I've tried to keep this a Rall-free zone, but Jane Skinner on Fox News just had on the publisher of the magazine who ran the latest outrage about the greedy firefighters (I think it was Bob Guccione? but I'm not sure), and he was of course defending the stupid thing.

His story:

a) Good satire sometimes offends;
b) He found it very funny;
c) He had no intent to offend anyone by running it;
d) We must draw a distinction between depicting greedy firefighters in the present, and those same firefighters projected ten years into the future, and anyone who can't do that is hypersensitive.

I agree with (a).

I believe (b) (or at least I have no reason not to believe it--there's no accounting for taste or sense of humor). To me, it was utterly humorless, and anyone who found it funny is warped, but then there's no reason, based on that interview, to think that he's not.

I don't believe (c)--I think he's lying.

But the real crux of the issue is (d). In addition to being utterly unfunny, it was utterly pointless.

Good satire has a germ of truth. If his point was that the money flowing into charities is being misspent, there are many appropriate targets at which to aim satirical barbs (like the Red Cross, or United Way). But I'm not aware of any misappropriation or inappropriate expenditures of funds by the NYFD, past, present or (especially) future.

If in ten years, there are some activities by the NYFD that even vaguely resemble what are described in the cartoon, then it might be funny then (or at least as funny as it's possible for a Rall cartoon to be, which is, if history is any guide, not at all).

But to run it now is not only pointless, it is obviously meant to be simply iconoclastic and cruel, under the thin guise of satire.

But then, consider the source.

Hey, Rand--

You're right about the sentiment, but I think you're wrong about the crux. I watched the interview as well, and I found the crux to be (c) -- that neither Rall nor Guccione, Jr. believed they were offending anyone, nor was attacking firefighters their intent. If there's one thing I can tell you about Rall based on his cartooning (I don't know him personally), it's that his intent is to attack his subjects, not merely to chide them.

You're right that (d) is nonsensical; and it was this whole "in the future" thing that Guccione kept pointing to as a way to defend himself and Rall. And what they're defending themselves against are people's recognition that Rall's toon was purposefully, intentionally, and maliciously going after the FDNY -- and for no other reason, from what I can tell -- than to cause another stir.

Gee, I thought I said that (at least on the point d)), when I wrote, "But to run it now is not only pointless, it is obviously meant to be simply iconoclastic and cruel, under the thin guise of satire."

And I said that I thought he was lying about point (c).

I guess I have to work on my written communications skills.

Sorry if I misrepresented what you were getting at. I don't think you need to work on your written communication skills; I suppose I shouldn't be drinking beer before dinner -- especially if I'm fixing on soiling people's sites with my comments. The short of it is, I was agreeing with you about the interview, except to say the bit about intent (in my judgment) was more to the "crux" of the matter than the bit about being attuned to fine satirical distinctions ("you see, our cartoon was set in the future..."). That's it. Kind of pointless, my observations -- except that my job is to seize on hermeneutic niceties. Intentionalism is kinda my bag.

Jeff

I think you're right, but I had trouble concentrating because Jane Skinner is so fetching. Know what I mean?

Yes, I dhue. She's my second favorite. ;-)

Perhaps somebody could draw and post a cartoon of Guccione and Rall in ten years, with Bob searching out relatively uncluttered restroom walls for Ted to draw pornographic cartoons upon.

Think they'd get offended? Or would they realize that good satire sometimes offends, and that being unable to distinguish between depicting them thus now, and depicting them thus in ten years, only shows their hypersensitivity?

I for one would find that hysterically funny. Although I'm afraid that I couldn't claim innocence when it came to intent to offend (oh, well, three out of four is even better than two out of three).