Art Challenge 1

On the comic fury boards there is an art challenge thread that I've decided to participate in. I'm a little behind so I'll post twice a week until caught up

Challenge One: The Masquerade Ball
- Draw your characters in formal attire fit for their world. Masks optional.

This is Flynn from Crawlers. Wearing the same kind of flowy garment the living king wears. It wasn't a huge stretch for design but I did stretch myself by painting it in Art Weaver instead of Gimp. 

Breaking the law for the right reasons

This is one of those things I was surprised I haven't written about it before. Torture isn't on the front page right now, but this speaks to something bigger.

When is it right to break the law?

I can think of a lot of scenerios where I would root for a law breaker. But my personal feelings should not be the  basis for when to apply the "rule of law". Oh now I need to explain that...
"The Rule of Law" is the idea that we must enforce the law even if it is wrong because once we stop enforcing the law it will be anarchy. I would agree but most of the time the phrase is being used selectively. Law enforcement tends to focus on petty infractions of the masses instead of reigning abuses of power. Republican politicians care an awful lot about the rule of law when it comes to immigration but not on torture or due process.
Let's focus on torture because it is something I have a different opinion on than most.
My grandfather was in WWII and he successfully tortured a man while other soldiers were having Germans surrender to them because we don't torture. I'm not sure what my grandfather did but he felt badly about it late into his life.
As I remember the story the position of my grandfather's camp kept being discovered after they would move (My grandfather was a grunt but because he spoke Polish a lot of his stories have an intelligence aspect). The unit captured a German and learned by torturing him that the British soldiers were giving away the position of the camp because they were breaking the no fire rule to make tea. They made a new rule to shoot at fire even if it was from within the camp.
My take on this story isn't that torture works. I think it worked because the prisoner thought my grandfather was crazy. You've heard of good cop bad cop? American soldiers had a reputation for being good so it must have freaked this guy out to be treated like that. Black was white, water was dry...an American tortured was torturing him.
Does this mean I support torture as long as it isn't "Official Policy"? Absolutely not. When the law is enforced with a nudge and a wink word gets out pretty quickly, especially today. It doesn't matter whether torture CAN work or not. We need to prosecute it.
We think of our soldiers, police, and firemen as heroes because they are willing to sacrifice their lives for the rest of us but it is unthinkable that they should go to jail. As a society we must prosecute law breakers, even when we agree with them.
If you are so sure torturing someone will stop a terrorist plot- be ready to go to jail for it. It's a risk-benefit calculation you'll have to make just like many Occupy protesters have made. And most notably Bradly Manning.
Manning is the soldier thought to have been behind a Wikileak. The leaked information included video of US soldiers firing at journalists in Iraq. This information was clearly leaked because it's wrong. And the person behind it felt strongly enough about it to risk his/her career and worse.
Manning has definitely faced the worse. He hasn't had a trial. He's kept in isolation and basically being treated like a terror suspect in Gitmo. This is where ignoring the rule of law gets you. The government breaking the law but in such small increments that it just becomes normal.

Atlas Shrugged

Shortly after high school two of my oldest friends were all about Ayn Rand in much the same way they were excited about Marx a few years before. Meaning it didn't last long. It was long enough that I read a couple of her books but I never got around to her most well known works The Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged. The latter is now a movie which I was able to pick up for free thanks to all these Red Box codes I have.

First as a movie I can sum it up in two words: Kinda Cheesy. The acting is wooden and the main character is a sort of Mary Sue, named Dagny. The plot is more like a water cooler joke than a plot twist. And the source material is obviously old because it doesn't seem to recognize innovations of the past fifty something years. Basically all I liked was the cinematography.

As a darling of conservative literature, in fact, a bible to some. I get it.  There is nothing elusive about the point Atlas Shrugged is pretty clear. If you know a little bit about Rand it is more extreme than you might think. Rand believes in the virtue of selfishness. There is some sense to this, it must be the prerogative of a business to make money. Steve Jobs wanted to have factories in the US but he couldn't figure out how to make money doing it.
Where I branch from conservatives is the counterpoint to the film. The villian of the movie is government regulation that attempts to make everything "fair". But it's just as easy to walk away with the lesson that it is corporate influence of government which is evil, because all the regulations that strangle these companies are passed because of one company trying to snuff out it's competition instead of innovating.
Ayn Rand is a guilty pleasure for many of her fans. The philosophy that rich people are our "heroes" because they are ruthless is a hard one to be sympathetic with because in arguing that everyone at the top is smarter and works harder there is a heavy implication that those who have not succeeded are lazy and stupid. I haven't read the book so I don't know how heavily it's implied,  but there's more.
 Social Conservatives would probably not be big fans of Atlas Shrugged as a philosophy lesson. A married man having an affair is something that happens in both literature and life. But when it happens in Atlas Shrugged it is Rand's ham handed philosophy at work. The virtue of selfishness extends even to interpersonal relationships in Rand's eyes and an affair is perfectly legitimate (Unless it's Rand's lover with a younger prettier woman from what I understand).
And finally history is against Atlas Shrugged. Published in 1957 Atlas Shrugged has had the problem of technology surpassing it. The plot revolves around a metal that is ten times lighter and stronger than steel. We have those metals now and they were developed by the government that Rand's followers constantly put down. As I've said before, most of the innovations our economy are based on came from tax payer money.

It isn't that Rand fails as a philosopher, she's given us an interesting perspective on the world, and that is all we should expect of her. The problem is when philosophers gain acolytes, who take the philosophy too literally. Yes there are pragmatic benefits to being selfish. But there are also consequences. That is why the government is supposed to administer justice. So business people can push the envelope and Feds can reign them in. The problem we face now is that the people haven't reigned in the government. Selfishness of the government is tyranny.

Who are the 1%

Besides the fact that "We are the 99%" is fairly vague, there are people invested in twisting the meaning (many of them are our elected officials). The most heinous example is the meme that 1% of citizens join the armed forces. It became obvious that the Occupy Movement isn't an anti-military movement when shortly after the meme came out a marine was nearly killed by Oakland PD.
Who are the 1% being protested against then? Technically it's the people making  $380,354 or more a year. But in practical terms 95% of that top percent are not the problem. The Occupy movement is a direct response to the Citizens United ruling, so it isn't the fact that people make too much money. The Occupy movement is against using big piles of money to manipulate the political system. Only .05% do this so "We are the 99%" is a misnomer.
If rich people stuck to buying yachts and creating jobs there wouldn't be any beef with them. Think about that image in your mind of an Occupier. Does s/he have a hacky sack and a drum? What would they do with more money? This is clearly not a jealousy thing.
Seriously though the people being protested against are the aggressors. They have taken more than their fair share and fix the game so no one else can play. And they are in defensible. Most of the people we are talking about are not job creators. They are speculators. It is not healthy for the economy to create incentives to be part of this group because their wealth is the most susceptible to bubbles.
The 1% was hardest hit by the recession because their wealth is mostly smoke and mirrors. Their investments are numbers games without substance. When the bottom fell out of the economy many of them were underwater like any other american. Banks have more private jets and yachts to repossess than they know what to do with.
And that is the cost to the 99%. When a rich person fails the bank doesn't even want to deal with their property. Either they have lawyers that keep the assets tied up or the ticket price is so high that the bank doesn't want to bother trying to find a buyer for the liquidation (because they're unwilling to sell it for the amount it's actually worth without hurting the value of neighboring properties). So the banks recoup their loss by going after the middle class or what little the lower class have.
It's class warfare because the 99% are tired of having the bad decisions of the .05% being taken out on them.

Constitutional Challenge: the war on drugs

My wife has been watching Breaking Bad and there is a scene where the main character Walter is talking to his brother about Cuban cigars and how arbitrary the line is between legal and illegal. For some reason this scene threw some fuel to my passion against the war on drugs.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about how a legal challenge to the drug war would go (because it's remotely possible that I will not be elected to congress). This may seem like an unlikely way to attack the war on drugs but people forget how much change Ralph Nader made as a citizen with a pack of like minded lawyers.
This is the approach I would take if I had a pack of like minded lawyers who would know if I am actually on to something here or not.
For the sake of the article I am only arguing for the legalization of marijuana because it clearly doesn't pose any public health risk outside of the fact that it is illegal/controlled by criminals. If precedence is set legalizing other substances can also be tested in court.

Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed. 
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

A while ago I had the idea that the 21st amendment should be applied to the war on drugs. But when I reread it I realized that it doesn't repeal prohibition as I remembered, it repealed the 18th amendment.

Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished. 
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Looking at the 18th amendment it is clearly Abolishing alcohol. I fail to see how I could make a convincing argument that it also should also apply to the prohibition of marijuana. But then I realized the argument shouldn't be made on the 21st amendment but on the existence of the 18th

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I was always told in Social Studies that the 21st amendment is the only amendment to overturn another, but it could be argued that the reason for the 18th amendment was passed to allow an exclusion to the limit of federal powers placed by the the 10th amendment. If prohibition was allowed by the exception of interstate commerce than why was it passed as an amendment?

If this ruling was passed in favor of my argument this would set drug policy back down to state level.  Or that is my non lawyer understanding of it.

National Debt

I wasn't sure how to open a comic about National Debt to people who are not really into politics. I've been stuck on it for a very long time and I finally decided just to write what I was feeling the one day and hope it resonates as on topic http://www.nilvsdcbs.com/nationaldebt.html

CRAWLERS Angry birds that are also bears

Angry birds that are also bears

Arrrrr de media

As someone who has wanted to be a comic artist for their entire life, I know a thing or two about copyright law and intellectual property. So I was a little infuriated when I received this e-mail

Dear Mr. Ladendorf,
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding S. 968, Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act and H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act.  I sincerely appreciate the benefit of your views.
S. 968, and its House companion bill H.R. 3261, would allow the Attorney General to bring additional judicial remedies against websites dedicated to intellectual property right infringement.  It would enable the Department of Homeland Security to share information which would facilitate the prosecution of copyright infringers existing outside the United States or which cannot be located.  The measure would also grant limited immunity to victims of property right infringement to take preventative actions against infringing entities, such as denying them access to services.  I will closely monitor this bill as it moves through the legislative process and in that context your views are very helpful.
I am a strong believer in protecting property rights, including intellectual property rights.  The internet has unfortunately made it easier for certain types of intellectual property to be stolen by persons in jurisdictions outside the reach of American law enforcement.  I also have concerns about the proliferation of criminal conduct on the internet, including internet viruses which can steal information or damage equipment.  However, I want to stress that I am very sensitive to concerns about personal privacy, especially when the entity invading a person's privacy is the government.  We should uphold the law, but I do not want to impose unforeseen burdens on the internet which could stifle the growth of the internet medium.
Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue.  Hearing the views of all Missourians gives me the opportunity to better understand how important issues could impact the people of the Seventh district and the future interests of the nation.
For additional information regarding current legislation and my representation of the Seventh District, I invite you to visit my website at http://www.long.house.gov, and to receive my monthly newsletter, you can sign up on mywebsite.


Sincerely, Billy LongMember of Congress

This stance by Mr. Long is predictable because of his consistant genuflecting toward big business. This letter is misguided and misleading. This law does not protect business it gives them a nuclear option. Here are a list of my concerns


- The piracy threat is over stated. The music industry and others site how much they've lost to piracy based on how much material is being downloaded- not considering once that the people downloading media for free would have never paid for the media in the first place. Someone with a hundred thousand songs on their computer is unlikely to have bought 100,000 albums. And frankly the reason iTunes has done so well is because it's reasonably priced. The music industry has been ripping off the public for a long time and a very little portion of the price of an album goes to the artist.


-Intellectual property law insists on aggressive defense of property or it will fall into public domain. Because of how powerful SOPA is, it could very well FORCE BUSINESSES TO ATTACK THEIR CUSTOMERS who want to express their love for Properties by creating fan works.


-This letter's claim that SOPA would "allow the Attorney General to bring additional judicial remedies against websites dedicated to intellectual property right infringement" doesn't seem to be true. It seems like it will be used (or FORCE BUSINESSES to be used) to shut down sites dedicated to user content. The language of the bill is so broad it could shut down youtube because there are too many cover songs on it.

-Intellectual copyright law is used in a one sided manner. Companies that are built around media tend to misinform the public about what rights they have. An example is blurred out t-shirt logos on documentaries. That is fair use there is no reason to do it but film makers are so afraid of being sued it doesn't matter that they are actually PROTECTED by intellectual rights laws. 
SOPA is frightening if you consider the way it is likely to be administered. Through search engines. How many people are going to face prosecution or have their business shut down because someone saw their image posted on a website without taking the time to see the context? If I'm writing a review of a book I am legally allowed to use the cover image because I am using it to create a new work.
There was a case famous in the comic community where a PARODY of the Starbucks logo was featured in a comic book that included the words "Corporate Whore". Starbucks sued and now the creator of the comic book is not allowed to make ANY LOGO THAT CONTAINS BOTH A CIRCLE AND A TRIANGLE.
That is not justice. That is abuse of power and it goes one every day. I can not go into a Kinkos and make copies of an image from a book even though by law I can make up to six copies. 100 if it's for teaching material.


-Lastly, from my understanding, SOPA is another attack on Habeus Corpus. The language I have seen implies that the Attorney General and Homeland Security have all these new powers without the requiring a trial first. The government can shut down someone's source of income without due process.
This will kill smaller media companies who don't have as much influence and will fall prey to the bigger companies who can afford a team of lawyers that specialize in using the government as a weapon as a way to kill their competition in the crib. Before they become real competition.

Why aren't Debates done in brackets?

On the news that Donald Trump's debate is off and Colbert is now planning a debate, thought I should talk about something that seems like common sense to me but seems to evade the main stream media.
Why can't we have primary debates be a series of one on one brackets?

Let's assume it's because they are incompetent not because of a conspiracy, at least for the sake of this blog.
Let's assume that the 24 hour news stations actually care about informing the public.

The best way to do that would be to have, not one debate, but a series of debates. Invite all of the candidates and randomly pair them up.  give each pair a set amount of time. Audience votes for who wins each round. Half are eliminated. The other half keep going. You could even have the losers of the first round have their own division (wild card) and the winner of each division can then debate each other.
abracadabra everyone gets equal time. None of the drama. None of the favoritism. If each round gets the same questions there isn't any softballs.

It seems extremely strange that a sports obsessed culture wouldn't use this method as the default. It seems obvious to me and I don't care for sports, at all.


PS
The graphic above I randomly wrote down ten candidates. Then I used a dice rolling ap with two ten sided dice. Used the rolls for that  to pick which two candidates would be together. Then for the eight remaining I used an eight sided and so on until all the candidates were paired up.

Us against them (rant/draft)

Frustrated with current events but I only have half an idea here. This blog has been more cartoonist than political lately or I wouldn't even post it:

There are two disturbing possibilities about the recent vote on Defense Authorization Act. If you are not familiar, this is the law that takes away "innocent until proven guilty" if you are an American citizen accused of terrorism. Many Democrats like my own Senator Claire McCaskill voted for it though it seems exactly the kind of thing she  would have been critical of if Bush was in office... anyways two disturbing possibilities for why Democrats voted for it:

1. That Senate Democrats will vote for anything to keep from looking weak.
It goes something like this "I know Obama will veto it. So it's okay that I vote for something horrible that will make me look strong on national defense."
The flaw in this thinking is that somehow being a weak coward will make you look strong. The problem is that support for it gives it momentum. If the bill gets enough momentum it could either accidentally become veto proof (super majority) or the bill become misinterpreted as popular and dissolves the will of The President.

2. It isn't one side of the aisle against the other- it's us against them.
If the Democrats in the senate are not really bad at strategy. Then it means that they are not actually worried that a Republican will come in next fall (or later) and abuse the law. They say they are worried about this scenario, but we can not assume this is true by their actions.
It is hard to believe any adult would gamble that one party or another will stay in power for a significant amount of time. Even with the lackluster selection of Republican candidates, Obama is far from unbeatable. Between the weak economy and the ability of unflattering information going viral-
 polls are extremely volatile.
We are being told by both sides that the other side is going ruin this country. If they really believed that why would they pass laws to make it easier to ruin the country, when they know the elections could go either way?  The answer is that they are liars. Either the feud is a fraud and they know that things will not change much based on election results, or the concern is just a way to coerce. The latter means that they know how much damage can be done, but are betting that they are immune to it and screw the rest of us.

Okay it's not that I entirely believe that these are the only two explanations but when the Senate is passing resolutions to congratulate the Cardinals for winning the world series- WTF? I don't even understand why they are bothering with this right now. Are we that worried that a potential terrorist will get a fair trial? Do they have secret information they can't share with us? Or is this an existential threat like the extraterrestrial exposure law (a flawed comparison but I'm going with it anyway).

CRAWLERS double feature part 2

Sgt. Cletus

CRAWLERS double feature part 1

Had computer problems over thanksgiving weekend so today is a double feature




wearing down defenses

NYPD legitimatizes OWS

When I was a boy my father would tell me never let another person to get you upset. When you let them do that to you, you are giving your power to them. In that moment they win. It was the first thing I thought of when I watched this:

Occupy Wall Street Evicted in Late Night Raid; Lawyers Secure Injunction to Reopen Zuccotti Park

Checkmate. From day one of Occupy Wall Street there has been a question as to whether the group stands for anything or will be considered legitimate. The NYPD just answered that question.
If these protests didn't matter the NYPD wouldn't have been ordered to evict them in the middle of the night and there wouldn't have been a media black out. By doing this they have legitimized the movement.
I've lived in the city (well Chicago) and I've been involved with protests (like this one) and they really aren't much more than an annoyance. It's like an influx of pigeons or perhaps more accurately homeless. I've scene a Dave Mathews concert shut down the city much more effectively than any protests.
If there was no threat to the statuesque, politicians would be talking about how this strengthens our democracy, and then sending police protection down there to occupy the occupation (while busting hippies for possession, urinating in public, and whatever other incidental thing they can get away with). Politicians get re-elected.
But the NYPD attack on the freedom to assemble prove that the order came from a position of fear. If they really wanted to clear people out put up a 30 day notice on all tents. evict them legally. Sending in the storm troopers only proves that someone in authority sees them as a threat. It's especially stupid when you consider that OWS became a world wide phenomenon the last time NYPD overstepped.
Thank you NYPD.

CRAWLERS Second Entrance

Second entrance

CRAWLERS exposition...

exposition...

CRAWLERS big spenders

Big spenders

The results are in

To generate some new ideas I asked Facebook "If someone knocks on your saying they are running for office what's the first question you'd ask them?"
Here are my responses to the questions i didn't feel like I've really addressed before

Who's handling your compliance?
Currently I am handling everything myself. Which means I am doing a lot of things that don't play to my strengths.

Why are you running for office?
I'm not seeing things get significantly better and I think it is because we've been hearing the same old ideas shout over any new ideas. I have lots of new ideas and so I see it as civic responsibility to run.

What office are you running for?
I have to see how I'm redistricted but for the purposes of this survey I am running for state legislature (aka MO House) but officially I am still running for US Congress.

How are you planning on fixing the problems?
My overall philosophy is to break up the concentration of power. I'm all for people getting rich but that should not give them significantly more power than other individuals.

Where do you stand on legalizing marijuana ?
I have a several tiered plan for legalizing marijuana in Missouri. The basic theory is that the 10th amendment of the US Constitution prevents the federal government from interfering with anything that isn't affected by interstate commerce. If we register the DNA of plants grown in Missouri and make sure those plants can not cross state lines the DEA should have no jurisdiction.
I plan on getting this passed by appealing to conservatives with this legislation on the states rights angle.

How can you help end the recession?
Legalizing marijuana within Missouri would certainly help. But I am also working on ways to make Missouri more friendly to small business. For example I want to find out if regulators are stricter on small business than large manufacturers. If this is the case I would introduce laws that would reprioritize regulation.

who's backing your campaign?
No one.

Please don't hand me a bible.
I'm an Atheist. And I think most books that are pro-atheist are written by smug assholes so I won't hand you any of those either.

What's the first thing that comes to mind when you hear "Niezsche"?
Coming to America when Eddie Murphy's character quotes him.

What do you plan to do to make the planet more liveable in the future?
One of my national policies that will translate well to the state level is that I want to set the rates for how much the power company has to pay someone for adding power to the grid. This will encourage people to put up solar panels and create wind turbines on their property.
I'm also working on new disclosures for home buyers that would give buyers more information about the energy usage of the home.

Sorry I don't vote, good luck.
I would rather have your vote than the luck. Keep in mind that just because you choose to ignore politics doesn't stop them from affecting you. Part of the reason I am running is to give people who hate politicians a voice.

What will you do to help alleviate poverty?
I will protect the services already in place from the boogieman of welfare fraud. While I'm sure there are some people exploiting the system I don't think that threat is worth dismantling the system or increasing the cost of the system to keep a few people from getting the better of it.
In addition to the above job creating ideas I am working on creating other small business incentives for Missouri. Many small businesses in Missouri do not have physical storefronts, so I am looking into ways to help them thrive. I'm also looking at ways to make farm labor more appealing as a job because I simply do not accept that people are too lazy to take these jobs when almost 150,000 homes were foreclosed in Missouri because of the housing bubble and around 1 of 10 Americans are unemployed.

What are your ideas for fixing our toxic political system?
It has gotten so toxic for strategic reasons. All I can do is to find consensus amongst voters and highlight to them when other elected officials go against that for political gain.

Do you Support the Penguins?
No. I am not a fan of any sports. It is my dream that one day debate/public discourse will become our national pastime.

I was told there would be cake.

I recently had to drop my cable and Netflix (well I still get the streaming). My family can no longer afford those luxuries. We were thinking about dropping the DVD part of Netflix before the announced that they were raising their prices.
This has me wondering just how many CEOs don't understand what is going on out there. You can't get blood out of a stone, and you can't keep getting more and more money from people who don't have it. Credit has artificially delayed the reality of this fact. But reality is catching up but markets are setting themselves up for failure by not preparing for it.
This isn't a rant about how evil corporations are. It is a notice of concern. It bothers me that I am seeing a lack of companies attempting to widen their costumer base by lowering their rates. A profit can be made on a thinner margin if there is a bigger pool of customers so it isn't greed- it's inertia.
I believe that they truly don't get it. I think when they drive around and see five bedroom houses in lower income neighborhoods they think that we're living beyond our means. Which might be true but what is also true is more than likely everyone of those bedrooms is full. If that family doesn't have children filling those rooms they have friends/family down on their luck staying in those rooms- and they're probably not paying rent.
This is where The Beverly Hillbillies got it wrong. If the Clampetts had moved into a giant 100 room mansion they would have an overflow of extended house guests before the end of the 274 episodes were through. That's what happened to MC Hammer. He made it big and made himself broke because he brought half of Oakland with him.
Wall Street doesn't get it. And when the lower and middle class take to the streets or use elected officials as mediators they call it class warfare. But what do you call it when all the energy is being put into punishing poor people who honestly can't pay their bad mortgage deal while millionaires who simply choose not to pay their mortgage don't lose anything? What do you call it when you bail out all the banks that knew better than to offer sub-prime and not even discuss bailing out the homeowners who didn't (even if maybe they should have)?
And it doesn't have to be this way. Most of us like getting goods and services in exchange for money. 99% movement isn't a bunch of people that are pissed because their broke. It's about people trying not to be pulverized by the faceless bureaucratic of Wall Street and government.

CRAWLERS nudge

nudge

Vision

I've finished the "Vision" section of my political site. It took me a while because I had an idea of what was going to be in it and how it would look but those two ideas weren't playing well together. So instead of having something really specific I have a gist of my philosophy on how to make this country great.
My sentimental over flashy way of defining greatness.
A bit of trivia on this comic. The icon for the section is a take on Ronald Reagan's description of America as a "shining city on a hill". I like that imagery but I am more inclined to follow Ron Paul's interputation of that statement- to lead the world by example not through force.
Though the Doctor and I would have some different ideas on what kind of example to lead.
http://www.nilvsdcbs.com/vision.html

Puppet In Chief

I heard that Bush's approval ratings are up so I thought I'd dust off my old comic strip Puppet In Chief. A series of comics about Dubya being interviewed (and playing the part of Neo from The Matrix) check them out at http://www.nilgravity.com/puppetinchief.htm and there's more at Chicago6corners

non-lethal weapons are still weapons.

I posted the video above because if it wasn't labeled one might assume that it happened somewhere outside the use. The people are terrified and in that moment don't know what the police are shooting at them. Imagine what it would be like to have been there
It's loud and bright like a bomb (that's the flash bangs). The police are shooting bullets at you, but the bullets whiz by so fast you don't know that they are rubber. So you try to run away but you can't see where you're going because you're eyes are welling up like they did when your nose was broken in the seventh grade and even if you manage not to run into something or another terrified person you can't get far because your lungs are burning.
I've never been in that kind of situation. The closest I've been was on the way to a war protest and watching the cops with their batons in hand smacking it, ready for action,  though they out numbered us and all the kids around me were suburbanite teenagers. It made me really upset and I asked a fire chief to ask the officer if he would put his weapon away. The fire chief refused and I told him "I would ask him but he'd probably use it on me". he agreed but still did nothing.
Later I heard other protesters thanking the police for keeping the order. Which was a better way of showing the police we weren't their enemies. This protest was in Chicago after all and there is a history of protest going badly, I just wish that SOME of them didn't look like they were hoping something would happen.
I watch the video above and ask "Who is being protected and served?"  I don't think the police are any better or worse than any other citizen but I do think their perception of events are skewed. I don't think they realize non-lethal weapons are still weapons. I think it's easy for them to forget the damage these weapons can do.
The reason assault is such a felony charge for civilians is because a well placed punch can kill someone. I have a friend who is a highly trained martial artist. Grabbed a kid from behind. The kid flipped my friend over and broke his skull open. My friend's training was defeated by luck.
People have died from being tasered by police and there is a former marine in critical condition. And police may test these weapons on themselves and think they're perfectly safe. But those tests are in controlled conditions, not in the chaos of the street. When an mouthy speeder gets tased she doesn't have two friends holding her arms, or a pad to land on.
Don't get me wrong if police think there is any chance that they are in any physical danger- they should kick some ass. I realize that life is fragile and that thing being thrown from the crowd could be a brick and it could fracture their skull. I'm just asking that they realize that the lives on the other side are just as fragile.



PS
When I say life is fragile I am not just talking about death. This is not the movies where the action hero can take all kinds of damage and be fine in the sequel. Many injuries never heal quite right. People wear mask paintballing because a paintball to the eye could blind that eye permanently. Image the damage a rubber bullet could do. There were children in that crowd in oakland.

PSS

possible blow back from this crackdown: Major cities buying Pain Rays. Pain rays are microwave broadcasts that makes everyone in an area feel like they are on fire. Pain rays are probably way safer than other crowd control but that also means police will be less hesitant to use them

CRAWLERS funny it was an exit a second ago

funny, it was an exit a second ago.

Intermission 2

Intermission 2

CRAWLERS Reporting in (100 pages!!!)

Reporting in

CRAWLERS fortified

fortified

CRAWLERS varied interests

the auto update on blogger never seems to work for me this actually posted yesterday


varied interests...

CRAWLERS captive audience

captive audience

moral relativism

Everybody hopes that life is like a dancer's pirouette

With grace we've dodged each conflict and decision that we've met

Everybody tells themselves that they must be justified

They do what they do because they're trying to get by

-Murder By Death, The Devil Drivers

I don't believe in good or evil or moral relativism. I spent at least a half hour talking to Christians trying to convert me and when I said I didn't believe in good or evil  they said ahh moral relativism and I said "ahh not really"
I believe that people do things for various reasons with various consequences and all we can do is be aware of our impact on others and be aware of it.
I had to look up Moral Relativism to see if it meant what I thought it meant. It turns out that I primarily look at things as a subcategory of Moral Relativism called Descriptive Relativism. Basically I don't judge things initially I understand them.
When a tiger attacks it's trainer, it isn't because it's evil, it's because it is a tiger. When a corporation fleeces it's customers, it isn't evil, it's a corporation. When John Edwards and Newt Gingrich cheated on their sick wives, it isn't because they are evil, it's because they are men.
I hope the tiger one is pretty self explanatory. Tigers and other animals do not have less powerful versions of our brains. Each species has it's own operating system. And when an animal attacks it is because the human didn't understand the animal's "programming".
Corporations are legal constructs that are designed to make a profit. And as I've said before the executives have a legal obligation to make a profit. You can not blame a corporation for shady practices when their employees are obligated to be cut throat.
John Edwards and Newt Gingrich can't be blamed for wanting some non-chemo nookie. Men are made to have certain needs, that are different than the needs of women. A man's "programming" puts greater emphasis on the physical aspect of love where a woman's "programming" puts greater emphasis on the emotional. Men and women tend to become unfaithful for very different reasons.

But saying they can't be blamed for WANTING these things mean that the rest of us shouldn't hold them accountable.

We don't let tigers roam the streets because we know it will lead to attacks. We have Animal Control to keep dangerous animals from interfering with human beings. And yeah, it sucks that means that if my friendly huskies tunnel out of my yard, I pay the price. But I understand why animal ownership is REGULATED in this way.
We REGULATE corporations to make sure that the natural controls of a free market (competition, supply and demand) can not be circumvented. It's understandable for businesses to want to be deregulated, the same way the huskies don't like that I ran fencing on the ground in their favorite digging area. The point of regulation is not to inhibit business, but to keep business from inhibiting the freedom of their competition and the consumer.
As for the cheaters, the didn't do anything wrong by cheating on their wives. The did something wrong by breaking their agreement with their wives. If the wives of these men forgive them then that should be the end of it. The only business it is of society is if the wife doesn't forgive him. Then as a society it is in our best interest that she takes him to the cleaners for violating their contract (wedding vows).
My way of seeing the world isn't a way to make some 'evil' or 'wrong' things alright. It's about making an honest assessment of the situation and deciding what actually matters and what we should let slide. It also opens ourselves up to solutions to problems. For example:
Ron Paul was booed for saying that Bin Laden's justification of 9/11 was our foreign policy. He wasn't saying that Bin Laden was justified or that we shouldn't have killed him (Ron Paul actually supported going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden back in 2001). Ron Paul was explaining if we do not want to inspire future Bin Laden's we should change our foreign policy.

Staying on Message

Standing here like a comedian,I repeat what I say, again 

and again and again

until the meaning has become an imitation of itself,

An impression of an original defeats the fucking purpose

but it's looking more and more like the same place that we started.

-Against Me, Holy Shit! 

I've been thinking a lot about "The Message". Which includes a lot of things like: Why does the media make having a varying agenda sound like a good thing when it's the Tea Party, but uses it to dismiss Occupy Wall Street?
In the age of the internet and the 24 hour news cycle it's important to control the message. But there are some inherent dangers of doing that.
When you keep repeating the same line over and over again it does make you seem more consistent but it also makes you more reflexive than thoughtful. When you have a shtick you start to steer questions to your talking point instead of answering them.
This leaves no room for nuance. And lack of nuance leads to lack of compromise . And we're seeing where that gets us because almost everyone in office sticks to script instead of being thoughtful and listening to people.
I am sort of on the opposite side of the spectrum. I'm fueled by creativity. And it creates a problem because if I've said something enough to people in private, I forget to include it when posting online.
I'm hoping with my campaign to move myself towards speaking with a clear consistent message while bringing other polititians closer to being thoughtless talking points droids.

CRAWLERS poetic license...

poetic license...

CRAWLERS all business

all business

Diet Change

I have spent the entire month of September eating only vegan foods that have not been above 108 degrees. Not hardcore vegan, I did eat some raw honey. And, okay, I didn't realize the pickles or banana peppers were essentially cooked when pickled until at least a week into the diet.
Now that the thirty days are about to be over I will reintroduce fire, cage free eggs and dairy to my diet. I may eat meat every great once in a while( maybe once or twice a year).
So what's the point of going pseudo-vegetarian and blogging about it? It's symbolic of moral compromise. When I watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, I was annoyed at the end when they told people to help by changing their light bulbs. It took me several years to realize it's better to ask people to meet people 1/4th the way when half way is too uncomfortable for them.
It really does add up to more when a lot of people go part of the way than when a few people go all out. Activist can't alienate people without becoming just some nut.
On a personal level it is better for me to be vegetarian lite now, than to keep entertaining he possibility of becoming a hard core vegan full time one day.
I'm atypical on this subject because I don't see anything wrong with eating adorable/delicious animals. Except pigs because they are so intelligent. But the reason I am trying to kick the habit is because of factory farming's cruelty to the animals we eat and environmental impact of eating meat .
Most of the animals we eat have terribly inefficient digestive systems. By overindulging in meat consumption we are wasting a lot of resources on raising them and creating a lot of methane (animal farts) in the process. By some estimates going even one day a week without eating meat has about the same impact as trading in your car for a hybrid. I can't afford a hybrid car and I have too many kids to take public transit everywhere (though I did that when I was single and living in the city).


Okay I can't stop staring at the clock so I can get that cheesy potato burrito when the month ends at midnight, so I think I'll just end it here...

PS
Apparently, unlike the Potato Burrito that was recently taken off the menu at the restaurant across town, Taco Bell puts meat on theirs. Or should I say "meat"? Anyway I was half way through it before I realized and I don't believe in wasting food, so tomorrow I start over. again.

CRAWLERS entry fee

Entry fee

Smarter government (cheaper more covered part 2)

I've been to hell. I spell it, I spell it DMV

Anyone that's been there knows precisely what I mean

Stood there and I've waited and choked back the urge to scream

-Primus, DMV (Pork Soda)

 When I was living in the greater Chicago-land area I dreaded going to the Illinois DMV ( though it's actually called Secretary of State's Office Vehicle something or other). But as it happened it was rather pleasant. My Republican voting uncle asked me the next day at work "wasn't it wonderful?"

Of course it wasn't wonderful. But it was painless. I wasn't frustrated. That's the most you can expect out of such a scenario. Mediacom could learn a thing or two from the state of Illinois. The difference between smarter government and what we usually get is the difference between a forgetable experience and one so hellish it must be expressed in song.
Now again, let me set up the parameters. This is not a libertarian discussion if the government should do things even if they can do it right. This is a discussion about how the government can do things better. Let's look at recent news.

Solyndra
If you don't follow the news what happened is that Obama made a loan to a solar panel company that went out of business even with the extra half a billion dollars. Is the lesson that the government shouldn't give loans no bank would give? perhaps. But let's not let the conversation die there. Next time the government wants to meddle in the private sector, they should patron it not be it's patriarch.
The Obama administration  making the same mistake with green jobs as Republicans are making with the economy as a whole. They are assuming that the problem is a lack of liquidity when the real problem is a lack of demand.
If the Obama administration is really serious about helping these companies- buy their products. Order half a billion dollars worth of solar panels for government buildings. If the company still goes out of business after that at least you were able to cut down the overhead of running several government agencies.
The same could have been done on the auto bailout (though that ended up working out okay). We could have put in an order for X amount of electric cars or hybrid hummers for the military. 

Post Office
Bad mouthing the Post Office has been a pet peeve of mine since 2008 when it seemed trendy for Republican Presidential candidates. It seems to me that the Post Office is an example of the government working, not an example of the opposite. I don't remember ever getting a letter lost (though there might have been one in my midtwenties or I might have found it behind my dresser when I moved). It's the cheapest way to send a small amount of paper. It goes much above and beyond what it's privately owned competition would do.
What is really the icing on my hatred of Post Office bashing on the part of Republicans is that they are only in office because of the Post Office. The life blood of the Republican party has been to use mass mailings to get out the older vote. So even though they say in public they would choose UPS, they go with the government owned model.
This ruckus over the Post Office seems to be manufactured. From my understanding the cash flow problems are primarily caused by a requirement that the Post Office have it's pension paid up for 75 years. That seems excessive. The fear is that the government will have to bailout the USPS in 75 years. Really? We're in a recession now and the Republican plan is to put Postal workers out of work now so don't have to worry about their pensions in the future.
I guess that's encouraging that the Republicans are so sure that we'll still be a country in 75 years because they don't seem to think that way when talking about any other issue. 

CRAWLERS origin

Origin

Cheaper and covers more people...

Watching either the CNN or MSNBC debate Herman Cain said something about the free market making things cheaper and covering more people. I could look it up but then I'd be tempted to take on the specific example instead of the philosophy.
There is a fine line between me and (many/most)conservatives on this but it's an important line. I think that the free market CAN offer cheaper services that reach more people than a government program. But I do not believe that it always does. There are several reasons for this, including:

Incentive
Government programs and businesses have different incentives. A government program is created to serve the masses, who often have more votes than dollars. A business is created to make money. A business is obligated to make it's stock rise every month (greed is a legal obligation in a way). And serving more people is not always going to be the most effective way to make money.

Imagination
Sometimes the market solution just hasn't been thought of yet. I don't think it's impossible for a private business to do a better job than the post office. But I haven't seen anyone come up with the way to do it yet. What about FedEx or UPS? Let's just say apples and oranges for now.


Inertia
If a company is already making money serving a few people it is less likely to go out of it's way to change it's strategy to widen it's costumer base. FedEx and UPS are competing with each other on shipping boxes. They are so busy trying to come out on top over the other they might not even have the resources to invest in trying to figure out a way to send one or two pieces of paper for less than fifty cents a piece.

That's it for now but I'll be sure to expand on this as I come up with more. There may be an argument for why government shouldn't get involved with things like healthcare or delivering the mail. But for now I am focusing on whether or not the market is always the best solution for the most people. The answer is only if helping more people equates to more profit. And it raises another question. What do we do about all the people the market doesn't help?
The government didn't take on all these responsibilities on a lark. There was a vacuum.
Public Schools were created because the private schools weren't educating enough people. Obamacare was created because insurance won't/doesn't serve enough sick people. OSHA was created because it is sometimes cheaper for employers not to provide a safe work environment. And welfare was created because living expenses were not low enough for the under- and unemployed.

CRAWLERS Vengeance Unlives...

revenge unlives...

CRAWLERS hoverboards

hoverboards

CNN jumps the shark with the tea party.

After watching last weeks Tea Party Debate it became obvious to me that CNN has in fact jumped the shark. Or more accurately the Tea Party has and CNN has gone with them.
Because it seems obvious to me it makes it harder to explain but I think it comes down to a lack of DIRECT pandering. The candidates were definitely keeping the general election in mind in their answers. One would expect that at a Tea Party Debate republicans would pander towards Tea Partiers. The power of the Tea Party is defined on their influence in primaries but it looked to me like all the candidates were more afraid of giving Obama ammunition than they were of the Tea Party.
The reason I think CNN is going along with the Tea Party is that their credibility is starting to crumble in the face of an audience that wants news that reinforces their beliefs. Fox has Republicans, MSNBC has Democrats, and I think CNN sees the Tea Party as their niche. I could be wrong but the fact that they had a CNN debate on 9/12 and put Tea Party in the title seems telling. I don't watch CNN (other than GPS) so I don't know how extensive this Tea Party grab is on a daily programming but I do know that they had a Tea Party rebuttal when other networks were having airing the official Republican party rebuttal.

CRAWLERS Done Enough...

done enough...

CRAWLERS Miracle Growth

Miracle Growth

post 9/11 America

When I was a kid I got into a lot of fights and my dad would tell me that when another person makes you angry you have lost. Being taunted into anger means that you've given over a little of your power to them.
He never said not to fight. He just said that I shouldn't fight because someone made me angry.

Fast forward twenty something years to the present and we've just passed the 10th anniversary of 9/11. I wasn't going to say anything about it but then I tweeted "I don't understand people who wave flags on 9/11 but change the channel at dying first responders."
I decided that I should offer some explanation to that. I was in downtown Chicago on 9/11. I wasn't scared then. I'm not scared now of terrorist. Okay a bit but I'm less scared of terrorist than I am say- home invasion.
When you say terrorist Timothy McVeigh has about equal chance of jumping to my mind as Bin Laden.
It makes me angry when someone says that 9/11 changed everything. The only thing that changed is that our country lost it's cool. A little bit of our power was given away.
For the everyday person who says 'we'll never forget 9/11' nothing has really changed. In previous wars people stateside were expected to help the war effort by using less fuel and recycling (thinking specifically of metal ) but post 9/11 Americans get angry if you try raise the efficiency of vehicles and to a large degree can't be bothered to pull out a separate bin for glass (used to pave roads) plastic (reduces oil consumption) or metal (requires less energy to recycle).
And then there's taxes. In previous wars taxes were increased and people were encouraged to by war bonds to pay for the effort. Post 9/11 America calls raising taxes socialism even though the wars they support cost more than helping their neighbor who is among the 1 out of 10 Americans who can't find a job.
Post 9/11 Americans are afraid and angry that something will change in their life. They don't want to think about the rest of the world or the rest of the country. They want to go to work, relax, go to sleep- rinse and repeat. The only thing 9/11 changed for them was that it made the horizon go out past where the floor in their living room meets the wall.


Not every American is a Post 9/11 American. Though you may think I was condemning Republicans, being republican doesn't automatically make you one. Being a Democrat doesn't exonerate you. Most people are at least in part guilty of turning a blind eye to the big picture and how their lifestyle is contributing to it.

CRAWLERS unshrinkage

Unshrinkage

CRAWLERS horder

Horder

CRAWLERS rescue mission

Rescue mission

CRAWLERS Ranged Attack

Ranged Attack

more Observations

My photo series of Observations of Oddities keeps growing. Basically what I do is take a picture of things I find a bit odd and post them to see if others agree.

Odd Cable guides has been updated http://www.nilgravity.com/observations.html

Odd products has been updated http://www.nilgravity.com/observationsprod.html

and one misc oddity http://www.nilgravity.com/observationsmisc.html

Serious candidate vs the enthusiasm gap

I've been hearing for about a decade that there is an enthusiasm gap between the right and the left. And I've been hearing people say that there should be a Colbert/Stewart ticket for at least half that time.
If the Bush administration did anything good, it proved that the left can not close the enthusiasm gap with anger the way the right can. Last years Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear seemed to support my theory that the left could close the gap with wit.
Fast Forward and I'm running for Congress with a witty campaign, as a Democrat this time, and the enthusiasm is less than when I ran as a write-in candidate. Part of it is because it is so early on. But another part of it is this thing I'm getting from Democrats that I'm not serious enough for them.
It's not the content of my message. It's the fact that I'm having fun while doing it. But I don't understand why that is. If you look at the political movies put out by (liberal) Hollywood you would thing that the left would jump at the chance to get behind a fun candidate.
It's not even that I expect everyone to swoon and fall in love with me because I'm vaguely leftist and thumbing my nose at the traditional campaign. But I'm not even admired as an oddity. I'm not even something to send to friends 'look at this kook'.
The tea party is electing my outraged counterpart but I'm being told that my base would rather support someone who can buy their way into office than support me. To which I wonder: Who's the one not being serious now? We're in SWMO only someone boldly different will be able to end the Republican dominance.

If you follow my campaigns FaceBook page you've heard that there is talk of drafting me to run for State Legislature instead of US Congress. And I realize my questioning of the wisdom of that may sound as if I am completely opposed to the idea. So let me put this in concrete terms:

I will be glad to run for State Legislature if the people suggesting this transition rally a staff for me. Believe it or not I have a strategy for running for Congress and as long-shot-y it is, many of the components are not scale-able. then again...

I apologize if this sounds cranky . Pandora has hit that clingy toddler phase and my brain is a bit fried. But I wanted to put out where I am at with this because I want as much input as I can on this.

CRAWLERS spikes upon spikes

Spikes upon spikes

We don't need no...

Finished drawing the education section. Hope you appreciate the thematic shift in art style http://www.nilvsdcbs.com/education.html

CRAWLERS digging in

Digging in.

CRAWLERS good news bad news

good news bad news

As Predicted

As I predicted Colbert PAC has begun creating ads that sarcastically endorse a candidate. The twist being that he's taken the satire up a level by endorsing Rick Parry instead of Rick Perry. Thus Colbert gets straw poll cred from both members of the Colbertnation and people who don't know how to spell Perry's name.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Super PAC Ad - Episode IV: A New Hope
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

CRAWLERS breathtaking strategy

Breathtaking strategy

Fox Kudos?

I'm not sure because I have only heard of it in legend, but I believe I saw an actual political debate. I know. And it was on Fox. I know right?
The thing about the Fox format that worked actually made my eyes roll in the beginning: a one minute response time to questions and thirty second rebuttal. Most debates don't go too much over that but it was just enough time to get to the essence of what each candidate had to say. I'll give the candidates some kudos as well because none of them really steam rolled through the time limit more than they had to.
The questions were also well crafted. The debate asked questions of the candidates that pitted them squarely against their competitors without any wiggle room. I like to think I have a gift for deciphering politician speak but it wasn't really needed here. I think anyone could watch this debate and walk away with an understanding of what every candidates world view. And not in a way that makes villains any of them. Except maybe Mitt Romney. They were a little rough on Mitt.

So which would I vote for? None of them. Not because I'm a Democrat, but simply because I'm not feeling it for any of them. I still like and respect Ron Paul. I've been following him since at least 2004 so maybe I'm just taking him for granted now. What excited me about Ron Paul is that he is a thoughtful man who really brings some different perspectives to the light. But he is an ideologue. He believes in governing through libertarian philosophy without exception. I respect that about him but it also seems a little unrealistic. We'll see though,

And finally for my lefty friends I thought I'd point out some highlights:

Newt attacks Fox for gotcha journalism.
This was really funny because it was an applause line for Newt. Like Fox News is part of the liberal media now or something. It was also kind of funny that the audience fell for it since it seemed to be nothing more than a dodge of what sounded to me like a flip flop on Libya.

Bachmann awol
It's kind of stupid but it plays into the 'crazy' reputation, on coming back from a commercial Michelle Bachmann was no where to be seen and the moderator actually pointed it out. It was funny at the time if you already don't like her but I guess it's not really that interesting as to what happened to her.

Obomneycare
Mitt Romney got some tough questions that made him sound like some kind of radical centerist. What amuses me about it is that Romney was asked what the difference between his healthcare plan as governor and Obamacare and he said it was a violation of states rights to set that bill on every state. What makes Romney full of crap is that the bill has been amended to allow states to opt out if they can provide an alternative plan that is as effective or better than Obama care.

CRAWLERS Hindsightless

Hindsightless

Posted a day late because I was clearing rubble in Joplin yesterday

CRAWLERS not just...

not just....

Rand Paul defends tea party but fails...

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul today issued a statement regarding the current mud-slinging and finger-pointing toward the Tea Party for the U.S. credit downgrade.
"Blaming the Tea Party for America's debt crisis and downgrade is like blaming the fireman for fires.
"The Tea Party has been fighting for a serious solution that would rescue our finances through immediate spending cuts, spending caps and most importantly, a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. With the support of the Tea Party, I offered the only solution that could have prevented our downgrade with our Cut, Cap and Balance plan.
"While Democrats would like to lay blame on the Tea Party for the current economic failure, it is their President who has failed in leadership, failed to lower unemployment, failed to rescue our economy, failed to prevent a downgrade of our debt, and failed to control spending."
###

This is a statement Rand Paul put out and it enforces what I've always said about him. He doesn't get it. He is wearing his dad's shoes but they don't fit. I do like Ron Paul and voted for him in the 2008 primaries.
I actually agree not to blame the tea party. I blame the politicians trying to placate them while also trying to placate the lobbyist that donate to their campaigns. Rand Paul would have been right to say "Don't blame the Tea Party, Blame the hawks who are pretending military spending isn't part of the budget." instead of blaming the Democrats.
The reason I like Ron Paul is he is an honest critic of both sides of the aisle. Ron Paul actually thinks about the issues. Rand Paul seems to just say what he thinks people who like his father want to hear. Rand doesn't think who/what is actually to blame. Rand starts this press release with criticizing finger pointing then ends it with pointing his own finger at the Democrats.
Now there is something I disagree with both Ron and Rand about: how we define limited. The easiest way to condense it is that they would say "the government should do as little as possible" while I would add the word probably in there. The manifestation of that difference is that I don't believe in the market as dogmatically as they do.
I bring this up with the statement above is that Rand uses a sort of embarrassing example

"Blaming the Tea Party for America's debt crisis and downgrade

is like blaming the fireman for fires."

I point this out because the firefighters in this country were not always government run- they used to be privatized. The business model for these free market fire brigades is that the brigade that actually puts out the fire is the one that would be paid. The result was sometimes that two brigades would show up at the same time and get in a brawl with each other while the building continued to burn.

Now it wasn't the fault of the firefighters that the fire was started but it was their fault that the building burned down. Firefighters are actually the perfect example of the divide between the left and right.

If you live in California today, you can buy private fire protection, and your house will not burn down in wildfires. The private company will cover your house in retardant foam and be completely safe while all of your neighbors without the service have all their houses burn down.

Someone right leaning hears this story as a testament to the free market. Fire departments run by the government can not protect someone's house like that. And once someone is paying for such a service they start to wonder why the government is taking their money to pay for crappy government run fire protection.

The progressive left hears about private protection and  might think "Well that's nice for the people who can afford it but what about the rest of us?"

I haven't heard Rand Paul say it but the only right-leaning rebuttal to that question I have ever heard is that they believe in the generosity of Americans. That seems to be too easy an answer after the government has been taking care of a social need that generosity never seemed to handle right before.

Default musings

I've been trying to make sense of this whole debt ceiling deal, but I'm failing too. I've tried to figure out what to say about it but nothing comprehensive strikes me. So I think I'll just make some bullet point style commentary:

*Republicans wanting to cut spending during a recession to balance the budget is like a family wanting to pay off the credit card by not feeding the kids. I understand that they think that the it is mostly the undeserving who are collecting from social programs but they themselves admit that there are no jobs. So why cut now?

*China has been making little pokes to undermine our currency for the last year (read previous posts). Threatening to default only helps that strategy. If international trade stop using the dollar we will be flooded with redundant currency.

*Creating a group of "super congress" with special budgetary powers is a dangerous precedent. I'm sure it will bite the Democrats in the ass.

*What leverage did the Republicans have? Their leader in the Senate said they wouldn't allow a default. There is a constitutional argument that they would have to raise the debt ceiling. We are effectively the only country in the world with a debt ceiling. What exactly was the threat?

*Why did Boehner declare vacation? You really think you deserve a break after the FUBAR you created?

I'm glad that it appears the public isn't falling for the gamesmanship. If this was just a philosophic difference the Republicans would have made their move when Bush was still in and they controlled the Senate in addition to the house. I know they are running scared of Tea Party challengers but they should have enough confidence in the fact that they made it this far not to worry about that.

CRAWLERS sucker punch

sucker punch

CRAWLERS taunting

Taunting

Review: "Parenting. Illustrated in Crappy Pictures"

Parenting. Illustrated in Crappy Pictures is a weird mutant of a webcomic.  I'm not sure it's breaking any rules but it certainly seems to because I think it only by accident reads as a comic. Let me back up a little. Amber Dusick is a crunchy granola mama that blogs about parenting. Along with this blogging are skill-less yet wonderful and effective illustrated re-enactments.
The sequential illustrations tell the story well enough on their own. But Parenting doesn't use the sequential art as a comic. The art is used almost the way other blogs might use clip art between paragraphs to break up the text. Yet, reading the blog as part of the comic doesn't take away from either.
Either the blog or the sequential illustrations could function independently but they work so well together. I have never before seen webcomics presented this well in the blog format. I see this as a new sub-genre: a blogcomic.
The blog comic pulls off some interesting dynamics. Comics in general seem to be better at parallel narratives than any other media. And the use of the visual-literary devices to create layers of depth in Parenting could be used in other ways.
The main difference between what Dusick is doing and what most web cartoonist do, is the way our minds separate pixels/panels and text/blog material. It works here because it isn't seamless. and we absorb it differently than we would if she used text fields within her paint software to write all the content.

PS
For all you people who say they can't make comics because you can't draw. This is yet another example of what a lame excuse that is.

letter to the editor

I am running for Congress in Missouri's 7th district as a Democrat. I am hearing a lot of snide remarks about the current occupant of that seat about his lack of professionalism, appearance, intelligence, tact, morality, and his profession doesn't seem to lend him any actual expertise.
I don't approve of any of these criticisms. Part of the reason is because many (if not all) of these kind of things can be said about me. But I also don't think it serves any kind of purpose. Judging an elected official on petty things only appeals to those that already don't like that person.
Instead I would encourage people to ask of my/their representative: Are you worth the $150,000 salary and the additional $200,000 to run your office? What are you actually doing to earn that money? 
Obviously I think I know what answer they'll get or I wouldn't be running when he is presumed to seek re-election (he's been dodgy on what he thinks is too long i office). My representative isn't big on introducing legislation or town halls. He does encourage people to schedule appointments with him. But it's a little hard to take seriously when those meetings are all off the record.

Nicholas Ivan Ladendorf
http://www.electladendorf.us