The problem isn’t that it’s just a monkey, its that:

(1) its a dead monkey who was killed by two cops, and
(2) it just isn’t that great of a cartoon.

The cartoon was insensitive to the extreme, and both the Post and the cartoonist were too immature and self-righteous to admit to it. Not only was the use of the chimpanzee racially offensive, but the suggestion of violence towards government officials in response to the stimulus package is reprehensible.

This is just further evidence that the Right Wing and the Republican Party and their mouthpieces — Rush Limbaugh et al — are racist. Another reason why the ugly Americanism of the GOP and their followers is quickly vanishing into irrelevance. Good riddance.

That's it. I kind of reconsidered some of the stuff in my other post, thinking that people genuinely misinterpreted the cartoon. Alternately, I thought that maybe people had become so used to the "Bush = chimp" bullshit that their thought process wasn't "chimp = black person = Obama = RACISM!!!" but "chimp = president = Obama = black person = RACISM!!!"

However, if the Post can issue an apology and an explanation and still get this kind of reaction, then I can only conclude that people are deliberately misinterpreting the fucking thing.

Seriously, how hard is this, you fucking dolts? I'll admit that the cartoon isn't particularly funny, but the joke has been spelled out to you shitwits:

1. A chimp attacked its owner and was shot to death earlier this week
2. Around that same time, Congress wrote a horrible "stimulus" bill
3. Therefore, the cartoonist is implying that the chimp wrote said stimulus bill, which is why
4. The police officer says that they'll have to find someone else to write the next one

Again, it's not that good a joke, but the fact remains that the chimp in the cartoon isn't supposed to "represent" anything except the actual chimp that was actually shot and killed by police officers. Not Pelosi. Not Obama. Travis the motherfucking Chimp.

Getting back to my original point, I really do think that people are deliberately misinterpreting this cartoon in order to deflect criticism of the stimulus. It is fucking impossible for anyone with an IQ higher than 0 to read an accurate explanation of the joke and still attribute racism to the cartoonist, no matter how lame the joke is.

I invite all of you asshats to either admit that you're making an issue out of nothing or explain how an honest person can argue racist intent here.

Not interpretation, which makes just about anything possible (ask Larry the Liberal what he thinks of hockey, for example), but INTENT.

On another note, check out this gem in the City Room comments:

I do believe in sarcasm but racism?? Anyone that is attempting to fix the enormous challenge facing the economy should be commended not ridiculed; or perhaps the Post wants to take a stab at coming up with more rigorous stimulus plan..

Oh, look, it's our old friend Good Intentions.

Do I need to refer back to my "putting out a fire with gasoline" analogy to explain why it's the height of idiocy to commend someone for simply making an effort?

By the way, just to make this point once more:

IF YOU SEE A CHIMP, AND THE FIRST THING THAT COMES TO MIND IS A BLACK PERSON, THEN YOU ARE A RACIST.

I hate stupid people so, so, so fucking much. Just die.

UPDATE
I'm not sure why I'm still expending energy on this, but willful ignorance just makes me want to hurt people.

Let me restate my point one final time, along with another invitation to prove me wrong...

Anyone who reads the explanation offered by the New York Post and still says that the cartoon was intended to be racist is either:

A. Hopelessly, tragically stupid

or

B. Lying

That's it. End of fucking story.

By the way, a few comments here and there would be awesome. This blog hasn't had any decent discussion for a long, long time, and frankly, I'm more motivated to write when I know that there's a chance someone else will add their own thoughts. Ranting in an echo chamber is for liberals.