CSotD: Saturday scraps
Skip to comments
Another Nordstrom/Trump cartoon in the rare, rare category that doesn't involve military strikes against the store, this one by Mike Peters. I would also note that not only did he ignore the "let's all draw the same cartoon" memo, but he very kindly only put her in the hat and not her full "Babes in Toyland" regalia.
It's too bad Nixon's secret service uniforms didn't catch on, because she could have been their captain.
I'm sympathetic, by the way, to the argument that we ought not to let Trump's more flamboyant, off-the-cuff nonsense distract us from the actual harm he can do to the country, but, first of all, I think well-deserved ridicule is a pretty potent weapon.
Second, I think the theory that he pulls nonsensical antics on purpose to distract us from his Cunning Plans is simply wrong. When he acts the fool, it's no act.
I also don't buy Samantha Bee/Wonkette's theory that he's illiterate, in large part because it fails Occam's Razor and can be more simply explained by what Mark Twain apparently never said, which is that the man who does not read has no advantage of the one who cannot read.
There is a type of executive who doesn't read, which is why reports have an "executive summary" which they also don't read.
I know I just ran this the other day, but here it is because here we are. And I wish we had Honey in the Oval Office instead of Steve Bannon.
However, I'm seeing some "Bannon's puppet" cartoons and I'm dubious about them, too. Bannon may be taking advantage of a boss who surrounds himself with people who protect him from having to think, but I'm not sure it's part of a Cunning Plan or that there is one.
Which is more reason to go ahead and mock the foolish trumperies he pulls, because there may be nothing more coherent forthcoming.
Though there are more dire results possible from some of his more foolish ideas, and Kal notes how, just as the banking industry has struggled to its feet, we're offering them the chance to blunder right on back.
If people could be expected to behave responsibly, we wouldn't need to put rails around places like the Grand Canyon or in front of lion's cages.
Ditto with banking regulations and the aforementioned shoot-from-the-lip executives.
You would think banking would attract cautious types. Unless you were old enough to remember 2008 or any number of other bubbles that came before.
And the national economy aside, the idea of relaxing current regulations assumes a level of responsibility that has never existed and which impacts individuals quickly, as Steve Sack contends.
The thing is, when a drunk driver swerves into an oncoming car, it really doesn't matter if he meant to, if he has 100 previous DUIs or if he unintentionally overindulged at an office party for the very first time.
Financial regulations protect people from the wolves, but also from the incompetents, and, when it's your nest egg at risk, the reason it went down a rat hole doesn't really matter to you very much.
Though it's always a good idea to avoid people who style themselves as "wealth managers" rather than "financial advisors," just as you probably shouldn't entrust your tax preparation to the company that has some dork in a Statue of Liberty costume spinning a sign outside their office.
It actually would be twice as much as I paid for my first house, but that's more a measure of how much older I am than the Real Life Adventures team.
The more important point is that, while you can always look back and see how much you used to pay for a house or a car or a loaf of bread, you used to be able to shrug it off by looking back to what people were paid in those days.
I don't think that's kept up.
In any case, my favorite car ad of the past football season was the Cadillac commercial where the women decide it's more fun to sit in their Caddy in the rain than to run through the rain to wait for a table in a restaurant.
A Caddy that would cost about what it says in today's Real Life Adventures, except, at the end of the commercial, a quick disclaimer tells you that, tricked out with all the extras that were the point of the ad, it would actually cost about $20,000 more.
Juxtaposition of the Day, Sort Of
(Zits)
(a banner ad I encountered)
Nobody wants to be surprised anymore, and the joke in Zits is that she doesn't want to see a movie, either, unless she knows what is in it.
It's just that she'd rather see "Middleaged Guy Burned Out On Life Meets Younger Woman Who Changes Everything."
Coming attractions are a succession of spoilers for movies that are sequels to other movies, and Broadway has, for some years now, been headed the same direction.
Granted, "My Fair Lady" was an adaptation of "Pygmalion" which a lot of people had seen, as a movie if not as a non-musical play.
But "Pygmalion" wasn't "The Producers" or "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" or "Little Shop of Horrors," was it?
No, it wasn't. It was better than the musical, yes, but the musical had some awfully fine tunes, and that counts for a lot.
Not to judge too quickly. Perhaps in six months, we'll all be humming:
Ned Ryerson (dum dum)
Ned Ryerson (dum dum)
I'll meet today with
Ned Ryerson
or
One day, out of every year,
I'm stuck with Puxatawney Phil!
One day, out of every year
When I'm with him, I could kill!
Having paid $89 to see it from the bad seats.
And if you caught the melodies to those, my point is made.
If not, here's an earworm for you, or take this one.
And each musical had much bigger hits than those.
Comments 1
Comments are closed.