If you’re a regular follower of this blog, you’re certain to have seen some of Darrin Bell’s political cartoons. They cut to the chase and often make a serious point without any attempt to be funny like many cartoonists. They’re hard-hitting journalism in cartoon form.
I’ve been a fan of his work for years, ever since I discovered his comic strip “Candorville.” I ended up writing the afterword for one of his collections, and interviewed him on my writing blog.
He agreed to do the artwork for my upcoming book HOW TO ARGUE THE CONSTITUTION WITH A CONSERVATIVE, due from Gray Rabbit Publications in August.
Here’s the cover illustration:
Anyway, I was amazed and please to discover this week that he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning, which is well deserved.
So congratulations to my friend — and the first person I’ve ever known personally that won a freakin’ Pulitzer!
(Also: If you have a political blog, radio show, TV show, or other media outlet and you’d like to do an advance review of the new book, please contact me!)
Look, let’s not get distracted.
The burning of Notre Dame is a tragedy. It’s a very old beautiful building — that in itself is a loss. It contained wonderful art and architecture that cannot be replaced.
The fact that it is a religious place diminishes that not one bit.
I’ve seen the posts some of my liberal friends have made. “How come you didn’t cry when black churches in Louisiana burned?” one said. “Haha, it’s a bunch of priests burning their child pornography and it got out of hand,” says another.
Just pretend for a minute that it was a museum instead if that helps — because it basically was. A museum of a time when the church ruled over people and religious leaders dictated what the laws should be. (Okay, maybe it’s not that much different today.)
Cry over the loss of art. Ignore the religious aspect.
(At the same time, seeing people pour donations into rebuilding kind of bugs me when there are people who could use that money to cure disease, provide clean water, house the homeless, and do the kind of things Jesus told the church to do.)
(If anyone knows the cartoonist, tell me so I can give proper credit)
Whenever I read “Lincoln gave the slaves freedom” or “Roe v. Wade gave women the right to their bodies” or “The Supreme Court gave gays the right to get married,” it always sounds strange.
If I steal your car and then return it, you don’t say “Michael gave me a car.”
It’s a popular meme on the right — calling AOC “stupid” and making fun of her for that. Seriously, do a search and you’ll find a bunch.
Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez won a science fair in high school of the kind that usually gets won by people who go on to win Nobel prizes. The competition is the largest pre-college scientific research event in the world.
Then she went to Boston University where she graduated cum laude with degrees in economics and international relations.
So how can they call her “stupid”?
Well, first, let’s remember that facts are meaningless to these people. These are the same people who deny evolution, claim climate change isn’t real, argue that trickle-down economics works, and think Trump is completely innocent. They deny reality all the time when it contradicts their already-held world view.
But mostly, they say that about anyone who believes in democratic socialism. They point to Venezuela (ignoring the fact that Venezuela’s problems are not because of socialism but because of corruption and a near-dictatorship) while they ignore basically every other advanced civilized democratic country in the world that has socialism (most of Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, etc.).
In other words, they are seriously arguing that a person who graduated with honors in economics and international relations — the two things that would undoubtedly qualify anyone as an expert in democratic socialism — is “stupid.”
Which is about as stupid as they can be.
“But Attorney General Barr has released a summary of the report and it says Trump is innocent.”
Well, no, it doesn’t. It says he will not be indicted, which is something Mueller said years ago — that he believes you cannot indict a sitting president. (I clearly disagree with that. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to support that idea.)
Barr said that the report does not show “collusion.” Now, keep in mind that, as many conservative scream, there is no law against “collusion.” It’s called “conspiracy.” Saying someone is innocent of “collusion” is like saying someone is innocent of “beating someone up” since the actual law is called “assault.”
But here’s the real thing to keep in mind until the actual report is released:
Barr spent the last year calling the Mueller investigation a witch hunt. He is fiercely loyal to Trump, who was appointed because he was fiercely loyal in order to replace a previous Attorney General who tried to remain neutral and not say anything about an on-going investigation (you know, like lawyers are supposed to do).
A person who clearly sees their job as being a partisan supporter of Trump may indeed not be presenting us with an unbiased summary of the report.
So don’t buy into the Republican spin on this, where they try to diminish the report that has already led to Trump’s closest advisers either indicted or already in jail, including his campaign chairman, campaign aide, campaign adviser, chief of staff, national security adviser, and personal lawyer — not to mention dozens others here and in Russia.
That is hardly the “nothing burger” they are claiming.
ventrellaquest.com 