Mexico stands as stark example of what the reality of “Free Markets” would spiral down to. Even the father of the concept of “Free Markets” Adam Smith admits in his tome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations that they are an oxymoron that cannot exist because if the people have no recourse then they cannot challenge the power structure (which is supposed to be the agent of change). Their only recourse is the judicial system, which means there need to be laws (regulations), which means the market isn’t free. In Mexico, a ruling class has run the country for its own benefit since the get go. The only regulations are the ones put in place to benefit those already in power.

The same thing almost happened here! If it weren’t for TR and the Trust Busters, the inheritance tax (which is designed to be a confiscatory tax that prevents an aristocracy from rising in this nation, and is backed today by some of the world’s most wealthy individuals) Child Labor laws and the New Deal, Glass Steagle (which Clinton, Rubin and Weill shattered) FDIC, FNMA, the SEC (an agency designed by one of the most notorious Wall Street inside trader (when it was legal) and short sellers; Joe Kennedy) and a whole host of regulations… one of two things would have happened. We would have become a Fascist state like Italy, or a Communist state like Russia. In either case the US would have been a basket case and Hitler would have won the war (which also almost happened exactly BECAUSE Mexico was a basket case and open to overtures from Hitler).

Libertarians like to say that they are against all of those sorts of regulation but that they are sure that when the time comes, they’ll be able to provide a good military defense.

Winston Churchill said, “If you’re not a Liberal when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re not a Conservative when you’re old, you have no brains.”

By Liberal, he means “Self determinant” the belief that there is no need for authority. By Conservative he’s referring to the need for a centralized government (In WC’s time the world was still reeling and dealing with the choice between royalty and democracy and WC’s opinion was that there needed to be a strong central figure of absolute truth, a king”ish”. Churchill was a Conservative and a royalist. Keep in mind that the Tsar, who was a “Divine Right” leader, had just been brutally deposed.) Today’s Conservative is just slightly right of the leftest (as opposed to leftist) fringe; Libertarians (who actually see themselves as the purest “Conservative Purists”). Today’s “Liberal” is far to the right of the “Libertarian” (and as such right of the “Conservatives”). It would have made Churchill’s head spin but the assessment remains the same in that the ideology that endorses a strong central government is the ideology that Churchill described those not of the ideology as having, “no brains.” The ideology endorsing regulation is the Liberal ideology.

As to “guessing” “would” and “might;” the “Would” of if you weren’t born rich then your life would be entirely different if it weren’t for the regulations placed on our economy in the early part of the 20th Century (including New Deal). Isn’t as much a guess as it is a conclusion. Given the explication above it is an obvious conclusion that life would be different for all of us. Even if it weren’t for the Great Depression and WWII, the cycle of boom and bust would have continued to depress our standard of living, and there would be no reason for the rest of the world to have invested their money in the US.

As to your Californian status… Well I admit that it seems that you are currently located in Ca, what with the Griffith Park stuff and all ” I’m a volunteer member of a Greater Griffith Park Council, the Parks, Rivers and Open Space Committee (PROS).” I mean I guess one “Might” do that from a distance but I don’t know why one “would”. At some point I had read your blog that said you had a nice weekend in Northern (er) Ca only to have come home to the fight over the cartoon of Obama as a car salesman(?).

Anyway, I don’t know, don’t care how long you’ve lived in Ca or if you live there now. Except that you see that my guesses are based on more than just blue sky. My “Guesses” about “Would” and “Might” are actually conclusions that are drawn from the available evidence not from “fact” made up.

Meanwhile you “From The Right”ers will, (I guess) go right on with your “facts” like F.D.R. actually extended the Depression. And those of us who believe that facts must be based on valid evidence (which includes all of the evidence and not just the data cherry picked to beg the question) will continue to see you as the rhetorical sophists that you seem to be so proud to be.

No Barstows left in Barstow, and I’m not from Calif. You’re doing a lot of guessing about policies and the “woulds” and “mights.” Libertarians might take offense at your comparing the result of Mexico to their tenets. Or are you saying they wouldn’t? That any political party or philosophy would be pleased to be associated with that mess?

A good cartoon has a point of view, which is hopefully innovative, and admirably funny. I don’t always succeed on all points, but I have fun trying. Much as I’d like to proselytize, there’s no room in one cartoon. A body of work might work. That’s the ticket, these will be my next book!

As far as going after people on the internet, I surely have good reason. The main person doing this is an “editorial cartoonist” himself, and this is defamation in order to hurt my business. We’ll see how that shakes down.

“…discussion of your particular personal and professional reputation.” As such I was more interested in commenting on the semantics of the fray.

“…trying to point out to you that what happened here [In Steinbeck's Barstow] is still happening there [in today's Mexico] (not to mention here [In California] before Caesar Chavez… ”

“… your life would not resemble the one you are living one bit.” If not for the reforms of the early 20th century (including the New Deal) and the regulation of markets (keep in mind that child labor laws were instituted in THIS country in 1938 and that was only because it reduced the supply of workers so that adult workers could demand and get a better price for their labor). We’ve come a long way from the basket (as in basket case economy) in a relatively short time.

“… self proclaimed “Conservatives” whose idea of “conservatism” is to undo the New Deal.” And the regulated economy that has created the world’s most stable (up till recently) middle class.

One unrelated, related point… For yourself I would suggest that you watch the movie Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261392 ) if only the first ten minutes and the last ten.

The crux of the story is that J&SB read what people are saying about “them” on the internet and they eventually start finding those people and beating them up (the movie is pretty foul so I’d hesitate advising you to watch the whole thing.)

No I’m not about to “defend” Mexico against your “facts.” I figured the post was droning on long enough and I was attempting to tread the middle ground. Further I think I went fairly far to disprove a racist motivation to the cartoon so why would I then go ahead and dispute the points you made.

It seemed to me that the discussion had devolved into a discussion of your particular personal and professional reputation.

As to Mexico: Mexico is the USA without the New Deal, without Unions and without a regulated market.

Your last name is Barstow, as in Barstow, Ca. as in the town that the Joads wound up in in the Grapes Of Wrath. I don’t know if your family founded Barstow or not, and I’m not blaming what happened to the Oakies in the ’30s on you or your family. But what I am doing is trying to point out to you that what happened here is still happening there (not to mention here before Caesar Chavez organized migrant labor in Ca.. I don’t know if you remember this but it used to be a semi common news story that some farmer in Ca was charged after mass graves were found on his property.) If ever there is a “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” place, it’s Mexico. One might be entitled to snark by paraphrasing Gertrude Stein by that “it’s the only ‘There’ there over there in California.”

Now perhaps you come from a long history of California wealth (not your fault if you did) but if not then you can be sure that your life would not resemble the one you are living one bit.

Mexico is what the US would become if we let the “Free Marketeers” have their way. Mexico is approximately an Ayn Rand Utopia, and what we know from this is that “Libertarianism” is a failed philosophy. This is why “Liberals” are opposed to the self proclaimed “Conservatives” whose idea of “conservatism” is to undo the New Deal.

I hope that you can see from this that there is a lot more that goes into political commentary than just calling names. Or there ought to be anyway.

I notice you didn’t deny any of the facts I listed that make Mexico a bad neighbor. They’ve been there for years. I hope they will clean it up someday.

1. “Racist”… It’s an epithet that people toss around with righteous indignation. It is also a “mud” that tends to stick in that no one can prove that they are not racist, because everyone IS racist. Racism is a part of egoism, and absolutely every person is an egoist.

2. “Hate”… As an adjective, is a first cousin to “Racist”

The problem with both words is that they have lost their true meaning. If one is truely a “Racist” then race has become the dominant issue in their decision making. They chose to DO things based on the race of the person they are dealing with (and always remember that actions speak louder than words).

Likewise “Hate” has become less severe than “Dis” (disrespecting) “Don’t be hating on me!” “Don’t be a hater.” It’s sickens one to see where hate has fallen. Hate is real! Hate is despicable. Hatred is what is is nurtured in people convinced to kill (soldiers for example). When Fred Phelps says “God Hates Fags” he means the real stuff (he’s a lunatic, but he is semantically correct) when one uses the word “Hate” they should keep in mind groups like Aryan Nation, and the Westboro Baptist Church (I could link but I won’t). That’s what unrepentant hate looks like.

Just to be clear, I use the military as an example because it is an organization that is charged with the responsibility of turning otherwise peacable persons into people who will kill when asked to. One major step in this process is to convince the soldier that the killing is justified by virtue of the fact that the target is hate-able.

I remember when I saw this cartoon; my reaction was “Lame.” By the time it hit the Gocomics site there had been dozens of cute little piggies from all over the world in cartoons. There were even a few cartoons that had Mexico “invading” with their “Swine Flu” but they were few and from the less civilized nations.

I thought then as I think now that Donna’s effort was of a decidedly California perspective. Having lived for a while in La Jolla, I am somewhat versed in the DLIMBYBCCMP mind set (Don’t live in my backyard, but come clean my pool) of Ca. Donna shows her dismissal of the whole “Mexicans issue” with this drawing.

But, truth be told, “Immigration” is nothing more than the modern day “Abortion” issue. It’s only an issue for politicians because they can use it to boil your vote down to one “self evident” issue (as opposed to you struggling to find a candidate that will agree with you on a whole host of issues. Donna will see how this works as she reflects on Bush’s stand on wolves). Abortion was the issue that collected the casually and moderately religious along with the fanatically and the financially motivated religious into a huge coalition, which has since started to deteriorate as the scales have dropped from many eyes.

So swine flu came from Mexico, all the other flues come from Hong Kong and the rest of bird loving Asia. Yeah, it’s their fault; they live with ducks walking around the house! But that’s just the way it is, Guns, Germs and Steel baby! (BTW that book is really pretty bad; hopefully someone will come along and do a better job of that theory).

It’s not that Donna Barstow is anymore racist than the rest of us. It’s that this cartoon is unflinchingly mean spirited. As such it seems that one of two things is happening. 1. that DB is trying to get street cred with so called “Right Wing” or 2. That DB is just too clueless to know that they cut off Marie Antoinette’s head for stuff like this.

Personally, I think that it’s the first one. But I don’t know why someone who wants to sell non political cartoons to The New Yorker (you don’t get much more “liberal elite” than the privileged class that identifies with that magazine) would go out of her way to court the Anti New Yorker crowd. The only thing I can figure is that it’s #2, clueless!

ha ha I wonder why sh*t chicken sh** b**** wont draw any cartoons about Muslims terrorist….

Too scared of course.

She wouldn’t dare.

Neither Alas, a Blog nor Pandagon are hate sites. On the contrary, they are sites that are determined to call out bigotry whenever they see it. Many commenters on those sites have offered legitimate criticism of your work and have pointed out their issues with it. If you are going to lose work due to legitimate criticism, then maybe you should consider what you are doing wrong.

“I also lose money EVERY SINGLE TIME these blogs steal my cartoons, because they are too lazy and ignorant and self-centered to link to Slate and my syndicate Gocomics. No eyeballs, no hits, no money. This cartoon is not in print. I ONLY get paid by who goes to the sites, DUH. Do you people ever think about the creators you steal art from????”

Both sites have apologized for not linking to you, and have rectified the situation by providing links.

“And one of those “feminist” sites you refer to, calls itself “a safe space.” Then it allows a commenter to say he wanted to find me and hit me. This is insane!! And totally sexist.”

Which site was this? That is totally out of line, and I know it is not usually permitted on Alas. That blog has always condemned threats of violence, no matter who they were directed to.

“I don’t feel the least bit guilty about this cartoon, and the word privilege has no meaning the way you use it.”

How does it have no meaning? Do you not believe that people have certain privileges compared to others if they are part of a majority or dominant group? I’m going to tell you one last time, please stop embarrassing yourself by admitting that you don’t understand fairly basic concepts.

“I explained the chia pet cartoon in detail earlier. I just started doing political cartoons last fall, so no other presidents there. Get it?”

When did you explain it in detail? Can you try one more time? Because I still fail to see the connection between Obama and Chia Pets, aside from the afro stereotype, which you admitted you were aware of in your original post on that cartoon. What were you trying to say in that cartoon?