Open Thread: Fish Again Edition

Post whatever y’all want in the comments. Self-linking is so welcome I’ll pull out the good plates that I don’t normally allow my friends and family to use.

I really like this New Yorker cartoon by Jack Ziegler, in part because it seems un-New-Yorker-cartoon-ish in technique (the way that a single scene is divided into multiple panels to drag out the timing). Plus, is the man on the sofa watching himself on TV, or just someone who looks similar?

Also, Tetris vs Contra.

Posted in Whatever | 3 Comments

Satah Cameron's Street Harrassment Song

Since this is “Alas,” I feel that I should point out — if only to get ahead of certain commentators — that people do pretty much have the right to verbally assault other people on public streets. But focusing on that aspect of the song is, I think, missing the forest for a particular legalistic tree.

Via The Sexist.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 2 Comments

No Symbolism Here

You know, if I wasn’t convinced that God doesn’t waste Her time meddling in humanity’s affairs, this would convince me that God is wasting Her time meddling in humanity’s affairs:

The “largest sculpture of Jesus Christ in America” was struck by lightning and consumed by fire near Cincinnati last night.

“Jesus statue destroyed by act of God” is how the Cincinnati Enquirer linked to its story this morning, saying the statue caught fire about 11:15 pm as a thunderstorm swept through Greater Cincinnati.

The statue was 62 feet high and weighed about eight tons, according to the Solid Rock Church, which says it was “a wood and styrofoam sculpture over a steel framework anchored in concrete… covered with a fiberglass mat and resin exterior.”

The irony of a 62-foot tall graven image being burned to the ground by an Act of God proves that if there is really a God, She has an unbelievably wicked sense of humor. Of course, members of the church seem to be sensing that this could be a message, but confused about what it could possibly mean, because, you know, if God is sending a message, burning a six story tall statue of His son to the ground is pretty subtle.

“I’m thinking it’s a sign from Jesus that we need to learn something, as Christians, as a whole, we’re not doing something right,” said church member Kevin Jones to WHIO.

Others have chimed in with their views. On the Internet, Lindsay Van Kirk of SportsGrid.com’s “Power Grid” blog wryly suggests that the fall of Touchdown Jesus is a sign that recent controversies in the football world may have “made God a bit mad.”

Mark Brumley, on Ingatius Press’ “Insight Scoop” blog, thinks that the fire is a sign that lightning and fiberglass do not mix according to the laws of God’s universe. But, he says, if the fire sparks self-examination among Christians who see the charred remains, maybe that was part of God’s plan.

“Since most of us usually have something to repent of or to repent more deeply of,” he wrote, “the destruction of the statue certainly can be taken as a providential reminder to turn away from sin.”

Yes, that’s it. It couldn’t have anything to do with anything else God said.

Of course, I don’t believe that the burning of MC 62 Ft. Jesus has anything much to do with anything, other than that if you’re going to build a giant idol that stretches up into the heavens, you should use non-flammable materials. That, and you’d better put some money aside for upkeep. The rebuilding of Touchdown Jesus is going to cost the Solid Rock Church $700,000. But it’s worth it, I’m sure. After all, it’s exactly what Jesus would have wanted his followers to do.

Posted in In the news | 10 Comments

A wee bit more on Helen Thomas

I’d really rather stop writing about this – I have a post about compost (a com-post?) that’s been sitting on the backburner for about two weeks now – but I’ve been absolutely gobsmacked by the tropes people are pulling out to defend Helen Thomas’s statement, and I’ve noticed that they fit into an exhaustingly familiar pattern, so I want to say one more thing.

If you’re a blogger and you find yourself writing anything even remotely resembling the following:

“We must allow groups to define their own oppression! We must listen to and respect the lived experiences of everyone! Except Jews/the disabled/trans folk/this group/that group/whoever’s in my blind spot today. They don’t know what they’re talking about and they need me to tell them what should and shouldn’t offend them.”

…then please stop typing, dunk your head in some ice water, get out of the house for a bit, and try again.

Trust me, it’ll be better for everyone.

It is completely, 100% possible to talk about Palestine/Israel while ignoring the lived experiences of neither Jews nor non-Jewish Arabs. Not only is it possible, it’s quite easy. So what does it say about us as activists, radical or liberal or anything in between, that we still can’t get the hang of it?

Posted in International issues, Palestine & Israel | 4 Comments

I Wish I Could Call This Muslim-Hating Video antisemitic…

…without getting into the whole question of whether the term antisemitism should apply only to Jews and without the complicating factor that not all Muslims are Semitic. Why? Because if you replace the word Muslim with the word Jew in what this man says and alter the historical references appropriately, he would be speaking–intelligently, articulately, with good humor and a controlled potentially persuasive anger; which is what is most frightening to me–some of the most pernicious of classical antisemitic tropes. And so I wish I could use the term antisemitism, not to make this about the Jews, or even to conjure Jew-hatred, but because I wish I had a word, a single, powerful word that would capture the xenophobic, racist, essentializing, religious hatred of Muslims that this man is espousing. Muslim-bashing doesn’t do it for me because Muslim-bashing captures neither the tone nor the intelligence with which the man speaks.

My own understanding is that the building at ground zero that the Muslim organizations have proposed is going to be a community center that includes a space for prayer–which is very different from building a mosque. Now, whether or not it is appropriate to have any religion-specific building at ground zero, community center or otherwise, seems to me a legitimate question, but even if this man’s description of the proposed building as a mosque were accurate–and, come on, a 13-story mosque? That just doesn’t make sense–his argument is not about the building per se; his argument, which sounds an awful lot like the argument in books like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is about asserting that Muslims have an agenda of world-domination. Watching it sent chills down my spine, because I am very aware of the kind of violence and oppression that this kind of rhetoric can lead to, and I say that not as a cloaked reference to the Holocaust, or to any other instances of the oppression of the Jews specifically, but as a reference to the ways that all oppressors fashion an intellectual justification–and thereby create an intellectual history that cannot be erased–for the oppressions that they prosecute.

Cross posted on It’s All Connected.

Posted in Race, racism and related issues | 78 Comments

Rand Paul Making Things Up (that Matter)

If there was one thing we knew about Rand Paul, it was that he wanted to bring America back to its glory days, when businesses could call the police to evict those meddlesome Negroes from their lunch counters. If we knew another thing, it was that he was Ron Paul’s kid. And if we knew a third thing, it was that he was a board-certified ophthalmologist.

Well, one of those things turns out to be not exactly true. Sadly, it’s not the lunch counter one. And he looks way too much like his dad to have his paternity in doubt. So let’s look behind door number three, shall we?

Rand Paul, who touts his career as a Kentucky eye doctor as part of his outsider credentials in his campaign for U.S. Senate, isn’t certified by his profession’s leading group.

He tried Monday to bat away questions about it by calling it an attack on his livelihood, saying the scrutiny stems from his challenge of a powerful medical group over a certification policy he thought was unfair.

The libertarian-leaning Republican helped create a rival certification group more than a decade ago. He said the group has since recertified several hundred ophthalmologists, despite not being recognized the American Board of Medical Specialties – the governing group for two dozen medical specialty boards.

Hey, to be fair to Rand Paul, I can understand why he did this. I mean, who hasn’t gone out and formed their own ophthalmology licensing board? I know I have. In fact, if you want to be a board-certified ophthalmologist just like Rand Paul, just print out the certificate below, and write your name on it somewhere. Voila! Instant certification!

Okay, sure, Jeff’s Pretty Good Ophthalmology Board isn’t, like, recognized by anyone. But that’s only because we’re sticking it to the man, with his “rules” and “regulations” and “dues.”

Seriously, this does fit with Paul’s worldview — if you’re a Randian superman, you can do whatever you damn well please, and silly things like licensing shouldn’t matter. Hey, if the eye doctor blinds enough people, the magic of the market will ensure that rich people don’t go to him, thus ensuring that the doctor will only be able to make a meager living treating the poor.

Now, Rand Paul might be a great surgeon. Even in libertarian world, some people who set up shop as doctors would turn out to be good at it. But here in the real world, you have to question a surgeon who has certified himself, with assistance from his wife and father-in-law. Moreover, you have to wonder about someone who would flout his industry’s basic rules. Because thankfully, we live in a real world, where doctors have to get real certification from real boards. And that gives those of us going into surgery at least a basic reassurance that the doctor who’s treating us has reached a basic level of competence.

The fact that Paul was willing to go it alone shows a startling arrogance, and a disregard for his patients. But then again, that arrogance is part and parcel of Paul’s persona. He’s a man born on third base who thought he hit a triple, and who sneers at the rules that put him where he is. A man who should be nowhere near the levers of power.

Posted in Elections and politics | 20 Comments

Fragments of Evolving Manhood: Do You Like Your Body? Two Stories from my Teens and Early Twenties

What first attracted me to Maria was the way she had no reservations about saying she didn’t like Walt Whitman’s poetry, even though our freshman-year professor in Introduction to American Literature had made Whitman’s work central to the course. When I told her one day as we were walking out of class that I admired her honesty, she smiled, said something about how most literature professors had more hot air in them than substance, and walked off to wherever she had to go next. A few days later, when I saw her sitting alone in front of the library, the hello I stopped to say grew into an hour-long chat, and after that, for the next month or so, we met every few days at a table in the back corner of the Rainy Night House Café, where we sat for hours drinking tea, eating bagels, and talking. One afternoon, just as we were getting up to leave, Maria said she’d been given a bottle of good wine as a gift, and she asked if I would come to her room that evening to help her drink it.

She was already several glasses ahead of me when I arrived, and while I played catch-up with the wine, our talk turned to a subject we’d never before discussed, love and relationships. We circled the question of our own budding involvement warily, letting it drop in and out of the conversation, each of us waiting for the other to risk saying, or doing, something first. Then Maria asked me, “Richard, do you like your body?”

“Yes,” I answered, “why?”

She got down from her chair and sat cross-legged on the floor in front of me, “No, I mean do you really like your body?”

“Yes,” I said again, but before I could ask if she liked hers as well, she leaned forward and asked her question even more emphatically, “Are you truly satisfied with every part of your body?”

Confused, and beginning to feel a little threatened, I allowed a small edge of anger to sharpen my voice, “What are you talking about?”

Maria smiled to herself, put her hand warmly on my knee, and said, “You know, do you think you measure up physically?”

Finally I understood, but what I understood only confused me more since the challenge implicit in Maria’s words–or at least the challenge I felt to be implicit in Maria’s words (she might not have meant them as a challenge at all)–seemed to shift the basis of what was happening between us from the mutuality of friendship to the adversarial stance of performer and critic. I knew that bigger penises were supposed to be better when it came to having sex, but I was inexperienced enough that I didn’t really understand how “better” was supposed to work. How big did “big” have to be to make a difference, I wondered, and what precisely was the nature of “better?” More pleasure? For whom? These were questions I’d asked myself and been unable to answer every time the subject of penis size and sex came up, and now that Maria had asked me the question directly, I was speechless, caught in what felt to me like a damned-if-I-did-damned-if-I-didn’t situation. Anything I said—yes, no, maybe, let’s find out—seemed to me a picking up of the gauntlet I thought Maria had thrown down, and since I didn’t think I knew enough to compete, my first impulse was to remain silent. On the other hand, to say nothing was probably to lose my chance to be with her, and I really wanted to be with her. So I decided to turn the tables. “I don’t know. Do you measure up?” I asked her.

Maria’s face changed immediately. The gently mocking anticipation with which she’d been waiting for my response vanished, and she searched my face with eyes that were suddenly sad and deeply suspicious. She kept her hand on my knee until she found, or didn’t find, what she was looking for and then, so softly that I almost couldn’t hear her, she said, “Sometimes,” and for a moment I thought she was going to cry.

Maria got up and went back to her chair. We talked a while longer, trying to recapture the easy banter from earlier in the evening, but she was suddenly unable to look me in the face, and when I finally stood up to leave, all Maria did was wave a silent good-bye from where she was sitting. We saw each other on campus a few times after that but never said more than hello, and Maria only had once to turn and walk the other way as I approached for me to understand that she didn’t want to talk to me again.

When I went home at the end of the semester, I told this story to my mother, asking her what Maria’s reasons might have been for trying to seduce me in the way that she did. My mother’s answer only added to my confusion. The size of a man’s ego, she explained, could be measured by the size of his penis. To illustrate her point, she told me a story about a man who tried to pick her up in a bar she’d gone to with her friends. At first, she refused him politely, but as he grew more and more insistent, she grew more and more annoyed until, having had enough, loudly, so that the people around them could hear, she told him that unless he had a “baseball bat” between his legs, she wouldn’t have anything to do with him. He, of course, protested that he’d “never had any complaints,” but my mother slapped her palm on the bar and told him that if he had what it would take to have her, she wanted to see it right then and there. If he didn’t, well, he knew what to do.

Needless to say, the man walked away.

It was hard to know how this story answered my question, so I asked my mother if she thought Maria’s challenge about whether or not I “measured up” had been intended to put me in the same position as she had put the man in the bar. My mother’s response confused me even further. “Only small men,” she said, “say size doesn’t matter.”

///

“Next time,” my mother is laughing—but the smile on her face is a thin line of contempt, and when she leans forward to tap the polished nail of her right index finger in rhythmic emphasis on the wooden surface of the dining room table, her eyes smolder—“Next time, tell your father you don’t have such problems. Tell him you wear a steel jockstrap.” I am sixteen, four or five years younger than I was in the story I told you above, just home from a visit to my father in Manhattan, and I have just shared with my mother his first and only attempt at a father-son talk with me about women and sex. Walking from the restaurant where he’d taken me for lunch to the subway where I would catch the train home, he’d put his arm intimately around my shoulder, leaned his head in towards mine, and asked, “Do you have a girl friend?” I told him no, which was a lie. “Well,” he responded, “you will soon, and once you start dating, you’re going to run into situations you won’t know how to handle.” He moved a few steps ahead and turned to face me, searching my eyes to make sure I knew what he was talking about. “I just want you to know you can call me.”

“I know,” I said, and the look of relief on his face as he quickly changed the subject to how I was doing in school made me want to laugh out loud. There was no way he could’ve known that I’d already lost my virginity, but knowing that he didn’t know and realizing how easy it had been to deceive him made me feel superior, and it was this feeling of superiority that I brought to the table when I told my mother the story. “What does he think he’s going to teach you, anyway?” she asks, letting her smile loosen into a softer, more conspiratorial grin. “You probably know more than he does already.” She laughs again, but something in her tone makes me uneasy, and so, when I laugh with her this time, it’s more because I think she expects it than because I think what she’s just said is really funny.

Cross-posted on It’s All Connected.

Posted in Gender and the Body | 13 Comments

Why The Democrats Deserve To Lose: Unemployment, Unemployment, Unemployment

Let me begin by saying that although Democrats deserve to lose, Republicans certainly don’t deserve to win.

1) The economy is in terrible shape. Unemployment is dismal. Long-term unemployment in particular is dramatically worse than it’s ever been.

The long-term unemployment situation continued to deteriorate in May, as an additional 47,000 unemployed workers crossed the six-months-unemployed threshold. There are now 6.8 million workers who have been unemployed for longer than six months, which is unsurprising given that there are now well over five unemployed workers per job opening. The median, or typical, unemployment spell was 23.2 weeks (5.4 months), and nearly half (46.0%) of all unemployed workers had been unemployed for over six months, both record highs.

Click through and scroll down to look at the graph, which is one of the more scary-ass trend lines I’ve ever seen.

2) We know how to fix the economy; what’s needed is a truly gigantic, short-term injection of stimulus from the government, to get the economy moving and people working. Unfortunately, there has not been any net fiscal stimulus.

The proper measure for fiscal stimulus is not spending by the federal government; it is spending by all levels of governmeTnt. And when you look at the contributions to US GDP growth (Table 1.1.2 at the BEA site), total government spending has been a drag on growth over the past two quarters. The increases at the federal level have not been enough to compensate for the spending cuts at the local and state levels.

3) The long-term damage caused by high levels of unemployment will be a drag on the US economy (and on Americans individually) for many years to come, maybe decades.

Taken as a whole, the results suggest that the labor market consequences of graduating from college in a bad economy are large, negative, and persistent. […] There is a growing body of evidence on the deleterious effects of long-term unemployment on individual well-being, including lowered earnings, which can persist for many years after re-employment, as well as increased mortality, poorer health outcomes, greater probability of depression and other mental health issues, and marital instability.

4) Many Americans seem to believe that we can address the long-term deficit problem, or we can address unemployment, but we can’t address both. That’s not true.

If we spend an extra $1 trillion over the next three years in unemployment-reducing stimulative fiscal policies, we raise–at current interest rates–real government debt service in 2030 by $7 billion a year. […] Whatever we do (defined as spending up to an extra $1 trillion) in the short run (defined as the next three years or so) is rounding error in the context of our long-run fiscal stability problems. […]

Think of it this way: our natural gas pipes are corroding, and there is a good chance that tomorrow ten years from now we will have a gas leak and if we do not fix it the house will explode. And Henry Blodget is using that danger to argue that we shouldn’t turn on the heat tonight even though it is snowing outside…

In fact, unaddressed long-term unemployment makes it harder to deal with the deficit.

In the US, there are two political parties that matter. Republicans are obviously hopeless on this issue; the average Republican Senator is considerably more likely to pound iron nails into Superman’s skull using only a hammer made of cotton balls, than to support a really good fiscal stimulus bill.

What’s horrible is that the Democrats have been only marginally better. I don’t think the Democrats are saints — far from it — but I would have imagined, once, that self-interest would motivate the Democrats in Congress and in the White House to do everything they possibly can to bring unemployment numbers down, because that is the single factor that will make the most difference in the next election. But instead, Democrats have continually settled for quarter-measures and half-measures.

I think the Democrats will pay for their tepid response to unemployment in November — and they’ll deserve to lose. A majority party that doesn’t treat our current levels of unemployment as an urgent crisis does not deserve to retain power. Unfortunately, the Democrats losing equals Republicans winning, and they don’t deserve to win, either.

Posted in Class, poverty, labor, & related issues, Economics and the like, Elections and politics | 26 Comments

On Being A Black Woman and Happy With It

on-being-a-black-woman-and-happy-with-it

So, there’s this thing happening in the black American community (and outside it) where women who look like me are supposed to be grateful for any crumbs that happen to fall into our bleak little lives. Apparently, our lot in life is to be miserable unless some rich educated black man wants us. We’re struggling to survive on our own in a world where we might have to actually be self supporting and self loving, and we don’t even have the good sense to realize that it’s impossible to be happy with ourselves as long as we’re not reflecting the picture society expects. After all, such stellar catches as Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods, and Michael Jordan have opted to seek out women of a…lighter persuasion rather than black women.

It’s questionable enough that anyone believes that three dudes who wouldn’t understand fidelity if it walked up to them and sat in their laps being unavailable to black women is supposed to be a clear indicator that black women aren’t valuable. Erm, how to put this politely? Oh right, I’m not in a mood to be polite so I’ll just say flat out I wouldn’t touch any of those cats with my worst enemy’s vagina mmkay? I have standards for the men in my life that include things like trust, respect, and at least a vague grasp of human decency. For the record? I’ve been married twice. The first time was a hot mess in that way that can happen when you’re 21 and too dumb to read the big flashing neon signs that say “Leave this dumb bastard alone” but my current marriage? Loving it. He’s black, educated, and has a good relationship with his mother. It wasn’t hard to find him (I wasn’t even done with my divorce when I met him as a matter of fact) and he has never expected me to be someone else. He loves me for me. I love him for him. That’s our big secret. We’re not unique in this respect either. There are plenty of happy black couples (married or not) out here leading their lives without feeling the need to resort to a Stepford process for either partner. That’s before we get into what it means to be LGBT and unable to legally get married in a lot of places. Newsflash: Not every black woman wants a man. And even for the ones that do? Marriage isn’t necessarily their first priority.

Now, let’s take a second to be real on the topic of marriage. The institution grants certain legal protections and rights, but it doesn’t guarantee a happy couple or even a long lasting relationship. For further proof on that topic feel free to check out the relationship history of the three celebs I’ve already mentioned along with Swizz Beatz, everyone on Basketball Wives, and most of the rest of the modern world. That 50% divorce rate has nothing to do with the flaws of black women and everything to do with the reality that people get married for the wrong reasons to the wrong people everyday. As societal panaceas go, marriage has never really been all that effective despite the hype about the good old days. In the good old days, women got stuck in horrible relationships, men brought home social diseases, and everyone wished they had way out that was socially acceptable and didn’t result in life long poverty. So, let’s drop this idea that marriage has ever been the institution to grant us a stable society. It can’t even grant a stable relationship. And really, if we’re going to harp on the value of marriage? Let’s make it available to everyone instead of offering up expensive substitutes and insisting marriage only has one meaning. If some pop star can get married for 56 hours and the institution still have meaning in the aftermath of that quickie divorce? It’ll be just fine.

This phenomenon doesn’t just rear its ugly head around our love lives though, we’re also supposed to hate our hair, our skin, even the shape of our bodies, and we’re supposed to strive to achieve behavior patterns that are in direct contradiction to our personalities as soon as someone hints that they find us too strong/abrasive/angry/loud or whatever other bullshit excuse they can trot out as part of the effort to denigrate and demean every facet of our existence. After all, we do insist on wearing our hair the way it grows out of our heads, and choosing colors and styles that highlight our skin tones as well as displaying our bodies in ways that we find flattering. I mean, whoever heard of someone wearing a sleeveless top indoors in the winter? Oh wait, I lift weights (and kids) on a regular basis and I also wear short sleeved or sleeveless tops most of the year too. Because they’re comfortable and I like them. And really, what gives anyone the right to police our bodies as though they don’t belong to us? Whoops, I forgot I’m supposed to be begging everyone else for their approval as part and parcel of my experience right? Right.

Except that’s not ever going to happen and the fact that a lot of people are assholes isn’t a reason for black women to turn themselves inside out. It is a good reason to ignore the assholes and keep going about the business of life. Yes, even with “nappy” hair, my natural eye color, and an ass that makes skinny jeans self-destruct I am happy to be a black woman. I love myself, and I love my life even if someone says I’m living it wrong. Instead of finding new ways to insist that to be a black woman is to be miserable, how about celebrating all those unique qualities that are inherent in our shared existence? Oh right, that would require putting down all those ‘ism’s people love to cling to wouldn’t it? I guess if you can’t give up the sexism, racism, and classism then we’ll just have to learn to live with the hate and keep doing our own thing.

On Being A Black Woman and Happy With It — Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 3 Comments

Little Orphan Annie strip ends after 86 years

After 86 years of amazing adventure and right-wing preaching, the comic strip “Annie” (originally called “Little Orphan Annie”) ends today. Surprisingly, it’s not ending happily:

“Annie got kidnapped more than any child on the planet,” Maeder says.

And that, dear readers, is her predicament now.

She’s been spirited away to Guatemala by her war-criminal captor. Warbucks is huddling with the FBI and Interpol but there aren’t many clues.

Annie’s captor says they’re stuck with each other. Welcome to your new life, he says.

And there it ends.

You can read the final strip here.

At first, I felt irritated that Tribune Media (the owners of Annie) didn’t continue Annie long enough to let it end happily. But on rethinking, I kind of like it. We can take it on faith that Daddy Warbucks will eventually shake off his funk and rescue Annie, and that Annie and Warbucks together will defeat the kidnapper and go home for a while until the next dictator or mobster or union boss kidnaps Annie. It’s appropriate that the comic strip doesn’t really have an ending, because Annie’s adventures seemed endless.

Of course, I would have preferred that the comic strip end back in 1968, when creator Harold Gray died. Although Gray’s successors on the strip include some excellent cartoonists (Leonard Starr, for goodness sake!), none of them were able to bring Gray’s slightly frightening intensity and vitality to the strip.


(Click on the panel to read the entire strip.)

I like Gray’s artwork a lot. The tiny heads and enormous hands feel expressionistic. And I love how Gray’s artwork almost always seems claustrophobic; ceilings feel uncomfortably close to characters’ heads, even when Gray draws outdoor scenes. Gray’s drawing tells a story very efficiently, but where it really shines is in getting across Gray’s fictional world, a world which despite Annie’s relentless optimism, was frightening and difficult, and in which the new death threat or kidnapping was always just around the corner.

Gray’s claustrophobic artwork was also a good match for his political views, which were spectacularly narrow. Gray’s reaction to the great depression was to preach that anyone could make it if only they embraced hard work and optimism (and socked out the occasional thug); anyone talking about larger economic issues behind structural unemployment would have been dismissed by Gray as a whiner. (I really regret that Gray never showed Daddy Warbucks punching out Keynes.) Gray had an awesome ability to deny reality; but even though a world in which anyone can make it with a little pluck and some help from a redheaded orphan isn’t realistic, it is a fun fantasy to read in a comic strip.

I haven’t yet seen much blogging about the end of Annie (except for this post on Comicscomics). But here’s some interesting past blogging about Little Orphan Annie: Illustration Art has “Harold Gray: An Appreciation,” featuring several very large (if you click on them) reproductions of Gray’s artwork and the blog’s patented “you kids get off my lawn” attitude towards modern comics. Jeet Heer quotes some Art Spiegelman comments about Gray’s work, plus in the comments a reader is quite funny on the subject of what a lousy parent Daddy Warbucks was. And Madinkbeard, reviewing an old reprint collection, makes a number of very interesting comments about Little Orphan Annie.

Posted in Cartooning & comics, Same-Sex Marriage | 12 Comments