Jim Borgman has been the Enquirer's editorial cartoonist since 1976. Borgman has won every major award in his field, including the 1991 Pulitzer Prize, the National Cartoonists Society's Reuben Award for Outstanding Cartoonist of the Year in 1993, and most recently, the Adamson Award in 2005 as International Cartoonist of the Year. His award-winning daily comic strip Zits, co-created with Jerry Scott, chronicles the life of 15-year-old Jeremy Duncan, his family and friends through the glories and challenges of the teenage years. Since debuting in July 1997, Zits has regularly finished #1 in reader comics polls across America and is syndicated in more than 1300 newspapers around the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 Comments:
at 11/14/06, 12:38 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/14/06, 2:34 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/14/06, 3:07 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/14/06, 3:21 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/14/06, 9:26 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/14/06, 10:34 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 2:14 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 8:26 AM 
Jim Borgman said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 11:19 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 12:02 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 1:09 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 1:26 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 1:47 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 2:27 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 2:45 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 2:51 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 2:59 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 5:27 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 8:54 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 9:15 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 9:28 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/15/06, 10:04 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/16/06, 7:58 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/16/06, 11:21 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/16/06, 11:34 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/16/06, 9:30 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/17/06, 8:04 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/18/06, 10:48 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/20/06, 10:17 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/20/06, 12:44 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/21/06, 7:37 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/22/06, 1:35 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/22/06, 2:23 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/27/06, 8:05 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/28/06, 12:22 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/28/06, 1:56 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/29/06, 12:07 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/29/06, 12:18 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11/29/06, 8:16 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*Instead of the President under the gavel of the Speaker-elect -- maybe Borgman could have put the American taxpayer there.
One worries about the pre-1994 ideas from the Clinton administration. After ramming through the largest tax increase in our history Clinton floated ideas regarding a tax on private pension to include YOUR IRA...a one time 15% hit on its value.
Would not suprise me if Nancy would approve of this.
Then Nancy would never think of ANWAR drilling for oil. Clinton vetoed such a bill in 1996 and said it would be 10 years before we realized any benefits...DUH ! its 10 years later.
Like candidate Cranley Nancy belives in taxing the dead. She will support government confiscation of private property held in assets.
And Clinton governed over the largest budget surplus and economic expansion in history, while the Republicans gave us a war invented to save face, nearly 3,000 dead American Soldiers, and record budget deficits.
Did you really expect the American people to ask for more of THAT?!
Can't you get over it and just let it go. Your liberal friends took control and you'll have to live with it.
So in as much you've always failed to do your homework and ruled your world totally by your liberal emotions, give it up, it's time to grow up.
From an editorial in the Enquirer mid to late 90s.
President Clinton and Congress are quick to take credit for our economic good times. But the foundatation of the boom was laid by President Reagan.
Well, at any rate, it's high time for a Bush whacking now.
Wow, so much wrong, so little time! Let's see:
- The largest tax increase was actually under Reagan, shortly after his more well-noticed tax cuts.
- Drilling in ANWAR has been a bad idea from the start; sorry if you're just realizing that, some of us still remeber the Valdez incident. Should I also mention BP's horrible maintenace record on their pipeline?
- Taxing the dead? If you mean the Paris Hilton Tax (i.e. the Estate Tax), then I'd love to hear uses the dead have for money!
Anyway, will she be called "Madam Speaker," or "Mistress Speaker"?
i caught some artist blantantly plagiarize one of your cartoon in a singapore newspaper!!!
here it is...almost uncannily like the one you did recently on the elections.
http://www.zaobao.com/pictorial/comics/pages1/comics061108.html
compare with yours..
http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/borgman/uploaded_images/borgman%20tues%2011.7.06%20copy-705357.gif
All I can say is, 美国中期选举民调显示 民主党有望夺回众议院
9/11 almost 3,000 dead...Bush didn't need to "fabricate" anything to create a war...remember? Kerry looked at the same evidence and knew war was needed...remember? It's why he voted for it.
I'll be surprised if this gets posted, but...
We still kill more everyday in America in what SHOULD be the most sacred of sanctuaries, a mother's womb, then all the soldiers that have sadly and heroically died in the war in the middle east...no Dem wants to face that...watch Dr. Bernard Nathanson's "The Silent Scream" if you have the guts...it films an abortion. He used to be the foremost abortionist in the U.S., until he couldn't sleep anymore. Here's my email...aidanandlukesdad@yahoo.com if you want to attack.
Anon 11:19-
He is right, It was ALL fabricated.
Don't take my word for it, just ask Colin Powell.
How can you characterize abortion as an exclusively Democratic thing?
Two of your '08 Republican likely candidates for President are Pro-Choice--Rudy G and McCain.
Anyway, the cartoon was about politics and the aftermath of Americans telling George loud and clear that his BS about Iraq, isn't being bought anymore.
anon 12:02-
you are right, those two ARE pro-abortion...but let's be hemmed in by honesty...the OVERWHELMING majority of Dem politicians are pro-abortion, and the opposite is the case with Repubs...again, there are always a (very) few exceptions on both sides...
...and my bringing this up, I don't think, is off the mark as related to other comments...the war (with it's connected loss of life) was mentioned, and I simply compared the numbers of dead American soldiers in the entire warb to the number of dead American babies daily due to (most often) Democrat-supported a woman's "right to choose"...
The same polls that projected Strickland to win by 23 points (he won, by oh 23 points) and Brown to win by 11 points (he won, by oh, 11 points)tell us that 75% of Americans support "choice" or "Abortion", if you prefer. That is way beyond any numbers of people identifying with either party.
The problem with banning abortion for most people in the "thoughtful middle" is that you have to be against it in all possible cases, including the rape of an adolescent girl. The rape of a woman for whom a full-term pregnancy would end her life due to an existing medical condition, etc.
If you can open the door, just a crack, for one scenario, the moral absolutist argument breaks down.
What remains is defining limits, which is exactly where we are today.
um...no, the moral absolutist argument doesn't break down...there are moral absolutes...you agreeing (I hope!) that it's never right to walk up to some unsuspecting soul and, unprovoked, punch them in the face proves that. There are, contrary to what many believe, some things that are ALWAYS right and ALWAYS wrong. Abortion needed to save a mother's life is a ploy to make those who believe in moral absolutes look callous. The cases simply don't happen. Send me any link where it's been proven that a pregnancy was going to end the life of a mother. I can save you time...I've been looking for a few years, and any time "proof" has been found, it's from the subjective opinion of a known pro-abortion doctor. Again, look up what Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one who did abortions for years, says now.
Lastly, in the extreme case of rape, as devastating and as horrendous as a pregnancy might be from this (which also is rare, but since it DOES occur, you deserve an answer), one must ask...should the baby pay the ultimate price for the sin of the father? Every bit of counseling and support should be available to a girl/woman in such a state, but why victimize her twice by killing her child? Adoption exists?
"Never" say "always."
By the way, just off hand, I can think of ten or more diagnoses to which a full term pregnancy would prove fatal. Look up "pulmonary hypertension" to start.
My senior partners (OB practice) tell me that prior to Roe v. Wade, in the scenarios used by the poster immediately prior to you, we would offer to treat the woman/victim for potential infection (after a rape) by doing a dilation and curretage, which has the by-product of teminating any pregnancy resulting from the attack.
So, perhaps, a better argument from your prospective, would be that the medical community would legally take care of the patients' need with or without Roe.
Personally, I feel it is a matter of conscience that should be left up to the individual. Only God can judge us.
In my humble opinion, the problem with all of these posts is that they summarize political stances as follows:
1. Democrats are the party of abortionists and God-Haters
2. Republicans are the party of war, corruption and Big Oil.
Why is it so incredible to so many people that we overlap far more than we disagree? Why is it so hard for people to think rationally about the intricacies of political thought and platforms and feel the need to pigeonhole candidates and citizens into bullet-pointed lists of why we should all hate each other?
Most stereotypes are based on truth, but the ones quoted here (ex. "Dems will tax even the dead people!" "Republicans want to send your sons to die in Iraq!") are oversimplified and disgusting aspersions created to fill the vacuum that comes when 99% of citizens are happier spouting sound bites than actually studying information. The country loses when we rely on negativity and forget what unites us as a country, not a series of red and blue dots on a map.
truth be told - all of the politicians - democrats and republicans - find ways to foolishly spend our money.
my uncle said there isn't a plug nickle's difference between 'em all, they all spend alike.
2:45
Agree with MOST of what you say, BUT who gave us the "sound bites" you refer to? Answer, the leadership of both parties.
If I'm a democrat and my next door neighbor is a republican, in most cases, we still have the same basic concerns: quality schools of for our kids, safe neighborhoods, and a reasonable economic future for our families. We might disagree as to how we go about acheiving these goals, but,in the meantime, we watch their kids and they watch ours, we carpool to school and activities, we bang on each other doors at odd hours asking (if a little sheepishly) if we can borrow some TP or sugar or milk for the kids' cereal. Hell, we even share lawn and garden equipment.
I think the parties have to exaggerate our differences and tear us apart with propaganda because, in truth, we are all not that different.
Great cartoon as usual. Thanks, Jim. I am looking forward to a couple of interesting years with the current political set-up.
But these posted comments -- why does abortion keep coming up in political conversations? It has nothing to do with anything civic or rational. No one likes or really advocates abortion anyway -- its the issue of choice.
1. Don't like abortion, don't have one. This procedure should be safe and available to those who really need it.
2. Its a personal issue between a woman and her doctor.
3. We have great birth control these days. As long as pro-lifers rant and do nothing to support real birth control education, their arguments are highly suspect and not based in rational thought. Its code for other agendas.
here's why abortion keeps coming up...it covers the fundamental right to life each indidvidual has from conception to natural death...everything we argue for is a Life Issue...why be concerned about Health Care? answer: "everyone, black, white, rich, poor, etc...has a right to quality Health Care..." But WHY? answer: because our LIVES (plural of LIFE) depend on proper, equitable Health Care when needed." so you admitting protecting LIFE is important? Why have arguments about Housing, Jobs, etc....all those things that are much more "comfortable" to talk about in talking politics? answer: because, bottom line, they all have to do with LIFE, and the quality and preservation of it, in one way or another...
Kind of moot, isn't it? I mean, if any woman has the "right" to end life that she doesn't to be burdened with, you know? If LIFE at it's most fundamental, vulnerable, and innocent stage can be ended by burning (saline solutions too strong for the baby to endure), scalpels, or knives to the base of the baby's skull, why fight for all the other issues while ignoring this most horrendous daily occurence in every U.S. state?
Again, I challenge any "pro-choicer" to watch the "Silent Scream"...a filmed abortion where you can see the baby screaming (literally) in pain as it tries to fight off, dodge, and kick at the doctor's scalpel. Refusing to do so and insisting on staying "pro-choice" is dishonest...and deep in your heart, you know. That's why you won't watch it.
It doesn't matter whether you are "pro-choice" or "pro-life" because abortion is allowed as ruled by the Supreme Court. This is all that matters at the time being so both sides, shut up. Finally, moral arguments are not a good pursuasive tactic, as it has no base except that you think this. Mr. Specht told me this and he's going to beat Colerain. Go Bombers.
Well, Mr. B. that sure was one hell of a cartoon? All kinds of stuff in there I didn't see.
Forget "Silent Scream," see "If These Walls Could Talk" to see what happens when abortion is illegal; that "innocent life" can be quite dangerous to the woman otherwise forced to carry it . . .
interesting...putting quotes around "innocent life" in reference to the baby in the mother's womb...um...is it NOT innocent?
your response is common..."Forget Silent Scream" tells me you won't watch it...why not? I'd watch "If These Walls Could Talk" and talk to you about it (and I'm sure find holes in the arguments and logic it attempts, since NOTHING justifies killing innocent unborn babies), if you would watch Silent Scream...but you won't watch it, correct? I've posted my email address already in an earlier post!
Are we really claiming that a complex and emotionally charged issue like abortion, the right to life (not only of unborn babies, but as translated to mothers, the impoverished,etc.) and the moments when life begins can be boiled down to a battle of MOVIES?
Ridiculous. We are in big trouble if we simplify issues to 2 hour, specifically biased films.
...um...nothing ridiculously biased about a filmed abortion, and seeing the baby kick and scream...(and,eventually stop, of course, as it's arms and legs float around in blood filled amniotic fluid...the carnage is soon sucked out by a vacuum type apparatus inserted into the womb)...where's the bias?
this is hard to read, I'm sure. I'm not a psychopath...it's hard to write and re-read myself...Schindler's List was hard to watch, too, but the stuff in it happened...and even then, it was re-playing ghastly history...ACTING it out...the baby in the Silent Scream wasn't acting.
Not Silent Scream (which I've heard of; GB Trudeau did a great parody of it in the 1980's on Doonesbury!), but as someone raised Catholic, I've been shown plenty of "abortion snuff films" like it, along with countless photos, videos, and even tapes.
Not surprisingly, SS doesn't show the woman having the abortion, and anything she has endured (including from the pregnancy itself); perhaps if there was a film showing women undergoing abortions with filthy coat-hangers instead of sterile medical equipment, with drain cleaner or bleach instead of a balanced saline solution, and with an industrial vaccum cleaner instead of a calibrated suction device. THAT was the truth of Pre-Roe v. Wade America, and IS the truth in countries like Kenya and Brazil, for hundreds of thousands of women with no safe, legal options.
if someone is killed with a hack, rusted machete, or a shiny, brand new, glistening 9mm...does it really mattter? intentional killing is the final result.
you attempt to justify the carnage of a little baby by saying that we don't know what kind of situation the mother was in...remind me again what situation justifies murdering an innocent baby? and the number of human deaths since Roe v. Wade are exponentialy greater than any that died in "back alley" abortions...4000 women did NOT die per day in America...the daily Holocaust count of babies in our country alone...
i do not want to come off as snide or superior...i'm not, and you'd know how unbelievably flawed i am if you knew me...but a woman accepting her child even in the worst hardships is motherly love at its core, it's love in the truest sense...sacrificial...we need to regain that respect for motherly, sacrificial love...a love that puts children before oneself, even one's life..."no greater love can one have for another than to lay one's life down..."...
that, taken to it's logical end, slays any argument that attempts "what if the woman's life is in danger due to the pregnancy?"...attempts at saving both must be made, but NO intentional killing of the baby in the womb can ever be permitted...one might ask, "would you die for another if you were placed in that situation?" my answer would be that I don't know...I'm weak...I can only pray that I would...righteousness exists whether or not I practice it or not, and whether I like it or not...I'm called to it, as we all are, so all I can say is that I hope and pray that I would...I would not be excused if I didn't because it traumatic or difficult...
Pro Life/Pro War. It's the
American way *** dangit!
(Go Bengals)
...nah...never PRO-war, just willing to engage if it's (tragically) necessary...
The last necessary one, of course, being Afghanistan following 9-11; everything after that's been quite voluntary . . .
Shouldn't the placard on her desk read "Speaker Pe-Lousy" instead?
NICU @ Good Samaritan Hospital in Cincinnati. keeps preemies alive as early as 23 weeks. I'm neither "pro-life or "pro choice": just ask everyone to examine evidence. Fertilized embryo 48 hrs old is not a viable human being. 22 week old "fetus" can live to be a healthy adult, unless "killed" or "aborted".
As the science and medicine improve, the culture will realize that "choice" increasingly involves ending a human life, not "aborting a fetus". Abortion on demand after a certain point is a mockery of medicine. We as a society need to respect life, be reasonable, and allow science and medicine to guide our public policies.
It's all about options; give some decent non-abortion options after the 22 week point or perhaps after "the quickening" as it was called in the good old days, and you might see changes.
It's all about choices, and trusting people to make the right one, lest they be driven to gruesome illicit alternatives . . .
Jamming a scissors-like device into the base of the skull of a baby then opening the scissors and inserting a tube to suck the insides of the head out isn't "gruesome"??
Burning a baby whose skin is too sensitive with an injected-into-womb concentrated saline solution isn't "gruesome"??
Truth exists, regardless of whether we want to pay attention to it, or not. The above is the truth of just two ways in which abortionists kill babies.
Go to www.priestsforlife.com...you don't have to be Catholic, Protestant...whatever...to go to the website and look at photos of what happens to these babies.
Don't like abortion? Don't have one; simple, really.
Way to steal a phrase that attempts flippancy but really reveals unoriginality (C'mon, that one has been around forever!)
Furthermore, it's logic doesn't hold water :)
Let's try the same, exact logic, but on other historical "hot button" issues:
"Don't like slavery? Don't own one! Simple, really."
"Don't like terrorism? Don't be one! Simple, really."
When there is a VICTIM, you can't take such a cavalier approach. Your logic works for unimportant things (don't like Chevrolets, don't buy one!), but not for issues such as these.
Apply logic and thinking to your arguments, and you may get further! (Of course, in the case of attempting to defend the murder of unborn babies, you'll still eventually lose.)
I'm still not hearing a solution to this great "murder of unborn babies" (illegality simply drives it underground, to very dangerous places); and the blatant igonoring of the women involved continues.
I see there's support for the "rare" part of "Keep it Legal, Safe, and Rare"
I don't think I'm smart enough to know the solution, but I'll give it a stab.
Start at the beginning. Sex is for married couples willing, open, and capable to care for a child should one result. Before the charges begin, let me tell you I'm not a born-again anything. In fact, my own life is NOT a good example of what I'm saying here. Am I therefore being a hypocrite? I don't think so. I've chosen wrongly while knowing better many times in my life, particularly in this realm. God gave us the gift of sexual relations for a reason--to unite man and wife in a bond incomparable to any thing else this side of Heaven, where emotion and physicality co-mingle perfectly, and also as the way in which they are able to bring new life, their children, into the world. Can we honestly say the way we've chosen to use sex has been better?
Secondly, if pregnancy occurs (and this is a practical application to how to reduce abortions), know that there is no such thing as an unwanted child. Perhaps the child is unwanted by the biological parents, but do you know how many infertile couples are out there, married, loving, capable couples dying to have a child and yet for whatever reason can't conceive? Couples are on adoption-wait lists for years (my aunt and uncle waited 7 years until they got their son, Kevin). It's the most loving thing a mother could do for a child she acknowledges she herself can't take care of. She fulfills a prayer and hope for a couple in waiting, and she gives her child a life. Difficult? Absolutely. Aren't the greatest loves in the world filled with pain? It's a whole shift in outlook that's needed. Women in crisis pregnancies NEED to be helped, through every step of the pregnancy and after, but killing her baby is never a good thing. Rachel's Vineyard is a group of women who have had abortions, and they so desperately wish they hadn't. They live in anguish, but hope, too, because they know ours is a forgiving, love Father. But anguish is inextricably linked to their existence.
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home