CSotD: Political Potpourri

Ward Sutton sums up the hypocrisy and chaos of our current situation, and he’s right without offering much of an argument, because, while certainly the mood has changed, the only thing that is really different is who’s on top.

More specifically, what has changed is that the whiners have gained power, so that, instead of complaining that nobody is doing things their way, they are in a power to insist on getting their way.

It would be a lovely world if, when those who feel oppressed gained the upper hand, they would use their newly acquired power to make sure nobody was ever mistreated again. I suppose some of us should always look forward to that day, but most of us must, instead, deal with the way things are and, as near as I can tell, always have been.

At least Sutton lays it out without proposing an unworkable solution. By contrast, Michael Ramirez (Creators) offers a sure-fire solution to the problem of mass racist murder. You don’t have to get rid of guns. You just have to get rid of hate.

Well, okay then: Plunk your magic twanger, Froggie!

No more hate! Problem solved!

In fact, if you want to play the “I’m Old Enough to Remember When” game, I’m old enough to remember when we stuck daffodils in the rifle barrels of the National Guard on the steps of the Pentagon and all war came to an immediate halt forever.

(I may not be remembering that correctly, however.)

And while Democrats praise the Biden administration for helping lower the cost of prescription drugs and Republicans complain that Big Pharma deserves its profit margins, Jimmy Margulies (KFS) reminds us that no good deed goes unpunished.

Which is not to say that the cost of living, and particularly of housing, is not a crisis to be addressed.

Still, I’m once more reminded of the old joke about the woman whose child was saved from drowning and whose response to his rescuers was, “Where’s his hat?”

That joke retains its humor because it accurately reflects a particularly unpleasant part of human nature and it has been around for more than a century because the attitude it describes has been around even longer.

For example, when the administration rushed checks for $700 to Maui in order to cover immediate needs until more substantial, permanent aid could be established, the response was not gratitude for quick, temporary emergency help but complaints that it wasn’t more.

Maybe it’s time to update our national motto:

Or maybe it’s time for reporters and editors to stop looking for discordant and therefore newsworthy voices and, instead, to try to capture a more representative sampling of attitudes.

Speaking of wishing for things that won’t happen.

Sutton was having a good week. He also put out this response to Ron De Santis’s non-response response to the racist murders in Jacksonville, which was to make a statement that never quite seemed to get released to the public but which apparently had something to do with hopes and prayers or some such.

In this case, however, Sutton isn’t bemoaning the apparent hypocrisy but, rather, headlining it and tying together all the strands of De Santis’s “Happy Talk” approach to history and race relations and gender issues and education and guns and life its own self.

Speaking of cartoonists having a good week, Ann Telnaes responded to the latest revelations from the firm of Clarence and Ginni Thomas, LLC., in which the associate justice explained that he flew on private jets in order to be safe, mostly being safe from having to pay his own way.

He has also kept himself safe from arithmetic, having neglected to mention several hundred thousands worth of freebies from his personal friends, none of whom he knew before he became part of SCOTUS and all of whom seem to be clustered on one side of the political spectrum.

So riddle me this: If these fabulous gifts and favors can slip his mind when he’s filling out his disclosure forms, how many other cookies must he and Ginni have in that jar?

Telnaes also responded with delightful fury to Mark Meadows’ self-serving testimony in which he attempted to explain to the Court that he was only acting in his official capacity as a government official, duties which, as it happens, included a great deal of toad-licking and spittle-wiping and brown-nosing and political legerdemain as part of his job as Chief of Staff and Officially Appointed Governmental Head of the Department of Law-Bending.

And fie upon you if you suggest otherwise!

I had to stop and think about Clay Bennett (CTFP)‘s portrait of Rudy Giuliani, because there are a lot of cheap insult cartoons making the rounds which are fun but don’t make a point.

Besides, while it may be news if Rudy is a lush, it’s not news that he’s a screw-up, despite all the people who still seem flabbergasted that the guy who made all those 9/11 speeches has spent a major portion of the intervening years making a complete ass of himself. (Friends of Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo not being among that crowd.)

But prosecutors are looking into Giuliani’s drinking not because it makes him a bad guy but because it suggests that Trump was taking “legal advice” and political strategy from someone he knew was drunk, which greatly undercuts his defense.

It’s hard to prove “looney” but “drunk” is pretty objective, and if everyone around them knew Giuliani was drinking heavily on the job, it makes it hard to justify listening to his cunning plans.

So this isn’t flattering, but it goes beyond personal insult into political commentary, and Giuliani hasn’t exactly been a background figure in this whole thing.

If Trump is going to lie down with the dogs, it’s fair to report that he’s gotten up with the fleas.

Finally today, Tim Campbell (Counterpoint) breaks through the ongoing dilemma of finding something new to say about shootings.

It is a dilemma: You sure can’t ignore it, but you have to find new ways to make the point, and not everyone is having much success in that department.

Though once we get rid of hate, that will surely solve the problem.

Plunk your magic twangers!

7 thoughts on “CSotD: Political Potpourri

  1. What really ticks me off about the “guns don’t kill people; hate kills people” types is they’re the same ones who are pushing back against anything that might garner empathy for the marginalized.
    They usually have a “it’s your fault we hate you” approach, so for them the best way to get rid of hate is to get rid of the hated…

  2. I’ve heard several complaints that the $700 for Maui was not more because we are sending all that $$$$ to Ukraine. (And, coincidentally, not a lot to the one doing the complaining…)

    1. Which requires, in part, no understanding of how budgets work, in part, a belief that FEMA is part of DoD, and in large part a great deal of paranoia, gullibility, ignorance and hateful attitude. Mostly the latter. But it helps not to know that most of what we “send” Ukraine is equipment we were going to junk anyway, so it has a dollar value but the money for it was long gone anyway.

    2. One can understand the people of Ohau being angry about not receiving the amount of assistance they want, it is a natural response arising from shock, fear, and anger. The rest of us should be able to think more clearly. More help can and will come. The defence budget has little bearing on cash in pockets.

      As Senator Graham said in late May the US is contributing approximately 3% of its defence budget (including worn out and obsolete materiel) towards an action that is reducing Russian military capacity (threat) by around 50%. He described the contribution as “the best money we have ever spent”.

      One need not be a supporter of Senator Graham to appreciate the insight of this comment: so much US military preparation has been oriented to defend against Russian predations and now the Ukrainians are carrying that weight with help from their friends. We should try to avoid becoming fair weather friends.

  3. It’s all well and good to want to get rid of the hateful finger on the trigger, but a hateful psycho with an AR-15 will kill more people in a few seconds than one with a six-shooter, and much much more than one with a knife or a pointy stick.

    1. And while this is true, if we hadn’t dumped the Fairness Doctrine under Reagan, there’d be far fewer hateful fingers for those triggers.

Comments are closed.