Home > Uncategorized > Richard Cohen: Ewok, Harvey, or Demented, Chinless Beaver?

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.


  1. June 2, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    Nothing to add, just want you to know I’m lurking.

    • jennofark
      June 3, 2010 at 12:09 am

      Lurk away, my friend. It’s not like we’re heavily traveled enough here to carry on much in the way of conversations in comments, but we appreciate the ones we get nonetheless.

  2. June 3, 2010 at 2:46 am

    I still think he bears a striking resemblance to that ewok. Ewoks, like Cohen, are not noted for their powers of logic nor their witty columns, but unlike him, they don’t suck up to the Empire. Plus,”they’re considered pests and their daily activities contribute to the needless death and waste of trees” pretty much makes your case right there.

  3. Willy
    June 3, 2010 at 5:59 am

    In Minnesota, Beavers can be shot on sight w/o any legal repercussions. Just sayin’.

  4. LittlePig
    June 3, 2010 at 10:58 am

    A generic douche? Pish posh.

    My refutation as interpreted by the masterful Driftglass.

    You be the judge.

    • jennofark
      June 3, 2010 at 1:26 pm

      What is that – a naked mole rat? Or David Brooks?

  5. June 3, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    Look, I’m going with the Ewok. They started out as a good idea in Lucasland and for the first 10 minutes were mildly amusing and not boring. Then they got tedious and while one couldn’t understand what they said one assumed that it is was rubbish anyway and one kept wanting them to get squashed under robot trooper feet.
    The facial hair seals the deal

    • jennofark
      June 3, 2010 at 7:04 pm

      You make a compelling case, particularly in re: wanting them to get squashed under robot trooper feet, though I’ll note that the beaver has facial hair as well.

  6. June 4, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Yeah, I see the Ewok deal, especially on the facial hair. Plus, they were ultimately vicious little motherfuckers (VDKWMR), who hid their viciousness behind a comforting appearance.

    Also, they heralded and presaged the Path of Immense Suckiness that Lucas was beginning to travel in his search for marketable toys.

    But the killing trees things is totally on target.

    but we appreciate the ones we get nonetheless.

    Even when they’re zombies?

    • BDay
      June 5, 2010 at 8:58 pm

      especially when they’re zombies, Mr. McDonald.

  7. jennofark
    June 4, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    BTW, here I’ve been stringing everyone along with this whole “demented, chinless beaver” thing…and NO ONE has pointed out yet that beavers DON’T HAVE CHINS. Which AFAIC makes the description more amusing. Like my stupid joke about the difference between a “buffet” and a “smorgasbord,” which is: a smorgasbord has swedish meatballs, while a buffet MAY or MAY NOT have swedish meatballs.

    I guess you just had to be there…

  8. June 4, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    I’m an architect, not Steve Irwin.

    • jennofark
      June 4, 2010 at 2:17 pm

      I’m an architect too. As well as Steve Irwin, apparently. Except unlike you and Steve, I’m not dead.

      …wait, this is getting confusing…

  9. June 4, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    …wait, this is getting confusing…

    as my son told me tonight, welcome to life.

    .. dangit, I didn’t realize Steve Irwin was an architect.

    • jennofark
      June 5, 2010 at 12:49 am

      He wasn’t. I was saying “I’m an architect, and apparently, I’m also Steve Irwin.”

      Like I said, confusing…

      • BDay
        June 5, 2010 at 8:59 pm

        who’s Steve Irwin?

  10. June 6, 2010 at 12:54 am

    he’s no architect.


  11. jennofark
    June 6, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    Steve Irwin = the Crocodile Hunter. Dude died when a stingray threw its tail stinger right into his heart.

  12. June 6, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    So, is someone has no chin, they can’t be described as “chinless” because there is nothing missing? A beaver can therefore be chinless AND wingless AND beakless. Plus if it is made of wood it is a witch
    Take that Steve Irwin!!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: