Monday, March 10, 2008

Wizard of Id unaltered

There's a cartoon making the rounds on the Internet about now. It purports to be a strip from The Wizard of Id. And it is. Mostly. The punch line has been edited. Here's what's making the rounds: Wizard of Id altered And here's the original comic: Wizard of Id original Actually, I agree with both versions. But, for the sake of accuracy, I thought it best to call attention to the actual cartoon as Parker and Hart intended.


  1. Aren't those two versions synonymous? :-D

  2. Hate to apparently disagree with the blase attitude, but I think that this cartoon amounts to misrepresentation and suggests a belief or opinion held by the cartoonist that is simply not there. I appreciate you noting the fact that it was a change from the original cartoon, but I wonder if you would have been so unconcerned by the bastardization of the strip if it had said \Republican\ in the final panel? Truth is truth, lies are lies.

  3. The reason I agree with both versions (the original, as written by Parker and Hart, as well as the edited version that was making the rounds) is that, if more stupid people thanintelligent people vote, then a Democrat would win.

    It's not the way Parker and Hart wrote it, and I thought that needed to be brought out.

    Let me put it in a way that you might understand: fake, but accurate.

  4. I just received this comic via email, and I wanted to thank you for putting up the original, even though I disagree with your commentary. Here's what I put in my reply:

    I'd like to note two things: 1) the copyright date below the comic is 2004 and 2) the original punchline, before some creative editing, was "Then the best liar wins". No wonder some Republican needed it changed.

    Republican, Democrat or Independent, it's all in good fun. Again, thank you for posting the original.

  5. Bill:

    Although I agree with the sentiment of the altered version, the fact it's an altered version is something I strongly disagree with.

    "Fake, but accurate" is a load of hooey. I despise when the left tries that stuff, and I especially despise it when those on the right lower themselves to that level; it makes them liars, exactly the opposite of my beliefs.

    A lying Republican is no better than a lying Democrat when it comes to character. And, regardless of party, character matters.

  6. I'm having the same trouble I always have with discerning which opinion the right holds. This morning, you say "'Fake, but accurate' is a load of hooey" but you are the one that said "Fake, but accurate"... last evening. Are you now changing your thought? Or were you for the alteration before you were against it?

    Copyright objections aside, your response to me is entirely without merit. I agree completely that the alteration is problematic. But it takes an incredibly biased and blind commentator to say what you did about "the left try[ing] that stuff..." and "the right lower[ing] themselves to that level...". If you believe that the left is that low and the right lowers itself to reach the left, then you need to change your lenses. Both sides start with high ideals and then debase themselves. Both sides profit from bad choices.

    To be transparent: I am being more than fair by spreading the blame equally. I would never say that the right started this debasement of themselves into name-calling and profit-taking, but they have certainly perfected it.

  7. No, I was quoting the left's defense of Dan Rather's fake documents during the 2004 presidential campaign. I seized the opportunity to throw the left's own words back at them.

    Perhaps I am blinded by my conservative convictions. However, I do notice the left pulling stunts like that all the time. But I don't expect any better; that's the way communists, socialists (including National Socialists), and others on the far left have operated for years.

    When the right does it (as in this example), I take exception. And I take particular exception because I expect better. Anyone with the good sense to support conservative causes should have higher standards.

    I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility, and I feel that involves being responsible for one's actions, as well as how one's actions reflect on those around. And this alteration of a comic strip reflects poorly on the right.

    The person on the right that made this alteration came up with a result that I agree with; however, I strongly disagree with how he did it.

    Like robbing a bank to buy clothes to donate to the needy: I agree with donating to the needy (the message); I disagree with robbing a bank to do it (the delivery method).

  8. Oh, please.

    I didn't say you were blinded by your conservative convictions.

    I said blind.

    Biased and blind. But blind, just the same.

    As a disgruntled former member of the right, I know blindness when it presents itself as truth. And this is blindness. Absolute and total.

  9. I stand by what I said. The meaning of the edited cartoon is right; the editing of the cartoon is wrong.

    I have yet to see an intelligent defense of Barack Obama. I sincerely believe that if more stupid people than intelligent people vote in the presidential election this November, the Democrat (and best liar) will win.

  10. Hasn't anyone ever stopped and wondered why it is that college towns (with all those highly educated professors, staff, and students) are typically islands of liberalism adrift in oceans of conservatism?

    To put it more bluntly:

    Educated, intelligent, reflective individuals tend to vote democratic, not republican.

  11. Huh. And here I thought that people who had completed their education and had to deal with real life voted Republican, while those isolated from the real world, those whose total experience was dealing with others isolated from the real world and being taught by left-wing radicals who don't live and work in the real world, voted Democrat.

    Don't get me wrong: many of the ideals of the left are good. They just aren't practical.

    To put it bluntly, people who deal with reality tend to vote Republican, not Democrat.

  12. It appears you may be completely unaware that the habit of making easy generalizations tends to be the result of lazy thinking. In case you're of a mind to consider improving your debate skills, here are two definitions of logical fallacies that are taught in many freshman English classes:

    *Fallacy of biased generalization: The error of generalizing from an unrepresentative sample. For example: "Cats ignore music; therefore, all animals ignore music."

    *Fallacy of hasty generalization: The error of generalizing from a small sample--that is, from a sample smaller than required for reliable conclusions.

    Or perhaps, analytical thinking, deductive reasoning and inductive logic do not apply in THE REAL WORLD and one can simply invent generalizations...

    Eloquent observation by Franklin P. Adams, columnist (1881-1960):


  13. Consider this possibility: I used to be a liberal, but I grew up.

    I can't speak of what you think you know. I can speak of what I've experienced.

    When you grow up and actually have a real job in the real world, look back at your younger, foolish days.

  14. Growing less analytical and more gullible (perhaps due to complacence or selfishness), and moving away from social responsibility and increasingly self-centered is not what I consider growing "up"!

  15. You think I care what you consider "growing up?" News for you, hotshot: You're a liberal with no basis in the world. You're not that important.

    Again, you have no basis in reality. You have been told what to think and how to think it. Good little liberal.

    One day, perhaps, when you enter the real world ... which does matter, by the way ... you'll understand things better. You'll have bills to pay, perhaps children to raise, and who knows what.

    It will be an education for you. It'd almost be fun to watch.

  16. I also agree with both versions, and agree that we conservatives should be above this sort of thing that that the liberals are known for.

    It's all well and good to not want anyone to be poor, and to everyone be a "have" instead of a "have-not," but when you live and work in the real world, you don't want to see YOUR hard work benefiting those who have just been given everything they have.

    Academia is not the real world. Academics have theories, they have ideas, and yes, they are generally very intelligent. But they don't know what it's like to sweat, to work, to experience - to see that hard work benefit someone else as your tax dollars support the junkie, the harlot, the lackadaisical.

    Everyone should be given a chance, everyone DESERVES to have - but they also need to work for it themselves.

  17. Oh how prophetic the cartoon is now!

  18. Just discovered the cartoon as it is being used Down Under. So after reading the comments if a person who votes Republican believes that Democrats and liars are synonymous how in the blazes did George W (weapons of mass destruction) Bush get to be president?

    1. Rodney:
      My guess would be that people who voted for Bush were smart enough to not elect a Democrat. It's just too bad there are so many stupid people today.

