[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.

[Mr. Lucky]

Well said.

[livius]

Agreed, Richard. Even if one sits down and analyzes the cartoon carefully - something its feeble left-wing content scarcely merits - it's offensive and the sentiments behind it are clearly disturbing. Had it been directed at Clinton, the Reno Justice Department would already have had its minions breaking down the door.

Salon is sinking under its own tedious weight. And hiring lame cartoonists like the twit (okay, twittess) who thinks she's being real kewl and subversive by prattling the liberal line is one of the reasons for this.