PDA

View Full Version : The $10,000 Doonesbury Challenge


Tricky
26th February 2004, 07:25 AM
In case you don't read the funny papers, Gary Trudeau who creates Doonesbury (http://www.doonesbury.com) has put out a challenge sort of like the Randi Challenge. He is asking anyone with verifiable proof that Dubya was at Dannelly Air National Guard Base between the months of May and November of 1972 to come forward and win $10,000. He's doing this "to end the rumors and innuendo".

Taking my style from some of our own beloved Randi challengers, I've submitted the following entry:
***

It is about time I finally came out in the open about this. I saw George W. Bush at Dannelly Air National Guard Base between the months of May and November of 1972. In fact, I have seen him everwhere he has ever been, for I am George W. Bush’s Guardian Angel™. It should not surprise you that Bush has a Guardian Angel™. I am the reason he believes in faith-based assistance. It has always worked for him.

You want proof? Just look inside your own soul. Really truly look. Are you looking? Good. I am the one third from the left with the glowing red halo and the smirk. You just KNOW I must be Bush’s Guardian Angel™. Proof enough, unless you wish to check with the Big Guy himself, and he doesn’t take too kindly frivolous requests.

Yes, I was there when George got that DUI. How else do you think he escaped with a slap on the wrist. And I was the one who protected him from several business failures and that legal business about some very Enron-like accounting practices. “Not enough evidence to prosecute,” I think they said. My Celestial Shredder was pushed to the max on that one. And who do you think pushed through that corporate welfare deal with the Texas Rangers where he got the taxpayers to subsidize his investment? Yup, that was me too.

You see, we Guardian Angels™ are a proud group. Proud to serve and protect, even if the protection is just keeping his little cocaine parties secret (which is where he was in those 6 months, by the way). We are a very tight knit group and we love each other like brothers. Except Malchazar. I love him in a way slightly different from a brother. We’re getting married next week. Ironic, isn’t it?

richardm
26th February 2004, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Tricky
We are a very tight knit group and we love each other like brothers. Except Malchazar. I love him in a way slightly different from a brother. We’re getting married next week. Ironic, isn’t it?


Nice touch :D



(ooer, missus)

corplinx
26th February 2004, 08:32 AM
Nowadays I get my uninformed one-sided Bush satire from the Boondocks. Trudeau can occasionally write a funny strip about the modern campus life, but on politics he is worse than "This Modern World". Essentially, Trudeau has become "comfort material" to your left wingers as much as Ann Coulture is comfort material for right wingers.

Sundog
26th February 2004, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by corplinx
Nowadays I get my uninformed one-sided Bush satire from the Boondocks. Trudeau can occasionally write a funny strip about the modern campus life, but on politics he is worse than "This Modern World". Essentially, Trudeau has become "comfort material" to your left wingers as much as Ann Coulture is comfort material for right wingers.

I must agree.

Add to that list Bill Maher, who some people seem to idolize, but who strikes me as simply sophomoric.

corplinx
26th February 2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Sundog


I must agree.

Add to that list Bill Maher, who some people seem to idolize, but who strikes me as simply sophomoric.

Or Dennis Miller, sophomoric but uses a thesaurus and trivial pursuit cards to obfuscate it.

Tricky
26th February 2004, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by corplinx
Nowadays I get my uninformed one-sided Bush satire from the Boondocks. Trudeau can occasionally write a funny strip about the modern campus life, but on politics he is worse than "This Modern World". Essentially, Trudeau has become "comfort material" to your left wingers as much as Ann Coulture is comfort material for right wingers.
You may not agree with Gary Trudeau's politics, but you cannot seriously call his Pulitzer prize-winning work "uninformed". He probably has done a better job of chronicling life since the sixties than any other cartoonist. Also, he writes a great many strips that are not political at all, just topical. Plus, he's satirized Clinton, Carter, Gephart, Gore and practically everybody else in politics.

I agree that both "Boondocks" and "Modern World" are pretty much one-joke strips with no character development or subtlety. To that, though, you ought to add "Mallard Fillmore", which is very rarely funny, but manages to raise a chuckle every now and then.

But I'm disappointed that no one has commented on "the challenge". It seems that this is very much in line with what we all respect Randi for. Why does your skepticism turn off when it is Bush (or any of his supporters) rather than Sylvia who is being asked to provide proof?

Grammatron
26th February 2004, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Tricky
But I'm disappointed that no one has commented on "the challenge". It seems that this is very much in line with what we all respect Randi for. Why does your skepticism turn off when it is Bush (or any of his supporters) rather than Sylvia who is being asked to provide proof?

Unlike Randi's challenge, the person in this one won't actually be getting the money. To quote the challenge "Well, yes, but it's a hitch for a good cause. The winner won't actually receive the reward for himself; instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his name to the USO. That way everyone's a winner, including GBT's tax accountant. "

I agree that might be a bit trivial in the context of what's is supposedly the point of the challenge, but it's not all that fair either. Heck the comic strip says they want to find this out because they are "tired of people bringing this up and want to move to real issues." If that's not irony I do not know what is.

corplinx
26th February 2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

You may not agree with Gary Trudeau's politics, but you cannot seriously call his Pulitzer prize-winning work "uninformed".

Just because he won a pulitzer doesn't mean he is always well informed.

Mind you, I was a big fan of doonesbury up through the early nineties when he became just another clinton apologist. Nowadays it seems he just goes through smirkingchimp and tompaine.com and makes a strip off the latest meme when it comes to politics.

Its probably more laziness than it is anything else.

Oso
26th February 2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by corplinx

...
Nowadays it seems he just goes through smirkingchimp and tompaine.com and makes a strip off the latest meme when it comes to politics.

Its probably more laziness than it is anything else.

Or perhaps the president's public patterns of behavior cause separate observers to have similar observations.

Tricky
26th February 2004, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Oso

Or perhaps the president's public patterns of behavior cause separate observers to have similar observations.
Possibly. But more likely because Corplinx stopped reading it when he started disagreeing. Trudeau trashed Clinton pretty badly (his symbol was "the waffle"), but of course, he trashed his attackers as well. If you want evidence, I'll try to dig up some old strips.

Cleon
26th February 2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
Mind you, I was a big fan of doonesbury up through the early nineties when he became just another clinton apologist.

What? Where did you come up with that? Man, I don't like Doonesbury, but he was hardly "another Clinton apologist." I mean, his symbol for Clinton was a frikkin' waffle.

Suddenly
26th February 2004, 01:44 PM
Didn't the main character (Mike) become a Republican?

Tricky
26th February 2004, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Suddenly
Didn't the main character (Mike) become a Republican?
He did indeed, and Mike has always been the sort of "first person" to Trudeau, and definately a character we are supposed to like.

corplinx
26th February 2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

Possibly. But more likely because Corplinx stopped reading it when he started disagreeing. Trudeau trashed Clinton pretty badly (his symbol was "the waffle"), but of course, he trashed his attackers as well. If you want evidence, I'll try to dig up some old strips.

I remember after Ron Headrest and the Bush/Quale satires, I was hungry for the Clinton one. I remember the strip where he asked readers whether they preferred the waffle or the flipping coin.

To act like "oh, Trudeau was so touch on Clinton that he portrayed him with..... a waffle!" is just silly. Trudeau spent most of the Clinton years attacking Clinton's critics. Of course, I could just be biased and wrong.

gnome
26th February 2004, 04:43 PM
To be honest, if the right wing has Coulter, and the left wing has Gary Trudeau...

I think the left got the better end of that deal.

Tricky
26th February 2004, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


I remember after Ron Headrest and the Bush/Quale satires, I was hungry for the Clinton one. I remember the strip where he asked readers whether they preferred the waffle or the flipping coin.

To act like "oh, Trudeau was so touch on Clinton that he portrayed him with..... a waffle!" is just silly. Trudeau spent most of the Clinton years attacking Clinton's critics. Of course, I could just be biased and wrong.
I promised I'd give some evidence of Trudeau's impartiality, and here it is. I don't have exact dates on these strips (and obviously for copyright reasons I can't reproduce them). You could go to the Doonesbury site to confirm, but their archives are not free. So here's a few transcripts from "The Bundled Doonesbury":
(Mike watching TV)
Interviewer: Mr President, do you categorically deny having any kind of relationship with Ms. Lewinsky?
Clinton: Well, we're still checking the logs on that, but I would deny having an improper relationship. Nonetheless to avoid any future possible impropriety, I am now seeing a therapist, Dr. Ellen Limquat about my alleged compulsive behavior...
Interviewer: Sir, are you sleeping with her?
Clinton: Well, there again, I'd have to check the logs.
(Mark, hosting a call-in radio show)
Caller: It's just so unfair! Clinton's personal life is his own business! I mean, lots of marriages have these problems... And I should know! My husband has sex with his employees all the time!
Mark: Um... And that's okay with you?
Caller: Sure. As long as there's nothing improper about it.

(Mark and Republican guest Chase debating Clinton)
Producer: Okay, boys, we're rolling. Go at it!
Mark: Chase, now that we know needle exchange programs work, Clinton's refusal to lift the ban on funding is a disgrace!
Chase: Wrong as usual, Mark! What's disgraceful is Clinton's encouraging states to fund programs on their own! Talk about sending the wrong message!
Mark: What message is that? That he cares whether people get aids? Clinton was scared you guys would tag him with being soft on drugs!
Chase: Which he is! He's pandering toall the liberal ex-pot-heads on his staff!
Mark: No way! Clinton wimped out! He bowed to political pressure! Again!
Chase: Right! It's what I've been saying! The guy's spineless! I totally agree

(pregnant pause)
Producer: Take two!
Mark: (aside) We've got to stop meeting in the middle like this.
Chase: (aside) It's Clinton - He keeps bringing us together.

(Clinton and an aide in the White House)
Aide: Mr. President? We've got another situation related to the Paula Jones case...
Clinton: What sort of situation?
Aide: Well as you know, sir, Jones is arguing that the women who slept with you were given a career advantage over women like her, who didn't.
Clinton: So?
Aide: Well, her claim seems to have inspired a class action suit.
Clinton: What?
Aide: Yes sir. You're now being sued by all the female state employees in Arkansas you didn't try to sleep with.
Clinton: I don't believe this.
Aide: It gets worse.
Clinton: Worse?
Aide: There are only three of them

Okay, I hope I have proved my point that Trudeau was by no means a "Clinton apologist." BTW, I find all of those strips hilarious, even though I am a "Clinton apologist." It seems to me, Corplinx, that you were either not reading the strips or you are engaged in "selective memory". I'd hate to think you were cherrypicking the data. We all know what that can lead to. ;)