tomndebb wrote
I’m a fan of neither Falwell nor Limbaugh, so no I didn’t write to either. Had you posted such a complaint I wouldn’t have stood up for either. But you have stood up for Mr. Trudeau, really on the same complaint. Is that the best you can do, “Falwell does it too, so that makes it ok”?
Ukulele Ike wrote
Jeez. I honestly don’t know what to say. Is that your idea of something valuable? Creative? Factual? Funny, even?
Yes, it would not. The statement that Bush’s IQ is 91 has no real meaning. All IQ tests measure differnt things, rank people differently, and have been pretty well discredited. The message of the cartoon was that Bush is dumb, and people’s opinions regarding that issue will be swayed by his performance, not some numbers printed in the funny papers.
By the way, if you think the funny pages are this dangerous, it hate even to mention…bumper stickers!
Trudeau spread a number of lies about Dan Quayle, too, and nobody called him on it. Now he is trying it out on Bush Jr.
Does he have the right to express his political opinions? Sure. Does he have the right to do this using lies? Of course not. Will he get away with it? Sure. Could he get away with it if he were conservative instead of liberal? Not a chance.
It is OK for liberals to be dishonest, because they have Correct Thoughts. This is 90% of why Clinton got away with all that he did, even though he lied under oath and obstructed justice in a sexual harassment case. Contrast that to the treatment Clarence Thomas got when Anita Hill lied about him.
More liberal dishonesty. Gosh, what a surprise.
Regards,
Shodan
Point of order, sir. In case you hadn’t heard, Anita Hill didn’t lie.
stoid
custard dragon wrote
This is your opinion, and is debatable. In fact many (perhaps most) experts in the area disagree with your statement. More importantly, I think you’ll agree this is not the view of the average person. And Mr. Trudeau’s message was aimed at a far broder audience than exclusively you. When the average person hears the message “Scholars have estimated Bush to have an IQ of 91” the immediate thought is not “IQ has no real meaning”. It is “Experts have concluded that Bush is an idiot”. As was the design of the message. And that message is based on a lie.
Please see my comments regarding advertising. It is naive to believe that words do not cause actions.
Speaking of lies…does the name David Brock ring a bell?
Thanks for posting that.
My favorite quote, from just a glance:
From the mouths of conservatives…
The question of honesty and advocacy affects Trudeau directly. His strip is on most newspaper editorial pages for a good reason. It is recognized that he is attempting to influence the reader’s opinion of his targets. He attempts to do it using humor in its many forms, but he is attempting to do it.
It also should be recognized that one of his weapons of choice is in his use of facts. He’ll make declarations of facts and then use those facts to create a logical argument that ridicules his target of the day. Therefore, it is important to his credibility that his facts be, well, factually correct.
These sound like obvious points, but when posters are contending that a) you shouldn’t take what Trudeau says seriously because it’s a comic strip and that b) facts are not important when making your point, I have to object. Trudeau bases his moral position of the day precisely because he is offering facts. Witness his latest objections to “Star Wars” missle tests because the Army had to rig the tests in order to make the test work. As a newspaper copy editor, I can tell you that those facts did not make the initial Associated Press news reports on the tests; it came out days later, partly in “The Economist” and also on Salon.com. Considering that most newspapers in the flyover zone tend to use AP and not the Washington Post or New York Times as their news sources, that’s a considerable body of people who didn’t know what may or may not be a critical fact about the viability of the “Star Wars” program. Most readers may have heard about it for the first time in “Doonesbury.” Whether they’ll believe it or use it to influence their opinion of the system, well, ya got me, Jack. I just write here.
But the strength of Trudeau’s moral position depends a large part on the accuracy of his facts. If the facts are not correct, then he loses support for his moral position. When his facts fail, he becomes just a variation of Mallard Fillmore.
I hate to hijack this thread again, but I need to respond to Stoid
Ignorant, untrue, and immature? Well, given the admittedly small sampling of folks I’ve talked to in e-mail, IRL, and in chat about Chas E, I haven’t met anyone willing to stick up for the guy. Have I canvassed all 17,047 members of the SDMB? Well, no, but I’m willing to bet his posts have alienated a large segment of the board.
Fuckin’ ugly I have no problem with. Anyway, we have
hijacked this thread enough. If you wish to discuss this further, start a new thread, and let’s leave these folks to discuss Trudeau’s merits and the respective IQ’s of Clinton and Bush.
And how come I don’t hear the ladies saying this? It’s just no damn fair! 
Ugly
Valuable, I couldn’t say. Yes, it was creative…a nice mockery of several of your bozo posts to date. Factual, yes. Funny? Of course! Look at how I handled the syntax! I’m quite proud of that!
Looking forward to your response in…uh…fourteen minutes. Don’t you have anything else to do?
Well, with your obvious distaste for logic and bacground facts, I can see why they didn’t put you in charge of GQ or GD. And if they ever open a Comedy Forum, I suspect you’re unqualified there as well.
But at least you spell better than me.
I called to ask my father about some of the political cartoons and cartoonists of the past. I was pretty young when I read “Li’l Abner” and “Pogo” so I asked Dad if they were political satire, and he believes they were. This sort of thing has been going on for years, and will probably continue to do so.
I consider myself to be a liberal, and therefore usually align myself with liberal sorts of cartoons like Trudeau’s (although lately I don’t find it too funny because the whole political situation depresses me). And the conservative ones sometimes make me mad, too.
I am willing to bet that I am unable to be impartial about this subject, and that someone who starts out with a conservative viewpoint, (as I suspect is true in Bill H.'s case) is also unable to be impartial.
Bill H., would you be as upset if someone were stretching a truth or untruth about Clinton?
And while Trudeau is admittedly liberal, he does poke fun at both sides, which I seldom see conservatives do.
I will be interested to hear if Trudeau replies to your letter. Please keep us informed.
Umm, no. You are not a fan of Trudeau but you are making a big deal about a joke. You are not a fan of Limbaugh or Falwell so you did not protest their deliberate lies that they broadcast as truth.
So what you are actually saying is that the facts are irrelevant, (despite your continued protestations), and that actually you are simply mad that it currently your ox being gored.
And it is not the same complaint. Nothing in the strip indicates that the “study” is anything more than another nasty joke on Trudeau’s part. That he borrowed it from a rather little known UL does not make it appear to be a fact.
Pogo was not just political satire. It was the best satirical comic thus far, and unfortunately, probebly will never be matched. You can buy the old books; I highly recommend them.
But please note that Castro ws not actually a Donkey, nor Khruschev a pig, nor McCarthy a mole. These were despicable distortions by the artist.
I don’t see how this would invalidate Tom’s point.
Just out of curiosity, why the hell is everyone basing their ideas about what is acceptable not on any objective standards, but on what the other side did.
“Rush Limbaugh said…, so why can’t Trudeau say…?”
What the fuck does it matter what the conservatives did between 1992 and 2000? Why do conservatives who have never lied get lumped in with David Brock?
Damn that Walt Kelly!! I’m going to write him a letter!!
Bill, I’m sorry you don’t see the humor in Doonesbury. Here’s a tip: it’s a left-leaning comic strip.
Tell you what–you stop reading Trudeau because of his satire, and I’ll stop reading Cal Thomas because of his deliberate lies, m’kay?
Spider Woman wrote
Well, yes I am right-leaning, though in my completely unbiased opinion, not excessively so. But I do regularly read Doonesbury, generally appreciate it, and occasionally even enjoy it. I’ve even coughed up the money to buy a few of his books.
Would I be upset if someone, let’s say George Will, a political commentator that I respect, quoted a fake study about Clinton? Yeah, I would, though I doubt I’d write and complain. And if someone on this board posted something complaining about it (ala the OP), I would not jump to the columns defense, and frankly would be a little ashamed. Facts matter.
Well to a degree. But I’ve never seen him quote fake studies to skewer left-leaning individuals.
Me too! I certainly will.