Why the LA Times Stopped Carrying Cartoonist Dixon Diaz.

Why the LA Times Stopped Carrying Cartoonist Dixon Diaz.

The cartoonist Dixon Diaz can say more in a few little squares than the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Kansas City RED Star can combined.

  [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y6Ofzw_zTMQ/VZR7x4qOLsI/AAAAAAAABeQ/7IZhmwVe3_k/s1600/s1.jpg] <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y6Ofzw_zTMQ/VZR7x4qOLsI/AAAAAAAABeQ/7IZhmwVe3_k/s1600/s1.jpg>








"Any man who thinks he can be happy & prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." ~Henry Ford~

Well, I can understand why the L.A. Times wouldn't want to publish these – I'm pretty sure the original cartoonist Aaron McGruder is a leftist and wouldn't approve of this use of his drawings, so it would be asking for legal trouble. On the other hand, if Dixon Diaz normally does his own art and they dropped him just because he did these on the side, that seems like an over-reaction. If he wasn't trying to sell them or pass the art off as his own, I don't see the problem. Reappropriating existing art is something lots of artists have done in one form or another.

  I like the "ass-backwards", "black president", and "uphold" ones; some of the others are, well yeah juvenile as the one strip admits, or just kinda obvious and not that funny. But I'm sure these have steam coming out the ears of leftists, to see conservative sentiments being expressed by young, hip black characters. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the real reason he was dropped.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))