Project Wonderful Banner

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

That damned Hugo Chavez

What's Mallard raving about today?

Hugo Chavez, Miss USA Pageant.

What's the matter?

Couldn't you draw Zombie Hitler as a straw judge?

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

LEBRULS DONE STOOL MAH MEZ UMERKA PA'GANT!

Seriously, ducky: Nobody. Gives. A shit.

Michael said...

Because Mallard only deals with insignificant side issues, I compared the comic yesterday to an appetizer sampler plate. I take that back - at least appetizers have some substance. Mallard Fillmore is more like a plate full of garnishes. Or, after the next DUI, garnishments.

Jon Stewart had a great take on this tonight. No one gives a rat's ass what her opinions on marriage are, but now that the media is covering this "controversy" 24/7, people feel compelled to either prop her up as a role model or attack her. The same boring charade is being played out on TV yet again while there are plenty of important things to report on. Please, no one offer her a book deal.

That's a pretty good caricature of Chavez, by the way.

WV: dripho: Before swine flu came along, your biggest fear when going to Mexico.

Robert said...

The Onion's fake editorial cartoon was more serious than this.

And, yes, pretty good rendering of Chavez. Five beers is probably Tinsley's optimal carttoning amount: enough to get his hands to quit shaking, but not so much that he's having to close one eye to see which paper to draw on.

Bill the Splut said...

It's nice that he labels Chavez as the president of Venezuela. He does know the intelligence of his audience--if he'd left it as "I, Hugo Chavez," his readers would be wondering if he was on American Idol or something. He probably would've labeled Castro too, if there was enough room left.

Robert said...

"cartooning", that is. Three beers is my optimal spelling amount and I'm barely through two this early.

Rootbeer said...

Credit where credit is due for the Chavez cariacature -- none of the facial features can be easily mistaken for genitals.

The joke is that Perez Hilton is a powerful head of state of a socialist nation.

Anonymous said...

Faggoty fruity queer fancy boy gay gay sweet hurrrrrgghhhh *shudder*

All done. Gotta go clean up now.

rewinn said...

Concept: MissUSA, which is owned by Donald Trump, is a Communist front.

Text: Too many words spoil the joke. Better:
"Miss USA 2010: 'Do you agree that Hugo Chavez is the greatest man since Fidel, or do you want to lose this contest?"Drawing: Adequate, but it's the wrong drawing. Chavez as the judge merely confuses the joke; the joke is in the question and would work better coming from a generic judge. Alternatively, you could eliminate the word balloons entirely, and draw a panel of judges: Chavez, Fidel and Kim Jong Il. Labeled "MissUSA 2010" that would be actually funny and pointed .

Marion Delgado said...

Okay, I LIVED in a communist country before the Berlin Wall came down, and this level of cartoon would NOT have flown. I.E. no paper would have published it. RW Mallardites are well below the cynicism radar of the average E. European of that era.

This is really just Stalinism in another guise. "Labored" is the best adjective I can come up with. And non-union labor, to boot.

GeoX said...

But seriously, people--WHAT? This kind of takes "nonsensical" to new levels. One really gets the impression that Tinsley just got completely bombed and decided to mash together whatever right-wing talking points were seething around in his brain, whether or not they made sense or indeed had ANY logical connection. The result was this. What will we tell the children?

Jazzbumpa said...

I'm with GeoX. All can say to this is WTF?!?

This doesn't come close to making any kind of sense, on any level. Also, where in the hell is the joke?

Tinkley has lost it.

No, that can't be right. He never had it.

WV: himbxokb. Which makes more sense than Tinkley.

Erich said...

Actually, I can see what Tinsley was trying to get at, and I have to disagree with rewinn here. The idea is that it's unfair for a judge with a vested interest in an issue (as Perez Hilton would have in the issue of gay marriage) to ask the contestant about that issue. Thus, having a generic judge ask about Hugo Chavez wouldn't work...it has to be Hugo Chavez asking about Hugo Chavez. Of course, it's a gross simplification...a more apt comparison would be having Michael J. Fox as a pageant judge, asking their opinions on stem-cell research (or, on the other hand, having Chuck Norris ask their opinion on secession).

rewinn said...

Erich - you are making the argument that people who know something about an issue should just STFU.

You are simply mistaken. If Chuck Norris were to ask a question about secession, would you be complaining?

The question was fair; it was very topical and there were plenty of diplomatic answers. The fact that it came from a gay man is irrelevant and your needless introduction of the judge's sexuality is, at best, silly.

Kyle said...

If Chuck Norris is going to ask a question with vested personal interest I would rather he ask the contestants' opinions on washed up action stars who sucked to begin with rejuvenating their careers thanks to Internet memes.

Erich said...

Just to clarify: I only said that I could see what Tinsley was trying to say, not that I agreed with it.

Michael said...

Since I mentioned Jon Stewart's take, here is a link.

rewinn said...

Erich:

Oh. Sorry ... I apologize.

Now ... back to fun!

Erich said...

Apology accepted; thank you very much. I should have been clearer...it's one of the quirks of the English language that "I understand" or "I see what you mean" is frequently taken to mean "I agree."

And I wholeheartedly agree with "back to fun"!