THIS MODERN WORLD

From an interview with New Yorker cartoon editor Bob Mankoff:

Matt: Another type, not really in The New Yorker, is the political cartoon. Maybe we should say something about political cartoons and what you can accept in The New Yorker and what you can’t use.

Bob: I think The New Yorker’s cartoons aren’t very political because the people who do the cartoons aren’t awfully political people, and they aren’t paid to be political. I think editorial cartoonists are. That’s what they do. They probably have a great natural interest in politics, and then they are paid to do it, so they sort of have to hunt out these ideas. I admire editorial cartoons, but I’m also sort of happy that I don’t do them because I’d hate to have to label things and I’d especially hate, more than anything, to label something Dennis Hastert or Mark Foley, you know? It’s just the idea that you have to write something in the drawing to label things is antithetical to The New Yorker type of cartoon. When we do a cartoon, even though it’s political, it’s ambiguous. Like the Michael Shaw cartoon where people are looking at the television and they’re saying, “Gays and lesbians getting married? Haven’t they suffered enough?” That doesn’t really say where he is.

Matt: It’s about the issue, but it doesn’t…

Bob: It’s about the issue, but it’s not on any side of the issue.

Matt: Yeah.

Bob: And I don’t think that’s false. I think that’s the natural way that most people feel about issues other than the ranters or crazies on the radio.

You see, only ranters or crazies on the radio have opinions about issues.

I had two phases as a contributor to the New Yorker. First, working with Mankoff, which, you will not be surprised to learn, didn’t work out very well or last very long. Then, awhile after that, when art director Francoise Mouly convinced me to give it another go. Francoise was good to work with, but then 9/11 came along, and changed everything, if by “everything” you mean “my working relationship with the New Yorker.” Basically it became exponentially more difficult to get anything political past the editors there. And yes, the New Yorker did eventually find its spine again and has printed a lot of really important political writing in the intervening years — but in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the last thing they were interested in was political satire, and after awhile I got tired of banging my head against the wall and stopped submitting stuff. And now that ship seems to have sailed.

Just got an email from someone at an ad agency who saw a couple of my illustrations in the New York Times Book Review yesterday and tracked down my email address (presumably through the Times) to inquire as to whether or not I had a website with further examples of my work, and where it might be found.

Don’t mean to cast aspersions on the inquiry, though I politely turned it down. I’m just truly puzzled by people who don’t think to use Google as a matter of course.

You can’t save the world, but you can help make it slightly more tolerable sometimes. Like this:

Most people don’t think about poor people and their kids’ diapers. Most of us don’t realize that paying for diapers is a huge problem for families who don’t have a lot of money.

Joanne Samuel Goldblum noticed it. As a social worker in New Haven, she frequently observed parents who were unable to afford diapers at the end of the month, after their government assistance funds ran out.

What happens when you can’t afford diapers for your kid? Diaper rash. Incessant crying. And, sometimes, child abuse when the parents can’t take the crying anymore.

More commonly, the result of a diaper shortage is shame and embarrassment.

Two years ago, Goldblum put her thoughts and desire into action.

“After five years of hearing me talk about it, my husband (David Goldblum) got tired of listening to me and he said, ‘There’s got to be a way to do this,’” she recalled.

“It seemed a small enough and easy enough thing to do,” she said.

But when I asked Goldblum if this is small or easy, she replied, “No! It’s not!”

Nevertheless, the New Haven Diaper Bank is up and running. Although it’s a great success, distributing 50,000 to 60,000 diapers every month to about 500 people, there are only two other diaper banks in the country. New Haven’s is a national model, begging to be imitated.

* * *

Goldblum is fed up with comments such as, “Let them use newspaper” or “Why can’t they use cloth diapers?”

Her answer to the first suggestion: “It’s not fair. It’s embarrassing and not up to hygenic standards.”

Her answer to the second: “Families in poverty don’t have easy access to washing machines.”

Goldblum’s goal is to distribute one million diapers per year through the 30 New Haven social service agencies she has lined up. But it costs $7,500 per month to keep this going. Funding comes through grants, foundations and private donations.

Contributions, cash or checks, can be sent to: The New Haven Diaper Bank, 1440 Whalley Ave., No. 110, New Haven, CT 06515. For information: 843-5372.

Wednesday night the Australian media reported that in early 2002 their ambassador to the U.N. was telling the Australian company AWB that a U.S. attack on Iraq was “inevitable.” The information appears in the minutes from a February 27, 2002 AWB board meeting. The minutes are listed on this page, and you can download them directly here (pdf).

Here’s the relevant text, from pages 10-11, with my emphasis added. For anyone curious, a screenshot of the memo itself can be found on my site. (AWB minutes are printed in Helvetica!)

Middle East situation

The Chairman met with the Australian Ambassador to the UN, John Dauth, who gave a synopsis of the current conflict in the Middle East. With regard to Iran, the Ambassador noted that, despite the President’s State of the Union address and reference to the “Axis of Evil,” most acknowledge that US/Iran relations are at an all time high. Accordingly, there appears to be an unofficial agreement between the two countries that despite the language of the President, these comments should be seen as for domestic consumption only. The Ambassador’s view was that it was unlikely that the war against terrorism currently being waged in Afghanistan would follow on to Iran in the current political environment.

However, with regard to Iraq, the Ambassador stated that he believed that US military action to depose Saddam Hussein was inevitable and that at this time the Australian Government would support and participate in such action. The Ambassador believed that the Iraqis grossly underestimated the US’ reaction to September 11 (with the consequent military response in Afghanistan) and that Iraq’s request to re-negotiate UN weapons inspectors was a direct result of their nervousness about US action. The Ambassador believed that the latest “olive branch” from the Iraqis was likely to stave off US action 12 to 18 months but that some military action was inevitable.

The Ambassador felt that engagement in Iraq would be similar to that currently being undertaken in Afghanistan (ie. heavy use of air support followed by deployment of ground troops). He undertook to ensure that AWB was given as much warning as would be possible under such circumstances but noted that in these instances often the Australian Government had little notification. However, he did note that Secretary Powell was running this campaign in a similar way that he ran the Gulf conflict which was to plan meticulously and not rush into conflict.