Boondocks Brilliance

There is brilliance, and then there is brilliance. And there there is — in a category unto itself — The Boondocks. If you did not see last night’s episode on the Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim, find someone who has it on Tivo, or get a copy via BitTorrent. I thought the first episode was promising. Last night’s episode fulfilled that promise.

Spoilers follow after the jump.

Technorati Tags: , ,


Last time around Aaron MacGruder introduced us to this familiar looking guy; the Iraq war veteran from wealthy family, who bears more than a passing resemblance to another guy from a wealthy family who’s been to Iraq … but only to deliver some Thanksgiving turkey. Well, it’ turns out this guy has a friend — also an Iraq war veteran — name “Gin Rummy,” with a gift for poetry.


I’ll give that a minute to sink in.

Without giving too much away, there’s a scene in which the guy wearing the “W” and his buddy Gin Rummy shoot up a Mini Mart because they believe (or want folks to believe that they believe) the clerk (guess which nationality he is) has a weapon. A cop who happens to be there actually asks if there is a weapon and (after being berated by the gun-weilding war veteran duo) says under duress “I want to believe there’s a weapon,” before he gets shot to death in a hail of bullets that wouldn’t have happened if …

Well. Suffice to say , the presidential looking fella above, and his buddy Gin Rummy walk away hailed as heros.

Given the above, I just hope MacGruder adds Condoleeza Rice to the mix before he’s done. I’d love to see what he could do with a character based on her.

About Terrance

Black. Gay. Father. Buddhist. Vegetarian. Liberal.
This entry was posted in Bush, Humor, Television. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Boondocks Brilliance

  1. Chris T. says:

    I love that show.  I need to start using Huey’s excuse for not having seen The Passion of the Christ.  "Couldn’t see it. White Jesus."

  2. Larry Y says:

    Is this way off topic? If so, feel free to delete. (Like you need my permission.)

    I have an ongoing beef with the Washington Post about a letter they printed related to a Boondocks cartoon. Don’t have my own blog, oddly enough, so I am looking for someone who might be interested in picking up this and giving the Post a little pressure.

    This email to their Ombudsman I am sending today sums up the issue:

    With today’s letter in “Free For All,” this issue becomes more than ever one for the Ombudsman.

    Two weeks ago, the Post gave fairly prominent play to Ann Cornell’s letter about the Boondocks column that was not only full of resentment at the presence on your pages of an articulate anti-racist point of view, but that was factually incorrect — and incorrect in a way that reinforced the author’s racial viewpoint, since the error was to confuse two distinctly different charactes in the Boondocks strip who both happen to be elderly African-American men.

    The Post should not have printed such a flawed letter, but the topic of “reverse racism,” no matter how often debunked, is irresistible to editorial page editors. Now, the editorial page has printed a well-thought-out response by Jack Purdy, and while it was not one of the two I wrote, I am fairly satisfied on that account. (Actually, there is one problem with the letter. While I agree with Purdy’s characterization of him, the character in question is, I believe, named Uncle Ruckus, and not Uncle Rastus. Apparently the Post is just not capable of spotting any mistakes about the Boondocks strip.)

    In any case, I still feel strongly that the Post must deal with its own error, which added substantially to the credibility and impact of the original letter. The Post printed the strip that offended Cornell below the letter, without any comment. This gave an inadvertent imprimatur to the letter, when in fact the Post — if the relevant editor had done her/his homework — should have added a notation that the character pictured was not the “grandfather” but another character. Or the Post could have asked the writer to correct her letter. Having had a few letters published in the Post, I know that it is the Post’s practice to “negotiate” with the writer of letters to the editor, partly about space issues, but also about content.

    The Post still needs to apologize for its error and for validating a letter that was in essence racist. Note: I am not saying the Post should censor racist opinions. After all, you have to report on the Congress and White House. But I am saying that you do not need to validate them, and that when you do so by compounding an error, you should acknowledge your mistake and take corrective action. For example, you might let Aaron McGruder appoint someone to your editorial page staff. Huey would be good.

    To my mind, this matter is not closed.

    Larry Yates
    Maurertown VA

  3. Rachel says:

    I love that show. I only recently found out about all the symbolism in the show. I saw a chat forum about it once. Some of the people put way too much thought into it though.

Comments are closed.