Accuracy in reporting
March 2, 2015 3:19 PM   Subscribe

 
Yes. A good cartoons. See also. Now somebody make me a whiskey sour.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:23 PM on March 2, 2015 [8 favorites]


FYI, this link got blocked for me as containing malware. Not sure why, just letting you know.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:24 PM on March 2, 2015


FYI, this link got blocked for me as containing malware.

Thanks, Obama!
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:28 PM on March 2, 2015 [32 favorites]


I hate editorial cartoonists.
posted by PMdixon at 3:28 PM on March 2, 2015 [8 favorites]


I think all they need to know is that "liberals" support it
posted by thelonius at 3:32 PM on March 2, 2015 [5 favorites]


Atom Eyes: "Thanks, Obama!"

I think these are all from Something Awful Dot Com.
posted by boo_radley at 3:35 PM on March 2, 2015


WTF? When did newspaper cartoons start swinging conservative?
posted by fnerg at 3:35 PM on March 2, 2015 [1 favorite]


FYI, this link got blocked for me as containing malware. Not sure why, just letting you know.

Here is the original, though if John Hodgman wants to hack me I say let him. He will put my personal information to good use somehow.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:35 PM on March 2, 2015 [10 favorites]


It's not even necessarily that so much as just nobody over 40 seemingly understanding Net Neutrality. Editorial cartoonists swing less so "conservative" than "allergic to nuance" in my experience.
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:36 PM on March 2, 2015 [2 favorites]


The Onion's Stan Kelly is really the only conservative cartoon you need to read. It's a parody...or is it? If it wasn't the Onion, you wouldn't be able to tell.

Except maybe you could because it's actually more coherent than all the actual conservative cartoons.
posted by emjaybee at 3:39 PM on March 2, 2015 [6 favorites]


I laughed until I cried because it was so true.
posted by immlass at 3:40 PM on March 2, 2015


boo_radley: "Atom Eyes: "Thanks, Obama!"

I think these are all from Something Awful Dot Com.
"

and, of course, whatever hurkety ass cartoonists produced the things in the first place.
posted by boo_radley at 3:41 PM on March 2, 2015


WTF? When did newspaper cartoons start swinging conservative?

Late 70's, early 80's. They really headed to the right when St. Ronnie arrived, along with the Gingrich gang.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:43 PM on March 2, 2015


I'm interested in seeing the originals, but not THAT interested.
posted by mkb at 3:45 PM on March 2, 2015 [2 favorites]


The idea that opposing net neutrality is a meaningfully "conservative" position is bizarre in the first place. Favoring Comcast and Time Warner over Netflix and Google isn't exactly strict constitutional originalism. There's no coherent position or belief system that could lead you to oppose it, only the venal self-interest of shills or the idiotic contrarianism of dupes.
posted by RogerB at 3:46 PM on March 2, 2015 [24 favorites]


WTF? When did newspaper cartoons start swinging conservative?

Late 70's, early 80's. They really headed to the right when St. Ronnie arrived, along with the Gingrich gang.

Al Capp was twenty years ahead of the curve, then. That said, he seemed to be more contrarian than true-blue conservative, as he was pretty liberal in the button-down fifties.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:48 PM on March 2, 2015


I think Saturday Night Live had the right idea, but I suppose Vint Cerf's hand would get sore from slapping so many people in the face.
posted by ckape at 3:49 PM on March 2, 2015 [2 favorites]


nobody over 40 seemingly understanding Net Neutrality.

What a stunningly -- let's say misinformed -- thing to say.
 
posted by Herodios at 3:49 PM on March 2, 2015 [52 favorites]


mkb: "I'm interested in seeing the originals, but not THAT interested."

Interested enough to click this link or is that too much effort?
posted by RobotHero at 3:50 PM on March 2, 2015


Touché and well played, Herodios
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:51 PM on March 2, 2015


Guys I have an idea


What if Obama came out against punching yourself in the face? Just told people on national TV not to punch themselves square in the face. flat out said not to do it.

Think about it.
posted by The Whelk at 3:51 PM on March 2, 2015 [134 favorites]


The site designer has no idea how CSS works.
posted by charlie don't surf at 3:51 PM on March 2, 2015 [7 favorites]


WTF? When did newspaper cartoons start swinging conservative?

How many people under the age of 40 do you know who actually get a physical newspaper daily? The number for me is near if not at zero. That has to have an impact on this sort of thing.
posted by Sequence at 3:52 PM on March 2, 2015 [7 favorites]


Watching how most news outlets discuss net neutrality and most people process it is enough to get one deeply depressed and cynical about the capacity of the press to lead policy discussions and the populace to engage with them.
posted by weston at 3:56 PM on March 2, 2015 [5 favorites]


Politics gets a lot simpler if you accept (however unwillingly) that most people don't understand anything that's happening in the world, and the people who are most certain are usually the ones who understand the least.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:00 PM on March 2, 2015 [20 favorites]


You know who's protecting Net Neutrality? THE GUBMENT!

You don't want the Gubment goin' around doing stuff do ya? DO YA?

(I've got Facebook friends who have seriously, non-ironically expressed this sentiment. I know I'm supposed to Engage In Good Faith but I just can't do it.)
posted by Sing Or Swim at 4:03 PM on March 2, 2015 [4 favorites]


I don't know that the conservative stance against net neutrality is especially sensible, but they at least have a framing for it.

Their side is that this is about "Internet Fast Lanes". It's supposedly about allowing super fast access for specific content. It's true as far as it goes, yeah, a cable company can act as its own CDN, delivering the same streaming content to multiple customers in a way that optimizes the bandwidth and delivers curated content to customers very swiftly.

The problem is that this also establishes the provider as a gatekeeper for effective data rates, which gets used to manipulate competitors (as in the Comcast / Netflix situation).

I don't think I need to hash out the whole pro-neutrality side here, but I think it is at least helpful to give the other side a slight benefit of the doubt for not being drooling morons.
posted by idiopath at 4:05 PM on March 2, 2015


But we're talking about editorial cartoons here, not the politicians who debate the issue.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:07 PM on March 2, 2015


Well, the Republicans have a party line, and you can count on editorial cartoonists with Republican party line talking points (which I probably don't need to remind you are an actual list of framings and arguments that are published and actually followed, this isn't a metaphor). The cartoons make a modicum of sense if you accept the Republican framing, as the cartoonists and a majority of their audience will.

To repeat, the Republican framing is a distortion, and the minor benefits in real time streaming are vastly overshadowed by the capacity for rent-seeking and market manipulation, I'm not arguing for their side.
posted by idiopath at 4:12 PM on March 2, 2015 [3 favorites]


I don't think I need to hash out the whole pro-neutrality side here, but I think it is at least helpful to give the other side a slight benefit of the doubt for not being drooling morons.

Unfortunately there are more people on the other side than just the puppetmasters.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:37 PM on March 2, 2015


I dunno, I support the principle of net neutrality, but something about the way this happened has me thinking "Where's the catch?"
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 4:37 PM on March 2, 2015


Many conservative positions currently have, as their basis, If Obama is for it, we are against it. That resonates with their base.
posted by Bovine Love at 4:39 PM on March 2, 2015 [1 favorite]


Interestingly, the "Christ, what an asshole" line works for these cartoons as well, though in this case applied to the cartoonists.
posted by leotrotsky at 4:55 PM on March 2, 2015 [3 favorites]


I dunno, I support the principle of net neutrality, but something about the way this happened has me thinking "Where's the catch?"

The catch is that this time, there are two principled positions on a controversy. The conservative position is it minimize government involvement in all things, including this thing. The liberal position is that there are some things better regulated by a not-for-profit enterprise for the public good, and answerable to that public.

The catch is that once power is ceded to already powerful private actors, it is notoriously difficult to snatch that power back. Corporations are answerable only to shareholders.

The catch is that if we don't continue to elect people who will appoint FCC commissioners, etc. who understand this, it could all be reversed with the next election.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
posted by Herodios at 4:56 PM on March 2, 2015 [3 favorites]


Some GOP types call Net Neutrality "Obamacare for the Internet." They are right in one regard: Net Neutrality is much like Obamacare in that none of the Republicans I know who have expressed opposition to it understand it at all. (The only Obamacare opponents I know who can accurately explain it are on the left.)
posted by Pater Aletheias at 4:59 PM on March 2, 2015 [10 favorites]


fer chrstsakes if John Oliver can explain it in under 1/2 hour it really, fundamentally is not an overly complex issue. I am sure each of those cartoons took longer to draw then it would take to get a grip on the fundamentals of the issue.
posted by edgeways at 5:05 PM on March 2, 2015 [3 favorites]


If you want to bang out a bunch of cartoons on a deadline with minimal thought and effort - and god knows most political cartoonists do, aping styles long since worn into the ground and still slapping labels on everything instead of learning how to convey meaning with their art - well, half-assed Republican talking points will put that shit on cruise control.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:06 PM on March 2, 2015 [2 favorites]


WTF? When did newspaper cartoons start swinging conservative?

Same time as the papers.
posted by Trochanter at 5:06 PM on March 2, 2015 [1 favorite]


I explained net neutrality to my reasonably tech-savvy, strongly Republican mother, who said "oh, of course that makes sense! It's a good thing!"

I tried to explain it to my strongly Republican dad, who isn't quite sure whether the Internet is a series of tubes or a big dump truck, and he retreated to a line of "I think it's probably a good idea to let the telecoms do what they want." Because Fox News, I guess.
posted by olinerd at 5:06 PM on March 2, 2015 [6 favorites]


What if Obama came out against punching yourself in the face? Just told people on national TV not to punch themselves square in the face. flat out said not to do it.

Key & Peele got this one.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:07 PM on March 2, 2015 [12 favorites]


Somebody should make a web app that takes a big pool of drawings of menacing caricatures of government heavies, a bunch of drawings of Joe Commonman just trying to do his thing, and a bunch of drawings of random objects, and then positions one of each in a panel and puts big dumb labels on them and fills out word balloons with text from political Twitter searches.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:15 PM on March 2, 2015 [3 favorites]


Incidentally, the years-long SomethingAwful political cartoons megathread is a marvelous thing of hideous beauty.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:16 PM on March 2, 2015 [4 favorites]


>nobody over 40 seemingly understanding Net Neutrality.

Actually, people over 40 can remember a time when there was true net neutrality.

But I guess you would have to be into Archie, Gopher, Veronica and Jughead to understand.
posted by Nevin at 5:16 PM on March 2, 2015 [47 favorites]


I too have several family members who are convinced that Net Neutrality is bad. One linked me to a Glenn Beck clip where there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth at how this could mean all the bandwidth used by digital cable could be wrested from their grasp and used instead as a dumb pipe, meaning your cable programs might BUFFER instead of being immediately available.

I... this actually seems like a wonderful change to me. Imagine if Net Neutrality also ended the practice of bundling cable channels?
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 5:24 PM on March 2, 2015


Lol, Glenn Beck. Apparently he is unaware that cable companies have, of their own volition, implemented Switched Digital Video for most non-broadcast HD channels. So when too many people on your node are watching too many different channels it tells you "so sorry, but this channel is unavailable now". I'd call that worse than buffering. Not to mention fucking over all the people with older CableCARD TV sets. (TiVos, HDHomeRun Prime, and some newer sets can use what's called a tuning adapter to request the headend please send a particular channel, but older sets don't know how to use them)

And it's not like they needed to do that. They could have done what some MSOs did and upgraded to 1GHz capable plant, or just eliminate some analog channels, but that would have required spending more money or pissing off people with ancient TVs by requiring they use a cable box on their cable ready sets. Never mind the people who spent a couple grand on an HDTV that now needs a even more expensive cable box and likely lacks a convenient place to put it.
posted by wierdo at 5:39 PM on March 2, 2015 [9 favorites]


WTF? When did newspaper cartoons start swinging conservative?

Right after 9/11. (Although I thought Sequence's reply was very on target, too!)
posted by cleroy at 5:49 PM on March 2, 2015 [1 favorite]


olinerd: I tried to explain it to my strongly Republican dad, who isn't quite sure whether the Internet is a series of tubes or a big dump truck, and he retreated to a line of "I think it's probably a good idea to let the telecoms do what they want." Because Fox News, I guess.

There seems to be a fear under that mindset that if you don't let the powerful have their way, everyone will suffer.

Raise taxes on the rich? They'll close their businesses, take that wealth out of the country entirely and tank the economy.

Regulate net neutrality? The telcos will respond by sending everyone back to the dial-up speed stone age if you're not willing to pay top dollar.

Enforce environmental regulations? They'll close the factories, put everyone out of a job, and open up shop where people will be grateful for the jobs.
posted by dr_dank at 5:59 PM on March 2, 2015 [20 favorites]


Funny, that, given that regulations are designed, by definition, to prevent the powerful from just having their way.
posted by DoctorFedora at 6:12 PM on March 2, 2015


Look if you treat the powerful very very nicely they might not not kill you and if they drop something small you can use it (so long as you use it the right way! They're always listening!)
posted by The Whelk at 6:29 PM on March 2, 2015 [14 favorites]


man, most of these, i just didn't get. I must be living in some sort of bubble. What kind of obviously-incorrect drek are we putting out that people bash us for?
posted by rebent at 6:30 PM on March 2, 2015 [1 favorite]


Well, I ran into one dude who thought that "net neutrality" was like the fairness doctrine and would be used to censor and control those whose online speech was not balanced enough.

He was agin' it.
posted by No-sword at 6:40 PM on March 2, 2015


I've been bickering with people on facebook about Net Neutrality, and the one thing all the Republicans who are against it have in common is THEY ALL LIVE IN CHICAGO AND THE BURBS. All my Republican friends downstate are conspicuously silent because downstate we all live with shitty monopolies who charge us extra for for services that cost no more to provide than they do in exurban Huntley or Bourbonnais, in municipalities older than Chicago by 100 years that have been electrified and had telephony since the Spanish-American fucking War*, but we're small markets so they're like, "Even though your dwellings are all on top of each other, we are going to charge you 'rural rates' with massive line upkeep charges** that presuppose you all live at least a mile apart (my house is 6 feet from the next one), while people on an acre each in exurban Chicago will pay 'city' rates because FUCK YOU, that's why, a market of 300,000 isn't enough to bring in a second provider willing to deal with our monopolistic control of the wires."

After being repeatedly sued for failing to deliver promised speeds of 6 to 12 Mbps, my provider now reliably delivers me 6.01 Mbps, at the rate that suburban people pay for 12 Mbps, with only three provider-side outages a day! It only took me three years to convince them that the wire original to the house and strung in 1950 maybe possibly needed repair or replacement for my telephone and internet to work on a regular basis. They invest nothing in my region for upkeep or improvement of infrastructure; we have an active state utility watchdog that tracks all of this so I KNOW the profits and fees I pay for my "rural" line aren't going to maintaining infrastructure anywhere around here; it goes to improve infrastructure in competitive markets in Chicago and to corporate profits. Things down here only get repairs when they literally set on fire.***

I hate my ISP SO MUCH but the only alternative is Comcast which charges twice as much for worse service, and their stated time-to-install is 90 days but it routinely takes 9 months. For people who already have the cable run. I know corporate customers who've been fighting with Comcast to get a wire for FOUR YEARS.

I already live in a monopolistic, anti-competitive market. At least Net Neutrality means I can keep accessing the websites that I want. (And if it's going to cost me more? Well FUCK YOU, they already raise my rates every damn year because MONOPOLY. This is not the terrifying hellscape you think it is, it is ALREADY MY LIFE.)

*The utility pole behind my house, which dates from when this area was farms, is LITERALLY a crooked, stripped pine tree.

**Chicago-area phones pay $3/month for the "line fee." "Rural" Illinois, which is everything outside the collar counties, pays $9.50/month for the same line fee. I AM IN A CITY OLDER THAN CHICAGO, SIX FEET FROM THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE, THAT HAS HAD TELEPHONY SINCE THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR. SRSLY. And none of the damn fee goes to maintain downstate networks! I'd be less-grumpy if my rural, farm-living neighbors were having their networks maintained. Half of them can't even get DSL and are still on dial-up.

***It was extremely exciting and we had to evacuate the house and there were a lot of minor explosions. The firefighters admired my garden.

posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:02 PM on March 2, 2015 [35 favorites]


Saw a sign at a local establishment, "IF YOU LIKE YOUR INTERNET YOU CAN KEEP IT"

Last I checked, Comcast is at a 5-year high, just like Wellpoint after ACA passed. Not sure what the point here is.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:06 PM on March 2, 2015 [2 favorites]


Hilarious.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:09 PM on March 2, 2015


I think it is at least helpful to give the other side a slight benefit of the doubt for not being drooling morons.

With all due respect, we're hip deep in their drool as it is, and I'm not in the mood to be charitable.
posted by gimonca at 7:26 PM on March 2, 2015 [4 favorites]


It's amazing that over a weekend we can turn a man who spent 12 years as a head lobbyist for telecom companies into a bleeding-heart socialist villain. America, keep reaching for those stars.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:37 PM on March 2, 2015 [4 favorites]


Things down here only get repairs when they literally set on fire.

There's an obvious solution to your problem here, Eyebrows.
posted by jeather at 7:49 PM on March 2, 2015 [7 favorites]


There seems to be a fear under that mindset that if you don't let the powerful have their way, everyone will suffer.
Raise taxes on the rich? They'll close their businesses, take that wealth out of the country entirely and tank the economy.
Regulate net neutrality? The telcos will respond by sending everyone back to the dial-up speed stone age if you're not willing to pay top dollar.
Enforce environmental regulations? They'll close the factories, put everyone out of a job, and open up shop where people will be grateful for the jobs.

And somehow, the reaction to all this is "don't piss off Mister Moneybags", not "maybe we should stop letting a wealthy minority hold the country hostage."
posted by murphy slaw at 8:00 PM on March 2, 2015 [3 favorites]


Political cartoons are usually terrible because they have no idea about the issues. I've been reading the newspaper since I was about six or seven (starting with the comics, of course, and slowly expanding to other sections). In that time I'd say about 90% of the political ones follow the same formula:

1) Draw object in some sort of foolish or precarious position (object can often be an elephant or donkey as needed)
2) Draw other objects attacking or humiliating first object with big bold text written over them to tell you what they represent (this is key because the drawing could be about any conflict with different labels added; no connection between the drawing and the issue needs to exist)
3) There is no step three

They're always bad no matter what the issue. These are especially stupid because we all know the issue. But even if you agree with the framing they're just as bad.
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:09 PM on March 2, 2015 [3 favorites]


And somehow, the reaction to all this is "don't piss off Mister Moneybags", not "maybe we should stop letting a wealthy minority hold the country hostage."

Primates gonna primate.
posted by PMdixon at 8:12 PM on March 2, 2015 [2 favorites]


I am reminded of an old Al Franken quote, where he talked about how some of the older Senators still referred to a microphone as "the machine." This was about the same time as Ted Stevens started talking about the internet as "a series of tubes."

Congress knows a lot about where to get more money. I'm less clear on their understanding of things like, say, technology or anatomy.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 8:48 PM on March 2, 2015


Primates gonna primate.

Actually you will find that Bonobos, organgs, and gorillas do not engage in this sort of behaviour. Chimps and baboons, on the other hand...
posted by Nevin at 8:51 PM on March 2, 2015 [1 favorite]


See, this is what behind-the-scenes Koch money buys. They don't need to endorse anyone, they merely need to condition enough of the voting populace to respond to simple Pavlovian cues, then "sell" those cues to parties who promise to further Koch interests.
posted by porpoise at 8:59 PM on March 2, 2015 [2 favorites]


My mother asked me for a simple explanation of net neutrality, saying she "presumed it was bad because of all the new government regulations."

After I stopped laughing, I sent her in Vi Hart's direction.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:16 PM on March 2, 2015 [6 favorites]


Thanks Cool Papa Bell,

The Vi Hart video was great.
posted by mangasm at 11:03 PM on March 2, 2015


RobotVoodooPower: "It's amazing that over a weekend we can turn a man who spent 12 years as a head lobbyist for telecom companies into a bleeding-heart socialist villain."

"Is Warren Buffet a socialist?"
posted by Rhaomi at 12:06 AM on March 3, 2015


Cool Papa Bell: "After I stopped laughing, I sent her in Vi Hart's direction."

I love Vi Hart's stuff, but if you want to use this as an explainer make sure to note that the video is a somewhat outdated reaction to last year's rumored FCC proposal to allow "fast lanes" -- the actual decision this week ended up doing what she says they should do (classify ISPs as common carriers).
posted by Rhaomi at 12:22 AM on March 3, 2015


After viewing the flight of two llama,
We were drawn into conflict and drama
As the Net tore in two:
"Dress is white!" - "No, it's blue!"
Net neutrality?! Gone! Thanks, Obama.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 2:10 AM on March 3, 2015 [5 favorites]


You can't marry the Llama, Bob.
posted by clavdivs at 4:13 AM on March 3, 2015


There are lots and lots of left-leaning political cartoonists. Probably a slim majority, overall. It's just that none of them are represented in this collection, for obvious reasons.

There have always been right wing cartoonists, too. Have you never seen an anti-Irish or pro-segregation cartoon?
posted by mellow seas at 5:26 AM on March 3, 2015


WTF? When did newspaper cartoons start swinging conservative?

Crazily enough, the Boston Herald and the Washington Times, among others, have words in them.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:13 AM on March 3, 2015 [1 favorite]


It's funny that everything these cartoons show in metaphor is exactly what current providers would like to have the power to do (or already have the power to do) given laxer regulations on them. Each one of these lazy things could be relabeled and be largely correct.
posted by codacorolla at 6:52 AM on March 3, 2015 [2 favorites]


Probably a slim majority, overall.

By count maybe, but by square inches? Michael Ramirez alone seems to have an insanely broad footprint.
posted by PMdixon at 7:37 AM on March 3, 2015


I tried very hard to explain net neutrality to my rednecklandia friends, who, redstaters to a person, were agin it. I tried "What if having a Verizon cell phone meant Verizon got to decide what sorts of things you could talk about on the phone and to whom you could say them? That'd suck, right? Net neutrality is the idea that all internet content should be delivered the same, regardless of what it is, where it comes from, or who profits from the delivery of that content. It's based on the interconnection agreements and common carrier ideas that first came about early in the development of the telephone and telegraph companies, not because Obama is evil but because law adores precedent and that's when the precedent of common carrier was developed. It hasn't been changed much since then BECAUSE IT IS USEFUL AND WORKS, not because it is broken and antiquated." I got nowhere with it. *sigh*
posted by which_chick at 7:56 AM on March 3, 2015 [1 favorite]


Of course, the other way to deal with Netflix is to have data caps. I live in the ATL metro area, which is one of Comcrapst's "trial" areas. If you exceed 300GB per month, you get to pay $10 for each additional 50GB.

It's very easy to exceed 300GB with HD streaming video, and that's in a household with two adults and one 3-year-old. Larger families would blow through that by mid-month.

Unfortunately I don't live in one of the areas where Google Fiber is due to roll out, but it's definitely a big consideration in my house-purchase planning in the next couple of years.
posted by Fleebnork at 8:55 AM on March 3, 2015


Oh, and my choices where I live are Comcast, AT&T UVerse, and Verizon DSL.

Comcast is actually the best option, believe it or not.
posted by Fleebnork at 8:56 AM on March 3, 2015


What if having a Verizon cell phone meant Verizon got to decide what sorts of things you could talk about on the phone and to whom you could say them?

I think actually what might work better is "what if you could only text other Verizon customers? Or texts to AT&T would only arrive the next day?"

I don't know, though. Some people just don't want to listen.
posted by jeather at 9:13 AM on March 3, 2015 [1 favorite]


emjaybee: The Onion's Stan Kelly is really the only conservative cartoon you need to read. It's a parody...or is it? If it wasn't the Onion, you wouldn't be able to tell.

Except maybe you could because it's actually more coherent than all the actual conservative cartoons.
In fact, it's so freaking dead-on it still makes me uncomfortable to read it... and for once, that's not sarcasm. That man scrapes pure, all-natural dry off his dustmop to use as ink.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:17 PM on March 3, 2015 [1 favorite]


I love Kelly. The scary part is where you can't tell the difference between him and the real ones like Gary McCoy. You really can't parody that guy.
posted by Trochanter at 3:07 PM on March 3, 2015 [1 favorite]


There's a recent Tom Tomorrow comic which isn't about net neutrality, but still sort of relevant. "A thing just happened! What's your opinion?"

Though this isn't the first time ever that net neutrality has been an issue, so they had some chance to inform themselves.

But political cartoonists are rewarded more for having an opinion than for having an informed opinion.
posted by RobotHero at 1:49 AM on March 4, 2015 [3 favorites]


From the LA Times Kelley piece: Their wheels-within-wheels-within-wheelslayers of lampoon and self-reference make it nearly impossible totell the dancer from the dance

A sly reference to the Michael Sembello classic is a sure path to a Pulitzer.
posted by dr_dank at 8:12 AM on March 4, 2015


The site designer has no idea how CSS works.

It's Tumblr. It's the Geocities of the 21st century. Crap code and all.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:54 AM on March 4, 2015



Tumblr: "There's nothing here."
 
posted by Herodios at 10:02 AM on March 4, 2015


"The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Fair Use Works":
Wasn't it inevitable that one of the 'Free Speech Champions' parodied on A Good Cartoon would pull a DMCA takedown notice on it?
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:40 PM on March 9, 2015 [1 favorite]






« Older 38 / 50   |   Please wear 25-D glasses Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments