millions and you're losing your voice anyway. SOMEHOW I DOUBT CAROL LAY HAS THE MEANS TO OVERCOME P.O.'ing HALF OF AMERICA. (Assuming that many knew she was alive and wrote a comic strip.)