Friday, April 23, 2004

Doonesbury Doings

As this news story explains, a number of newspapers had to agonize over whether or not to publish today's installment of Doonesbury.

Some papers (like this one) elected not to print the entire week of strips "because of the graphic, violent battlefield depictions of Iraq." Makes you wonder what they're publishing on their front pages.

Others (like this one) dropped only today's from the print edition but made it available on their website. This sounds to me more craven than not running the week of strips at all. Why is it appropriate for the website but not the newspaper? It's an old trick when you're afraid of outrage over something to make some meaningless gesture just so you can tell the protesters you did something about it.

The Duluth News Tribune took the occasion to move Doonesbury permanently from the comics page to the editorial page. That strikes me as a more intelligent way to deal with things...if you felt you had to do something.

The Green Bay News-Chronicle chose to "bleep" the expletive in today's strip. In the first article I linked to in this item, an editor is quoted as saying, "...we learned that we are contractually bound to print the strip as is, or not publish it at all." I thought that was s.o.p. for Doonesbury contracts. Does the News-Chronicle actually have a different deal? Or did they just violate it?

This article gives a good overview of the situation (and even quotes Mort "Beetle Bailey" Walker). And finally, if you haven't seen it, here's a link to today's Doonesbury...unexpurgated.

• Posted at 9:56 AM · LINK

Vatican Rag

A news item this morning says, "A top Vatican cardinal said Friday that priests must deny communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, but he would not comment on whether it was right for John Kerry to receive communion." This raises a few questions in my addled, non-Catholic cranium...

One is this: Kerry would describe himself as "pro-choice," not "pro-abortion." Actually, I can't think of anyone I would describe as "pro-abortion" in the sense that they run around saying, "Abortion is great! Let's have more of them! Let's forcibly abort pregnant women against their wishes!" Maybe there have been a few nutcase population-control people somewhere saying that but in the mainstream, "pro-abortion" is just a more emotional, somewhat incorrect way of describing "pro-choice" people.

Kerry's position, as I understand it, is that he personally does not like the idea of abortion but feels it would be wrong to interfere in a woman's right to choose. Does this mean he fits the definition of "pro-abortion" that in the above news item would mean he should be denied communion? If the answer is no, then to whom does it apply? If the answer is yes, isn't the above just a disingenuous way for that "top Vatican cardinal" to condemn John Kerry while pretending to stay out of politics?

Other question: Last I heard, the Vatican was as opposed to the Death Penalty as it was to abortion. When was the last time a top Vatican cardinal came out to say that priests must deny communion to Catholic politicians who support the Death Penalty?

• Posted at 9:27 AM · LINK

One Year Old

This weblog is one year old. Doesn't it look big for its age?

• Posted at 1:04 AM · LINK