« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »
February 28, 2006
That's Why They Call Him Dick
There's something really interesting going on in today's PC. Scott Stantis wants you to believe that he's no Republican toady - he'll go after the Vice President just like everybody else, even though it's two weeks later and nobody really cares anymore. In fact, he'll even make a joke about Dick Cheney's deferments during the Viet Nam war. Take that, Boondocks!
But Stantis is a "conservative" - at least that's what he keeps saying. So he can't really go after the veep, can he? Nope.
Winslow and Carmen are off on their morning jog, still obsessing over the shooting of an elderly man in the face by the veep. The punchline? "Sorta explans all his military deferments, huh?"
NO, it doesn't. Dick Cheney never picked up a gun in an effort to protect this country. He never went to the shooting range and performed so poorly that the military thought it best that he stay at home. Dick Cheney avoided going to war, even though he has no problem sending the sons and daughters of others who actually served to fight in a war he lied to go to.
Cheney sought FOUR deferments because he was in college (the fourth because he went off to graduate school - much more important than fighting off the Red Menace). Then when college alone wasn't a good enough excuse, and he was still under the age limit of 26, NONE MONTHS AND TWO DAYS LATER his daughter was born. That's right - the guy knocked up his wife so he couldn't be drafted. When the sixth time came around, he was over 26 and he couldn't be drafted.
So this little bastard who loves to run around hunting pen-raised quail and show off his big gun dodged the draft FIVE TIMES. Remember that the next time he starts banging the war drums and wants to send your kids off to fight again.
I have to admit, Stantis is pretty clever about having it both ways. His ardent followers will say, "Look! He goes after both sides!" while the rest of us go, "Geez, why does he have to make it seem like Cheney didn't go to Viet Nam because he's a bad shot instead of a coward?"
But I guess that's what happens when you get so used to talking out of both sides of your mouth.
February 27, 2006
Duck Duck Goose
This guy is so stale.
How stale is he??
This guy is so stale he has more leftover jokes than the MCL Cafeteria has warmed-over quail on Game Bird Night.
A mere 16 days after the Whittington Incident, Cheney finds his way into Prickly City.
Let's review the timeline:
February 11 -- Cheney shoots man
February 14 -- Scott whips up a relevant and somewhat biting political cartoon and shoots it off to the USA Today
February 20 -- The Boondocks starts a week of Cheney blasting
February 27 -- Winslow ducks-n-covers
I could understand Prickly City's deadline being so far in advance if the art was so detailed that Scott needed two weeks to ink each piece, or if the strips were so intricately plotted that he couldn't interrupt an ongoing storyline. But we all know that ain't the case.
So instead we get 'humor' that is mostly cold, tastes funny, and induces retching.
Posted by CJo at 09:12 AM | Comments (4)February 26, 2006
The Big One
Today Carmen and Winslow find themselves under a microscope, and they don't like it much. Message: President Bush, please don't spy on us illegally. Can't disagree with that. But you scaredy cat Republicans voted this administration back into office, and if you're not willing to sacrifice your rights to privacy, then you're like us progressives and you hate our freedom. Oh, and you want to give the terrorists therapy. Sucks to be us, donit?
Enough of the opening act - let's get to the headliner.
On January 26th, 2006 Prickly City ran a strip tackling the Abramoff scandal. It referenced the Howard Dean appearance on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, where Wolfie tried his best to make it a bi-partisan issue - when in reality this was all about the corrupt Republican party. Apparently this ruffled the feathers of one Mr. Scott Stantis, so he took it out on Dr. Dean - first with the worst possible drawing ever of a real life person, and then lying about what happened.
Now normally I'm not the type of person to write in and complain about something. Sure, I might disagree with Scooter on the issues, but ultimately it's his opinion and I respect that. But here we have a case where the facts are clear, and yet Stantis chose to lie in order to make a funny. And that irritated me something fierce. You see, Jack Abramoff never gave any money directly to Democrats. Now some Republicans tried to make the argument that Abramoff "directed" his clients, the Indian Tribes that he was ripping off, to give money to Dems. But even that's not true. The Tribes have always given money to both parties - and under Abramoff, they were directed to give LESS money to the lefty loons. So when Stantis has little neo-con tot Carmen say that 80 Dems have taken money from Abramoff, it's a flat-out, no good, very bad LIE.
So I did what any good American would do when challenged with this situation: I bitched about it. I sat my butt down at the ol' electric machine and whipped me up a good ol' fashioned letter to the editor - the editor here being Mr. Scott Stantis. Here's what I wrote on January 26th, 2006 - the day the comic was published:
Dear Mr. Stantis:
In today's edition of your comic strip "Prickly City," you make the statement, "At least 80 Democrats took money from Mr. Abramoff," a reference to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. That is absolutely, positively FALSE. If you have ANY proof that Jack Abramoff personally donated money to any Democrat please provide it - because no such information has been presented and the FEC has documented that ONLY Republicans have received money from Jack Abramoff.
Come on, Mr. Stantis - you're a smart guy. You must see what's happening over at the Washington Post website, where their ombudsman Deborah Howell made a similar mistake. She refused to apologize, and now it's a major embarrassment for the paper. Do you wish the same for all of the papers that publish your comic?
Please apologize immediately for the comic strip AND implying that Howard Dean is a liar. Or provide proof that Jack Abramoff made personal campaign contributions to Democrats. And please, don't embarrass yourself with the whole "Oh, well he told his clients the Indian tribes to donate the money to both..." - That flies about as well as Winslow. For one, there's no proof Abramoff directed his clients to donate any money to anybody. And that's not what you say in the strip, and unless you correct it - you're the liar.
***
Now granted I was a little peeved when I wrote this, and I wonder if I had waited an hour or two if I still would have sent it. But looking back I would have. Let's face it, there isn't any debate here. Stantis lied, Winslow cried, and something had to be done.
Imagine my surprise when I got an email from "Scott Stantis" in my mailbox this week.
That's right: the big one himself wrote me back. Well, probably not him, most likely it was Toby or some lackey intern, but even still - this was an official letter from the boys at Prickly City. In most cases I wouldn't publish an email without first asking the original party for their permission. However, as you'll see in the email, Mr. Stantis and crew take it upon themselves to possibly discuss my email on their podcast, so all bets are off. You don't ask, I don't ask. So let's get to the down and dirty - how would the PC Police respond to my outrage?
***
From: "Scott Stantis"
[Add to Address Book]
To: me@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 1/26/2006 Prickly City
Date: Thursday, February 23, 2006 4:59:14 PM [View Source]
Thank you so much for writing us. In the January 26th Prickly City strip addresses the incident in which Howard Dean denied that Democrats took money that originated with Jack Abramoff. The following is taken from the transcripts of CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer for the January 8, 2006 show:
"BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence..."
Untrue. While he did not personally give money to Democrats, he did direct money to them. The Capital Eye lists the lobbying and political contributions of Jack Abramoff which includes Democrats ( www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N). The Associated Press reports that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid did assist Abramoff clients (see www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/09/D8FLPHO80.html).
This is overwhelmingly a Republican scandal, but the Democrats are not pristine either. However my main intent was a criticism of Dr. Dean.
While I am a conservative, I want a viable Democratic Party. Reasoned debate is important and good for the country. To be frank, right now the Republicans have so much control that they have become arrogant and are not acting like true conservatives. They need a viable opposition to force them to act like conservatives. Unfortunately, I do not believe Howard Dean is the person to lead the Democratic Party into the future. Of course, you are free to disagree, that is simply my opinion.
We found what you had to say of special interest. So much so that we are adding it to the list of e-mails we are considering for inclusion in the Prickly City Podcast. There's a new one posted every week at www.pricklycity.com. Give it a listen and you may hear us discuss your e-mail.
You may also be interested to know that the first collection of Prickly City is now available through www.Amazon.com .
Thank you again for taking the time to write.
Please continue to read and enjoy Prickly City.
Scott Stantis
***
Wow. Take a deep breath. I wonder if this is how it feels to be touched by god himself with one of his many arms (assuming he, she, or it even has arms). I feel blessed. For one of the minions at Prickly City to take out time to respond - with links! - to my email was a shock to say the least. It's just all too unfortunate that, once again, Stantis gets it wrong.
Down below I'm going to include the body of my email in response to the one sent by Scott "Don't Call Me Scooter" Stantis, blowing his response out of the water or off the face of an elderly man. But just for fun, I want to waste some time and break down his email bit by bit. Maybe we can get a better idea of how the mind of Stantis works.
***
From: "Scott Stantis"
Thank you so much for writing us.
You are very welcome.
In the January 26th Prickly City strip addresses the incident in which Howard Dean denied that Democrats took money that originated with Jack Abramoff. The following is taken from the transcripts of CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer for the January 8, 2006 show:
"BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence..."
No complaint there. You've quoted from a transcript. That's a good start. And I remember watching it as it happened, so I'm your confirmation on this one.
Untrue.
Huh?
While he did not personally give money to Democrats, he did direct money to them.
Whoa - slam on the brakes there, Scotty. This was never about "directing" money to anyone. Even though he didn't do that either, that wasn't the point of your strip. You had your version of Howard Dean say not one Democrat took money from Abramoff - period. End of story. But let's see if you can dig your way out...
The Capital Eye lists the lobbying and political contributions of Jack Abramoff which includes Democrats ( www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N).
Take a very close look. They confirm that Abramoff personally didn't give any money to Democrats. Associates of his? Yes. Clients of his? Yes. BUT...
The Associated Press reports that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid did assist Abramoff clients (see www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/09/D8FLPHO80.html).
I was hoping Stantis would bring this up. You see, this is a common tool used by Republicans when arguing that this is somehow a Democratic and Republican issue. "Harry Reid works with Indian Tribes - Indian Tribes work with Jack Abramoff - Harry Reid worked with Jack Abramoff!" Yup, twisted logic at its finest. As I mention in my email response to Mr. Stantis, not only was the story he mentioned debunked, we now know that Abramoff had his clients direct LESS money to Democrats, not more. Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
This is overwhelmingly a Republican scandal, but the Democrats are not pristine either.
It's so overwhelmingly a Republican scandal it's ONLY a Republican scandal. Now that's overwhelming. Granted there are plenty of corrupt Democrats out there, but they weren't working with a convicted felon named Abramoff, who loved to get his picture taken with W.
However my main intent was a criticism of Dr. Dean.
Yeah, I noticed that when you drew him as a fat slob.
While I am a conservative, I want a viable Democratic Party. Reasoned debate is important and good for the country. To be frank, right now the Republicans have so much control that they have become arrogant and are not acting like true conservatives. They need a viable opposition to force them to act like conservatives. Unfortunately, I do not believe Howard Dean is the person to lead the Democratic Party into the future. Of course, you are free to disagree, that is simply my opinion.
This is priceless. At least Scoots admits he's a conservative, which is bold of him. But he claims he wants a "reasoned debate?" The guy who calls Michael Moore fat and portrays Ted Kennedy as a drunk and calls Bill Clinton a rapist wants REASONED debate? He's kidding, right? It's nice to see him admit that the current administration is arrogant, but I'm not so sure that they're not acting like true conservatives. And personally I'm happy knowing that Mr. Stantis doesn't want Howard Dean in charge - that's good news to us, because it means they're afraid of him. Granted Dr. Dean has his quirks, but he's doing a great job of getting this back down to a state and local level - and that's pissing off the "conservatives."
We found what you had to say of special interest. So much so that we are adding it to the list of e-mails we are considering for inclusion in the Prickly City Podcast. There's a new one posted every week at www.pricklycity.com. Give it a listen and you may hear us discuss your e-mail.
I did. It wasn't on there. Instead he went with another guy saying something similar, but I don't think he backed it up with the facts - like I do in my below email response. Instead Stantis went with the whole "but he directed money" line and then moved on quickly to saying that the Democrats killed Coretta Scott King or something like that.
***
Of course knowing that I might be mentioned on a world famous podcast I had to write back quickly and reiterate my point that Stantis lied. Here was my response:
***
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Looking back I might have been a bit terse in my original email, but I do stand by my reason for writing.
I think we're both in agreement that there's a need for a reasoned debate in this country, and that both parties have their problems. However I still have to take issue with what's been written. You've admitted that Jack Abramoff didn't donate anything to Democrats - yet that's precisely what you had Howard Dean say during his appearance in PC. He didn't say, "took money directed from Jack Abramoff." Maybe it's just a matter of semantics to you and many of your other readers, but unfortunately it misrepresents the facts. Would it have been so hard to include that one little word?
And even still your argument for Dean being a liar is weak - unfortunately the story you've cited concerning Harry Reid's involvement with Abramoff has been debunked. Please see here ( http://mediamatters.org/items/200602100001 ) and here ( http://mediamatters.org/items/200602130005 ). If anything, Abramoff directed his clients to give LESS money to Democrats ( http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924 ). While Dr. Dean might have his own little quirks, lying about the Jack Abramoff scandal doesn't seem to be one of them.
I understand your wanting to take a little "creative freedom" when writing your strip, much like your implying that Hillary Clinton wanted to send both Rosa Parks and Betty Friedan to the plantation when she did nothing of the sort (unless Parks and Friedan are in charge of the Republican-controlled Congress). And maybe including a word like "directed" in there would cut back on the funny. But ultimately you're writing political commentary, and I would hope that your standards would be high enough that you're factual in what you state. As much as I hate to admit it, Dr. Dean was correct - and you strip was wrong. But hey - nobody's perfect.
If you do decide to include my email in your podcast, I hope you include my response and corrections. I'd also like to put in a little plug for www.shrubville.com - I'm sure it's a website you'd be interested in.
***
See, I can include links too. And they weren't all that hard to find - it would be nice if Scotty could have Toby spend more time doing research instead of setting up podcasts only a handfull of people will listen to. Who wants to bet most of his listeners are people who wrote in and he told might get mentioned on the pod?
So there you have it. My brush with greatness. I haven't felt this giddy since I got Chris Elliott's autograph. AND I got in a plug for Shrubville, so there's a really good chance that someone at PC will check out the site and see that we're keeping tabs on them (if they're not already).
I'm glad I wrote in - it's not every day you can tell someone they're wrong and if they don't correct it they're lying, only to have them respond that they knew they were wrong, lied anyway, and now they're going to try to justify it by lying some more. Ah - conservatism at its finest.
Thanks Scott Stantis - you made my weekend. Now quit lying and BE MORE FUNNY.
February 25, 2006
Would You Like Some Old Cheese With That?
For the first time ever I took the time to listen to the Prickly City podcast, with your hosts Scott Stantis and his man-servant, Toby. He spends a good chunk of the podcast explaining how all the Democrats do is WHHIIIIINNNNNEEE - they're creatively bankrupt, they're out of fresh ideas.
So what does Stantis do today? He makes fun of John Kerry. What's that stink in the air? I think it's called "irony."
What's strange is that John Kerry, the man to get the second most votes ever in a Presidential election, never really went away. In fact there were some Democrats that were complaining that he was still hogging too much of the spotlight after being cheated out of the 2004 election. Stantis and Toby spend some of the podcast talking about their little debate on election night predicting how much KERRY would win by. Ha ha ha. That's the funniest thing Stantis has ever said. Does anyone buy him thinking Kerry had a chance? Please.
But you see this whole week of strips had a purpose: to kick Dems in the booty so they'll offer more of a resistance to the Republican party. You see, simply opposing everything George Bush does isn't enough. Democrats have to offer up solutions to everything Bush has screwed up. In other words, Stantis and his Republicans are the Seahawks, demanding that Bill Cowher explain how his Steelers are going to win the Super Bowl. And if he doesn't, he's a WHHHIIINNNNERRRR. Sorry Scoots - you elected this moron, you deal with the outcome.
What's interesting is that Stantis thinks he's somehow helping to foster genuine debate in his effort to quell the Bushie Brigade. Does making fun of John Kerry and Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton really do any of that? I guess it could, but not the way Stantis does it. Maybe in his world calling Michael Moore fat is extending an olive branch - with the purpose of fattening him up with olives.
Oh, and one quick note about John Kerry and his lack of ideas: remember when he said the invasion of Iraq was the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time?" Apparently so does at least on leading neo-con. Funny how those big minded conservatives seem to come around to the liberal way of thinking when they're proven wrong. I mean the next thing you know Bush will try to hand over our port security to a nation where two of the 9/11 hijackers were based out of, and those poor conservatives like Stantis will cry foul...oops, I guess that's another story for 2 weeks from now.
One last note about the podcast. There's a very bizarre moment in where Scott Stantis talks about how the political group Coretta Scott King fought to the DEATH against was...the Democrats? Believe it or not I actually listened to the rest of the broadcast after that, only to be rewarded with Toby reading a fan letter that offers to fellate Mr. Stantis, or something to that effect. Some people might call it a "plant." And yes, I'm some people.
Tomorrow, my brush with greatness, as Mr. Stantis or Toby or another lacky responds to my email. That's right, the first ever Shrubville teaser! At least it'll save me from guessing how much time Stantis spends this upcoming week on Dick Cheney shooting an elderly man in the face.
Posted by The Furnace at 07:45 AM | Comments (2)February 24, 2006
He Gawn
This guy is so stale.
How stale is he??
This guy is so stale he has more leftover Zingers than the 'expired' Dolly Madison store.
I mean, seriously. He's still gloating?
I'm not going to apologize for the Democrats. They certainly have their struggles. Their general manager is an ex-scout who values tools more than performance. And their on-field general would rather play a decrepit veteran like Teddy Kennedy than an up-n-coming rookie like Barack Obama. (Did you see what Obama did in the winter league? The kid can play. Give him a shot, man!)
But in the meantime the Republicans really need get over themselves. Where I come from, after a hard-fought victory it's time to do a little dance, make a little love, and get down tonight. Drink a little beer, shoot a little quail, get down tonight.
But these guys...what do they do after winning? What do they do as the fireworks are raining down from the scoreboard and the champagne is still on ice?
They drop their pants, dangle their ligues in our faces, and say, "YOU SUCK."
Not "Yahoo, we're the world champions," but "YOU SUCK! North side sucks! North side sucks! Southie FOREVER!"
Or something like that.
At any rate, hope springs eternal. This year is our next year, Democrats; this year. See you in October. Er...November.
Posted by CJo at 09:39 AM | Comments (3)February 23, 2006
Can Of Corn
He's jumping the gun by a couple of weeks, but here it is: Baseball Fever (catch it).
Today Stantis is up to his usual bullshit, as Winslow -- the commie, pinko, bedwetting, liberal activist Democrat -- makes his Baseball Season To-Do List, and wouldn't you know it: his list is all about tactics for coping with another losing season by the Chicago Cubs. Cubs fans don't want to win! They just want to boo, drink beers, shout down opponents, and call umpires names. They're UNHINGED, you know!
Silly, Winslow. Your taunts of "We want a pitcher, not a belly itcher" won't do you or the Cubs a bit of good. If you wanted to do it right and ensure victory, you should probably add the following to your To-Do List:
Five healthy starting pitchers. Check.
Use a high on-base guy in front of Derrek Lee/Aramis Ramirez. Check.
Question use of bullpen by Dusty Baker. Check.
Suppress the opposition's offense. Check.
And you shall wait until 2008 (or forevermore), amen.
Posted by Sacki at 10:03 AM | Comments (6)February 22, 2006
Call Me Deacon Blues
He's jumping the gun by a couple of weeks, but here it is: March Madness. And we all remember how cranky Mr. S. gets when his 'Bama boys lose. Who can forget his memorable March 29, 2005 strip when he uses a Crimson Tide NCAA tournament loss as an excuse to poke fun at Terry Schiavo. Hillarious!
Today Stantis is up to his usual bullshit, as Winslow -- the commie, pinko, bedwetting, liberal activist Democrat -- makes his Election Season To-Do List, and wouldn't you know it: his list is all about tactics for disrupting an Ann Coulter lecture. Democrats don't want debate! They just want to boo, throw pies, shout down opponents, and call people names. They're UNHINGED, you know! UNHIIIIIIIINNNNGED!
Silly, Winslow. That won't do you and the Democrats a bit of good. If you wanted to do it right and ensure victory, you should probably add the following to your To-Do List:
Ghost-run a "news" network as a propaganda machine. Check.
Use fear. Check.
Question patriotism. Check.
Suppress the vote. Check.
Rig voting machines. Check.
And you shall rule forevermore, amen.
Posted by CJo at 06:30 AM | Comments (1)February 21, 2006
"I think Stantis gets a lot of his facts wrong." - Mike Marshall
To misquote the immortal Whitesnake, "here we go again." *
Over the weekend I had a bit of a disagreement with good reader Charles over an incident in Scooter Stantis's past when it comes to quoting people. You would think after all of the hubbub over that Stantis and his editor would have learned. They haven't.
I'll get to the whole racism/sexism in the Republican party talked about in the comic in a moment. But for now I want to focus on what Stantis has Winslow say in the final panel of today's strip.
Winslow says, "Hillary says you want them back on the plantation." He is referring to Hillary Clinton's speech on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The them he is talking about are Rosa Parks and Betty Friedan - both major leaders in the fight for equal rights; one for minorities, the other for women's lib. The you is either a direct reference to Carmen or the conservatives - but they're one in the same.
This time Stantis and his editor do not include quotation marks. However the implication is obvious - unless these two are going to play the blame game again. Stantis is paraphrasing what Hillary said, and according to him Hillary said that the conservatives want Parks and Friedan back on the plantation.
There's one problem. Her plantation remark was in reference to how the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is run like a plantation. In other words, ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER.
There is no, "I was paraphrasing" or "That's what she meant" defense here. Stantis directly says that Hillary was talking about two civil rights leaders when she was doing nothing of the sort. If he wanted to go after Hillary for pandering to a largely African-American audience by using terminology from the days of slavery, fine - be my guest, she deserves it. But you are not allowed to take a quote out of context in order to provide a "punchline" for an unfunny comic strip. You're way out of bounds here, Stantis. Expect plenty of corrections this week from people who don't disagree with you over politics - they don't like you because you don't have your facts straight half the time.
Ahem.
Now, as for the rest of the strip, there really isn't much to say. Winslow's mad at Carmen and the Republicans for pretending to honor Parks and Friedan; Carmen comes to the defense of her party and says it's right to do so, and then offers a little tribute herself to Friedan and her battle for women's equality.
Ahh, but did you notice what Scotty did there? Today's strip is obviously about Friedan. Carmen doesn't say a thing about Rosa Parks. However, what the hell does a plantation have to do with a Jewish white woman from Peoria? That's right - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. But then Stantis can't use his plantation punchline, which I'm sure he's been dying to use. So he uses the memory of Rosa Parks to wedge in Hillary's remarks - even if they have absolutely nothing to do with what he's talking about in the first place (unless those two somehow are in charge of the Republican Congress).
Bravo, Mr. Stantis. "You give Republicanism a bad name," to misquote Bon Jovi.**
*The song title is actually, "Here I Go Again."
**The song title is actually, "You Give Love a Bad Name."
February 20, 2006
You S T I N K
Ah, yes. Gloating. The face of the modern-day Republican party. For a group of people -- generally speaking -- who are so afraid of indecent sex acts, they sure know how to RUB YOUR FACE IN IT.
Of course, you can't have the gloating without its antececent: Unadulterated Outrage. HOW DARE THEY QUESTION THIS GREAT MAN. HOW DARE THEY 'MAKE' HIS WIFE CRY. HOW DARE THEY THREATEN A FILIBUSTER...IT'S...IT'S...UNAMERICAN.
Bitch and moan about us powerless, liberal losers. Then gloat because we're powerless, liberal losers. And then thanks to Scott we know the next step: Unadulterated Outrage ---> Gloating ---> AFTER GLOAT!
After-Gloat: Splash a little on your face after gloating. Smell like a major-league asshole for years to come.
Posted by CJo at 08:47 AM | Comments (4)February 19, 2006
Thank God Stars Are Only 6,000 Years Old
First off, I'd like to apologize for something I wrote in yesterday's entry. I stated that Scott Stantis got in trouble for lying about what Ted Kennedy said. That is false, and you can check the comments section for an explanation of what happened. Stantis did not lie - he just thought it would be humorous to make fun of the death of a young woman. Just like he did with Terri Schiavo. However, Stantis was still wrong for claiming there are no coyotes in Alaska, an error he has yet to correct. I guess he doesn't have to live up the standards of those useless newspapers.
As for today's strip, it's Sunday so that means it's cutesy time in the City. Carmen and Winslow do some stargazing and there's an actual punchline at the end. I won't ruin it, but it's one of those, "I guess this is kinda funny, but it could have been a lot funnier" sort of strips. At least it doesn't suck. Much.
So you know what that means...Future Goggles! What was happening two weeks ago that Stantis will make fun of this week? Hopefully no young women died tragically...
- Nope, not young women...just people rioting in the Middle East over cartoons! I'm sure Stantis could have a field day with this. I wonder if he'll ask the hard questions, like why is it nobody cared when these cartoons were published back in September of last year? Gee, who would want to inflame tensions between the Muslim world and Europe? Or maybe there's another explanation - one the traditional media hasn't been sharing with us. Oh those wacky Saudi Arabians - although Conde ran around blaming the Iranians and Syrians for some reason. I'm not really sure why she would want to do something like that.
- Even Republicans started to question the legality of President Bush's spying program (I refuse to call it the "terrorist surveillance program," a term dreamed up by the good folks at Newsmax). Will Stantis touch the whole wiretapping scandal? He already has, but he seemed to oppose it - would make for some interesting comics as Scooter wrestles with his desire to live a life without being spied on and his love of most things W.
- There was a little story that didn't get much attention - can President Bush order the killing of someone on US soil? You'd think that would be a big story, but nope. The guy already imprisons people without charges and tortures people, so I guess this is the next logical step. Heck, we all know a week from now Stantis is going to tackle how the Vice President can shoot an elderly person in the face, cover up what exactly happened, and get away with it.
- The whole "Iran wants nuclear capabilities" story gained more traction. Bush acts like they've already got nukes and have the finger on the button - experts say they're five to ten years away from being able to do that. Who should we believe? I mean it's not like the President lied about another country having WMDs...oops.
- Stantis's favorite democratically-elected "dictator," Hugo Chavez, compared Bush to Hitler. Nah, Stantis won't waste time on that guy anymore. Then again I thought he was done making fun of the mother of a dead soldier.
- Someone finallly had the balls to tell the truth, that we know there were never WMDs in Iraq - right in front of the President! It was at the funeral of Coretta Scott King, and Republicans were up in arms - I mean how dare he, bring up politics at the funeral for a political activist?
- Personally my favorite story: a young Bush appointee was telling people at NASA that every time they mentioned the Big Bang they had to include the word "theory," because he was pushing to replace real science with Intelligent Design. Turns out the guy wasn't just unqualified for the job (his claim to fame was working on the Bush campaign), the kid didn't even graduate college. Ah yes, cronyism is such a beautiful thing, isn't it?
- Of course the biggest story was that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified in front of a Senate committee about W's spy program. For some odd reason he wasn't sworn in to testify under oath, just like those oil execs who lied about being a part of Cheney's energy meetings. The highlight: apparently, according to Gonzo, President George Washington was wiretapping Americans. Whodathunkit?
- And on a sad note, Grandpa Munster passed away. Thanks for the laughter, Mr. Lewis.
Wow, lots happened a couple of weeks ago, and I probably missed some big stories. But at least Stantis will have a ton of material to work with. Unless somebody wrote in to correct him on something - then it's no holds barred to layeth the smacketh down on anyone who dare question the authority of Mighty Scott Stantis.
Enjoy your Sunday.
Posted by The Furnace at 08:11 AM | Comments (0)February 18, 2006
Gary Gnu Rolls In His Grave
Today Scott Stantis bites the hand that feeds him. Heck, he doesn't just bite it - he tries to rip off the whole arm.
It's a follow up to yesterday's strip, where Winslow asked for the removal of the controversial Marmaduke. He's heard back from the editor of the newspaper, who begs Winslow to keep reading (although Winslow never threatened to stop his subscription) and proceeds to bash his own newspaper industry. You see newspapers are written to be bland and simple to read and without strong opinions, much the same way they were written in 1975.
But why stop at 1975? Hell, newspapers are basically written the same way they were in 1875. Why? Because they exist to get out the news to the general public. The purpose of a newspaper is right in the title - it's NEWS written on PAPER. In today's MTV age it's a common argument - who needs newspapers when we've got cable news? Well, maybe because newspapers still try to adhere to a simple principle: deliver the facts to the public. Granted, there are some sections - like the comics section, or the editorial page, that exist to offer entertainment. I should probably reiterate that for someone as simple as Scott Stantis: OPINIONS are for the EDITORIAL page. Unlike a Fox News, which inserts opinions and bias in their general newscast (oh, he was "peppered," not "shot in the face"), most newspapers strive to keep the opinions and entertainment in their own sections - away from the factual, unbiased news stories.
I never thought I'd have to defend newspapers on a blog. Most of the newspaper reading I do is from their online postings. Sure, their stories are written for the unintelligent that also read Prickly City. That's by design, Stantis: not everybody is as witty as you claim to be. People want the basic info: who, what, when, where, and why (if you know). And not everybody understands the big words that you avoid as well.
Maybe Stantis wants his news with opinion. Maybe he wants to be spoon-fed what his opinions should be in their news stories. And why are the big newspapers losing subscribers? For one thing television does offer round the clock information - but unfortunately they're biased towards the conservative angle more and more every day. Another reason is because certain papers were the biggest cheerleaders for invading Iraq, which we now know was because they were afraid to find the real facts and were content to report the administration's lies. And the internet is growing by leaps and bounds - but there are too many people (like yourself, Scooter) that seem to confuse editorials with news. But hey, if you want your news as it's written by the government feel free - but I'll take an inky, messy newspaper that keeps the opinions on the opinion page and the funny comics (and yours) on the funny pages page.
Odds are Stantis is still hurting because some newspapers yanked his comic when he lied about what Ted Kennedy said and then thought it was humorous to make fun of the Terri Schiavo case. Winslow's letter to the editor is very similar to the one written to the editor of the Sacramento Bee. However in that case the reader wasn't offended by the strip - he pointed out that Stantis has a tendency to be factually wrong. Gee, Stantis getting his facts wrong? Next you'll be telling me there are no coyotes in Alaska.
Posted by The Furnace at 07:09 AM | Comments (5)February 17, 2006
Just Shoot Me
What a strange week it's been. Amidst the three strips about Oprah, which all say the same thing only with different "drawings," the predicted foray into Sheehan, which by a stroke of good (or bad) timing ended up in the lap of Sacki, our resident Sheehan Crank, and the inexplicable appearance of Doris Kearns Goodwin on our website, I'm about to go on record as making a stunning THIRD SUPPORTIVE COMMENT about Scott Stantis this week: Today's strip is pretty good.
It sets up the expectation that Stantis is going to go Old Testament Book of Leviticus on liberals. By frame three you think, "This jackass is going to end with 'For the party of tolerance, democrats sure are intolerant,' or some such needless needling he likes to throw out there because he has no other ideas.
But -- BAM! -- in frame four he takes a sharp turn and... lo and behold... it's funny. Or at least it's cute. Or at least it's not punch-your-fist-on-the-Corn-Flakes-box bad. And Carmen is the right size.
Plus, it's topical. You get the vague allusions to the controversy surrounding publishing (or not publishing) the 'offensive' Danish political cartoons.
AND, it's self-aware. I'm sure Stantis gets enough hate mail to know a lot of people loathe his strip and undoubtedly write their local newspapers asking for them to dump it.
In conclusion, would somebody please take me out back and put a round of birdshot into my face and chest before I get too soft.
Posted by CJo at 09:40 AM | Comments (4)February 16, 2006
Target Practice Seems To Be In Vogue These Days
It should be stated as a precondition that Cindy Sheehan is certifiably cuckoo. If the ever-so-popular-with-the-kids Bratz line of doll figures came out with a "Nutz" line, they wouldn't all look like Tijuana whores, as they do, but rather they'd have the please-don't-let-me-see-that-while-I'm-trying-to-eat face of Cindy Sheehan slapped on. If she were to join the wrestling circuit, she'd fit easily into the nickname Cindy "The (Misfiring) Brain" Sheehan. Her favorite food is probably crackers.
Which isn't to say that Mr. Stantis isn't wrong in picking on her like that. Making fun of the mentally ill is just off limits, and nobody should do it, ever, under any circumstance.
But really, that broad should join the International Federation of Competitive Eating and enter into the Slurpee contest, because it's impossible for her to get brain-freeze.
Posted by Sacki at 07:11 AM | Comments (5)February 15, 2006
Daughter of Frankenstein
CARMEN BIIIG!
CARMEN TOO BIG FOR FRAME!
DISAPPEAR HER!
CJO WILLS IT!
--------
In other news, if you get a chance you should listen to Scott's
podcast this week. They read a hilariously profane letter someone sent to Stantis, which envisions Scott having a 3-way with Cheney and Bush. We need to find that letter writer. Offer him a weekly rant.
What's interesting is they edit out the numerous uses of the word "fuck" though they leave in an occasional "shit," which seems odd since A) one of the bedrock principals of conservatism is to protect our families from bad language and sex in the media (though violence is OK), and B) Stantis has made a blatant attempt to appeal to the kiddies by offering the series of stickers, W the Coyote, C the Girl, S the fuck-turtle, and K the Lost Sticker of the End Times. So I imagine he has some kid listeners each week.
At any rate, the letter really goes "New Testament -- The Dirty King James Version" on Scott's ass. And I admire Scott's sense-of-humor that he actually read it on air. (Or, at least, had Toby read it.)
I'm admiring Scott! For the second time! In two days! (Check out yesterday's comments for a fun political cartoon Scott penned about Cheney.)
Would someone please turn me into a pillar of salt, toss my salty carcass on a burning bush, and pray for 40 days (and nights) of rain.
Posted by CJo at 06:34 AM | Comments (1)February 14, 2006
The Big O
First off, I'd just like to type this:
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY SHOT A 78-YEAR-OLD MAN IN THE FACE.
But of course it was the victim's fault. Ahem.
In Prickly City news, Stantis is going after some pretty big game this week himself: Miss O. The Big O. I know her as Miss Winfrey. The most powerful woman in the world. Hmm, do you think Scooter's gotten in over his head this time?
Unfortunately, Stantis pulls out his Easy Button and phones in arguably the laziest and lamest Oprah jokes known to man. Lookie, Winslow lied about his book "A Million Little Coyotes!" Ha ha - he's jumping on the couch like Tom Cruise! Now Oprah wants him "disappeared!" She's all-powerful, ya know. And now Winslow is missing that smelly stinky liberal Phil Donahue! Hardy har har.
Stantis is exerting as much energy here as a group of rich old men hunting farm-raised quail only feet away from their cars. Ahem.
What makes it worse is that Stantis doesn't even try to come up with his own spin on Oprah. Instead he just steals the version Debra Wilson plays on Mad TV (pictured above). Ooooh, what's next - Winslow is sent to counseling with Dr. Phil? If I'm right, somebody owes me a Coke.
Maybe all of this would be cute if it was two weeks ago when the rest of the country's funnymen were joking about the Jim Frey story. But that's one of the limitations of writing a comic strip - you're always two weeks behind everybody else. That means if you want to write a good comic strip, you either think ahead or only deal with topics that aren't as time sensitive. Then again, I mean it's not like today is a big holiday or anything.
Happy Valentine's Day, everybody!
Posted by The Furnace at 08:22 AM | Comments (11)February 13, 2006
A Million Little Pieces of Toilet Paper
I'm not going to deny Stantis a couple of shots at Oprah. She's ripe for ridicule and Stantis hasn't yet harvested that fruit twenty thousand million times. However, we'll make sure to keep an eye on this. If Oprah jokes turn into the next Teddy Kennedy, Michael Moore, or Winslow-Tries-to-Fly, we'll be all over his ass.
There's no denying Oprah's Imprimatur can help move product. She can make (or break, or make and then break) a career. Like that one fellow...William Faulkner. Who ever heard of HIM prior to Oprah.
At any rate, what I'd like to find out is if Shrubville has any of the same power as Oprah. Therefore, I'm officially announcing February's Shrubville's Books selection: Prickly City by Scott Stantis -- a delightful collection of "comic" strips artlessly sketched with a Sharpie on six rolls of toilet paper.
If just a handful of the handful of Shrubville readers purchase this book, we may see its Amazon ranking rise from 431,575 to at least 431,576...but with a bullet.
So get out your credit cards! Let's make Scott Stantis a couple bucks in royalties! And Scott, if you're listening, I'd gladly accept a couple spare nickels back for my efforts.
Posted by CJo at 11:33 AM | Comments (6)February 12, 2006
Fly Hard Part 452: Fly Harder (Again) - or - If At First You Don't Succeed, You're a Failure
I'm not sure how it works in publishing circles. Maybe, since Sunday is a day when kids are most likely to flip through the funny pages, political operatives like Stantis are asked to keep it simple, stupid. Maybe that's why most times he's got Winslow trying to fly in a single panel that requires as little drawing as possible. Or maybe Stantis is just lazy. In any event, Winslow tries to fly again and fails. I betcha on April Fool's Day we actually think the little bugger gets to soar!
Which brings to us to what's become a regular column at the Shrub: what might Stantis talk about this week? Granted I only try to do stuff like this when Stantis phones it in, so it's happening every other day now. So strapping on the Shrubville Future Goggles (which look back two weeks to see what Stantis does next week), what could Carmen and Winslow deal with over the next few days?
- "I did not have social relations with that man!" - George W. Bush on his relationship with Jack Abramoff. Maybe we could learn that Toothy the Beaver, while a Canadian citizen, is actually a powerful lobbyist for Indian Casinos. Despite Carmen having been seen with him several times in last week's series, Stantis could go back and scrub those panels and act as if they never met.
- Ann Coulter "joked" about poisoning a Supreme Court justice. Do you think Stantis will spend a few days on this like he did the Harry Belafonte story? That's like asking if Tim Russert would ask John McCain about this story the same way he did Barack Obama about Belafonte. Then again it would be funny if Carmen joked about killing Winslow. No, wait, that's not funny. Oh Annie, stick with what you do best - acting insane.
- Around this time the leader of Iran was saying that the Holocaust never happened, as if to say, "Hey, is anybody listening to me? What does a guy have to say to get noticed? Hey, I know..." After his brush up with the NOW I doubt Scooter will touch something like this, although we might find out that Shelly is jewish.
- Exxon posted the highest profits for any US company ever - 10.7 billion dollars for the last quarter of 2005. Let me say that again: 10.7 BILLION dollars for the last THREE MONTHS of 2005. Over 36 billion for the year. I hope Stantis learns how to draw an SUV, because I'd love to see him explain how the oil companies can make more money than god while the rest of us struggle to pay our heating bills this month.
- Then there are the last two big stories of that week: Samuel Alito was confirmed to the Supreme Court and Bush gave his State of the Union address. While I'm sure Stantis would love to recycle the bit with Winslow wanting to be a judge, I have a feeling we'll get a "State of Prickly City" address from somebody. And he'll probably find a way to make fun of the mother of a dead soldier because there is sooo much comedy potential in that. Personally, I think there's a lot of comedy gold to be mined from Winslow constantly wanting to pro-create with human women since Bush is so opposed to human-animal hybrids. Since that's the case W should have a good long talk with his buddy anti-abortionist extremist Neal Horsley, who was more than happy to admit that he had sex with a mule. Oh those wacky ultra-conservatives. It's good they don't run the country. Oh, wait -
In closing: do you think Stantis has any idea how perfect a metaphor Winslow trying to fly and failing every time is for his comic strip?
February 11, 2006
If It Was Jello He Would Have Just Bounced Off
Art means different things to different people. For example, Winslow excuses his pouncing on Carmen's bottomless pudding cup and spreading its chocolate-y goodness all over the place (much to Carmen's chagrine) to be worthy of the Louvre. And personally, I have to agree with him. Just like that bird up above - not only is that art, it's damn funny to boot.
Yeah, I know this is supposed to be Stantis taking another dig at the National Endowment for the Arts (or is it OF the Arts?). But who cares? Carmen covered in a brown, liquidy substance is kinda funny. Granted there's more pudding in that cup than in that barrel-sized jug you can buy at Sam's Club, but still - it's chuckle-worthy.
However I fear for the people whose newspapers cut off that first panel. If they don't get Carmen's expository dialogue at the beginning people might think a rabid, feral Winslow finally snapped and pounded the poor neo-con into a bloody pulp. Ah, it's fun to dream...
Oh, and for those of you worried about Stantis's's artistic abilities, at least a few of today's panels look like he spent some time connecting the dots. But that one with Winslow attacking - can someone explain to him that there are better ways to draw action than to scribble all over the place? Poor Carmen doesn't even look human.
Finally, I'd like to take a moment to observe the passing of "Arrested Development." You guys made me laugh more in one minute than Stantis has in my entire time contributing at The Shrub. And that's not a joke. To Michael, George Michael, Gob, Buster, Bob Loblaw, Hello, and all the rest - THANK YOU.
RIP - Arrested Development
Posted by The Furnace at 09:12 AM | Comments (0)February 10, 2006
Leave it [at] Two [days worth of] Beaver[s]
Roger, Lost Beaver of the Canadian Apocalypse, continues his inexplicable visit to Prickly City today. Maybe he's traveling city-by-city announcing the Canadian election returns. Or quite possibly he's in town visiting his cousin Meringue-y the Duck.
The good news is it looks like Scott improved his beaver technique after a rough go-of-it yesterday. Today's beaver is more squat, more height-appropriate. The bad news is when he speaks...Look at the size of the puss on that beaver. Mon dieu!
As I may have mentioned before, I have ZERO artistic talent. So please understand I'm criticizing Stantis' "art" from a fan-of-the-comics perspective. I certainly could not draw my own comic strip and get it nationally syndicated and get my own personal Toby, etc.
However, I took a stab at drawing a beaver with a sharpie (the green beaver pictured above) using my left foot. (OK, it was my left hand. And I'm left-handed.) It may look a little squirrel-like, and I didn't show it opening its mouth (which I'm sure is very tricky), but I think it's kind of cute. At least it won't give children nightmares about the Canadian Apocalypse.
But back to politics. Stantis trots out Ye Olde Charge: People Are So Turned Off By the Hollywood Liberal Elite's Endorsement of Liberal Candidates That They Will Vote for the Other Candidate Just to Prove a Point. This charge, of course, was all-the-rage after Bush won in '04 , on Fox News and other lesser-known right-wing outlets.
So on behalf of the god-knows-how-many Canadians who voted along "moral issues" and booted out the Liberals, I would like to say to Kim Cattrall, Michael J. Fox, Elisha Cuthbert, Rick Moranis, Alan Thicke, Jim Carey, Evangeline Lilly, Dan Akroyd, Meg AND Jennifer Tilly, Mike Meyers, David Foley, Pam Anderson, Celine Dion, Martin Short, and Jason Priestly...
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFT, eh? you hosers.
Posted by CJo at 07:00 AM | Comments (4)February 09, 2006
Insert Beaver Joke Here
Sorry for the lateness of today's post, but Sacki was called to testify about the President's illegal wiretapping program so he's indisposed until this afternoon. At least that was his excuse - personally I think it's because there's little funny to mine from today's PC.
In case you missed it, apparently a few weeks back the Canadians voted in the Conservatives to take over after a lengthy period under Liberal rule. Although looking at that funky chart those wacky Canadians are all goofy - they've got like FOUR political parties? What the hell is that all about? Don't they know it's only supposed to be good vs. evil? It's probably because half of them speak French.
Personally I stopped paying attention to Canada when the NHL went on strike. Apparently like the Conservatives the NHL is back too, but does anybody really care at this point?
So I guess in Stantis's mind this makes the Canadians "cool" in his book - not like those lousy stinky smelly liberals in Vermont. Yeah, that's right, Stantis brings up Canadians TO TAKE A SHOT AT HOWARD DEAN. Dude, just give it a rest already. If you keep bringing up Dean some of us are going to start to wonder if you have a big man crush on the guy or something.
I wonder if Stantis realizes that there's a movement in Vermont to become an independent state once again. They should be so lucky to pull that off. Maybe they'd offer universal healthcare, which was the only thing that interested me about moving to Canada.
Oh, and yeah, Stantis introduces a Beaver to the pantheon of Prickly Cit characters. Although the thing looks like a sabretooth tiger with those buck teeth. I don't expect him back anytime soon, unless Stantis hates hockey too. Or maybe has a personal problem with the maple syrup industry.
And finally, Stantis does it again - the punchline about regime change is spoken by Winslow. WTF? Dammit Sacki, hurry back and explain to me why Winslow would be the one saying that regime change begins at home in Vermont. Egad, why couldn't we just get another day of Stantis whipping out his dick at NOW? He could have still used the beaver as a prop (think about it - it'll make sense later).
February 08, 2006
Bittersweet Symphony vs. Right Here, Right Now
You've just got to love the two-weeks-ahead deadline for a purportedly topical strip.
On January 25th Stantis published his Joe Paterno/Clinton was a Rapist/National Organization of [sic] Women/Hypocrisy strip. He immediately received a letter from NOW (which he read on the following week's podcast) which corrected two mistakes he had made:
1. It's National Organization FOR Women,
2. NOW never endorsed Bill Clinton for president.
The letter was polite, though it did chide Stantis for not spending a couple of minutes verifying both items, easily done by clicking through the NOW website.
The letter must have enraged Stantis so much that he immediately dropped whatever engaging PC storyline he was working on (ha!) and started to sketch out his revenge.
By the magic of syndication, we didn't see the results until yesterday when he made reference to the l'il brouhaha with his bizarre and ridiculous blaming of Winslow for his errors. And today he decides that since he's talking about NOW, he might as well bloody a woman's nose or two while he's at it.
He takes us through a little history lesson of NOW, letting us know it was founded to "allow GIRLS to be free to think and speak for themselves." Which makes me think Scott is getting his history from reading the liner notes of Free to Be You and Me.
He then goes on to say that NOW (after such lofty ideals as allowing GIRLS to be free) is just an arm of the Democratic Party.
Seemingly just a few more seconds on the NOW website, Scott, and you would have found FAQ question seven:
7. Is NOW affiliated with any one political party?No, NOW is a non-partisan organization. Candidates of all political parties are eligible for endorsement by NOW/PAC and by state and local NOW Political Action Committee.
Then he connects the dots for us: NOW is an arm of the Democratic Party, therefore any GIRLS in NOW are LOOPY, because -- it logically follows -- Democrats are LOOPY.
(Though, frankly, this is all pretty tame considering the last time he tackled NOW, he called all the members heathen sluts who hug aborted fetuses.)
At any rate, two weeks ago when he was sketching out his revenge on the GIRL at NOW who dared correct him, laughing maniacally and swinging his fists in rage, he had no idea that a few days before his strips would hit the papers Betty Friedan would die.
So NOW Stantis looks like a major-league asshole.
Yeah, big-time.
And somewhere Betty Friedan is weeping. FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE.
Posted by CJo at 09:05 AM | Comments (6)February 07, 2006
Apocalypse N.O.W.
Oh boy, here we go again. Today Stantis references himself in THIS STRIP, which while supposedly about Joe Paterno, was really about calling President Bill Clinton a rapist and the National Organization for Women hypocrites for endorsing him. Because you see Clinton was a RAPIST and they're WOMEN.
Yeah yeah I know, he put the word "alleged" in front of rapist. But the message is clear: Clinton is a rapist. I mean I could say that Scott Stantis is an alleged pedophile or Scott Stantis is an alleged puppy killer - but I won't, because it's not like he's actually been convicted of those crimes. He's an alleged talentless hack - now that one is debatable.
Oh, and for good measure Stantis wrote without a shadow of a doubt that Clinton is a sexual predator. Gee, a guy who cheats on his wife? Then someone call the cops - every guy who's ever gotten a hummer from a chick that he wasn't married to is a sexual predator, at least in the twisted mind of Scooter.
But as for today's strip, Stantis basically uses his own idiocy to drudge up the topic of the N.O.W. again. Winslow wants to gloat about how Carmen wrongly said they backed Clinton in both of his presidential elections - Carmen reminds him that he was the one who said they endorsed Clinton, but they didn't. Um, this is comedy? No, it's a doofus who can't keep his own characters straight - AND POINTS OUT THAT VERY FACT IN HIS OWN STRIP. Moron.
As for Clinton and the N.O.W., just why exactly would Stantis THINK they endorsed him? Well the most obvious answer is that Bubba was firmly pro-choice while Bush Sr. and Dole were both wishy-washy on the topic (although I'm sure they both did their "gloat dance" when Alito was confirmed). So really, is it a shock that Stantis thought they supported the guy? Of course not, but Stantis needed an excuse to bring up Bubba so he can blame EVERYTHING on him, like every other Republican when things aren't going well.
So in addition to trying to correct himself without actually admitting an error on his own behalf (darn these comic characters - they have minds of their own!), he probably ran this strip because someone pointed out that he (he IS Winslow remember - he puts the words in the character's speech balloon) referred to them as the National Organization OF Women instead of FOR Women. And that was especially stupid since he has Winslow say it, and the liberal coyote should be the one who knows the real name of the organization.
CJo let it slide, seeing much more humor potential in showing how Stantis has become a cut-and-paste comic. Unfortunately the only liberal thing about the guy is that he also recycles. Too bad when you recycle crap you just get back more crap.
Posted by The Furnace at 08:16 AM | Comments (7)February 06, 2006
Nobody Likes a Sore Winner
"Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."
That's the theme of today's Prickly. Now first off, you have to assume that Stantis considers the appointment of Samuel "Never Met a Corporation He Didn't Like More Than a Person" Alito to the Supreme Court the final piece to making it a conservative bench. Never mind that Sandra Day O'Connor was actually a conservative justice on most cases. Since the vast majority of judicial appointees on all levels have been conservative over the past 25 years (17 under Republicans, 8 under a Democrat - the math is pretty easy), and the Republicans took over Congress in 2002, I think most of us have thought of the "conservatives" as being "large and in charge" as Carmen says for the past 3 years.
In any event, Carmen is bragging that her side has complete control. Winslow appropriately points out that if they're in charge, then since everything sucks it's their fault. Carmen, as oblivious as the next Republican, doesn't think anything can go wrong under the guidance of George W. 2 Terms Mandate Bush.
So pulling out the handy dandy Shrubville Reference Book (patent pending), let's look back and see what's been happening in our country since 2002:
1. Everyone but us sucks, and since we're the best we can invade whoever we want whenever we want. Oh, and if you want our troops to come home instead of fighting in a war we went to based on lies, that somehow means you don't support them. Yeah, I still haven't figured that one out either.
Powerful and continuing expression of nationalism.
2. Since anyone (well anyone with brown skin who talks funny) could be a terrorist, we can ignore their human rights and throw them in prison. Heck, we can even kill them if need be.
Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. You know those accused terrorists I just mentioned? What better way to bring a country together than to make all of them the enemy?
Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. Sure, our kids need books and old people need their medicine, but dammit - there are wars to be started! Er, I mean fought!
The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Women's rights? Not under Alito's watch!
Rampant Sexism.
6. You think Fox News is conservative? Have you been watching CNN or reading the Washington Post lately?
A controlled mass media.
7. No matter what the conversation, every Republican will mention 9/11 at least once and use it as a justification for EVERYTHING. Oh, and the Republicans will run on the platform of National Security! every year for as long as the war on terror lasts (in other words, forever). Oh, and don't talk too long on the phone - somebody's probably listening.
Obsession with national security.
8. The Religious Right run the country. Just ask Harriet Miers. And W, who just mentioned how the "Almighty" is telling him what to do.
Religion and ruling elite are tied together.
9. Corporations write our legislation. Just ask Exxon and their "we made more money than GOD last year!" fiscal reports.
Power of corporations protected.
10. Unions? We don't need no stinkin' unions!
Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Damn liberal Hollywood is ruining our country. If they had their way, we'd all be gay cowboys eating pudding! We're all going to be "left behind" if they're not stopped.
Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. It's better to imprison someone and try to find something later that they might have done wrong instead of actually, you know, having a case - just ask Jose Padilla.
Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Michael Brown and the rest of the guys who worked on Bush's campaign who have no real experience are all doing a heckuva job. Oh, and nobody does corruption like these Republicans - heck, they throw one out (Delay) and replace him with a guy who's even worse (Boehner). Unless you think handing out checks from tobacco company lobbyists on the floor of Congress is somehow less evil than what Delay's been doing.
Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. If they stole 2000, and if they stole 2004, they're damn well going to steal 2008 (unless Bush decides that elections would be a threat to national security, and it would just be easier to stay President until the war on terror ends. Or forever - whichever comes first.
Fraudulent elections.
Yup, that about sums up America Under Conservative Rule. Geez, that sounds kinda familiar...maybe this link will help.
I'll close the way I started, with another unfunny quote:
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
(With apologies to CJo, who is out today - I'm sorry, I just don't feel very funny today. Not that I did yesterday. Or the day before that...)
Posted by The Furnace at 08:21 AM | Comments (5)February 05, 2006
Tongue Lashing
I should probably start by apologizing for calling Stantis a "homophobe" yesterday. One strip slamming Brokeback Mountain doesn't necessarily mean he hates gay people. I mean, it's not like he's the kind of guy of who goes for cheap laughs, like spending a strip making fun of people with speech impediments.
In today's strip, Scott Stantis makes fun of people with speech impediments.
Yeah, I know, it's not really like that but he's left me with nothing to comment about today. Winslow goes to get his tongue pierced, when he chickens out the guy forgets to let go of the clamp, and now Winslow's tongue hurts. Why Winslow is getting his tongue pierced is beyond me. Maybe Conde likes the way that feels in the sack. Or maybe mAnn Coulter likes how that feels against his/her sack.
Unfortunately we don't have much to look forward to this upcoming week either. No Hillary or Nagin comments, but here are a few things that were big stories two weeks ago:
- The Abramoff scandal was growing by leaps and bounds. The White House was (and still is) on a quest to destroy every picture of Jack and W since Bush claims he didn't know the guy. Stantis will probably ignore it.
- Bush's approval rating dipped back down below 40%. He won't touch that with a ten foot long tongue.
- Shrubya introduced his "Health Savings Accounts" as a way to somehow deal with the travesty that is his latest Medicare Drug Bill fiasco. Maybe this will allow Stantis to introduce Carmen's dying great uncle, who expires before the end of the week because he can't fill out all of the paperwork in order to get his meds.
- Ralph Reed, poster boy for the Religious Right, had to actually pay supporters to show up at his political event. Maybe he could tie that in to Winslow's speech where the yellow duck showed up. Who knows what else Winslow could be paying that duck to do...
- And, of course, there's the illegal wiretapping scandal that keeps getting bigger and bigger every week. I really want Stantis to tackle this - there's a ton of funny potential in Carmen spying on Winslow. Winslow could have a second cousin who lives in Mexico, but since he lives in a foreign country and his name is "Al Quesadilla" it's enough to justify Bush's wanting to listen in on all of their conversations.
As for today, I'm going to be like the rest of the country and watch The Big Game. Yup, nothing like The Puppy Bowl.*
*Steelers to cover the spread.
February 04, 2006
Halfback Mountain
Do you remember that episode of The Simpsons where Moe gets plastic surgery? He goes from "ugly ugly" to superhot, and then does his best to rub it in the face of everyone that's ever made fun of him. However, as is the rule of sitcoms, Moe couldn't stay handsome. So they have a wall fall on his face, and he goes back to being Moe. Which, of course, don't make no sense. While it was a cheap way out, it worked for me because the Simpsons writers knew that they had to go back to the status quo and they've earned some slack after a decade and a half of priceless comedy.
And that brings me to today's Prickly City. It doesn't make any damn sense. At first Winslow is screaming from the mountain tops about how everywhere he goes there's coverage of the Super Bowl, demanding that they "just play the dang game!!!" (that's right, three exclamation points). And then in the final panel he's grinning from ear to ear, soaking up the pre-pre-pre-game show (that's right, three pre's).
Altogether now: HUH?
Maybe a Simpsons writer could have turned this around so it made any sense at all. First Winslow hates the Super Bowl pre-game, then he loves it...nope, I can't think of anyone who could salvage that scrap heap. I mean it's got a pretty high funny potential - I too agree that they spend way too much time (2 weeks worth) hyping the game. But as well all know, if you want funny don't look to Scott Stantis for your fix.
Although now that I think about it, if Stantis wasn't such a homophobe he could have gotten a groaner out of that last line:
Winslow, coming down from the "mountain" to spend Sunday with the man he loves but wishes he could hate:
"John Madden, why can't I quit you!?!?!?"
February 03, 2006
The Stupor Bowl
Ouch. My head hurts as much as Big Ben Roethlisberger (pictured above) after getting sacked. Er, I mean drunk. Or drunk then sacked.
Regardless, the combination of the corpse of Dio and a football theme is causing my brain to pound.
Everyone knows the time to run a football strip is in the fall, not when there are approximately two days left in the football season (unless you count the Pro Bowl, which I certainly don't). I mean, sure, the Super Bowl is this Sunday so some could argue the strip is timely. But, come on. Football = Fall is a comic strip rule. The falling leaves, the crisp air, Charlie Brown, Lucy.
So what, you may wonder, is an appropriate topic or theme to introduce in late winter? Why, it's the perfect time to sully the Democrats, of course! Duh.
***************
Anyway, Steelers by...let's say...10. MVP...let's say...Antwaan Randle-El. Dio's next appearance...let's say...June '06. Fly to Vegas, check into a hotel, walk over to the Sports Book, and make it so.
Posted by CJo at 06:23 AM | Comments (2)February 02, 2006
Metal Health Will Drive You Mad
During the course of doing supplementary research in order to flesh out the standard compulsory crap that I usually put down here, I came across a quite meaningful exchange of thoughts and ideas by some ESL folks, which I think might lend some insight into the character of Carmen, the putative starlet of Prickly City:
"Is high-foreheaded the same is cocky?"
...and a child shall lead them.
Meanwhile, today's strip is quite thick with possibilities and hidden meanings that might take months - maybe years - to sort through, in that we can blurrily make out that she's been reading the Art of War and is keeping her NMEs closer. NMEs not to be confused with WMDs, of course. Although I'll bet you $5 I can get Colin Powell to testify that they're present in the Sonoma Desert and another $5 that Cindy Sheehan would go nuts if she heard Powell testify to that fact. Or has she cracked the Da Vinci Code and is trying to work through the Sermon on the Mount and it's whole shaggy "love your enemies" claptrap? Or might it be just another bestiality storyline?
Do comic strips have a "sweeps" month?
Posted by Sacki at 09:07 AM | Comments (1)
February 01, 2006
Goodness Gracious Great Gobs of Gall
As usual, the Furnace nails it.
On Sunday he asked, "So what might be up this week at PC?"
And he answered: "...look for Stantis to get a lot of mileage out of Hillary's plantation comments and Nagin's wanting New Orleans to be a chocolate city."
Bam and Bam.
However, my big question about today's strip is...
WHERE'S THE DUCK FROM YESTERDAY?!
I thought for sure Stantis was introducing another character to join this distinguished group of supporting players:
Hollywood, the vomiting-drunk pedophiliac,
Dio, the philosopher lizard,
Shelly, the humpable turtle,
Twisty, the Dust Devil,
Kevin, Lost Bunny of the Apocalypse
and Linda, Lost Cactus Wren of the Apocalypse.
Only time will tell if Meringuey the Duck will ever make another appearance.
I suppose a few words are in order about Stantis and Co. getting their Peggy-Noonans* in a twist over Hillary Clinton's plantation remark. I'll just leave it up to you to peruse this collection of links in which some right-leaning publications and pundits referenced the "Democratic plantation."
---------------------
* Another word for granny panties.
Posted by CJo at 11:08 AM | Comments (4)
picture courtesy of JB
