Today’s cartoon is not just about Mac Maharaj, as I’m sure readers will have figured out. It’s about the right to know. Information that is in the public interest, such as the presidential spokesman’s millions of rands in arms deal backhanders, must not be hidden from the public.

If Big Mac has nothing to hide, then why is he desperately trying to hide stuff?

I remember seeing breasts in animated cartoons. But I don’t remember which animated cartoons because, ironically, I was very young. And I certainly don’t remember seeing breasts in Where’s Wally? books. (Then again, it’s remarkably difficult to see anything in Where’s Wally? books, including Wally.)

Here’s something I didn’t know.

This edition (above) was banned, in the early 90s, by the American Library Association who received a few complaints by offended mothers who, not only found Wally, but also found a tiny bare breast on a tiny tanning woman. In a later re-released edition, the disgustingly pornographic side-boob was edited so that onlooking kids (and moms) won’t feel violated by such filth.

If this sort of thing isn’t nipped in the bud, then who knows the kind of cesspool in which our children might end up.

Today, Where’s Wally?
Tomorrow, Where’s Willy?

Some European guy, called Paul Mutant, painted this acrylic-on-canvas.

And it’s sheer genius.

It’s likely that you’ve tried to, say, watch a particular YouTube video, only to be blocked by a ridiculous copyright disclaimer that makes little sense in today’s internet age.

As previously highlighted, the government is considering banning alcohol advertising in an attempt to lower abuse relating to booze. Of course, the decision would be absurdly misguided because there is no conclusive link between alcohol advertising and alcohol abuse.

Studies of advertising bans carried out in the real world (Canada, New Zealand, and Denmark, for example) have shown that they have little or no impact on consumption.

Brands advertise to increase market share and to make a profit. Not to kill consumers. Killing consumers would be a bad business model, if you think about.

What’s important is that there’s a difference between having a few drinks, and beating your wife. A TV commercial might encourage you to buy an Amstel during the rugby game, but smacking your bitch up is a deeper problem that requires psychological attention and group therapy (and, perhaps, removing The Prodigy from your music library, for now).

Abuse occurs – and has always occurred – in spite of advertising.

Furthermore, a drunk driver does not cause an accident because of a Jameson billboard; he causes an accident because he is drunk. And he is drunk because he drank too much. And he drank too much because the Stormers played like arseholes.

Then there’s the economic impact. Have a look at Chris Moerdyk‘s ongoing – and far more extensive – research:

• Loss of above-the-line advertising revenue for mass media would be R1.8billion. Major impact on SABC: approximately R400 million; DStv and e.tv combined: approximately R500 million; the balance – radio, lifestyle magazines, newspapers.
• Total loss of revenue, including sponsorship, sports development leveraging, events and below the line activities – R2.6 billion.
• SA’s potential to host international sporting and commercial events and exhibitions would be compromised, should any of these events have global liquor sponsors (such as Budweiser for the 2010 FIFA World Cup)

Banning alcohol advertising will bump us even closer to Australia a nanny state.