« Last of the Red Hot Haters | Main | Shut the Mutts Up »
July 11, 2006
Living in the Real World
I have a quirky idea. Let's break down today's unfunny Prickly City in the real world, not the fantasy world where Scott Stantis and a frightening majority of Republicans are living in today.
Panel One
Winslow: So the terrorists want to kill us.
Carmen: Yes.
Panel Two
Winslow: We have plans that George W. Bush and his administration have bragged about over the last four years to stop them.
Carmen: Yep.
Panel Three
Winslow: And the "liberal" New York Times and the "conservative" Wall Street Journal ran a story talking about those plans, revealing that Bush is doing it without any oversight at all, meaning we don't have a clue who he's really monitoring - it could be you and me?
Carmen: With glee.
Panel Four
Winslow: So what's the big deal? Why shouldn't the press have the freedom to report to us when the government is spying on us without any oversight, especially when it's a program that the government has been talking about for years now? Not to mention that you'd have to be a pretty stupid terrorist not to realize that the government is going to monitor your phone calls and banking transactions.
Carmen: Can't explain it. Maybe it's because Dick Cheney and Bush want to be able to do whatever they want.
Panel Five (bonus!)
Winslow: Well the Republicans went all crazy about this banking story, so much so that Republicans were threatening violence against the reporters at the NYT and even printing their personal addresses and phone numbers. And they didn't even complain about the Wall Street Journal because it's conservative.
Carmen: It does seem pretty dangerous on their part, and hypocritical.
Panel Six (even more bonus!)
Winslow: And why is it when on 7/7 the NYT revealed that the Feds had broken up a terrorist plan to blow up tunnels in New York that not only did the Bush Regime NOT complain, the Republicans cheered them on?
Carmen: I think it's that hypocrisy again. If a leak helps Bush they love it, but if it hurts him they want to hang the reporters for treason.
Panel Seven (okay at this point it would be Wednesday's strip)
Winslow: Whatever happened to the First Amendment?
Carmen: I think Bush called it a "damn piece of paper."
Winslow: That would explain a lot.
So there you have it - my attempt to bring Prickly City into the real world. Just when I think the Republicans in charge can't get any more brazen in their power grab, they go after newspapers that actually report the facts. Facts that have been in the public for ages - well, except for the part where Bush and Co. don't tell Congress or the Supreme Court what they're doing. Yet a strip like Prickly City will happily suck up to Bush and Cheney, presenting their skewed version of reality, asking why the NYT (but not the WSJ) shouldn't be eaten. Nah, instead of facts we should be like most right-wingers and simply follow the story they're telling instead of what's really happening. I think in nature they're known as sheep. Or lemmings.
(By the way, the whole "desert hamsters" instead of terrorists isn't funny and actually pretty insulting. It was one thing when Stantis did it when Winslow went to "war," another thing when it's months later. Wasn't funny then, isn't funny now. That and I think it's insulting to our servicemen and women fighting the real war. Just my two cents.)
Comments
By the way, it wasn't lost on me that BOTH Winslow and Carmen are conservatives in today's strip. I've just given up on trying to follow their political affiliations anymore.
Posted by: The Furnace at July 11, 2006 08:41 AM
Heh, I wonder if this strip will cause controversy. Another conservative cartoonist Mike Lester drew an anti-NYT cartoon where Uncle Sam got "bloods of American soldier" on his hand because NYT printed that stuff. That recieved hell, even from an ex-newspaper editor.
Oh, and Furnace, to answer your question in yesterday's comment, where you discovered my love for "Prickly City", meh, I'm used to people bashing my OTHER favorite comic-strips. I want to thank you for not bashing me for it. I got hell for my obession with "Mutts" by McDonnell in a forum I shall remain nameless. Besides, I enjoy sites riciduling any comic strips anyway (there's a site similar to Shrubville called "FOOBVille", making fun of "For Better")
Just don't bash "Pearls Before Swine" and I'll let you live ;)
Posted by: Charles Brubaker at July 11, 2006 08:51 AM
CORRECTION: The site's name is FOOBiverse.
http://community.livejournal.com/binky_betsy/
Posted by: Charles Brubaker at July 11, 2006 08:54 AM
I've long said to each his or her own, and I appreciate your comments. It's always good to get a differing viewpoint, and I think it helps us out when we're trying to vent about what we're reading.
And there's a site called Foobville? No way. I wonder if that's a rip-off of this site's name, which I always thought CJo used because it's a conservative reference.
Posted by: The Furnace at July 11, 2006 09:02 AM
Nevermind on the Foob thing.
Posted by: The Furnace at July 11, 2006 09:02 AM
Oh, BTW. You should've mentioned in the Bonus 5th panel that some Republicans wants the names of schools the reporters childrens go to (TRUE! I read it at This Modern World.com)
Posted by: Charles Brubaker at July 11, 2006 09:06 AM
In addition to mentioning schools where their kids go, a couple of right wing sites actually offered driving directions to the NYT publisher's house.
And why would ANYONE complain about 'Mutts'. It's harmless, amusing and sometimes witty -- everything Prickly City isn't.
Posted by: jackmac at July 11, 2006 10:10 AM
I don't like Mutts, but I'll give you this: the cartoonist knows his characters and his audience. It's well thought out. I do like For Better or For Worse.
I don't like Prickly City, but if people want to offer thoughtful support, that's cool. My real confusion with today's strip goes back to the original Desert Hamsters War thing, which is that I couldn't figure out if Scott was arguing for or against it, and who was on what side. The usual. I want to sit the man down and teach him how to do a simple outline.
Posted by: Annie at July 11, 2006 10:26 AM
I think Stantis needs more than an outline - he could use some therapy. He claims to be a conservative and not a Republican, yet his views change weekly. This week he's for bashing the press and ignoring the Constitution while being in favor of Big Government spying on us. Yet a few months back he was against Bush's illegal monitoring. I'd call him a flip flopper but he changes views so often I'd need a few more flips and flops in there to be more accurate.
Posted by: The Furnace at July 11, 2006 10:55 AM
I don't know if it was the first dedicated mock-daily-comic-strips site on the web, but I was a great fan of Funny Paper back in the day. They kind of petered out eventually, but the columns from 2001 and 2002 represent some pretty exceptional work in this noble field. (And they were a weekly, which makes Shrubville's publishing schedule all the more remarkable.)
Posted by: Marc Heiden at July 11, 2006 11:19 AM
Hey, these are some pretty great sites. Oh, and Charles, I'll join you in battle if anyone bashes "Pearls" :)
As for Scott... yeah a little therapy is right. He seems like the insecure kind of guy that tries to get everyone to like him, but ends up pissing everyone off instead...
Posted by: JB at July 11, 2006 11:36 AM
Wop-Dee-Doo. Brilliant!
Posted by: Sacki at July 11, 2006 02:11 PM
