13 Comments

  1. I think the elephants should not be taken as political symbols. It’s more simpply an anatomy-based baseball joke.

  2. “I think the elephants should not be taken as political symbols.”

    Did anyone suggest they were or should be?

  3. Did anyone suggest they were or should be?

    Well sure! It was Mr Temp Hypo, who lives in my left temporal lobe. He said, “Wait just one minute! Has CIDU started covering political partisan symbolic editorial cartoons?” I had to tell him not to be concerned at that.

  4. If he’s a politician, I’d say it should be “credibility”, not “credulity”. He’s straining our credulity.

    As for the titmice, is this a food blogger taking pictures at some obscure cafe? There doesn’t look like there’s much meat on them, though I guess anything more than a mouthful is wasted.

  5. Ah, SingBill, good point about credulity and credibility! I think you are quite right about how the alignment of those goes.

    Reminds me of when I started running across the term perspicuous. I wanted to see perspicacious related to it in a sort of reverse way: if something is really perspicuous, you needn’t be especially perspicacious to grasp it.

  6. While I agree “credibility” would have been better, a case can be made for “credulity.” Some politicians have developed a selective credulity, where they believe – or at least pretend to believe – conspiracy theories that indeed strain credulity.

  7. Lost, I don’t think he’s focused on food or birds. More voyeuristic. A word play on a possible abbreviation of ‘titmice’.

  8. I was going to chide mitch for continuing to believe Frog Applause not only makes sense but also is amusing…. but this is sort of silly in a plain absurdist way. It’s just silly that a woman would take wild birds out with her in her daily city life jaunts and silly that naturalists with binoculars (those are binoculars; not a camera) will pop up to look at them even though its a downtown cafe.

    The double entendre of the name tufted titmouse and her low-cut blouse can, of course work, and isn’t not funny; but in my opinion is a little too cheap and obvious and distracting for me. I’d find it just as funny if it were pileated woodpeckers.

    Although I suppose an exact opposite argument can be made that “attracting attention” and the “sheesh, this always happens” can make more sense as the daily street hassling of women which would come by the obvious pun. After all,if we don’t make the obvious pun, then we might wonder; if she doesn’t like the attention the pileated woodpeckers bring, why doesn’t she leave them at home.

  9. ” if she doesn’t like the attention the pileated woodpeckers bring, why doesn’t she leave them at home.”

    Because then the terrorists WIN !

Add a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.