Shrubville

I don't think Stantis realizes it, but by misrepresenting HuffPo in today's strip Stantis is showing his support of the striking writers. While the HuffPo writers volunteer to write for free to get their messages out there, screenwriters ARE forced to write content for the internet for their corporate bosses without getting a piece of the revenue generated by the online ads. Good to see that Scott Stantis is a strong union supporter. He's such a liberal.

Not to mention that the lifestyle to which Arianna is accustomed is that of a rich, neo-conservative oil man. Who is now out of the closet.

Hmmmmmm. So does this mean that Scottie is really a DiFi fan? Because my DiFi Fandom is the source of much of my distaste for Arianna. (Well, that and the not paying writers thing, but then, I choose not to write for HuffPo.)

I find it hilarious that Stantis thinks that someone can support a rich lifestyle with blogging. Even some of the most-visited blogs with ads get negligible ad revenue.

"I don't think Stantis realizes it, but by misrepresenting HuffPo in today's strip Stantis is showing his support of the striking writers. While the HuffPo writers volunteer to write for free to get their messages out there, screenwriters ARE forced to write content for the internet for their corporate bosses without getting a piece of the revenue generated by the online ads. Good to see that Scott Stantis is a strong union supporter. He's such a liberal."

The Furnace, that is very funny, but also very true.

The notion that Arianna Huffington is getting rich off of her website is really amazingly stupid and it pretty much destroys whatever point he thought he was making. It's pretty amazing, actually -- the overwhelming majority of people reading that strip have no idea who Huffington is, had never heard of the Huffington Post, and couldn't care less about either of them.

What irritates me most about Stantis is not that I disagree with his point of view, it's that he cannot be bothered to get his facts straight. The best satire is based on reality, not fantasy. Doonesbury succeeded so well for so long for two reasons:

1. His characters were well-rounded, with distinct personalities and stories that we could care about. Does anyone have the foggiest idea who Carmen and Winslow are other than mindless talking heads regurgitating stale talking points?

2. His satire was firmly rooted in reality. Taken a little further than reality for comedic effect, perhaps, but based on reality nonetheless. Regrettably, this is a lesson that neither Stantis nor Tinsley has learned, which is why neither of them will ever achieve the enduring success that Trudeau enjoys.

Paul, that pretty much sums up what I think about this week's series. It's a completely irrelevant topic and the series has no real point. And characterization is certainly not his strong suit. There's the conservative child and there's the dumb liberal. That's as far as he goes in terms of characterization.

I'm not a fan of "Doonesbury" either, though.