Doonesbury Fake Bush IQ Redux

Doonesbury.com ^ | Last year | me

[dogbowl]

In response to the 9 -11 attacks Trudeau withdrew a week-long series of daily strips critical of Bush -- already mailed to client newspapers -- replacing them with "Flashback" strips. Unfortunately a handful of papers, including the one you read, did not follow these instructions for the first few days of the week of 9-17. The system by which Sunday strips are distributed and printed nationwide requires a 6-7 week lead time, so the Doonesbury Sundays that have appeared since 9-11 were already irretrievably in the pipeline by the time of the attacks. ------------------- In 1985, Trudeau deferred to his syndicate and pulled a series on abortion from syndication, but "Silent Scream II: The Prequel" was included in the next Doonesbury book. The 9-17 series of dailies, a follow-up on the controversial 9-2 "Bush IQ" Sunday, will follow a similar path.

[dogbowl]

Exactly one year ago, Garry Trudeau fell for an internet hoax claiming Republican Presidents' IQ's were average while Democrats were brilliant. His Sunday strip was ridiculed far and wide. What went unreported was he had drawn SIX MORE on the subject for the week of Sept 17-22 that never ran. I find it amazing that of 1400 newspapers, each with the strips in their hot little hands, nobody ever leaked them. But now, as the FAQ bove suggests, it seems all 7 strips appear in the new Doonesbury collection: http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0740726773.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg It's less of an outrage when dozens instead of millions see such lies in print. They will probably appear intact as originally drawn, hopefully with a disclaimer. But what frustrates me is not the perpetuation of the IQ hoax, but the wideley held assumption that the strips were pulled because of the war (suggesting censorship) and not because of the embarrassing mistake Trudeau made. I haven't seen the book on shelves yet. Has anyone?

[evolved_rage]

That's a book I'd have to take to the restroom to read. Then I'd have to buy it since most of the pages would be gone...

[Mike K]

Is Doonesbury still published?

[Diogenesis]

Gary Trudeau's wife (Margaret a.k.a. "Jane Pauley") obviously
knows what is true. They do it because they want to,... and can.

[Tickle Me Pank]

dogbowl appears to be positively Pavlovian about Doonsebury.....

[Reactionary]

It's amazing, isn't it? The only time liberals seem to believe in validity of "g" or general intelligence, otherwise known as IQ, is when there's a Republican involved. Of course, if you ask them if the tests to measure IQ are valid, they'll say that they aren't. If you ask them if the subjective opinions of liberals concerning the intelligence of conservatives are valid, I'm sure they would answer in the affirmative.

And the rest of the time? Why, IQ is a racist construct! Assessment is a "pseudo-science!"

They're awfully smart, you know.

[gortklattu]

I love that false story. It sucks on the egos of the liberals until they ooze their ignorance all over themselves.

One of my liberal friends fell for that "study." I told him that shows the difference between conservatives and liberals: Conservatives check their facts, liberals gratify their egos.

[.45MAN]

dogbowl appears to be positively Pavlovian about Doonsebury.....

I agree... Is that a bell I hear?

[jimtorr]

No, I think it's "evolved-rage", in reply #2, that is demonstrating Pavlovian-type reactions.

[evolved_rage]

Wow. Apparently dogbowl and I don't like Doonesbury for its continuous leftward slant. Dogbowl tracks the Bernard Goldberg "BIAS" of Doonesbury in the media, and I jokingly deride Trudeau's work as being toilet paper. Dogbowl raises an interesting point, albeit, not a "stop the presses" point. And the only thing you can do for the thread is flame me and my JOKE with psycho-babble, and without the courtesy of a ping. I've read enough Doonesbury to form a distaste for Trudeau's agenda. So next time, try to stay on topic.

[aShepard]

I just don't understand Doonesbury. They're never funny, never insightful.

Can't understand why Jane Pauley could marry such a loser. Must be a Carville/Mary Madelin kind of a thing.

[jimtorr]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was attempting to deride those deriding you, since the only comment anywhere near Pavlovian was your bathroom humour, rather than the initial post.

[evolved_rage]

Oh. I was trying for a takeoff on the Seinfeld episode of George reading a book in Bretano's mensroom, and being forced to buy it. Perhaps I failed too...Especially after seeing your Hamburger (Soup?) Nazi comment elsewhere...

[jimtorr]

Can there be other people than myself who watch old Seinfeld episodes during dinner?

I appreciated the restroom book takeoff. You're right, I was going for a soup nazi takeoff.