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.