At last, a pair of presidential golf cartoons that cut through the pretension and address the issue (Hellooo, issue!).
And if you disagree, explain why Obama's 125 vacation days to this point are a greater sign of disengagement than Bush's 407 vacation days to the same point in his presidency.
Here's the best analysis of comparative vacations that I've seen, and it does note that Obama is hardly the first president criticized for taking time off. It also notes that presidents are not off-duty just because they're off-site.
The world doesn't work that way anymore anyway. My office is wherever my cell phone and laptop and I are, and I'm hardly unique in that.
Moreover, it's been a fact for the president far longer than it has for the rest of us.
What else is a fact is that, if we're going to talk about Ferguson, we need to bring this in as well, and to ask if the same cartoonists and commentators who feel Obama shouldn't play golf are the same ones who felt he was, not the first president to use a TelePrompter, but the first president to need a TelePrompter.
And that, if young black men would simply hitch up their pants and listen to a little Loggins & Messina instead of that rappety-rap stuff, police wouldn't pull their cars over and beat them up.
I'd rather deal with people who admit they think black people are stupid than people who must think I am.
At least Patrick Buchanan had the cojones to straight out say that he thought Obama got through college on affirmative action. He may be a race-baiting sonofabitch, but at least he's not a mealy-mouthed coward.
The rightwing is dedicated to bringing down the presidency, and willing to invest even more effort now than they did in pursuing the Whitewater charade for the last twice-elected Democrat.
But it's one thing to assume that the majority of Americans will fall for ridiculous statements about how commercial real estate works.
It's another to hope you can stir up enough racists to swing the next election.
First World -- but not First-Class -- Problem
Mike Smith riffs on a recent news event that brings up what is to me a bizarre but growing factor of self-centered, self-righteous entitlement even among those who generally seem to favor social justice.
Apparently, the fact that airlines are jamming more and more seats into airplanes is the fault of everyone else on the plane.
Well, okay, it is the airline's fault, but you can't do anything about that, according to a lot of people who also seem to believe that we should prosecute BankofAmerica for their lending policies, boycott McDonald's for their nutritional offerings and pass laws to keep Poland Springs from bottling and selling water that would otherwise trickle into the oft-swollen Androscoggin and thence to the ocean.
And yet they not only don't boycott the airlines, but insist that it is rude and inconsiderate for other victims of this greed-based business plan to recline their airplane seats.
The logical connection is that they believe in collective responsibility and in things like putting bicycles out on the street for anyone to use and nobody to steal. Which only works if you lock them up, which means, it only works if you don't rely on collective responsibility.
The illogical connection is that, in this particular case, they are suspiciously in favor of collective responsibility directed towards their individual needs.
"You are invading my space!"
Well, hate to break it to you, pal, but that space is mine. They've jammed us all into a very limited area, but what they sold me includes that little sliver behind my seatback, just as the person in front of me owns that little sliver behind his seatback.
(Yes, I know: It's not reclined when we take off. Nor is your tray table down. So did you pay for use of the tray table or not? Well, there ya go.)
If you are 6'4", I'm not unsympathetic. And I'm sorry about your knees, but sitting at a 90-degree angle makes my back hurt.
Ergonomically unfortunate for both of us, ain't it?
So answer me this: If you are at a restaurant and they don't give you an adequately sized portion, what do you do?
Do you complain to the manager about portion sizes?
Do you offer to pay a little more for a larger serving?
Do you make a mental note to never eat there again?
Or do you reach over to the next table and grab some of that person's food? Are they rude and selfish for not offering you part of their meal, given that you are still hungry?
Maybe the guy who made that seatback-jammer should sell telescoping tongs for people to take to restaurants. See if that sparks any unpleasantness.
Meanwhile, here are my suggestions:
1. Pay the extra $30 or so and get an exit row or bulkhead seat with more legroom. Or pony up for first class.
2. There are types of planes in which the exit row seats do not recline. Find out which ones they are, book your flight on one and choose a regular-priced seat behind an exit row.
3. While the plane is boarding, look for someone seated behind a small child and ask them to switch seats with you, since little kids have plenty of space and can justifiably be asked not to recline their seatbacks.
4. Write to the FAA and point out that the airlines are not accessible for people of above average height. Copy your congressional representative. And the airline. Once a month.
5. Start a consumer action. Tweet it, Facebook it, Instagram it, call it the Alice's Airline Seat Anti-Jammed-Up-Kneecap Movement. I'll sign the petition.
6. If none of the other solutions appeal to you, try this one: