--- Begin Message ---
>Return-Path:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-eGroups-Return:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Apparently-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Moe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Yahoo-Profile: zeropoint_2k
>Mailing-List: list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 12:23:33 -0800
>Subject: [NH] Totally and absolutely on topic.... pay attention (Part One)
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2 required=7 tests=BALANCE_FOR_LONG
>
>Interview with Aaron McGruder, creator of "The Boondocks"
>Wed, 12 Dec 2001
> From http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2001/12/07/mcgruder/index_np.html
>
>Aaron McGruder, creator of "The Boondocks"
>The controversial cartoonist calls Bush a moron,
>says Americans shouldn't worry about bin Laden
>and says he might leave the country.
>
>By Stephen Lemons
>Dec. 7, 2001
>Long before the war in Afghanistan becomes
>just a twinkle in the eye of an old general,
>Aaron McGruder may well be living in exile
>in Canada.
>
>The 27-year-old creator of the daily hip-
>hop comic "The Boondocks" [sample attached]
>which features the escapades of a group of
>young African-American kids growing up in
>the almost-all-white suburbs, has wrenched
>the torch of scathing satire from the
>Boomer King of Cartoon Controversy, Garry
>Trudeau, and set off on an Olympic-style
>sprint for infamy.
>
>Since Sept. 11, McGruder has been setting
>fire to the funny pages with incendiary
>panels of political humor mocking everything
>from Attorney General Ashcroft's anti-
>terrorist dragnet and the public's fear of
>anthrax to FBI wiretaps and the nation's
>ongoing orgy of patriotism.
>
>McGruder's 4-year-old strip does garner
>laughs, but not without an accompanying
>sting. The point man in the strip is the
>pint-size Black panther-in-spirit Huey
>Freeman, who recently has been as busy as
>an anarchist at a WTO meeting.
>
>Among his many subversive acts, Freeman has
>called the FBI tip line to report Ronald
>Reagan as aiding and abetting terrorism,
>suggested that the terrorists may be making
>their bucks these days manufacturing flags
>and has pointed out the parallels between
>George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden during
>a Thanksgiving meal prayer. About the only
>thing Huey hasn't done yet is strap on a
>Kalashnikov and set off for Kandahar. But
>now that John Walker's bearded mug is on
>the front page of dailies worldwide,
>anything's possible.
>
>A number of the 250 publications that carry
>"The Boondocks" have taken exception to the
>sardonic sedition of McGruder's characters.
>The New York Daily News dropped the strip
>for about a month and a half, Newsday in
>Long Island chose not to run Sept. 11-
>inspired strips the first week they started
>coming out and the Dallas Morning News has
>moved the strip to a separate section
>altogether from other comics. None of this
>fazed McGruder.
>
>In response, he temporarily "replaced" the
>strip with "The Adventures of Flagee and
>Ribbon," where the two symbols sing the
>National Anthem and talk tough about the
>U.S. kicking tail.
>
>Angry letter writers have suggested McGruder
>emigrate, and McGruder admits that he's so
>disgusted with his native land he may
>eventually do just that.
>
>Recently, he tore himself away from ranting
>at the tube in his Los Angeles digs long
>enough to rant to Salon about the state of
>the nation.
>
>Your strips post-9/11 have touched a raw
>nerve with some folks. Did you anticipate
>all the attention you've gotten because of
>them?
>
>It's become a story because of timing. You
>know, the New York Daily News temporarily pulls
>the strip, and in the middle of this wartime
>situation, it became a story about freedom of
>speech and all that. The reality is I get
>pulled all the time from various newspapers for
>different reasons. And it's been that way
>since the strip started...
>
>Why did you decide to target the post-Sept.
>11 displays of patriotism in the strip, and
>essentially mock them with those two
>characters Flagee and Ribbon?
>
>Because it wasn't genuine. I thought it was
>very faddish, and there was no real weight
>behind it. You know, we just came off an
>election that was a mess. We still don't know
>if the president won the election. We do know
>that he got less votes nationwide. There's no
>question about that. And he may not even have
>won, legitimately, the electoral contest.
>There were reports of the massive disenfran-
>chisement of African-Americans in Florida,
>which went totally unreported in this country,
>but was covered widely by the foreign press.
>There were black people in Florida yelling and
>screaming, trying to get somebody to pay
>attention to them. They were saying that they
>had their rights taken away from them, and
>they were not allowed to vote. And nobody in
>this country cared. Where was the flag then?
>Where was this embracing of American ideals
>when people had their rights ripped from them
>so unjustly? We have a president who was
>appointed by the Supreme Court, and there was
>none of this talk about freedom and love of
>country at that time. So I feel like the
>deaths of 4,000 people had really nothing to
>do with love of country or not.
>
>This country made giant mistakes and failed to
>protect its people. We don't need to be
>rallying around the government and supporting
>it, we need to be holding it accountable and
>being very critical so this type of thing
>doesn't happen again. So there are a number
>of reasons why I was uncomfortable with the
>whole flag thing.
>
>A lot of folks would argue that no matter
>what our disagreements are internally, if
>we're attacked from the outside, we have
>to come together and support the current
>administration even if we have problems
>with it. How do you respond to that
>argument?
>
>I don't think that's true. Look, they're
>telling us these people are bad because they
>hate us, and they hate our way of life. And
>they hate our way of life because they hate
>freedom, and they hate the fact that we have
>freely elected officials. This is what the
>president said. Well, he wasn't elected! We
>really have to think about that.
>
>Considering that people around the world, other
>people, people "over there," "bad" people will
>always try to do bad things, that's kind of
>outside of your control. The only thing you
>can be responsible for is what goes on here.
>The American people have no control over what
>the military does. We have no say in American
>foreign policy. None. The only thing we can
>exercise some will on is what happens here
>domestically. So I think the focus is wrong.
>I don't think the American people should be
>worried at all about Osama bin Laden or Saddam
>Hussein or anybody, because our government is
>going to do what it wants to do to them
>regardless of what we want them to do or not.
>All we can control is what happens here. And
>what happened here is what allowed those
>attacks to take place. The intelligence
>community failed. Security failed. The
>military failed. Everybody failed at the same
>time. I can be really nice to them and say,
>"You guys really messed up and need to check
>yourself."
>
>Or I could be not nice and say, "You know, I
>don't think it's really probable that all the
>systems can fail at the same time, which means
>something far more insidious took place."
>People are really afraid to get into that.
>
>Are you suggesting some collusion on the
>part of our government in the Sept. 11
>attacks?
>
>I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying I'm not
>going there. I'm going to give them the
>benefit of the doubt and assume they're idiots,
>and not that they had something far more
>nefarious in mind.
>
>However, history does teach us that the
>government has done things like that before,
>particularly with Pearl Harbor, where there's
>an overwhelming amount of evidence that [FDR]
>was aware of it and lured the Japanese to
>attack Pearl Harbor. He literally left it
>undefended.
>
>There's some new evidence that has just come
>out about the CIA planning terrorist attacks
>on U.S. soil in the '60s and how they were
>going to set up Castro for it in order to get
>America behind a war in Cuba. That's not even
>a conspiracy theory. The CIA drew up the
>plans, even though it never happened. So if
>I were to go that route, I wouldn't be crazy.
>But I'm not going to go that route.
>
>I'm just going to say that the American people
>need to be concerned about what happens here.
>Forget what happens overseas. That's out of
>your control. Be concerned with what happens
>here. Because honestly, if our game is tight
>here, we can't be attacked. If our
>intelligence community and airports and
>military are doing what they're supposed to do,
>then we should be relatively OK.
>
>This reminds me of the strip where Huey
>calls the FBI terrorist hotline, tells
>them he's got a tip on someone who helped
>the terrorists, and it's Ronald Reagan.
>
>Do you think there's been enough coverage
>of the support our leaders have given the
>mujahedin in the past?
>
>The media have reported on it. But it's not
>so much [that] they said it or not, it's the
>way they've said it. When the news wants to
>tell you something is important, they put
>dramatic theme music behind it. They scare
>you into watching the story. Like, anthrax
>-- very, very important. Pay attention, it's
>scary.
>
>When they report on the U.S. creation of these
>people, these terrorists, it's all very matter
>of fact. Like, oh yeah, we gave them a whole
>bunch of money, and now on to sports. So a
>lot of it is not necessarily an issue of it
>being covered up. In fact, it can't be
>covered up -- it's well known. But to me,
>it's not given the right emphasis.
>
>The question is to what extent is the
>government culpable for creating the people
>who have done this? And to what extent should
>they be held responsible for the actions of
>terrorists that they have supported in the
>past? That's what this is all about. I'm
>talking about Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr.,
>their whole crew, up until the crew that's in
>there today.
>
>After the embassy attacks in Africa, they were
>well aware of Osama bin Laden. They were well
>aware of his location in Afghanistan, his
>protection by the Taliban, and this Bush
>administration gave them $43 million this
>year! And nobody talks about it, and nobody
>holds them accountable, and that's wrong.
>
>To be fair, though, I believe even the
>Clinton administration supported the
>Taliban in the beginning because they
>were viewed as a stabilizing force.
>Well, to hell with Clinton, too. I'm not a
>Democrat. I don't give a damn about Clinton.
>Hold these people responsible! You know,
>Democratic and Republican administrations
>alike have supported individuals and regimes
>that have slaughtered millions across the
>globe. And they need to be held accountable
>for that.
>
>Your depiction of the news media in your
>strip makes it out to be almost a cheer-
>leader for the government. Is that a
>fair assessment of your opinion?
>
>They've absolutely been playing cheerleader
>for the government, to the extent that even
>they've had to admit it. I watch news shows,
>and they're like, "Yeah, we're treating Bush
>differently now." I don't want the news to
>be patriotic. I don't want to see flags on
>the lapels of the anchors. I don't want any
>of that.
>
>I want the news delivered unbiased. I thought
>that was the whole point with journalism.
>They've thrown that out the window. And
>because they've all thrown it out the window
>at the same time, it's supposedly acceptable.
>No! It's ridiculous. I don't need to see
>that.
>
>This is war. It's serious. People are dying on
>both sides. How dare the media just give in
>when the government says don't air any of
>Osama bin Laden's video messages! What is
>this? He's going to rub his nose and something
>is going to blow up over here? Like terrorists
>don't have satellite television, and they can't
>watch foreign news and get the same messages.
>That's insane. It's totally and thoroughly
>irresponsible behavior by the entire
>institution of the media.
>
>Don't hold back, Aaron.
>I won't. I was talking to some television
>journalists about this who gave me some
>interesting insight. Right now, they're scared
>to be critical of the government. Everything
>is about access. Reporters are afraid that the
>administration will cut them off.
>
>Decades ago, the mark of a good reporter was
>how much dirt you could dig up. Like the
>Watergate scandal. They were actively trying
>to find out what was going on and report the
>truth to people. Now it's the exact opposite.
>Nobody wants to say anything that makes the
>government mad, and that's ridiculous. Also,
>after the attacks, now people think it's
>unpatriotic to say anything critical of the
>government.
>
>Come on, Bush is a moron. There is no doubt
>about it. And they really didn't have a
>problem going there before. But now, nobody
>wants to call him on it. People get excited
>because he can speak well. What world is this?
>When we're happy that the president can
>articulate well. That's something they only
>used to say about black men. "Oh, you speak
>so well." That's nuts.
>
>You don't say that about the president. We're
>supposed to have higher standards. The media
>are a big part of shaping the perception of
>the country, and right now, they're not asking
>the tough questions. They're not exploring,
>for example, the Bush administration's financial
>ties with Afghanistan. The fact that George
>Bush Sr. has financial investments in the
>area, and those investments become much more
>valuable when the Taliban government is removed.
>I'm not talking about getting into a whole
>bunch of conspiracies. Report what's actually
>happening, and challenge the government to
>explain itself. Why didn't they ask more
>questions? Like, how did this happen? How
>did four planes get hijacked in one day? And
>who got fired? That's the question I want to
>know the answer to, because a whole bunch of
>people should have gotten fired for what
>happened on Sept. 11.
>
>Report on the fact that G. W. Bush is sealing
>presidential papers. Indefinitely. His, his
>father's, Reagan's. It's totally nconsti-
>tutional. Why don't they talk about that?
>
>On the topic of George W's I.Q., I think
>that idea is pretty threatening to people
>right now, because like it or not, we're
>stuck with him.
>
>Yes, but living in denial doesn't help the
>situation. We have to confront the very scary
>fact that the president is a moron. He's
>really dumb. He's got some really smart
>people around him, and people weren't afraid
>to say that before. They said it in a nice
>way, but they said it. It was like, he's dumb,
>but he's got Cheney and he's got Powell, so
>we'll probably be OK.
>
>But now they act like he's done something
>great. You know, he's called [the terrorists]
>"evil." That's really some childish stuff.
>They're bad, we're good. That's the dumbest
>thing I've ever heard. That's so incredibly
>stupid. What do you think they do? They call
>us "evil." I just see so many parallels
>between both sides in this war, and it's
>really uncomfortable.
>
>You know, they kill civilians, we kill
>civilians. They say they're justified, we say
>the same thing. This is gang warfare on an
>international level. That's all it is. And
>when gang warfare happens in American cities,
>we say it's wrong. When somebody loads a gun,
>goes 20 blocks and kills the guy who killed
>his brother, it's not justifiable homicide or
>self-defense, it's murder and we put people
>in jail for it. Why is it acceptable that we
>do it now?
>
>Do you support the war at all?
>I don't support the killing of innocent people,
>and that's what's happening. What's worse is
>that we're killing innocent people out of
>retribution for the killing of innocent people.
>It's wrong. It's really wrong.
>
>But assuming that Osama bin Laden and
>al-Qaida are responsible, we have to go
>in and get them. How do we go in and get
>them without taking over that country?
>I don't know. But I would ask, how many bombs
>can we drop to bring these people back? We
>can't drop enough bombs to bring 4,000 people
>back, and we can't drop enough bombs to ensure
>that it never happens again. Is it really
>about Osama bin Laden, or are we narrowing
>this?
>
>The people that hijacked the planes and crashed
>them are dead. If there's a terrorist network
>or a man responsible, yes, we should get them,
>but when you construct it like a police action
>or an investigation, and not like a war, then
>you're forced to respect the lives of innocents,
>even if it's a pain in the ass. I say it's not
>worth innocent people dying, even if it takes
>years and you have to keep sending SEAL teams
>or whatever in there. What the hell? That's
>what they're trained to do. That's why they
>exist. Drop them in there to get one guy.
>F-18s exist to wipe out towns. It may take
>longer the other way, but that's too bad.
>
>But I'm sure you've seen pictures of
>Germany after World War II, and that
>country was flattened. Japan too.
>
>There were countless innocent lives lost.
>World War II was 60 years ago. I mean, just
>in terms of technology, we're not fighting
>wars the same way. They had special ops, but
>it was the beginnings of special ops. They
>didn't have satellites that could listen to
>a conversation from space or pinpoint and read
>a newspaper headline from miles in the air.
>We didn't have that. You went to war, carpet-
>bombed and a whole lot of civilians died.
>And you know what? World War II was fucked
>up. How many millions of people died good
>and bad? Could World War II have been fought
>differently? I don't know.
>
>There are few wars where innocent people
>don't die.
>I don't know why this had to become a war. A
>war on whom? This feels like the war on drugs.
>When does it end? When you declare war on
>Japan or Germany, you know you can stop when
>those countries are flattened. When you
>declare war against the word "terrorism," when
>is that over? What does that mean? Stopping
>terrorism is like stopping rape or burglary,
>it's an individual action. Anyone with a gun
>can go out and commit an act of terrorism, even
>without a political affiliation.
>
>It never ends. So it's like the war on drugs,
>and what has that accomplished? Not a goddamn
>thing but a whole lot of black men in jail for
>nonviolent crimes, millions of dollars spent
>and nothing else. And that's what the war on
>terrorism is going to do -- we're going to
>lose countless amounts of money, people are
>going to die and get locked up, but that's it.
>There's going to be no good coming out of it.
>We're going to lose our civil rights, and
>they're going to be gone forever.
>
>You don't buy the argument that the
>curtailing of certain civil liberties
>is temporary, that it's been necessary
>in previous wars, and that eventually
>those rights will be restored?
>
>It's not temporary. Once you give up rights,
>they're not going to give them back. This is
>a war that will never end. When are they
>going to say they've defeated terrorism? No
>one is stupid enough to say that. Because
>then when something blows up, they look like
>dickheads. They can never again come out and
>say America is safe. They'd be idiots if they
>did.
>
>So given that they've set the situation up as
>a war they can't win, they're never giving the
>rights back. Literally, someone will have to
>be elected who doesn't agree with this shit
>and gives us our rights back. Someone, I
>don't know who, will have to get into power
>and say, "You know, this was all bullshit, and
>we're changing the laws."
>
>What do you think we'll have to go
>through for that to happen?
>America will really have to understand how
>corrupt its system is, and they'll have to get
>so fed up that they're ready to make change.
>And I don't think that'll happen because the
>media are so in line with the government and
>so invested in the status quo. We have,
>essentially, a worthless democracy. I hate to
>sound so extreme, but things are that bad.
>There's nothing we have to share with the rest
>of the world. We don't even have one man, one
>vote. And we have so much legal corruption in
>our political system that no one even thinks
>about it anymore.
>
>You say that, but would you want to live
>anywhere else?
>
>I tell you what, I visited Canada, and I liked
>it. I liked it a lot. This idea that there's
>no better place in the world to live, I don't
>buy that.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
>Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
>Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
>Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/OnSolB/TM
>---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>"A man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original
dimensions."
>
>Oliver Wendell Holmes
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
