As mentioned this morning in an earlier post, John Pritchett and I published a little book back in 1992 that combined his fabulous caricatures with some of my short political essays.
Although a number of the political characters have moved off the public stage, a few remain, including veterans like Neil Abercrombie, Ben Cayetano, Mufi Hannemann, Keith Kaneshiro, and Donna Kim. And some of Pritchett’s drawings are as spot-on today as they were 22 years ago.
These two that I scanned today out of a copy of the 1992 book, “Drawn & Quartered, Hawaii Politics Rendered,” are as timely as ever.
Donna Mercado Kim, now Senate President and a leading candidate for Congress, was at that time a member of the Honolulu City Council. Here’s how I described her:
“Kim has a combative, aggressive, and sometimes sarcastic style as well as a sharp tongue, often attacking those presenting public testimony or tangling with her fellow Council members. And she is no slouch in the fundraising department….”
And here’s how Pritchett drew her, whip and all.
Then there’s his take on Honolulu’s rail transit. Remember, this dates from 1992. Amazingly, the things he focused on have changed so little that it could have been drawn this week.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That rail cartoon is amazing! 1992!?
It’s amazing to me, too! Although from decades past, it reads like last night’s exhortation from the ghost of rail yet to come.
Makes it all seem worthwhile. No matter the outcome, it’s a worthy cause.
Donna Mercado Kim = priceless. the head size is exact.
The cartoon seems to imply that rail development will somehow be responsible for the problem of homelessness. The last couple of decades has shown us that the homeless population grew by leaps and bounds quite nicely w/o the presence of rail to use as a scapegoat.
An alternate interpretation could be that the artist was attempting to dispel the idealized image some appear to hold of rail by reflecting the reality that exists in other areas served by such transit systems, which is that some rail systems attract unsheltered populations who spend a great deal of their time at or near stations or riding the often climate controlled trains back and forth all day.
This presents what is seen by some as an inconvenience to travel by rail. To many people, it’s a minor one, while other borderline transit choosers may be driven back to their cars.
On the other hand, I can’t deny that we too have extremists among us and perhaps extremist views that sneak past others of us and so it may be that part of the artist’s work may reflect unfounded, unfair arguments made against rail. I can’t say for sure. In my own experience, I don’t recall it being a prominent rail opposition argument. Discussions I’ve come across have been more about attracting than creating. I agree that the drawing could be seen as implying both. However, I’m not sure how the artist could have remedied this without leaving out that part of his vision entirely.
The cartoon also shows raw sewage being dumped untreated. The point is that basic services might languish.
I AGREE with “Plentynothing’s” take on Pritchett’s cartoon and add my own:
The new rail system is going to consume a large amount of our shrinking tax dollar base (aging population, slowing economy) that some would argue is better spent on upgrades to an aging sewage infrastructure and basic city services, like police, fire, ambulance, and homelessness.
Just learned the 10 mile segment from Kapolei to Aloha Stadium is expected to be completed in 2017. Wow!
And when it’s all done will there be a convenient rail route that is better than using the bus or my car?
Okay, then let’s go with Plentynothing’s interpretation for a moment. Namely, that rail development would “attract” problems shown in the cartoon, like homelessness, increased traffic, shortage of parking, and sewage spills.
Pritchett drew that cartoon in ’92. And guess what folks? The anti-rail faction GOT THEIR WISH as the City Council voted the rail tax down.
So in the 20-some odd years that followed, has the absence of rail curbed the homeless population? Did it decrease road traffic? Did it ease parking woes in dense areas? Did it stop the discharge into the Ala Wai Canal in ’05? The honest answer to those questions are no, no, no, and Heck no!
I’ll make the discordant comment here. Far from being prophetic, Pritchett’s anti-rail cartoon looks downright silly today. If it had been published in the last couple of years, people would have mocked it as all of the ills that are being pinned on the rail project are problems that have been steadily getting worse without the presence of rail.
People who happen to be opposed to rail are obviously entitled to expressing their opinion. I just wish that they would stick to points of substance instead of resorting to unfounded, alarmist arguments like what is illustrated here. Because, guess what? Stopping rail 22 years ago didn’t magically stop mainland big city woes from eventually making its way to this island.
in short:
1) rail does not cause all problems.
2) rail does not solve all problems.
a person who cannot find some bargaining area in between 1) and 2) has closed their mind, tossed the key and turned rail into a religious discussion. it would be easier to discuss the matter with a falling-down drunk.
Ian – What the heck? You cant see thats a completely sexist caricature? Im not defending the very nature of DMK – but this is totally NOT and you, of all people, should know better.
*totally NOT OK…
hipoli –
yes, even in the year 2014, we can still enjoy jokes. we can enjoy jokes about men. and we can enjoy jokes about women too. and we will.
you can call anything “NOT OK” as long and as loud as you like. but that doesn’t make you a god who can set so-called rules for everyone to follow. that cartoon is a cartoon and it’s hilarious. and yes, i’m male. if that offends you, then i am required to watch Mad Men for 100 hours. or would that be sexist too?
i often see *political* cartoons of Obama with a huge smile and dark skin. i guess that must be racist. that cartoonist HAS to be banned from all basketball games for at least 1 year. my capitalization makes this so.
Speaking of the Donna Kim caricature – yes, even back then, she was the kind of person who wasn’t afraid to ask tough questions and could make you look foolish if you weren’t prepared. Does that make her worthy of being portrayed as a dominatrix? I… don’t know. In light of the kind of behavior that Faye Hanohano and Tom Berg has displayed in recent years, I would say that few people today would perceive Kim’s behavior as being crass or inappropriate. If Donna asking tough questions and holding officials accountable makes her a figurative dominatrix in some people’s eyes,.. well. (MRC Greenwood and the UH BOR might agree. LOL!) But in the context of today’s politics, some people might scratch their heads and wonder if that cartoon was published today. And like Hipoli, maybe they would think that cartoon of MDK (who has a background as a model) is sexist.
Like the rail cartoon, I think the DMK caricature is somewhat dated. Being a longtime observer of local politics, I “get it.” I’m personally not offended it. But nonetheless, it is dated.
“dated”????? hmmmmmm…..
(can’t wait to hear a reasonable explanation for this *appropriate* behavior by Senator Kim.)
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, May 22, 2013
State Senate President Donna Mercado Kim acknowledged Tuesday that she called University of Hawaii President M.R.C. Greenwood last spring to ask about the status of her son’s application to law school, but she denied that she was angry or claimed law school administrators were incompetent.
Greenwood, who is retiring from the university in September, referred to Kim’s telephone call in an interview broadcast by Hawaii News Now on Monday in which she described her deteriorating relationships with the state Legislature and Gov. Neil Abercrombie.
Greenwood said Kim was “quite upset and angry” last spring that her son had not heard from UH about whether he had been admitted to law school and that Kim questioned the competency of law school administrators.
“And I think her exact words were, ‘If I don’t get the answers I’m expecting, you can expect to be answering these questions in front of the Legislature next year,'” Greenwood said.
She said she called the law school dean and eventually discovered that Kim’s son, Micah Aiu, had never applied. “And I had the pleasure of telling the senator that,” Greenwood said, adding that Kim was “not very happy.”
Greenwood related her account of the incident in the context of explaining that she should have picked up the signs that Kim would investigate the university. Kim led the Senate’s hearings last year to review the university’s handling of a Stevie Wonder concert scam. But asked by Hawaii News Now whether she thought Kim had an “ax to grind” during the investigation because of the inquiry about her son, Greenwood responded, “I think that would be a stretch.”
Kim (D, Kalihi Valley-Moanalua-Halawa) disputed key details of Greenwood’s account. She said she called Greenwood “as a mother” when she had doubts about whether her son had applied to law school. She said, during that time, it was not unusual for her and the university president to talk with each other.
Kim said she was not asking for any special treatment, was not angry at Greenwood or the university, did not call law school administrators incompetent and did not threaten any investigation. “I was very surprised and thought it was unfortunate that a person of the president’s stature would resort to misrepresenting our conversation,” she said.
Kim said Greenwood called her back and informed her there was no application from her son on file with the law school. Kim said her son later explained that he did not apply, but had said he applied to appease her.
Micah Aiu has since been accepted to the law school and starts later this year.
Lynne Waters, a UH spokeswoman, said Greenwood stands by what she said in the interview.
Well “t”, if the example you cite constitutes latter-day justification for DMK being portrayed as a dominatrix, then what about folks like Rida Cabanilla, Romy Cachola, and Rod Tam? I’ve not seen any cartoon portrayals of them dressed provocatively, despite their ethical lapses. So I ask this question again. How would people perceive the DMK cartoon if it was published in today’s present-day political climate? Why portray DMK in tight leather, but not Cabanilla? Once again, would some people think the answer has to do with DMK’s physical appearance? This is where charges of sexism might come up.
To make it clear, I understand the original context of the cartoon. Yes, DMK was oftentimes the most difficult member of the Honolulu City Council to deal with in the early ’90s. And that perception might very well have been heightened by the contrast provided by Rene Mansho, the only other female councilmember at the time. If DMK was perceived as being tough-as-nails and somewhat aloof during the sessions, Mansho was Aunty Aloha personified. Always smiling and approachable. And yet, one of them is on the cusp of getting elected to Congress. The other will forever have to live down a criminal conviction.
well “Allen”…..
http://www.pritchettcartoons.com/zippys.htm
my recommendation:
always google *before* you post.
😀
(i find Tam’s mustache to be very provocative. in comparison, Donna is most unappealing. btw, what is with the DMK? do people really call her that in real life?)
and very appealing:
http://www.pritchettcartoons.com/corrupt.htm
and the following may not be suitable for anyone:
http://atomicmonkey.wordpress.com/tag/hawaii-political-cartoon/
(Ian, i promise: this is the last one……..)