I dunno. Your choice of sigs marks you as extremely intelligent in my book.
Aw, the poor Normal is jealous.
Squink, please share where you found that.
Not, of course, that there’s any thing wrong with being conversative.
Cecil’s stated purpose is fighting ignorance. Trudeau’s purpose is making his readers laugh. It was meant to be funny. It was not meant to be taken seriously. I really don’t think Trudeau is expecting people to take these numbers as fact. It’s a joke!
Do you have this reaction when you see a stand-up comic?
I’m afraid I’m going to start ignoring “facts don’t matter” posts in this thread. Sorry, spooje.
My first reaction was similar to Bill H.’s when I saw that the cartoon was using the fake IQ list. “Come on”, I thought, “surely Trudeau knows this is phony”.
(slight hi-jack) As I was reading it, I kind of expected that the aide would console the pres by telling him that the study wasn’t real, but then the pres wouldn’t quite grasp why it didn’t matter that the study was fake. Now that would have been funny! Well, to me, anyway. 
But it is a joke (or a comic, anyway) and I doubt that many are going to confuse it with genuine sources of information. Still, I would have liked to have seen the “study” acknowledged as a fake. And since Trudeau often carries a story line across several strips, it’s possible we’ll see more from him on the phony IQs. If so, it may be interesting to see how it’s handled.
Ugly
In comedy, they don’t. Because, strange as it may seem, facts are not often funny. And if a comic strip isn’t funny, what’s the fucking point?
See, in an effort to be amusing, authors will often exaggerate, stretch, and ocassionally disregard facts. They expect people with a sense of humor to understand this.
Uh, did that mean ‘opinions of those that agree with me’?
Why is it, in this roomful of people bragging about their High IQs and Trudeau using an Urban Legend in a cartoon, that no one seems to recall how he very recently had the reporter character Rick Redfern do an “expose`” on the fellow who supposedly posted a map of Caribou Migrations in ANWR and was fired for it?
Which, of course, while not entirely a crock of shit, was predominantly wrong.
Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/maps.htm
And when national news caught on that the story had, shall we say, been somewhat overblown, Trudeau simply dropped the storyline and went on to something else.
As to the OP, I say, let 'em think GWB is a dunderhead. Remember, Reagan won us the Cold War, while being accused of falling asleep all the time.
And just because Clinton may have been smart, in no way makes up for lying, philandering, perjury, and in general just debasing the entire Office Of The President Of the United States.
One problem with the “it’s just a cartoon” argument is that Trudeau ran a Sunday strip back in the early 90’s ('92-'95, probably), in which he slammed Rush Limbaugh for making up his “facts”. If he’s going to insist that other political hacks, whether they call themselves entertainers or not, keep their facts straight, he should be held to the same standard.
–sublight.
Uh, Chas E., I* am* in Mensa, but I don’t brag about it. IQ is merely a number, and a badly derived one, at that. I suggest you read Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man for a discussion of the flaws of intelligence testing.
If you want to impress me, Chas E, tell me about the friends you have, the places you’ve been, the woman you love, and what makes you joyful. Those tell me a hell of a lot more about your worth as a human being than your IQ.
Besides, if you were as intelligent as you claim, you would have picked up by now that you are universally detested on this board. Up to now, you have been singularly clueless on that point.
Bill H, I apologize for the hijack. I now return you to your regularly scheduled rant.
I can’t help but think that the expectation of accuracy should be different for a radio “newstalk” show than for a cartoon in the Sunday funny pages.
For all of you who may be confused:
Dogs and cats can’t talk.
Cavemen weren’t Bible thumpers.
Wizards and witches can’t actually perform magic.
Well, except that Rush does present his views as “facts” and neither corrects himself when caught in a lie nor laughs it off as “it was a joke”. Given that Rush purports to be “telling the truth” while Trudeau is unabashedly “making a statement,” Trudeau has no obligation to be as factually honest as he demands of Rush.
If he provided one of his periodic footnotes and it turned out that the quote was in error, I would hold him to the same standard of factual integrity on that occasion. Otherwise, I am afraid that I do not expect the audience of the man who gave us a tour of Reagan’s brain to look in his work for historical accuracy.
Doonesbury is not in the Sunday funny pages in my newspaper (and several papers around the country)…it’s printed on the Op/Ed page.
Comparing Doonesbury to Peanuts or Broom Hilda…just because they all use drawn characters is a bit naieve.
Regardless of the merits of the OP…treating Doonesbury like all other cartoons is the same as comparing Limbaugh with Click & Clack, because they both are on the radio.
Daily comics are one medium among many using drawn figures. Most people are aware of the history and tradition behind this medium. Anyone who claims that daily comics could be seen by rational people as part of the news is being disingenuous. If the full color strip does appear on the OP/ED page (frankly this seems unlikely) it is even clearer that this is an opinion, not a news story. There are a lot of people out there using made up facts to support opinions across the spectrum in serious OP/ED pieces. It just seems strange to attack a comic, which is clearly a meant to be a JOKE.
But, being forewarned, the next time I tell a political joke, I will preface it with a disclaimer so that no one confuses it with news.
As far as your radio comparison is concerned, radio stations, much like different sections of the newspaper, have formats that identify them. It is as likely that one should confuse Click and Clack with the news as it is that one should confuse the news page with the comics. That having been said, your specific example perplexes me. Why should I not compare Rush Limbaugh with Click and Clack? Both are principally comedic call in shows with a little information thrown in between jokes. Really, the relationship between them is very much like the relationship between two comic strips - Similar formats, different subject matter.
When presented with an incontrovertable falsehood, Limbaugh has frequently defended himself by saying he’s just an entertainer and therefore isn’t bound by the same standards as other folks. Also, Trudeau is a lot closer to Thomas Nast than to Bil Keane; his intent is usually to draw attention to what he believes to be political or social wrongs in need of righting. As such, he has a greater responsibility to check his facts than guys who draw lasagna-eating cats.
Cripes, I can’t believe I’m actually defending Limbaugh vs. Trudeau.
My biggest complaint is that he’s taking an urban legend and spreading it around.
What’s next? Is he going to say that Bill Gates is going to give us a free trip to Disneyworld?
Rush Limbaugh is every bit the entertainer that Trudeau claims to be and for him, or others, to claim that he has a different standard of responsibility to be truthful is ludicrous.
Limbaugh is not the news, it’s a forum for him to express himself. He uses humor, wit, and sarcasm to do that. You may not find it funny, but then I don’t find Doonesbury funny either. Apparantly, there are enough people who find both to be funny because they are mass produced.
I have occasionally found Limbaugh to be very funny. However, he does not claim to be mere entertainment. He is a social commentator who claims to be using facts to make his points. His facts are often lies and he has never acknowledged that. Trudeau has very rarely claimed to have been printing facts and he has footnoted those episodes when he did.
After I read this thread I found an IQ test online and did it. I got 110. Well, there goes my 135 theory, huh? I was disappointed in my score and did another one. I got 121. If IQ tests worked, I should have gotten closer scores, don’t you think? Or is 11 a normal difference? I can feel my IQ dropping already.
I didn’t say daily comics are part of the “news”…I did suggest that there is a difference between Doonesbury and Broom Hilda…a difference that causes many newspapers (rightly or wrongly) to place Doonesbury on the op/ed page.
As Tom suggested, Limbaugh is primarily a conservative social commentator (who tries to make his show interesting obviously…to draw ratings) NOT a humorous entertainer like Click & Clack or Garrison Keilor.
To be clear, I don’t necessarily agree with the viewpoint of the OP on this particular Doonesbury strip…I’m not defending that position. I AM suggesting that Doonesbury is not that same kind of strip as Broom Hilda or Peanuts.