Yesterday I Started Drawing Obama From Scratch

When you’ve been drawing the same character for years, you go on autopilot. After Daily Kos censored my work (on the pretext that my Obama looked simian(!!!), which they didn’t notice for years), I say down to draw him from scratch, as though he were new and unfamiliar.

When I put him through my usual style — which applies the same to members of all ethnic groups — the results were, well, not good.

If anything, he’d turn out more objectionable.

The president is older. He’s lost weight. His hair is cut even shorter. Whatever ape-like demeanor a cartoon of him had in 2009 would look worse in 2013.

Of course, all humans are apes. We share 99.4% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Which is why I look like an ape and Brad Pitt looks like an ape and Dick Cheney looks like an ape. To not draw Obama the same way I draw everyone else, to make him look less ape-like than everyone else, seems fucked up.

So right now, looks like the smiley face. If the Militant Demobamabot Assholes want to censor me, let them end up with something no one can call “racist”: a depiction of the soulless inspidity of our drone murderer, bankster enabler, pro-torture, warmonger of a lying sack president.

11 Comments.

  • Could be worse. Some POTUS’s get stuck looking like mutant bats with shark teeth. If I ever run for office, I’d prefer the ape module, tyvm.

  • The KosKids are race-baiters, so it doesn’t matter what you do. If you criticize Obama, you’re deemed a racist by them. That’s what race-baiters do.

    But just you wait Ted. In just a few short-years, you may very well be castigated as a misogynistic who only draws Hillary Clinton in a manner that always makes her look incompetent compared to men.

    You’re a racist today, a misogynistic tomorrow. Just wait. Mark my words. That decision has already been made, and not just for you. Should Hillary win, the Kos Mob will be labeling many decent people as misogynistic — the facts be damned.

    • Sorry — meant to say “a misogynist” in those sentences. I didn’t get it right, but you can bet the Kos Mob will.

    • I saw a comment elsewhere suggesting this was a “sleazy publicity stunt” on Ted’s part. Okay, so Markos says he can post his stuff, and then flips around and says he can’t post his stuff unless he changes it, even though meanwhile Ted’s just doing what he always does. This may well be a publicity stunt, but I don’t see how Ted owns it.

      “You can blog on Daily Kos!” they said. “It’ll be fun!” they said.

  • Damn, Ted!
    You hit on the right depiction with your reference to “lying sack president”! You can take a page from Trudeau’s renditions and just replace Obama’s facial characteristics with a burlap bag (a lying sack). Maybe not, but it’s thought….
    😀

  • Have you asked a lawyer whether you have legal grounds for filing a suit for indiscriminate and distorted (ab)use of your copyrighted material solely for the purpose of discrediting you?
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/03/1259786/-Ted-Rall-is-a-RACIST-Undeniable-evidence-part1
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/04/1260237/-Racism-has-no-place-on-the-left-part2
    These are only 2 of many moire examples.

    • Libel is more the issue. Fair Use applies to cases of criticism and discussion.

      Of course, whether I’m a racist bastard is a matter of opinion, and opinion is protected free speech.

      If I began suing people to infringe free speech, I’d be engaging in the chilling behavior I deplore.

      I sued a cyberstalker for impersonating my identity in emails in 1999. The charge was libel per se and was repeatedly upheld. But that wasn’t to shut him up, just to make him stop posting his material under my name.

      • I see the problem. It just seems pretty cruel not to be able to do something about UNREASONABLE

      • crap, accidentally posted too early…
        something about UNREASONABLE use of someone’s material for critical discussion. There should be some kind of line drawn, but the obvious question would be “where does it stop?” so as not to infringe on 1st Amendment rights. Ah, well, the longer they drag it out, the more free publicity for you.

      • Oh, I agree. It’s maddening to see people willfully misconstrue what you’re saying and then put their hands over their ears and go “lalalalala” when you try to respond. But I agree that assholery shouldn’t be against the law.

    • alex_the_tired
      December 5, 2013 7:44 AM

      “something about UNREASONABLE use of someone’s material for critical discussion.”

      Winston, you raise a very interesting point. But the question of what constitutes unreasonableness cannot be defined objectively. Thus the problem.

      Internet discussion centers (chat rooms, forums, whatever) attract inferior thinkers. Let me give you an example: 9/11.

      Two planes flew into the WTC towers. There are videos of this. It was on the news. The towers collapsed. Hundreds and thousands of professionals with knowledge of physics, engineering, architecture, structural materials, construction, etc., etc., when asked “What happened?” replied about the same: “Duh. A flying bomb filled with jet fuel flew into a building, causing massive structural damage. That building then collapsed shortly after.”

      On the Internet (and worst of all, what happens on the Internet is considered relevant by traditional media) however, three men in their early 20s put out a documentary (with a particularly annoying soundtrack) about what “really” happened.

      As Noam Chomsky put it recently (and really, the best): “…an hour on the Internet and [they] think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that.”

      And here’s the real problem. Those three young men? They honestly think they’re on to something. The fires weren’t hot enough to melt steel, they scream. “A girder doesn’t have to MELT in order to lose structural capacity. If you heat it sufficiently, it will spontaneously fail, comes the reply. “Ah, you’re so blind.”

      And the same kind of argument goes on with global warming, single-payer healthcare, etc. Why do you think the Internet is so popular? Because no matter how asinine your theory is, no matter how poorly informed you are on a subject, you can find a group of people who will agree with you.

      Remember the old line about fascism coming to America wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross? We need to update that. “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross an have a million Facebook friends.”

Comments are closed.

keyboard_arrow_up
css.php