Monday, October 10, 2011
16 comments:
I will review and post comments as quickly as I can. Comments that are substantive and not vicious will be posted promptly, including critical ones. "Substantive" here means that your comment needs to be more than a simple expression of approval or disapproval. "Vicious" refers to personal attacks, vile rhetoric, and anything else I end up deeming too nasty to post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The unions do not want to strike but have been forced to do so . . ."
ReplyDeleteUm, we aren't on strike, right?
Not yet!
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's a bit premature..
ReplyDeleteThe administrator on the right even looks like Susan Logue. :-P
ReplyDeleteA good reason for anyone to go on strike!
ReplyDeleteGood, I thought I missed a "holiday news bomb." LOL
ReplyDeleteDave, I respectfully ask that you delete anon 6:56 and 8:44. They do nothing to promote your message and they are too close to personal attacks on a close friend.
ReplyDeletePersonal attacks are the stock in trade of the FA.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 7:17 - Really? Is that what this has come to? Shameful.
ReplyDeleteA better question would be, "who drew this up?"
ReplyDeleteWouldn't this individual be guilty of a personal attack, especially given the resemblence of one character to a senior administrator?
This is why this region laughs at the fighting between the overpaid FA and even more overpaid administration. I feel really bad for the faculty calling for civility. Good luck guys, it sure looks like you all will need all the luck you can get.
The cartoonist makes no claim to skill with visual caricature. Any resemblance to actual negotiators on either side of the table is purely coincidental. The cartoonist finds it interesting that the substance of the argument in the cartoon is avoided by most commenters in favor of concern over the manner in which it is presented and personal feelings some viewers add to the message/depiction -- which only seems to support the accuracy of the central claim.
ReplyDelete8:09, this is the same person who posted the 5:51 comment checking in. First of all, the claim that the cartoonist did this by happenstance is completely laughable. Now, if you want to talk substance, I'm game. First of all, the rhetoric only matches one side in truth - the side of the administration. To think the faculty and other IEA/NEA unions are perfectly represented in this cartoon is laughable. Members of the SIUC FA and other campus unions are just as complicit in the pointing of fingers as Rita Cheng and members of the senior administration. Yet, to claim that personal feelings are only supporting accuracy of the central claim of the said cartoon is to throw up a red herring. It only stops both parties from shutting their mouths and coming up with a fair settlement for all parties.
ReplyDeleteAgain, if you're defending this type of Bush League tactic, you're only part of the same problem that Cheng is. A strike may well be justified in the end but this sort of rhetoric does not aid anyone.
Ask Local 424 what it's like to be in the firing line. Places like Chester Mental Health and Murphysboro IYC are facing closure. Kind of makes the threat that a few workers at SIU getting boot look small, doesn't it.
Its ONLY a cartoon, for gawd's sake!!
ReplyDeleteAfter hemming and hawing this evening (24 hours after it first appeared), I decided to remove what struck me as a gratuitously mean spirited comment posted at 7:17 pm on 10/11.
ReplyDeleteNone of the cartoons I've run makes any effort at visual caricature, as far as I can tell, though in one the Chancellor is shown giving a speech and is indeed portrayed as a woman. Unless I rule out anything other than stick figures some will see caricature. Not that I would rule out caricature, either, but the cartoonist is usually writing fictional dialogue (meant to capture the spirit of things), so attributing such lines to real individuals would be inappropriate.
Perhaps someone who's taking this year's campus theme of civility seriously will study this blog for some ideas. Don't get me started on that timely choice of theme, by the way, as you're likely to hear a blue streak.
7:58, as the cartoonist and the poster of the 8:09 comment I can promise you (build a little trust, maybe?) that I am not now nor have never tried to be a very good caricaturist. I honestly don't believe I could pick Susan Logue or any of the other BOT negotiators out of a police line up, although that strikes me as a funny image for a cartoon about this exchange.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate, though, that you recognize Chancellor Cheng is a problem. If I or these 'toons are part of the "same problem," I remind you that movement at the negotiating table has only begun because of increased pressure outside that room. If these 'toons participate in that pressure and remind us of what's at stake in the negotiation (as well as its history), great. They are doing their job.
Again, I note that you do not dispute the cartoon's central argument about very different notions of what negotiation and shared governance mean to the parties negotiating. How on earth is THAT a red herring?