Funny how Mr. Murdoch only now finds his comments hurtful. Let us all remember this is the same man that throughout his career advocated violating and abusing those to week to stand up to him and used his entire media empire for obbfusicating, propaganda,and advocating genocide.

Hit him where it hurts. Maybe then he'll get a clue.

but they also knew that before they printed it and it didn't stop them then either.

There are no coincidental screw-ups like this.

No one was personally held responsible. I don't buy his innocent mistake excuse; and therefore, I will continue not to buy any of Murdoch's crap. To all dissatisfied: continue to boycott the NY Post and all things Murdoch.

The cartoon was insensitive; however, every minority group has

experienced the same ---its nothing new. So, when will blacks stop waking up each morning waiting to be outraged about something? This is getting old, and now they just look like whiners. And once you're labeled a whiner, no one takes you seriously anymore. Get over it.

Again, I never mentioned racism, I said offensive, did you not find them offensive?

Frankly, no, I didn't find them offensive. Why would I? They are political cartoons. Like any cartoons they feature caricatures of famous and/or powerful people to communicate their message. I disagree strongly with pretty much all the opinions those cartoons express, but why does that disagreement have to lead to offense?

It is not a huge stretch from heterosexism to racism as both are rooted in the same hatred of things that people reject because they fear the "other".

And...?

I also think you need to consider the Al Sharpton cartoon. While not a direct attack on his skin color, it was an attack on his character and what he stands for.

OF COURSE IT WAS! It was a political cartoon by someone who obviously stands for the exact opposite!

Again? Why be offended? Why not just disagree with the point of view?

We've just endured 8 years of right-wingers whining whenever someone made fun of their beloved leader. Now we get the "liberal" version of this hue and cry.

Those of you so "indignant" over this cartoon ought to consider the implication of your hysteria and calls for action. Some of you freedom-hating goons (like Al Sharpton) actually call for firing the cartoonist - who, even if he is a racist jerk, is still protected by the First Amendment, and therefore does not merit punishment simply because he offended you. (One might even suggest it is his job to offend people.) But even if you haven't openly suggested punishment, your refusal to accept the explanations and apologies shows you to be the "liberal" equivalent of the hysterical idiots who watch Fox News. You can't be bothered by facts, evidence, developments - no, it's all about you and your supposed outrage.

Most of you are so "offended" that you've barely bothered to think about how many times cartoonists depicted Bush as a chimp... or to recall that when they intend to make fun of a President by using an animal caricature, editorial cartoonists make the animal in question look like the President, or at the very least indicate visually (often by using the Presidential seal) that this is indeed the President. The ape in that cartoon looks nothing like Obama; there is no indication that it is intended to be an Obama stand-in; Obama did not write the stimulus bill. (And for all you dishonest morons who opine that the cartoonist said it was supposed to be Pelosi: no, he said if the chimp was a stand-in for anyone, it would be Pelosi, the actual author of the bill; and he added, no, it isn't Pelosi either.)

Most of you don't bother to read beyond what's in front of you at this moment: you can't even be bothered to click a goddam link and read what the cartoonist actually said. And even then you don't read that carefully. It seems that you are all too muddle-head, too addled by the bright lights of victory or something... or maybe just too damn dumb, to actually comprehend the written word.

The evidence is clear: those offended by this cartoon are nothing more than the "liberal" version of the right-wing blowhards we've grown to hate over the last eight years.

Now if you nitwits could only get your own news channel. Then our national torment would be complete.

"First of all, in the United States, the president does not write legislation, the legislature writes it. Therefore this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama."

This must be the seventh or eighth time I've seen this same sentiment posted in these threads and I'm frankly tired of seeing it. But misinformation, like racism, must be met with patience and vigor. So, once again..

Please go out on an American street and ask 10 people who they associate the stimulus package with. I would guess that at least 8 of them will tell you its Obama's bill. Again, I don't know if this cartoon was intentionally racist or not but I do know that the association with Obama is crystal clear.

I must admit that I don't have first hand experience in writing multi-billion dollar federal bills but while it may be technically accurate to credit congressional workers with writing the bill, it was essentially dictated by Obama's people. Clearly it's Obama's bill and the details are closely aligned with his vision not by happenstance but due to the fact that his administration worked closely with whichever legislators introduced it. It's Obama's stimulus package now and it will be 10, 20 or 50 years from now.

I tend to think this is all being overblown. There is a key part to Murdoch's statement, IMO ...

"the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such."

That's key because it reinforces what the cartoon was originally about ... the idea that the stimulus bill is so bad, it may as well have been written by a monkey. No attempt is made to identify the monkey as ANY specific politician or even party member ... instead, its a nameless chimp. And THAT'S the key point here. The cartoon has nothing to do with race ... its a statement that the stimulus bill is so poorly conceived that it could have been written by any random monkey off the street, but forunately, for the next bill, at the very least they will have to find a new, random monkey off the street.

It strikes me that the Post is NEVER shy about being controversial, or about identifying the targets of their barbs. They are hardly "subtle" when it comes to editorial cartoon abuse. If they'd intended the monkey to represent Obama, they'd have been clear about it. The fact that the left the monkey unidentified is what tells me the cartoon was about legislation that reads as if it were written by some random monkey off the street.