Isaiah is the community cartoonist. He does comics for all the newsletters and is the cartoonist for The Common Ills. We've spoken with him many times but Thursday he started his own site, The World Today Just Nuts (named after his comic strip), and we thought we'd catch up with him. Illustrations used in this are Isaiah's and credits are at the end.
Jim: First question, what's the deal with the "Iraq snapshots"?
Isaiah: Every site that posts must post the "Iraq snapshot," so sayeth community member Keesha. My problem with that was two-fold. First, I'm doing an archive and the point is to make it easy for everyone in the community with sites to find the comics if they're wanting to use one as an illustration. Stan, for example, has e-mailed me twice and I've missed the e-mails until after he posted. If I'd seen them, I might or might not have been able to help him -- I would've gotten back to him regardless -- with locating the comic he was wanting to use as an illustration. So the less included in any individual post, the easier it is to search my site for the illustration you want. I'm tagging them with names of those featured in the comics so that should make searches easier. Second issue is I wanted people to be able to page through quickly. Often, if Ruth's asking me about a comic, I can figure out the date it probably went up and I'll go into the archives of The Common Ills. I'll page down as quickly as possible for that week's archives and the less that's up, the quicker I can page through. So including the snapshot is including more that will take up space.
Jim: And yet you are posting the snapshot now?
Isaiah: I am. And I will with each post I do, the most recent snapshot will be included. Keesha and I spoke and the first thing she said was, "I didn't ask anyone to e-mail you." Because I'd e-mailed her asking, "Did you put out an alert on me?" She hadn't. But she's usually a few steps ahead of the rest of us in the community. And she was on the snapshots. She saw that Iraq was really falling off the radar and she knew that we could amplify the work C.I.'s doing to keep Iraq on the radar by reposting it. That's why she raised that issue all that time ago in a roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin. And she's right. And members were e-mailing me asking me why I wasn't posting the snapshot and sharing that they thought, by not doing so, I was making it easier for other people to ignore Iraq.
Dona: Let me point out that you had C.I.'s permission. You didn't need it, but you did talk to C.I. and were told, "Don't worry about posting the snapshot."
Isaiah: Right. C.I. talked me through the set up over the phone on Thursday. And while I'm setting up the blog, we've got spaces where I'm waiting and I was asking a variety of questions. C.I. said, "It's a visual website, you don't have to post the snapshot." But C.I.'s just one member of the community.
Dona: The member that does the snapshot but, yes, just one member. There was an outcry and I'm not trying to minimize that.
Isaiah: There really was. It was so great that I posted on Friday and hadn't intended to. I posted Friday morning to include Thursday's snapshot. If you look at the text of the snapshot, you'll notice it's a weird font. That came from my attempting to make it an expandable post. C.I. saw it Friday night and figured that was what I had tried to do. She said, "I can't think right now, let me call you Saturday night and I'll talk you through expanded posts."
Jim: Which we used to do here all the time. Our first year, we did that all the time. It was a huge pain in the ass. I don't know that we can do it now without changing the template, since we flipped templates, but it was always a hassle. Does anyone even know the code anymore? Dona's shaking her head? Jess, Ty?
Jess: I don't know it. But I'm looking at the site and I see Isaiah and C.I. figured it out.
Isaiah: Yes, and C.I. had to talk me through changes in the template, in HTML, in the settings and a code. I'm nervous about when I do it solo but how it will work -- when it works -- is you will see the comic, you will see my one or two paragraphs about it and then have the option to click "Read on" which will expand the entry and show you the snapshot.
Betty: Betty here, and I love it. It looks really great and it does allow for quick page downs. What about, though, what about in the archive itself. Will it be expandable? Or will it already be expandable?
Isaiah: I do not know. Hold still and let me try it. Okay, it's showing it with the expand option. That's what I'm getting.
Dallas: That's what I'm getting as well.
Jim: That was Dallas who rarely talks for publication. Isaiah, you should be flattered.
Isaiah: I should be, I am. So good question, Betty, and it appears that even when it's archived, you will have the expand post option.
Marcia: Allowing for paging down quickly. Isaiah, I don't think it's chance that you started this week. Am I correct?
Isaiah: You are. I'm getting really tired of attacks on cartoonists.
Marcia: I figured that. What's your take on The New York Post comic?
Isaiah: A lot of idiots. Take the fools at Corrente who want to insist that the bullet holes in the chest of the chimp are nipples to 'feminize' the chimp that they insist is Barack. Uh, did you look at the illustration? The nipples would go up much higher. And you can see where the breasts are. The bullet holes are below them. Beyond that, I think Cedric and Wally hit it right on the head with their joint-post "Forty belly aches from the fool " and "THIS JUST IN! SPIKE'S PRIORITIES!" Last week, a police photo of Rhiana, obviously beaten -- and beaten by Chris Brown -- is published. Spike Lee wants to scream and yell over a comic strip about a monkey being shot -- a chimp he insists is Barack. But Spike Lee doesn't have a damn ting to say about an actual woman being abused. I think that about says it all. One image leads to faux outrage and the other, of actual violence, gets a pass because it's domestic violence? Because women don't matter? Because it's okay for men to beat women? I don't know why but it's a damn hypocrisy and I've just about had it with all the lunatics.
Ty: Talk about examples of lunatics because I can think of a few.
Isaiah: I'm sure you can because we talked about this when a comic created another controversy. Here's the deal, stupid Al Shaprton, you'll scream your damn head off over this comic you insist is harmful because you insist a chimp is actually Barack Obama. But every Sunday, Fox will air two hours of cartoons and we'll see African-Americans either reduced to walk ons or outright ignored. And, excuse me, Al Sharpton, but last Sunday, on American Dad, they actually put the brain of an African-American man -- a homeless man, not a regular charter -- into a bear for some very racists jokes. You didn't have to strain and ponder whether anyone was a stand-in. Real racism was on full display. And where were you Al Sharpton? And as kids and adults watch cartoons on Fox every Sunday night, where are you to point out that American Dad can feature a talking goldfish and an alien but no person of color?
Ty: Okay, apologies Isaiah, but what we had planned to be an interview with you is about to turn into a roundtable on humor and animation. Ava and C.I. are doing their TV commentary so Wally, Kat and I are the note takers and I ask that everyone speak slowly and if someone gets excited, just pause before the next speaker for a bit so that we can be sure to include everything. I'm tossing to Cedric because I leaped in over two or three people, one of which I know was Cedric.
Cedric: Right. Well Al Sharpton's not defeding Blacks, he's defending Barack. First off, if the message of The New York Post was that Barack was a chimp and this was racist, I guess he'd have to be half-chimp and half-human in the illustration because Barack is not Black, he's bi-racial. He has a Black father and a White mother. This isn't about Black people, it's about Barack and the Barack cheerleaders -- the professional ones and the uneducated masses -- all showed up with their viligante mob attitude yet again. As an African-American, I was embarrassed by last week's overblown reaction to a comic that could only be considered racist if you were willing to play a game of 'linkage.' A chimp was shot, once upon a time, chimps were associated with Black people, therefore, I mean, give me a break, as Nell Carter would say.
Wally: Right, it reminds me of Woody Allen in Love & Death where he's doing that bit about all men are Socrates, Socrates was gay, therefore all men are gay. Only Woody Allen meant for that to be funny.
Jess: And there's the other linkage reqired, the monkey won't be able to write the next stimlus! Meaning the monkey wrote the last one! Meaning he's Barack! But Barack didn't write the stimulus. Only idiots who failed at their own education don't know that. A point Marcia made in "United Progressives and other thoughts" last week.
Betty: Well it's the ignornorance of the process, legislation is written by Congress, and it's the ignorance of a number of religious freaks -- include Sharpton -- in the Black community who run around screaming about Darwin and evolution and how "I didn't come from no monkey!" A lot of the screaming over this cartoon is nothing but the mood of many in our community -- in the Black community -- on evolution. They reject it, they fear it and you're saw real hysteria over it last week. It's why people didn't bother, in the Black community, to get the facts. I saw what Marcia wrote about, and there were a lot of people who couldn't be bothered with facts. All they needed was one person telling them, "They are saying Barack is a monkey!" and suddenly it was time for the Bible thumpers to start screaming. And I believe in God and I go to church regularly. I'm talking about an extreme thread in the Black community and people better stop their nonsense about putting on Yolanda King or any of these other hate mongers and thinking it's okay because they're Black and they're religious. People like Yolanda King are no different from Pat Roberston and White people need to stop thinking "Oh that's how those colored folks are. That's just how they are." It's insulting and it's offensive. And it gives an excuse -- perfect point by Marcia last week -- it gives an excuse for it to continue in the Black community -- the hatred and the ignorance -- because we get a pass. We're not called on it. White people are scared to call elements of the Black community out on it's scientific ignorance and it's hatred of others. But thsoe elements exist and it's really irritating, as a Black woman whose church has long worked on addressing the issue of homophobia, to see so-called 'progressives' like Amy Goodman air Yolanda King's homophobic crap and treat it as something wonderful. The same words from Pat Robertson would not have been broadcast on Pacifica Radio. But let Yolanda say it and no one wants to object. I call that out. I'm sick of it.
Stan: I agree with Betty, the evolution aspect was what led to eneragement. Al Sharpton knew what he was stroking and did so intentionally. If you saw the people protesting you saw some people who were fearful of evolution and that was the whole reason they showed up.
div style="clear:both;">
Isaiah: I'm looking at the comic, one of the White Mommas -- male but a White Momma -- posted it at his site on Thursday and then a long winded piece of crap from an idiot named Larry on Friday. Corrente said there were two bullet holes and they were supposed to feminize by being stand-ins for nipples. There are three bullet holes. Two below the breast plate, obviously below the breast plate and one high on the chest, above where a nipple would be. Stan, I may have cut you off, sorry.
Stan: No, that's cool. The evolution thing does disturb me and the refusal to hold the conservative elements in the Black community accountable disturbs me. But the other things that disturb me can be boiled down to two issues and I wanted to get Isaiah's take on that. First, I do not believe the cartoon was supposed to be Barack but I think the reaction to the cartoon goes to the refusal by people to take the same shots and jabs at Barack that they do other presidents. I'd like that discussed. And, second, I'm really bothered by the interpretation factor here. There is no need for interpretation, for example, when you look at the photo of Rhianna's battered face. But there is no condemning Chris Brown. Danny Schechter, the White Momma I believe Isaiah was speaking of, never posted Rhianna's photo, never called out Chris Brown. So when we see real violence, when we see its effects, we give it a pass. But we want to bend and strain a comic to try to see some hidden meaning? I'm getting really sick of it. Marcia, my cousin in case anyone doesn't know -- feel I have to disclose that because I'm about to praise her -- and Betty and C.I. raised, in the round-robin last week, the non-stop attacks on Roland Burris which include racists attacks -- and coming from self-identified PUMAs. Where's the defense of Rhiana, where's the defense of Roland Burris? We want to 'interpret' a cartoon for the worst meaning possible and get outraged by that but we're not real interested in actually doing a damn thing to help the community. That's how I see it.
Rebecca: Before Isaiah comments, I want to jump in to make a point about scope. The New York Post is a tabloid. It is a local tabloid. It is not a national paper and it's not even a state paper with any influence in upstate New York or elsewhere. But this cartoon has been turned into a national issue and that's really frightening. I'm done. Isaiah?
Isaiah: I agree with what you're saying, Rebecca and I agree with what everyone's saying. In terms of Stan's remarks, I really want to tackle the issue of interpretation. At my site, I'm avoiding telling you what the comics mean and that's because they mean what you interpret them to mean. Now you can take me to task for a drawing of Laura Bush or of Barack or whomever. You can take me to task for a caption. But when you start taking me to task for your interpretation, you better be sure you grasp that you're not dealing with what I put out there, you're dealing with what it means to you. Don't ascribe your meaning to me. The King of All Internet Thieves Lambert (Corrente) wanted to huff, "A joke's not funny if you have to explain it." Actually, moron, you're incorrect. There are many jokes that are funny that some people don't get. A lot of people didn't get Richard Pryor early on. Not everyone liked Seinfeld, not everyone thought it was a funny show. But a joke does not have to have universal appeal to be funny. Some of the funniest jokes, think George Carlin, sailed over the heads of many and that only made the jokes even funnier. So stop trying to appear erudite by repeating stale bromides that never made sense, Punk Ass Lambert. But hold me accountable for the way I draw someone, for the words I put in my comic. That's fine. I'll disagree with you or agree. Or blow you off. But when you start trying to tell me what my illustration means based on your interpretation and you're trying to tell me that your interpretation is correct and the only possible interpretation, I'm telling you that you don't know the first thing about art and that you're a conservative reactionary when it comes to art.
Elaine: I can't stress enough how strongly I agree with what Isaiah's saying. Some may say, "Well it's subtle but I see racism in it." I can nod along with that. I can agree with that if we're looking at a piece of art. Someone telling me, however, that the piece is racist, not "I see," and basing it on their interpretation is someone that has no background in the arts and really is not suited or trained to offer criticism. I mean, there are many times Ava and C.I. could rip apart the way a scene is staged. For Hilda's Mix, sometimes, they'll offer that as "Interpretations." Clearly defined as such. They'll note the power dynamics and the violence of a scene that's not supposed to be violent and they'll explore what that could mean. But for their pieces here, they don't do that. And they don't ever --at Hilda's Mix -- offer, "This is what it has to mean!" They know art, they grasp art, they grasp that it is open to interpretations. I have no problem looking at illustrations or statues or whatever with friends and hearing them say "I see . . ." But I have a huge problem with anyone who offers their interpretation and tries to pass it off as something other than an interpretation.
Ruth: I want to point out that the artist who did the poster of Barack is something that we toyed with doing an article on here. And we all decided to pass because we felt the arts were under enough reactionary attacks. We don't care for the artist, we don't care for his poster but we passed because 2008 especially showed the left joining in some of the worst attacks on art, the sort of attacks we would normally associate with the right-wing.
Mike: I'm glad you included that because I was thinking about that or thinking about offering another point. So I'll go with my other one. "Linkage" was mentioned earlier. And two ways were covered. Two ways that if you play a linkage game you can summon outrage over the comic of a chimp. But there was a third way that didn't get mentioned when we were discussing it and, no surprise, this was offered at the cesspool that is Corrente as well. The comic, we're told, is racist. Why is it racist? Does the artist have a past history of racismin cartoons? Well, Corrente found a past history of homophobia! So if someone's homophobic, they're racist! Not necessarily. Nor do you have to be racist to be homophobic. But if you play the linkage game, you can say the artist is homophobic so therefore he must also be racist. I didn't click on the links, I was sent that garbage in e-mail -- I think we all were. But I did think about it -- not the idiotic argument Corrente was attempting to pollute the world with, but the fact that The New York Post is a conservative tabloid with a conservative audience and I had to wonder if someone raising points that can be seen as "gay" in such a venue is necessarily pushing homophobia or if he or she would be pushing the envelope and forcing conservatives to leave their comfort zones? I don't know. I didn't look at the 'evidence' and don't intend to. I'm not impressed with that cartoonist. I have a life and I'm busy. But my point is that there are always multiple interpretations and it's interesting how some will play linkage to argue the worst.
Kat: Right. Linkage. Not pattern. Ava and C.I. will say "goes to pattern." They will establish, for example, a clear pattern of sexism and back it up. They will not play linkage. They will not say, NBC in 1952 said . . . They will establish clear patterns and do so in that legal framework as though they were arguing in a court of law. If these people playing linkage with the cartoon were in a court of law with a competent judge presiding, they'd be laughed out of court. I firmly agree with what Elaine's saying and not just because it's an issue I'm raising in my latest CD review that goes up this morning at The Common Ills. I'm not self-plugging, I want to be sure everyone knows Elaine and I were on the same wave length and doesn't think I stole from Elaine without crediting her.
Dona: Isaiah, before we wrap up, I want to get back to the issue of interpretation. You are an artist. You draw it, you put it out there. You know it will be interpreted in a variety of ways. You now have a site and you are avoiding -- as you've done in every interview we've done with you -- interpreting a comic for the audience. You're presenting it, but you're not going to also say, "This is what it means." So this is a big issue with you and I would like to give you a chance to make some final comments on that if you'd like to.
Isaiah: Okay, let's pretend I drew the cartoon that was the center of attention last week. Okay? I draw that cartoon. You can hold me accountable for the way I drew the police officers -- some have complained that they both appear to be White. You can complain about the way I drew the chimp. You can complain about my "Beware Dog" sign posted, or the way I drew the two cars. You can complain about my caption. All of those are valid complaints. But anything you add to what I've drawn goes to interpretation and you better grasp that just because it means X to you does not mean it means X to me. I'm fine and dandy with you having an opinion. I'm appalled if you want to take your opinion and use it to condemn me or what I drew. You've crossed a line, not me. I've drawn a comic that is self-explanatory. But you want to leave the text and the subtext and pull in other things that the comic conjures for you. Then you want to toss it back at me, you want to take your racist garbage or racist fears and attack me with them? That's not valid. And I'm so offended by this and other attacks on art -- both in this country and outside of it -- recently that I'm not disputing "artist." Normally, I do. I don't think I'm that great because I'm not. But I will claim the title "artist" and do so because artists are under attack and maybe someone reading this, because it is a community site, will say, "Hey, I like Isaiah. He's an artist." And the next time some idiot -- used to be right-wingers, now it's the left, as Ruth pointed out -- is attacking artists, the person will say, "Isaiah's an artist." And they'll be less quick to buy into attempts to villify art or artists.
Jim: I would just add that sometimes a chimp is just a chimp. I would further add that Danny Schechter wanted to argue that domestic violence terrorist Ike Turner needed to be seen as more than just an abuser. He's posted nothing on the abuse Rhianna suffered through but he's had plenty of time to go to the well on a cartoon. He's one more person who feels the need to protest cartoons as opposed to violence. Isaiah, we're glad you've started a site. And we'll try to do a real interview with you soon. This is a rush transcript. Participating were Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts, The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ty, Jess, tossing Dallas in here, and me, Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Wally of The Daily Jot, Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.
Illustrations used in this article:
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Rose Ceremony."
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Influence of the Bully Boy"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Brokedown Democracy"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Bully is . . ."
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Damn Alito!"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Little Dicky Breaks It Down"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Bully Boy Finds New Ways to Invade Our Privacy"