One of our informants got a response from Icebox.com, the online animation site responsible for broadcasting Mr. Wong, the controversial cartoon depicting a stereotypical buck-toothed, yellow-skinned, Asian man. We posted this article on Icebox.com's Mr. Wong forum.

People always say, "It's just a cartoon." Or "It's just a movie" or "It's just a novel...(insert your artistic medium here)," whenever they want to avoid controversy. If they are just mere objects, why were there so many artists exiled or assassinated throughout history because of their works?

A lot of "Mr. Wong" supporters are saying exactly that: "It's just a cartoon," and are taunting the Asian community and others who were offended by the series to "get a sense of humor" and to "lighten up."

But it is difficult to lighten up when they push their audience to choose between free speech and their dignity. We have seen the series and we are reacting to what we saw, as a lot of people have as well. The majority, including non-Asians, believe that "Mr. Wong" is disrespectful of the Asian community, the believers of the First Amendment, and those who have faith in the promise of diversity.

Another defense is they are equal opportunity offenders. In their cartoon, depictions of Southern hicks and other stereotypes are also prevalent. We've heard this excuse so many times that it, too, has become a cliche. Why foster hostility in anybody in the first place? Just to press buttons? If so this is a demented need, much like killing a small animal for kicks. Works like these put us two steps back in our progress toward the American promise.

This type of controversy flashes back to Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ", but less so in that Serrano's work reflected how modern society has treated the notions of Christ and how the controversy which surrounded the work over-shrouded the message itself. In all honesty, we cannot find that parallel. We can't find any positive uplifting or deep message ingrained in "Mr. Wong". Maybe we're too dense to get it. The humor completely eludes us. Therein lies the problem; in the end "Mr. Wong" becomes "just a cartoon" with no value nor merit. It is neither good nor bad, just worthless.

We can only conclude that Icebox is feeding on this controversy to jack up the hits on their site. They are hucksters pitching snake oil, fooling both supporters of the cartoon and those who were offended by it to drum up traffic.

Our dilemma: how do we deal with "Mr. Wong" without stepping on the creators' free speech? The idealist in us believes that if "Mr. Wong" has any merit or deeper truth in it, it will survive and propagate, and maybe eventually open our eyes to its altruistic nature and humor (we'd have better chances playing the lotto). The realistic intellect in us believes we shouldn't patronize those who disrespect our common dignity, but keep a very vigilant watchful eye on them until they go away. The revolutionists in us say, "smash the fuckers."

Which one do we follow? We guess it depends on the kind of day we're having.