This is a question that's been on my mind for a while, what with the invasion of the West Bank accelerating the thought and all. Basically, the U.S. suddenly supports wholeheartedly the formation of a Palestinian State. And in every news article I read, it seems to be important to mention that "the only reason, of course the brave noble U.S. cares about the plight of these murderous savages" [paraphrased, of course] is because they "want Arab support of a possible military action against Iraq." [sadly, quoted verbatim.]

So let's analyze this for a moment: the U.S. has decided it wants the massive, violent killing of countless random Arabs in Palestine to stop. But not out of the goodness of its heart, but because it wants to earn support... to resume the massive violent killing of countless random Arabs in a different section of the world.

I'm just wondering if anyone else thought of this when the discussion as to why they might, you know, hate us came up.

I have a longer rant about the Mideast crisis, but I'm afraid it will have to wait until later again, as I am supposed to get on a bus for home re: Easter family gatherings in about four hours, and I still have that tiny essay on Deweyan Pragmatist theory to need about six years to work on. You know, before I took this class, I thought Pragmatism just meant Dennis Miller's definition that "everyone's an asshole except you" And I think if I stuck with that my life would have been a lot easier.
 

 
Gyah!

 

 
"Good evening, and welcome to MSNBC. I'm Pat Buchanan, sitting in for Alan Keyes."
-MSNBC, 10:01 PM EST, 3/28/2002

Just in case, you know, like maybe you thought there was still a God or something. Sorry.
 

 
Moore, Mentality, and the World’s coolest Security Guard

I lied. I’m going to talk at great length about Michael Moore again.

Just got back and my class assignments must wait. I loved seeing Michael Moore tonight, and just the attitude and the mood of the crowd was so much better than any other time I’d seen him. For the three of you that were reading my blog since the last time I saw him, you’ll know I got a pre-autographed copy of the book… I loved the look on his face when I gave him my book to autograph, and told him he had already autographed it without knowing… so he just put down my name and then made a arrow across the page to the signature. Presto- instant personalized autograph, with the utmost chagrin to the fact that my once-valuable autographed first-print copy of possibly the most successful book published this year was rendered worthless to everyone and priceless to me. What a guy.

I also, since you’re wondering vis-à-vis the previous posts, did in fact give him a sticker. So if you’re reading this, Mike, hi there. You rule! I am so inquiring with you about those animation prospects in a few months.

There were three great events of the evening for me. The first was the great lesson Mike brought to me tonight about our education system, one which generously applies to the Deweyan and Pragmatist Democratic concepts one of my politics classes has been discussing all year: “Before we go to school, as little children, we were rewarded for our failures,” Michael explains. “We say the wrong words, we stumble when we try to walk, and are nurtured and supported. We learn a 3,000 word vocabulary before we ever go to school… before the process begins of scolding us for our mistakes. Our education system fails because we don’t treat education the way it should be- as a process of trial and error. We don’t experiment- we repeat experiments other people have already done. We don’t solve problems in math- the answers are already in the book! Then we get F’s if we don’t copy them correctly!”

Second was the wild debate at the end of the lecture which enveloped upon a student asking specifically “what can we as a group do tonight, right now, to change the world?” One kid launched a campaign to storm MTV… I almost went with him, except, ironically, I wanted to stay behind and get my book signed. A mini-clash broke out between Sternies and Tischies, which I loved. A kids asks about the faults in NYU’s economic policies and blurts out “I know I’m not an economics major, but-“ and gets interrupted from across the hall by “Yeah? I AM!” Brilliant.

Finally, and I want to make special note of this, there was Adam. Adam is the security guard working the desk at the Tisch building at 40 West 4th Street for I guess the late night shift. He too, received a sticker, because he rocked. As I’m leaving from the book signing, this guy begins a 20-minute conversation with me about the 2000 election, Campaign Finance Reform, and basic injustice in society. And we openly admitted how we didn’t agree with each other on a lot of the issues, but we didn’t raise voices, we didn’t insult each other or each other’s intelligence, and it was just awesome. He asks me at the end if I’m a politics major, and I notice the copy of Wednesday’s WSN on the desk. “You read the Washington Square News?” I ask him, flipping to my comic. “I’m this guy.”

Says Adam, “Hey! You’re the drawings guy!”

Adam, you rule. I hereby suggest to NYU Protection Services that Adam be given a bathtub full of money.
 

 
P.S.

People who are really nice to me that give me a reason to like them a lot might certainly want to try sending me a mailing address if they're, you know, interested in having a sticker or two mailed to them free of charge...

Oh yeah, I'm going promo-nuts with this. I'm even gonna try to give one to Michael Moore tonight when I, for the second time since his book got published, go see him lecture about how awesome it is that his book exists in the first place. Yeah, I'm weird. But I'm a weird guy with stickers.
 

 
I rule!

Scan of the stickers that just came in the mail.

The stickers are a little granier than I expected- and the size I requested is a little bit off. But in the long run it was worth it, because I got a hundred of these for only 29 bucks. How? Simple: hippies.

I'm not making any of this up: there's a small collective of hippies living in Oregon who run a publishing company and they make stickers, patches, 'zines, and indy punk albums, I guess in their basement or something. So I sent them my order, and the only other problem I guess is that it took them six freakin' weeks to mail me the stickers, but not because they're lazy or unproductive or anything- in fact they're quite resourceful. It's just that they don't believe in cars. So they had to take my order to the post office on their bicycle, which is just one of those scenes where you put the mental image in your head and can only say to yourself "goddamn hippies" regardless of whether or not you actually like hippies, and I do.

So, yeah. Thank you to the wonderful hippies of Oregon, and I guess I should give a shoutout to Microcosm Publishing while I'm at it, since they made stickers for me which were definitely worth the ludicrously low price I paid for them and more.
 

 
Newest comic posted - "The Bush Administration Guide to Nuclear Deterrence."
 

 
So in the wake of yet another verdict against a tobacco company for the apparently horrible opinion of the court that they sell a product that kills people, the great “boy I think I’m original and witty line” begins:

“Gee, why don’t I get to sue McDonald’s for making me fat then? Their food is dangerous and causes heart disease and blather blather blather…”

I had this discussion with some friends before, and I’m really serious when I say that this line is actually one of the top five things on the planet that pisses me off more than anything else. It’s not even because the argument is complete nonsense, it’s because this stupid joke has been used by so many people over and over again, each one thinking they’re the first to use it and each one thinking it’s so irritatingly clever.

I hope the word gets around to these people one of these days- it’s something I’ve taught myself when I write one of my comics: if you see an event in the news, and come up with a joke within the first 60 seconds of hearing it, then most likely everyone else in the world has thought of it too.

This joke wasn’t funny when someone came up with it twenty years ago. It’s not witty, and it’s not original. And it’s not even valid. The reason the tobacco companies are getting sued by the states and individuals is for a multitude of reasons, including deceptive advertising, deliberate manufacture of a defective product, perjury, and maliciously costing the state Medicare budgets hundreds of millions of dollars because of the treatment we have to give to cancer patients.

The difference between the health problems caused by McDonalds and cigarettes are numerous. For starters, McDonalds food, though incredibly tasty, is not chemically addictive- nor has the McDonalds corporation testified for the last 20 years that there’s just simply no way to remove the chemical that they deliberately add to make the human body dependent on it. Nor has the McDonalds corporation gone to court to prevent the “nutritional” information of their product from being printed on their product, which for the last seven or eight years now has been clearly visible for all to see in any of their restaurants. McDonalds does not cause obesity- laziness does. Theoretically, one could eat at McDonald’s every single day and not become obese and obtain said heart problems- all he has to do is exercise to the level that burns all those excessive calories. One who smokes everyday can do very little to prevent trace amounts of tar, glue, ammonia, and various poisons from accumulating in their lungs and stomach because, unlike the organic ingredients of a McDonald’s hamburger, they were never designed to be there in the first place.

I know it gets really annoying for all the people who like to make their little cutesy asshole jokes when they can’t really do it anymore because all of the pesky facts like the ones I just recited get in the way. But look at it this way- there’s all these bans on driving with a cell phone that you get to come up with stupid jokes about why they’re bad for some reason now.
 

 
Dann Gire of the Chicago Daily Herald wrote an article about the Oscars today in which he asks and attempts to answer “Five key Oscar moments to watch for tonight.”

You can read the article if you want, but in protest to Gire’s notion that he’s… well… clever, I’ve decided to lay out the questions and answers for you right here.

Will animation innovator Walt Disney lose the world's first Best Animated Feature Oscar to its bitter rival, DreamWorks?

As someone actually involved in the field of animation, unlike, obviously, 99.9% of the voting Academy, the answer here is who gives a rat’s ass. The fact that 99.9% of said Academy doesn’t know a thing about animation is why the only three nominees for the new category are the high-budget, high-return, ultra-endorsed-soon-to-be-at-a-Burger-King-near-you CG extravaganzas of some major studios. Waking Life, which was praised by every critic in the WORLD as a landmark and breakthrough piece of animated cinema, wasn’t even nominated, and apparently the Academy also decided that this year the Japanese (a culture in which 4 of their 10 highest grossing films EVER are cartoons) didn’t make anything this year. The very notion that Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius is nominated for no reason other than the name being recognized has already butt-raped any shred of credibility the award has in it’s inaugural year- and we’re supposed to be worried the legacy of Disney is shattered because Shrek might win it, and not because, oh I don’t know, Disney hasn’t made a decent film in five years outside of the films Pixar makes for them, which FOR YOUR INFORMATION, DANN, is a different fucking studio that didn’t even EXIST until a few decade after Disney’s death. Ass.

Will black performers make history by winning Oscars for best actor and best actress?

Okay, how about this: will black performers make history by winning Oscars, period? Why are we suddenly making a deal that both might win, when the fact remains that only five black women have EVER been nominated for Best Actress, Halle Berry included? How racist would this question sound if you rephrased it this way: “Gee, wouldn’t it be amazing and against all the odds if two black people actually won awards in the same year?” That’s the exact same question.

Will Russell Crowe's bad behavior in real life kill his chances for the third back-to-back best actor win in Oscar history?

Wait, what the hell is this guy talking about? This question implies that the Academy votes based on their personal opinion of celebrities, and not of their actual acting ability! But… but by that logic, it means the award ceremony really has absolutely no bearing on the talent of anybody and it would merely exist for studios to promote their own contracted stars! That’s absurd!

Will the events of Sept. 11 cause legendary Oscar scriptwriter Bruce Vilanch to risk a few Osama jokes, or tone down the political stuff?

Jesus Scuba-diving Christ. What balls must someone have to write a line like that? First of all, the events of Sept. 11 should have caused “legendary Oscar scriptwriter Bruce Vilanch” to take a long look at himself in the mirror and wonder how after all of this, his actual worth in terms of doing anything to actually benefit society was higher than that of the fossilized remains of whatever civilization once dwelled in his hair. Second, calling this guy a legendary screenwriter is like calling Woody Allen a legendary father figure. And to top it off, we’re left worrying that this year’s Oscars might be deprived of… let’s get this right… the rapier political wit of Bruce Motherfucking Vilanch? Excuse me? “Honey, turn on the radio. I’m not sure whether we should listen to the Prairie Home Companion or a five-minute monologue of jokes that might on certain occasions be mildly amusing.”

Will the Academy Awards show wrap it up by the 10:30 p.m. deadline on ABC-TV Channel 7 (where it all begins at 7:30 p.m.)?

Oh, blow me. The Oscars take the #1 Neilsen spot every year they’re on, and every advertiser knows that. You know, if you’re actually upset that your highest ratings-drawer of the season is too long, then why the blankety-fuck are you televising it? There is no federal regulation requiring the Academy Awards. There’s no social need to present everything. If it matters that much to you, tape it in advance, and (gasp!) edit the goddamn thing. Just stop annoying the hell out of us every single year pretending it’s all cutesy and funny that your goddamn awards show is too goddamn long. Shut the fuck up already!

So, yeah. Good article, right?

 

 
They Love Me in France!

According to the user-counting thingie I have on my site, I have apparently gained at least one fan from France. I would like to point out how strangely happy I am about this.

Attention happy and hopefully-fluent-in-Engligh French people: hi there. Thanks for visiting. Please tell other denizens of the great nation of France that I welcome their visits and their support. By support I mean verbally, not militarily. I would also like to point out that I live near a big stone arch as well.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any suggestions as to how I can make the comic more appealing to Europe, as apparently most Americans hate everything I stand for.
 

 
Shoot me. Shoot me now.

Senator Mitch McConnell has just assigned Ken Starr to lead the court challenge against the newly-passed Campaign Finance Reform Bill.

You know, I was having a good day. Got through classes, my cold seems to be clearing up, and I heard this awesome rumor that Sunrise Anime is finally going to start production on the second season of Big O. Then this crap happens.

I'm not really upset about Starr's legal expertise, since every credible lawyer in the nation agrees the courts don't have a leg to stand on to overturn the bill... it's just the fact that Starr, like he did before, is most likely going to turn this into a public relations debate that will have all of us retching by the end. Still, though, I admire the striking bipartisanship: the NRA and the ACLU working together to build a better America. Tear!
 

 
Newest comic posted - "Another Victim of West Coast Liberal Values."

 

 
How to look like a ninja using only a T-shirt.

The internet is a good thing.
 

 
Well, here’s an interesting one. A South Carolina man just lost his appeal before the Supreme Court to revoke a law that makes it illegal for him to sell his urine on the internet.

Before you ask, no this isn’t some freaky sex thing (like the women who used to sell their dirty underwear on eBay.) The guy promises clean, drug-free urine, for, obviously, cheating on drug tests.

The man argued that much like gun sellers not being responsible for murder and bars not responsible for drunk drivers, he should not be responsible for the illegal use of his “product-“ despite the name of his company being “Privacy Protection Services” and the fact that his $69.00 price tag includes a bag and tubing that “cannot be detected even if directly observed” when used in a drug test.

See, here’s what’s confusing to me: drug tests are supposed to be random and unscheduled, right? So what’s the deal with these employees- do they carry the urine with them at all times, just in case? And doesn’t it go stale after a while? Unless they have a mini-fridge by their desk, you’d think they would need to buy a new sample every week or so… and frankly, at 69 bucks a jar, it’s starting to sound like giving up drugs would be a hell of a lot cheaper.

(Thanks to Canabis News)
 

 
Report: many English people are still very stupid

The British Parliament has voted to ban the aristocratic tradition of hunting animals with dogs, and pro-hunting advocates are in outrage over this.

Their struggling claim to rally support for the use of several large dogs to destroy tiny animals? My favorite line in the article:

Pro-hunt campaigner Virginia Deverell — propped on crutches and held rigid by neck and arm braces due to a riding injury — insisted, however, that hunting was a humane way to control the fox population. "It is the kindest way to kill them," said Deverell[.]

Remember folks, it came from England. When you think "humane advances in animal control technology," think large packs of dogs ripping the carcasses of small woodland mammals open. This is why English film studios won't be making any profitable remakes of The Yearling.
 

 
This is a picture of an official "Hello Kitty" vibrator.

Words... fail me.
(Special thanks to the SFGate newsletter for the news, and The Book of Rob for the image)

 

 
Sometimes you don't even have to write the joke

Bush refuses to accept results of Zimbabwe election, citing voting irregularities and Jesus Christ, here's a list of actual quotes from the article in which you're a soulless sub-human animal if you don't break down and cry in recognition of the bitter, bitter irony here.

"We do not recognize the outcome of the election because we think it's flawed ... We are dealing with our friends to figure out how to deal with this flawed election."
-President George W. Bush, holding back laughter

[The election] result did not reflect the will of the people ... as a result, Mr. Mugabe may claim victory, but not democratic legitimacy..."
-Sec. of State Colin Powell, not even hiding his laughter

"The pre-election period was marked by a sustained government-orchestrated campaign of intimidation and violence, and the numerous and profound irregularities in the electoral process itself resulted in an outcome that does not reflect the will of the people of Zimbabwe ... This fundamentally flawed election will only deepen the crisis in Zimbabwe and the suffering of the Zimbabwean people."
-Powell again, seconds before being struck dead by some form of divine light

"Supreme Court rulings were cast aside ... the independent media was persecuted, civil society was marginalized and the will of the people was the chief casualty ... [criteria not met included] unimpeded freedom to campaign throughout the country [and] free and unimpeded access to voters' rolls."
-U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner, who didn't mention any of his concern with this when getting his job 15 months ago
 

 
Senate bravely defends our right to waste oil

Anyone who reads Time or any other new magazine may have noticed the ads that ran a few weeks ago comparing Tom Daschle to Saddam Hussein because of Daschle's refusal to allow drilling in the Antarctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Which I try to avoid calling ANWR for the same reason I don't call it "partial-birth abortion" or "the death tax:" it's a non-existent term that was created to make doing something sound different- in this case, ANWR sounds a lot better than "a national reserve for animals that will all die because your going to spill oil and lug mechanical equipment all over the landscape.")

I'll repeat that: apparently, because Daschle will not allow legislation that allows drilling in Alaska, he is solely responsible for the U.S. policy of importing over 750,000 barrels of oil from Iraq- the policy which of course has been around longer than Daschle's reign as Senate Majority Leader.

Except today, in a true bipartisan show of being the bitch of the auto industry, the Senate defeated a bill that actually aids the true cause of the nation's oil crisis: the fact that ever since about 10-15 years ago, Americans have decided that there's no longer such a thing as a gas crisis, and that what everyone really needs is a 9-seat Sport Utility Vehicle that gets, on a good day, less fuel economy than a Mack truck.

That's right, for some reason, opposition toward the bill came up with plausible, rational reasons why it would be bad to raise the fuel economy of cars to 36 MPG by 2015- a move which would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, permanently reduce the nation's oil requirement without even having to drill in Alaska, and saving every American consumer money by not having to by as much gas for their cars as often.

And how did the opposition get those plausible, rational ideals across the plate? Can anyone take a guess? You- in the back, go ahead- that's right!

They lied.

This story from MSNBC was my favorite: Carl Levin and Christopher Bond, the two senators whose alternative bill just passed (one which agrees there should be reduced mileage, but sets no limit. Yes. Think about that one for a while) explained that the reduction of fuel consumption would be impossible and lead to smaller cars, depriving Americans of their beautiful SUVs.

Awwww.

Of course, the true humor is in the picture that comes with the story, that of the 2003 Ford Escape: you know, the SUV that can get 40 miles a gallon.

The next lie is that the auto industry will be left in the dark all of a sudden- that such a drastic change will be impossible… although the bill requires this change to be effective… in 13 years. You know, for the last 13 years, the only change I've seen on minivans have been second doors and where the cup holders go. You'd think their scientists could use a challenge… at the very least it's time for them to earn their pay.

Finally, my personal favorite: Democrat Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, who defended the constitutional right to an SUV with this actual quote: "American women love their SUVs and minivans ... because of their safety."

I don't plan on dignifying that one with an answer.

So remember, folks, in the war on terrorism, Americans can rest assured that there are still bipartisan agreements going on- those that shape the nation and secure our rights as our patriotic forefathers did. And though we may never end the drug epidemic, and though we may never agree on an education policy- we can all support both the Republicans and the Democrats on their true compromise to not do anything about fuel consumption ever, because that might, you know, annoy us for a while.

I mean, it's not like we'll have to send young men to die for more of it now or anything.
 

 
Israeli army kills 31 people in one day.

Jesus Christ. That's two Columbines and six Andrea Yates'. Overall, the last 18 months in the West Bank are quickly closing in on the death toll for September 11. And of course, 31 Chandra Levys. Yet where's the national call for dialogue? Oh yes, it's on the internet message boards. "All Arabs are animals." Of course they are. What educated dialogue this nation creates.

I've been meaning to wax at great length about the plight of the Israeli and Palestinian people. When I get back to my own computer next week I'll start in more detail. As always, your opinions are open for submitting and posting.
 

 
This hate mail has been classified as a threat-level of "Blue."

From Matt Weiland, another of Billy's rowdy bunch at Seton Hall:

[...]your apocalyptic ramblings have finally gone a little too far. This is why all "classified" reports should remain classified....so doomsday talking internet shutins like yourself dont go wetting your bed everytime a routine military action takes place. I suppose you don't realize this, but Bush Sr. had made nuclear contingency plans during Desert Storm. In fact, in virtually every American military operation since the Manhattan Plan, the nuke has been marked as a contingency plan.......however, then, just like now, it is always the last option, only to be considered after countless others have been exhausted. It's time to put the doomsday clock away and come back to Earth, Nostradamus. I suppose that you're going to get all up in arms the next time Bush ok's shore leave for the troops in Afghanistan.

As always, Matt, I value your input, even when I find it disagreeable, or in this case inaccurate if not completely wrong on your part. For the record, my bodily functions are in complete control, and I have yet to this day never evacuated my bowels upon hearing news of the senseless killing of a multitude of people. I do, however, know of people who practically ejaculate upon hearing news of war, so if you're interested, I can give you their contact information.

I am fully aware that the obvious existence of nuclear weapons entails the concept that the nation (or, come next Tuesday or so, small angry military group) in their possession might one day be inclined to use them against specific enemy in said "American military operation since the Manhattan Plan" (or "Project," or whatever, you're giving me the history lesson here)

So anyway, yes, Bush Sr. had nuke plans during Desert Storm, but this wasn't the issue I'm reflecting. The issue I'm reflecting is that during Desert Storm, Bush Sr. did not say that in case Desert Storm got really really bad, seven different countries might have to get nuked. In the interest of unifying nations against terrorism, it fails me to comprehend why the Pentagon would draw up plans for possibly decimating several of the nations we are trying to... well... unify. I'm no military genius, but it seems to me like the exact opposite direction of unifying a nation is the deployment of hideous instruments of death that destroy the unity of each and every atom in said country's molecular structure.

I am further dismayed (though as I mentioned earlier still in control of my bladder, mind you) over the fact that George W. Bush, who only a month ago was bragging openly about how dispite the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty and the outright rejection of any new nuclear proliferation bans, not to mention his VP's call to build more nuclear power plants all across the country, that he had managed to convince Russia to reducethe number of nuclear weapons each country has, is now ordering the construction of more.

We tell Russia we want to reduce our nukes. Then we order more built, albiet smaller... because smaller nukes aren't as dangerous... a ha. Then we get Condoleeza Rice to explain on Meet the Press (which I assume you of course watched as well, Matthew, to gather your evidence against me no doubt) that as always we think the safest way to avoid a nuclear war is to get a bunch of Warcraft geeks on meth and West Point scholarships to devise the perfect way to win one against Russia. Not that we think we might start one or anything.

Then we do it six more times.

The actual intended purpose of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which the United States crafted, was to convince other countries that we would never use nuclear weapons, so that other countries would feel they don't need to build their own nukes for the same level of deterrence against the United States as we have against them. By drafting a list of hypothetical situations in which we might have to waste seven different countries we are instilling just that... the idea that we might actually use nuclear weapons.

I don't appreciate this belief that many of my critics have that for some reason, I'm excited about the possibility of nuclear war breaking out, which in some way would prove me "right." I hope to hell that Matt is completely right; that we will never use nukes due to their undeniable impact on the world as a whole.

But I cannot stop worrying that by double-dealing on our talks with Russia, and by asking to have "smaller" nukes made, obviously meant to use in closed or underground areas as opposed to visually destroying entire cities, Bush is attempting to change the overall opinion of nuclear war as a whole; that we can use our nuclear arsenal as a mafia-style protection racket while avoiding the future possibility of images on CNN of melting corpses and disintegrated buildings... because that might, god forbid, make people wonder if nuclear weapons are "cool."
 

 
The President of the United States has Gone Completely Insane, Pt. 2

Of course, I'm just a paranoid freak. The Bush administration has told the Defense Department to prepare, on a contingency basis, plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries.

Oh. Goody.

My personal favorite in this story includes the initiative to "build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations" (translated: nuking smaller civilizations into oblivion,) and one of the contingencies being "in the event of surprising military developments," which of course translates into in case we think it would be really cool.

I also admire how Russia made the cut- you know, the country that a week ago our Fearless Leader was in talks with over mutually diminishing each other's nuclear arsenals. Why do I have the strange feeling that "making smaller nuclear weapons" was not what Putin thought "making our stockpile smaller" meant?

 

 
This might be my last day before leaving for Spring Break vacation, so I figured I should warn all in advance that A. There might not be as frequent posts next week, and B. There will be no new comic Wednesday- the next new strip is scheduled to print March 20.

I'm sure this would be a bigger deal if the site actually got visitors other than family, friends, and a few Seton Hall students who hate me, but I like to think I care about all of my readers anyway... both of you.

 

 
Not that we still hate Clinton or anything #4,563

Robert Ray, an independent counselor on the Clinton impeachment, is telling the news now about how he had ample evidence to convict Clinton in regards to lying under oath and "obstructing justice."

Ray of course immediately denied any connection between this sudden statement and the rumor that he might be announcing his Senate campaign against Robert Torecelli (D-NJ) and the possibiliy that bragging about how you could have convicted the President on lying because you couldn't find the man- or brain-power to actually get evidence against him on war crimes, bribery, derision, and every other thing he most likely really WAS guilty of might actually be really stupid. He then laughed manically and disappeared into a pillar of flame.

By the way, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush have five police arrests between them. But I'm not trying to say there should be a character battle or anything.
 

 
Newest comic posted- "A... Few... Words on Campaign Finance Reform."

Oh, and word is in that Condit just lost the primary. And Simon won his, so he'll go against Davis. So once again, thanks so much to the Conservative movement for securing Democratic control of the state of California. Cheers.
 

 
Gary Condit. You may run screaming now if you want

I have done my best over the last year to avoid talking in any way about Gary Condit. Basically, it was a stupid issue from the start and cartoonists, editorialists, pundits, and South Park have all done their share in making the issue look even more pointless and irrelevant than it was from the start.

However, today is the California district primaries, and I want to get my predictions out and my last words before the result come in so people don’t tell me I’m gloating later.

There is a very good chance that in about eight hours from now, we will never hear from Gary Condit again. Knowing the media spin and the redistricting that has happened in California, I’m placing my money that Condit is not going to win his party’s nomination. And just through politics, I’m glad about that prospect.

The Condit scandal has intrigued me from the start, because not since Clinton’s impeachment have I seen a greater display of conservatives grabbing enormous shotguns and discharging them into each other’s crotches. I am constantly amazed at how happy the right wing is at the misfortune and possible loss of one of their own greatest assets.

Gary Condit, as far as politics goes, was a shit eons before Chandra Levy ever came into the picture. He was once quoted as “Bush’s favorite Democrat-” a Blue Dog conservative Democrat who opposed most of the Clinton agenda, and in no way could ever be considered a liberal. But of course, it’s always the conservatives who label everyone in remote disagreement with them as “liberals.”

So if the goal of right-wingers is to prevent the left-wingers from coming into power, why have they made it their crusade to destroy a conservative Democrat? Condit, should he lose this primary, is going to lead a more left-wing candidate to the Democratic ticket, who most likely given California’s overall background is going to win the general election.

Unlike Clinton, or for an even better example Ted Kennedy (given his constant comparisons to the Levy death,) Condit is irrelevant to U.S. policy. If he’s re-elected, he’s not going to be the sponsor of any landmark legislation. He’s not going to advance to the Senate or any committees. He is, in effect, dead weight on the Democratic ticket. All he does is attract shame to his party and his constituents.

And thanks to people like Free Republic, who have posted an entire activist movement to get rid of Condit, you’ve done the job for the Democrats! Congratulations! Did you morons even notice that Condit’s own Democrat opponents were using the same strategy you used? They didn’t want him because of his scandal stains too! But they didn’t need to put any effort into destroying him- all Gray Davis had to do was make a statement or two, and boom, he's absolved. But you guys, Jesus Christ- you practically held bake sales to raise funds for campaigns against him... and for what, so you can kick a conservative out of office because he's a "murdering liberal." I don't know whether to laugh at you or pity you.

I’m mixed in my opinion of Condit as a person. He shot himself in the foot when he decided to pull a “not since 1976” with whether or not he slept with Levy, and if he did have an affair with her, then it was a shitty thing to do. But I’m also opposed to the actions of the Levy family, who despite their understandable grief abused every aspect of the American legal and media system to exploit their daughter. I understand that to them their kid was more special than any other missing kid, but in reality she wasn’t- she’s one of 60,000 kids who go missing every year, most of whom aren’t found. The fact that she might have been banging a congressman doesn’t make it necessary to mobilize the entire California FBI branch. It’s an insult to every other missing child in this country to think that Chandra Levy deserved the media attention she received.

Gary, you screwed up. As a politician, the way you respond to a social crisis reflects how you should respond to a political issue, and you made yourself look like an ass; moreover, you made yourself look guilty as sin even if you aren’t. I’m sorry that your 30 years of work is going to be flushed because the space in the history books only wants to mention Chandra, but in reality, I’m pretty glad someone with your policies is gone.

If you lose this primary, then the Democratic Party is only going to get a little bit more liberal.

And we can thank all the liberal-haters for making it possible.
 

 
Well, that didn't take long

From JimmyCourage@aol.com (who, I openly admit, most likely is one of my brother's friends, but I still love him because he's my brother, and he links to my site:)

This is the first president youve been afraid of causing a nuclear war beacuse your 21 years old, and this is the first time theres been unrest in the world since vietnam! Which you werent alive for! Stupid John! The only reason the government would be out to get you is to make you stop writing your terrible comics!

Thank you for your input, JimmyCourage. Yes, I have lived through four presidents now. And among them, this is the first one who makes me fear for my life, as opposed to fearing for just everyone else's life, as I did with Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan. Hopefully my newest fan will write me again and explain to me what not being alive during Vietnam has to do with that.

I will also happily consider any input from the rest of you who wish to agree with him that for the last 35 years there has been, like he says, absolutely no civil unrest in the world. Veterans of any of the wars that did not occur during the last said 35 years because of said lack of any civil unrest will be most welcome.
 

 
You know, it was just one of those offhand thoughts, but it suddenly occurred to me last night as I was trying to get to sleep that George W. Bush is the first president I’ve had during my life who I am legitimately afraid will get us into a nuclear war.

I mean, think about it: he’s already set of a shadow government, which isn’t really a shadow government: just a few cabinet picks that rotate to assume executive power should (not that we think there’s a chance of this, by the way) Washington be, oh I don’t know, vaporized by an atomic blast. The “shadow government” doesn’t have replacements for a legislative or judicial branch, most of the members of the real one hadn’t even been notified that this thing was in place. Wow, that’s checks and balances for you.

Bush has abandoned a treaty that at the very least forbids rational countries from testing nuclear weapons so he can build a missile shield that will in no way whatsoever prevent any terrorist with a dirty bomb from walking into New York and irradiating everyone. Our closest deterrent for another September 11 is that we will now- I shit you not- destroy passenger jets with F-16s should they potentially be taken over by terrorists. Are we feeling safe and fuzzy yet?

As of the declaration of “war on terror,” Bush has either bombed, invaded, or dispatched troops to Afghanistan, Yemen, Russia, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and these are just the few I can think of off the top of my head. Whatever goal this “war” had is now vague among an initially vague plan. What exactly are we still doing now? We’ve gone from defeating Al-Quaeda to capturing bin Laden to ending violence in the Middle East to making terrorists think they have nowhere to hide to scaring terrorists into not wanting to hate us anymore to making the Arab world in its entirety not hate us anymore. We have, so far, accomplished none of this.

Bush’s plans internally have proven to me that even our own government has accepted that it is no longer a question of if a terrorist will acquire a source of nuclear aggression; it’s when, who, and how. And frankly, there’s too large a pool of those three questions to stop them all, but it looks like that’s Bush’s plan: invade and bomb and kill every single possible enemy we could ever have: call them dumb names like the “Axis of Evil” and for some reason that makes them think we’re going to get better relations with them?

Be it Anti-Zionist Muslim fanatics with fuel rods wrapped around a grenade, or Saddam Hussein himself finally completing his very own U-235 warhead, someone who doesn’t like us very much is going to have an atomic weapon in the next few years, if that long. It’s like Whack-a-Mole. We spend our time hitting one down while another rises… then after a while two pop up for every one you hit until you realize that you’re never going to hit them all.
 

 
Why is it that I seem to keep going to nightlife activities that involve large loud techno-music clubs despite A. Not enjoying the act of dancing and B. Hating large loud techno-music out of some strange paranoid fear that if I don't and I just stay home on a Saturday night I'm a goddamn loser except that I feel like a loser every time I go to these places and every time it's something new and some stupid excuse for why I still intend to go to this new and stupid place… case in point, NYU convincing me that I should pay $10 for an advance ticket to a party co-sponsored by all the other fashion and arts-related schools tat is going to happen tonight at Mint (formerly Chaos, still a piece of shit dance club) and they tell me oh it’s going to be oh so different because there’s going to be a fashion show by students (by one, and it sucked) and student works displayed (which weren’t) and costumes (which three people wore) and so it’s going to be different from the usual club where you go on your own and hate it because it’s nothing but drunk stupid people and girls who dance with their fellow girl friends because god forbid they dance with a strange guy because oooooh he might be a pervert and try to take advantage of me and I swear the piece of DENTAL FLOSS I’m wearing as clothing tonight has in no way any bearing on the possible notion that I might actually WANT to be making all these guys want to fuck me (it wasn’t.)

So all that and I don’t even have to discuss how I had to walk there and wait outside in the GODDAMN RAIN for half an hour so the club can look important and then I get looked at mean by some SVA students because I’m dancing near girls and they don’t want to dance with me, but later on I sit down and get mean looks from SVA students because I’m supposed to be dancing and if I’m just sitting there it makes the girls think I’m just staring at them. I swear to god this is true.

You know what, SVA students? FUCK YOU. I’m a goddamn NYU student and your piss-shit SVA arts degree is a used tampon compared to a NYU film degree anywhere in the 99.999999% of the world outside of a goddamn soho coffee shop where you can sip eighty-five dollar cups of bat-semen flavored coffee and pretend in no way did you ever actually go to a club and get drunk and grind your crotch into some drunk girl’s ass because then you’re not really a true progressive artist, unless of course you’ve decuided to be gay this week because it’s a phase or something.

Now I must go to sleep because tomorrow I am taking my friend Megan to the zoo.