Thank you for the link. Having seen it, I'm surprised he didn't lose his job before now. This is a great lesson in "know your audience". I'm dislike political

Thank you for the link. Having seen it, I'm surprised he didn't lose his job before now. This is a great lesson in "know your audience". I'm dislike political cartoons, but IMO one of the key factors is to make the message blindingly obvious. If there's a more nuanced point, it would probably take more than one cartoon panel to convey. All of the examples on that page have a lot of details that are ambiguous and difficult to parse. All of them depict the "other side" as extremely ugly (even inhuman, in the case of the Patel/Johnson cartoon) in a way that's viscerally uncomfortable for me. Understanding his last cartoon the way he intended it requires knowledge of a different political cartoon from 57 years ago, made for an audience on the other side of the planet. The 57-year-old cartoon is itself impossible to parse correctly, unless someone is very familiar with American politics from that era. How many people in the entire world that aren't political cartoonists themselves understood that reference when first viewing the cartoon? For the vanishingly tiny minority that were willing to look up what "after David Levine" meant, how likely would they be to find the original? If they managed to do so, how likely would they be to understand it correctly, and then apply that understanding back to the cartoon that got Bell fired?