pageok
pageok
pageok
A Cartoon About Me:

Of course I am flattered by the attention, even if the lawyer/cartoonist either misunderstood or chose to misrepresent my views. (Now if only I could get Chris Muir to do a strip . . . )

PatHMV (mail) (www):
Alas, Jonathan, too many people fail to understand the distinction between argument and contradiction. Nice goatee you have, though!
2.16.2007 6:37pm
Zoe1 (mail):
Seems like a cartoonish misrepresentation of your views.
2.16.2007 6:57pm
Steve:
Very flattering. Not entirely unfair as a comment, either!
2.16.2007 6:58pm
Viscus (mail) (www):
The cartoon is very amusing. Like all cartoons, obviously it exaggerates. But it is amusing because it does get at an underlying truth (not the underlying truth) in an amusing way.
2.16.2007 7:00pm
Kazinski:
If cartoons were an effective way to exchange legal views federal courts would have standards for cartoon briefs: 4 color, 3 frames per line, syndicator name in 8pt type in last frame.
2.16.2007 7:04pm
Colin (mail):
4 color, 3 frames per line, syndicator name in 8pt type in last frame.

That would dramatically improve about half of the briefs that I read.
2.16.2007 7:12pm
frankcross (mail):
So cool.
Anyone can misrepresent me all they want if I get a cartoon
2.16.2007 7:29pm
Erisian23 (mail):
It should be said that having your views misrepresented by your critics only happens after a sufficient number of people find your ideas worth considering in the first place. You were tried and found important and sentenced to misrepresentation. If you weren't already a rock star before, you are now. Woot! Congrats! ;-}
2.16.2007 7:42pm
M (mail):
Why would you want the odious Chris "Kantian Nihilis! - it _must_ make sense! Ayn Rand said it once, I think" Muir to do a cartoon of you? He's both unfunny and stupid.
2.16.2007 7:53pm
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
Well, I can see why some think Muir is unfunny. For the same reasons that I (and presumably Jonathan) think him quite funny. But you probably like Dunsberry, and I think it became mostly quite unfunny some 25 years ago.

The political bias of that comic is obvious - ignoring the millions upon millions being spent to prove Global Warming, and concentrating on the thousands being spent on refuting it. Maybe it is actually occurring, but it is unlikely that we will know for sure in the near future simply because almost all of the research funding is going to prove its existance, and a mere pittance going to refute it. And even that pittance is subject to attack.
2.16.2007 9:24pm
Lev:
Was something supposed to be funny or amusing about that cartoon?
2.16.2007 11:09pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
If cartoons were an effective way to exchange legal views federal courts would have standards for cartoon briefs: 4 color, 3 frames per line, syndicator name in 8pt type in last frame.

Not to mention 600 dpi, pdf format, uphloaded to one site and downloaded from other and, at least locally, any order you want granted emailed to the judge's own email address in WordPerfect format. The District Court is perhaps the only legal shop in town that still uses WP. I like it better than Word, but it stopped supporting my Mac platform about ten years ago, and its files are not cross-platform.
2.17.2007 12:30am
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
Was something supposed to be funny or amusing about that cartoon?

Adler is totally bald and lectures while dressed in a red mesh tank top.

(I agree--it is sorta cool that someone did a cartoon on him -- but (1)it's rough enough to where I have to take his word that it's about him and (2) I can't see where it has wit, satire, or humor about it. But that's life. When last I saw him, Oliphant was amusing, Doonesbury was not amusing but sometimes interesting, and the local political cartoonist was at a high school level. I imagine the ability both to draw and to see the foibles of humanity is rare. The WaPo got by for decades on Herblock, who had neither ability nor insight. Even when I agreed with his message, I thought the manner of expression remarkably inept.)
2.17.2007 12:39am
Viscus (mail) (www):
The differing opinions about the cartoon here in question demonstrate that you can't please everyone. I like the cartoon.
2.17.2007 1:24am
Stephen Aslett (mail):
Hey now, there's some pretty good stuff on that site. I cracked up reading this one:

http://ifoughtthelaw.cementhorizon.com/comic/bfl018.html
2.17.2007 2:41am
Kovarsky (mail):
By the way, the fox "daily show" spoof is TERRIBLE. i mean maybe the "liberals" conspired to release the worst parts of it on youtube, but that obama bit is just downright not funny.

not that there's not that there aren't great jokes about obama and clinton (i imagine "the audacity of hos" as clinton's autobiography), even funny jokes about obama's cocaine use.

but the point is to make a funny, right?
2.17.2007 3:15am
Mary Rosh (mail):
And why would anyone question the integrity of the AEI. They are the bestest and coolest think-tank ever! At least until they got rid of John Lott, I mean, that really hurt their integrity. They should have employed him forever! He was the coolest! And most honest! Employing people like him really let they way they value the truth shine through! The AEI is groovy! They'd never do anything dishonest or support anyone dishonest for political reasons, I'm sure of it!
2.17.2007 6:49am
magoo (mail):
"Alas, Jonathan, too many people fail to understand the distinction between argument and contradiction."

No they don't.
2.17.2007 10:47am
dk35 (mail):
To me, the cartoon does seem an accurate reading of Adler's posts on this blog. It's nice to see that Adler himself saw it.
2.17.2007 1:18pm
Anonagain:
Mary, you are underappreciated. Kids these days don't remember the old scandals.
2.17.2007 1:44pm
Kazinski:
Mary and Anonagain: Sock puppetry is sad and ridiculous at the same time, but it doesn't raise itself to the level of scandal.
2.17.2007 2:25pm
godfodder (mail):
I guess it is only me, but it seems a bit, um, creepy that someone would care enough about some blog entries to write a cartoon response to them. I mean "creepy" in the Hitchcock/Psycho sense of the word. I hope it just means that somebody has a bit too much time on their hands.... doo,dee,doo,dee (that's the Psycho theme, for those of you who don't read music.)
2.17.2007 3:16pm
Ken Kukec (mail):

I guess it is only me, but it seems a bit, um, creepy that someone would care enough about some blog entries to write a cartoon response to them



As opposed, um, to caring enough to post about a cartoon response to some blog entry, right? (Or, um, to care enough to post about someone who posts about someone who would care enough to ... whoa, way too meta.)
2.17.2007 3:41pm
Ken Kukec (mail):
Maybe the good professor just wants to be done by a cartoonist with a feel for d├ęcolletage.
2.17.2007 3:52pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
Magoo: Yes they do.
2.17.2007 5:02pm
Andrew Hyman (mail) (www):
Very funny. You ought to share this with the Bench Memos readers. As an interlude between (interesting) chapters of the Federalist. :-)
2.18.2007 3:25pm