MONKEYS, WATERMELONS & FREEDOM OF SPEECH

A recent front page cartoon published by the New York Post has much of the liberal world screaming for blood! The cartoon in question showed two police officers who had just shot and killed a monkey. One officer says, "They'll have to get someone else to write the next stimulus bill".

Liberals immediately screamed "racism" and the Post insisted it had nothing to do with Obama. Protests began outside the offices of the Post, eventually they issued a rather wishy-washy apology which only increased the intensity of the protests. Finally a new apology came direct from the top.

In another case, the mayor of a small California town, sent an e-mail with a picture showing the White House lawn filled with watermelons. The caption read, "No Easter Egg Hunt this year". A very predictable uproar began and the mayor has promised to resign because he believes the act has "compromised" his ability to lead effectively.

In both cases, the Right has called the reaction to these images an infringement on Freedom of Speech. "This is America and as Americans we have the right to express ourselves without constraint."

Whether these images are intentionally racist is debateable. The fact that they are perceived as racist by a large segment of the population is not! It is generally considered impolite to intentionally offend people with your speech...but it is still your right to do so. Polite people also hope that if you unintentionally offend people, you can learn from your mistake and not make the same mistake again. But there will always be those people who just don't care.

Rupert Murdoch (Owner of both Fox News & the New York Post) wrote,

"As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.

Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.

Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community."

The apology from the owner of the Post was unexpected. His analysis of problem was also extremely insightful. Even if you buy the fact that the slur was unintentional (which I don't), the images evoked for many an extremely upsetting storyline. It not only reminded us of the past when the monkey was a symbol for African Americans but it also seemed to suggest assasination of the President.

The cartoons, whether racist or not, are covered under Free Speech. But those on the right need to understand that Freedom of Speech is a two-edged sword. If Al Sharpton doesn't like what he reads in the Post, he too is free to exercise his option of speaking out against what he reads. If he wants to boycott the Post, he is free to do so and to convince as many people as he can to also exercise thier right to free speech.

That's what FREE SPEECH means! That's what makes America so great to live in!

FACES OF ENTITLEMENT

It is a sad reality that we rarely see the face of the average “entitlement” recipient. The media loves to show us the extreme example. After we become bored with the novelty of octuplets, media spends endless hours discussing the cost to the public of octuplets. Two million in medical costs, Mom takes out student loans to live on, food stamps and a home in foreclosure. Nadya Suleman: POSTER CHILD FOR THE EVILS OF ENTITLEMENT! These are your tax dollars at work. Redistribution of wealth at it’s finest.

Yesterday, I saw another side of “entitlements”. I stood in line at the grocery store muttering to myself about how slow the person ahead of me was. He had a case of soup-in-a-cup and the checker was ringing each cup up individually. It was taking forever and I was in a hurry! Then I listened to the conversation he was having with the checker and I realized why. It was the middle of the month and the man only had so much left in food stamps for the month. He worked nights and was raising his kids as a single parent. The soup was an easy and affordable meal that he didn’t need to be home to prepare. He bought as many as he could afford. The rest of his cart contained fresh vegetables, rice, milk and fruit rollups for the kids. No junk food, no soda, none of the items we are told by talk radio that welfare recipients waste OUR tax dollars on. Instead I saw a father working hard to make ends meet during bad economic times.

As a society, we don’t find any gratification in looking at the millions of Americans who survive because they accept food stamps, Medicare or Section 8 Housing. We show no interest in the numbers of people who have left the welfare system because the system worked for them. They accept help during a bad time and then use that help to get back on their feet. But they’re not interesting! Spend time talking about them and watch your news ratings drop.

There are a lot more people like that man on welfare today than there are Nadya Sulemans. They are good people with something to contribute to our society. Many of them will leave the rolls of welfare eventually. Some of these former entitlement recipients may be your friends. I know a woman who in the 70’s was an unmarried mother of two, who took food stamps, Section 8 housing and student loans. Thirty years later she has a degree and is part owner of a small business. Without government assistance she would never be where she is today. She (and all those like her) are the justification for why entitlements are necessary.

So the next time you want to complain about all those worthless people sucking up tax dollars, keep in mind that all you hear about are the losers. Often the system works and that too deserves recognition.