I'm alright with it...I didn't find it particularly offensive or humorous. It was just a comic. We knew the day would come when someone would poke fun at this situation. (In fact, Count Zero posted some stuff regarding it shortly after the attacks.) I can appreciate it b/c I make fun of damned near everything, including 9/11.

Re: The cartoon rings a bit true
 

I noticed other people were missing this distinction -- "Terror Widows", e.g. those that take advantage of the national spotlight, vs. terror widows, e.g. those whose SO's died and do not want to be on TV.

I'm a longtime Rall fan myself, and my first impression of this cartoon was that it was more offensive than usual. Then I realized that the reason everyone was missing the point, and what made this cartoon a bit over the line, was the fact that Rall himself doesn't make the distinction anywhere in the cartoon.

The whole problem with discussions like this appearing in news media is that for most people, the first impression of Rall they get will be someone saying he's insensitive or offensive. Yeah, he is, but there's more to it than just that. Fans who've been exposed to him before can see that this cartoon is only a bit beyond his normal stuff, and even that's debatable. So you won't get unbiased argument, you'll get the rhetoric of "who allows this sort of filth to be printed?" And sure, if this was my only view of TR, I'd probably think the same thing. But unlike Howard Stern, who is intelligent and funny but loses points for going out of his way to use his offensiveness as a weapon, TR does an end run around offensiveness to get to his point, and should be given credit for that. Even if he does get tackled by it occasionally.

you cannot possibly justify a comment like this one:

"of course it's a bummer that they slashed my husband's throat, but the worst was having to watch the olympics alone."

even in a cartoon, by saying "oh, that's how he is normally." just because the cartoonist was always borderline offensive doesn't take away that said comment was made in bad taste. horrible taste, in my opinion.

the rest of the cartoon was not specific enough to seriously bother me, but that box was. why? because it's very evident who the cartoonist is referring to. you can't tell me that there is any doubt in your mind there, really.

the bits about money keeping the woman warm and the whole tie thing, yes, i agree that those were in bad taste, but at least they weren't specific enough to suggest that a single person said those things.

The cartoon portrays a truth. Ted boils it down until it's far too thick for you pansies to handle. I don't think the cartoon is funny; the humor could be better. But it does show what is wrong with the strange things that bereaved people say on TV. Thats what he mean when he says "... the scourge of the media."

I don't care who does or does not print it because that is beside the point. The question you all are stabbing at is: is it offensive? Sure it is, to people who think from their hearts. But if you had half a brain you see it is simply dark humor on a hard subject. He is not making light of their losses.

Now I will justify something for jeni. The line: "of course it's a bummer that they slashed my husband's throat, but the worst was having to watch the olympics alone." is a stronger parphrase of: "I am devestated that they murdered my husband. .... What I miss the most is that we both loved figure skating and we never missed watching the winter olympics together" He's simply pointing out what strange things widows can be construed as saying.

I think the throat slashing one was a bit harsh to say the least but the rest was justified.

I am a free speech "absolutest". Rall has every right to point out something we've all noticed but have decided to leave alone. Having opened the discussion, he has to be willing to take the heat (and I expect he is), because everyone else has the same right. To me, the real terror widows are the whores in the media who stick a microphone in the face of someone who is unable to deal with loss in what most of us see as an acceptable manner. I won't stop them from doing it but I won't watch it either.

The media censor themselves every day in their desire to provide content to their readers or listeners, without alienating them. If Rall wants his cartoon published he has to find (and has found) an outlet willing to take the heat, thats the beauty of letting the markets for content decide who or what gets heard, especially in the internet era. By extension, this why government should not be in the content business, whether its media or museums it gives unnatural weight, to ideas which may be of limited value, by using confiscated money rather than money exchanged. More important stories than this one get swept under the rug but as long as its not the force of government doing the sweeping, I have no arguement with it. I say let the "pansies" choose their own content.

I find it refreshing that people still feel protective of the 911 victims, hopefully our empathy will also be extended to the victims of our empires terror.

<b>sleemanj</b> - I agree with you that the media is beating a dead horse, but I understand why they're doing it. Yes, people die every day. <b>But</b>... death by heart attack is normal. Death by brain tumor is normal. Even war is normal - isn't there always someone fighting? But 19 men hijacking four airliners and crashing them into what were once the tallest buildings in the world, along with the headquarters of the United States military and a field in Pennsylvania... well, that's pretty fucking far from normal. Hence the news coverage.

<b>Slight</b> - Whereas once I had a relatively high opinion of you, I don't any longer. If <b>you</b> had half a brain, you would be able to comprehend my argument, which is this: I can see how his cartoon could be considered offensive, especially when printed in the <b>New York</b> times, and therefore, I have no problem with it being pulled.

...and you know this how? I believe that the cartoon is open to many different interpretations, and his intent cannot be known without him saying it. Sure, it could be that he's poking fun at what strange things come out of peoples' mouths sometimes. It could <b>also</b> be, as the last cell suggests, that he is poking fun at SO's of victims whoring the memory of their lost ones for money. Many people, both for and against the cartoon, got that impression. Which one is it? How do we know? We probably don't.

In the mean time, how about cutting the condescending attitude? This place has been a lot nicer since a few of us stopped with it, and we certainly don't need you to start it back up.

no, he is making a definite reference to daniel pearl.

my point is that while i think the rest of the cartoon is in bad taste as well, AT LEAST you cannot pinpoint a specific person while reading the boxes. those could apply to hundreds of people, but do not suggest that any single person actually thought or spoke those words.

however there is NO DOUBT AT ALL in my mind that in that one box, he was talking about daniel pearl. i'm sure you'll agree that he was talking about daniel pearl, yes?

and i think it's horrible to poke fun at one specific person in such a way. i highly doubt that his wife had any thoughts like that, and it's horrible to say that she did. give me a fucking break, she is pregnant with his child, that is HORRIBLE.

I agree. I am sorry for the attitude.I did not know anyone had an opinion of me so that I screwed that up is too bad. The internet makes you faceless. I see how it is offensive and have no problem with it being pulled either, and I never did. But you could also see that it given my take on it, it is not offensive. From the perspective of "Those poor inocent people that died" sure its a piece of crap but I just don't usually read things from the heart because I am heartless bastard.obviously I agree that he is refrencing Daniel Pearl. What is wrong with that? I suppose special consideration should be given since she had to go through weeks of worry. So then she should not read this. If she reads the New... Holy shit that is why the NYT did not print it. Sorry I am slow. anyway she won't see this cartoon if all she reads is the NYT. How is the cartoon any skin off your back? You are not carring his baby.

:-)

you're right, but i think that what she has to go through is horrible. and i think the cartoonist could have given her a break because he is pinpointing her. he is saying that is something SHE would say. in all of the other boxes, like i said, he wasn't being person-specific. but he was in that box, and i don't think she deserves to be labeled that way, because i'm SURE she isn't thinking the words that the cartoonist drew her saying.

Actually, when I first read the strip, I didn't think of Daniel Pearl at all. I thought it was referring to one of the airline passengers killed by the hijackers.

Maybe I'm slow. But I must admit the strip makes some valid points, regardless of how cruelly rendered.

That was the whole point - I was using his words, not mine. But no further gripe. I don't mind someone disagreeing. Just trying to keep the peace. :)

In a piece in today's Salon , one such "Terror Widow" puts perfect perspective on the strip as she responds to it:

"Go ahead: Read the hype, but don't believe it. Those of us who were wounded to the core by this tragedy are sad and angry and frequently lost. But we are not ungrateful opportunists who have welcomed the death of loved ones as an opportunity to get rich. That person is Ted Rall, and I pity him, more than anything else."

Tom Tomorrow's thoughtful comments, in posts to his weblog dated March 14 & 15, also reference that Salon article.