about "The Best Comic Strip Ever!"

The characters in my strip, set in Africa's Western Rift Valley, are: the Foolish Pride of lions (Leon, the haughty and lethargic King of Beasts; his queen, Leona; and their cub Lionel, an unpromising heir to the throne); Secretary Bird, a liason between the Royal Court and the rest of the animals; cerebral, man-imitating Ape, a reader of the Substandard; peevish Rhinoceros; harmless but senseless Ostrich; Crocodile, resident of the much-frequented Watering Hole, and his dentist, Crocodile Bird; Honey Badger (alias Ratel), the "Meanest Animal in the World", and his one associate, Honeyguide; Mumbo the elephant, a descendant of Jumbo and a butt of jokes about his weight and the size of his ears and nose; Duncan the dung beetle; ill-favored and unwashed Warthog; the craven, henpecked male and shrewish female hyaenas, both of them foul-smelling and perpetually at war vs. the lions; the mistaken-identity-plagued zebras; slow and superannuated Tortoise; Oxpecker, a companion of large herbivores; Hugh the chamaeleon; and walled-up Mrs. Hornbill.

The Best Comic Strip Ever!

If you "click" the present cartoon, whizbang technology will take you to the "The Best Comic Strip Ever!" Archive.



26 October 2012

Uncommon Commentary #297

Do you remember that imbecile from the McDonald's in Fort Meyers, who publicly asked Obama to get him a better job?  I think that I now know how the President complied with his request: He was given a position in the Department of State, and put in charge of security for Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Uncommon Commentary #296: Our Military May Have Fewer Horses, but it Has a Jackass for a C-in-C

In the candidates' foreign-policy debate, when Mr. Romney noted that the Navy has fewer ships now than at any other time since before the then-isolationist USA entered World War I, President Obombast replied: "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets."  Expectedly, the incumbent's worshipers in the media have hailed his line (which was undoubtedly rehearsed during preparations for the debate, for use in the event that the Republican nominee should make such an observation as he did) as a witty retort; unexpectedly, I haven't heard any wise commentators, i.e., those called "Conservatives", point out the main reason for the inadequacy of Obama's response. (There was an item restricted in its subject to the fact that our military does still use bayonets, contrary to our commander-in-chief's placing that weapon into the same category as mounted soldiers.)  The Doman Domain exists partly for the sake of giving me an opportunity to say what others ought to have said but have not, and so: Unless the President is so obtuse as to think that the naval branch of our armed forces has no more need of ships than the Army does of true cavalry (as opposed to tanks, which are classified as "armored cavalry"), the drip's quip was not a serious attempt at rebuttal but merely a chance to score a "zinger", which (in tandem, naturally, with disingenuous personal attacks upon his opponent) seems to summarize the Obombast campaign's entire strategy for the final two debates.  Sarcasm has a legitimate place in political discussion, but only where it's used to help make a (valid) point, not to avoid having to make one.

Uncommon Commentary #295: UC #294 Follow-Up

Only six days ago, I wrote that a combined total of over 711 million dollars had been raised for the Romney and Obama campaigns; I got this figure from both the Federal Election Commission and OpenSecrets.org, but an article yesterday at FoxNews.com reported that, "according to accounting statements submitted to the government", the sum has exceeded two billion dollars.  I know that the Democrats' economic policies have made inflation worse, but I didn't expect this.

20 October 2012

Uncommon Commentary #294: Wouldn't You Rather Give to a Poor Person than to a Poor President?

To date, the effort to elect Romney and that to re-enthrone Obama have raised a combined 711 million dollars.  I wonder whether anyone other than I ever thinks about how much good this money would do if it were used for charitable contributions (which are tax-deductible anyway, unlike political donations) instead of being given to presidential campaigns, only one of which can result in victory.

14 October 2012

Uncommon Commentary #293: Does "None" Really Refer to How Much Sense They Have?

The Pew Forum frequently conducts surveys on religious beliefs, in which those polled are asked whether they designate themselves as members of various denominations.  The proportion of those who answer "none of the above" (and who consequently are becoming known as "Nones") is rising sharply, and is at a new high: an appalling 1 in 5.  Probably anyone in this age can have a crisis of faith, but militant nullifidians bear much of the responsibility for this repellent trend, and so I have a message for them: If you won't admit that the Deity exists, that's your problem.  Don't insult us believers by speaking as if you alone were capable of using logic, and don't whine that your "rights" are violated when we express our faith.  Learn a lesson from Psalm 14, which opens with "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

13 October 2012

The Best of Uncommon Commentary

In consideration of the Norwegian Nobel Committee's making yet another unworthy choice of whom to "honor" with the Peace Prize, you may want to visit or revisit Uncommon Commentary #79.

12 October 2012

Uncommon Commentary #292

Many analysts of the presidential debate—I wrote this prior to the vice-presidential version, but it took me a few days to post it—say that the incumbent looked as if he were "bored" and as if he "didn't want to be there."  This ought not to surprise anyone who has lived during the agonizing reign of Emperor Nerobama.  It's only natural that someone who thinks of the presidency as his birthright would be weary and even resentful of the need to debate anyone who dares challenge that right.

06 October 2012

Uncommon Commentary #291: And You Thought that the IRS Makes Mistakes Only on Your Case

A 1954 amendment to the Internal Revenue Service tax code states that tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.” As so often is true, the IRS is in the wrong. Certainly clergy ought to avoid preaching on matters that have nothing to do with religion, but candidates for public office often take ungodly positions on religious or ethical issues, forcing them into the political sphere. It certainly is a prerogative and a duty for pastors to give their charges moral instruction, and that includes instructing them not to elect politicians who, for instance, espouse the legality of induced abortion, which is the greatest evil not only of our time but of all time. (Even if such a politician should hold a commendable position on every other issue, anyone who wants to call himself a Christian must vote against him; Right and Wrong outweigh all other considerations.) When the Western World was much more truly Christian than it is now, the prerogative and duty of ministers of God to get political in some circumstances did not have to be exercised as often as it does currently, but in recent decades it was done by at least one man who has been canonized as a saint: Padre Pio told his parishioners, from the pulpit, to vote against the Communists.
That 1954 amendment therefore ought to be either greatly modified or abolished, but instituting a flat tax, i.e., a system of taxation in which everyone would render the same proportion of his income to the Treasury, would enable us to fulfil every Columbian's dream of abolishing the IRS itself. An economist writing in National Review in the early 1990's recommended setting the universal rate at 17 percent, but I favor 10 percent, if only on a scriptural basis; if that quota satisfies God Almighty, why couldn't it do for Uncle Sam?

05 October 2012

Uncommon Commentary #290: Not Having His Cherished Prompter Didn't Help, Either

Leftists generally concede that President Obombast lost his first debate with Romney—interestingly, the Democratic National Committee predicted that he would do so—but some of them have tried to make excuses for his poor performance; my favorite comes from Al Gore, who, demonstrating the same grasp of scientific matters that has made him the bane of real climatologists and meteorologists and a laughing-stock of Conservative analysts, stated that the Denver altitude adversely affected the President.  The real reason for Romney's triumph is simply that he took advantage of the debate's format to put Obama on the defensive about his record; how can anyone defend the Obama record?