Help me with a cartoon (again again!)
| May 3rd, 2005So I’m writing a “top ten” cartoon, in a format similar to this cartoon. But I’m stuck - I’ve only got nine ideas I like so far. So, as I do every time I have a problem, I thought “heck, I’ll ask the blog!”
The theme of the cartoon is “TOP TEN REASONS NOT TO REGULATE DANGEROUS CHEMICALS IN COSMETICS.” Here are the nine panel ideas I’m working with right now::
- The free market is perfect. If consumers are buying cancer-causing makeup, then consumers must WANT cancer.
- In France, chemicals in makeup are regulated. You don’t want to be like FRANCE, do you?
- Ya gotta suffer to be beautiful. (HER: “O! My skin is peeling off!” HIM: “Yes, but so smooth!”)
- Until we’re absolutely sure a product causes birth defects, we just can’t risk a slight dip in corporate profits. (EXECUTIVE: “Let’s not rush into anything!”)
- Straight white men don’t wear makeup. (SWM: “So what’s the fuss about?”)
- An industry-funded panel of experts said it’s safe. (Puppet in white lab coat being held by business type: “No problem! Nope! No way!”)
- An industry-funded website concurs. (”If it says so on the internet, it must be true!”)
- Why should test rabbits be the only ones to suffer? (BUNNY: “Share my pain!”)
- A pretty lady like you shouldn’t worry her little head about complex stuff like chemicals! Cootchy-coo!
Please post or email your suggestions! If I use your idea, you’ll get… well, you won’t get anything. Except the warm glow of having helped a cartoonist, of course.
May 3rd, 2005 at 5:11 am
Because anyone who has a bad reaction to the dangerous chemicals is just too sensitive.
Because only loose women wear makeup and they deserve whatever pain they inflict on themselves.
Because chemicals are natural in the sense that all existence is really part of nature.
OK - those are just a few off the top of my head. I’d like to see some of the other ideas!
This comment was written by Barbara Preuninger.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 7:02 am
We don’t want the government controlling makeup!
There’s no mention of regulating makeup in the Bible.
This comment was written by Steven Pierce.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 8:15 am
If you die young, you look better in the coffin.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 8:32 am
Because don’t we all want an atmosphere that’s a complex salad bowl of harmful releases?
This comment was written by Bruce K.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 8:49 am
If cosmetics were safer, more women would use them. If more women used cosmetics, more women would get laid. So, “safe” cosmetics must be curtailed, lest they spark a promiscuity epidemic.
This comment was written by Lindsay Beyerstein.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 9:05 am
Have the last panel be a small picture of some libertarian philosopher, surrounded by a dense text block of libertarian theory - which in this case, would be that the government should do nothing except prevent/punish force and fraud, and as long as the cosmetics are accurately labeled, neither force nor fraud is involved in the cosmetic industry.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 9:25 am
Putting cancer-causing chemicals in makeup is a form of “recycling”, and is thus environmentally correct!
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 9:59 am
#7 should say “internets”. :)
#10 Because not disclosing toxic chemicals in our ingredients protects our intellectual property, which is much more important than your health. (”Just call it ‘fragrance!’”)
This comment was written by jennhi.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:09 am
Because companies will just create new, more dangerous chemicals to stay one step ahead of the regulators.
Because big government is eeeeee-vil! (Okay, poor form to recycle an old panel, but it’s so multi-purpose!)
It would be disrespectful to Buddy Ebsen. Support the Tin Man!
This comment was written by yami.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:12 am
juxtapose the beauty is only skin deep angle: against that old tootsie pop commercial ( many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop)
[man, I’m off to an uber-cranky start to this week aren’t I?]
This comment was written by Ol Cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:24 am
This probably doesn’t help your problem but you just reminded me of the first Batman movie where the Joker kills those newswomen by adding radiation to their lipstick (turning their lips into that huge creepy joker smile on air). Wow, that scene gave me nightmares as a kid.
This comment was written by Egirl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:25 am
Because the economy of Las Vegas depends upon it. (Refer to that woman who got fired for not wearing cosmetics.)
Because we’ve got to put those dangerous chemicals SOMEWHERE.
Because a little danger is sexy.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:49 am
You folks are funny!
My favorites so far are Steven’s “There’s no mention of regulating makeup in the Bible.” and Brian’s “Because the economy of Las Vegas depends upon it.” (Refer to that woman who got fired for not wearing cosmetics.)
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:51 am
Thank you for all your ideas! Please feel free to post more (if you’re so inclined). I may end up dropping a couple of my ideas so I can use more of yours.
Yami, I can’t believe I didn’t think of reusing that “Because big government is eeeeee-vil!” gag! If I did that, it would be a RUNNING gag, which makes it better!
Robert, I think that Yami’s suggestion that I reuse “Because big government is eeeeee-vil!” is about the same as yours, but is funnier. :-P Of course, I’m being unfair to libertarians - but I think that political cartoons are inherantly an unfair genre. Just for the record, the cosmetics industry does not mark anywhere on the packaging when products contain phthalates.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:02 am
We barely regulate it in our food, so who cares what you smear all over your skin?
This comment was written by Luke.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:10 am
“Because the face isn’t the important part of a woman anyway.”
This comment was written by flynngrrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:11 am
…perhaps with an arrow to a uterus. And a “Thanks, Capitol Hill!”
This comment was written by flynngrrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:24 am
Here are a couple more:
Because there’s a long-standing tradition of having dangerous chemicals in makeup. Like in the Renaissance when they used quicksilver (mercury) and lead.
Because if we start regulating dangerous chemicals in makeup, it may be a slippery slope toward regulating dangerous chemicals in our food and water.
This comment was written by Barbara Preuninger.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:25 am
Because it will make it harder when we want to put Botox into all our products if there’s regulation.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:28 am
Because it’s sexy to be dangerous!
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:29 am
I should add that I love the idea of the bunny saying “share my pain”.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:59 am
With a name like phthalates, they have to be good!
This comment was written by Omegapet.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:59 am
Because if it was really dangerous, God will step in to make everything okay. (Just like s/he’ll do with Global warming!)
Because professional wrestlers are not a very powerful special interest group.
This comment was written by BStu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 12:22 pm
“Better dead than too butch to get a man.” :o
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Because when dangerous chemicals are outlawed, only outlaws will have dangerous chemicals.(Maked bandit robbing a citizen with a lipstick while the victim curses “If only those pinko liberals hadn’t taken my eyebrow pencil, I could defend myself!)
Because without chemicals, life itself would be impossible.
Because it gives the phrase “Extreme Makeover” real bite.
Because it gets dangerous chemicals out of our air and water and back on our faces where they belong.(Lipstick, eyeliner, and mascara- our weapons in the battle against toxic waste.)
Because it lends a macho appeal to men’s cosmetics. (”Hell, I’m a-risking six types of pancreatic cance with this here foundation.” “Oh you savage brute, take me now!)
This comment was written by robin ruse.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Because 9/11 changed things.
This comment was written by The Rover.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 1:17 pm
“Becuase the Center for Consumer Freedom is against it.” (Self Portrait: “I believe all of their stuff about junk food…”)
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Because we have to suffer to be beautiful….
This comment was written by syfr.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Because Michael Jackson deserves to be poisoned!
This comment was written by Jack Bog.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 6:03 pm
Because without it your significant other may know what you actually look like?
This comment was written by Ol Cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Who says natural is better? (Poison ivy is natural, but it’s hell on your complexion. )
This comment was written by Sundre.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 6:54 pm
well geez, how will we know how dangerous those chemicals really are unless we start lathering them all over our faces? We’re doing this for Science!!
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 7:26 pm
Because the DMCA* prevents this unwanted IP* disclosure
*(Digital Millenium Cosmetics Act)
This comment was written by Larry Wright.**(Imminent Peril)
Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Why do you hate beauty? (Guy in wifebeater: What are you, a lesbian?)
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:25 pm
I think Barbara’s “slippery slope” line is the best one.
This comment was written by LAmom.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:30 pm
Because without a truly free market, the economy as we know it would collapse.
Because it’s unpatriotic to deny companies the right to pursue their happiness.
Think of the CEOs! (Or shareholders.)
Toxic chemicals: not just for breakfast anymore!
This comment was written by Rana.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2005 at 12:05 am
Because soon or later the free market will, entirely by itself, reach a balanced state in which only totally safe cosmetics are produced. There is no need for regulations.
This comment was written by Özgür.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2005 at 5:09 am
Dupont says “better living through chemicals” the comestic industry says “more beautiful living through chemicals”
This comment was written by Ol Cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2005 at 7:01 am
Now that we’ve phased out the death tax, there is no longer a downside to dying.
This comment was written by Richard Bellamy.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Well, I’m afraid I’m not up to the level of some of the excellent cynicism here. But I was thinking that a dismissive corporate line could be along the lines of “it’s not like you’re eating it!” (perhaps a variant of the “beauty is only skin deep” approach…)
This comment was written by acm.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Oh man, everyone’s ideas are so great!
Not to be…umm…a stick in the mud, but some straight white males do wear makeup–at least some of the ones I know. Granted they’re all a little glam-goth, but ya know…
This comment was written by Jen.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Zindel in a row to remind me that the way I’ve decided to draw his coat and hat is a total pain in the neck. :-) Right now, I really like panel 9. The color isn’t done yet, and finishing that has to take a back-seat to other things (my day job, the new Dollars and Sense cartoon) right now, but I hope to update with a color version in a day or two.
This comment was written by Barry's Livejournal.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
I think Barbara’s “slippery slope” one could use tighter wording. Aside from that, that one, and Omar’s “Why do you hate beauty?” are my favorites.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Phatal Attraction .. phatalities… something.
This comment was written by arbitrary aardvark.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Feel free to tighten the wording on the slippery slope comment, if you use it. You could probably take off the whole first half of it.
This comment was written by Barbara Preuninger.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Neither do straight black men nor bull dykes (stereotypically), but hey, it’s your meme, just blame the ones consistent with it.
This comment was written by Mikko.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
We only use carbon-based, therefore organic, chemicals.
This comment was written by Kija.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Because you achieve better living through chemisty. Don’t you know that?
This comment was written by Kija.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
By the way, I used to canvass for single-payer health care and heard many of those top tens. However, you are missing some great ones:
1) Underwriters and insurance brokers would be laid off, damaging the economy. (I responded, so we should get rid of the cars because they displaced blacksmith?)
2) If everyone had health insurance, there would be no incentive for diet and exercise. It encourages an unhealthy life style.
3) Universal health insurance would eliminate the incentive to work. (huh?)
4) With universal health insurance, even criminals and addicts get health care. That’s just wrong!!!
I could go on for hours listing the idiotic reasons people gave for opposing single-payer, though the most wicked (and only mentioned once) was the one from an idiot in Cedar Hills who said that one of the perks of her job was knowing that she got health insurance and folks under her at work didn’t.
This comment was written by Kija.Report this comment to the moderators
March 6th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Great blog, we all need to educate our kids on what they can apply on the skin. Be natural, feel natural!!!
This comment was written by Gemma.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
[…] Anyway, I’m inspired by Barry over at Alas, a Blog, who earlier in the week “asked the blog” for help, and got it. He was looking for ideas to round out a cartoon he was drawing, and he got some amusing ones from his dedicated readers. […]
This comment was written by Gloria Weblog » Blog Archive ».Report this comment to the moderators