The winner:
"We prefer Harvey Milk."
-- Douglas Cox of Albemarle
The runners-up:
"I don't think we should take on sacred cows."
-- Elton Parker, Charlotte
"We are not cowed by your homophobia."
-- Loyd Dillon, Charlotte
"Today's number is two. Any two."
-- Charles Randall, Cherryville
"No thanks, our one-on-one defense would offend you."
Pete Young, Huntersville
Thanks for all your entries. Here's a selection of some of the other better lines we received:
"You might deflect our shots, but you don't reflect our values."
"You may have height, but we're right."
"Agreed. Loser buys lunch. Where?"
"We're all puppets."
"We can't play under two different sets of rules."
"Here's how it's played: we yell 'boycott', you fall down."
"Dodgeball?"
"Eat more crow!"
"I know we're stuffed, but you're full of it."
"Three on three? I guess Chick-fil-A is coming around."
"Someday you'll find it, the Rainbow Connection."
Please join us again Monday, Aug. 20, for a new cartoon caption challenge.
First, the winning entry was very clever and well deserved. Great take on cows, milk, Harvey Milk and the whole situation.
But what I can't help reading are the large number of other comments that seem to take "shots" at Chickfila (dang, I could have made that into a caption!).
The way I see it, there are ultimately two sides to this story--call it A and B. And i'm actually going to go deeper than just the surface story of CFA vs LGBT.
Side A believes they are funding a charity that aims to help people from sinning (the "it's a choice" side), similar to alcoholic groups. You may laugh at that all you want, but if you can understand that ultimately that's how they see it, you can understand they are ultimately trying to help.
Side B sees it as something you're born with, and therefore you cannot cure what can't be cured. So to them, its infuriating that someone can call what can't be helped "fixable".
Side B sees Side A as a threat, because quality of life is at stake, and they want it to stop. But also, Side A sees Side B as a threat, because the sinner's quality of life is at stake, and they want to help.
And what you have are two very passionate sides attacking each other, using terms like "hate group" or "homophobia" like they get style points with every usage.
These captions, at least the selections of some of the runner ups and best of the rests, seem to take Side B's angle. Whether or not the staff had say 90 Side B's points of views to choose from and only 10 of Side A's, I have no idea, but I certainly hope that's the case. Otherwise, it seems like the CO, or at least the staff that selects these captions, only support one side, not the other.
The bottom line should be respect. Respectful dialogue between the two sides can ultimately lead to less shouting, less name accusations, and harbor good relationships, despite the differences of opinions. I understand the end result is all about equal rights. That is voted on by the people. Shouting won't change someone's mind, and that's ultimately the goal of each side. Because that's what counts when the person you talk to is stepping into the voting booth.
Posted by: Brandon | August 17, 2012 at 10:34 AM
What you see is a fair representation of what we got. And "respectful dialogue" and editorial cartoons usually don't mix well.
Posted by: Kevin Siers | August 17, 2012 at 11:01 AM
Touche, Kevin.
Posted by: Brandon | August 17, 2012 at 11:14 AM
The winner, runners-up, and the other better lines were all great this week. Doug's was unusually clever, and Charles's gave me a chuckle.
Posted by: Carolyn | August 17, 2012 at 01:14 PM
Loyd! and Doug of course very clever and nice link usage Kev. Not sure about the Brandon gentle diatribe, for some reason kept seeing images of those old 45 records from back in the day.
Posted by: Ross Levin | August 17, 2012 at 03:50 PM
Congratulations Doug, I also got a chuckle from the very last better line...
Posted by: suzanne & co. | August 17, 2012 at 08:37 PM