monday. stamford, connecticut. a pet monkey attacks it's owner's best friend, ripping the friend's face off. the owner stabs the monkey and after a terrifying 911 call, the monkey is eventually shot dead by police.
tuesday. denver, colorado. president barack obama signs the stimulus bill.
think there's no connection between the two? how about this:
(from the new york post's sean delonas)
so, the monkey is obama, right? naaaah.
the monkey is pelosi, reid and the democrats. okay, that doesn't quite work, does it?
the monkey was wild and needed to be killed (the stimulus.) doesn't work either – it's implied that the monkey wrote the stimulus bill.
(is this stamford monkey attack really part of the national conversation?)
do the laughable police (the g.o.p.) see the president (and his stimulus) as a crazed monkey that can only be stopped if it's shot to death (every house republican no vote)?
in other words, if this cartoon is offensive, is it offensive to the dead monkey, or to the g.o.p. (the policemen) because they can only see the president through racist eyes (he's a monkey) and the only way they know how to deal with him is to universally oppose him (shoot him)?
or is it offensive to people who keep monkeys as pets?
UPDATE 2/19/09 – the new york post, who published the cartoon, has...well...sort of apologized (the standard non-apology apology.) for the post, however, that's a pretty big deal.