Political Memes, Comics, And Other Shenanigans, Part 40

[GreyhoundFan]

 

"Memorial Day 2022"

Quote

I broke one of my rules for this cartoon. I’m not big on holiday cartoons to begin with and since I’m a freelancer, I don’t have to draw them now. Back when I worked at The Free Lance-Star, my editor demanded a cartoon for every Memorial and Veterans Day along with most other holidays. I do believe we should thank those who fought for our country, but I think most cartoons that memorialize are boring. I have a rule against drawing boring cartoons, but that’s not the rule I broke here.

My rule about holiday cartoons is to do them a few days ahead of the holiday. That way my clients have time to schedule it for their pages. It seems to me if you draw political cartoons for a living, you should know this. It drives me nuts when I see a cartoonist draw a holiday cartoon the day before a holiday (unless he works for a publication), the day of, or the day after…or days after. When I see a cartoonist draw a cartoon the day of the holiday, it leads me to believe that cartoonist is only working for Facebook likes. It’s amateurish.

But I broke that rule today by drawing this cartoon and sending it to my clients the day before Memorial Day. Most of my clients won’t use it. But then again, other than the alt-weeklies who subscribe to my work (they’re bold), most of my clients never run my cartoons on gun issues. For example, one of my clients is a national publication that runs a dozen cartoons a day on its website. Even though I won a journalism award last week from a human rights outlet (yes, I’m going to milk that for all it’s worth) on issues like school shootings, this publication did not run one of my cartoons on the Uvalde school shooting, but they did run a cartoon with a crying Uncle Sam and at least four cartoons with hugs and grief. Editors LOVE weak cartoons, but even then, why run more than one of those gushy cartoons? As David Byrne sang in “Psycho Killer,” when you say something once, why say it again?

I’m not working for social media with this cartoon as I’m using it to fight for change. I’m using social media to shame these gun fetishists. They get all hot and squishy inside when they profess their love for veterans who died for freedom, but they make excuses and throw blame at political opponents when assault rifles are used to murder children. They believe their freedom to own an assault rifle is more important than the lives of children. They prove that every fucking time this happens. And each time it happens, they avoid the truth. Republicans are about as pro-life as Hannibal Lecter.

Since the Uvalde shooting, the gun whackos have blamed mental health, liberals, wokeness, trans people, critical race theory, socialism, video games, Democrats, doors, and everything else they can think of except guns. They have zero proof of any of that. They can’t cite any studies to support their deflections and excuses. But we don’t need any graphs or statistics to know those 21 people in that Uvalde elementary were killed by an assault rifle. And then we have the Buffalo shooting where the gun humpers blame everything except racism despite the killer’s racist manifesto and the n-word on the barrel of his assault rifle.

So maybe I did send my clients a cartoon most won’t use, but it’s worth it to take another shot at shaming the people who need to be shamed.

Happy Memorial Day, fuckers. Enjoy your barbeques.

 

[Alisamer]

On 5/30/2022 at 1:41 AM, fraurosena said:

The constitution clearly says the right of the people. Not the right of men, or an individual, but the people. The people means the inhabitants of a country, state or region. It is abundany clear what was meant: the US were independant and as a nation has the right to bear arms, to have a military force-- and a well regulated one at that.

If I, not a lawyer and certainly not versed in the US constitutional law, can easily understand what the second amendment means, then so can any other person of reasonable intelligence.

The men who wrote the constitution were highly educated and well-read for their day, for the most part. Their language is simply too complex for many people to comprehend. 

Also many of these people are the ones who insist the King James 1611 is the only valid Bible.

They are big fans of things written in archaic languages that are hard to understand. It makes it easier to twist it to say what you want it to say,

Edited May 31, 2022 by Alisamer

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

[47of74]

38 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

The men who wrote the constitution were highly educated and well-read for their day, for the most part. Their language is simply too complex for many people to comprehend. 

Also many of these people are the ones who insist the King James 1611 is the only valid Bible.

They are big fans of things written in archaic languages that are hard to understand. It makes it easier to twist it to say what you want it to say,

In Con Law I the professor had us read both the US and either the Swiss or Swedish constitutions.  The modern Swedish constitution (Link), along with the explanations is over 200 pages long.  The most recent version of the Swiss constitution (Link) is 82 pages long.

The US one by itself is 4,543 words, or about 10 pages.  Add in all the amendments and it's just under 17 pages.  That was one thing we all picked up on right away was how much longer and in depth the other country's constitution was compared to what we have in the US. 

I don't know if they intentionally wrote it in an archaic manner to make it difficult to understand or if it was more written in the common usage of the time.  English and many other languages have evolved over the past few hundred years.  That's why Shakespeare is so difficult to understand now when the plays were perfectly comprehensible to average theater goers in the 1600s.  I remember reading somewhere that in contrast some East Asian languages like Japanese the written language is comprehensible to most readers regardless of when it was actually written.

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

[Cartmann99]

This one really hurts...

[AlmostSavedAtTacoBell]

9 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

This one really hurts...

The tiny backpacks.  St. Peter having to bend down so low because of the very young age of the "spokesperson" child. The teachers coming up behind to make sure all of the kids are counted and get to enter Heaven first, in true loving teacher manner putting themselves last.  The juxtaposition of "God-given right to guns" with Heaven, the place where God would never, ever allow guns and where Jesus Christ reigns as the Prince of Peace.  This artist captured the heartbreak those of us who keep calling for better gun regulation and the hypocrisy of those who call themselves "Christians" but cling tightly to their instruments of destruction and death.  Thanks @Cartmann99. 

[Alisamer]

2 hours ago, 47of74 said:

I don't know if they intentionally wrote it in an archaic manner to make it difficult to understand or if it was more written in the common usage of the time.  

Yeah I'm sure it was totally understandable at the time. If you could read much at all, you could have understood it. I consider myself an excellent fluent reader of English (only, sadly) and I still will pick up something very and have to focus in well to get through the language to the meaning sometimes. English writing in most areas has tended to get simpler and more concise over the past couple decades I think.

But TODAY's fundies, R's, conservatives, evangelicals... they can't understand it. And they LIKE it that way, just like they like how the King James is so obscure to so many people. Easy to twist that way. 

[fraurosena]

 

[WiseGirl]

This little gem just showed up for the first time in the politics thread. Hell no is my answer.

[47of74]

3 hours ago, Alisamer said:

Yeah I'm sure it was totally understandable at the time. If you could read much at all, you could have understood it. I consider myself an excellent fluent reader of English (only, sadly) and I still will pick up something very and have to focus in well to get through the language to the meaning sometimes. English writing in most areas has tended to get simpler and more concise over the past couple decades I think.

But TODAY's fundies, R's, conservatives, evangelicals... they can't understand it. And they LIKE it that way, just like they like how the King James is so obscure to so many people. Easy to twist that way. 

Today's fundies consider the King James version to be the inspired word of God and even the original source material in languages such as Greek, Hebrew, etc to be heretical.

47 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

This little gem just showed up for the first time in the politics thread. Hell no is my answer.

I'll do better than that and say FUCK NO!  It's fucking bad enough that Iowa has CovidKim.  They don't need a Ron DeSatan clone there.  

[Audrey2]

3 hours ago, Alisamer said:

Yeah I'm sure it was totally understandable at the time. If you could read much at all, you could have understood it. I consider myself an excellent fluent reader of English (only, sadly) and I still will pick up something very and have to focus in well to get through the language to the meaning sometimes. English writing in most areas has tended to get simpler and more concise over the past couple decades I think.

But TODAY's fundies, R's, conservatives, evangelicals... they can't understand it. And they LIKE it that way, just like they like how the King James is so obscure to so many people. Easy to twist that way. 

But if you can't understand the King James Bible then you don't have to follow it. You can create your myth of Republican Jesus.

[ADoyle90815]

[WiseGirl]

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

[47of74]

 

ewwwwwwwwwwwww!!!! 

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

[Audrey2]

2 hours ago, 47of74 said:

 

ewwwwwwwwwwwww!!!! 

Thanks. There goes my lunch.