The White House sent out Hanukkah cards last week with a Christmas Tree on them.
Only two months left, folks.
Two. Long. Months.
11.28.2008
MERRY HANUKKAH!!!
The White House sent out Hanukkah cards last week with a Christmas Tree on them.
Only two months left, folks.
Two. Long. Months.
11.26.2008
BESIDES RANTING, I ALSO WRITE REVIEWS
All of these are posted over at INK, but I might as well link to them here as well...
MOVIES
Twilight
Madagascar 2
Zach & Miri Make a Porno
Pride & Glory
W
Religulous
Body of Lies
MUSIC
Gringo Star
Little Joy
The Billy Bats
Billy Wassung
Amanda Palmer
MOVIES
Twilight
Madagascar 2
Zach & Miri Make a Porno
Pride & Glory
W
Religulous
Body of Lies
MUSIC
Gringo Star
Little Joy
The Billy Bats
Billy Wassung
Amanda Palmer
11.21.2008
ANOTHER RANT ON WHY VOTERS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO TAKE AWAY HUMAN RIGHTS
I was reading the Rolling Stone review of MILK last night, (I know Jamie, I shouldn't read them and spoil the experience for myself) and came across a startling fact.
Harvey Milk, (who later became the first openly gay man elected to public office in California, on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors) was fighting against a "California Proposition" of his own. The year was 1978, (one year before I was born) and "Prop. 6" was hoping to ban homosexuals from teaching in public schools in California.
...seriously.
One week before the election, with public opinion polls showing nearly 61% in favor of the Proposition, Ronald Reagan wrote an editorial in opposition to it, in which he stated, "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."
Just let that sink in for a second. The Godfather of Conservatism was against this bullshit proposition. Good for him.
And even though it ultimately failed, similar propositions had already passed in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Is this something we also should have let voters in states decide for themselves? At what point do we realize that it's not our place to take rights away from people? We cannot, and should not vote on civil rights. They are our birthright. We're have them from the moment we're born, no matter how much voters might want to take them away.
I can't wait for the California Supreme Court to finally overturn Prop. 8 early next year, on grounds that it's unconstitutional. And 30 years from now, let my son look back on this moment in history and wonder, "Why the fuck were they even debating that in the first place?!"
Harvey Milk, (who later became the first openly gay man elected to public office in California, on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors) was fighting against a "California Proposition" of his own. The year was 1978, (one year before I was born) and "Prop. 6" was hoping to ban homosexuals from teaching in public schools in California.
...seriously.
One week before the election, with public opinion polls showing nearly 61% in favor of the Proposition, Ronald Reagan wrote an editorial in opposition to it, in which he stated, "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."
Just let that sink in for a second. The Godfather of Conservatism was against this bullshit proposition. Good for him.
And even though it ultimately failed, similar propositions had already passed in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Is this something we also should have let voters in states decide for themselves? At what point do we realize that it's not our place to take rights away from people? We cannot, and should not vote on civil rights. They are our birthright. We're have them from the moment we're born, no matter how much voters might want to take them away.
I can't wait for the California Supreme Court to finally overturn Prop. 8 early next year, on grounds that it's unconstitutional. And 30 years from now, let my son look back on this moment in history and wonder, "Why the fuck were they even debating that in the first place?!"
PROOF THAT THERE IS NO GOD
Pushing Daisies has been canceled.
The only bright spot is that the series creator adores the world he created so much, that he's going to continue the stories in comic book form! (Ala Buffy.)
Meanwhile, Knight Rider is still on TV.
YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS VIDEO!!!
Because even after I finished watching it, I still don't believe my eyes...
On Thursday, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, "pardoned" a turkey for Thanksgiving. Big fucking deal, right? Happens all the time.
The problem is, after doing that, she moved over to a different area and took some questions from the media. And in the background, I swear to God, a man is SLAUGHTERING a turkey!!!
Watch and see for yourself, as long as you don't have a weak stomach:
Her life is just one long Daily Show episode.
On Thursday, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, "pardoned" a turkey for Thanksgiving. Big fucking deal, right? Happens all the time.
The problem is, after doing that, she moved over to a different area and took some questions from the media. And in the background, I swear to God, a man is SLAUGHTERING a turkey!!!
Watch and see for yourself, as long as you don't have a weak stomach:
Her life is just one long Daily Show episode.
11.19.2008
NEWSFLASH: AL-QAIDA HATES OBAMA?!
But...but...I thought Obama was friends with terrorists?!
And nice use of the term, "house Negroes" boys. As if you all weren't hated enough.
And nice use of the term, "house Negroes" boys. As if you all weren't hated enough.
11.15.2008
11.11.2008
A VOTE AGAINST LOVE
Keith Olbermann was in rare form last night. He almost lost it a couple times during this Special Comment speaking out against those who defeated Prop. 8 in California. It's heartbreaking to watch, but all the more reason to never give up the fight. We're on the right side of history on this issue. Young people, future generations have no fear of homosexuality...and one day, we will outnumber those who do.
(full text below)
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.
This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.
If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
---
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...
Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.
"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:
"So I be written in the Book of Love;
"I do not care about that Book above.
"Erase my name, or write it as you will,
"So I be written in the Book of Love."
---
Good night, and good luck.
(full text below)
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.
This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.
If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
---
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...
Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.
"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:
"So I be written in the Book of Love;
"I do not care about that Book above.
"Erase my name, or write it as you will,
"So I be written in the Book of Love."
---
Good night, and good luck.
SARAH PALIN'S LATEST INTERVIEW
It was on FOX and they seriously spend SIX MINUTES on her stupid clothes...
Also, I've never blogged from my parent's basement.
Also, I've never blogged from my parent's basement.
11.08.2008
WILLIAM AYERS SPEAKS...
...er, types.
Shockingly, it seems everything we've been lead to believe about the man might not be as black & white as it once seemed. Sure, what he did back in the 60's gives anyone a reason to pause...but the way the media and both Hillary and McCain's campaigns turned him into the Ultimate Boogeyman, was absurd.
Shockingly, it seems everything we've been lead to believe about the man might not be as black & white as it once seemed. Sure, what he did back in the 60's gives anyone a reason to pause...but the way the media and both Hillary and McCain's campaigns turned him into the Ultimate Boogeyman, was absurd.
11.06.2008
COME BY AND SAY HELLO!!!
I did five new paintings (which I'm slooooooooowly starting to actually enjoy) and am showcasing my latest mini-comic collection of political strips. Usually I ask $2.00, but for you, it's free!
PALIN DIDN'T KNOW AFRICA WAS A CONTINENT?!
I swear to God, someone better get this woman a sitcom!!!
11.05.2008
YES WE DID!
(image stolen from the awesome Christine Norrie )
Well, that was sure fun, eh?!
I cried like a babyhead last night, watching MSNBC discuss the various options and paths that Obama could take in order to reach 270. Then, in a matter of mere seconds, call Oregon, Washington, and California for Obama, pushing him well over 270 and allowing the crowds gathered all over the country to take center stage for over five minutes of pure cheering, joy and excitement!
I still get goosebumps watching that.
Words cannot express how incredible it feels to know that America is shifting in a new direction. The world is welcoming us back with open arms, and we'll have the next four years to correct the mistakes of the previous eight. It's not going to be easy, you still have half the country thinking that Obama is a "Socialist," or even worse...and that's fine. Let them pout and be dismissive and wrong. They're quite comfortable with making up excuses whenever the facts don't fall in their favor. But we, you and I, must rise above it. We must lead this great nation into the high expectations we have set our hopes and dreams upon. We can't get caught up in bitter, petty fighting. Let the other side bitch and moan and offer nothing but fear and paranoia. Let them own their failures. We'll be too busy creating our successes.
We've come this far, there's no use in slowing down now.
(PS...please don't think I'm going to stop with the sarcasm and namecalling...it's my bread and butter, and dammit, I'm quite good at it. I'm simply saying that we can't get too caught up in that, because we have bigger problems to worry about. Over the next few months, the Republicans are going to do everything in their power to belittle President Obama and paint him out to be the next Jimmy Carter, and I'm more than willing to call them out on their bullshit.
That said, they're not even worth arguing with anymore. I've glanced at some of the usual "Here comes President Handout" blogs and websites today, and it's just so sad and hopeless to even attempt to correct them any longer. Let them hang themselves on the failed politics of old. The smear campaigns and fear tactics don't work any more and people want real solutions to real problems. Not the lame re-hashing of the last 30 years.
...and most of all, CHEER UP!
We kicked their ass for once! It's time to celebrate.)
11.04.2008
TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT...
...but it's pretty much a given.
Andrew Gelman of Columbia University has taken a recent set of our simulations to look at what may happen conditional on the outcomes of the first states to close their polls at 6 and 7 PM. The bottom line? If those states go roughly as expected (meaning, say, an Obama win in Virginia and a close race in Indiana), we can conclude with almost literal 100 percent certainty that Obama will win the election.
Gotta love them 'puters.
Andrew Gelman of Columbia University has taken a recent set of our simulations to look at what may happen conditional on the outcomes of the first states to close their polls at 6 and 7 PM. The bottom line? If those states go roughly as expected (meaning, say, an Obama win in Virginia and a close race in Indiana), we can conclude with almost literal 100 percent certainty that Obama will win the election.
Gotta love them 'puters.
BETTER PRAY HARDER!
Sarah Palin just cast her vote up in Wasilla, Alaska and offered her thoughts about the outcome of tonight's election:
“Now tomorrow, I hope, I pray, I believe that I'll be able to wake up as Vice President elect, and be able to get to work in a transition mode with the President elect, John McCain.”
And when asked if she voted for CONVICTED FELON Senator Ted "Internet's a series of tubes" Stevens, she added:
“I am also exercising my right to privacy, and I don't have to tell anybody who I vote for, nobody does, and that’s really cool about America also.”
You know, I think I'm going to miss her awesome ability to end sentences with "also" most of all.
11.03.2008
WHEN YOU HAVE NO ISSUES TO RUN ON, RATCHET UP THE FEAR TACTICS!
Living in Missouri, (a close, almost completely tied, swing state,) we've been hit hard with anti-Obama mailers recently. I meant to scan them last night, but got sidetracked with getting my comics done for INK and The Star. So I found some online, all of which we've actually received: (aside from the wanting to kill babies one...but that one was too creepy to ignore)
Good ol' RNC. Poor fuckers can't figure out why they're going to lose by a landslide tomorrow. I mean, this shit worked a few years ago...sigh...
Good ol' RNC. Poor fuckers can't figure out why they're going to lose by a landslide tomorrow. I mean, this shit worked a few years ago...sigh...
11.02.2008
NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Don't let Drudge fool you, this election isn't based on National Polls, it's based off states and the Electoral College. And it's not even close. Not by a long shot.
George W. Bush won Montana by 20 points in his re-election victory four years ago. But it seems the times have changed in the state.
CNN's new Electoral College map, updated Sunday morning, moves Montana from "lean John McCain" to "toss up." The move is partially based on our new CNN Poll of Polls in Montana, compiled Friday, which suggests McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, has a one-point lead over his Democratic rival Barack Obama, 46 percent to 45 percent. Nine percent of voters are undecided.
"The fact that Montana is up for grabs has to be extremely unsettling for the McCain campaign," said CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib. "Montana's usually a reliably Republican state in presidential campaigns. It's been won by the Democrats only twice in the past half century. If you're a Republican and you're fighting for Montana in the last few days of the campaign, you're not in good shape."
Three electoral votes are at stake in Montana, a state Obama visited in late August. McCain has not campaigned in Montana during the general election.
With Montana moving to "toss-up," CNN estimates that if the election were held today, Obama would win states worth 291 electoral votes — more than enough to capture the White House
McCain would take states worth 157 electoral votes, while states worth a combined total of 90 electoral votes would still be up for grabs. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win.
George W. Bush won Montana by 20 points in his re-election victory four years ago. But it seems the times have changed in the state.
CNN's new Electoral College map, updated Sunday morning, moves Montana from "lean John McCain" to "toss up." The move is partially based on our new CNN Poll of Polls in Montana, compiled Friday, which suggests McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, has a one-point lead over his Democratic rival Barack Obama, 46 percent to 45 percent. Nine percent of voters are undecided.
"The fact that Montana is up for grabs has to be extremely unsettling for the McCain campaign," said CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib. "Montana's usually a reliably Republican state in presidential campaigns. It's been won by the Democrats only twice in the past half century. If you're a Republican and you're fighting for Montana in the last few days of the campaign, you're not in good shape."
Three electoral votes are at stake in Montana, a state Obama visited in late August. McCain has not campaigned in Montana during the general election.
With Montana moving to "toss-up," CNN estimates that if the election were held today, Obama would win states worth 291 electoral votes — more than enough to capture the White House
McCain would take states worth 157 electoral votes, while states worth a combined total of 90 electoral votes would still be up for grabs. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)