Category Archives: One-Foot Putts

Today’s observation/comment is how repugnant I find the current masculine “fierce look.” Specifically the look captured below, courtesy of New York Times, of our Warrior Secretary Pete Hegseth. (Never mind the vague look of his wack spouse.)

Must one squint like an eagle to be taken seriously?  No, the reason for his feigned ferocity is much simpler — it is exactly the same glare that Donald Trump trademarked, the scowl that says “F★CK YOU” before you have a chance to speak.

Donny as he sees himself

Trump’s sycophants know how to kowtow and they do their best to imitate the master.  They are the playground weaklings.  He is the playground-bully-weakling.

Someone should remind Taco Donny:  Scowls don’t kill.*

_____________________

* That’s where $1.5 trillion defense budgets come in handy.
Be the next to comment | Read other posts in News and Comment, One-Foot Putts

Today we honor the accomplishments and humanity of the Rev. Martin Luther King.  Otherwise, yet another avoid-the-news day, with many more such days certain to lie ahead.  Hold onto King’s words: “Out of the mountain of despair, a stone of hope.”

Read 5 comments and add yours | Read other posts in One-Foot Putts

A couple of years ago, I published this rant about the illogic of various cartoons published in the esteemed New Yorker magazine.  I now have occasion to add insult to injury, thanks to the recent New Yorker cartoon below:

If you haven’t figured it out already, allow me to ask, in what direction does the mat on a treadmill travel?  Once you answer that, you may make one of two inferences:

(A) The cartoonist (in haste) did not consider the direction that treadmills travel before incorporating the treadmill’s motion into the premise of the joke.  If so, we may justifiably disrespect the cartoon and cartoonist, never mind the clothes hanging on the bars.

(B) The cartoonist did in fact realize that treadmill mats do not travel forward, and he/she used the absurdity of the protagonist’s comment as a kind of “comic spice” in the cartoon.  The cartoonist hoped the reader would think: “Obviously, the guy never uses the machine, so no wonder he doesn’t know what direction it goes!”  This (if intentional) would qualify as second-level humor.

It’s my experience that the humor-level of New Yorker cartoons, by some editorial decree, falls somewhere between 0.4 and 1.2, so anything above that level would mean someone hasn’t done his/her job.  Therefore, I’m more inclined to subscribe to Inference A.

Dear Sirs and Madams at the New Yorker: I await your call to be your next cartoon editor.  Under my iron-handed rule, no cartoonist could flout the laws of logic or physics without a decisive humorous payoff.

Be the first to comment | Read other posts in One-Foot Putts, The Arts