All posts in category Uncategorized

Who among the people depicted below is still alive?

Panther Red

For some time now I’ve kept typing into Google variations on this question: “Which of the people represented on the cover of Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band are still alive?” Lots of sites identify the people, but nowhere does it seem that there is a list of who’s alive and who’s dead. So I decided to take a few minutes on Wikipedia and make up such a list myself.

Alive (UPDATED)

Larry Bell

Dion diMucci

Bob Dylan

Paul McCartney*

Ringo Starr

Dead (date of death in parentheses)

Bobby Breen (19 September 2016)

Shirley Temple Black (10 February 2014)

Tony Curtis (29 September 2010)

Richard Merkin (5 September 2009)

Karlheinz Stockhausen (5 December 2007)

Marlon Brando (1 July 2004)

Albert Stubbins (28 December 2002)

George Harrison (29 November 2001)

Huntz Hall (30 January 1999)

William S. Burroughs (2 August 1997)

Terry Southern (29 October 1995)

Marlene Dietrich (6 May 1992)

View original post 272 more words

by acilius on May 16, 2022  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized

Posted by acilius on May 16, 2022

https://losthunderlads.com/2022/05/16/who-among-the-people-depicted-below-is-still-alive-2/

What would-be cyberbullies did in the 1930s

GettyImages-2628314

William Joyce “was a tiny little creature and, though not very ugly, was exhaustively so.” 

Lately I happened upon a copy of Rebecca West’s 1945 book The Meaning of Treason. Most of the book is about William Joyce, a British fascist rabble-rouser of the 1930s, who became famous during the Second World War when his propaganda broadcasts from Germany earned him the moniker “Lord Haw Haw” and led him to death on the gallows at Wandsworth Prison shortly after the war’s end.

The book is largely composed of reprinted articles that West wrote for The New Yorker while covering Joyce’s trial; this has its unfortunate results, as the book is weighed down both by the repetition of elements that are reintroduced for readers who had missed a previous week’s issue and by lengthy arguments about points that have not retained their interest over the decades. Still, there are marvelous bits; for example, when she describes seeing Joyce for the first time in a courtroom: “The strong electrical light was merciless to William Joyce, whose appearance was a surprise to all of us who had not seen him before. His voice had suggested a large and flashy handsomeness. But he was a tiny little creature and, though not very ugly, was exhaustively so.”  (Page 4, Rebecca West, The Meaning of Treason, Viking Press, 1945, 1948 [4th Printing])

The core of the book is contained in two long paragraphs towards the middle. I will quote those in their entirety, since they reflect not only on what William Joyce did between leaving Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in 1937 and defecting to Germany in 1939, but also on what a great many people who are more like him than they would perhaps care to admit spend their free time doing today:

Joyce, working alone, worked frantically. He spoke to every society that would let him inside its doors, in the warmer weather he had an open-air meeting every day, and sometimes several in one day. It was as if he were trying to leave an impression on the public mind that could be counted upon to endure; and indeed he partially succeeded in this aim. An enormous number of people in the low-income groups heard him speak, some during the years when he was with Mosley, and even more during the period when he was his own master. Many people in the higher-income groups had also their contact with Joyce, but they did not know it. Anybody who was advertised as a speaker at a meeting appealing for funds or humane treatment for refugees from Nazi persecution would receive by every post, for many days before the meeting, threatening messages, couched always in the same words, and those words always so vague that the writers of them could not have been touched by the law. They were apt to come by the last post, and the returning householder, switching on the light, would see them piled up on the hall table, splinters from a mass of stupidity that might not, after all, be finite and destructible, but infinite and coterminous with life. Their postmarks showed that they came from Manchester, Bristol, Bournemouth, Bethnal Green, Glasgow, Colchester. All over the country there were those who wished that the stranger, being hungry, should not be fed, being naked should not be clothed. Goats and monkeys, as Othello said, goats and monkeys; and the still house would seem like a frail and besieged fortress.

This device was the invention of William Joyce. The people who heard him in the streets sometimes saw this alliance with crime displayed. A number of his meetings were provocative of the violence he loved; he was twice tried for assault at London police courts during the year preceding the outbreak of the war, though each time the wind that sat in so favorable a quarter for Fascists blew him out with an acquittal. But at many others of his meetings he used all his powers, his harsh, sneering, cajoling, denatured, desperate voice, his quick and twisting humor, his ability to hammer a point home on a crowd’s mind, to persuade the men and women he saw before him of the advantages of dictatorship, the dangers of Jewish competition and high finance, the inefficiency of democracy, the greatness and goodness of Hitler, and his own seriousness. His audiences were not much interested in his arguments and were shrewd enough in their judgement of him. Many remembered him seven years afterwards. Only a very few said, “I liked him.” Most said, “He has the most peculiar views, but he really was an extraordinary chap,” or some such words. “Extraordinary” was what they called him, nearly all of them. This impression might not have served Joyce so ill had the days brought forth what he expected. If the Germans had brought him with them when they invaded England and had made him their spokesman, many Londoners might have listened to him with some confidence because he was a familiar element in a scene that conquest would have made terrifying in its unfamiliarity; and they might have felt awe, and perhaps, still more, confidence, because there was something of the wizard in the little creature.

(Pages 98-100)

What a marvelous way of expressing the effect of being a target of a campaign of harassment: “splinters from a mass of stupidity that might not, after all, be finite and destructible, but infinite and coterminous with life… and the still house would seem like a frail and besieged fortress.” And what effort and organizational ability it must have taken William Joyce and his fellows to inflict this on people in the days before the Internet. West’s description of the menacing letters “piled up on the hall table” suggests that the target of the threat has servants who bring her mail in for her, as the variety of postmarks indicate that Joyce had associates in his “National Socialist League” who helped him produce and distribute the letters. Nowadays, of course, Twitter has taken over all that work, acting as mailroom staff both among those issuing and those receiving threats.

by acilius on July 26, 2019  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized, Violence
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by acilius on July 26, 2019

https://losthunderlads.com/2019/07/26/what-would-be-cyberbullies-did-in-the-1930s/

November 2016 Was a Coup d’Etat, and the Rightwing Liars Made It Happen

[I thought this was interesting, so I figured I’d post it here.]

“None are more deeply enslaved than those who believe themselves truly free.”

There’s nothing new about calling DJT an illegitimate head of state. And plenty of basis for doing so. Weird stuff happened that shouldn’t have happened in the leadup to the election. Comey made questionable choices, and there was evident foreign tampering. These factors arguably shifted the vote just enough to yield a razor-narrow margin across 3 states and tip the electoral college in Trump’s favor. And to top it off – for heaven’s sake – the winner got FEWER votes than the loser. All of this has the stench of democracy gone off the rails.

But I want to shine a light on the prime mover behind Trump’s victory. He never could’ve gotten where he is, and managed to stay there this long, without a truly maniacal rightwing media apparatus pulling for him.

This apparatus functions to amplify, cheerlead for, and legitimize a whole swath of reprehensible attitudes and positions. Day by day, this juggernaut of stupidity sputters forth its endless spume of toxic nonsense. Distortions and lies dressed as truth. Fabrications, fantasies, and justifications for the unjustifiable.

These broadcasters spawn in the mind of their audience almost a mythological landscape, on which a manichaean struggle plays out. They depict the disadvantaged and the oppressed as “takers,” who fiendishly strive to undermine “America and its greatness.” And they extol the noble Corporate Capitalists, benevolent benefactors of the plebeian common folk.

The rightwingers’ economic “philosophy” is as simpleminded as it is vicious. Give big business a few more tax loopholes, and some easing of regulation. These measures, they proclaim, will inevitably redound to the benefit of all. The opulent wealth pouring into corporate coffers will, in time, “trickle down.” (Reagan was saying stuff like this back in the 80s, and it was ridiculous then.) Further, these pundits insist there can be no valid economic grievance in the “land of opportunity.” And economic justice, as a concept, is laughable.

But if one isn’t going to fight on the economic front, what else is there to get heated about? How about a manufactured, non-existent “culture war” between the regular folk of “flyover country” versus the “coastal elites”? This ugly contrivance is a distraction and a diversion, as well as a nonsensical phantasm. It has the obvious function of turning the population against itself using a classic divide-and-conquer strategy.

What sense does it make to say there is no elitism or wealth in the interior of the country? And no forgotten poor in the metro centers on the coasts? Of course it’s true there are differences in regional culture. Contrast rural Arkansas and Sunset Boulevard. And to some degree, these regional differences of culture can be seen to overlap with disparity in wealth distribution.

Yet this alleged correlation does more to obscure than to clarify. If rough-hewn working men opt for a cultural style which entails denim, flannel, and heavy work boots, is THAT STYLE really the essential issue? If these same workers had the means and the wherewithal to attend law school and become successful attorneys, they could still wear jeans and John Deere caps at their law practice.

The name of the game is generate an artificial cultural rift in the country and make THAT – not economics – the burning issue. And inasmuch as economics can’t be entirely ignored, you blame the have-nots, champion the haves, and sow overall confusion as to what is going on. And what is going on, make no mistake, is economic class warfare.

Trump has his cleverness and his cunning, his knack for creating simple, stupid, yet resonant names and slogans. Not to mention a flair for being the victim of non-existent conspiracies and scandals. But these dubious talents would get him noplace without the enthusiastic complicity of the rightwing lying industry.

That industry does more than just enable Trump; it makes him possible. It’s unthinkable there could be any substantial social consensus surrounding Trump without there existing this rhetorical universe designed to validate him, literally every day, in every way.

And the final piece we must confront is that this is a big-money industry. Its influence is so widespread, because it is financed by titanic resources. Limbaugh as a leading AM pundit rakes in, for ONE DAY of broadcasting, an amount most Americans could only dream of earning in A YEAR. And almost unbelievably, his legions of dittohead followers accept it when he postures as an “average Joe” or “regular guy.” There is nothing average or regular about a man wallowing in oceanic sums of cash as recompense for his stream-of-consciousness ramblings on a radio show.

Yet money, in large enough sums, has always been sufficient to get individuals to surrender any personal integrity or scruples. We need to think about where all that dough is streaming in from. And you’re not going to tell me, in this age of globalism, that it’s all originating within the US. And if other national interests are involved in formulating our domestic propaganda consumption, that should really give us pause.

And I want to clarify: This is not a “conspiracy theory” alleging that e.g. Limbaugh is receiving direction from shadowy contacts in China or Russia. Rather, I’m suggesting that tools know, instinctively and intuitively, what kinds of messages their paymasters want to see them spin out. And in this case, the paymasters ultimately have global designs, in which the specific national interest of the US may be expendable or incidental.

Therefore, when FOX and AM radio sing their incessant praise of Trump and cloak him in the garb of red-white-and-blue patriotism, it should always be remembered what a bitter charade that is.

Trump and the psychotic lying industry have no compunction about steamrolling US national interest on the world stage. Trump might not be fully cognizant of that. (But he would not care, even if he did realize the full ramifications of his careening presidency.) Thus, DJT is, in the final analysis, a sort of puppet. It is the lying apparatus that made him, maintains him, and – in the form of Hannity – sometimes even formulates his own messages for him.

So, to circle back to the beginning: There’s nothing new about calling DJT an illegitimate head of state. But at the deepest level, it was not Comey who made him. Or Russian tampering. Or a flawed electoral system. It was an out-of-control apparatus of mass indoctrination, belching out messaging that does not square with our interests as Americans, and does not align with our national wellbeing.

And it scored a successful coup d’etat in November 2016.

by lefalcon on May 31, 2018  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized

Posted by lefalcon on May 31, 2018

https://losthunderlads.com/2018/05/31/november-2016-was-a-coup-detat-and-the-rightwing-liars-made-it-happen/

Our philosopher-king regurgitates what he learned in high school

jackson schlesingerWhen Don John of Astoria, a.k.a. Donald John Trump, was in high school in the early 1960s, one of the dominant schools of thought among American historians was that embodied by Arthur M. Schlesinger, junior, author of The Age of Jackson (1945.) Schlesinger de-emphasized Andrew Jackson’s career-long focus on promoting the expansion of slavery to turn his focus on Jackson as a nationalist.

Central to this project was the story of President Jackson’s confrontation with South Carolina when that state attempted to block federal agents from collecting tariffs on goods brought to the Port of Charleston.  The elevation of this incident to a central place in the history of the Jackson presidency, and of the political movement that created that presidency, implied that it had a greater importance not only than did such an event as the genocidal evacuation of the Cherokee nation from their ancestral lands, which historians in Schlesinger’s day tended to overlook, but also the disestablishment of the Bank of the United States, which they most definitely did not overlook.

That implication can be defended only if Jackson’s forceful response had prevented an outbreak of civil war. Indeed, it was commonplace well into the 1980s for high school history teachers in the USA to claim, not only that Jackson prevented war in 1832, but also that the approach he took to the Nullification Crisis might have prevented the war that actually did break out three decades later had his successors been faithful to it. This consensus is reflected, not only in the presence of Jackson’s face on the $20 bill, but in such improbable places as Martin Luther King’s nod to the Nullification Crisis in the “I Have a Dream” speech, when he refers to Alabama governor George Wallace “having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification.”

Since Don John does not seem to have read very much on American history or any other topic since leaving school decades ago, it should not have surprised anyone when he claimed that Andrew Jackson had a formula that could have prevented the Civil War:

ZITO: Oh, that’s right, you were in Tennessee.

TRUMP: And it was amazing. The people of Tennessee are amazing people. Well, they love Andrew Jackson. They love Andrew Jackson in Tennessee.

ZITO: Yeah, he’s a fascinating —

TRUMP: I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart, and he was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, “There’s no reason for this.” People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, you think about it, why?

ZITO: Yeah —

TRUMP: People don’t ask that question. But why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?

What does still surprise me is that Schlesinger was able to carry his argument as far as he did even in the 1940s. Jackson’s approach to the sectional conflicts stemming from slavery was in fact tried again by at least one of his successors in the antebellum period. President Zachary Taylor, who, though he was elected president as the candidate of the Whig Party that grew up as the opposition to the Jackson administration, said that Jackson was his political lodestar, and responded to the crisis of 1850 in a style entirely modeled on Jackson’s approach to the Nullification Crisis.

And Taylor’s policy was a disaster. As he refused to make any concessions to the Slave Power regarding the Western territories or anything else until the Southern states forswore secession, it became steadily clearer that the South was ready to secede, and the North was not ready to fight to prevent secession. Indeed, even in 1861, after a decade of constant compromise and concession, the North was barely able to muster sufficient forces to stop the South breaking away. Had the war begun in 1850, with no attempt at a compromise peace, it is hard to imagine how the federal government could have mounted even a token opposition, much less saved the Union and written slavery out of the law books.

Taylor’s intransigence, coupled with the fact that he was himself a slave-owner from the Deep South, may lead the suspicious-minded to wonder whether secession and the eternal enshrinement of slavery in a new confederacy was not his true objective all along. At the time he was generally regarded as a fool whose inexperience with politics led him to adopt an insane policy. Perhaps if he had lived to bring the crisis to a head we would have the information needed to make a determination as to his motives. As it happens, Taylor died less than halfway into his term, and his successor, Millard Fillmore, quickly signed the Compromise of 1850. While that bargain is reviled for its inclusion of the Fugitive Slave Act, which was of course a horror, it not only gave the anti-slavery side its way on every other point, but also made it possible for the North eventually to defeat the South and put slavery on the path to extinction. That is one of the reasons why my avatar on many social media platforms is a cartoon image of Millard Fillmore.

Don John seems to identify very strongly with Jackson, and in his ineptitude bids fair to be another Taylor. The people I respect who tried to talk themselves into supporting Don John for president in last year’s election had hoped that he would follow in the footsteps of Fillmore, who, in response to the Crisis of 1850, replaced a policy of confrontation with one of compromise, who, as the author of tariff acts on the model of the one South Carolina tried to nullify in 1832, was a champion of a trade policy that would underpin the industrialization of the USA, and who, as the presidential candidate of the American Party in 1856, was a moderating influence within a movement devoted to a restrictionist policy on immigration.  They hoped that as president, Don John would de-escalate US militarism in favor of a conciliatory policy towards Russia and other powers, that he would revise our long-standing Finance First trade policy, and that he would tighten immigration policy without ravaging the rule of law. In fact, Don John has not shown any of Fillmore’s statesmanship, and those people have not expressed much satisfaction with any of his actions since he took office.

 

by acilius on May 1, 2017  •  Permalink
Posted in Current Events, Uncategorized
Tagged

Posted by acilius on May 1, 2017

https://losthunderlads.com/2017/05/01/our-philosopher-king-regurgitates-what-he-learned-in-high-school/

Frying Pan versus Fire

The other day, Scott Alexander called on voters in the USA to cast ballots for presidential candidates who are not Donald Trump. Scott Alexander himself will apparently be voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton, though the title of his post is “SSC Endorses Clinton, Johnson, or Stein.”

I agree that Mr Trump, a.k.a. Don John of Astoria, is not suited to the presidency.  I do have a number of demurrers to Scott Alexander’s piece, however.  Let me share one of these.

Scott Alexander writes:

[O]ne of the central principles behind my philosophy has been “Don’t destroy all existing systems and hope a planet-sized ghost makes everything work out”. Systems are hard. Institutions are hard. If your goal is to replace the current systems with better ones, then destroying the current system is 1% of the work, and building the better ones is 99% of it. Throughout history, dozens of movements have doomed entire civilizations by focusing on the “destroying the current system” step and expecting the “build a better one” step to happen on its own. That never works. The best parts of conservativism are the ones that guard this insight and shout it at a world too prone to taking shortcuts.

Donald Trump does not represent those best parts of conservativism. To transform his movement into Marxism, just replace “the bourgeoisie” with “the coastal elites” and “false consciousness” with “PC speech”. Just replace the assumption that everything will work itself out once power is in the hands of the workers, with the assumption that everything will work itself out once power is in the hands of “real Americans”. Just replace the hand-waving lack of plans with what to do after the Revolution with a hand-waving lack of plans what to do after the election. In both cases, the sheer virtue of the movement, and the apocalyptic purification of the rich people keeping everyone else down, is supposed to mean everything will just turn out okay on its own. That never works.

“Don’t destroy all existing systems and hope a planet-sized ghost makes everything work out” is “one of the central principles behind my philosophy,” as well. That’s precisely why I won’t be voting for HRC.  On the one hand, the hyper-warlike approach to foreign affairs that informed her support for US-led wars in Serbia, Iraq, and Libya, and now for the Saudi-led war in Yemen represents a strong tendency to destroy all existing systems in and hoping that some mysterious force replaces them with something good. For that matter, the economic policies of the Bill Clinton administration- for example, deregulation of the financial sector, gutting of the “welfare as we knew it,” and the erection of an industrial policy that subjects all other economic interests to the transnational mobility of capital and the defense of intellectual property- whatever may be said in their favor, have been all about destroying previously existing systems, with very little specified as to what was supposed to replace them. For that matter, measures such as warrantless wiretapping and the presidential “kill list” represent a disruption of the system of judicial oversight called for in the Bill of Rights and codified in centuries of legislation and court rulings, a system that has long guaranteed civil liberties in the USA. HRC has been deeply involved in all of these acts of destruction, continues to support them, and does not propose anything that might bring an end to the age of destruction.

On the other hand, when systems that directly benefit the world’s ruling elite face a crisis, that elite has consistently tried to defuse those crises before they could force any change in the way those systems operate.  It hasn’t always been this way; 95 years ago, when President Warren Harding faced a financial crisis that would put many major concerns out of business, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon spoke for his fellow financial titans when he advised against bailouts, arguing that “the recession will find what the auditors miss,” purging bad practice from business and leaving the economy stronger in its aftermath.  The sharp downturn and even more dramatic recovery during the Harding administration would seem to be a clear example of a system strengthened by crisis.  Compare that with the Wall Street bailouts of 2008 and 2009, with the fear that financial concerns had become “too big too fail”- and with the fact that those same concerns have now been allowed to grow even bigger. By 2012, the US Justice Department was openly admitting that it was afraid that the financial system had grown so fragile that HSBC would have to go unpunished for its crimes, lest a prosecution bring the whole house of cards crashing down.  Thus the fear of the fragility of the financial system, leading as it has to bailouts, acts of impunity, etc, has served as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Vacillating between reckless interventions to destroy systems with little thought of what will follow and equally reckless interventions to prop systems up by stripping them of the parameters that regulate them, the Bushes and Clintons and their colleagues have, these last 30 years, created a political moment  in which it is very likely that Don John of Astoria will receive between 220 and 280 electoral votes for the US presidency. If, as seems likely, that number is below 270, then HRC will become president, accompanied by a Republican Congress. They will together continue the policies which have brought us to this pass. Electing Don John to the presidency this year would precipitate a catastrophe; protracting our current political arrangements for another four years might precipitate a still greater catastrophe.

I can understand why people would vote for HRC, hoping perhaps that things will somehow improve sufficiently between now and 2020 that in that election the country will not face another choice between apocalypse now and apocalypse later. That hope would be an example of hoping that the “build a better one” step will “happen on its own,” however. Such a vote, however defensible it might seem in the eyes of the one casting it, would certainly not be a sufficient response to this situation. Voting for the Green Party isn’t a sufficient response either, but at least it is a step towards building a set of movements to adjust the relationship between mass and elite to a more sustainable balance and enable a new departure in our political life. Failing such a new departure, the next few years are likely to be very dark indeed.

by acilius on October 1, 2016  •  Permalink
Posted in Campaign 2016, Responses, Uncategorized
Tagged

Posted by acilius on October 1, 2016

https://losthunderlads.com/2016/10/01/frying-pan-versus-fire/

A not-so-good cartoon

Many psychologists study the way the brain reacts when too much information comes up all at once. For example, this cartoon by Randy Bish, embedded in a tweet by Matt Bors, brought to my mind more objections than I could, all at once, put into words:

Why is this a dumb cartoon? Well, here are a few reasons:

  1. Many veterans of the US armed forces work in fast food restaurants. Like nonveterans in the same line of work, they deserve to be paid a living wage.
  2. Many workers at US fast food restaurants are shot at or actually shot in the course of robberies. Like their coworkers who avoid that unenviable fate, they deserve a living wage.
  3. Fast food workers and enlisted military personnel in the USA are, by and large, working class people. Is Randy Bish saying that working class people don’t deserve a living wage unless they subject themselves to violence? If that isn’t what he’s saying, then what he is he saying? I can’t find an interpretation of the cartoon that doesn’t involve that idea.
  4. The difference between substandard wages many fast food workers currently receive and the living wage proposed by strikers demanding at least $15 an hour would not come from veterans’ benefits, or pay to active duty military personnel; these are not the groups in conflict in these strikes.
  5. The military has not been deployed to break fast-food strikes, and is not likely to be so deployed. There is no reason to expect confrontations of any kind between strikers and either active-duty or retired military personnel. The confrontation seen here is one that exists only in the imagination of Mr Bish. Usually editorial cartoons dramatize conflicts that are actually going on in the world; that he presents us with this imaginary one suggests that he sees it as somehow real.
  6. When right-wing commentators grow lazy, they often invoke veterans as a symbol of whatever position they want to promote. This imaginary veteran with his passive-aggressive remarks thus represents, not the views of actual veterans, but cartoonist Randy Bish’s failure to engage with the topic. Mr Bish should be ashamed of himself for hiding behind veterans.
  7. Warriors on the front lines sometimes develop a mentality in which they lump everyone not in the line of fire into the single, undifferentiated category of “lucky bastard.” I don’t know whether Randy Bish has been going around getting himself shot at, whether in uniform or out of it, but as a widely syndicated editorial page cartoonist he has a job far enough from the front lines that he can hardly claim to have come by such a mentality honestly. I’ve spent enough time in VA hospitals and known enough veterans, including veterans who have emerged as leaders in the labor movement and the antiwar movement, to know that such an attitude rarely dominates the minds even of the most battle-hardened vets after they’ve left the combat zone.
  8. Many people in the USA seem to regard it as socially acceptable to disapprove of adults taking jobs in the fast food industry; these are not, for the most part, people who shun fast food itself, but people who regard it as a disgrace or punishment to work at a fast food restaurant once past adolescence. This attitude is often manifested most strongly in the same kind of people who tend to fetishize everything about the military (except actually serving in it, which they are glad to leave to others.)  The cartoon seems expressly designed to appeal to the emotions of people who show both disdain for fast-food workers and exaggerated respect for the idea of the military.

So those are eight things that came to my mind right away. Since they all came at once, it took me several minutes to put my thoughts in order. During that first rush of thoughts, there was a moment of disorientation that may have been similar to what Mr Bors felt when he commented “You know what? Shoot me. I want to die.” A world where such sheer, condensed stupidity can not only exist, but can find its way onto editorial pages that can’t seem to find space for good cartoons by, well, Matt Bors for example, that’s a dispiriting place. And when the reasons for that dispiritingness seem to be both so numerous that you can’t put them into words, and so obvious that you can’t believe you have to put them into words, the thought of giving up completely and succumbing to the homicidal stupidity at the heart of the cartoon may logically occur.

by acilius on April 15, 2016  •  Permalink
Posted in Comics, Current Events, Uncategorized
Tagged ,

Posted by acilius on April 15, 2016

https://losthunderlads.com/2016/04/15/a-not-so-good-cartoon/