I will grant that, in general, Penguins are funnier than Ducks. Of course, neither are as funny as Weasels which makes me wonder at the state of modern comics that there aren’t more Weasels on the funny pages. (No Johnny Hart jokes, please)
However, I am a liberal. I gladly procclaim that. Tom Tommorow depresses me because he seems to speak primarlily to this new freaky, irony-impaired dark green sock wearing liberal that infests the political arena in my hometown. I don’t find him funny, I don’t find the points he tries to make particularly insightful and I think some of his opinions are beamed in from space by the same satellites that control Lyndon LaRouche.
I don’t get Fillmore(I’ve been on record about this). Every Monday, it consists of latching onto some obscure fact that the author can use to make fun of liberals. He drags this out all week, and the first two panels of every comic that week is just a recap of monday. He seems to be primarly aimed at goldfish or ferrets with ADD.
The Leftersons is SO over-the-top that I just have to laugh. A similar caricature of a conservative family would have them going around in KKK hoods carrying submachine guns for the coming race-war!
Dammit, I planned on naming my son Vladimir Ilyich. I must not be left enough. (If that damn strip lasts a year I wil be very, very upset.)
Anyway - I agree with the sentiment that Tom Tomorrow is a political cartoonist. Political cartoons aren’t supposed to make you laugh, they’re supposed to communicate an idea or a perspective. Tom just does it with more words than most. So no, I don’t laugh like a maniac when I read it on Salon every week, but I certainly find it entertaining. Mallard Fillmore, on the other hand, only runs in the Washington Times around these here parts so it’s quite easy to avoid him.
MF once made drive-it-into-the-ground gags for a week about the Postal Service firing the eagle as its logo (it never happened.) The next week he pounded on the concept of Garry Trudeau “making stuff up!”
[QUOTE] Originally posted by astorian * As a card-carrying right wing nut, I probably SHOULD love “Mallard Fillmore.” I’m in agreement with its political slant 90+ percent of the time, and Bruce Tinsley is a genuinely talented caricaturist, and yet… the strip has made me laugh maybe twice since it started.
As card carrying socialist, he has made me laugh . .well . . . . .ummm . …once . … .I think . .I was drunk. No seriously, Tom Tomorrow and Tinsley are about political satire and NOT about “ha! ha!” punch-line comics. I have laughed at SOME of Tomorrow’s comics, but most of the time I admire the way he uses information with satire. As far as Tisley, I know he can be funny, but he should just stop repeating the same jokes. He could be the conservative “Doonesbury” if he played more with his characters and specially with a freakin’ talking Duck!
[QUOTE] Look, I generally dislike “Doonesburry,” but to give GArry Trudeau his due, every once in a while, he makes me laugh when he does a non-political strip. And THAT means there’s a chance, a tiny chance, that his political strips are genuinely funny, and it’s only my political prejudices that keep me from seeing it.**
If William F. Buckley praised him in one of this Best of collection, he MUST be funny! The thing about Doonesbury is that he doesn’t take seriously either side of the fence, throws his ink to anyone, and does strive for the punchline.
I did a quick search on Google for the Leftersons and it seems to be primarily attached to the Sierra Times. Never heard of the rag before, but having seen story on their website:
I have to admit I’m genuinely sorry I ever searched in the first place.
And no, I don’t have a hammer and sickle clock. Coupla Lenin posters, but that’s it.
Oh, when I first saw the Leftersons, I also did a Google search. There was a link to some right-wing discussion forum, where the author had apparently posted an example of his cartooning for conservatives to see. The cartoon went something like this:
THE BOY (Stalin!): something about some kids in the school whose parents opposed something
THE MOM: I’d like to NEA them in the groin!
Yes, that was the actual line.
Even scarier were all the conservatives (about 15 or so) posting to forum about how funny the cartoon was.
Seeing how “The Leftersons” have hijacked this thread, I thought I’d address some apparent misconceptions about the strip.
Upon first glance, “The Leftersons” seems to be a rather shrill right-wing comic strip that “satirizes” the mindset of a liberal family. However, if you re-examine each of the strips again, you’ll find that it’s actually a liberal strip satirizing a conservative strip that stereotypes liberals.
It’s so obvious:
–The son’s being named “Stalin” and the presence of a hammer-and-sickle clock in the background lampoons the popular right-wing belief that liberals (or anyone else who isn’t in total lockstep with their political views) probably has Marxist sympathies. The red-tinged Lefterson household also plays into the inability of many conservatives to recognize that our side won the Cold War over ten years ago and that–except for a couple lonely Cuban and North Korean outposts–communism is all but dead.
–The strip where the mother expresses disgust over her neighbors apparently being meat-eaters is actually a joke at the expense of those narrow-minded right-wing folk who, despite the fact that many conservatives are vegetarians, believe that a plant-based diet is a sign of a tree-hugging, Neopagan, rigidly politically correct, com-symp lifestyle.
–In the strip, the mother becomes alarmed when it appears Stalin has a cigarette but is relieved when it turns out to be a joint. Here, the cartoonist is parodying the conservative assumption that all liberals smoke dope but are militantly against an all-American, legal addictive substance like tobacco.
–Finally, the one dimensional character, lame punchlines, awful puns, and total lack of subtlety are actually intentional. The cartoonist is ridiculing the crude and non-existent sense of humor of many on the right who are deeply suspicious of anything that isn’t pro-Christian, pro-American, and pro-conservative.
Forgive me, but I have to complain about Leftersons a bit more.
From looks, I’d peg the girl of Lefterson family to be about 14-15. Yet, her name is Hillary. (I wonder why ‘Bill’ wasn’t good enough for boy’s name. But I guess you just can’t beat ‘Stalin’.) Remarkably prescient of parents. And mother’s name is ‘Imelda’. My little heart pitter-patters in excitement as I await to find out what father’s name is. Considering author’s knack for subtlety, ‘Lucifer’ sounds about right.
Meanwhile, he still hasn’t managed to produce a strip that isn’t crud.
The thing about Doonesbury is that he doesn’t take seriously either side of the fence, throws his ink to anyone, and does strive for the punchline.