June 11, 2004
Golly, that Limbaugh sure is a slut, isn't he. Anyone wanna take bets on how fewer names and labels Limbaugh is going to be given than, say, Jennifer Lopez? Yeah, I know, complete difference. After all, Limbaugh isn't a whore.
Yep. Simple as that.
Delving into the farest reaches of madness where hell hath no name
World 'O Crap started a project where it analyzes each day's Family Circus strip. It's beyond brilliant.
June 10, 2004
"Because Democracy is too important to leave to chance"
Jeff at Notes on the Atrocities posts a couple of mock-ups for Diebold's next PR campaign. Go say hi.
June 9, 2004
Merchandise Preview Sellout Extravaganza
The new R.C. and Overboard skull logo pins- 1" as seen by the quarter size comparison.
The pins will premiere at my table at the MoCCA Festival, with excess to be sold online in some way or another.
Coming soon: new stickers and the aforementioned book(let).
When you can't recall, you might just need more BRAAAIIIINNNNNNS
Brilliant. (via MeFi)
For godsakes, get help
The State Department is scrambling to revise its annual report on global terrorism to acknowledge that it understated the number of deadly attacks in 2003, amid charges that the document is inaccurate and was politically manipulated by the Bush administration.A personal story, if I may.
When the most recent "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report was issued April 29, senior Bush administration officials immediately hailed it as objective proof that they were winning the war on terrorism. The report is considered the authoritative yardstick of the prevalence of terrorist activity around the world.
[Henry] Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, told Powell that the number of significant terrorist attacks since 2001 hasn't declined as the department claimed, but risen by more than 35%. And he cited an analysis by two independent experts who used figures provided by the State Department report in concluding that significant attacks actually had reached a 20-year high in 2003.
For example, the State Department report listed 190 terrorist attacks in 2003, including 169 "significant" ones. But Waxman said a review showed the report stopped counting terrorist incidents on Nov. 11, leaving out several major attacks, including bombings of two synagogues, a bank and the British Consulate in Turkey that killed 62 and injured more than 700.
Waxman said a State Department official blamed the Nov. 11 cutoff on a printing deadline.
In two and a half weeks, I'm doing my first cartoonist's convention where I will be selling my own merchandise. I am going to be selling, among other things, a printed collection of my strips.
As I write this, it is 5:47 PM. Yesterday evening, I dropped a disk containing files of my strips off at Kinko's, in which the nice lady at the counter told me I can come by any time after 6:00 PM the next day to check the layout template. That is what I am going to be doing in thirteen minutes.
Assuming the layout is good, I am ordering two hundred copies of the book to be printed. Kinkos will print it, fold it, cut it, and bind it for me.
The books, they inform me, will be ready within 24-48 hours after I approve the template and pay them.
That in mind, the State Department, a branch of an administration run by a man who recently made excuses for falling off a bike because he didn't just want to admit- you know- he fucking fell off a bike, has explained that the reason a report on terrorism is the exact opposite of the... whaddaya call it... oh, right, truth is because the cutoff to print a report in April was mid-November.
We are supposed to believe this.
June 8, 2004
Mikhaela has a great roundup of the Reagan coverage, which I came across after she expressed suprise over how low-key my tone towards Reagan was. This is basically a synopsis of what I told her:
I agree with Mikhaela, and a lot of other people, about all the horrible stuff Reagan was responsible for. My point as expressed in my previous post was more that the man who we "hate" for doing all this pretty much died a decade ago- Reagan's been a vegetable for ten years, and the only statements from his family about him have pretty much been from a wife who has begged Reagan's zealous disciples to fund stem cell research- something which, in the height of gall, some have gone as far as to reject on the grounds that "Ronald wouldn't have supported it." (You know someone has officially become a religious icon when strangers claim to know more about what he's thinking that his own family. Ten bucks on Dutch appearing in someone's waffles and advocating Bush's re-election by July.)
I can't really be mad at Reagan because I and so many others haven't really experienced Reagan... we've experienced the religion that is Reagan, and that's what I despise. The entire goal of the Reagan religion is to canonize him for his miracles of politics- which, as many have pointed out, are greatly based on complete bullshit. Reagan wasn't the most popular president in modern history. He ruined the economy. He ignored AIDS. He's pretty much responsible for the Taliban even existing in the first place.
But really, what's the point of decrying the individual person in this case? It was established before I was even born that he was never going to face retribution for his actions, and saying something like "I'm glad he's dead" is both facetious and pointless. Reagan isn't the person I've been pissed with for the last decade, his missionaries are. I said this about Thurmond when he died too:
Look, much as I thought I would when this eventually happened, I'm not going to say anything that gloats condescendingly about him being dead. Hell, I'd love to live to be 100. But you're not going to get me to pretend that I ever at any point in my life had a kind thought about him, and the fact that he's dead isn't going to make me pretend that's not how I felt.In some sense, I think the left should be generous in their respect to Nancy. It seems almost inevitable that Reagan's worshippers and Reagan's wife are going to find themselves at ever-increasing odds over what Ronald Reagan actually stood for- and more importantly, what he should be used to promote. We've already seen that conservatives could care less about Nancy's opinions on stem cell research, redesigning money, and so on. Much as I hate what Reagan did in his career, I'm not dancing for joy at the fact that Nancy now has to endure the arduous task of preventing the National Review types from jamming a pole up Reagan's ass and using him as their parade puppet. As they often say: Lord, protect me from your followers.
I'm not going to rejoice over someone's death. But I'll rejoice at every defeat, socially and legally, of the evils he helped inflict on this country that will occur in my lifetime. I am not the one who chose to leave a legacy of things that a more civilized, modern time realized are wrong, so I'm not going to feel shame for opposing what he did when he was alive just because he's not anymore.
He left a legacy that I largely hope to see destroyed, and I feel no shame for that.
Above the law
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.From today's news:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
President Bush, as commander-in-chief, is not restricted by U.S. and international laws barring torture, Bush administration lawyers stated in a March 2003 memorandum.
The 56-page memo to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited the president's "complete authority over the conduct of war," overriding international treaties such as a global treaty banning torture, the Geneva Conventions and a U.S. federal law against torture.
"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority," stated the memo, obtained by Reuters on Tuesday.
You know, you expected this to happen, and were all ready to be outraged about it, and then you can't even be. You're just too damn tired and too damn exhausted from enduring how little some Republicans and Bush supporters can actually care about this country. If you'd like to point out when, at any point in the last four years, the words "moment of tribute" came out of the President's mouth and didn't mean "campaign opportunity," you're welcome to send them to me.
Did anyone really expect that the right wing wouldn't do a grave-tap-dancing 180 from the Wellstone "outrage" once Reagan died? Why should I write the post about how angry I am? Insert obviousness here. The only thing more of a waste than trying to prevent the conservatives from getting away with it is trying to express our outrage and believing anyone with as large a hardon for Bush winning in November no matter what as the typical warblogger would care.
The right wingers are hypocrites, conservatives have proven that it was worth pissing on the grave of someone as noble as Paul Wellstone for a few extra points at the poles, John Cole is a spectacular douchebag, blah blah blah. Wake me when we didn't already know this.
June 7, 2004
We are sorry that our President is an idiot.
Well isn't that special
The Bush campaign also plans to stop airing a hard-hitting television commercial this week that assails Kerry on the Patriot Act. The spot had been widely criticized for taking liberties with Kerry's position on the legislation that expanded the government's surveillance and detention powers following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.In other words, Bush plans to honor Ronald Reagan by airing ads that don't smear Kerry as much as usual. How nice of him.
Instead of that ad, Bush will run a commercial that trumpets recent job growth under his administration and that jabs Kerry, calling him a pessimist on the economic turnaround.
The ad, which is far less critical of Kerry than other commercials, started running Monday on national cable networks but also will air in media markets in 19 battleground states.
By the way, I'm not sure how long they'll have this wonder up (I'll take a screenshot for future generations) but you might want to sit down in marvel at the Bush 2004 website right now and marvel at the president's concept of "not exploiting the dead." Jesus.
June 6, 2004
Reading != responding
Going through a busy month at the (paying) job while working on some projects for the (non-paying) work around here. So that's my catch-all answer to why I might not have responded to your e-mails. I've actually got some that are weeks old at this point that I really mean to mention and/or post on the site, but I'm just swamped and keep neglecting to do a Mailbag post. A few of you might have had e-mails lost in the void of a new spam filter I installed, but let's face it- if you're putting me on a mailing list or e-mailing me everyday with the frequency meriting my computer calling it spam, the problem's on your end, not mine.
Among the aforementioned projects is my participation at this year's MoCCA Festival, to be held in New York City in just under three weeks. Details on when, where, and what I'll be hawking (aside from the aura of my presence, of course. Yep) to follow sometime in the next week or so.