Richard Cohen: Ewok, Harvey, or Demented, Chinless Beaver?

You decide!

Over at tbogg’s, there was a slight disagreement – very slight, nothing on the order of the Foreskin Holocaust or Dildonacht (the Night of the Humorless Dildos), nary the merest mention of  a guillotine to give Atrios the vapors;  just a minor variance of opinion, upon the topic of which creature Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen most closely resembles.  The estimable Mr. Bogg made the following comparison:  “Social anthropologist and inexplicably still-employed opinion Ewok Richard Cohen…”.  In comments, I noted that I had always thought Cohen most resembles “a demented, chinless beaver.”  Commenter LittlePig disagreed, saying I must be thinking of David Brooks – which is totally wrong, because David Brooks looks more like a generic douche.  Commenter Susan of Texas opined that Cohen had always reminded her of Harvey the invisible rabbit.  So to settle this matter once and for all, take a look and judge for yourself:

This clearly demented and chinless beaver is passed off as someone by the name of "Richard Cohen" by the WaPo.

This is an Ewok. Besides being kinda cute, Ewoks are not insane. Richard Cohen looks nothing like an Ewok.

This is Harvey (in portrait, on left). See any likeness to Richard Cohen? Neither do I.

I think we can safely rule out both Ewoks and Harvey in regard to Richard Cohen’s species.  The other significant clue ruling them out:  most people feel a fondness for the Ewoks and Harvey, while most people feel nothing of the sort for Richard Cohen.

A cartoon depiction of Richard Cohen. "No fair," you say, "anyone can find a cartoon that looks like someone, that doesn't PROVE that he's a demented, chinless beaver." Yeah? Just wait.

This is Richard Cohen, IRL. Check out the "crazee eye."

See, now we’re talking.  Here are some other characteristics demented, chinless beavers share with Richard Cohen:  they’re considered pests and their daily activities contribute to the needless death and waste of trees.

I rest my case.

 *In case you’re wondering what started all of this, it was this recent bit from Cohen:

This is a good news, bad news column. The good news is that crime is again down across the nation — in big cities, small cities, flourishing cities and cities that are not for the timid. Surprisingly, this has happened in the teeth of the Great Recession, meaning that those disposed to attribute criminality to poverty — my view at one time — have some strenuous rethinking to do. It could be, as conservatives have insisted all along, that crime is committed by criminals. For liberals, this is bad news indeed.

Yes, that’s exactly it.  “Liberals,” who include everyone Cohen says is a “liberal,” mourn lower crime rates because it undermines their treasured belief that only law-abiding citizens commit crimes, and like, totally proves them wrong.  Glossed over in this brain fart of Cohen’s is the fact that the biggest crimes in the country, the ones that do the most damage to the biggest number of people, are never committed because of poverty, always because of greed.  But most of the people who commit those crimes are rich and white, so we don’t send them to jail.  Or count their criminal activity when compiling the “crime rate.” 

On second thought it’s unfair to beavers, even the demented, chinless ones, to compare them with a massive tool like Richard Cohen.  Even if he does look just like one of them.