Things I don't get

So Rupert decides to apologize for the imfamous "chimpanzee" cartoon depicting the author of the stimulus package as the chimpanzee that went on a rampage in Connecticut last week and was ultimately shot and killed by the cops.

Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.

Rev. Al and a lot of folks both black and white were understandably upset by the implication that President Obama be shot, I guess so a better stimulus package could be written.

I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation.

One thing I don't get is how you're supposed to pick that up from the cartoon. The whole thing read to me like a non-sequitur where cartoonist Sean Delonas just drew 2 cops standing over a dead chimpanzee and then filled in the word balloon with whatever happened to be the news of the day.

Here's some possible captions:

Well, it looks like that Global Warming thing is over...

So much for bipartisanship...

Finally, the Knicks can take the Eastern Conference this season.

See, anyone can play.

Another thing I don't get is why editors at the Post decided to turn an easy opportunity to defuse the situation into a swipe at Sharpton and virtually anybody on the Post's enemies list:

However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past - and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

To them, no apology is due.

Really? So the Post is doing so well that they can afford to indulge in the exercise of pissing off some or all of its readership just to look like they aren't capitulating to Al Sharpton?

I would think that Rupert would be interested in any high-profile activities undertaken by one of his less-than-profitable subsidiaries that stood to not only maintain that status, but also endanger his more profitable ones. That is, unless he's not so much the pragmatic moneyman his apologists claim him to be.

But that's not all I don't get. If it's the position of Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, et. al., that Delona's cartoon was tantamount to a call for assassination, why aren't they going after this guy:

He's going to destroy this country and we're either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.

That guy is well-known lunatic Alan Keyes, but unfortunately, I haven't heard anything about Al Sharpton picketing him.