Comic Strip of the Day

CSotD: Wishing for a few dogs

Skip to comments

Mike Peterson Published: January 9, 2018 1 minute 4 comments

There was a time when, if some movie star or other random celebrity gave a good speech, someone might say "That's who should be in the White House!"

And everyone would agree, but nobody would take it seriously. There was never a sincere effort to make Mark Twain or Will Rogers president, much less Mary Pickford who was not simply America's Sweetheart but one of the founders of United Artists and a very bright lady.

In case you thought Oprah invented intelligent charisma.

Chip Bok has the sense to mock the entire idea of celebrity presidents, though his take might be more convincing if he were otherwise less supportive of the current example.

Still, it takes more than charm and a gift for words to qualify for the office, and there seems to be a lot of pushback to the chirping cries of Oprah2020.

Then again, there were plenty of people who thought Donald Trump was a ridiculous choice for president.

And what do I know anyway? I thought W was such an obvious lightweight that nobody'd take him seriously, either.

Go tell that to the Iraqis.

Meanwhile, David Fitzimmons points out the transparency of Republican distractions. (The staples are a nice touch!)

Reopening the Clinton investigations is so obvious a ploy that, when someone brought it up, the others in the room should have dismissed it as absurd. But here we are.

Do I think there might have been created a perception that giving to the Clinton Foundation could put you in a favorable light? Well, I'm no fool, and I also think investing in various Kushner projects might seem much the same. 

And if you can prove an actual solicitation, go for it. I've only voted for Hillary for Senate and White House while holding my nose tightly. 

But I've already seen too much tax money and effort put into pointless, futile, partisan examinations and the hypocrisy of launching yet another far outweighs the so-what that might conceivably come about.

I've also seen several rightwing cartoons pointing out that the accusations in "Fire and Fury" are untrue because the White House has said they are untrue.

And, golly, the President of the United States would never lie.

If that's the burden of proof, pardon my cynicism. (But I am a Cynic.)

In any case, not to worry: As Tim Eagan points out, the Grand Old Party is on the path of the truth and will let nothing stand in the way of their mission to protect the nation.

More about dogs in a minute.

Juxtaposition of the Day

(Free Range)

(Bliss)

My only objection to Free Range is that the janitors should be swatting those balloons down from the ceiling, given that they are filled with hot air.

I've sat in meetings where the catchphrases and cliches were bouncing back and forth and had a sudden sense of wondering if anyone at the table had any idea what any of it meant. 

It was easy enough, when someone said numbers were up X-amount, to ask if that was month-to-month or same-month-last-year, though it would make you very unpopular.

But when they began to spew catchphrases, there was no polite way to interrupt and ask, "What the hell are you trying to say?" and, I promise you, Harry Bliss's fantasy of them suddenly realizing that they honestly can't understand what they're saying is just that: Fantasy.

I was listening to 1A on NHPR yesterday and they had bitcoin experts on, but they didn't have bitcoin cynics on, so that the questions about validity and value and stability were being answered by people who firmly believed in the stuff, and it finally came down to the explanation that people who doubt bitcoins simply aren't technically sophisticated enough to understand them.

And they dismissed Tulipomania by simply saying this isn't the same thing because technoblahblahblah and also there are a finite number of bitcoins that will ever be released, at which point I would have pointed out that there are also a finite number of Beanie Babies.

However, that's less interesting than the idea that, once upon a time, stock values were directly related to how well a company was doing, but that, in the world of buyouts and takeovers and catchphrases, the value of a share of stock is whatever the hell the cool kids say it is, no matter how well or badly the company it purportedly represents is doing.

Now let's talk about the dog. Specifically, a Greek dog:

Specifically, Diogenes the Cynic, or kynikos or dog (σκύλος), who is depicted in the current Existential Comics. (Go read the rest here)

I liked Plato when he was quoting Socrates and when he was laying out his hypothetical plan for a Republic ruled by a Philosopher King, but when he got down to his theory of language, I bailed and now I wish we'd studied more about Diogenes.

For some reason — probably because all of Diogenes's writings disappeared — we leapt straight over him to Stoicism which I really liked without knowing his part in it, though the notes on today's comic offer this story, which is close enough:

Diogenes was knee deep in a stream washing vegetables. Coming up to him, Plato said, "My good Diogenes, if you knew how to pay court to Dionysius, you wouldn't have to wash vegetables." "And," replied Diogenes, "If you knew how to wash vegetables, you wouldn't have to pay court to Dionysius."

Most of the stories of Diogenes are probably apocryphal but they're all wonderful, starting with the one about a star-struck Alexander asking if there were anything he could do for the philosopher and Diogenes suggesting he move and stop blocking the sunlight.

There are others in today's comic as well as here and I don't know who let the dogs out, but call them back in because we need them today more than ever.

A less cynical appeal to the σκύλος in all of us

(There was a move to elect Durante president, but Mt. Rushmore couldn't bear the weight)