Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for March 18, 2013

That’s the problem with the Millenniums. it’s all about image and looking good on YouTube, not about substance !

Politics is NEVER about substance.

Yep, Image Is Everything !

“Image” is a useful tool that can be used by even the good hearted……..Like Clark….

Look, it’s another Alex.

None of us act or react according to what is true, most of us act and react according to what he THINK is true. Which is at least suggests that we are thinking. The rest of us act and react for even less reason.

This dumb twit needs to go.

Even at the highest levels of government the ignoratti can only judge a woman by her appearance. And here I thought we were in the 21st century.

I always scan the background of the hearing room to admire the hot babes that often hover… If that’s OK with you, Rickapolis.

What is with that? You’d think our media savvy reps would understand how bad the optics are of a fat 65 year old with his hot assistant standing behind him.

I love how the doped up and dropped out losers from the 60’s who used to protest the government are now whining about how they’re not getting all the entitlements that they want from the government.

lol, the constant stupidity from the commenters is enough to keep this strip worth reading. as i have heard, silence is golden.

those of us who listen and watch are rarely disappointed. lol

I don’t care if politics is left or right if it would just get off of center stage for a little while so I can eat my breakfast.

Joanie will rise above it all. She is all about substance. She will only resolve her hair and nails if she wants to, it will not depend on whether or not there is a camera around.

For the duration of the broadcast, no nose picking or nodding off.

Ah, I always wondered why they have hotties sitting right behind these guys. Do they have seat fillers if they have to go to the bathroom, the way the Oscars do?

I’ve never seen her nails, but it seems to me Joanie’s hair is every bit as “resolved” as it needs to be. A ponytail and bangs says “teenager” to me :-) (Not that there’s anything wrong with teenagers.)

Nothing wrong with fat 65-year-olds, either.

I’m with you Clark.

She just needs one of those “lunch time laser face lifts” and she’s good to go.

Image is everything – for men, also. Gov Christie declined to get in the race for the GOP. He knows he is fat and what many people think about fat people. He could not win because of his appearance.

AMEN!

I’m not shallow, but it would be a good idea to get a stylist’s opinion about sprucing up one’s self. It means taking pride in one’s ‘camera-appearance’. I remember a speech Obama gave several years ago, with a crowd seated behind him. If I’d been the camera-guy, I would’ve told his aides that the chick seated behind him on the left was NOT who he’d want the public to see. Her rubenesque figure wasn’t the issue. It was that she had on a very low-cleavage blouse, and you could see she had floppy boobs. For the entirety of his speech, I had to keep myself from thinking judgmentally of her.

Ah, image cuts both ways. Look up “Maureen Dean”—the woman famously described by Mary McCarthy as looking like a woman who needed fresh jewelry for her honeymoon. Which certainly wasn’t Maureen’s intention—but her looks counted against her husband. http://pictures.historicimages.net/pictures/_4/3945/3944822.jpg

Then please feel free to listen and watch; otherwise, you participate in “the constant stupidity from the commenters” that so amuses you.

Sending a shout out to John Pike, haven’t heard from you in a while. Hope all is well.

You probably don’t need my help but I thought give you the following information:Average rate of unemploymentin 1929: 3.2%in 1930: 8.9%in 1931: 16.3%in 1932: 24.1%in 1933: 24.9%in 1934: 21.7%in 1935: 20.1%in 1936: 16.9%in 1937: 14.3%in 1938: 19.0%in 1939: 17.2%The recession of 1937 was directly due to cutting back of New Deal programs, which lead to an increase in unemployment. This is the reason Paul Krugman argues against budget cuts as the country tries to recover.The people who argue that New Deal extended the Depression base it on study published by 2 economists at UCLA. The study claims that the Depression was extended by 7 years by the New Deal.The simple math proves that claim wrong. By 1940, with the war waging in Europe and China, the US factories were producing supples for our Allies. Assuming the Depression ended in 1940 with the New Deal, that means it would have ended in 1933 without the New Deal.But, 1933 was the worst year economically. The US GDP and fallen from 103.6 billion in 1929 to 56.4 billion in 1933. There was literally no relief in sight until the New Deal programs were implemented. By 1937, the GDP was back to 91.9 billion. There was a dip in 1938 but growth returned in 1939.With war waging overseas, the GDP in 1940 was $101.4 in 1940, close to 1929 level. In 1941, even before the US entered the war in December, the GDP was $126 billion.The numbers don’t lie. The economy grew rapidly after the New Deal was implemented.

I think I prefer Joanie’s hair to the bangs and pony tail of the one who thinks she knows how folks should look.

Wrong committee.

There you have it, “Those that are informed about FDR just know these things.” The Sgt doesn’t have to back up his claims with facts. You just have accept his word, as if he was the Burning Bush (dare not look at him).

“too”