In the Dark Ages, when The One Called Nixon was parking his butt in the seat “Landslide” George now occupies, there yet was no “Doonesbury”, but there was “Pogo”, fondly remembered by many.
In one particularly delicious set of images, Spiro Agnew was depicted as a dog-like animal dressed in the comic-opera get up that Nixon was foisting on the “Palace Guard” of the White House.
Several days after the first, I noticed a testy letter to the paper, protesting that the dignity of the Vice Presidency was besmirched by the unpatriotic rendering of Agnew as a dog.
Several days later came a corrective letter from a zoologist at the U. of Minn. He pointed out that the charicature was very exactingly rendered, that it was easy to identify precisely what sort of animal was being portrayed. By the muzzle shape and distinctive markings, it was clear that Agnew as not shown as a dog, but as a hyena.
I wouldn’t live those days over again if I could do it rich and good-looking, but there were moments.
I’m afraid you’ve completely misinterpreted the OP. Humor or lack thereof are not even mentioned.
There’s that line again: “Well if Thomas does it, it’s ok if Trudeau does”. Equally importantly, you’ve waved over my complaint without a specific counter-complaint. If you have a specific issue with a specific Thomas column, please open a thread. I’d love to look it over and comment. But this isn’t a thread about Cal Thomas, andros.
That’s true, now that I think of it. Wiley Cat or some such. My impression was that initially he used the regular characters of Mole and Deacon Mushrat to express the John Birchish positions, but eventually invented the Wiley Cat to specifically represent McCarthy.
Much like IQ, functional vocabulary counts vary considerably, but the word counts given seem ridiculously low. IIRC the average high school students is somewhere between 15, 000 and 20, 000, and the average for an experienced professional is around 40, 000.
No shit. It’s about your whining about those awful slurs on someone you like. I notice you’ve pulled away from your original stance that Trudeau’s a jerk because he’s spreading a UL. Now if you can just cope with the fact that Trudeau’s satirising the president, all will be well.
Come on, Bill, do you honestly believe that people are getting their news from Doonesbury? Or taking it as fact? Sheesh,
Huh? a) I’m not whining. b) slurs don’t bother me. c) I’m not a Bush fan. (although I’m not a Bush hater either.)
Did you even read the OP? It was about a political comentator quoting an urban legend as fact. If you don’t have a problem with that, go forth and be happy in your fact-free world. Ah, but from your posts, I see you do have a problem with that.
You have a problem with political commentators spreading untruths, but just with the ones that don’t agree with you, and even then you can’t seem to find an actual example. When someone says “Person X tells deliberate lies”, without naming lies, now that’s whining. And when someone says “Person X tells deliberate lies, therefore it’s ok for my guy to also lie”, well, that’s rationalization.
Yes, I do expect that people look for fact from their political commentators. I certainly expect as much from them. As I say, if you’re happy that it’s not factual that’s fine. A stark admission, “I don’t care if my political commentators lie as long as they spread the message I like” would be preferable. Can you say that for me?
In calculating Bush’s functional vocabulary, do the following words and phrases count?:
“nucular”, “subliminable”, “misunderestimate”, “resignate” (as in resonate), “breast and brightest”, “exemplarary”, “analyzation”, “emotionality”, and so on and so on. Or maybe these are the “special words” of which you speak, custard?
<hijack>
An occasional misstated comment or mispronounced word now and again does not an idiot make. But Bush has consistenly shown that he has, at best, slippery grasp of the spoken word. As such, I am willing to believe that Bush’s IQ is at best91. Texas is hard-pressed to execute someone as seemingly slow as Bush, yet they send him to the White house. Go figure.
I sincerely believe that history will prove George W. to be the least intelligent, least articulate, and least tactful person of the post-industrial age to even set foot in the Oval Office. And that includes Dan Quayle, Billy Carter, and Roger Clinton
</end hijack>
Bill H: *Did you even read the OP? It was about a political comentator quoting an urban legend as fact. *
Land of mercy, Bill, he didn’t “quote it as fact”! He used it in a comic strip for humorous and rhetorical effect! You might as well complain that Trudeau also lied about Bill Clinton trying to hit on a marriage counselor after the Monica scandal, or about the dean of Yale University asking to join Zonker’s commune, or about Jimmy Carter’s having an official Director of Symbols, or about Kissinger arguing with students in his lecture class about the Vietnam War—all of which are situations that Trudeau has depicted in his strip with no qualifiers or disclaimers at all. (Why, in the very strip your OP is complaining about, he also represented Bush as saying “I don’t have any writings!” when in fact Bush coauthored with Karen Hughes the biography A Charge to Keep! I didn’t hear you complaining about that part—why not?) Face it, Doonesbury constantly presents exaggerated, distorted, or flat-out imaginary versions of reality, even when it involves real people in political life as well as Trudeau’s own imaginary characters, and the readers are expected to be able to sort out the facts from the made-up stuff for themselves.
You’re trying to say that statements appearing in the panels of a comic strip which is well known for presenting completely zany “parallel realities” should be held to the same standards of accuracy as the assertions of political commentators who claim to be presenting the facts. That is so bizarrely nutty that I wish Trudeau would do a strip about it. (“Damn it, Zonker, how could you have let a misrepresentation like that get past the fact checkers? What do you think this is, some kind of comic strip?” “I know, Mike, I know, but that was the Saturday that new Colombian weed came in…” Yeah, I know it’s not very funny when I do it. Who do you think I am, Garry Trudeau?)
Of course facts matter, which is why I don’t look for facts in a comic strip by a cartoonist who pretends to be presenting a conversation that took place in the Oval Office between the President of the United States and one of his senior advisers. Now, if Trudeau had actually been discussing that IQ “study” in some forum where he was expected to make factual statements—say, if he were doing a serious interview with a journalist—and tried to claim that it was true that Bush’s IQ was only 91 and Clinton’s was 182, I’d be right there with you commenting “what a credulous, prejudiced dork”. But complaining that it’s being presented as truth in the bizarro Looking-Glass Land of the Doonesbury comic strip? Ridiculous.
It seems like this is pretty played out. Some people get their facts from comic strips and others get them from reputable sources. You’re not likely to get the comic strip researchers to change and I’m never going to do my research in the comics. So be it.
Hmmm. I just did a search at IMDB on “Betty Ann Boopstein.” No hits.
I’m Googling Walden College or University . . . nope.
How about Baby Doc Medical School? Mmmmm . . . no, nothing there.
Well, fuck. I wonder what’s going on? Gee, you’d almost think a comic strip like Doonesbury was, well, fictional. Bill, he didn’t present the goddamn UL as fact, any more than he did the trip into Reagan’s brain. He is not in the business of fact. He is not a journalist. Sure, there might be some people who are stupid enough to believe what they read in a comic strip. Those people deserve what they get.
You don’t take every comic strip at face value. At least, I assume you don’t. Why this one, and why now? Again, I can only assume it’s because it’s striking too close to home for you.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jackmannii *
In that case, let’s move Doonesbury back to the funny pages next to Mallard Fillmore. They’re just cartoons.
For what ever it’s worth, the local paper has done just that. Mallard suffers in the juxtaposition.
My favorite Doonesbury’s are from the late 70s and early 80s. One was Jerry Brown’s run for President and the other was John Warner’s Senate experience with Liz Taylor. Brown had a reputation as a liberal and Warner as a moderate to conservative. I’m a liberal, but have always disliked Jerry Brown’s political performance. (I think his father was great). The squewering Brown took is unmatched by anything else Trudeau has ever done to a real person (unless you count Uncle Duke’s exploits as messing with Hunter Thompson, but it is only loosely based.) Satire and comics allow license, otherwise it is reporting. Anyone who couldn’t spot the IQ survey for an Urban Legand the first time they saw it should stay away from Nigerian investment schemes and kidney thieves. I don’t care for W’s (the Weakest Link) politics at all, and I think he is functionally illiterate and probably a drunk. I’ve seen flashes of quickness when he is engaged in verbal sparring, but I’ve never seen anything in him that would lend to the conclusion that he can hold two thoughts in his head at once, or genuinely consider something that disagrees with his preconceived assumptions. I watched Quayle for 4 years and while he certainly had the deer in the headlights look at times, Quayle clearly could do all these things, but not with the fluidity of someone as quick and well educated as Clinton.