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.

29 March 2013

The Best of Uncommon Commentary

I've just learned that in his 2009 speech to the United Nations' General Assembly, President Obombast said that he favored the creation of a Palestinian-Arab state "with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967".  Note the words that I've italicized.  Arab Palestine consists of both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which are separated from one another; does Obama envision a corridor, which would necessarily run through what is now Israel (and thus make that state's territory non-contiguous), from the Fatah-ruled land to that ruled by Hamas?  The fact that he has alluded in subsequent speeches to "1967 borders with agreed-upon swaps" as his desired outcome for the so-called Peace Process in the Holy Land suggests that this is the case.  Here's a better idea.

24 March 2013

Uncommon Commentary #333: An Oaf's Oath

John Brennan, the President's typically poor choice to direct the Central Intelligence Agency, took his oath of office on a 1787 draught of the US Constitution instead of a Bible; the Obombast Administration's explanation was that he did so to "reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law".  There has been commentary on the symbolic significance of this action, concerning the fact that the Constitution in 1787 did not yet include the "Bill of Rights", but I don't know of any on the significance that may be more than symbolic, which is the subject of this uncommon commentary.  The reason why one normally swears an oath with one's hand on Holy Writ is not to pledge to uphold the noble principles therein (although it would be nice if our rulers in general, and members of the present administration in particular, would do precisely that); it is to make the vow by something that one holds sacred, as most of us probably do still consider the Bible to be.  Does the Administration, then, rank the US Constitution, the authors of which never claimed divine inspiration for their writing, on a par with Scripture?  If so, this episode may mark a new high for the incoming tide of secularism and idolatry in our land.

20 March 2013

Uncommon Commentary #332: It's the Same Lame Claim, and so Shame on the Dame! (Alternate Title: Don't Cry to Me, Argentina)

In consideration of how many issues in our world deserve more attention than they receive, it's remarkable how much attention is devoted to what ought not to be issues at all, such as the question of whether the Falkland Islands ought to remain with the United Kingdom or be given to Argentina.  Aside from the most obvious reasons why the British ought to simply ignore Argentineans in this regard, viz., the recent referendum in which 99.8 percent of Falklanders voted in favor of their affiliation with the UK, and Argentina's defeat in the war that she provoked by invading the Falklands three decades ago, there is the lesser-known fact that the subject of dispute has never belonged to Argentina.  Spain owned it for four years in the Eighteenth Century; early in the following century what's now Argentina, then called the Republic of Buenos Aires, won independence from Spain; the citizens of the new state decided that since the "Islas Malvinas" lay closer to the Republic of Buenos Aires than to any other former Spanish possession, that island group must now be their country's possession. (It mattered not to them that Spain had transferred the territory to Great Britain by convention in 1771.)  This non-sequitur is the sole cause for the Argentine claim on the Falkland Islands.
Why does Argentina's President Kirchner want to add to her dominions, anyway?  Isn't it good enough for her that her left-wing rule has done so much to ruin the land that's already under her control?

16 March 2013

Uncommon Commentary #331: Turning the Womb into a Tomb

Now here's a good way to widen the generation gap: let your children know that you're pro-"choice", and thus that you feel that they ought to have been destroyed before birth if the pregnancies that produced them had been undesirable.

14 March 2013

Uncommon Commentary #330: UC #329 Follow-Up

I concluded the previous uncommon commentary by writing "Let's just hope that he[Bill Clinton]'s the only President Clinton we'll ever have", but I wasn't quite sincere in that expression.  I've no doubt that Hillary [sic] would be a failure as president, but would that matter after eight years of Obama?  Even should a Republican take office in 2017, the most that he would be able to accomplish would be to slow down the rate at which the USA destroys itself.  Ronald Reagan was perhaps the only truly great president in US history, but even he didn't solve this country's fundamental problems, the foremost of which being what Reagan and others have regarded as its major strength: our obsolescent political system.

13 March 2013

Uncommon Commentary #329: A Satire of a Satyr

(In explanation of the title: One definition of a satyr is "a lecherous man".)
In Uncommon Commentary #276: Not Sagacious but Salacious, I deplored the nostalgia that even some "Conservatives" apparently feel for the era of Bill Clinton, who was probably the worst president that the USA ever had prior to the current one.  Corroboration of my opinion is coming from a surprising source.
When President Yo'Mama [see the list of domanisms] claimed the credit for the raid that resulted in the death of Usama bin Laden, Clinton said that he "applauds" the President and that "if you had the capacity to go get him and you didn't do it, it would be impossible to explain …."  Then why didn't his administration accept the offer made by Sudan, in which country the founder of Al-Qaeda was then living, to extradite him to us following the first attack upon the World Trade Center building?
Speaking at the National Socialist rally in Nuremburg—I mean, the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte—and at other times during Obama's disgraceful re-election campaign, Clinton blamed the 2008 financial crisis on a deregulation of banks that he implied took place under George W. Bush.  In reality, the only such instances of deregulation were the enacting of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act; Riegle-Neal and the repeal of Glass-Steagall were both signed into law by Clinton.
Finally,—there are perhaps other examples that could be given, but I think that you get the point—Clinton has written an opinion-editorial piece in which he urged the US Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, which, again, Slick Willie himself signed into law.  He justified his flip-flop on this issue by writing that supporters of the bill "believed that its passage 'would diffuse [sic; the choice of this word evidently is a mistake (by a Rhodes scholar!) for "defuse"] a movement to enact ["ratify" is the right word] a constitutional amendment banning gay [sic] marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.'"
And so as you see, Clinton lately has often seemed intent on repudiating his own legacy as chief executive; it's an amusing change for someone whom, when he was in the White House, I named "Owen Hornblower" for his habit of lauding himself as one of the great leaders in US history.  Let's just hope that he's the only President Clinton we'll ever have.

04 March 2013

Uncommon Commentary #328

Emperor Nerobama and his henchmen are behaving increasingly as if they can get away with anything, but, then, why shouldn't they feel that way?  So far, thanks to the indifferent and collaborative attitudes of large segments of our population, they have gotten away with everything.

02 March 2013

The Best of Uncommon Commentary

This u.c. appeared in December, but the material that I've added to it since then has made it even more trenchant than readers have told me it was.

01 March 2013

Uncommon Commentary #327: Whether One Is Male or Female Is a Question of Biology, not of Opinion

Persons beset by what the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines as the disease of transsexualism don't deserve persecution, but neither do they deserve false compassion, viz., treating them as if their psychological illness were something normal and benign.  What they need is help, and they'll never get that if politically-correct society convinces them that there's nothing wrong with them.