And they thought Geraldo had credibility problems

Not from the Fox News desk: America's Fair and Balanced NetworkT has recently been noticed for one of their expert military consultants for the War in AfghanistanT- okay, actually, they've been noticed because of the expert's impeccable qualifications, all of which are completely fabricated. Turns out Joseph A. Cafasso lied about his military experience, including blatant lies about winning a Silver Star and participating in the failed Iranian hostage rescue attempt in 1980.

Please do read the entire article, because it's a great read and a great laugh, but I'd like to point out the extra funny part if I may:

Fox News executives acknowledged that they now think that Mr. Cafasso was not who he said he was. But they said that the information he gathered never led to any known mistakes and that he had a network of military sources - built, apparently, on the strength of his stories.

So let's run that by one more time: Fox News, on the grounds that a guy's dialogue was accurate, continued to claim they had an accredited and decorated military veteran on their roster even though they thought he might be lying, because they didn't see a problem with it.

But hey, at least they're still the only channel not run by commies, right? Right?
 

 
Let's talk about the Middle East, Pt. 7b

To update the previous post on this topic: Jesus Christ.

Once again, keeping in mind that the U.N. wants to send in a probe to find out if the Israeli army committed atrocities, the Israeli government is now listing demands for allowing the U.N. to have the priveledge of politely asking if they, you know, might have killed a few hundred innocent people.

Folks, even when I attempt to rationalize the Israeli point of view of this situation I can't comprehend how this makes them look good. Here's what it looks like: first of all, they're basically saying, by demanding to select military and "Anti-terrorism" experts (translated: hates Arafat) Sharon is coming across as though he wants his own jury. "Anti-terrorism experts?" The claim, as the article reads, is to make sure they understand why the army did what they did. They're trying to find bodies- that's how they tell!

Second, since when did it become political tact to dismiss the U.N. as biased, racist, and irrelevant to the Israeli cause? All this is going to do is bring up the somewhat feasable argument that it seems like the only U.N. resoution Israel has ever agreed to is the one that established the country in 1949. After that, they all became evil anti-semites or something like that.

And speaking of anti-semitism, here's an editorial from Bishop Desmond Tutu about how stupid it is to call someone an anti-semite just for criticizing Israel. I am dying to hear how people are going to try to attack this guy.
 

 
Oh, shut up, Condy

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice explained today, without giggling once, that Hugo Chavez "did as much to undermine democracy in that country as those who tried to oust him." She then followed up by saying "When people are elected, they especially have a responsibility to talk about the importance of respecting democratic processes," at which point 48 million people laughed maniacally, 48 million people had one of those "might be laughter or tears, but not sure which" moments, and the rest wondered when Monday Night RAW comes on.

So, yeah. Umm... more on "those who tried to oust him" here.
 

 
Let's talk about the Middle East, Pt. 7

Setting aside the obvious personal stances on the Mideast conflict, there's a simple two-point lesson that needs to be given to the adamant supporters of Israel- not is some form of contrast to what they say, but as a simple lesson in basic "how to" in the public opinion department:

1. Without a doubt, a significant portion of the world has an unfair, and at many levels inexcusable, bias against the State of Israel.


2. Those who unilaterally support Israel appear, whether they want to or not, to be doing everything in their own power to create the bias.

Now before the Inboxer Rebellion begins, hear me out. Of course, the big issue that we have to reflect on right now is that Israel has decided to forbid the UN probe from entering Jenin to survey the damage and examine the charges of alleged war crimes and/or humanitarian violations.

We look at the two points I just said and it shows the critical flaw of the Israeli government, and the mentality of the pro-Israel lobby: the failure to acknowledge the basic credo of 21st-century news media. Since the inception of the 24-hour cable news network and the proliferation of the tabloid press, anyone involved in a story as big and as long-running as this have to accept the grand rule: "no one cares, even if you're right."

Is Israel right in their claim that there was no massacre at Jenin? Is Israel right in claiming, as the linked story claims, that the UN is biased against them and out to smear them? The answer to both questions is "it doesn't matter." News media, especially the American news media, makes you guilty the moment you deny anything. And if the catchphrase is good enough, you don't even need to make a denial to be branded for life.

The irony, of course, lies in the fact that this is a technique perfected by conservatives- the group most one-sidedly supportive of Israel in the military conflict. I apologize for these examples, because obviously they in no way mean to compare to the tragic loss of life of 2,000-odd people in Israel and the West Bank, but the stories fit the example: Al Gore inventing the internet. Clinton staffers trashed the White House on inauguration day. These stories have both been proven to be completely false; yet still to this day it's used against them. The catchy lines were too good to give up simply because of some pesky "evidence" that the charges had no merit.

To continue disgracing the dead with sub-standard examples, the two most high-profile celebrity scandals of note: Gary Condit and Robert Blake. Condit, by not openly admitting his affair, has now been accused by large percentages of people of actually committing the murder of the woman he was apparently having an affair with. Blake has more people convinced he's guilty than people who actually know who the hell he is. Both are made guilty by the media by their simple acts of evasion. It is the same evasion Israel is doing now by blocking the Jenin probe.

A better example of the irony with the conservative thought toward this is the anti-terrorist actions undertaken in the United States. What is the most common line given by those who unabashedly support the oppressive and racist policies of the USA Patriot Act? "Well, I don't care. I have nothing to hide." "Only people with something to hide should be concerned about the government invading their privacy." I'm sorry, but the blame needs to be given where it's due: conservatives, this line was your baby, and now it's coming to the Middle East to bite you in the ass about it.

Is the UN biased against Israel? Probably, but it doesn't matter. The media has already decided what the image of this is going to be. And there's already a perfect ironic comparison to make a catchphrase worthy of inventing the internet: the fact that Iraq is going to be attacked for blocking UN inspectors.

It doesn't matter than what the UN wants from Iraq and what they want from Israel are two completely different things. It doesn't matter that countless debate time can go towards the moralistic differences between the two nations. What matters is that the simplest and catchiest line is that Israel is being allowed to do what Iraq is getting bombed for. And hell, even I sort of believe that.

Though it pains me to say it, the arrogant and hypocritical conservative thoughts towards anti-terrorism in the country need to be applied to Israel now: Israel is obligated to prove that they have nothing to hide. This "boy who cried wolf" action of accusing, literally, the entire world of being against them is only going to give them just that. And if they did commit a massive act of genocide that a rising sentiment is alluding to, then delaying the eventual discovery is only going to make it worse. Ariel Sharon should look at how well Gary Condit did in his last election when he tried the same tactics.
 

 
The President of the United States has gone completely insane, Pt. 3

The Bush administration has drawn somewhat specific plans for a large-scale invasion of Iraq sometime next year, depending on how much popularity and clout the Republican Party has in the Senate after the 2002 elections, a spokesman for the White House obviously didn't really say but we all know he was thinking anyway.

And, of course, what way to continue the United State's proud tradition of humility and compassion towards the only-when-necessary use of military force than to announce the goddamn plan in one of the largest newspapers in the world?

Seriously, it's not even the fact that the administration is now grotesquely estimating that we may need a quarter of a million people- more than we planned for invading Tokyo in 1946, for fuck's sake- to go in and allegedly cripple the alleged army we allegedly already crippled eleven years ago, but we have the arrogance to, in a span of less than a century, go from arranging our military operations with such secrecy that we had parts of it coded in Navajo dialect just so the Germans couldn't translate it to making it downloadable off the internet for $4.95.

I would take pride in how much balls it must take to do that if it wasn't for how horrifying the implications of this is.

Essentially, we've just indicated to Saddam Hussein that, if he is in fact making chemical weapons, he should definitely concentrate his efforts now towards getting some of them ready by January, and oh, he should try to make sure he has enough to kill, let's say 70 to 250 thousand people. And while were at it, Mr. President, let's establish a friendly relationship with all the Arab nations by opening every single meeting with one of their envoys with "hey, guess what we're going to do next year!"

I swear, the only way this makes sense to me is that they want previews to be made up for Gulf War II. think about it. eight months away, need to spread the hype to push toy sales for the Christmas rush. MSNBC and Fox News are the new guys- they've never had their own war movie like CNN did in '89. Imagine what the trailers are going to be like.
 

 
Mario's pissed, but legally no one has to care now

I'm aware that me referencing an online cartoon and opinion forum of such fame and popularity as Penny Arcade is sort of like Vanilla Ice telling someone, "hey, this Mozart guy sounds like he might be good," but I think I should do my best to point out something the artists over there recently brought to light on my humble sub-standard blog- yet a blog that attracts many a political opinion junkie.

Umm... where was I before establishing myself as a bottom rung on the cartoonist ladder... oh yeah, the thing these guys did. Anyhoo, they recently pointed out an interesting ruling by a federal judge about a law requiring violent and explicit video games to be sold and displayed in arcades only to minors with direct parental consent. The judge upheld the ruling, which to even some degrees I can agree with. What caused the well-written and though-provoking essays found here and here, however, was the horrifying justification of the judges ruling: video games do not constitute free speech.

So, just to make it clear: unlimited political campaign contributions being stopped- that's a violation of the first amendment. Banning the depiction of violence and sex on film or the internet- a violation of the first amendment. Banning the depiction of violence and sex in a game run on the same television that shows the film or the same computer that connects to the internet- okay by him.

I suppose it goes without saying that the judge and his ruling are both full of crap. Apparently, however, I can't say that in a video game now.
 

 
Where else but in Nevada, the offical home of the world's most tasteless city

What you see to the left is, tragically, the newest vanity fundraiser license plate design from Nevada, celebrating their proud history of nuclear testing.

Yes, this is, just to make it clear, the same state that, as we speak, is practically threatening to secede from the Union out of anger towards the sudden attention towards how great Nevada would be to host nuclear material.

Seeing as how regardless of Nevada's claims, the image of a mushroom cloud will eternally be synonimous with the death of several hundred thousand Japanese people, not with the historical moment when the nation built it. Thusly, I will leave the personal gauge towards how utterly tasteless the image of a nuclear explosion on the back of one's car with a message to celebrate it's proud tradition is to you dear readers, though I can guess you've all pegged what mine is.
 

 

This is an image of the first frame of my Intro to 3-D final project. It's being done in a program called Maya, the same software used to make Ice Age. My project is currently "rendering" at the NYU animation SGI computer lab, a process which means each one of the 430 frames (30 frames=1 second of animation) in the movie is individually rendered to high resolution by powerful computers. It takes about 3 or 4 minutes to render each frame, which means at a minimum it will take 21 hours for my project to render.

Hence, I might be away from the site for extended periods of time while this project finishes. Rest assured I am still reading all your e-mails, still looking into news items of note, and still generally caring about disrupting the world as it works right now. I just have to appease a bunch or people who make me pay them 35 grand a year to dump these torturous projects on me right now.

I'll be in an out at odd times, so keep checking in. If you're bored, go watch the David Hasselhoff video again.
 

 
Ignorance is Strength, SpyWare is privacy protection

Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings is pushing legislation that allegedly helps protect computer users from intrusive online marketing and spying tactics. Unfortunately, according to this article, it actually will allow the progenitors of SpyWare- the secret unknown programs that record and report you personal information, demographic statistics, and every web site you've ever gone to- to push their business full steam ahead.

The article points that Hollings is behind another online legality bill that would essentially cripple the basic practices of open-source programmers in an attempt to make Hollywood feel happier about their own content. And of course, no one seems to wonder about the double-dealing plans of Sen. Hollings- maybe we're all too busy waiting for the new Star Wars movie, which ironically seems to have the same plot. That's the dumbest analogy I've ever made. Oh, just go read the article.

(story via Salon)
 

 
So much for enjoying what I do from now on.

This is a long post, so bear with me. Usually I don't go into personal things, because I try to avoid making this a diary and leave that to actual bloggers with interesting lives.

On Wednesday, I recieved this e-mail from Doug Spirduso, who asked me something that I honestly never expected to hear:

Look, I don't know if this is possible, but how can I contribute to your cause monetarily? I looked for a tipping jar, but didn't find it. I must admit that I haven't even looked at your art; I've just read some of your blog, thanks to a link from Tom Tomorrow. Your take on Rumsfeld's "we never had or have had any credible info on Osama" was priceless, and it gave me a measure of hope.

Since 9/11, I have somehow gotten myself immersed in these blogs, but most of the ones I've found were right-wing, hawkish, Andrew Sullivan types...even the ones who professed to be liberal. Finding Tom and you somehow made me realize that I wasn't crazy, or alone. The real USA does exist in some hearts.

What really gives me hope, however, is your youth (I'm old enough to be your father, or perhaps your grandfather), and with that youth, you seem to be able to think about someone other than yourself. Thinking may not be beyond the youth of today and the leaders of tomorrow, but thinking of someone else seems to be a dying commodity.

So, I've rambled on enough. I have enjoyed your blog, and I would like to help your career and future. Money seems to be the "coin of the realm" these days. So how can I contribute?

In any case, keep drawing and commenting.

My response to Doug was as follows:

Thank you for your praise, but as for now I have no plans to set up any typical blogger "donation" system.

Essentially, I consider my site more of an online resume for publishing syndicates rather than a blog- I consider myself a cartoonist who has a blog, not a blogger who draws cartoons. Therefore I choose to refrain from any tawdry blogger-esque elements, including Amazn wishlists, link tables, or any of the "what ____ are you" things.

At least for now, demand is not high enough to merit any profit on merchandise, so there's none of that either. But also at least for now, cost is not an issue. I've never complained about the cost to make the comic, and with my current level of bandwidth I can afford the monthly fees on without any major problem.

The best way to contribute would be to let as many friends know about he site as possible, perhaps even recommend it to anyone you might know in the magazine or newspaper business. If one of these publishing companies hears that a large group of people would be willing to pay money to read artiles or comics, then that's when business can start.

The faster I become famous, the faster I can make stuff for you to buy, and then your goal can be complete. Or something like that.

Looking back on it, I realize that I did two things. First, in an attempt at self-depreciating humor, I made myself look like a pretentious greedy prig, and second, I made myself look like I felt superior to other bloggers. I hope that most of you believe me when I say I didn't intend either of these ideas. As for the line about "tawdry blogger-esque elements," even I can see I shouldn't have written it that way, but we'll get to that in a moment.

Basically, I was trying to thank him and decline in a nice, somewhat typical Pollak-humor way. Nothing, however, prepared me for the response I recieved the next evening:

Perhaps I insulted you by concentrating on the "blogger" aspect of my exposure to you. Let me just say that in addition to reading your daily diary, I did read about you and the characters that are included in your strip. I wasn't exposed to your "cartoons" because I couldn't gain access to them at my office.

Your response to what I considered a genuine and generous offer, however, has taught me a lesson I have received before, but never learned. I must thank you for bringing an obvious point to my faltering mind.

You theoretically eschew the "tawdry blogger-esque elements" of current bloggers. So do I. I just wanted to help further your career and voice.

The reality is that you want fame...enough of which will enable you to sell merchandise. Pollak mugs, Pollak dolls...whatever. You want to join the club you allegedly hate. You are a contrarian for profit.

Fool that I am, I thought you meant what you said. I thought you were a college student who didn't just think about him or herself; who valued life--not just his own, but those of others.

You're just a typcial 20-something who's come up with a new gig. Right-wing patriotism is in; let's counter that, and gain an audience.

Well, thanks to Tom Tomorrow, you caught me. Thanks to you, I no longer care.

I hope you and your art, based on pseudo philosophy dies the death it deserves. You won't get contributions, nor recommendations from me.

You deserve none.

So, yeah. First, I double-checked that this was the same guy. When that proved to be true, I tried to figure out how my first response to him could have possibly altered his viewpoint that much. I could explain my reaction here, but it would be easier to continue this post's trend and post my response to him.

Wow.

First of all, I never meant to cast my previous post as if I was insulted. Far from it. I am in fact flattered that someone would be willing to pay for some part of my work. It is an inspiration.

I am not, however, going to pretend that this second e-mail of yours isn't both facetious and unnecessarily hurtful.

To chastise me for seeking a career out of my work is ridiculous- it is the height of conservative rhetoric to assume that any leftist who actually wants a financial future is selling out. If what I said construes "selling out," i.e the perversion of personal values for other gain, then let me examine my personal values: I like to draw cartoons. I'd like the opportunity to show them to as many people as possible. I'd like to find a way to make a living out of that.

When I said that the way to help was to make me popular, I meant that in the way that the style of work artists such as myself, and in a much higher plane of talent, Tom Tomorrow, to use your own example, is a style that the mainstream refuses to recognize. I am rejected constantly for the usual reasons: that there are two many words in my comics. That my ideas are too controversial. That, (and I swear a publisher actually said this to me,) my ideas are too over the heads of their readers. With each of these, the subtle suggestion is made: draw cartoons and write ideas the way all the other do. Make simple one-panels with repeated gags that are indistinguishable among all the others.

If anything, my goal is to become famous and recognized without having to change this- not "join the club." I want to bring content the way I, and many other independent artists, currently produce it. Convincing the corporate world that this is marketable is, sadly, one element that factors into it. My earlier strips even made fun of this with R.C.- a cat which one of the characters carried around, as the comic quoted, "for the sole purpose of creating a mass-marketable icon America will love."

I am sorry if you find me pretentious. I believe in what I say, and I want people who agree with it, and for that matter disagree with it, to spread the issues I address into open debate.

At no point did I ever attempt to hide the fact that I am aspiring to be a professional. I consider my website to be almost like my resume of what I can offer as a professional. I admit the statement "tawdry blogger-esque elements" is overly harsh to other bloggers in a way I did not mean. I used "tawdry" in sense of being gaudy or out of place. As the sole producer of everything on my site, I refuse to concede to the notion that I do not have the right to say what I find aesthetically pleasing or not. I meant no harm or malice to the countless bloggers who use the system as their diary, or who do at the moment need donations to keep doing what they enjoy. I am neither of those, and do not wish to compete as one by appearing to be.

I told you in my first reply that I also did not need the money. Would you have preferred I asked for donations for a deliberate profit? It seems to me that would make me exactly the thing you baselessly shape me to be.

Finally, I can only assume you did not realize that my last line "The faster I become famous, the faster I can make stuff for you to buy, and then your goal can be complete." was a joke. I was teasing what I considered an outrageous notion that someone would actually be interested in compensating me for something I did. Obviously "your goal" is not to spend money for no reason, any more than "my goal" is to acquire fame for no reason.

Your statement that I am nothing more than a 20-something who wants to counter the current right-wing patriotism is both an insult to the values which inspired me to become a political cartoonist and an insult to the intelligence you obviously have and are refusing to show in this vehement attack. To tell me that I only write what I write because I think it's popular is 1. ludicrous, considering I am practically extradited from parts of the country for thinking this way- far from the notion of popularity, and 2. an insult to every friend, family member, and personal experience that shaped the way I think and feel about this world.

I can understand that you totally misconstrued my intentions in my previous letter to you; that does not prevent me from feeling incredibly hurt. In attempt to thank you but politely decline an offer of money, I cast myself as if I wanted more, or as if your offer wasn't good enough. But rather than attempt to question my motives in a sensible tone, you have responded to me in the tone of a drunken man at a bar angry at a whore for refusing to service him.

You told me in your first e-mail that the things you have read on blogs about the country have given you a glimmer of hope. That is the real "coin of the realm" that fuels most of us. I am inspired by the fact that you and others like my work. Your first e-mail was one of the greatest compliments I have ever received, and your second one of the greatest insults. If you meant what you said that you want to "further our causes and voices," than I suggest telling them you hope for those voices to die might not be the best way to go.

Regardless, thank you for your comments. If you wish to continue the belief that my work has no merit, I hope you continue to read the blogs and ideas of others. I would be happy to provide a list of links to other political-based blogs and student cartoonists if you so desire. I would hate to think you have lost faith in everybody because someone as insignificant to the debate as you have placed me has upset you.

So, even only a short time after writing it, I regret some of the tone, because frankly there's too much emotion in it. But also, I look back on it and realize that I said a lot of stuff that is unfair to other people.

I am sorry to anny other bloggers who might be offended by me implying that what they do on their blogs is inferior to what I do. I didn not mean that. I simply choose for personal reasons not to do a lot of the things normal bloggers do- I mean, as I said before, I don't even consider myself a blogger- I consider myself a cartoonist who blogs. Blogging in itself is a culture that has its own rules and styles and I cast myself as an impartial observer, not as a member. Friends of mine have proven that they are much better at blogging than I am, and if anyone came to the idea that I am mocking them for wanting Amazon donations or lots of quiz thingies, I am sorry if I upset you.

I do not, however, apologize to Doug. I am sorry if the person he cast me to be upset him, but hopefully as my second e-mail to him shows, 95% of what he said about me is grossly untrue.

Ultimately, I guess what all of this about is that Doug has shown me that I might be making people think that I'm only in this for profit. I'm not going to lie and say I wouldn't love a profit out of this, but I mean that in the sense of becomming a professional. For people who want to be singers, there's a difference between singing on the sidewalk with a jar and getting a recording contract. I don't feel ashamed in establishing a difference between doing the same for cartoons. I am allowed to have my dream... especially one that I have already accepted is unlikely to come true.

I would like to make sure, however, that I'm not making other people think the way Doug is. If I am, please let me know, because it's the last thing I want to do.
 

 
This is just wrong

I know this one's probably old to all the hardcore bloggers, but I just came across it today and frankly, it shoots Hi-Ho out of the water.

You are being warned in advance: this is the most frightening thing ever.
 

 
I suppose we could try for. the blatantly obvious?

I will admit that, as one who hasn't stepped inside a church in about three or four years, and even so being a Episcopalian (which, to quote the great Lee Tergesen from Oz, means you're required to think about God about a week out of the year,) that I'm more than slightly rusty on the Catholic Church regulatory policies.

But could anyone give me a simple explanation as to why what most people would assume is the simplest corollary in regards to these pedophile priests' actions is never discussed in the news or anywhere else?

The corollary is as follows:

1. People who molest children are either criminally or psychologically dangerous, and thusly need to go to criminal or psychological rehabilitation facilities, respectively.
2. Several people who happen to be Catholic priests are molesting children.

Yet, as I've been reading in the news today, apparently the Pope and the Cardinals are all up there at the Vatican discussing the appropriate actions to be taken when one of these "incidents" happens.

Excuse me?

Now, I may just be spouting something simple and ill-researched what with me being one of those godless liberal heathens and all, but isn't the stance of the majority-right/conservative observant Christians that we can't be a nation soft on crime? That if you commit a crime, you have to go to jail?

So why, pray tell (or, I guess, prayer leader tell,) is there an argument over a "one strike" policy? Did anyone else read this one? It was decided that action will only be taken against priests who are "repeat offenders."

I fail to see why this suggestion hasn't been offered yet: they're debating whether or not if you abuse a child, you lose your job or not. what happened to going to goddamn jail?

I have advocated in countless arguments with my peers for the side of somewhat compassionate measures against child molesters- a stance which, of course, ranks right up there with finding Megan's Law questionable as the easiest way to never be considered a candidate for mainstream politics for the rest of one's life. Of course, I don't think that what these people do is horrible- it's possibly the worst crime a single person can commit outside of murder. But frankly, a lot of these people are clearly psychologically troubled, and saying that it can be handled without doctors or law enforcement will never cure these people.

In the past week, the Church has pulled the pins from their Holy Hand Grenades and dropped them into their own laps. First, of course, they leak the offensive and abusive notion that this has something to do with homosexuality. This is, of course, the "Big Lie" of child abuse. A pedophile is not sexually attracted to boys any more than he is sexually attracted to girls. A pedophile is, by definition, one who is sexually attracted to children. The Cardinals realized really quick, fortunately, that most of the country didn't buy this, and maybe if we keep letting them know we don't buy it they'll realize that their staff has a major problem instead of blaming it on what they think of as another one.

Now, in between arguments over whether or not they should accept that priests are, regardless of the collar, human, and maybe might not have such a fucked-up sexual mentality if they were allowed to. well. fuck, (here's a hint- yes!) they're weighing just to what level of abuse of a minor constitutes telling the priest they're a bad, bad person.

All I'm saying is that, with the limited knowledge I have of this, it seems very strange tat no one has suggested mass arrests. And if they have, I sure as hell haven't been hearing about them in the news.
 

 
You Decide, We Report: the Celebrity Envoys

It was a long debate, dozens of suggestions were submitted, and frankly I think anyone who hasn't forgotten about it would be bored if I waited any longer, myself included.

A while ago I asked you, the diligent readers, to submit your picks for who would make an ideal celebrity United Nations Envoy to the Middle East. (the logic was that if Russian can send celebrities into space, then the U.S. should, in true Cold-War tradition, attempt to meet the challenge in futile pointless historical ventures)

The major criteria included logical, rational reasons for why the celebrity would have a legitimate purpose to be a Middle East Peace Envoy. Also, anything that you put way too much effort into thinking about got a few extra points. I mean, seriously- it's a gag, folks. Hence, the candidates, as well as an attempt at a logical reason for sending them:

Mr. T. First of all, we save billions on the defense costs. I mean, honestly- do you think anyone in the area thinks they can take this guy out? It's not going to happen. His massive frame and sparkly jewelry will mesmerize both sides as he- the master of eloquent conversation- subtly explains the rational points of the Oslo Accord. (Thanks to Matt Weiland)

Michael Jackson, in the Captain Eo costume. Both the Israelis and Palestinians will be awed by his otherwordly presence and his monkey will warm their hard hearts. Now, I actually think this makes sense. I know stupid jokes were supposed to be a no-no, but seriously, I think the "time will be spent trying to figure out what the hell this guy is" factor weighs into it. Reader Mandy Brown suggested Bob Dylan, and I didn't pick it because all that we'd need to do is tell them his real name and he'd be dead before lunchtime. With Michael Jackson, they won't even be able to figure out if he's human. I think the weirdness factor will allow more attention to be drawn to him, and in addition, there's no one outside of the President who can get more media following him than Jacko. which is a huge benefit to the entire humanitarian cause. (Thanks to the reader identified only as "blamb")

Bono. Well, Duh.

David Bowie. First of all, if he did Zoolander, then he's got to be itching for anything to prove personal credibility. But Chris Handy provided some ample points that I find compelling and agreeable: he has a global recognition, is well versed in ceremonial fanfare becoming of a diplomat (aaah, glam-rock,) and his compassion is accentuated by a key personal element: he's married to a Muslim. The fact that Ms. Iman is not directly from the Muslim areas in conflict, yet is a member of that group, prevents both sides from a making a credible complaint of bias. I agree that this is somewhat racist, but frankly, so is every other rationale coming out of Israel right now.

So there are the four runners-up. And I want to thank everyone for their submissions, and for the thought you put into this. Frankly, I can't say anything else about this, so I will leave the rest to reader Mike "Eduardo" Orange, who without a doubt gave the best envoy suggestion. With that, I leave you with his e-mail in its entirety. It is poignant. It is passionate. And the level of logic it contains is utterly, mind-bogglingly insane. Thank you all for playing.

Part of the problem with this country's foreign policy stems from the fact that we employ only human agents. In a time as dire as this, we can turn longingly to only one bastion of peace and sanity. Scoff if you will, but I honestly believe we need to send a little Kermit the Frog their way.

Don't close this letter, yet. I'm serious. Sure, Ariel Sharon may have a few screws loose. He may not have a clue what kind of wad he's put Israel's collective panties in. Perhaps his heart is covered with the blackest coat of apathy imaginable. But more importantly, he doesn't seem to have the so-called "rainbow connection."

Think back, if you will, to the original muppet movie. Remember the cast? Jesus, those puppets were so diverse THEY didn't even know what they were. How could a motley crew so outrageous ever come together to produce almost a dozen movies, countless television series, and spawn who knows how much merchandise?

One frog, my friend. One frog with a guitar and a pig girlfriend.

Not only does Mr. Kermit have the know-how, elbow grease, and overwhelming charisma to pull it off, he also has plenty of time. If I'm not mistaken, it's been some time since he or any of his compatriots put together a movie and I suspect he's a little short on current projects. Not only could he resolve two millenia's worth of violence, he could even spin this into the most exciting muppet adventure of all time!

Peace in the Mid-East! A new Muppet venue! Millions of dollars in merchandise! How on Earth could anyone lose? They couldn't, Mr. Pollak. They just couldn't.
 

 
If you smoke cigarettes, you're helping the terrorists

According to this article in The Nation, representatives from most of the major tobacco companies in the United States ordered a significant passage of the U.S.A. Patriot Act to be eliminated. Why? Because it dealt with stronger tactics and larger influence over international money laundering, which, to quote the article:

...would have expanded the definition of money laundering to include "fraud or any scheme to defraud against a foreign government or foreign government entity, if such conduct would constitute a violation of this title if it were committed in interstate commerce in the United States..."

The section, which the Justice Department had requested to aid its crackdown on money laundering, would have rendered major tobacco companies accused of smuggling cigarettes overseas extremely vulnerable to legal challenge, and they wanted it out.

At the time, the tobacco companies were facing legal assaults on several fronts. On the docket at the US federal courthouse in New York City were two cases being argued in parallel: Twenty-two Colombian states and the city of Bogota and ten European governments-including France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Greece-had accused Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds and British American Tobacco of defrauding their governments of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues and of taking the illicit profits back to the United States, which would constitute money laundering...

Representative Oxley removed the provision from the bill at the behest of the White House and GOP whip Tom DeLay, under pressure from big tobacco... As Richard Daynard, director of the Tobacco Litigation Center at Northeastern University, explains, "The bill as originally drafted would have made the tobacco companies a lot more vulnerable to the charges in those lawsuits." It should perhaps come as no surprise that those who supported the tobacco industry were also major recipients of the industry's largesse: A report by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids reveals that Republicans received 82 percent of the more than $18 million that the tobacco industry has poured into political campaigns since 1997.
 

 
Newest comic posted - "Once Again"
 

 
Oh, for fuck's sake.

Well go the fuck ahead, read it again. I didn't write that. That actually happened.

Okay, here's what gets me about the whole deal. Not that this is an overly cutesy way for Children's Television Workshop to advocate more funding for music education. Not that they actually put a goddamn suit on Elmo, which even I admit is kinda adorable. Not that, essentially, our tax dollars went this morning towards funding all the resources required by congress to listen to a man read a statement through a hand puppet.

What bothers me is the actions, captured here for all time, of Mr. Lamond, seen here doing two things:

1. Covering with his hand an inactive prop microphone, seeing how the actual one would be near the mouth of the puppeteer- you know, the one that can actually talk.


2. Whispering into Elmo's ear. So that only the muppet can hear what he has to say.

This was all, of course, in the name of more funding for special programs... something that was recently cut because the budget didn't have enough money. Because, as today's conference with muppets clearly shows, all the money is being used appropriately.
 

 
Uh-oh, he's making us think again.

Today, representatives of the Swedish government announced that they believe the inherent bias of the United Nations and it's dominating members will unfairly view the status of their nation in light of an upcoming investigation into said military practices of the Swedish.

The UN, which fears Sweden may be overstepping its military power, is now being told by Sweden that inspectors will not be allowed into their country. Considering the relations the UN has with Sweden to provide aid, it's questionable what kind of incident may develop.

So, when do the bombers fly in? Maybe they won't. See, I'm lying. I changed the country. And you're not going to get a story link to find out which country is really doing this.

You don't get to pick which side you're on just because of who you think is "evil" or not. First tell me if what the country doing is wrong. Then you get to decide if it's Iraq, or Iran, or Israel, or the United States, or whatever. Maybe it's none of those countries. maybe I worded it so that it actually applies to more than one country. uh-oh!

It's a lot harder to call an action "evil" when you don't get to be told who's making the play, isn't it?
 

 
World's stupidest idea update

Over a year after my comments were made in my April 5, 2001 comic (fourth one down,) the WSN has announced the breakthrough report on just how much everyone in NYU Dental hates the World's Stupidest IdeaT (or at least one of them,) that being the complete conversion of the entire NYU Dental School course texts into a DVD, which, under the original guidelines proposed 13 months ago, cost $1,200, required the student to own a laptop computer, were serial-coded to prevent transfer of the disc's fiels to other computers (e.g. every student had to buy one for themselves,) and the best part- a built-in "re-updating" policy which required the software to be bought again every semester.

The issue that drove the dental students to a near-reenactment of the finale of Frankenstein, however, was the complete I-swear-to-god-I'm-going-to-smack-that-smarmy-shiteating-grin-off-your-face arrogance of the NYU administrators, who, during the periods in which they could stand upright without the collective sexual organs of the DVD companies inside them, decided to completely ignore any level of student complaint, or in the classic explanation of Wendy Seltzer, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, "There's no way for students to exert any pressure as a market. The student has a choice to buy a Vital Book, or [not] go to NYU."

And this isn't of course just with the DVD company... the articles will show that computer companies, medical science research suppliers, and even the professors themselves are all part of this big financial deal to claim a "streamlining" process for NYU Dental, which in reality is a 21st-century cover for forcing students to buy something they don't necessarily need.

So remember, I said it a year ago and I'll say it again today- NYU: pioneers in the fight against the oppressive rule of libraries and used book stores.
 

 
Traffic UnJam

Bandwidth problems, hopefully, should be okay now for the next sixth months.

This does mean, however, that this is your last chance. My favorites to be posted sometime in the next day or so.

Also, my portfolio's up in the info section, so you can go tell all the people you know that run animation studios what a lousy artist I am. Or something to that level.
 

 
Big trouble in little Paris

Le Pen! Le PEEEENNNNNNNNNN!

I'm sorry. That had to be done.

Also, please note the sign held by this guy reads "I am ashamed to be French." I will leave that joke up to you because I actually have French fans and I really don't want to upset them. They're already upset because, basically, they now have to choose between a sharp stick in the eye and a red-hot poker up the ass in the runoff.

But anyway, Since when did the French get rowdy? I mean, the stereotype of these people has always been to. well. surrender whenever someone looks at them really mean. So now several thousand of them are tearing the goddamn nation apart because a fluke in a 16-man election made a psychotic right-winger one of the two leading candidates.

My favorite quote from this AP article, however, was as follows:

Le Pen, 73, leader of the anti-immigration National Front, called his score a step in "the French renaissance," to be completed with a May 5 victory.

A renaissance? You mean a cultural groundswell in which the populace erupts into a new wave of free thought and expressive ideals? And here you all are thinking I'm a schmuck for making a bad Lo Pan reference from an obscure 80's Kurt Russell film.

Now, I'd like to use the rest of this rant to explain a simple point to many of the berserk conservatives who are now proclaiming this as a complete sign of the end of leftist politics in France.

Oh, do be so kind as to bite me.

Since we live in a nation that has corporations running the election through the two-party system, most of these people don't understand the concept that France had an election between 16 people- which means the runoff will consist of the people who support the incumbent Chirac, the supporters of Le Pen, and the other 77% of the country that didn't vote for either of them, and sure as hell aren't voting for the more conservative of the two.

In other words, there were 14 candidates that people thought were more to the left of these two, including the Prime Minister, who, come one guys, only lost by 1% of the vote. So stop acting like the right-wingers are taking over Europe. Last time that happened, most of Europe fought back.

Except France. Sorry. Couldn't help myself.
 

 
And now, the world's smartest 12-year old.

This is probably old to some of you, but I just found it- an essay written by a Charlotte Aldebron, a 12-year old schoolgirl, about the true importance of the symbol of our nation:

The American flag stands for the fact that cloth can be very important. It is against the law to let the flag touch the ground or to leave the flag flying when the weather is bad. The flag has to be treated with respect. You can tell just how important this cloth is because when you compare it to people, it gets much better treatment. Nobody cares if a homeless person touches the ground. A homeless person can lie all over the ground all night long without anyone picking him up, folding him neatly and sheltering him from the rain.

School children have to pledge loyalty to this piece of cloth every morning. No one has to pledge loyalty to justice and equality and human decency. No one has to promise that people will get a fair wage, or enough food to eat, or affordable medicine, or clean water, or air free of harmful chemicals. But we all have to promise to love a rectangle of red, white, and blue cloth.

Betsy Ross would be quite surprised to see how successful her creation has become. But Thomas Jefferson would be disappointed to see how little of the flag's real meaning remains.

Source, as well as the e-mail address of the girl's mother so you can tell her what a great job she did, found here.
 

 
"Hey, let's pass some more laws so we look like we're working!"

The Senate voted on Thursday 97-0 to pass the (deep breath) Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which prohibits the entry into the United States of anyone from a country that "sponsors terrorism." The list of these countries is as follows: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan and North Korea. (The Axis of Evil has grown, apparently)

Yes, thank you. I as well noticed that in other words, this bill would have done nothing to prevent the 9/11 terrorists from entering the country, seeing as how almost all of them were from... none of those countries.

So basically, seven nations have just had their entire populations added to a blacklist. Talk about racial profiling.

My favorite part, however, is how the bill lovingly explains how foreign college students can be treated. From the article:

The measure also significantly tightens control over foreign students studying in US universities and colleges. It requires the State and Justice Departments to closely monitor these students' arrivals, enrolment into classes as well as their dropping out. If the bill becomes law, which is largely expected, universities will be a