The future in a cartoon

[bean fidhleir]

[Kahuna]

1. Is this a right wing cartoon? Seems anti Obama to me.

:shrug:

[bean fidhleir]

12. Why does it? What do YOU think the artist intended to say?

If my interpretation isn't the intended one, then I can't imagine what might be. So if you can think of some other interpretation, lay it out for us.

[fasttense]

2. Looks just like the way the five Oil Monopolies would like you

to see the world. The five giant oil monopolies would be in the same position if it weren't for the bushes.

[Catch22Dem]

3. Has Obama proposed a world without oil?

By the way, I'm pretty sure a world without oil would have a shitload of vegetation, not an empty grid. Oh, and we could still have clothes. As a matter of fact, what is this ignorant shit doing on DU anyway?

[hendo]

5. A world without oil

would be devoid of the new fabric mills. After all they need lubricant so that they do not overheat. Ah, gotta love dependence on petrol.

[Buzz Clik]

14. Petroleum is not the only source of oil.

[Catch22Dem]

32. That doesn't mean we'd all be naked!

We wouldn't HAVE to get mass-produced fabrics from fabric mills. That was the point I was making. I think it's unlikely we'd all be naked. Obviously we weren't all running around naked BEFORE mass dependence on oil.

[hlthe2b]

4. Why is the OP posting such horrendous anti-Obama crap here?

Yes, clearly this is from a RW cartoonist in Canada. So, what was the intention of the poster in including this tripe?

[Buzz Clik]

8. It's not clear. Perhaps the author would enlighten us...

[bean fidhleir]

10. Why don't you offer something besides your unsupported opinion about this artist's politics

I couldn't find anything, but maybe you have a list.

[hlthe2b]

33. Several here aleady have...

and it seems you have a pattern of posting anti-Obama cartoons... Now why would that be?

[bean fidhleir]

34. Several unsupported allegations are still nothing but unsupported allegations

So you can keep your McCarthyite insinuations, witch hunts, and loyalty oaths to yourself.

[Kahuna]

35. Look. Your cartoon is very anti-Obama. You posted it for a reason...

There could only be one reason for you to post it. You are anti-Obama too.

That cartoon suggests that Obama is the new emperor with no clothes and so inept that he would cause chaos for our energy policy.

Now what did YOU think it meant?

[bean fidhleir]

37. You can keep your McCarthyite ambitions to yourself, too. (nt)

[YOY]

6. Sorry, not here.

Not ever.

[Buzz Clik]

7. I don't understand the motivation, but this same poster gave us this:

[Beacool]

19. He's not the man I knew..........

:rofl:

[bean fidhleir]

9. I took it as metaphor for the fact that the US, represented by Obama, would be powerless

in a world without oil. Perhaps it's my not being emotionally bonded to Obama that allows me to see things in a more balanced way than some of you.

Just out of curiosity, I looked for other cartoons by Cummings and couldn't see any obvious indication of his politics at all, or for that mattter his thought processes. So maybe those of you on the lookout for anything about Obama that isn't fawning are right about this cartoon. It looked okay to me, but maybe my interpretation isn't the intended one. I can't imagine what kind of derogatory statement might be intended, but maybe that's my lack of imagination.

[Buzz Clik]

11. I love political cartoons, and I recognize that on a given day, anyone is fair game.

The cartoon is a slam against Obama for taking a stand for a national low carbon standard. Canada is exporting a lot of oil to the US, and the tar sands industry would be hammered hard if Obama actually implemented his proposed standard. (McCain endorsed the plan, as well.)

This is a Canadian cartoonist taking a shot at Obama for his comments that could harm Canada economically.

[bean fidhleir]

13. Well, I can't fault your interpretation

I also can't *find* your interpretation in the work itself, but that's the beauty of obscurity, I suppose - any image becomes a Rorschach test.

Here's one of the clearest that I've found, of his:



That seems pro-human-rights to me, but maybe even rightwingers are in favor of human rights these days as long as it's only China.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Hm.

Obama's comments came out four days before the cartoon, so the timing is right.

Until and unless Cummings actually tells us his intent, we're all guessing.

I do not view the cartoon as Cummings injecting himself into the American presidential race.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. It seems that Cummings thinks it's OK to use oil, and screw the environment

both from this, and from this a few days earlier, criticising the Kyoto Protocol:



The choice of Obama to be in an embarrassing position (no clothes) rather than, say, Uncle Sam (if he had meant "this represents the US"), does, I think, mean it's a cartoon criticising Obama.

[bean fidhleir]

20. Interpretation again, because we also have these from him:

Neither of these looks like "climate denial" to me. But, again, interpretation is all.






And this one looks like the message would be "carbon trading doesn't solve carbon problems"




And this one: air travel is a big polluter (of course, I'm only guessing)




This one is pretty clearly against the carbon tax. But is that because he's a "climate denier" or because he thinks taxation makes it hard on the wrong people?

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. I can't interpret the first one at all - "tornados are dangerous", perhaps?

2nd would appear to be "people (in suits?) stand around, polluting"
3rd I'd think I agree with your guess
4th I'd say is "high oil costs have cause air travel to crash"
5th one - it's someone in a suit and a tie who's about to be hanged. If that's directed at anyone as a particular victim, it's business.

This cartoonist doesn't seem to like to get specific - hence the different interpretations we can put on some of their cartoons. So when they name Obama, I think it's because they mean Obama - not that Obama represents the US in the future.

[bean fidhleir]

26. I see the first one as one person recognizing the danger, another ignoring it

Your terp of the oil-barrel airplane one fits as well as mine does. (Is that blood pouring out?)

The fifth I disagree about - why would business be standing on a pile of money?


As to the original being about Obama particularly, I can't think what he could be trying to say. That in a world without oil Obama would have no clothes? Be all alone? Be chilly? As a metaphor for the US I can make it make sense, but not if it's supposed to be about Obama as a person.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Because of the reason Buzz Clik gave in #11

That Obama is against importing oil from Canadian tar sands - story in the Winnipeg Free Press from a couple of days before the cartoon, which contrasts the 2 candidates' positions:

There is "a lot of technological development underway" to reduce the carbon footprint of oilsands production, Grumet said, but there continue to be "unacceptably high carbon emissions" associated with production of the fuel.
...
Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, has also vowed to support alternative energy and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. McCain has placed more emphasis, however, on the need to lower American reliance on oil from the Middle East and countries like Nigeria and Venezuela. "America imports about one-third of its oil from Canada and Mexico and no one need worry about a reliance on friendly, stable neighbours, and partners in NAFTA," McCain said in a speech Monday in Fresno, Calif.

Christopher Sands, a Canada-U.S. relations expert at the Washington-based Hudson Institute, said Obama's energy policy could pose as big a challenge to the Canadian economy as his vow to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"What he wants to do, clearly, is to eliminate oil sources like the oilsands," Sands said.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/story/4191021p-4781799c.html

The cartoon seems to be saying that he'll be left with nothing in the future if he rejects oil.

[bean fidhleir]

30. Well, as I said earlier, I can't impeach that interpretation.

But it's too much a stretch for me to find it, either. Definitely a Rorschach moment.

[Kahuna]

36. So you acknowledge the cartoon is anti-Obama. Sooo, why did you

post it again?

[bean fidhleir]

38. You're really desperate to hold a witch-hunt, aren't you.

Too bad. You'll have to find some other victim, because this witch isn't scared of your disgusting McCarthyite tactics. I posted the cartoon in good faith, and if you don't like it then that's your personal problem.

[BulletproofLandshark]

17. He could have at least spelled his name right. n/t

[bean fidhleir]

21. He's not the only one to make that mistake

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6464510

[Beacool]

18. The Emperor's New Clothes?

:shrug:

[Vickers]

22. I don't get it.

"Barrack" (sic) nekkid on a chessboard?

:shrug:

[bean fidhleir]

23. Maybe he's a Freudian (nt)

[Vickers]

24. Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.

Maybe he's like the Mary Worth/Apartment 3-G of political cartoons.

:shrug:

[ColbertWatcher]

28. I don't get it. Can you explain it to me? n/t

[Indenturedebtor]

29. Bleh gross. Especially "nice" racial stereotyping with the huge lips

Obama has smaller lips than I do and a bigger nose. However since I'm Jewish I'm sure that if it was me in that particular Pro-Oil cartoon I would have tiny lips and a huge nose.

Where did you find this garbage and why are you posting it here?

[bean fidhleir]

31. It's not garbage, he draws for the Winnipeg paper, and I found it at ucomics