Go away

I hate taking a hiatus, because I think all it does is lose me readers. By that rationale, it makes this site sound like some strange drug addiction, in which the only thing worse than my constant posting would be the feeling of stopping. That's such a dumb analogy I can't believe it. But what can I say, as a new-ish cartoonist/blogger with a readership that's comically miniscule to that of the big boys, I have ample support for paranoia. Plus, I'm just naturally paranoid. All the friends I'll be seeing over the holiday can vouch for that.

Nevertheless, I have been informed by the The Weather Channel that according to their radar, winter storm Wrath of God (their second name choice, oddly, was "Sigmund") will be descending on the Northeast come Wednesday. In other words, I've decided to get on a bus before the ice storm cometh.

Since I'll be spending most of the time stuffing my face and, you know, the whole family/love thing, I'll have very limited computer access for the holiday. I won't be near posting or e-mail functions until at least Sunday. Which is weird, because I think this is the first time since the blog went up in April that I'd be going over four days without an update. Hopefully, you and I shall both survive.

To tide you over, I've got a few loose stories and e-mails that have been kicking around for the last few days. Again, apologies to everyone I never got the chance to reply to, though you have my promise everything has been read. One of you REALLY wants me to know if I'm ready for up to three inches in growth. I mean, Jesus- you're asking me like twice a day now.

More than one of you have notified me about the latest mind-blowing story about Bob Barr now working as a consultant for the American Civil Liberties Union. To be honest, it makes a slight amount of sense, since Barr during his congressional heyday was a strong advocate for privacy. gosh. I wonder what made him so concerned about that. (For those of you new to this site, there's a running "gag" about Bob Barr- I hate him. Look, I didn't say it was funny.)

Philip NoLastName sent the following rant about the approval of the Homeland Security Department:

This is something I wish someone, ANYONE would ask:

In the immediate aftermath of the election earlier this month, we were subjected to all sorts of gloating/whining/raving/outright fear about the Republicans having unprecented power which will now be used to turn this country into either a) a tyrannical wasteland with no freedoms or environment or b) a paradise free of that liberal menace (depending on your political leaning).

And just two weeks after the "shift" of power, this country now has the largest concentration of power in over half a century (something carried out by the party of less government, but that's another rant).

I have just one question for everyone out there that truly believed the backbone of the Democrats was the only thing saving us from complete and utter Republican rule (and especially those who blame liberal third parties for taking votes away from the Democrats):

Do you honestly believe that a Democratic Congress (or hell, a Democratic House or Senate alone) would have given the Bush Administration any real conflict over the creation of the Homeland Security Office?

For I do not know how long, the Democrats have been doing everything in their power to avoid being labeled "liberal", going to almost any length to appear moderate, if not conservative. Those attempts have been increased a thousand fold in the past two years, especially after Sept. 11, when it suddenly became un-American to use the freedom of speech inappropriately (ie. criticizing Bush, which is another rant).

So do you honestly believe that, had the Democrats won Congress or even just the Senate this month, they would have suddenly grown a collective backbone and actually said "No!" to Bush and the Republicans? That they would have fought against the creation of the Homeland Security Office?

Only 8 Democrats had the balls to do that now. Am I to believe that if the Democrats had more than 50 seats they all would have joined hands and told Bush to go f$%k himself?

Not while Bush is president. It doesn't matter how many seats ended up going to Democrats, as long as Bush is in the White House, milking Sept. 11 and the newfound patriotism of this land's people, the Democrats were going to roll over time and again, and we all know it, because that is all they've done for the past year.

This is not a time for foolish dreaming. No matter where the Senate went, Democrat or Republican, the new office would have been created because most of us on the left have been backing the wrong horse for the past two decades plus.

Anytime the Republicans get what they want within the next two years, ask yourself: would the Democrats have really fought against this if they had the slightest bit of power?

Also, ask yourself if, say, the Green party would have been as spineless in similar circumstances.

The answer, of course, that I have to give Philip is that the Democrats, for the record, proposed the department in the first place. Bush initially denied it, then spun it into his idea/version for the election. The Democrats never disapproved of the Office, being the progenitors of the concept. they just, as the opposition party is supposed to do, opposed Bush's bastardized plan. As we are seeing now, they caved, as, again, the Democrats are traditionally adept at.

As for what someone from the Green Party would have done if they were in the Senate for the vote, I would guess they would have tried as long as possible to avoid the security guards trying to remove them for trespassing during a floor vote. I'm sorry, I had to. But, as I said before, I never said it was going to be funny.

Diamond "I was born with the name of a porn star" LeGrande sent me this story: according to the latest survey of military preparedness, 53.9% of active U.S. Military personnel would be classified as "too fat to fight" under Federal obesity guidelines. Well I guess it's good that fat people are just jolly. if fat people were gay they might actually get kicked out of the army.

Carl Orr sent me this one a few weeks back, in regards to an article written by Ariana Huffington about the general badness that are SUVs. Another Washington post hack mentioned a couple of feedbacks about Huffington's article, and this one Car sent me took the cake:

Ritz-Carlton Hotel publicity director Colleen Evans wrote: "Puleeeeze -- I am not giving up my Cadillac Escalade SLV (Sport Luxury Vehicle). Since I'm only 5'3 I love the 'on top of the world' feel....Ms. Huffington is once again sounding very 'fuelish'."

So Ms. Evans, what you're saying is that your need to feel like Ms. Big Stuff in your enormous vehicle is more important than the environmental impact, our country's continuing dependance on fossil fuels (from which you can connect the dots to Sept. 11 and everything bad that's come of it), and the safety of people in other vehicles. Tell me, do you ever wonder why people in other countries hate Americans? It's because of selfish, short-sighted attitudes like yours. Do us all a favor and roll your "luxury vehicle" off a cliff.

My personal response is that an age-old question is now answered- publicists actually speak their PR language all the time. I mean, really, was she even attempting to pretend that this is how she would normally say anything if it wasn't expressed in a unfunny e-mail? I've seen episodes of CSI with more believable dialogue.

To many, the Friday after Thanksgiving, traditionally the opening of the Christmas season and subsequent busiest shopping day of the year, is known as "Black Friday-" black, in the financial sense, being a good symbol for once in this culture. However, my friend Dennis reminds us all that this Friday is also known as the exact opposite: Buy Nothing Day. Choose your side. (More info here as well)

So with all that, I bid you all a happy holiday, and leave you this thanksgiving note with a XQUZYPHYR & Overboard touch to it: President Bush has now pardoned more turkeys than he has human beings. Squanto, you should have killed us all when you had the chance.

 

 

Get Reading

The great and mighty all seeing burro that encompasses the power that is Get Donkey! Provides this ridiculously link-laden though well-written post: (links not transcribed because I want you to go to the site and I'm very lazy)

I had a long post brewing about why things are the way they are, but it turned into an incoherent rant and I don't have time to finish it (which is a shame because it contained such winners as "If he thinks that it is okay for Limbaugh to level personal attacks at whomever he wants, then I assume that Novak would not be deeply offended when someone points out that he is insane and looks as if he reeks of stale Coffee Nips and cheap Scotch")

Anyway my point was that there needs to be more media education in this country. Too many people believe in things like "journalistic integrity" and believe that the mere presence of the First Amendment guarantees a free press. I bet it would be a surprise to many that the US does not even rank in the top-ten for press freedom . Too many Americans have no clue as to who people like Richard Mellon-Scaife, the Reverned Moon, Rupert Murdoch, or corporations like Clear Channel and Viacom are. Too few people know that much of the media market is owned by handful of corporations and/or how much these few influence what we see on TV, read in newspapers and magazines, or hear on the radio.
 

 

You have the right to remain silent... ClearYouOfAllFaultSaysWhat?

From the L.A. Times (registration using fake information required:)

The Supreme Court in its landmark Miranda opinion ruled that police must respect the rights of people who are held for questioning. Officers must warn them of their right to remain silent, and, equally important, honor their refusal to talk further.

But that widely known rule is about to be reconsidered in the high court in the case of a farm worker here who was shot five times after a brief encounter with police. Legal experts say the case has the potential to reshape the law governing everyday encounters between police and the public.

While the farm worker lay gravely wounded, a police supervisor pressed him to talk, to explain his version of the events. He survived, paralyzed and blinded, and sued the police for, among other things, coercive interrogation.

The story is explained in painfully-familiar detail. Basically, the police during a routine drug search (they found nothing) saw another man riding his bike and stopped him as well. When finding a knife on him (the fram worker used it to cut fruit) as they patted him down, the "suspect" freaked out and ran. You can all guess where this one's going, right?

After shooting him five times in the neck, eyes, legs, and spine, the officers handcuffed (that's right) the now bleeding-to-death man, and sat with him on the ambulance to the hospital with a tape recorder in hand trying to get him to instantly recollect what had happened as to avoid implicating the police of the blatantly obvious:

On and off for the next 45 minutes in the ambulance and at the hospital, he repeatedly asked the gravely wounded man to admit he had grabbed the officer's gun and provoked the struggle. In agony, Martinez is heard screaming in pain and saying he is choking and dying.

"OK. You're dying. But tell me why you were fighting with the police?" Chavez asks. "Did you want to kill the police or what?" he continues. One officer had said Martinez tried to grab his gun.

In the emergency room, Chavez continued to press Martinez to tell him what happened.

"Why did you run from the police?" Chavez is heard to say over the sounds of nurses and doctors.

"Did you get his gun? ... Did you to try to shoot the police?"

Martinez in a low voice responds: "I don't know.... I don't know."

Lawyers for Martinez say he panicked when the officer tried to tackle him, but they say he did not grab the officer's gun.

In the emergency room, he is heard asking Chavez several times to leave him alone. "I don't want to say anything anymore."

"No? You don't want to say what happened?" the sergeant continues.

"It's hurting a lot. Please!" Martinez implores, his words trailing off into agonized screams. Undaunted, Chavez resumes. "Well, if you're going to die, tell me what happened."

Hello, Hell? Yeah, I need to know if a room's available... no, nothing fancy... hopefully soon. I'll get back to you once I talk to God about sending some lightning down and all that.

What's interesting is that the article implies the ways a reversal of Miranda could allow cops to use forceful questioning, while the example story shows a much worse case.

The sad fact is, the courts have very often given broader powers to law enforcement... but as this story shows, it's not the case... the case is with the damage control.

The issue here wasn't even that the cops were horrifically violating numerous rights of someone who, honestly, wasn't wanted or suspected, or even accused of anything, it was that minutes after shooting a man several times they sat with him as he nearly bled to death on the way to the hosptial trying to trick him into saying on tape that what they did was justified.

This isn't about giving the government more power to interrogate people; it's about giving shitty cops more power to cover their asses when they do shitty police work.

As you can guess, of course, the Bush administration is fully behind the police on this one. Claims Solicitor General Ted Olsen, "It 'will chill legitimate law enforcement efforts to obtain potentially life-saving information during emergencies,' including terrorism alerts, if police and FBI agents can be sued for coercive questioning..."

Ummm.... what? How would the police have benefited in what they did? Only two things could have happened after the shooting... the man could have died, in which case it would be his (dead) word versus the policemen, or he would have lived, where the cops easily could have waited to go to the hospital and ask him any questions.

The idea that they're relating this to the "War on Terrorism" is abhorrent. This was a guy who was randomly stopped. Granted, he made a ridiculous mistake of freaking out and running from a police officer, but that doesn't suddenly make him a potential threat to Homeland Security, okay?

It's obvious what happened here- the cop over-reacted to a near-fatal level and negligently shot a man several times. There was no reason to immediately start interrogating the man, and there was certainly no reason to hold a tape recorder to his face as he screamed in pain. The cop wanted to be free and clear of almost murdering someone before this guy got to the hospital or the press.

The only "emergency situation" was that a cop realized he just shot someone for no reason and had the horrible luck of the guy managing to survive it. I'm sorry, but for some reason "I need to get the answers right now to find out if this guy we randomly approached is somehow connected to the man we didn't find any drugs on" isn't as believeable as "oh fuck, I'm in deep shit now, aren't I?" as the likely thought going through the officer's head.

This wasn't about a life-saving situation, this was an attempt to make an ass-saving situation. No, this isn't about the standard idea of police brutality and Miranda law as this case will likely be shapred to be, but what this officer did was self-serving and negligent to a near-criminal level- now the courts are being asked to legalize this negligence.
 

 

You've been allowed to go nowhere, baby

A woman is suing a New York management firm for sexual discrimination in regards to their alleged outright refusal to hire her as a doorman... because she would be, of course, a doorwoman.

It's a compelling thought, since when you look back on it it really occurs to you that you've never actually seen a female doorman... ever. So there is definitely merit to a taboo "gentleman's agreement" about the policy. But what makes the article so angering isn't the nature of the case, but the logic imbedded in the primitive minds of the defense:

"I don't know if she can handle it. First of all, you have the heavy luggage," said Jovan Bizik, 52, a Sutton Place-area doorman for eight years. "Sometimes you have to replace a handyman in an emergency. You have to know something about plumbing and to be able to shut off the water.

"I don't think that's for a woman. Also, she has to be by herself at night. How is she going to handle that?"

And now, the weak little lady's response.

Just fine, said Hill, who makes $58,000 a year as an officer in the prison ward at Manhattan's Bellevue Hospital.

"If I can handle a job as a corrections officer, which is very dangerous, dealing with criminals and rapists and risking my life, I can surely handle my job as a doorperson," she said.

And a a collective Boo-yah for Ms. Hill with that line. I dub thee "Officer Fuck You, Door Boy."
 

 

And the Godwin gets certified

A lot of conservative excuses for message boards have been passing around full text, passages, or mild variations of an essay traced to this blogger here, in which the predictable rationale is made for the war in Iraq- that being the sarcastic "what if" scenario in 1939 in which the U.S. decided that Hitler wasn't a threat and we should never have invaded Normandy.

Fissures are starting to appear in the formerly united front within the Roosevelt administration on the upcoming decision of whether, where and how to invade Europe. Some influential voices within both the Democrat and Republican parties are starting to question the wisdom of toppling Adolf Hitler's regime, and potentially destabilizing much of the region.

"It's one thing to liberate France and northwestern Europe, and teach the Germans a lesson, but invading a sovereign country and overthrowing its democratically-elected ruler would require a great deal more justification," said one well-connected former State Department official. "The President just hasn't made the case to the American people."

And later on:

Others, however, contend that as long as he remains in power, he will be a continual threat to the region, and perhaps even the world, as there are rumors that he's frantically developing weapons of mass destruction greater than any the world has previously seen, and is building rockets with which to deliver them.

"For God's sake, the man is gassing Jews by the millions!" said one exasperated presidential advisor. "Do you think that he's going to be content to simply murder his own people if we let him stay in power?"

So, I'll first get out of the way that this is obviously an intelligent writer who has a much more well-thought out sense of sarcasm than that of several psychotically pro-war pundits. However, it's can't be avoided that despite this rationale, the writer is missing a few major points here.

The entire argument lies in the idea that we need to treat this like World War II and not wait to be attacked before we attack the enemy. The problem is that that's exactly what we did in World War II- you might have remembered that Hitler invaded Poland about three years before the United States bothered to act against Germany- and only after Japan attacked us first. The author is using ridiculously circular logic to imply that since we know now what Hitler did then, we should have just bombed Germany in 1933 and avoided the entire war. That makes sense save for the slight case of it making no sense whatsoever.

The comparison of the gassing of the Kurds to the holocaust is both insulting and without merit. History argues two sides of the United States with the holocaust- that we were completely unaware until we reached Germany that the camps existed, or that we know of them in hearsay and, like the rest of Europe, turned a blind eye to it. The latter would be a great analogy to our modern-day ignoring of twenty years of Taliban oppression of women. but I bet once you say that THEN all the anger over comparing Hitler to the Middle East would come from conservatives, wouldn't it?

Likewise, there's the character issue. the difference between Hitler's rise to power and Saddam's maintenance of power is that there was no "risk of destablilzation" that this author clearly is mocking. Hitler was opposed by half of the Europe he tried to conquer. Saddam, on the other hand, does not even have complete direct control over the whole of his own country. His invasion of Kuwait was repelled with the help of U.S. forces, who granted took more initiative than we did with Poland in 1939. Of course, we didn't care about oil as much then.

(And, of course, noting how the author didn't seem to look into any analogies about U.S. companies still funding Hitler during the war vis-à-vis our maintaining strong relations with half the terrorist-breeding nations on the planet won't be brought up. because that would be rude now, wouldn't it?)

As noted before, radical Islam might want to control the world, but can't feasibly do that- it simply does not have the means and motivation that Hitler had. Radical Islamic nations are working to control their own countries and find some unique paradigm that allows their government to remain in medieval times while the infrastructure eventually rises from the stone age.

Personally, if you're going to make Hitler analogies, you go to the man who treats them like a daily hobby, Ted Rall:

For a few months the Leader reveled in the glory of his victory. People felt that the Leader was not only protecting them, but making them feel strong again. But one day his chief military adviser came to him with a warning. "People are beginning to forget about your victory," he said. "They're worried about their bellies. Their sons are stuck in the occupation force, fighting the remnants of the militia. They're afraid that another attack is coming. Why not start an even bigger war to distract them from these concerns?"

Rather than merely invade another country, however, the Leader hit upon a new strategy. He demanded that the world allow him to invade yet another nation, even though that land had caused no offense to its neighbors for many years. "I am a man of peace, but these evil ones are planning to kill my people," he roared. "I will invade them and stop them and I will consider anyone who doesn't agree to be our enemy." He ordered his armies to mass at the borders of his intended prize.

The world's rulers, terrified of the Leader's hubris and demonstrated willingness to throw his nation's armies into war, gathered to decide what to do. Everyone agreed that what the Leader intended to do was reckless, immoral and unjustified, but nobody wanted to stand alone and thus risk becoming his next target. Besides, they told themselves, he only wants one more country. It's worth voting for one small war now to prevent the whole world from being consumed by war, they agreed.

And you can see where that one's going too. Godwin payback is a German bitch.
 

 

Canyonerrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooo!

Reader James O'Brien sent me a link to what could very well be the most absurdly ridiculous press copy ever printed in the history of advertising.

Cars.com reviewer Royal Ford (gurgle) penned this little review about General Motors' publicly-available version of their military hummers:

What this Hummer offers that the H1 does not, however, is practicality. It is incredibly comfortable inside; it seats six with plenty of space (as opposed to four in the original); and with triple sealed doors and heavy insulation, it is very quiet on the highway. It is, in short, a car you can use every day in comfort-if you don't mind gas mileage around 10.1 miles per gallon and that, admittedly, can be a financial or ethical question for lots of folks.

Considering that the H2 weighs nearly 3½tons, it takes a lot of torque to move the beast. The General Motors Vortec 6000 is just the powerplant to do the job. It is a 316-horsepower V-8 that produces 360 lb.-ft. of torque.

So what's the verdict on the $48,000, 10-MPG, 16-foot long, 3.5-ton Hummer?

All this in a car that can be an everyday family driver (again, you'll have to get past that 10.1 miles per gallon-environmentally, in some cases, and financially, in others). I judge any vehicle by who it is aimed at, what the vehicle is meant to do, and whether target buyers will be happy with their purchase.

So.. the "intended target buyer" is. what, the completely fucking insane?

I'd like to discuss the issue of product reviews. We've already seen in the past that companies deliberately generate false praise for their stuff- the most recent examples are movie studios, which have been caught doing everything from bribing people to talk loudly on elevators about how great the movie they just saw was, to actually fabricating movie critics to write generous reviews of The Animal to cover up the fact that it was a film that would make Wednesday's Victoria's Secret televised runway show look like a PBS pledge drive airing of the historical analysis of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

But this is, to the best of my reasoning, the most blatant case of a reviewer obviously being in the pocket of the company he's reviewing. I mean, how in the name of PBS-sponsored Christ can a legitimate "authority" on automobiles say that a 10-MPG stripped-down version of military equipment be a "practical" and "every-day family driver?" This car wouldn't be even practical for the family if you lived in an Israeli settlement!

So my question basically boils down to this: is this guy being bribed, is he completely insane, or have we just reached a point in American society when a 7,000-pound APC is considered the practical addition to the American family? Because frankly, with a guy promoting a detriment to all life like this false-sense-of-a-large-penis monstrosity, the only hummers we should know about are the ones coming with soldiers to arrest this guy, and the one hummer this reviewer is obviouly getting from the General Motors Corporation.
 

 
Newest comic posted- "The Military Intelligence Overload." Read. Vote. Hit on me. Make me your idol.

I think it basically sums up my general reaction to when I read the actual story. Our opulent canine compadre Gunther was head-wrenching because of the sheer absurdity. The army's latest moral move just makes your brain vibrate until it dies.

There's absolutely no excuse for this, although lame ones are being formulated, the most common (and most stupid) of which is that "this wasn't an issue about homosexuality, but about following policy." Boy oh boy, the government sure does love policy, doesn't it. Like making sure proper funding is always getting to women's health organizations. And prosecuting corporate criminals to the fullest extent of the law. And allowing statewide vote recounts to continue.

With that in mind, here's the latest story about the military and its latest defense of policy. A short excerpt:

A divided, reluctant federal appeals court denied claims Tuesday by World War II and Korean War veterans who said the government reneged on a promise to provide free lifetime health care if they stayed in the service for 20 years.

Although the government conceded military recruiters made the promises, the Defense Department convinced the court there was no valid contract because the assurances were not backed up by law.

Even the judges in the majority acknowledged they were uncomfortable with the ruling, writing that they "can do no more than hope Congress will make good on the promises made in good faith" to soldiers entering the service between 1941 and 1956.

"No valid contract because the assurances were not back by law." Now, I'm not a great legal analyst or anything, nor, as I stated earlier, do I have a strong background in "following military policy," but it seems to me that's a fancy way of saying the Army lied its ass off. So, let's hear it for following policy, because that's always what's important.
 

 

Gah! Call off the dogs!

Okay, so I messed up. DARPA has been around forever, in fact it's related to ARPAnet, which is of course the precursor to that thing Al Gore never claimed to invent. The new office is the IAO, which, although different in name, is still evil. Thank you to the eight million people who caught the error.
 

 

Ah, the saving stalwarts of the left-leaning party

Congress spent just a few short hours last week voting to create the biggest new federal bureaucracy since World War II, not that the media or even most members of Congress paid much attention to the process. Yet our most basic freedoms as Americans - privacy in our homes, persons, and possessions; confidentiality in our financial and medical affairs; openness in our conversations, telephone, and internet use; unfettered travel; indeed the basic freedom not to be monitored as we go through our daily lives - have been dramatically changed.

The list of dangerous and unconstitutional powers granted to the new Homeland Security department is lengthy. Warrantless searches, forced vaccinations of whole communities, federal neighborhood snitch programs, federal information databases, and a sinister new "Information Awareness Office" at the Pentagon that uses military intelligence to spy on domestic citizens are just a few of the troubling aspects of the new legislation.

Finally, a somewhat-rational voice of opposition. What high-ranking Democrat took the risk to actually stand up publicly against the Homeland Security Bill?

Update: It's called IRONY, people! I can SEE the damn "R" right at the top of the page! NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND ME. Soon you will all face my wrath and kneel before ZIM!
 

 

Eep.

For all interested, here's the home page for DARPA, the newly created security office that allows the government to essentially know anything they want about you and what you do online for any reason at all. And here's a brief bio of John Poindexter, the head of the department, who just also happens to be the co-conspirator of Iran-Contra who was convicted of subverting the Constitution. Apparently, Poindexter met the rigorous qualifications of being the worst possible person alive today to have this amount of power.

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.
 

 

Missing the last flight out of Blatantly Obvious

The final results of the Homeland Security Bill gave the following to the Democrats: nothing. They didn't get the Republican pork amendments scrapped, they didn't get the union rights, they didn't get the independent September 11th review panel. In fact, one could arguably say that the Democrats were completely ignored and/or defeated on every aspect of a bill that causes the greatest direct effect on the centralization of government in over 50 years, and that it should go without saying that at the very least they should have blocked it for the year as a sign of their anger towards its approval with virtually no regards for their opinion.

So, naturally, the Democrats voted en masse, 90-9, to approve the bill. Well of course they did.
 

 

Eeeeeexcellent.

Reader Scott.... just Scott, apparently... informs me that the most devious and influential of all political pundits that is the political cartoonist has already taken the "San Francicso LiberalT sure seems to be used a lot suddenly" ball and run with it.

Sadly, other reader Fred "I include a last name in my e-mails" Frost also informs me:

The "San Francisco Liberal" has already caved; appointing a right leaning assistant, supporting George's homeland security bill, and has said she would support George in his war on Iraq.

A Democrat appointing right-wingers and supporting aggressive military foreign policy? Who does this liberal think she is, Bill Clinton?
 

 

Oh, what the hell, let's stay in Blatantly Obvious an extra night

A secret appeals court has just ruled that the government can perform secret actions under the USA Patriot Act. Well, of course it did.
 

 

And now, another visit to the small town of Blatantly Obvious

John Ashcroft and Bob Barr support legislation that allows Al-Qaeda to have easy access to American firearms. Well, of course they do.
 

 

Foaming scared

The Daily Howler ran a great piece about the recent new additions to the right-wing spin machine, the most prominent of which is the drive to destroy the mainstream credibility of Nancy Pelosi, the new Congressional Minority Leader who replaced Dick Gephardt last week.

That's right. As of this writing, Pelosi has held the job for five days, and already she has been given her own trendy epithet- San Francisco LiberalT. My personal plan is that any time someone writes or mentions that term, we add the little trademark sign to the end to remind everyone that it's a slogan already used so often it's under the de-facto ownership of the Republican Party.

Now, I know that like most other politicians, Pelosi is made to look by the opposition as the worst-case scenario. The difference between the Left and the Right doing this, it seems, is that the Right actually does a lot of these nightmare cases. For example, John Ashcroft really did completely subvert the Constitution to follow his own insane moral fundamentalist ideology. In the 2000 election, we are told that George Bush, if elected, will befoul the environment and further the disparity between rich and poor as a long series of personal favors to friends of his and Cheney's in the oil and energy business. Al Gore would, according to the RNC, outlaw all forms of login equipment before outlawing the right to bear arms while creating special all-homosexual army corps officers. Guess which scenario was proven to be more believable?

As I said before, I've never "underestimated" Bush, as the pundits are babbling ever since the last election. I don't call it "underestimating" someone when they've pretty much done everything I expected them to do.

So it seems very interesting that the drive to destroy Pelosi is very similar to the liberal opposition to John Ashcroft's nomination in 2001. Instead of the nightmare scenarios and record-touting that was given with Ashcroft's hearings, however, Pelosi has become the target of the constant epithet Republicans like to use as their political N-word, with an extra location-related reminder to go: she's a dirty, filthy, Godless San Francisco LiberalT.

In the attacks, the most constant attempts at humor are made by those who give the now-tired line about how (giggle) "thankful" they are that Pelosi became Minority Leader because "it means the Democratic move to the left will make it even better for Republicans." They don't seem to say in their little giggles that this will only work by using the San Francisco LiberalT card. The truth is, I think they're doing the same thing that the Left did with Ashcroft. I think, deep down, they're actually worried Pelosi might make their lives difficult, and that she might be a legitimately tough political leader. It gives me a slight bit of hope for the Democrats, but not much.
 

 

Example, Pt.2

Tom Daschle is criticizing the "compromise" Homeland Security plan I talked about before:

Democrats complained that Republicans stuffed provisions into the homeland security bill limiting liability for producers of the smallpox vaccine and makers of high technology airport screening equipment, as well as for many private airport security companies.

It also has vaguely worded language that would make Texas A&M University eligible for federal homeland security research - a provision inserted by Rep. Tom DeLay, whose district is nearby.

The bill would allow commercial airline pilots to carry guns in cockpits, and give airports a one-year delay in the Dec. 31 deadline to install explosive detection systems to screen all checked baggage. It would also let the new agency sign contracts with U.S. companies that have relocated abroad.

Pork-barrel contracts for Republican districts! Guns in planes! Foreign contracts for Federal labor! Wow! I can't believe they didn't just go for the whole shebang and just put the cloning ban and drilling contract for Alaska in there! Now, is Daschle actually going to try and block this? Of course he isn't. Because, you see, Tom Daschle simply does not have a penis.

-----------

I was involved in a conversation earlier about the accusations that this would all still be happening under a Democratic administration. Of course, I disagree, but not completely.

Granted it's ludicrous to suggest the Democrats aren't as self-serving and greedy in regards to self-preservation as the Republicans, but the idea that the GOP would allow a Democrat administration to make this department even remotely similar to its current inception is close to impossible.

This is, without a doubt, one of the broadest attempts in recent history at recentering Federal power to the hands of the Executive and its direct cabinet, and if a Democrat president tried to do this a Republican leadership team would attack almost as fast as the GOP did with their outrage over the attempt to partially-federalize health care ten years ago.

Now that Republicans control the government, they suddenly don't seem so upset about massive big-government control; you can't expect me to believe that their opinions would still be this way if they didn't have a popular pseudo-wartime president.

I agree that post-9/11 the DNC would suggest a homeland security department... oh, wait... they sort of did that first anyway. But a President Gore would not have had appointed an Attorney General as psychotically obsessed with crippling "immoral" liberties to recommend the vast abuses of personal privacy accounted for in this current version. Gore and Lieberman were obsessed with censoring the entertainment media; Bush wants to hear nothing bad from the press. There's a big difference there.

Nor would he have decided a week after the attacks that his close friend-slash-Republican governor of Pennsylvania-slash second choice for VP suddenly met all the qualifications to head the department without the need of an oversight committee. Imagine if you will Gore telling the Republican Party that Catherine Townsend suddenly had partial control over the Coast Guard and the INS. The collective head explosions would have set off sprinkler systems.

This is not to say Gore's a saint. (I'd say he's more like a monk.) As mentioned before, a DNC-created OHS would definitely have concessions to labor and I'm sure there would be a lot for the trial lawyers, plus an equal interest in Democratic pork projects. But I will stick the the belief that the inherent moral base of the party wouldn't have included such open power at the hands of the government simply on the understanding that the GOP could, and would, block it anyway.

To be fair, I didn't support Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts either. Painful as it is to agree with the Republicans, it's hard to forgive the near-fact that Clinton had an aspirin factory bombed because he got caught getting a blowjob.

But far from just that, we now have an administration so intent on complete control of everything that we've placed the power of monitoring the truth and justice of all Americans into the hands of a man who is most famous for lying to Congress.

Why do I not feel safer? The reason is simple: because despite all these new attempts to technologically and futuristically "protect freedom," we're not one shred safer while we're allowing half the world to suffer as a cost of our self-luxury and false senses of security.

I watched the Twin Towers fall from twelve or so blocks away, and it didn't raise my desire to give up my basic daily life to pretend that this couldn't happen again. If anything, it made me realize that our bloated, high-tech defense system was useless in the face of someone who had the will to kidnap a few hundred people and use them and their plane as a weapon.

The truth is, most Americans, like most humans, just want to live normal lives. I want my future kids to be healthy and have a good education. Scrapping the health care and education budgets to make way for more nuclear submarines isn't making me feel better.

Terrorists like Al-Quaeda don't want to "destroy America" except in the way that I want to "win the lottery-" it's a want that they acknowledge is near-unobtainable. They want to get the U.S. the hell out of their business so they can... get this... live what they call "normal lives" as well. The fact that they're killing themselves to perform these acts implies that they're not really in it for themselves... like us, they want what they consider to be a better hope for their children, however obscene that consideration may be.

On both sides, all we're giving is less. We need to alter the potential for "normal" lives in the impoverished areas of the world, and we can't do that by destroying and sanctioning them- all it does is give credence to the despotic leaders who have an instant excuse for their despotic leadership. Likewise, we can't create a society that perpetuates fear as a means of regulation... something that is rapidly happening right now in the United States.

This advance in technology is NOT going to help us. A few dozen guys from the poorest region of the planet caused thousands of lives and billions in damage. A lone nutcase with a gun causes massive fear and death. A single lunatic in a shack with no electricity kills people with mail bombs and we only catch him because a family member turns him in. I'm sorry to have such pragmatism, but it feels like the only effect new technology is going to have is an even worse feeling when the next person gets past it. The only infallible system is one that prevents the bugs from being created in the first place.
 

 

I'm very frightened with myself

There is a scary feeling when you realize that you have less in common views with the president of the United States as you do with a right-wing psychotic demagogue like pat Buchanan, but I'm got to confess this is hardly the first time I've suddenly found myself realizing that I agree completely with his ideals, albeit not his methods. It's kind of funny, really. I did those political analytical tests in 2000 that looked at your moral beliefs and compared them to the presidential candidates, and Buchanan was actually high up on the list. The only politician who I have less in common with ideologically than George W. Bush, by the way, is Alan Keyes. Considering the fact that Keyes is without question completely insane, this can explain why I and so many others are frightened out of our minds about the current White House Resident.

It's an interesting paradox. For example, I have a mutual agreement with Buchanan that NAFTA is one of the stupidest government policies in human history. It's just our reasons that are completely different: I am against the blatant exploitation of foreign labor and destruction of American jobs, and Pat Buchanan just hates brown people.

So it's only party scary when I openly say that Buchanan's recent opinion column in USA Today speaking out against the war in Iraq is, all differences aside, very well-written. Of course, the article eliminates the difference in our reasons again: I am against the war because I simply don't want to kill countless foreign and domestic soldiers for the purpose of fueling (pun intended) corporate interests, and Pat Buchanan... just hates brown people. You see, my only doubt lies in the belief that amidst this hatred of fundamental Islam and the desire to leave it alone, Buchanan secretly desires a country eqaul in religious control as the former Afghanistan.

In the long run, I think it strengthens myself as a liberal to admit sharing viewpoints with conservatives. Though I'll make it perfectly clear- I only seem to think Pat Buchanan is a reasonable and intelligent guy when he's not being a psychotic, right-wing, racist, bible-thumping hyper-isolationist-Nationalist neo-Nazi. which, of course, is what he is most of the time. Rest assured you're never going to see me linking to his opinions on the Pledge of Allegiance.
 

 

Early assault on the feedback

I've got a bunch of other things to write about before the week is out, but I'm out of time for now so I'll just satiate the demand for new content by addressing a few recurring themes in the e-mail this week.

First of all, thank you to all who wrote to congratulate me on hitting the Top 20 in the PlanetCartoonist list. The presence of a banner ad on the list page will hopefully get me some more traffic, and anything that can progress my dream of Somehow Getting Paid For ThisT is perfectly fine by me.

Second, I was going to ignore the big stupid historical inaccuracy in this week's comic, but I guess since a reader caught me on it I'll point it out: keen eye award to Scott for reminding us all that the Republican Party could not have possibly been working to solve America's non-existent problems for over 200 years because the Party, of course, was first founded on a national level in 1856. As I explained to Scott, my figuring was that if I actually put down "for nearly 150 years" in the comic instead of "over 200 years" (implying the relative age of the country itself) then I'd get even more letters of "huh?" So, perhaps checking the archive later in life you might see the text altered. rest assured you are not going insane.

But speaking of going insane, the dog. Well, I certainly did not expect that much enthusiasm towards the story of Gunther IV, but apparently a lot of readers took the What-the-Blankety-Hell ball and ran with it on this one. I'm still sifting through the decent load of e-mails about Gunther, most of which either question or claim to provide evidence that this story is a complete fabrication.

Fabrication, possibly; hoax, maybe; falsehood, no. Since a lot of you are interested, here's some stuff I've got on Gunther that hopefully will address a few of your claims.

To start, the biggest problem in confirmation of the Gunther paradigm is the sheer lack of solid factual evidence to the claims. Gunther, as well as the Burgundians, as well as the money, undoubtedly exists. However, a few readers have sent me various stories claiming that the countess who left her fortune to Gunther did not exist. Even more will point out what I already noticed on my own: that the alleged "musical group" that is the Burgundians has no released album, nor have they ever made public performances. The Burgundians and Gunther are, therefore, equal in cultural factuality as Scooby-Doo and the Mystery Gang.

Then there is BowLab, an Italian site that a reader semi-translated to address even more stories of the alleged magic and wonder that is Gunther. Again, references to Countess Carlotta, who has yet to be proven ever existed. The likely belief is that someone is setting us all up for a fantastic premise for a TV series or movie about this dog and his photogenic compatriots.

The fly in the alleged-hoax ointment is that the one thing that apparently does exist without debate is the money. According to some sources, no significant records indicate the actual legal existence of Gunther's benefactor, however the problem arises that no evidence has surfaced to prove she never existed either. The fact remains that somewhere, somehow, a group of five people and a dog are living under the most lavish of financial circumstances, and without any evidence relegating to anything, the mere fact that this damn animal has made numerous public appearances with said Burgundians and said bankroll in tow forces one to have no choice but to take the dog's (or more accurately the dog's corporation's) word for it.

Madonna herself (okay, well technically her lawyers, I'm sure) acknowledges the sale of her Villa to the Gunther Corporation. The question is the exact veracity of the dog as the figurehead and the true story of the Countess who left her fortune to him. which again, is still in question. Someone out there is willing to put up over $150 million to make us believe this, which just make the entire thing that much more strange.

In other words, we have a somewhat modern-day Count of Monte Cristo situation- all of these stories seem to be after-the-fact that the wealth that fuels the Gunther rocket is there. If this story is a complete fabrication, it's well on its way to being one of the best (and most expensive) publicity stunts of all time, spanning three or four countries, acquiring four or five corporate names and website affiliations, and spanning over four years and counting.

In conclusion, we are left with a story that is even more confusing and annoying than before. Frankly, I'd live a perfectly healthy and happy life never hearing about this damn dog again. I would also, however, live a perfectly healthy and happy life with three half-naked blonde women and $150 million, so if any of you who still care about this story come up with a simply scheme to get a piece of the Gunther pie, that you can let me know about.

Finally, Étienne Chenier sends me this story about how the U.S. government is cracking down on the violent, threatening terrorism. of Canadian with a gun. Apparently anyone who's not an American is considered a threat to national security when he's got a firearm. So the American government has decided that the best way to handle the obvious simple confusion in cross-border policy that entails this guy's arrest is, of course, to procedurally destroy his life. Enjoy.
 

 
Newest comic posted - "The Democrats lost to this?"

You will hopefully read. You will hopefully enjoy. You will hopefully notice that I am within 100 votes from hitting the Top 20 in the Editorial Cartoon rankings and take the hint.

Update: I AM THE GOD OF ALL CREATION! Thanks to all who vote. Now keep doing it.
 

 

Red plus blue makes clear, I guess

Liberal concern meets conservative magazine and gets something amazingly informative, asthetic, and unbiased in this analysis of basic global citizen's rights. The striking report of the potential abuses of pow