'Big Bag O' Happy' cartoon offers bad humor at best, prejudice at worst

After reading Monday's "Big Bag O'Happy" which mocked the Pope, I was filled with a certain uneasiness. I don't have a problem with controversial cartooning but in this case, I was struck with the unnerving realization that it contained nothing that would lead to useful discussion. It was heavy on negative sentiment and completely lacking in stammer-inducing criticism. To draw a crude parallel, imagine being confronted by someone with only "I don't like you." You've been presented the effect but been denied the chance to discuss the causes and so, you've also been denied the chance to change yourself or the other person's perceptions of you.

To be fair, I recognize that I may have completely missed the author's criticism. It is possible that they think the Pope is insincere, that dialogue with God is some kind of delusion, that the Pope might have a drinking problem, etc. If one of more of these critiques were intended and I'm in the minority that didn't grasp the obvious, I apologize. However, if these criticisms were intended but not perceived by many of the readers, then not only was the cartoon ineffective but it risked being misread as an unsubstantiated remark intended to produce hurt and stir anger. Finally, if the cartoon was designed to induce insult, then I would implore the author to consider the path they travel.

By slinging mud, your miss the opportunity to convince others that your views are correct. At best, you are settling for negative associations. In addition, you are encouraging the practice of formulating opinions without the basis of open discussion, hard evidence, or testable ideas... a practice known as prejudice.

I'm sure that your intentions were and are good, but I ask you to consider the consequences associated with an ambiguous approach to critical humor.

By Matt Iles (letter)
Arizona Daily Wildcat
April 28, 1997