Juxtaposition of the Day
As the expression goes, one should never miss a good opportunity to shut up, and sometimes less is more.
I’ve seen a couple of cartoons about yesterday’s Jan 6 Hearing that tried to be clever and to make a point, and they seem to me to have failed.
There is nothing you can say that is any more eloquent than the words of the witnesses, and Brodner and Telnaes chose wisely by simply quoting them, though Brodner went for the pure quote, which is consistent with his style, while Telnaes, following her own established route, added a visual accusation, but basically left things for the audience to parse.
Siers expanded the concept, weaponizing three accurate quotes and letting the supporters of the riot accuse themselves in their own words. Then, in his final panel, he twists the knife with a fictional summary of McCarthy’s position rather than a direct quote, driving home the folly of denial.
Sharp work by all three.
Mike Luckovich offers more of a wish than a report, and the “truth” banners rescue this from going too far: Showing angry citizens would not only place good people in the former position of bad people and suggest the GOP as victims of the mob, but would also, I’m afraid, be far too optimistic a view of what the hearing accomplished.
But the number of banners and the way they dominate the foreground, obscuring the people, makes it clear that the GOP is not being physically threatened, but is under political assault by the facts of the case.
As for the impact on public opinion, those results aren’t in yet.
But I laughed at Jeff Stahler (AMS)‘s take, because, yes, I’d already seen two conservative cartoonists who decided this would be an excellent time to talk about Hunter Biden’s artwork, and his mockery is sharper in that he had to have drawn this at roughly the same time they were drawing theirs.
BTW, I don’t know how many people are old enough to remember Billy Carter, Jimmy’s clownish, beer-loving brother, but the press had a blast quoting his foolish statements, and he even participated in promoting a brand of beer released to capitalize on his oddly-achieved fame.
But nobody used Billy as a political weapon. He was simply a funny feature story.
For the record, I’d rather have a can of mediocre beer than a piece of art by either an ex-president or a presidential son.
And I prefer my beer-loving buffoons on the White House lawn, not on the Supreme Court. However, I digress …
Rob Rogers mocks McCarthy’s blame-shifting, and, as noted before, McCarthy not only echoes the views of the former president but traveled to Florida to make sure he had them right.
At least McCarthy has reason to complain about Pelosi, who refused to let him place his chosen denialist pitbulls on the committee, though, if the GOP hadn’t blocked an attempt at a bipartisan committee … well, never mind.
But if you suspect the GOP’s hatred of Pelosi is based on her effectiveness and her refusal to kowtow, check out the Good Little Girl they’re pushing up the ranks on their own team:
I preferred Billy Carter to Elise Stefanik, but we all have different tastes in clowns.
Her odd statements are not harmless entertainment, and the responses to her unhinged tweet are not only depressing for the number of people who agree with her bizarre charging of Pelosi with the attack on the Capitol, but frightening in how many of them don’t even respond to what she said, raging off instead on totally irrelevant anti-libtard rants.
We’re talking frothing-at-the-mouth, irrational hostility, and, however many of them may show up at the next insurrection, the bulk of them will almost certainly show up at the next election.
Strange days have indeed tracked us down.
Meanwhile, speaking of conservative views of women, the Olympics are on and here’s another
Juxtaposition of the Day
In case you missed it, the women’s beach volleyball team was ordered to show some ass, while, as Sorensen points out, the men were not.
Yes, there is men’s beach volleyball! Maybe if they dressed the way both Sack and Sorensen suggest Olympic officials should dress, they’d get more airtime.
Meanwhile, it’s not just happening in Olympic beach voyeurball.
P!nk responded to a parallel crisis with the Norwegian handball team, and, if the responses to Elise Stefanik’s tweet depressed you, cheer yourself up by reading how people reacted to this.
Can’t we talk about something a little more edible?
Back in the 70s, I used to buy a mix of ground beef and soy protein that was cheaper than plain burger and better for you, but they quit making it. However, I’m mystified by fauxburgers that I realize are better for the Earth and probably for your arteries but which cost more than real ground beef.
The benefit for your arteries might be offset a bit, since, as Bliss notes, they aren’t just ground up soybeans. I suppose they’re better for you, but they’re no guarantee you won’t become extinct.
They seem to me something like nicotine patches, in that, if you have a serious hamburger habit, they can help you go through withdrawal.
But if you’re still wearing the patch in four months, you never kicked the habit, and ditto with fauxburgers.
Having just featured the Argyle Sweater, I will now take Scott Hilburn to the grammar woodshed.
The verb “to be” cannot take a direct object, and you might say “We are them,” but you’d be as wrong as Lennon and McCartney were when they wrote “I must be sure, from the very start, that you would love me more than her,” assuming they meant “more than she did,” and not “more than you love her.”
(If that’s what they meant, Top 40 Radio wouldn’t have played the record.)
“Who are you? Who? Who? Who? Who?” is correct, as is “You are who? Who? Who? Who? Who?”
Though “Them” would be a cool band name.