So we move from actionable proof to conjecture when we ask these questions? Blaming Perry at the heat of the moment won't get anything done even with rationale paved with good looking intentions. It gives the mind an illusion of control, and it plays a heavy long term part of why people are disillusioned with the political process. The Texas governorship is a relatively watered down seat, and Perry is not the root cause of the state's horribly lax regulations. The Republicans in state congress have a heavier role in why regulations are bad, and even then, we still don't know concretely how the explosion could've been prevented, which is why you had to insert the what-if. It is "too soon" for several reasons, and the idea that the editorial board or members here can justify itself through predictive hindsight is similar to the disgust some people have with the knee jerk media who are quick to judge and quick to scoop without responsibly considering the consequences. You may be right, but you're not certain of it. The disrespect of the victims comes from the lack of that responsible consideration on top of how soon it is with its political undertones. But hey, it happens all the time.
I know this. Why give it attention? Just get over it and it will stop being news and it will go away.
Meh I didn't find it offensive towards the people involved in the tragedy. However I do find it to be a low blow against Perry. There is no evidence that Perry's lax regulation position in anyway caused the tragedy.
I agree that if Perry's policies on lack of regulation had nothing to do with the tragedy then it's just stupid. In that sense I agree with your "too soon" label. I don't like the cartoon. The point of contention for me was that it was somehow aimed at or mocking the victims. I just didn't see that. You make good points.
Tasteless or not, and it is, deregulation has consequences, but rarely in the same neighborhood as those people who financially benefit from it.
Maybe so, but my great uncle, a volunteer firefighter, died in the factory explosion... it is a little more personal for me...
Say for example, there was a picture of President Obama behind a podium with a CIA and FBI plaque behind him. Furthermore, assume Obama is saying something how USA's intelligence is second to none. Assume the editorial cartoon's headline is "Boston Massacred" and it was published on the day the young boy who was killed was buried.
I would think those criticisms were misguided, and that it was an ineffective political cartoon for those reasons. I still don't think it would be in any way disrespectful to the victims. The reason is that the person who made that political cartoon in your example as misguided as they might be, still wants a better outcome than what happened in the incident where the young boy was killed. I think he's wrong about what allowed the incident to happen, but I know that like I am, he's unhappy about the person's death and wants something done to prevent it from happening again. It's the same with this cartoon. If it isn't decided that it was cuts and lack of regulation at the hands of Perry that caused the explosion then he shouldn't have simply jumped on board making that the point of his political cartoon. But I can see the reason he was doing it was almost to honor the victims not to disrespect them because the cartoon is saying that human life is more important than luring businesses to Texas with lax regulations because the result will be something like what happened in West. I just don't see it as disrespectful to the victims even if the Cartoonist point is misguided and/or premature.
Nick Anderson at the Chronicle had a less tasteless take on it: I guess that's why he has a Pulitzer.
Actually, Dewhurst felt the need to score points with his base in advance of his own run for the governor's job by demanding the cartoonist be fired.
Political cartoons serve a purpose and that is to say what others cannot or will not. The only times I get irked at political cartoons is when they aim sarcasm at the powerless instead of those in power. There are many I would not be totally OK with, but none that would generate the outrage in this thread. If the cartoon was a political response to an event, so is the response to the cartoon. How many of us would have read it if Perry had not made a big deal about it?
Perry is a symbol of deregulation and the promotion of the corporate over the personal that has changed our society over the last few decades because he has intentionally made himself such a symbol. We all know unless he is the stupidest guy on the planet and actually wrote something about not caring if the plant is up to code that no legal blame will come to Perry. The blame will be pushed down to bureaucrats and mid-level managers and diffused in a way that will not lead to substantive improvements. That's the world Perry has helped create, that's the world he wants to represent, and as a prominent symbol of that world, he gets to live with the shots that people who don't like it take at him. He can do it gracefully, knowing the power he has, or he can whine. Same with his supporters.
It would be one thing if the investigation had been completed and the governor's policies had been determined to be the cause. In that case, he deserves the criticism. That is not what happened here. They rushed to judgment. They just assumed that since something blew up in Texas, it must be due to the governor. So they ran this cartoon to take a pot shot at the governor and designed it to release on the day they were laying the victims to rest. It validates all the crummy things that are said about journalists.
So a person who aggressively advocates deregulation and actively contributes to a political climate where any regulation (no matter how justified) is considered suspect or "anti-Texan" shouldn't accept heat for that stance when the inevitable result of said deregulation occurs? If someone I care for had died in an accident, I sure as hell would be much angrier at the politicians who made it difficult to prevent that accident than a journalist who points out the link between their views and the accident. The cartoon may be ham-fisted but it makes a legitimate point. It's not a matter of whether Perry proximately caused the accident - it's whether there's a link between the cause he so strongly advocates and what happened in West. And I think you're being extremely naive (or literal) if you don't see the connection.
That's funny. You call me naive, yet you just willy nilly assume that any of the regulations that Perry has opposed would have prevented the explosion. The fact is...you don't and can't possibly know that. So you, like others, have chosen to ignore whether any of the regulations he opposes would have made difference...chosen to ignore whether OSHA had inspected and passed the plant...and have chosen to make this a referendum on Perry generally. Instead of waiting for the facts to decide whether criticism is appropriate, you have chosen to grab the torches and pitchforks and hunt down the perceived ogre. Yet, somehow, I am the naive one. Right...
That's not what I communicated and you know it (it seems like you've combined the message of several different posts and attributed it all to me). What I said is that Perry's incessant anti-regulation advocacy contributed to a climate where ALL government regulations are treated as a burden and intrusion rather than a protection. The end result of such a climate is what happened in West - a company that failed to follow the reporting requirements for its dangerous product. If you don't see a connection, then yes, you are naive.
If you cannot show that any opposed regulations would have prevented the accident, then you are blaming just to blame. I prefer to use reason and wait for the facts. The end result of that climate would not be what happened in West if the accident would not have been prevented had all proposed regulations been implemented. If that is the case, Perry's stance on regulation would be a red herring.
I think that would be misguided. If anyone should be fired, it would be the editor. In truth freedom of speech would simply be nobody is asking for him to be arrested, or the paper shut down.
