Joel Pett

From Encyclopedia Of Stupid

Joel Pett is stupid.

Joel Pett is the exceedingly talentless editorial cartoonist for the Lexington Herald-Leader. Pett also occassionally appears in USA Today, for God knows what reason. It's bad enough that he is biased and has an agenda - that's what editorial cartoonists do - but most of them are somewhat moderate and see the issues from all sides and poke everyone in the eye equally. Not Pett. No, he's too much of a far-left Communist Puke. Pett never puts pen to paper without a hard-left action-item in his mind. But there are two other problems with Pett. First of all, he is NOT FUNNY. It is a well-documented fact that not a single person has ever laughed at a Joel Pett cartoon. Second, he cannot draw. You might think that being able to draw would be the one real requirement asked of a prospective nationally syndicated editorial cartoonist, but you would be wrong. It appears that if you have enough of an agenda, you can get a job cartooning no matter how stupid your work is. To illustrate this, we will first start with an example of a funny cartoon by a funny, talented cartoonist. In order to demonstrate that one does not have to be a humorless right-wing fuck to appreciate what an idiot Pett is, we will start with a cartoon that has a definite left bias.

This cartoon is by Wiley Miller:

You will notice three things about this cartoon almost immediately. First of all, it's funny. The insinuation is that the more members a religion has, the less it is perceived as a cult. From a certain point of view, this is certainly true, but it's not something that is usually pointed out. What makes it really funny is the descriptions, "handful of wackos," "bunch of nuts" etc., leading up to "mainstream religion." Hilarious. As an aside, he throws in "dittoheads," as Rush Limbaugh fanatics are known, between "bunch of nuts" and "cult." Cute. Secondly, you will notice that it does not have any particular agenda. No religion is singled out, no one is targeted specifically. The cartoon is simply stating a general truism. Third, and most importantly, it is richly drawn, clearly the work of a talented artist.

We now compare a cartoon by Joel Pett:

Let's examine this piece of shit. Let's talk about the same three things that were mentioned above. First, it is not funny. Not in the slightest. Even when you understand it, it is not funny. The cartoon deals with the fact that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused to recuse himself in a case the Supreme Court is hearing which deals with a company Vice President Dick Cheney has interest in. The problem is that Dick Cheney and Antonin Scalia are personal friends, and they also recently went duck hunting together. Pett takes this story, and we end up with the Vice President in a bathtub with Antonin Scalia as a rubber duck. It is supposed that the insinuation is that Scalia is Cheney's plaything, able to be manipulated by him at will. But again, not funny. Second, the cartoon is agenda-driven, it is not humor-driven. It is completely devoid of any redeeming value unless you agree with the agenda. It has no value otherwise. Third, and again, most importantly, the art looks like it was done by a fourth-grader! This cartoon, like all of Pett's cartoons, is amateur hour bullshit.

To demonstrate that it is truly possible to be funny with this subject material, let's examine a cartoon by another artist, on the same subject. This one is by Nick Anderson:

Here, Scalia is depicted as playing a game of "duck, duck, goose" with the "goose" being a pinch in the ass to Justice, the famous statue outside the court of a blindfolded woman holding scales. Our three criteria? Yes, it's funny. A pinch in the ass is always funny, especially when you're pinching the ass of no less stoic a figure than Lady Justice herself. When the pincher is a Supreme Court Justice, hilarity ensues. The message is not simply agenda-driven, it is clear, simple and nearly universally agreeable: it is not right to take justice cavalierly, and Scalia is, from a certain point of view, doing just that. Finally, it is well-drawn. How hard is this?

One more example of Pett's ineptitude:

If you understand this cartoon, then you are way ahead of the curve. It's obviously stating that there are a lot of attack ads out there on television during presidential elections, but not once has there been an attack ad saying anything like "Voters. You can't trust them." Even if there were - would this be funny? No. It's not funny. Not in the slightest. Again, it's agenda-driven, it seems to have no other meaning other than to state a simplistic truism. Finally, as ever, it is utterly artistically bankrupt.

Again, to show that this is not just about politics, let's examine a cartoon on the same subject by a cartoonist with talent, Phoenix's own Steve Benson:

This is amusing. Voters are represented as TV watchers, decrying John Edwards' "unAmerican" pleasant campaign tactics. It's become unamerican to not sling mud in politics. It states a general fact, but in an amusing manner, and it's well-drawn.

Amazingly, Pett is, according to his bio, the current Pulitzer Prize winner for editorial cartooning, which only serves to indicate wha's going on with the Pulitzer people. His bio also says "Pett tries for well-reasoned consideration, avoiding cheap laughs." Arguably, Pett doesn't go for laughs of any sort. He goes for cheap shots, there are no laughs. Joel Pett is simply an idiot. If you need more proof of this, you can see many of his cartoons here. If you would rather see some great political cartoons by talented people, they can be found at slate.com's Pro Cartoonists Index Home Page. You'll notice that Pett is not represented there. Could it be they know stupid when they see it?