Amy, I am intrigued by a specific issue that arises from your post: A seeming lack of belief that allegory through film, TV, and even cartoons, can be a method by which the collective cultural conscious undergoes ideological alteration. I admittedly have not extensively researched 'Tom and Jerry', consulted the authors' intentions regarding the show, etc. However, it appears likewise that you have not done such research from the content of your post, or it would have been appropriate to cite the author's clear intentions now [that the Jews' public ethos had no influence on the content of the show]. Such information, were it to be true, would have buttressed your case. However, you just said you "chuckled" at the possibility, and this appears to be an outright dismissal of the Middle Easterners' claims that [as the show originated in 1940] it sought to curb the view of Jews as 'dirty mice' through the portrayal of a cute and cunning cartoon mouse that always gets the best of the cat. I'm curious as to whether you would suggest Richard Adam's 'Watership Down' [which lent itself to taking the form of a cartoon in 1978] does not make direct and obvious allusions to the atrocities committed by the Third Reich. The picture has widely been argued as the allegorical portrayal and condemnation of the Nazis, and I am wondering whether it is truly that unbelievable that film, cartoons, etc., use an altogether different strategy to build up other groups through allegorical narrative. Again, I haven't done the specific research, but I would be a little less quick to dismiss something so outright when dealing with a subject such as the potential for subtlety in manifesting political agenda through the arts.

Diran...are you serious?

Well said. While it's hard to say, "amen" when there's not much asserted, I like the way you fashioned your comment. Some well-dressed thought.

I'm not quite sure why it would be difficult to take seriously the claim that political ideas would enter into cartoons, film, tv, art. You seem to be denying even the possiblility of such a linkage.

Do you really think these shows are just cute little stories? To me, in fairness, that premise is in actuality the one hard to fathom. Tweety [1942] and his "gwama, gwama, I tah I saw a puddy cat" seems a commentary on political matters, in particular the internment camps. The yellow [mind the color] bird hangs out in a cage, safe from danger. The nuances of sfaety versus danger always unfold when the yellow bird is outside the enclosure. Could this be a potential spin on the 1944 verdict evaluating the move upon the Japanese as constitutional and justified? I think there is room for such a case. Art has historically used subtlety to imbue its works with political content. Just ask Lucas, even if you do not agree with his politics. And again, it is hard to present a detailed argument that denies the aggressive rabbits of 'Watership Down' as a surrogate or metonymy for the Natzis. Is it not?

Am I serious? Well, I suppose a better question is: why would we even doubt that these media outlets would refrain from the temptation to inscribe ideology within their narratives? I all seriousness, an answer must be provided.

Just to be clear, are you saying that you think it's possible that the creators of Tom and Jerry did create the show for the purpose of improving the image of mice because Jews were called "dirty mice" in Europe and they wished for their association with mice to be a positive one? So possible, in fact, that you think I need to come up with an argument against it before you'll dismiss it?

The Smurfs and communism.

Well, what is the alternative? That [and I say this with respect] we just dismiss it with chuckles? How else to dismiss it than with argument, given the other items I have noted?

But that is the problem. It seems we have a situation of avoiding one another's questions in this thread. I have asked twice now whether you believe 'Watership Down' would count as an instance of metonymy concerning the Nazis. You provided no reply. I have asked whether cartoons or film in general have the potential to carry ideological postures into the mainstream subtly [a similarly phrased question]. You counter by avoiding these questions and asking whether I think in this instance it is possible [the truth? The actuality?] that it was Jerry's intended purpose to be a rebuttal to mid-twentieth century Euro-aggression toward Jews. I say my answer is 'yes' in this instance, that Jerry very well could have been used and put into existence in 1940 for that very purpose [of course amongst other purposes, including capital and entertainment]. I am mentioning now, again, that you cannot just dismiss something with only a version of common sense as support for a belief when we do know unequivocally that it has been common practice within all art forms to use structures of metonymy to sway public perception [Lucas' has admitted this full-heartedly for his Star Wars, and has noted several narratives which have influenced him which have done likewise].

We are dealing with structures of metonymy. Simply stated, metonymic structures pit one thing as a surrogate for something else. There is usually some conflation involved: a flag represents an entire country, which is of course comprised of an enormous amount of individual elements like people [races, economic backgrounds, etc.], cities, communities, objects, demarcated spaces, governments, markets, etc., etc., etc, which are all reduced to a simple flag and its colorful arrangement. The flag stands in for the entire extremely complex entity.

The Iranian professor Bolkhari maintained that the text 'dirty mice' had become a prevalent textual surrogate for the Jewish community. [Jews are obviously not literal mice that are filthy]. Jews and the concept of a dirty mouse were thus conflated in the effort to demonize the Jews much in the same way that making Darth Vader quote Bush several times served to demonize the person of whom he was quoting [in this case our President, for we know that Anakin was to succumb to evil and the "Dark Side"]. …How to counter such things? The question is an artistic one: Transform and reconfigure the metonym. Change the allusion or the stand-in that represents the group or thing, in this case, the concept of Jewishness. If one presents [note that this is not necessarily logical but tends toward the artistic: "presents", provides an instance/image of, etc.] that mice are not dirty, but rather are cute and give us warm fuzzies, then this can negate the potential automatic negative allusion to mice. If you instead conjoin cute nice mice and Jews, we have a different ideological outcome.

With the enormity of evidence that artists, filmmakers, etc., have used such structures in the past, it makes this sort of thing up for debate. Chuckling is one thing, but not enough, and calls for the need of further consideration. One can't just say with any sort of lubricated philosophical ease - given the timing of Tom and Jerry as well as the show's content - that it is all just a cute little story.

"One can't just say with any sort of lubricated philosophical ease - given the timing of Tom and Jerry as well as the show's content - that it is all just a cute little story."

Watch me:

Tom & Jerry is a frickin cartoon.

But seriously, the fact that artists can and often do use such methods does in no way entail (1) that the makers of a cartoon had this in mind when they created the cat and mouse, nor does it entail (2) that it somehow falls to Amy to prove that they were not trying to make a connection. Where is the evidence that they intended to make such a connection?

There is no criteria for evidence that I think we could agree on. Besides, further complicating this is that most of the time artists are more subtle than is Lucas, for example. Being obvious is the killjoy of artists, the mark of a bad artist or filmmaker actually. That stated...I haven't said anything here that has been proven [i.e., I haven't proven anything], nor have I mandated that Amy has to do anything that she doesn't wish to do. The burden of proof falls in cases like these on anyone who wishes to assume it. The fact that there is a burden of proof at all is what I am suggesting indicates that there cannot be refutations by chuckling. ... I guess in this case it is as Bill has stated: that our positions are greatly different on this matter as is evident that I am willing to leave the door open to the possibility that there is political content influencing much of the stuff that is out there in mainstream artistic disciplines [which lines up with much of my experience in the field] potentially inclusive of Tom and Jerry due to the things noted by the professor, and she is willing to say with confidence something is just a cartoon. I personally believe one strategy is a bit more charitable, better than calling someone a looney tune in any event, and that is all I have to say from this point onward on the matter.

"There is no criteria for evidence that I think we could agree on."

Actually, if documentation showed that Hanna and Barbera intended the mouse to have such a meaning, then it would count as evidence. Without direct evidence of such intent, however, any interpretation is nothing more than rampant speculation, and, depending on the content of the alleged hidden meaning (in this case, a Jewish conspiracy), open to ridicule. Tom & Jerry is cartoon until proven otherwise.

Tom & Jerry is a cartoon until proven otherwise.

And what would count as a document? You must certainly know that specific events take place without being properly documented. Does that mean that these certain events did not take place? If Lucas does not state openly to Vader being an intended surrogate for Bush, does that mean the similarities between the two figures is just a coincidence until properly documented?

This largely was a discussion between Amy and I, as it was the result of a post she wrote...and after the steps we have made I must refuse to discuss any further.

Diran, I understand the reluctance to discuss this further.

However, I would like to ask a question which need not be answered here yet I think deserves serious consideration:

What is the difference between a cartoon created for the purpose of entertainment that has no intentional, hidden meaning, and a cartoon created for the purpose of using hidden meanings to make a point? All the evidence you give for the conclusion that there is an intentional hidden meaning to Tom & Jerry is circumstantial. Every instance of metonymy can be explained by other factors (e.g., the bird was yellow because canaries are yellow). Empirically, there is no difference between the two interpretations, and thus other factors must justify accepting one conclusion in place of another. Are Hanna and Barbera part of a Jewish conspiracy, or were they animators who made a cartoon?

I don't have a problem with discussing, as long as the tone remains professional and honors that friendship is most important. I felt the tone was getting heated, and therefore wanted to refrain. I will offer these comments with professionalism and respect:
You are completely right that the points raised in your most recent post deserve consideration. I did give thought to ones like them prior to entering this conversation. I had to determine that what I was putting forward as metonymical exchanges were potentially for the purpose of persuasion or societal influence, and not merely and unequivocally entertainment for its own sake. I had to first decide whether I thought it was plausible that what the professor stated in terms of a Jewish conspiracy were elements worth considering as ingredients in a semiotic system conducive to the production of such a conspiracy, regardless of whether the professor claimed [quite wrongly] that Disney was both the author of Tom and Jerry as well as a Jew. In other words, his key claims which address metonymic slippage in the effort to assist the Jews' public ethos must be challenged on their own merit.
I have previously maintained that it is "plausible" that these cartoon shows sought to alter public opinion, but not that it is "certain" they intended to do so. I have further stated that my position in most cases is that absence of proof is not proof of absence, or more formally stated: A logical fallacy occurs when one posits 'X is true because there is no proof that X is false.' For a related example: That Lucas' intention was for Vader to be Bush's surrogate is true irrespective of the fact that Lucas told us Vader = Bush, and such is true up and to the point that had Lucas not mentioned it, he still intended it, and it is therefore the case [we merely have no access to that information in a documented form...if a tree falls in a forest...].
Most importantly, you state that "every instance of metonymy can be explained by other factors ( e.g., the bird was yellow because canaries are yellow)." However, there are other factors further still that prevent me from saying absolutely - as Amy and you do - that political motivations do not reside behind the cartoon images in question. Among these other factors, in the Tweety case for instance: his color and quasi-Japanese speech impediments are striking when we consider that the original sketches called for a pink bird. What can account for this important color change? Or asked differently: What can account for this change in a historical time when the Japanese were still referred to as yellow, "Indians" as red, etc? This change, coupled with the other characteristics of the cartoon [amongst the previously mentioned: locked in a cage safe from danger, 1942 as the cartoon's starting point - concurrent with the internment camps initiation, etc], lead me to conclude that there *might* be something else going on behind the scenes. These things all could be coincidences, but I cannot bring myself - given the quantity of alleged coincidences - to pull the trigger and call it 'just a cute cartoon.' I have not proven anything; I just remain unconvinced by the absolute proposition of the cartoons as "just cute stories."
[For the record, I think 'conspiracy' is the wrong word. If I make a project that attacks Bush on a subtle level, using metonymy like Lucas did, I am a conspirator? If someone makes a cartoon with a yellow Tweety and actually did intend it to change opinion about whether the Japanese Americans should have been placed in internment camps for their own good and safety, he is a conspirator? This line of reasoning would seem to render an enormous percentage of political artists in the 20th and 21st centuries as conspirators. Finally, the concept we have not considered here yet is that some of these cartoon shows could have been influenced by the politics of that day or attempted to mirror some of its structures, but were not trying to be a polemic regarding the politics of that day. Thus, no conspiracy, but only the reflection of the influence of political events upon the cartoon subject matter].

If this conversation does continue, I am fascinated to watch it. I respect the intellect and character of both Amy and Diran, though their ideological viewpoints are so different I watch with some trepidation.

BILL, that really does mean a lot to me--thank you! I'm sorry to disappoint you by saying that I'm not planning on continuing the conversation. I never argue just to argue, and since it seems to me that this is one of those things where one either sees the absurdity or one doesn't, I'm not going to spend time arguing about it.

DIRAN, if we lose our ability to use common sense as a society, we're doomed. I feel confident in saying that Tom and Jerry is not Watership Down, it's not Animal Farm, and it's not a Jewish conspiracy. It's not even a product of Disney, as they claim.

TIM, you said, "Without direct evidence of such intent, however, any interpretation is nothing more than rampant speculation." Exactly. Which is why the interpretation says much more about the person speculating (i.e., the professor) than about the cartoon itself. The fact that they read Jewish conspiracies into everything (look through the website) is cause for alarm.

Amy, on one view this discussion may appear pointless, but why even post about it then in the first place? Your mind is already made up, so why even bait us? I really on some other level, however, do not care either way about Tom and Jerry [always switched the station anyway]...

...Here I have interpreted content in a cartoon, and tried to state whether an open mind in interpretation is important. I have held that it is. All things are not open to view, all things are not revealed by their authors. Such a dynamic usually, in aesthetic interpretation, brings us back to the artwork, where I tried to keep us focused. [It itself is the evidence, it is the documentation!]. Bringing statements into this discussion about 'documentation' as the categorical knock-out blow seems strange, especialy when one argues for this such that if documents are missing everything to the contrary is absurd [particularly when it can very well be that an artist will not give away all his intentions openly to serve as some form of documentation. I make artwork. I don't give away all intentions. It makes artwork dull. Besides, my intention cannot be the final say in what a work is about, about what a work is communicating or has the potential to communicate]. Therefore, this discussion has been fruitful because it calls into question whether the artist's intention is the final say on meaning. The 'documentation' premise in this light seems a premise that does not get us very far...

...On the whole, I am reacting largely to the incident which inspired this updated post when you seemed to suggest that Democrats tend toward conspiracy theories, as if Democrats are all conspiracy theorists. I think, rather, that Democrats tend toward openmindedness, which includes digging through theories and not dismissing them outright as if common sense is unilaterally the same for everyone. It is not.... as we have seen, some people have varying degrees of skepticism. I remember various people skeptical of the premise that Bush went to war for oil. Now Bush is claiming that it is good that we prevented the terrorists from occupying that oil. Do we still retain our skeptcism? When is a document "documentation enough"?!

I think, rather, that Democrats tend toward openmindedness, which includes digging through theories and not dismissing them outright as if common sense is unilaterally the same for everyone.

Oddly enough, what you've said here does sound very similar to the explanation for conspiracy theories given in this article which Charlie orignally posted a link to here.

What it comes down to is these people who do reasearch concerning the 9.11 attacks do feel they have a case from the physics point of view, and I would take a further step to say that probably inside their motivations is a sense of helplessness while being completely opposed to the current administration such that this sort of issue [9.11 controlled demolition], if proved, could remove it. That is what we are tallking about here, trying to get Bush out of office. It is the same sort of thing as trying to get Clinton out with Lewisnski, just different methods [and why didn't we try to get the other presidents who struggled with infidelity out?]. ...It should be obvious that the "conspiracy" theorists' case does pose difficult questions, but links like 'we the sheeple' negate these claims with the greatest of republican ease, just like you are able to avoid my final paragraph above with great ease. The key is, these people who feel helpless to a failed war, to a president that has taken to assault against the constitution, have spoken in an election that couldn't have come too soon. And hopefully, the result will produce bipartisan change, and what I am hoping is a completely new direction in 08.

like you are able to avoid my final paragraph above with great ease

What amazes me is that everything I post keeps getting turned into an argument against the president. This post was not about President Bush and oil. I regret that I don't have more time to enter into every discussion and topic, but I really have to try (I don't always succeed) to limit myself to the topic of the post in the comments, or I'll never have time to post anything new. You're welcome to discuss these things with others who are reading who have the time and inclination to take on other subjects, but if I didn't create some guidelines for myself, I would go completely insane and never get anything done. So I hope you'll forgive my limitations.

As for those who feel the Republicans were involved in the 9/11 attacks, regardless of what they feel, if their evidence were credible, I'm pretty sure the Democrats would be publicly all over it.

Amy, I read and re-read your post trying to figure out how your conclusion fits: I can't stress enough how dangerous these lies are to the stability of the world. I urge you to watch the full video clip (and more) here so you can understand what we'll be dealing with in the years to come.

Let me try this on you: When our own president uses cowboy analogy and develops his foreign policy using the imagery of cowboys and indians, (Wanted: Dead or Alive), I suppose you would agree that it's the same thing that Bolkhari said--of course, Bolkhari is an unheard of person who has little influence in his society, whereas our president is the leader of the free world.

WIth all due respect, I can't stress how dangerous it is when we allow our media and our leaders to propagate worldviews that distort what the world is really about!

EE, if you think saying we want Osama bin Laden dead or alive is comparable to reading Jewish conspiracies into everything, including Tom and Jerry, then I'm afraid that our thinking is so different that I don't know where to go in this conversation. But thanks for sharing your thoughts--and I do mean that. It's important for people to hear all sides.

As for how the conclusion fits, please watch the video. If it doesn't make you shudder, then...well, I don't know what to say if it doesn't make you shudder. One can't be fed a constant diet of that without serious consequences (as we've seen).

Amy, on one view this discussion may appear pointless, but why even post about it then in the first place? Your mind is already made up, so why even bait us? I really on some other level, however, do not care either way about Tom and Jerry [always switched the station anyway]...

...Here I have interpreted content in a cartoon, and tried to state whether an open mind in interpretation is important. I have held that it is. All things are not open to view, all things are not revealed by their authors. Such a dynamic usually, in aesthetic interpretation, brings us back to the artwork, where I tried to keep us focused. [It itself is the evidence, it is the documentation!]. Bringing statements into this discussion about 'documentation' as the categorical knock-out blow seems strange, especialy when one argues for this such that if documents are missing everything to the contrary is absurd [particularly when it can very well be that an artist will not give away all his intentions openly to serve as some form of documentation. I make artwork. I don't give away all intentions. It makes artwork dull. Besides, my intention cannot be the final say in what a work is about, about what a work is communicating or has the potential to communicate]. Therefore, this discussion has been fruitful because it calls into question whether the artist's intention is the final say on meaning. The 'documentation' premise in this light seems a premise that does not get us very far...

...On the whole, I am reacting largely to the incident which inspired this updated post when you seemed to suggest that Democrats tend toward conspiracy theories, as if Democrats are all conspiracy theorists. I think, rather, that Democrats tend toward openmindedness, which includes digging through theories and not dismissing them outright as if common sense is unilaterally the same for everyone. It is not.... as we have seen, some people have varying degrees of skepticism and common sense. I remember various people skeptical of the premise that Bush went to war for oil. Now Bush is claiming that it is good that we prevented the terrorists from occupying that oil. Do we still retain our skeptcism? When is a document "documentation enough"?!

I'm not sure what the "all sides" are. I'm just saying that the tactics employed are not simply the product of the Muslims in the Middle East. Those tactics are in our society. Your concern and "shuddering" is exactly what people in the Middle East think and feel about our cowboy policy.

I very much doubt "cowboy" talk does much to Middle Easterners. It's far more likely to offend progressive-minded Westerners who loathe Bush.

Male-dominated societies such as the Middle East see conciliatory language as weakness. They tend to respect, even if they disagree, more upfront and powerful language (and actions). The responses of Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon following our invasion of Iraq support this, as they all become interested in talking pretty quickly.

But for what it's worth, I agree that this sort of thinking goes on all the time. I'd reference the Clinton administration's influence of tv shows in the 90s to shun smoking and run anti-drug plots and the like as a better example (b/c it's intentional whereas Bush's cowboy rhetoric, whether one likes it or not, comes pretty naturally and isn't hidden at all)

I don't think Diran's question is ridiculous. I think there's some slippage. The idea that a cartoon, or anything, could have as one of its motivations a change in public perception is entirely plausible and goes on all the time. So that idea itself seems plausible. The slippage is between that and the way that the nutjob professor is using the information as some sort of Jewish mass conspiracy thing. Given the context and all the other nutjob things that are said and written (Protocols of the ELders of Zion, etc.), it would be ridiculous for Diran to take those folks seriously, though I don't think that he is doing that here. That said I haven't watched the video Amy links to.

The idea that a cartoon, or anything, could have as one of its motivations a change in public perception is entirely plausible

Of course that's the case. I don't disagree with that. In this case, however, I think the interpretation clearly reflects anti-Semitism rather than reality. Part of that has to do with the fact that everything seems to be a "Zionist plot" to them--including Pirates of the Caribbean, part of that has to do with the fact that they can't even get right the company that produced Tom and Jerry (so how would they have this secret information?), and part of it is the fact that, on the face of it, it seems ridiculous to say that Tom and Jerry (in particular) has political motivations. Most of the time, agendas aren't hard to spot--I see them all the time. But I am talking about Tom and Jerry specifically. I have never made the claim that it never happens anywhere, I'm claiming it didn't happen here.

I have never made the claim that it never happens anywhere, I'm claiming it didn't happen here.
But Amy, you wrote this post as an example of the ridiculous conspiracy theories they believe over there? I interpreted (i thought rightfully) that you're using a specific example to make a broader point. Are you saying that you're just making a specific point with no other broader implications?

To clarify: I think sometimes--and even often these days especially--art is used to convey political messages or to affect the culture. It is not ridiculous for someone to claim that. However, I do think it's ridiculous to claim that Tom and Jerry is one of those times in the way it's being claimed, based on my knowledge of Tom and Jerry and its genre. (Just because it's possible for art to convey political messages doesn't mean there's a good reason to believe it in this case.)

Therefore, the idea that they see a Jewish conspiracy even in Tom and Jerry is evidence of the broader issue of the lies that are born out of intense anti-Semitism which will then work itself out in actions that are likely to be harmful, as history has shown.

harmful to who or what?

Anti-Semitism has historically been harmful to Jews.

So this whole post is an apologetics for Jews?

I'll let Amy speak for the post. My involvement in this discussion is simply an apologetic for Tom & Jerry. I am regrettably unaware of their personal beliefs, though I expect that a cat intent on eating a mouse would have a difficult time accepting the traditional Hebrew dietary laws.

Yes, EE, you caught me. This whole thing was just an uncleverly disguised apologetic for the Jews.

But just in case you meant that comment at all seriously, I'll make it as clear as possible:

You want to see how their believing these things affect the world? Check the newspapers. Hatred often starts with the Jews, but it rarely ends there. In this case, there are plenty of anti-American and anti-Western conspiracies and tirades on that website, as well. (Have you looked at any of it?) This was the one I picked. My point:

1. Believing that Jewish and American conspiracies exist everywhere (again, look at the site) causes much hatred.

2. Hatred (particularly, hatred based on lies) causes many problems--for example, suicide bombers here, Europe, Asia, etc.

3. The conspiracies are not true.

4. Therefore, we have a problem. We've seen how conspiracy theories and similar lies fed Hitler's ability to come to power and direct his people towards the destruction of the world. This affected Jews first, then the world. Likewise, these theories affected Jews first, then the world.

For example, teaching children on television that Jews make their matzah out of the blood of Arab children causes Arabs to hate Jews to the point where they become violent (and who wouldn't, were that true?) which ultimately brings unrest to the whole world.

So now you can read things like a wedding ceremony transcript I clicked over to from Ahmadinejad's blog that was crafted around the "death to America" concept. Vows were interspersed with attacks on Western culture. Why? Because they believe a truckload of lies about us (again, see the site).

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse, because you can't truly be serious. You think rabid anti-Semitism throughout the Muslim world isn't dangerous for the whole world, much less the Jewish population of the world?

With all due respect Micah, as a middle easterner, I respectfully disagree regarding your first sentence. The cowboy foreign policy has broken trust in the Middle East way more than we imagine. The repercussions will be felt moreso in the years to come.

I don't have a problem with discussing with you, Timbo, as long as the tone remains professional and honors that friendship is most important. I felt the tone was getting heated, and therefore wanted to refrain. I will offer these comments with professionalism and respect:

You are completely right that the points raised in your most recent post deserve consideration. I did give thought to ones like them prior to entering this conversation. I had to determine that what I was putting forward as metonymical exchanges were potentially for the purpose of persuasion or societal influence, and not merely and unequivocally entertainment for its own sake. I had to first decide whether I thought it was plausible that what the professor stated in terms of a Jewish conspiracy were elements worth considering as ingredients in a semiotic system conducive to the production of such a conspiracy, regardless of whether the professor claimed [quite wrongly] that Disney was both the author of Tom and Jerry as well as a Jew. In other words, his key claims which address metonymic slippage in the effort to assist the Jews' public ethos must be challenged on their own merit.

I have previously maintained that it is "plausible" that these cartoon shows sought to alter public opinion, but not that it is "certain" they intended to do so. I have further stated that my position in most cases is that absence of proof is not proof of absence, or more formally stated: A logical fallacy occurs when one posits 'X is true because there is no proof that X is false.' For a related example: That Lucas' intention was for Vader to be Bush's surrogate is true irrespective of the fact that Lucas told us Vader = Bush, and such is true up and to the point that had Lucas not mentioned it, he still intended it, and it is therefore the case [we merely have no access to that information in a documented form...if a tree falls in a forest...].

Most importantly, you state that "every instance of metonymy can be explained by other factors ( e.g., the bird was yellow because canaries are yellow)." However, there are other factors further still that prevent me from saying absolutely - as Amy and you do - that political motivations do not reside behind the cartoon images in question. Among these other factors, in the Tweety case for instance: his color and quasi-Japanese speech impediments are striking when we consider that the original sketches called for a pink bird. What can account for this important color change? Or asked differently: What can account for this change in a historical time when the Japanese were still referred to as yellow, "Indians" as red, etc? This change, coupled with the other characteristics of the cartoon [amongst the previously mentioned: locked in a cage safe from danger, 1942 as the cartoon's starting point - concurrent with the internment camps initiation, etc], lead me to conclude that there *might* be something else going on behind the scenes. These things all could be coincidences, but I cannot bring myself - given the quantity of alleged coincidences - to pull the trigger and call it 'just a cute cartoon.' I have not proven anything; I just remain unconvinced by the absolute proposition of the cartoons as "just cute stories."

[For the record, I think 'conspiracy' is the wrong word. If I make a project that attacks Bush on a subtle level, using metonymy like Lucas did, I am a conspirator? If someone makes a cartoon with a yellow Tweety and actually did intend it to change opinion about whether the Japanese Americans should have been placed in internment camps for their own good and safety, he is a conspirator? This line of reasoning would seem to render an enormous percentage of political artists in the 20th and 21st centuries as conspirators. Finally, the concept we have not considered here yet is that some of these cartoon shows could have been influenced by the politics of that day or attempted to mirror some of its structures, but were not trying to be a polemical comment about the politics of that day. Thus, no conspiracy, but only the reflection of the influence of political events upon the cartoon subject matter.]

Wow. Surprisingly, I don't really want to jump into the fray on this one.

I'll just make two comments that have little to do with the debate going on.

1. MEMRI. The Middle East Media Research Institute is an organization founded by former Colonel Yigal Carmon, who spent decades working for the Israeli Army in the field of intelligence. I will reference a Guardian article, since some of the information about MEMRI has been discreetly eliminated from the organization's website.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

Carmon, and his Mossad and Israeli army associates at MEMRI, are not men I would like to meet in a dark alley. In fact, I find Carmon to be a very unsavory and immoral character, and believe him capable of deceit or violence for his extreme Zionist views.

Having said that, I will emphasize that I believe MEMRI is a propaganda organization, which probably has links to the Mossad or Israeli army. It clearly chooses the worst of the Arab press to translate.

Since few Americans speak the languages translated, we put our trust in the organization to accurately translate articles. I do not think that MEMRI is an organization that I trust as a source of information.

All information from MEMRI should be considered after taking the organization's associations into account.

2. Whether a Tom and Jerry cartoon is sympathetic to the Jews is not an issue of "world stability", although it certainly can be used as interesting debate fodder.

For anyone wanting corroboration of Amy's point that the increasing prominence of outrageous conspiracy theories is making things worse, read the following accusation by Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan government that 9/11 was a "self-inflicted attack" orchestrated by President Bush. What possibly could he say in response to such an unfounded accusation? That he didn't do it? Well, he was behind it, so of course that's what he's going to say. After all, he's the devil! It is the circular nature of conspiracy theories which makes them so dangerous, for once the conclusion is accepted, whatever subsequent evidence emerges that could be a disconfirmation of a conspiracy theory is going to be interpreted in light of the conspiracy theory already assumed, leading to a vicious circle in which even MEMRI is ultimately part of a Jewish conspiracy against Muslims.

leading to a vicious circle in which even MEMRI is ultimately part of a Jewish conspiracy against Muslims.

Oh, Timbo. The founder and president of MEMRI was involved with the Israeli Mossad and was a colonel in their army. He was involved in Israel's Unit 504 which administrated the notorious Camp 1391 prison. This prison engaged in extreme acts of torture against prisoners and their activities were so obscene that they were kept secret even from members of the Israeli government.

That is who Carmon is, and his shady and presumably blood-soaked history make him an undesirable and undependable witness in the Middle Eastern debate.

Prominent people, such as former Middle East ambassador William Rugh, have criticized MEMRI.

I am hardly an apologist or sympathizer with Islam, which I consider one of the most serious problems in the world today.

However, due to endless distortions and propaganda, some of which is fomented by Israeli interests, we are dealing ineffectively with Muslims and the consequences are turning out to be disasterous.

The Israelis have dealt for over 50 years with the Arab nations and they have been a consummate failure at it. Arab and Muslim nations the world over despise the Israelis, often with legitimate reasons. MEMRI does not discuss those legitimate concerns. They spend all their time on asinine Tom and Jerry nonsense.

As a result, we as Americans should consider the Israelis the last people on earth to ask for advice about dealing with Muslim nations. Why get information or take advice from a nation whose relationship with the Arabs could best be described as "mutual hatred"?

We need to disassociate ourselves from the Israelis and stop depending on their linguists and the Mossad.

America is a sovereign nation, not some sort of New World annex of Israel. We need to develop a means of dealing with Arabs and Muslims that is to our own benefit. That's not a conspiracy theory. It is the outlook and duty of every patriotic American.

Oh, Gorhendad. I'm not trying to defend MEMRI. For all I know, their founder is as wicked as you say. All that I am trying to point out (and I believe what Amy was calling our attention to) is the irrationality in those who always find a conspiracy devil lurking in the shadows of policies and/or practices with which they disagree. What is interesting in this MEMRI thing is that, as far as I am aware, nobody is saying that their translations are wrong. The response is immediately an attack on MEMRI for having an objective, which is absurd! Everyone has objectives. There are bad objectives and good objectives, and everyone has both. I thus agree, to an extent, that we should be taking our info from MEMRI with a grain of salt. But when the response is one that relies on the presumption of a Jewish conspiracy, rather than a demonstration that MEMRI's translations are wrong, it highlights the danger of conspiracy theories due to their frequent circularity, which, I believe, is what Amy is getting at with this post.

What is interesting in this MEMRI thing is that, as far as I am aware, nobody is saying that their translations are wrong. The response is immediately an attack on MEMRI for having an objective, which is absurd! Everyone has objectives.

Propaganda and deception are subtle.

It is selective exposure of information to instill half-truths in the minds of people.

It is the careful selection between two or three roughly synonymous words in order to create shadings of meaning that may not have been in the original document or speech. The translations can then be called "technically true" while at the same time they are intended to insidiously deceive.

Were the Israelis selectively translating American documents and speeches into Arabic or Farsi with the intention of creating an image that Americans are, by and large, a bunch of irrational haters with whacked-out ideas, you can bet your bottom dollar that we would be up in arms about it.

Why? Because it would do irreparable harm to the reputation of our nation and put our citizens in danger around the world. I would consider it an act of outright aggression against America.


But when the response is one that relies on the presumption of a Jewish conspiracy, rather than a demonstration that MEMRI's translations are wrong, it highlights the danger of conspiracy theories due to their frequent circularity, which, I believe, is what Amy is getting at with this post.

You would think I am some sort of Eastern European peasant running around with a pitchfork.

The Israelis, and their sympathizers around the world, are more than willing to assassinate, deceive, violate treaties, and behave coercively in order to get what they want, just like the vast majority of other nations on earth. This is hardly a conspiracy theory, since it can be proven with copious documentation.

Here's what a former CIA official says about MEMRI:


Cannistraro claims he was asked to join MEMRI, but he refused "because I saw this was capped by Israeli intelligence and because it was too political."

As I have stated, I am not a Muslim sympathizer. I consider Islam to be a coercive religion that spreads through aggression. The Western world has behaved as a fool towards Islam by neglecting to understand the mentality of that religion and allowing Muslim influences to undermine the integrity of Christian and Western tradition.

MEMRI works in concert with radical Muslims by ignoring the voices of secular or progressive Muslims and stealing any potential for dialog or diplomacy with them.

It is similar to the motivation that the Israelis had when they nurtured and funded Hamas to power, in order to create a radical Islamic competitor for the PLO.

My suggestion is that we buff up our expertise on what Islam is, how the Islamic world works and how we can best negotiate with them to secure our own best interests.

This is not the goal of the MEMRI organization, and until we cut the rotting umbilical cord between ourselves and the Israelis, we will not be working to the best interests of the United States.

Were the Israelis selectively translating American documents and speeches into Arabic or Farsi with the intention of creating an image that Americans are, by and large, a bunch of irrational haters with whacked-out ideas, you can bet your bottom dollar that we would be up in arms about it.

The only problem with this is that the Israelis wouldn't be able to find anything similar on our publicly available television, so I doubt they would get very far.

Also, if you could help me out, I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements:

MEMRI works in concert with radical Muslims by [advertising the bad parts of their culture and] ignoring the voices of secular or progressive Muslims and stealing any potential for dialog or diplomacy with them.

and

until we cut the rotting umbilical cord between ourselves and the Israelis [who, as I have advertised, have done A, B, and C bad things], we will not be working to the best interests of the United States.

It seems you're saying that the Arab countries get a pass because there are still some "secular or progressive" Muslims that we should be reaching out to, and we shouldn't talk about the bad things that are going on there, but when the Israelis have some bad people we should "cut the rotting umbilical cord" and we should actively advertise how evil we think they are. So clearly, you aren't very interested in promoting good dialog with the "secular or progressive" Israelis.

I have to say that I think that's a double standard--or are you saying that the Israelis are all bad, but you still have hope for the Muslims who only have a few bad people? Or is it merely that you think good dialog is possible with some Muslims, but not with any Jews?

There is a great amount of anti-Israeli sentiment on the left. Not only do I think it's unjustified, but I also think this double standard is bewildering. Furthermore, it is increasingly bewildering to me why Jewish people in this country who support the nation of Israel continue to vote on the left.

It seems you're saying that the Arab countries get a pass because there are still some "secular or progressive" Muslims that we should be reaching out to, and we shouldn't talk about the bad things that are going on there, but when the Israelis have some bad people we should "cut the rotting umbilical cord" and we should actively advertise how evil we think they are.

The "rotting umbilical cord" refers a degree of favor we give to Israel that far exceeds almost any other country on earth. It could include many things, but in this case I refer to the influential and uncritical advantages we give Israel in our foreign policy decisions, and the unfair advantages they receive from our media.

I am fully in favor of diplomacy with the Israelis, whatever their stripe of politics. I am fully against the unhealthy, cloying relationship of many US politicians with AIPAC and the Israeli government.

One indication of an unhealthy alliance is when this country allows prominent Americans to become policy writers for the Likud in Israel, a foreign government. After writing hardline policy for the Likud, we then allow those individuals to decide they are Americans again, and permit them to fly home on El Al and import the rehashed Likud policies directly into the United States government.

http://empireburlesquenow.blogspot.com/2005/03/dark-passage-pnacs-blueprint-for.html
"Others, such as former Reagan official and AEI stalwart Richard Perle (now head of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board) and Douglas Feith (now assistant secretary of Defense), worked with Israel's Likud Party, drawing up plans calling for American-led "regime change" efforts in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia."

Once these individuals gained prominence in the Bush administration, they got the war that they had been planning for over a decade. We, the Americans, got turmoil, debt, national disgrace and death and injury for our young men and women.

So clearly, you aren't very interested in promoting good dialog with the "secular or progressive" Israelis. I have to say that I think that's a double standard--or are you saying that the Israelis are all bad, but you still have hope for the Muslims who only have a few bad people? Or is it merely that you think good dialog is possible with some Muslims, but not with any Jews?

No. The last really useful Israeli we could have worked with was assassinated, which is quite revealing in itself.

I propose we deal with the Israelis with the same careful, self-interested and guarded diplomacy as we deal with the Arab and Muslim governments. I am suggesting the same standards, not double standards.

There is a great amount of anti-Israeli sentiment on the left. Not only do I think it's unjustified, but I also think this double standard is bewildering. Furthermore, it is increasingly bewildering to me why Jewish people in this country who support the nation of Israel continue to vote on the left.

They believe the liberalism, multi-culturalism and secularism of the Democratic party are most beneficial to the Jewish community here in America. Since the overall policy of the Democratic party is pro-Israel (look at Hilary Clinton!), they have nothing to lose.