Replies

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.

The legal aspect has nothing to do with this, that is a red herring. Sullivan's objection said nothing about legality, and Salon's explanation said nothing about legality, and said nothing about being above the law.

Addressing that issue though, it is not illegal to simply discuss the assination of a president. It is illegal to make threats. This comic did not imply a threat, and as he said, it treated it as a bad thing.

Look, Sullivan and some freepers have acted overly-sensitive about this, as if the comic was suggesting that shooting Bush was a good thing. It simply did not do that. We do ourselves no credit by seeming to be unreasonable. It's like the boy who cried wolf. It undermines our credibility when we have a legitimate gripe.

Thanks for the ping. Did Salon's editor think we wouldn't see the cartoon or that we need him to interpret what we can clearly see and understand? Shame on him and his sorry lot of spoiled children. They see danger in the ownership of guns. In their immature hands, guns would be a danger, but for the adults who are responsible for the greatness of our nation guns mean our (and their) freedom. This editor (and his fellow excuse-makers) has no business handling that dangerous and mighty pen without adult supervision and proper training.