Editorial cartoonists struggled to say much of anything witty or insightful about the Trump/Kim Summit, though perhaps they'll do better once there is more indication of what actually happened.
Meanwhile, I like Mac's take, if for no other reason than that I've seen some "Kim is crazy" cartoons, which makes me wonder who they think he's meeting with: Metternich?
Trump's attempt to look strong at the G7 may have impressed the yahoos in his basket, but it was a good illustration for the rest of the world in the limitations of his alleged skill as a deal-maker.
"My Way or the Highway" can work in business, as long as you don't mind missing out on a lot of deals in order to get your way entirely on some others. And it does make you look tough, such that weaker negotiators may give in, knowing that you won't back down.
But the "deals" you make as President of the United States include a lot that you can't simply walk away from, and, when it comes to working with the G7, you're in a roomful of people who didn't get there by chance, or by family ties.
Kim, admittedly, got to where he is by family ties, but he also spent some time in prep school and I'm sure he's seen plenty of Lord of the Flies rich boy bullies before. He's not going to be flummoxed by this one.
This morning, the news seems positive, at least on the surface: Trump has apparently promised to halt military exercises with South Korea and Kim has promised "complete denuclearization," and one has to assume that diplomatic recognition of North Korea and a permanent end to the war is in there somewhere.
The sticking points being that, while we've never promised recognition before, Kim has promised denuclearization plenty of times recently and, given what happened to Gaddafi, he'd be a damn fool to actually do it, unless he has some extremely solid guarantees of support from China, in which case he's got a hole card Trump may have trouble matching.
We'll see, but Trump's announcement that he can trust Kim is disquieting and brings to mind Bush's ridiculous remark about looking into Putin's eyes and seeing someone he could work with.
So RJ Matson's cartoon gets a laugh on that basis, because, as utterly bizarre as it may seem to have Dennis Rodman in the middle of all this diplomacy, there's a certain "oh what the hell" to it, since he's equally as qualified as Trump in the field of international relations.
Perhaps moreso, since I don't think he's pissed off any of our major allies and trading partners.
Maybe on the next visit, Trump could bring Kim Kardashian to negotiate on human rights issues.
Speaking of celebrities, Rob Rogers has gathered a pair of interesting endorsements in his continuing struggle with his employer, the Post-Gazette, and I illustrate it with this cartoon because it's one of the more puzzling spiked pieces. Unlike the other cartoons that the editorial page editor refused to print, it doesn't mention, much less attack, Trump.
Perhaps the editor is a big Roseanne Barr fan, or owns stock in Sanofi pharmaceuticals or ... maybe in J.P. Stevens Textiles?
Hard to say, but, rather than steal all of DD Degg's links, I'll send you over to his extensive roundup and update at the Daily Cartoonist.
However, I will comment on the Columbia Journalism Review piece, because, while it repeats a quote from the newspaper that I'd seen before, it has one from Rob that I hadn't.
The newspaper has said that the problem "has little to do with politics, ideology or Donald Trump. It has mostly to do with working together and the editing process."
That is transparent to anyone who's worked in the trade, but Rob's comment to CJR is a great deal more than he has said before and confirms my suspicions:
“I plan to draw the best work I can draw and submit it with the intention of getting it in the paper,” he says. “I know what I can expect from myself: I will not change my political slant or my opinions or my way of drawing to please somebody else’s viewpoint.”
I've tangled with editors over this "editing process," and it's not as simple as them demanding, "Draw a cartoon (or write a column) that says thus-and-so"
They're more indirect than that -- either for ethical reasons or because they haven't got a firm grasp of exactly what they want -- and you're expected to sort through their vagaries, read their minds and magically come up with what they were thinking.
It's maddening. They want your talent, but they want it bent to some very specific directions, even if it has no relation to your strengths, your interests or your talents.
It's like hiring Tony Bennett but then insisting he sing Country & Western.
I don't know what Rob's going to do, but at least he's getting support from the public, including a demonstration in downtown Pittsburgh and those aforementioned "celebrity endorsements," one from Pittsburgh's mayor:
And then this national one:
Though I suppose an editor who is willing to make an ass of himself in defense of Roseanne Barr is unlikely to be moved by appeals from Barbra Streisand.
Juxtaposition of Perhaps Only Me
I laughed at Sally Forth because part of its surreal approach is to flat-out mock the generation gap, as in this futile attempt to connect a current-day middle-schooler with a movie that came out back when artists drew with goose quills.
Which set me up for "Reply All," because, when I was in school, an exposed bra strap was a humiliation, and girls were also careful to only wear light-colored bras under light-colored tops.
I'm guessing you'd have more kids today familiar with Rocky than embarrassed by having their underwear showing.
Just an observation, not a judgment.
And I couldn't find a song about leopard-skin skivvies ...
The comments section at the Inquirer are a real microcosm of our current state of debate.
Liberals: These are good cartoons.
Conservatives: You stupid ugly liberal troll. (Repeated seventeen times with slight variations.)
One favorite—in the specialized sense that I smile lopsidedly and shake my head when I see it—trope shows up, too: "this so-called cartoon." Man, they hate it so much it's not even a drawing! What is it? A cistern? A cyclotron? A canoe?
Posted by: Kip W | 06/12/2018 at 12:16 PM