CSotD: A Trick of the Astronomer Royal
Skip to comments
Several cartoonists took up the topic of this being February 29, with Retail taking the prize for pointing out how utterly insignificant the phenomenon is in the long run. Or even the short.
It would be great if Leap Year Day were an actual universal holiday, if we really said "This day doesn't count!" and everything — banks, stores, offices, everything — shut down.
But we don't.
So much for the notion of "an extra day."
It means I don't have to walk my rent check up to the front of the house until tomorrow, but the idea that I get to live here "free" for a day is offset by the fact that the average month has 30.4167 days and my rent is calculated by month, which means that, three years out of four, February cheats me out of nearly 2.5 days of residence, for a total of 7.251 days over that period, while, in a leap year, I'm only down 1.4167 days, so that, over four years, I've only been scammed out of nearly 9 days rather than nearly 10.
Thank you, Astronomer Royal! Thank you so much!
I mean, at least we could do it Caulfield's way.
In fact, we could. What's to stop us? I think I'll put on a sweater, eat some fast food and wash it down with a soft drink and then do something I'll regret, which, if only I were a healthier person to begin with, might have been it.
Even better would be if February 29 were to be like an old-school April Fool's Day, in the sense of the celebration of fools in "Notre-Dame de Paris" or as you unschooled peasants call it, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," and you'd have to forget that I just insulted you, because, on February 29, nothing you do could be held against you.
The day simply wouldn't exist. We wouldn't even put it on the calendar. We'd just skip it.
"You called me a slovenly pig."
"I did not."
"You most certainly did! And then you squirted seltzer down my pants."
"When?"
"Yesterday!"
"February 28?"
"Yes! Wait, no … well … "
"You should go lie down now."
"Um … all right."
However, since that seems unlikely, I'll settle for Brewster Rockitt's idea.
I was going to start gathering up my records yesterday (February 28, yes) to get a start on taxes, but somehow it didn't happen. Maybe I'll use some of this wonderful "extra day" for that.
After I do all the things I have to do on a Monday regardless of the number on the calendar.
Juxtaposition of the Astronomer Royal's Beastly Day:
The humor is a little undercut by the fact that yesterday (February 28, yes) was 50 degrees and today will be similar, but how on earth could anyone have known that in advance?
Still, their take reminds me to rewind one of the very best moments in one of the very best Gilbert & Sullivan plays, in which young Frederick, the Slave of Duty, finds that his resignation from the Pirates of Penzance is null and void:
I wish the video were sharper, but the alternatives were high school productions and, wit' all doo respeck, higher resolution didn't elevate much else.
Besides, the two or three other people on this side of the Equator who have any idea what I'm talking about will be delighted to see that the Pirate King is played by the convict husband of poor Mary Mulvane.
No tricks of the Astronomer Royal got him off the hook that time.
Of princesses and inclusive awards
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal raises a topic worth bringing up.
Aside from the class issue here, there's a serious question of whether changing cartoon princesses from passive damsels in distress to still-beautiful young women who are powerful but still princesses resolves much of anything.
Granted, you don't see a lot of male heroes who look like Rick Moranis, and I don't think that's entirely determined by the potential female audience for Bond movies.
More to the point, however, is that the romantic gypsy rover always turns out to be a king in disguise, so running away with him costs you nothing.
And even most of the genuinely non-princessy role models seem, in fact, to still be princesses: The Paperbag Princess and Fiona from Shrek, for instance.
Then there is this: What gets praised versus what gets promoted?
A good example of what I mean is a "Fresh Prince of Bel Air" episode in which Queen Latifah played a not conventionally attractive girl, and, at the end, the MOS was that Wil acknowledged how important it is to judge women by their character, not by how much they resemble the crossover hotties in every other freaking episode of that TV show, including every single one that followed that episode.
And are we're doing anyone a favor by promoting the idea that "you can have it all," which — as this takedown of an exploitive old perfume commercial says – is a tagline for commercials, not a serious life plan?
On a very related topic, I'm not sure how well Chris Rock answered the #OscarSoWhite issue in total last night, but he made some good points.
One ties into the princess matter, which is that one reason the men get asked more interesting questions than "Who are you wearing?" is that they're all wearing the same thing.
This seemed more substantive:
If you want black nominees every year, you need to just have black categories. That's what you need: You need to have black categories. You already do it with men and women. Think about it: There's no real reason for there to be a "man" and a "woman" category in acting. Come on! There's no reason! It's not track and field; you don't have to separate them. You know, Robert DeNiro's never said, "I'd better slow this acting down so Meryl Streep can catch up."
Though, as he also pointed out, having a single category for all actors assumes all actors get the same opportunities.
Which is another fairy tale.
Here's his opening:
Mike Peterson has posted his "Comic Strip of the Day" column every day since 2010. His opinions are his own, but we welcome comments either agreeing or in opposition.
Comments
Comments are closed.