OK, So Not Everyone is Negative

A number of Washington Post online readers dismayed that they dropped my cartoons in the aftermath of a write-in campaign have written to express their dismay. You can pipe in by sending your two cents to washingtonpost@mailnj.custhelp.com.

Marvin writes:

I have just heard that you have dropped Ted Rall’s cartoons. I am the parent of an autistic child, and I, like others, was annoyed by Rall’s cartoon depiction of a disabled child. But Rall was trying to make a point; he just picked an unfortunate, somewhat thoughtless way to do it. But one mistake should not lead to censorship. I hope you will reconsider your action and once again run Rall’s incisive cartoons.

Joseph wrote:

I can not believe that the esteemed Washington Post, home of the famed Watergate reporting, is caving in and canceling Ted Rall’s comic. Offensive or not, one of the major reasons education is so lacking in our public schools is the policy of inclusion. Although that wasn’t the primary target of Rall’s cartoon, his point is well illustrated. My mother has FIVE mentally disabled children in her second grade class this year. Not only is it more than she can handle, it’s a distraction to the other children in class and a serious detriment to their education. Teachers are not babysitters. Parents of mentally disabled and disturbed children often have very unrealistic views of what their children can accomplish (they’re in denial) and what other people can tolerate in their children’s behavior.

Rall once again had the guts to show people the ugly truth — why do you think they’re so offended? Do you honestly believe retarded children don’t drool, shout nonsense and make a scene? Do you think the thousands of autistic, emotionally disturbed, and mentally disabled children aren’t a cause of both fear and amusement to the other young children in a second-grade classroom.

This was another cowardly act of the media bending to the will of the bully — be that politically correct bully or that of the Christian Coalition. You’re a newspaper, not a greeting card company. You’re supposed to report the harsh truth, foster debate and open minds, not shirk from things people find “in poor taste.”

I’m sure the people who were offended by the doodles of Ted Rall were not motivated by his anti-war stance.

With contempt,

Someone else wrote:

do you understand how certain groups become “untouchable”…beyond criticism, and not only that, but beyond anything that can be interpreted as criticism? Do you see how a group of obsessive do-gooders can wield power? Your profession (you know, cartooning) is economically distributed…they can knock you off the Post without killing you. But what if you were a reporter? A reporter who told certain unpleasant truths, about certain untouchable groups..?

Your career could be ruined completely, just on somebody’s dislike of facts. [And your portrayal was mild compared to certain true cases. For example, a family member of mine taught at a school in which a comatose boy was wheeled from classroom to classroom in a gurney. He had a full time nurse dedicated to him. If you said, “His parents are bilking the taxpayers in order to escape their own child during school hours”…imagine the outcry!]

Joe says:

It appears you have offended yet another cowardly newspaper afraid to publish hard line crticism of our government. Your editorial cartoons are no longer listed with the Washington Post online.

I am not affiliated wirth any political party because I consider myself an independent thinker. I try to look at all sides of an issue before I take a stand and form an opinion.

The severity with which you attack Bush brings me to believe you are disgusted with the direction our government has taken toward world domination.

American businesses used to rob third world countries of their natural resources by offering trinkets and glitter. Not any more; now they fight back. The destruction and death the United State Armed Forces are doing to Iraq and it’s people is deplorable and unforgivable.

I know that Bush thinks he is on a mission from God to bring about the destruction of the Middle East in preparation for the second coming of Christ, but I don’t understand how he can justify what he is doing to his God. Being raised in the Catholic faith, I can’t make any sense of his purpose. Chritianity follows the philosophy “the end never justifies the means.”

Once Bush had been re-elected, applications for emmigration to New Zealand and Canada increased one hundred fold. If all of the people who hated Bush but didn’t want Kerry as president had voted for an independent candidate, we would have a new president!

Now they are all fleeing the country.

Your audience is shrinking as more papers drop your cartoons. Your wit is honest and hard hitting. How about offering constructive criticism? Maybe if editorial cortoons made suggestions to the readers along with the satire readers would start digesting what is printed and become more informed voters.

Constructive criticism? Pick up my book WAKE UP, YOU’RE LIBERAL. That’s all about constructive criticism of both the right and the left.

C.S. writes:

I personally found the classroom analogy in your recent cartoon quite insightful. Upon examining it a second time, I do find your depiction of the disabled child to be overdone to the point where it is arguably offensive. But the context also makes it clear to me that by making the disabled child such a goober you were commenting on how you view Bush fans, not developmentally disabled children.

Moreover, I do not think you should have to apologize for making the perfectly reasonable argument that disabled kids don’t belong in mainstream classrooms — at least not all the time. Traditional schooling is barely tolerable for regular kids. The idea that special needs children can learn anything in such a setting is questionable at best. I have a younger sister who is disabled. As a child, she was a victim of adults who tried to force her into the mold of normalcy. She was “included” to the point where she never even developed basic reading, writing, and comprehension skills. Her learning needs were different from those of most children. She therefore needed a tailored curriculum, but she didn’t get it.

In my view, you were merely saying with this cartoon that it is not conducive to learning for severely disabled children to share a classroom with non-disabled children. It’s not like you were advocating that we relegate them to leper status or anything. It was a satirical cartoon aimed at a political faction that has never met a low blow it didn’t like. Rather than fight amongst each other, I think we should turn our anger on those who truly seek to exclude our children from receiving adequate education. By that I mean Bush and his base (the “haves” and the “have mores,” as he calls them).