That’s not meant, from a cartoonist standpoint, as a defense of alt-weekly editors, who are even more dismissive of cartoons than their daily counterparts these days. But if you’re looking for PC boogeymen, you won’t find them there, in my experience.

Alt-weeklies have their own problems, god knows, but at least they don’t adhere to some ridiculous Ozzy-and-Harriet aesthetic that would make something like Wiley’s mild cartoon too hot to handle.

And that probably explains why daily newspapers have become so sadly irrelevant.

I doubt it. He elicited just the reaction he was expecting to get from his loyal subscribers (editors) with the added bonus of having one of the most talked-about cartoons in recent memory.

From MP “It’s a silly term that we don’t use at all, except when we’re being very sarcastic…”

I was being sarcastic.

From MW “There are lots of ways to take on the insanity of the Islamic Fundamentalist Wackos without poking sticks in the eyes of the vast majority of Muslims who are right to expect some consideration of their religious sensitivities.”

That’s why I used the “blasphemy” word.

By the way, has anyone “tested the spine” of an alt weekly editor lately?

I’m confused, Matt. Are you implying Muslims would frown on this or PeTA?

There are lots of ways to take on the insanity of the Islamic Fundamentalist Wackos without poking sticks in the eyes of the vast majority of Muslims who are right to expect some consideration of their religious sensitivities. ( here’s one I did a while back myself– http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=21888 )

Choosing to leave Mohammed out of it is not about being PC. One route shows you understand what you’re drawing about and aren’t interested in just stirring up crap for crap’s sake. Ask that limp-wristed liberal General Petraeus which route he thinks is intelligent.

Any racist idiot can draw Mohammed as a dog. That’s not standing up for free speech or defending western values. Wiley’s cartoon shows that some cartoonists know the difference.

(Looks around) No, no we don’t.

It’s a silly term that we don’t use at all, except when we’re being very sarcastic, usually about equally silly people who think it means something Very Important.

As for the idea that a cartoon intended to lampoon the cowardice of publishers needs to be changed into a cartoon intended to purposely offend Muslims, that is something we call “If that’s the cartoon you’d rather see, go ahead and draw it yourself.”

Had he been truly serious about making his point he would have included a couple of figures who might have actually been taken to be Mohammad- a bearded homeless guy pushing a shopping cart, Santa Claus or an ayatollah.

But he didn’t and settled for this sophomoric version instead. Of course he can can post anything he wants on his website. So can any of the tough guys out there who are so quick to accuse editors of lacking a spine.

The use of the WORD “Mohammad” hasn’t been banned as the Huffmart writer seems to think. (The column, btw, would have been a perfect opportunity for Huffmart to take a stand by posting an illo of the Prophet.)

The use of his image is considered to be blasphemy by his followers.

We call that “PC” in secular circles.

It is about selling newspapers, but a newspaper is owned by humans and humans have their own biases.

While we’re on the subject of adhering to a political philosophy …there’s probably a larger amount of people in the middle of left and right that move in the direction of the political wind at any given time. Ironically, this in between group, let’s call them “Republicrats”, are most likely the usual deciding factor in most elections. They’re like the sports fans that come from nowhere when a team is going into the post season. All of the sudden they’re the biggest fans. As a Red Sox fan all my life, I was struck when the Sox won in 2004, how many fair weather fans popped up. They were like the blooming umbrellas in the big city when a rain cloud bursts.

Have a great day!