But first, Stephen Collins has a funny commentary based on the World Cup, though the tournament may be over before you see this. However, you should go see the whole thing, of which this is a snippet.
Glad to see someone, as they say in Britain, taking the piss out of the snobs who brag about not understanding sports, which is simply the egghead equivalent of rednecks who take pride in not knowing anything about Shakespeare.
I have sympathy for the victims of bullies, whether it was students who shoved them into lockers or teachers who harangued them when they couldn't parse a bit of Elizabethan English. But I'd have a great deal more respect for them if they said, "I had some unpleasant experiences with bullies, and, as a result, never got into sports/Shakespeare."
I was at a business luncheon once where we were talking about cars. I had just bought a Toyota; someone else a Nissan, and we were comparing them, when an old fellow said, "I don't buy Japanese cars. They used to shoot at my airplane."
It was both hilarious and unassailable, with the charm coming from his free admission that it was pure prejudice, given that it had been half a century since anyone had shot at his airplane and that he had no problem with other people buying Japanese cars.
But, my goodness, there's nothing witty in being ignorant about sports. It's actually a sign of a wasted education rather than a superior one: Anybody who knows the meaning of "mens sana in corpore sano" or has read Homer or studied any history at all would know the interplay of sport and intellect.
If nothing else, you should know the term "Renaissance Man," and bonus points if you decry its gender-specificity in light of people like Elizabeth Carter, of whose well-rounded character Samuel Johnson, said, “My old friend, Mrs. Carter, could make a pudding as well as translate Epictetus from the Greek, and work a handkerchief as well as compose a poem.”
I don't like basketball or modern dance, but I certainly know what a three-point line is and I've heard of Alvin Ailey, and, if not, I'd hide my ignorance, not make it a point of pride.
Now where were we?
Oh, yes. Thank you, Matt.
David Rowe may have the best overall commentary on Dear Leader's visit to England, or the UK, or wherever the hell he was.
(And note that, while the mutt had deposited his load for Theresa May, the Queen's corgi is anticipating an insult yet to occur when the cartoon was drawn.)
Trump apparently was not clear on how all this United Kingdom/Great Britain/England stuff works, telling the Sun, “You don’t hear the word ‘England’ as much as you should. I miss the name England. I think England is a beautiful name. And you don’t hear it very much anymore. But (the football team at the World Cup is) playing as ‘England.’ That’s very interesting. That’s good.”
Well, they'd been eliminated two days earlier, but never mind. It's more important that, as Pat Bagley observed, he went on to decry immigration from shithole countries:
I think what has happened to Europe is a shame. Allowing the immigration to take place in Europe is a shame. I think it changed the fabric of Europe and, unless you act very quickly, it’s never going to be what it was and I don’t mean that in a positive way. So I think allowing millions and millions of people to come into Europe is very, very sad. I think you are losing your culture.
Later it was explained that he hadn't actually said any of those things and you could listen to the tapes and you'd see, and then the Sun released the tapes of the interview, but the moment had passed and we were on to other things.
Not that Peter Brookes didn't continue to reference that interview, and that balloon, under which marched either 100,000 or 250,000, but, as wags have noted, certainly more people than had showed up for the inauguration.
Never mind, he was off to Scotland, an important part of the tour, since selling rooms to his security detail would double the July income of his failing golf resort. Which sounds outrageous, but, really, as of yesterday, he had only spent 30% of his time as president at one of his properties.
That's not nearly half and, in fact, it's not even a third. Quite.
Not to worry. He's going to give the profits back to the US Treasury.
Which is only fair.
Or, at least, as fair as the accounting.
Meanwhile, as Kal Kallaugher notes, he's off to Russia, where I suppose he'll tell Isvestia, “You don’t hear the words ‘Soviet Union’ as much as you should. I miss the name Soviet Union. I think Soviet Union is a beautiful name. And you don’t hear it very much anymore."
But, since everything about our nation revolves around how Dear Leader is treated and revered, I'm sure it will be a lovely visit, particularly since Putin also misses the term "Soviet Union" and will be extra nice to anyone who sympathizes.
Patrick Chappatte wouldn't be welcomed there, since he hearkens back to the days when the USSR broke up.
I'm not sure anyone here remembers or cares. Anyone born in the last year of the Reagan presidency turns 29 this year, and so, given that the median age in the US is 37.7, I'd suggest that half the country has no real memory of those days.
Those that do may recall that, while Reagan may get credit for luring the Soviets into overspending trying to counter a "Star Wars Defense" that appears to have been mostly imaginary, what really brought them down was having pissed away millions of rubles and thousands of lives in a pointless, futile war in Afghanistan.
And those old enough to know that apparently took no lesson from it.
Or they believed this and hope to replicate it: