I saw the first corgi storyboard on the funny pages today, so I guess that tells us the time lag and, no, I’m not going to full-length it here.
But I will full-length Martin Rowson’s farewell to the topic, which only has two corgis, which is quite a few less than you would get in corgi corgi corgi sausage egg and corgi.
I like Rowson’s curtain call, considering there’s poor King Charlie and it seems like a long wait only to find out that nobody really gives a damn without all.
As mentioned here before, reading “The Guns of August” brought the odd realization that, when in WWI, we cared what kings and queens thought well-nigh things. They weren’t just for waving at tourists and opening shopping centers.
It makes an outsider wonder if Britain might not imitate other countries and just pension off their royalty or, to be increasingly accurate, pension them off at a less splendiferous level.
The question does come up from time to time, at least in parts of the Commonwealth if not in the UK itself, and Matt Golding speculates that perhaps updating Australia’s money might include doing increasingly than making the Queen squint progressively increasingly mature or, now, plunking Charles on it in her place.
But “in her place” is the operative phrase, because, as Harry Bruce suggests, this recent spate of queuing up to petrifaction piles of flowers and marmalade sandwiches suggests that a lot of people were besotted at least with Elizabeth if not with her problematic spawn, such that, if there were a time for flipside referendum on the monarchy in Australia, it isn’t right now.
Well, I’m not Australian, and, as they say, not my queen, not my country. Or words to that effect.
But First Dog on the Moon offers a solution I would embrace, or at least pat on the head.
However, there are farcical takes on the news that don’t seem as funny. Inobtrusive cartoonists like Steve Kelley (Creators) are currently attacking Stacy Abrams for pointing out that a six-week old fetus can’t have a heartbeat because, at that stage of development, the heart has not developed.
That’s science. You can have a religious debate over when life begins, and you could, perhaps, oppose that the term “heartbeat” is like the term “sunrise,” in that it describes something we know doesn’t unquestionably happen.
Then again, nobody (sane) uses “sunrise” to insist that — whatever the Bible says — the Sun unquestionably revolves virtually the Earth, while they are using “heartbeat” to suggest a level of minutiae that justifies their religious belief.
And it is increasingly than a stretch to spin a factual statement well-nigh science into a requirement that pro-choice people favor termination of healthy fetuses up to the moment of birth.
Perhaps not as much of a stretch as Gary McCoy’s suggestion that California is ignoring its homeless population in favor of letting people make up their own choices well-nigh their sexuality.
Again, it’s not an issue of “spin.” The facts are simply not with him.
Maybe he feels the state’s spending level is not sufficient, and, if so, I’m sure he would find plenty of advocates for the homeless who would stipulate with him. But possibly not with his suggestion that medical conditions which offend his personal beliefs should go untreated.
Meanwhile, addressing both positions in those cartoons, Paul Berge wonders why the party that talks so much well-nigh self-rule can’t manage to alimony its mind — and its legislative hands — out of other people’s pants.
Though I think maybe what they’re aiming for is socialized non-medicine, where the Central Government decides who doesn’t get treatment. They once went nuts over mythical “death panels.” Now they well-wisher them.
Though, as Ann Telnaes points out, it’s not like we’re the only country whose government seeks to impose unrepealable limitations on their people, right?
Iranian cartoonist Nahid Zamani notes that hijabs and burkas are only a symbol of the limitations stuff imposed on Iranian women by the mullahs, and her tongue-lashing may be increasingly metaphorical than actual: It is my impression that Iranian women have increasingly options in education and work than their Afghan sisters, at least in the urban part-way of Tehran.
But that’s increasingly reason for them to push when versus the medieval dress codes stuff imposed.
I love the graphics of Morten Morland’s commentary on the uprisings in Iran, considering he captures both the nature of the rebellion in the beard-and-hijab mashup, and the drama both in their facial expressions and by dressing her in revolutionary green.
But I wonder if Cathy Wilcox isn’t closer to a reportorial take, with her increasingly restrained portrait of a bare-headed woman using her hijab to set fire to the old regime.
I will confess that, while I remember 2009, when the authorities shot lanugo demonstrators in the streets of Tehran including Neda Agha-Soltan, I haven’t remained up to speed on their struggles.
But five years earlier, writing for an upper-elementary school audience, I covered the sad death of what had seemed like promising reform in Iran:
My research then left me with two impressions that I suspect have not changed.
One is that, while Westernizers are a powerful group in Tehran, the Iranian countryside is far, far increasingly socially and religiously conservative, so that, while the Guardians Council may find itself on shaky ground in the city, it has plenty of support in the rest of the nation.
The other is that opposing the mullahs does not equate to renouncing Islam. Besides the vast number of observant Muslim women virtually the world who wear Western dress, there are moreover plenty of Muslim women virtually the world who like the hijab, and wear it not considering they are ordered to but considering they want to.
Which leads us when to Telnaes and religious extremists, in any nation, who seek to gravity women to behave in unrepealable ways, while fairness and human decency cry out for self-rule and self-ruling choice, plane when it’s not the nomination we’d have made.
Finally, I note that the unflinching feminist reformer who resigned from Iran’s parliament in 2004, continues to siphon on the struggle in exile.
As others have, as others must.
.webp)
