0 of the original 20 is preggers; gives birth to 20, thus making . . . wait for it . . . 2020.
But what happened to toddlers 1 and 9??
What toddlers 1 and 9?
This is just what it is. It’s not an old year ringing in the new. It’s just a cartoon about 2020 being a double year.
(Which considering it only happens once a century seems to be being underplayed. But then everything about 21st seems off to those of us geezers who still think only the 20th century and the 19xx make sense…. )
Hey, remember 1961? MAD had a reversible issue, JFK took office, glasses with the year outline were not yet a thing…
I have very good reasons for not remembering 1961 but my mother has (in my opinion) a very good reason for remembering it.
I do remember reading about it later. If we pretend digital watches are important then 2005 was invertible year (but by 2005 we were beyond thinking digital watches were a pretty neat idea). Actually we are incredibly lucky to liver through two palindromic years in just 11 years rather than the usual 110 years. But again…. every thing about the 2000s felt odd back then….)
I remember the upside-down Mad cover, Mitch. I was 5 at the time, so I don’t remember anything else about the issue (it belonged to my cousin), but I do remember that.
Anybody else think that 2 is the female and 0 is the male, and so it’s very odd that 0 gets preggers?
It’s just cute typography. One of the Tales From Typographic Oceans.
On reversible 19 61… I had a bunch of friends I first knew at 19 who just turned 61 (like me) in the last year or two, so I made birthday cards for each of them in turn with a pic of them at 61* and turn it upside down and there was an old pic of them at 19… economically using only one set of two digits.
*Technically of course the actual old pic of them was at 60, as it had to predate the handing over of the card, which happened as soon as they turned 61. But close enough.
And happy new year!
Thanks for that! I missed seeing it until you mentioned it in the moderation discussion.
Comics I Don't Understand 
0 of the original 20 is preggers; gives birth to 20, thus making . . . wait for it . . . 2020.
But what happened to toddlers 1 and 9??
What toddlers 1 and 9?
This is just what it is. It’s not an old year ringing in the new. It’s just a cartoon about 2020 being a double year.
(Which considering it only happens once a century seems to be being underplayed. But then everything about 21st seems off to those of us geezers who still think only the 20th century and the 19xx make sense…. )
Hey, remember 1961? MAD had a reversible issue, JFK took office, glasses with the year outline were not yet a thing…
I have very good reasons for not remembering 1961 but my mother has (in my opinion) a very good reason for remembering it.
I do remember reading about it later. If we pretend digital watches are important then 2005 was invertible year (but by 2005 we were beyond thinking digital watches were a pretty neat idea). Actually we are incredibly lucky to liver through two palindromic years in just 11 years rather than the usual 110 years. But again…. every thing about the 2000s felt odd back then….)
I remember the upside-down Mad cover, Mitch. I was 5 at the time, so I don’t remember anything else about the issue (it belonged to my cousin), but I do remember that.
Anybody else think that 2 is the female and 0 is the male, and so it’s very odd that 0 gets preggers?
It’s just cute typography. One of the Tales From Typographic Oceans.
On reversible 19 61… I had a bunch of friends I first knew at 19 who just turned 61 (like me) in the last year or two, so I made birthday cards for each of them in turn with a pic of them at 61* and turn it upside down and there was an old pic of them at 19… economically using only one set of two digits.
*Technically of course the actual old pic of them was at 60, as it had to predate the handing over of the card, which happened as soon as they turned 61. But close enough.
And happy new year!
Thanks for that! I missed seeing it until you mentioned it in the moderation discussion.