CSotD: Is it polite to whip your head around after a swirly?
Skip to comments
Mike Luckovich goes there.
But it's okay, and has been since Charlottesville, when the nazis declared that, yes, this is who they are, and Dear Leader gave them his blessing.
And Godwin's more recent thoughts on the subject are well worth reading.
Now, in all fairness, Trump shouldn't be expected to grasp the parallels, given that he is so supremely ignorant of history that he thinks Frederick Douglass is still alive, that Andrew Jackson was around during the Civil War and that our opponent in the War of 1812 was a nation that wouldn't even exist for more than another half century.
But, first of all, it's painful to defend your nation's leader by insisting that he is every bit as blissfully unqualified as he appears.
Second, whether he is consciously patterning himself on the fascists of the past seems less important than the clear fact that he is a bully at heart.
And so thoughtlessly self-centered that his calls for civility include baseless insults to a member of Congress and utter lies about the restaurant where his Minister of Information was asked to leave. (For the record)
Which reminds me of when my father came home from a school board meeting chuckling over a hearing for a kid who'd been suspended for punching another kid in the boys' room.
The poor lad explained that he had no choice: He was giving the other kid a swirly, and, when he let him up, "He went like this (whipping his head around) and got it all over me."
Dad never said whether the board broke up in laughter over this explanation, but they confirmed the suspension.
Unlike the Trump loyalists who not only accept that sort of excuse but would have moved to suspend the head-whipper.
Nick Anderson asks for a more civil society, and I'd like one, too, but I'm going to disagree with him here because I find it hard not to side with the head-whippers, nor do I find that this discussion falls under the "whatabout" category.
It is illegal to refuse to serve someone based on their race, creed or ethnicity, but it is legal to deny service to a specific individual based on their behavior.
(It should be noted (again) that the US Supreme Court did not rule that it is legal to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. They ruled that the baker had not had a fair hearing. And they've sent Arlene's Flowers back to the Washington State Supreme Court for review, though court-watchers expect it to return, giving us a more definitive ruling on the overall topic.)
The question that Anderson raises politely, and that others have raised by flinging insults at the restaurant, is whether we advance things with this sort of behavior.
Sometimes even the whatabout response is pretty compelling.
It's not particularly valid to point out, for example, that the Obama administration also separated children at the border, because to make the whataboutism work, you have to ignore the fact that, first of all, the numbers of times this happened were far less and, second, that the major reason is that his administration was not treating misdemeanors as felonies.
Besides the fact that they hadn't proclaimed an intention to terrorize families with this policy.
And, in any case, what Obama did or Bush did before Trump did something comparable or not comparable is irrelevant in this discussion, which is about how people can respond when there is an imbalance of power.
The topic is how to respond to the more powerful, and blaming the head-whipper for getting water on the bully seems kinda foolish.
Bob Englehart's cartoon echoes my response, with this proviso:
Spitting in her food is silent protest, while asking her to leave is a visible protest that could sway other voters to step up in November.
Granted, when the imbalance of power seems overwhelming, a silent protest that doesn't get you fired or worse is a tradition that can be satisfying.
Spitting in the food of the oppressor is a leftover from the Jim Crow days, and not the worst. (Don't drink the coffee in a whites-only diner.)
Back then, you could be lynched for overt resistance to the bullies' system, and such things were a way to vent but stay alive.
They provided some relief, but they didn't bring about change. Change only came when people stood up to the bullies.
And maybe whipped their heads around as they did so.
Finally, here is a Michelle Goldberg column from the NYTimes, which I add because Goldberg makes some salient points, countering the "Can't We All Play Nicely?" argument.
But mostly because it's the best photo I've seen in just ever so long. Nielsen looks like she's watching out for teachers while Sanders gives the press another swirly.
Pardon me if it makes me shake my head.
Vigorously.
Saturday in Vermont
Hat tip to Mike Lynch for pointing out this event coming up Saturday in Bennington, VT.
If you're anywhere nearby, you can purchase tickets here. It's a little vague on details: Tells you exactly what they're serving for dinner but says "100 Cartoons 20 Cartoonists" without saying how many of those 20 will be there.
However, I'm sure it will be a jolly gathering. I'll see you there if you come, and probably not if you don't.
Call it a family tradition
As a way of whipping my head towards the bullies who are piling on the Red Hen, I bought a gift certificate to the restaurant, which I don't live close enough to use.
But I am thinking of sending it to a fellow on somewhat-nearby Pennsylvania Avenue, to commemorate my uncle's college buddies who, back in 1962, chipped in to buy Gov. Ross Barnett a subscription to Ebony.
Thereby helping, in their small, wise-ass way, to make America great.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
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 3
Comments are closed.