Free Markets, Free People

Cartoons, Chimps, and Scared White People

Who is that poor, dead ape?

Who is that poor, dead ape?

Yesterday, in a surprisingly foolish move, New York Post cartoonist Sean Delonas attempted to somehow use the story of the Unfortunate Chimpanzee Incident in Connecticut as a visual segue to some sort of commentary on politics.  Although, I’m not entirely sure what point was being made.

The reference to writing  the next stimulus bill seems to me to be a clear reference to Pres. Obama.  He is, after all the guy the guy who’s been out pushing for the thing since day one.  They guy who tried to get Republicans and Democrats together to vote for it a bipartisan fashion.  The number one cheerleader.  He is inextricably linked in the public’s mind with the stimulus bill.  We even call it the Obama Stimulus Bill.  So, who, then are we supposed to think this cartoon is referring to?  Who else could we reasonably infer it refers to?

Now, Obama isn’t the first president who’s been the butt of Chimp references.

He is, however, the first president whose racial heritage includes centuries of invidious comparisons to the great apes.

Which is a shame, actually, because for reasons entirely unrelated to his race, Pres. Obama has a physical feature that is perfect for comparison to a chimp.  His ears.

Chimpy McHaliburton Bushitler

Chimpy McHaliburton Bushitler

I mean, have you seen them? They are Ferengi-class ears. Lyndon Johnson’s soundhorns were practically unnoticeable by comparison.  Sarah Palin may be able to see Russia from her place in Alaska, but with those satellite dishes Mr. Obama carts around on his skull, I bet he hears the occasional Da, and Khorosho! from the bowels of the Kremlin while sitting in the Oval Office.  I don’t think Mr Obama is Jesus, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all to learn that he does hear it every time a sparrow falls.

But, irrespective of the comedy gold that could be mined from Pres. Obama’s unfortunate auricular appendages, and unlike Mr. Bush, who had some relatively chimp-like expressions, a major newspaper can’t make those same references to any African-American, much less the president of the United States, and expect to elide past the deserved criticism for it.

How then could the cartoonist possibly be blind to the possible inferences that would be drawn?  And for that matter, what of the vaunted “layers of editors” the mainstream media employs?  The cartoon didn’t raise any red flags in the mind of the Page 6 Editor?  the Op/Ed Editor?  The Managing Editor?

Apparently not.

I simply can’t believe that the staff of a major newspaper were blissfully unaware that even an oblique Obama/chimpanzee reference would be…troublesome.  And even if they did, you’d think the dead president reference might raise a red flag or two in the publisher’s suite, wouldn’t you?

Combining that into the dead chimpanzee president has to be almost the apex of bad judgment by a major media outlet.

But, once the cat was out of the bag, the Right couldn’t leave it alone.  Instead, the defenders of the cartoon jumped in with their explanations.  Her, for example, is John Hinderaker at Powerline:

Readers of the Huffington Post and–who else?–Al Sharpton construe the cartoon as a possibly racist attack on President Obama…There are several problems with this critique. Most obviously, Obama didn’t write the “stimulus” bill. If anyone is being called a chimp, it is Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

And yet, we don’t call it the Pelosi-Reid Stimulus Bill, do we?  How terribly odd.  This defense of the cartoon is little short of obtuse.

And Post Editor-n Chief Col Allen isn’t any more convincing.

“The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut,” Allan said in a statement. “It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist.”

I yield to no man in my contempt for Rev. Sharpton, but this is terribly lame.  How, in fact, does this broadly mock the stimulus effort.  It can’t be a reference to the bill itself.  that bill, unfortunately, is not only not dead, it is now the law of the land.  From a political point of view, the passage effort was successful.  And why the reference to the person who “wrote” the stimulus bill?  That person–if not the actual writer, the primary cheerleader for it–is comfortably ensconced in the Oval Office, savoring his victory on this issue, and moving on to mortgage relief.

The only part of Mr. Allen’s statement with which I agree is that it is, in fact, “is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee”.  But to what end?  If we assume that it is not a reference to the president, then what, exactly is it about?  And why do so many people seem to think it is a reference to the president?  Why is there no label on the dead ape so that we can know what it is supposed to represent?

"Hi There, Eric. I Can't Help But Notice You're Black. Let's Talk About How Black You Are."

"Hi There, Eric. I Can't Help But Notice You're Black. Let's Talk About How Black You Are."

You see, the thing about one-panel political cartooning is that it takes an extraordinary amount of talent to provoke a complicated train of thought from a single, hand-drawn picture.  You have to be clear, concise, and often humorous, and make a clear, polemical point in one panel. Somehow, the average person thinks the point is entirely different from what Mr. Allen says it is.  And that is, as our Soviet friends used to say, “no coincidence.”

Yesterday morning, before this thing had blown into a full-scale brou-ha-ha, The guys at the Opie and Anthony Show had seen it, and they had their producers out on the street, showing the cartoon to the morning commuters on 57th Street in NYC, and asking them, “What do think this cartoon means?”

What they got was a collection of nervous mumbles that amounted to, “Uh, I don’t really know.”  “I can’t say.”  “Er, uh, I can’t talk right now”.  Oh the passersby had time to read it, but when given the chance to express an opinion about it publicly, all of the sudden it was to dense for them to take in, or they had pressing engagements elsewhere.

Which is an interesting reaction, considering Attorney General Eric Holder’s speech on race, coincidentally given yesterday.

“Though the nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards,” Holder said.

“Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we average Americans simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”

The funniest response to that came from a  Jeff Emanuel piece at RedState, which was titled, “Hi There, Eric. I Can’t Help But Notice You’re Black. Let’s Talk About How Black You Are.”

Well, we probably don’t talk enough about race.  We don’t have those frank exchanges of racial views.  Indeed, we don’t even have humorous public statements about race, even tangentially. Because all it takes is for Dom Imus to say something on the radio like, “That’s some nappy-headed hos right there,” and he’s done. Al Sharpton comes around with a group of lusty, gusty fellows to demand your firing, as soon as he hears about it.  And you lose your livelihood, because he’ll get it.

If you’re white, there’s no upside to having a talk about race.  You run the risk of accidentally or unknowingly saying something insensitive, at which point the best thing that can happen to you is that you’ll be publicly reviled as some sort of bigoted troll.  Why take the risk?

Is that cowardice, or simply the result of a prudent calculation of risks and benefits?

No, the only time we talk about race, is when some buffoon like Sean Delonas makes a public faux pas that can’t be ignored.  And I don’t see that changing any time soon.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

44 Responses to Cartoons, Chimps, and Scared White People

  • The artist really should have labeled the primate, instead of leaving it to the viewer to apply his own ideas.

    *I* didn’t think it meant Obama, to be frank.  *I* thought it was along the lines of “if you give a millions chimps typewriters”…

    But what do I know?  I’m white, and thus obviously a racist…

    • Yeah, that is what I thought it meant too.  But, I am white but my kids are only half white.  Does that make me half racist?

  • This country has gone beyond the ridiculous. We are being held hostage for political correctness and in fear of being called racist. We are the land of the free, and that includes free speech. At this point nobody dares say anything. We are keeping silent. We are living in fear – we can not criticize or have an opinion of what our elected officials have done. Since when????

  • Like  Scott Jacobs, the first thing I too thought of was the monkeys & typewriters joke. I guess we are the only two people naive or pure of mind enough to think that someone could use a monkey in a cartoon without some racist connotation. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, to quote Freud.

  • I’m with Scott Jacobs. I read the cartoon before I read the post and my thought process went something like this … “Huh? … Oh, they’re saying the Stimulus bill was so awful it must have been written by that lady’s pet chimp.”

  • I believe the bill was also criticizes because Obama outsourced it to Congress, no? Implying he did not write it.

    However, I would strongly suggest that no monkey imagery be used in even possible proximity to Obama.

    What about Dumbo? He has big ears, too.

  • “suggest” should be “agree.”

  • Ditto Scott Jacobs.  When I heard about the cartoon, my first thought was, “Stimulus Bill: So Easy a Chimpanzee Can Do It.”

    Dale FranksBut, irrespective of the comedy gold that could be mined from Pres. Obama’s unfortunate auricular appendages, and unlike Mr. Bush, who had some relatively chimp-like expressions, a major newspaper can’t make those same references to any African-American, much less the president of the United States, and expect to elide past the deserved criticism for it.

    I think you are treading close to the line between “deserved criticism” and PC.  Is comparing a black person to a chimp offensive?  Yes… but most (if not all) political cartoons are offensive to SOMEBODY.  It’s sort of the point.  Are you trying to say that people can only be mocked in certain politically-correct ways?  What, if anything, should happen to Delonas and the editors at the NY Post responsible for running this cartoon?  Diversity training?  Reprimand?  Fired?  Be forced to hire a “diversity ombundsmand”?  Or let the market decide?

    Dale FranksIf you’re white, there’s no upside to having a talk about race.  You run the risk of accidentally or unknowingly saying something insensitive, at which point the best thing that can happen to you is that you’ll be publicly reviled as some sort of bigoted troll.  Why take the risk?

    Thank you for unwittingly (?) making your own point and being among those heaping revulsion on Delonas and the NY Post for making a racial (racist?) faux pas.

    Dale FranksNo, the only time we talk about race, is when some buffoon like Sean Delonas makes a public faux pas that can’t be ignored.  And I don’t see that changing any time soon.

    We don’t “talk about race” even when an incident like this occurs.  White people ignore it and hope it goes away, or else they wax indignant / rush to apologize to show how sensitive and un-racist they are.  Members of the “offended” minority variously (A) ignore it; (B) wax indignant, or (C) try to make political or financial hay from it.  Smilin’ Al is a master of this: “You’ve offended me, so pay up!”

    If you, Eric Holder, or anybody else wants to talk about race, then here’s my opinion:

    I’m sick and bloody tired of ‘minorities’ looking for excuses to be ‘offended’ and expecting apologies and restitution because their widdle feewings have been hurt.  I’m tired of having to continue to pay for offenses committed by people who have been in their graves for centuries.  I’m tired of having to treat people differently because of their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever other trait they choose to make of themselves a downtrodden minority.  I’m tired of seeing some races or groups wallow in perpetual victimhood while others get on with life and even excel.  I’m tired of having to apologize because some bonehead who happens to have the same skin color as me does something that pisses off somebody else.  I’m tired of people like Eric Holder calling me a “coward” because I don’t “talk about race”, whatever the hell that means.  I’m tired of people like TAO telling me that I won’t vote for him because he’s not white.  I’m tired of professional race-baiters like Al Sharpton.  I’m tired of certain words being verboten based on skin color.  I’m tired of it being OK to mock some people while it’s an unforgivable outrage to mock others.  Forty-five years after “I have a dream”, I’m tired of political correctness, of quotas, of affirmative action, of EEOC, of “diversity”, and of everything else that explicitly judges, rewards, or penalizes people on the basis of their color, sex, orientation, etc.

    Somehow, though, I don’t think this is what Holder wants to hear.

    • I think there’s a difference between the responsibility a major public media outlet has in steering clear of invidious racial insults, and a private citizen’s inadvertent insensitivity.

      Do you honestly see no difference?  Do you honestly think a major newspaper should escape criticism for gratuitous racial insults?

      • The only gratuitous or invidious racial insult was in someone’s hyperactive imagination. There was certainly no mens rea.

      • Dale,

        Do I think that the Post should escape critiscm?  No.  People have the free speech right to criticize the newspaper… just as the newspaper has the free press right to publish what it chooses (both within the guidelines of the laws concerning riot, libel, incitement, etc.).  The newspaper’s readers also have the right to stop buying the paper.  They have the right to try to organize a boycott, if they so choose.

        These are all actions that can be taken by free citizens of a free country.

        But have a look at the signs being waved around the Post: SHUT DOWN the Post.  It may well be that the sign-wavers are too stupid to realize that they are espousing censorship, but that’s exactly what they are doing.  And for what?  A cartoon that “offends” them.  I’ve been offended many times over the years by things MiniTru has published, ranging from divulging classified information to vicious attacks against conservatives to slanted news reports.  But I don’t espouse “shutting down” MiniTru; I merely don’t tune in or read the crap they have to offer or send off the occasional e-mail making my displeasure known.

        I also suggest that there’s a line between a media outlet being “sensitive” to the attitudes of the public and self-censorship.  The cartoonist doubtless could have made his point without the chimp image, but fear of “outrage” (usually manufactured by professional race-baiters) shouldn’t stop a free press.  The Post, as I understand it, has issued a qualified apology: they apologize to those genuinely offended by the cartoon, but make it clear that they offer nothing to the race-baiters like Sharpton, who can reliably be counted on to show up whenever there’s a WHIFF of “racism”, usually as a bid to line their own pockets.

        The popular history of the press in America would have us believe that newsmen are always fearlessly standing up to gangsters, gunmen, tycoons, and even Joe McCarthy in the interests of publishing “the truth”.  Now, it seems, they cower (or should) at the thought of merely giving offense.  Ed Murrow, where are you now?

      • Dave, you’re falling for the race guff again. Come on, you’re better than that. Be better than that.

        Now tell me, just what “responsibility” does any “major media outlet” have? To the truth? Be careful with your choice of words, especially when you’re the one saddling “responsibility” on someone. That implies a penalty for failure to live up to that responsibility. The simple answer is that, barring libel (and libel laws generally don’t protect public officials), a publication has <i>no</i> responsibility to anyone but its owners. If people don’t like it, then they shouldn’t buy it or buy from the advertisers.

        What you should have emphasized in your post is that while you personally dislike the cartoon, we must celebrate this as a meaningful expression of freedom of speech, for that freedom becomes endangered once we can’t say something that can be construed as mocking a political leader. Countless comparisons of GWB to simians were made, yet there were no protests like this.

        As for me, when I first saw it, I thought it was referring to the concept of a trained chimp, a la that “Cheers” episode where someone (I forget) wanted to insult Norm’s painting ability. Does that give you an idea of how old I am? Not that it’s any more relevant than the last time.

        I have at work one of Delonas’ cartoons from January 2008, depicting Romney and a Patriots player as alley-dwelling bums. Romney says, “Just not a good year for New Englanders.” He’s holding a bottle of some alcoholic beverage, which he wouldn’t really do. He’s Mormon and abstains from alcohol. Why weren’t Mormons everywhere expressing “outrage” and threatening to shut down the Post?

      • Dale,

        The simple fact that you question whether his beliefs are “honestly” held proves every last point he was making.

  • Cartoonists using imagery from several different current news items is a common enough gambit.  Scott Jacobs and the others argue that they didn’t see the obama=monkey connotations. Of course there is no universal reaction to a given cartoon (Gary Larson’s Far Side was for example hugely popular but there were occassions when a few  irate readers would write in to complain about implications he hadn’t thought of ); but the link was salient enough in this case that  the cartoonist or editors should have picked it up, as this blog rightly notes.

    Political cartoonists and editors can’t really  afford to run round claiming to be “naive or pure of mind”; if someone is  peddling in visual communication, we’d expect them to have the ability to think through their ideas.

  • i wish we took as much action against HIV, children not being able to read  and black incarceration rates as we do or did this <a href=’http://rawdawgb.blogspot.com/2009/02/monkey-see-monkey-do.html’>cartoon</a>

    • children not being able to read  and black incarceration rates

      Blame the education system for the former, and the people commiting the crime for the latter.

      I don’t understand what we’re needing to talk about there…

      • Great point, Scott.  Once blame has been assigned, there’s nothing to talk about. Problems solved! Huzzah!

        • Well, it is obvious that we’ve no interest in fixing education.  All we are willing to do is throw good money after bad.

          As for the “crime” issue, I don’t know what to do there.  Maybe they could stop committing crime?  I dunno.  I’m open to suggestions.

          • Exactly.  “Open to suggestions” is perfectly contradictory to “I don’t understand what we’re needing to talk about there…”  You do understand the need to talk about it, because the education system and criminal justice system clearly need to be on a better track than they currently are.

            Rawdawgbuffalo’s comment here was a good one.   Some people want to spend time wailing about whether or not the Post is racist, but those same people should be focusing on how to provide good, fair opportunities for young people.  If the energy that went into protesting this cartoon had gone instead into teaching kids to value math and reading skills, or into making communities safer and providing responsible role models so kids don’t grow up thinking the poverty/drugs/crime culture is all there is, then the world would be a slightly better place.  And how do we bring that about?  I submit it isn’t by scoffing at comments like Rawdawgbuffalo’s.

  • Can a “reasonable person” look at the captioned cartoon and not see Obama? Absolutely.

    As far as I’m concerned, the cartoon chimps were let out of the zoo with President Bush. Putting dangly-bit-purple lips and  “unfortunate auricular appendages” on a feces-flinging chimpanzee sitting in the Oval Office in shirt sleeves would be, in my “reasonable person” opinion, just fine.

  • I don’t know, Dale.  I agree with your points, but I’m with  Scott Jacobs et al. on what I thought it was referring to.

    • I made the point yesterday when Dale and I discussed it that for those of us who follow this stuff closely, the first thought wasn’t “Obama” – it was Congress or Pelosi and Reid. But I had to also agree with Dale’s point that for the 95% who don’t follow these sorts of things like we do, that most likely wasn’t their first thought. I think his Opie and Anthony bit illustrates the point.

      • I agree (and I realize this won’t win you any sympathy with the regular commenters), there is a difference between being ant-PC and just being smart.
        I’ve often used this hypothetical to illustrate this point.  If you are a white family, and a black family moved in next door, and you invite them over for a “welcome to the neighborhood” dinner, you wouldn’t serve fried chicken and watermelon, would you?  If you’re like me, and fried chicken and watermelon rate in the top ten of your favorite foods, you still wouldn’t want to serve it to a black family that were your guests.  You would realize, that despite fried chicken and watermelon being awesome foods, that it may be a little insensitive to serve it to a black family.  Even though it may not be your intent to offend your new neighbors with servings of fried chicken and watermelon, you would realize that it may be perceived that way.

        Dale’s right.  It was foreseeable that this may be taken the wrong way.  Delonas should have known it.  The Post should have known it.  They should have known that this would generate controversy, which may have been their intent the whole time.

        Also, their response was just dumb.  They came out with guns blazing, which only solidifies my opinion that they wanted a newsbuzz controversy, when they should have just given the vanilla response by saying, “Look… we’re sorry… we didn’t know this would offend some… it wasn’t our intent to offend… and blah blah blah.”
        Because, as Dale points out, how could they not know?  Which makes them look even more guilty.

        Cheers.

  • Who else could we reasonably infer it refers to?

    ***

    How about the people who wrote it (Reid and Pelosi)?

  • Who else could it refer to?  The chimps in Congress.  Pretty simple.  But hey, think of it this way, Holder should be happy, we’re, ONCE AGAIN,  talking about race.  And in so doing demonstrating WHY we don’t talk about it, because whites are always wondering why someone’s knickers are in a twist when something isn’t OBVIOUSLY about blacks.  Good Lord.  Cripes, Holder ought to complain about the fact that young girls choose to group with other young girls in school, and boys choose to group with other young boys.  What is so hard about understanding that people tend to gravitate towards others who ARE LIKE THEMSELVES?  As for the cartoonist, do you think he could have been reflecting what he knew was reality, the bill was written by the House and the Senate, NOT the White House.  Let me tell you how well the ‘offended’ are probably doing with fence sitters in demonstrating hypersensitivity is part of the problem with race discussions in this country and WHY they don’t occur.   I get Dale’s point, but not everyone walks around with the racial alarm system queued up in their head to intercept things that might offend the possibly hypersensitive. 

  • Look hard enough and you can find racial innuendos in just about anything.  Why are people looking to be offended?

    It’s no longer a flip chart but a turn over chart.  We no longer call them crackers but toasted wafers.   Blackboards shale be referred to as chalk boards and whiteboards shale be referred to as dry erase boards.

    This concludes your racial sensitivity training for today.

  • Yes, people can be offended about anything.  However, when I looked at the cartoon it really wasn’t very funny. What does shooting a monkey have anything to do with writing the stimulus plan.  So, even though some people are ridiculously sensitive, this un-funny cartoon leaves little other room for interpretation.

    • Then you probably didn’t know about the context, the pet chimp in Connecticut that practically ate the face off the owner’s friend.

      • I knew the context, and I didn’t find it funny.  Racial sensitivities aside.
        The cartoon was just dumb.  It was just a bad joke even before the bad taste.

        You know, there are political satirists that are funny.  Delonas just isn’t one of them.

        Cheers.

        • Whether or not it’s funny is completely besides the point. Whether it’s “racially sensitive” is also besides the point.

          <i>Was it about Obama?</i> I don’t think so. Being a reasonable person, I didn’t even make the connection until Sharpton started going bananas like he usually does. Then again, I’m just not a race-baiter.

  • If you’re white, there’s no upside to having a talk about race.  You run the risk of accidentally or unknowingly saying something insensitive, at which point the best thing that can happen to you is that you’ll be publicly reviled as some sort of bigoted troll.  Why take the risk?

    Because as long as we give the real race-baiters like Sharpton the power to infuse our words with a racist subtext that was not intended, and probably not even conceived of, we only empower and encourage further demagoguery.

    I’ll allow that politicians have a very fine line to walk, and must deal w/ the political reality on the ground when faced with a controversy like this. But newspapers, and especially political satirists, should be the LAST public entities to bow to the demands of political correctness. Those of us who don’t wish our own words to be twisted into something they’re not should defend the victims of bad-faith reinterpretations, not pile on them.

  • Perhaps in the name of ending racism, all monkeys, gorillas and chimpanzees should be put to death so never again may these creatures be equated with human beings.
    There will have to be a “American Idol” style playoff to determine who get the slot in the Infinite monkey theorem.
    And of course, all versions and sequels of “Planet of the Apes” will have to be destroyed as well.

  • Humour .. it’s a difficult concept”  –  Spock

  • Great post, brought up many valid points.  I don’t think race is something we talk enough about either … far to often its just swept under the rug. 

    Watched a video today and it said that something like 65% of poll respondents saw this cartoon as racist!! Here’s the link: http://www.newsy.com/videos/firestorm_over_editorial_cartoon/

  • Look hard enough and you can find racial innuendos in just about anything.  Why are people looking to be offended?

    These things are a rorshach test.  People see what they want to see and liberals will use this to discredit the Post, all conservative media outlets and all conservatives.  That being said, it is a lame cartoon.  I don’t think it makes any sense.   I didn’t think of congress or Obama, I thought maybe it was referring to the bill itself as some out of control monster but I didn’t get it.  Nonetheless, Dale is right that comparisons to simian creatures need to be considered carefully given the history of such things.

  • And here I thought the cartoonist was talking about Congress.  Since it was those bunch of monkeys that wrote and passed the stinking thing.

  • I assumed that the cartoon chimp referred to those who wrote the “stimulus” bill, which I thought was Congress. Eric Holder questions why no one talks about race? This episode, even though race was never mentioned (or implied in my opinion) in the cartoon, serves as one good reason.

  • Given Eric Holder comments .. who is the “coward” ?  Sean Delonas/NYPost or Al Sharpton/Gov. Patterson ?

    I say it’s Al Sharpton/Gov. Patterson because they are afraid to give up the “race card” to humour.

  • >>I’m sick and bloody tired of ‘minorities’…etc. >>

    Excellent rant!  Mind if I save and place elsewhere?
    (credit of course…)

  • Mr. Holder, racism, where it exists in this country, is a political and cultural contrivance sustained and manipulated by people like you.

    A must read

  • While we agree wholeheartedly with the stances against the NY Post the objective here is not an apology. We as black people, who are under constant attack by the police department and are victims of discrimination, partially due to the dehumanization of blacks through imagery, want all venues for these portrayals to be shut down.

    Therefore, an apology from the NY Post will not do. We are boycotting and removing our dollars from the NY Post and it’s advertisers so that this rag goes out of business. We are sick of the disparaging remarks, racism, sensationalism and the outright lies against black people constantly put forth in this rag. This stance is being taken by all black people who have been victimized and goes beyond any particular group, organizer or leader. This affront to all black people will not be tolerated and all people who are concerned about the well-being of black people in this society are taking a stance against this paper. This is a position that is held firm by people who have been painfully victimized by the negative press consistently perpetuated by The NY Post.

    We will no longer support this paper or its advertisers with the objective of having this paper go out of business. Empty apologies will not undo the psychological, physical and emotional damage that has been done for years by this paper and we no longer want this paper to exist.

    Our boycott is not a flash in the pan and is permanent. We will not buy this paper again EVER! We are no longer going to sit idly by while businesses like this continue to thrive. This is a permanent boycott and the sponsors of this paper will be targeted. We will not let this end and it doesn’t matter if others agree or not. Our position doesn’t warrant explanation. If we are the victims of oppression we are well within our rights to stand up against it in all of its forms and to remove our dollars from companies that contribute to it.