CSotD: T’is, regrettably, the season
Skip to comments
While I saw my first "Don't wish me 'Happy Holidays'" Facebook graphic two weeks ago, now they're really starting to pop up.
Clay Bennett is right, of course: We have all these holidays at the same time of year because it gets really dark and cold, and we need to celebrate the fact that, from that point on, things only get better.
Unless, of course, your soul is so shriveled up with paranoia and hostility that you can't acknowledge anyone's holidays but your own, and you feel that even those who share your particular holiday should be required to celebrate it exactly as you demand.
I've seen lots of cartoons referencing the bigoted relative who makes a holiday dinner uncomfortable, and I guess most families have someone like that, who we love but who makes us careful not to mention minorities or other religions or the economy or … well, who, whatever the topic may be, inevitably pops up with some toxic unpleasantries that make everyone stare at their plates.
A few hours at the table is one thing. But we're about to have three weeks of that hateful, unsolicited, unwanted crap and, yes, you can unfriend the ones who have nothing else to say, but many are like that relative: You're not sure why you put up with them, but you tip-toe around their endless pools of venom maybe in the name of love. Or harmony. Or cowardice. Or something.
There was a time when most of my on-line communication was by email. Not just individual messages, but listservs that collected and sent me emails from people in a group who — in my case — shared interests in newspaper technology, Rhodesian ridgebacks, family law, and education. Probably a few others I've forgotten.
The nice thing was that you could set your spam filters to intercept and delete, for example, anything that contained key phrases that meant you knew you wouldn't want to read the rest.
I wish it were as easy to selectively flag and divert this bigoted graphic swill, which is much more central to basic values.
The "War on Christmas" memes are toxic enough to not simply make me feel the sender is a jackass, but to dismay me over the general mood of the nation. Or, on some days, the entire world.
It used to be just one cringe-inspiring person at each family gathering. Now they meet and re-inforce each other on-line and, while the percentage is probably about the same, the volume has become unbearable.
But thanks for the laugh, Clay.
And, if the bigots are correct, I'll look forward to an eternity of your wit when we're both cast into the fiery pit. I think it will be quite the party.
Speaking of credits and copyrights …
… as we were two days ago, The New Adventures of Queen Victoria is riffing on the intellectual property section of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, with a story arc about Mary leading the charge to file suit against people who quote the Bible without paying royalties.
For reasons that go beyond that portion of the treaty, this is an issue that needs a little airing before being endorsed by corporate lobbyists the United States Senate.
But let's stick with our discussion of copyright a little longer, because, while I don't think my great-grandchildren should be restricting use of anything I ever produced, I do continue to oppose artists being ripped off, either financially or just in terms of recognition.
Case-in-point:
This cartoon was posted on Facebook without attribution by "Allegiance: A New Musical," the play about Japanese internment. Much of what the group has posted doesn't have anything to do with the play, but George Takei is involved, so it's had over 5,000 likes and more than 1,100 shares.
And I knew damn well that George didn't draw it, so I dragged it into the search box on Google Images, and came up with a source. Well, not at first.
The first thing I came up with was a copyright claim from MIT. Which, since it proudly credited the people who had apparently scanned it from the archives of the college's Dome, but not the person who had drawn it, made me suspicious.
So I kept looking, and the answer is "duh." Here's the credit, here's the original. In the words of Snagglepus, "Whom ellis indeed?"
See the signature under the left stoop? Otto "Little King" Soglow. Of course.
Which I guess means that, back in the mid-Fifties, some undergrad cheat from MIT took Soglow's signature off and submitted it to the Dome as his own work. Or, more likely, the editors of the Dome simply stole it from the New Yorker themselves, since an artist-thief would probably have demanded credit for it.
Well, shame on whoever did it back then, shame on MIT's scanners for not being more suspicious and shame on Allegiance for passing along a cartoon uncredited that it took me all of eight minutes to track down.
And, even if they didn't care to get it right, it only took two minutes to find the phony copyright. If they'd have attached that, they'd only have been mistaken, not dishonest.
And speaking of things I'd like to filter out …
Comments 7
Comments are closed.