Normally on Fridays, we tend to turn away from politics and other more serious topics, and we aim for a tone that's just a bit lighter.
Since the midterm election is coming up next Tuesday, we thought we'd compromise, somewhat, and focus on events that are both political - and a bit lighter.
Today, that means focusing on Jon Stewart's event in Washington, DC.
In case you were unaware, the third major political rally of this year is happening this weekend in Washington, DC, the semi-satirical "Rally To Restore Sanity." The first major political rally of this year was Glenn Beck's event, at the end of August. It was an event filled with angry Republicans and Tea Party members, many of whom were disappointed when Mr. Beck made the rally less overtly political than he'd led them to believe it would be.
The second, arguably larger rally, was the "One Nation" event, led by a combination of mostly liberal and progressive groups. While their rally was both more political and more diverse than Beck's event, the second rally still had a tinge of anger to it, primarily aimed towards those on the far right.
This weekend's rally is different, and we think possibly, more valuable to all of us.
At The Daily Felltoon, we often talk about serious subjects in our commentary. We try to do it in a relatively balanced way, that helps you, our audience, think about topics more deeply. Of course, Paul's cartoons are often the much-needed laugh that makes the serious subjects we all address seem not quite so ominous and scary. In that way, the entire Daily Felltoon newsletter ends up being somewhat like Mr. Stewart's "Daily Show".
The point that Mr. Stewart, and his fellow comedian, Mr. Colbert, are making this weekend with their mocking political rallies is actually one we discuss with each other, on a regular basis - and one we've mentioned here many times before.
No matter who wins next week - or next month, whenever they get done with the recounts - every American will still have something in common: we're all Americans. Most of us also want things in our country to get better, not just for ourselves, but for everyone else too. Things won't get that way if we're busy fighting with each, beating each other up, stomping on one another, or attempting to buy enough advertising to brainwash those who think differently than we do.
Americans voted for change, overwhelmingly two years ago - and most polls still think Americans want more change, not less. We want more jobs, better legislators, better schools, more just tax rates, and less debt than we have now. Even if things are better than when Mr. Obama took over, they're not good enough yet - and Americans want to change that.
As Jon Stewart - and we - point out daily, finding some humor amidst difficult subjects and discussing them sanely, even with those with whom we disagree, is a far better way to get through life than trying to bash in the skulls of those we disagree with.
For those of you enjoying the rally this weekend?
Have fun.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Something Truly Scary: Electronic Voting
As Halloween - and the midterm elections - approach, it seems that people everywhere are caught up in a game of one-upsmanship in the race to frighten us more. From political ads to scripted television shows, to the local news, it's a nearly constant stream of ghouls and ghosts and horrors.
For us, near the top of the list of truly scary things are those people who are heading to the polls and not thinking, simply voting the party line.
If they're attempting to vote via electronic voting machines, the thought gets even scarier.
We've warned for quite some time now that electronic voting machines - while a fantastic idea - are nowhere near secure enough for something as important as our elections. It's not an exaggeration to say that hackers from China and Iran, paid by undisclosed money from who-knows-where, could get into some of the electronic voting machines out there.
They've already attempted to do so in a controlled test.
Even so, millions of Americans, hypnotized by the bright screens and new technology, will march into their polling places over the next week, and like zombies, push the buttons for who they THINK they're voting for - and think everything is ok. Unfortunately, as polling stations open for early voting across the nation, voters and polling officials have discovered machines causing errors, switching votes, or simply losing votes altogether.
Not unsurprisingly, some political fanatics on the far right who have attempted to use the fear of nearly non-existant voter fraud in the past, have resurrected that tactic again this year with electronic voting.
Whatever you may think of the fanatics, like a broken analog clock in an old horror movie, even they can be right once in a while - though NOT in Nevada, as they're currently attempting to claim. While the nutcases may be paranoid about electronic boogiemen, the danger to the voting system of unverifiable electronic ballots is sadly still very real.
In races all across the country, even the best electoral forecasters - including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com - say that an unprecedented numbers of races could be decided by relatively small numbers of voters this year. As Nate tweeted yesterday, if Democrats outperform their poll numbers by as little as 2 points this year, they'll hold the House. If they underperform by two points, they'll give up 65 seats.
In the face of such terrifying basic uncertainty, we're almost certain there will also be a significantly greater than usual number of recounts - something impossible without verifiable paper ballots.
Our recommendation on how to fight the electronic voting zombies is simple: read the Daily Felltoon and the links we provide. Remain informed. And insist on a paper ballot, no matter what.
You might want to hang onto your sharpened pencil too - just in case.
For us, near the top of the list of truly scary things are those people who are heading to the polls and not thinking, simply voting the party line.
If they're attempting to vote via electronic voting machines, the thought gets even scarier.
We've warned for quite some time now that electronic voting machines - while a fantastic idea - are nowhere near secure enough for something as important as our elections. It's not an exaggeration to say that hackers from China and Iran, paid by undisclosed money from who-knows-where, could get into some of the electronic voting machines out there.
They've already attempted to do so in a controlled test.
Even so, millions of Americans, hypnotized by the bright screens and new technology, will march into their polling places over the next week, and like zombies, push the buttons for who they THINK they're voting for - and think everything is ok. Unfortunately, as polling stations open for early voting across the nation, voters and polling officials have discovered machines causing errors, switching votes, or simply losing votes altogether.
Not unsurprisingly, some political fanatics on the far right who have attempted to use the fear of nearly non-existant voter fraud in the past, have resurrected that tactic again this year with electronic voting.
Whatever you may think of the fanatics, like a broken analog clock in an old horror movie, even they can be right once in a while - though NOT in Nevada, as they're currently attempting to claim. While the nutcases may be paranoid about electronic boogiemen, the danger to the voting system of unverifiable electronic ballots is sadly still very real.
In races all across the country, even the best electoral forecasters - including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com - say that an unprecedented numbers of races could be decided by relatively small numbers of voters this year. As Nate tweeted yesterday, if Democrats outperform their poll numbers by as little as 2 points this year, they'll hold the House. If they underperform by two points, they'll give up 65 seats.
In the face of such terrifying basic uncertainty, we're almost certain there will also be a significantly greater than usual number of recounts - something impossible without verifiable paper ballots.
Our recommendation on how to fight the electronic voting zombies is simple: read the Daily Felltoon and the links we provide. Remain informed. And insist on a paper ballot, no matter what.
You might want to hang onto your sharpened pencil too - just in case.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Election 2010: The Attack Of The Bullies
We've never seen or heard of any year ever where bullying has made its effects felt throughout every corner of American life the way it has done this year. Whether they're teenaged and gay, or it's a hate crime of a different nature, the bullies seem to be out in force lately. Crime statistics unfortunately support our contention.
Particularly in some political races, the bully mindset has become almost acceptable this year - but it had yet to cross over into physical violence, until Monday night.
In case you missed it, on Monday night, prior to the final debate for the Kentucky U.S. Senate seat between GOP candidate Rand Paul and Democratic candidate Jack Conway, a GOP supporter - one of Mr. Paul's own campaign coordinators, who was also a local Kentucky Republican party official - physically attacked a Democratic supporter of Mr. Paul's opponent, who was attempting to get the attention of Mr. Paul. The primary assailant had help from several other not-yet officially identified Republicans, who held, pushed, and eventually stomped on the head of the Democratic supporter. The victim later ended up in the hospital with severe bruises, a sprain, and a concussion.
The bullying hasn't stopped there.
On Tuesday, NPR received a bomb threat with the apparent goal of scaring or silencing them in the wake of firing commentator Juan Williams. Cartoonist Mike Thompson of the Detroit Free Press also received a similar bullying attempt from Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and his rabid audience, who obviously didn't see the irony in attempting to silence the free speech of a cartoonist, who drew a cartoon about Mr. Williams' job-ending gaffe.
We're well aware of the opinions of many people around the country on both ends of the political spectrum. Many of them are of the opinion that President Obama and the Democrats have allowed the Republicans and Tea Partiers to bully the Democrats around. Many Tea Partiers also hold similar opinions of the Republican party as weaklings, unwilling to stand up for the views of those on the far right.
Unfortunately, these are just the latest attempts this year in the U.S. to use fear and intimidation to gain political advantage. There have been too many bullying political ads to count. A large number of clergy bullied from their pulpits this fall too, in direct violation of Federal laws. And an enraged listener of Glenn Beck was stopped in California earlier this year on his way to massacre people at a progressive-allied group.
We're aware that Americans have violently differing opinions on topics ranging from taxes to religion, and from abortion to euthanasia. For all that, though, it's not just a quaint idea that we should be able to agree to disagree in a civil way.
If we cannot treat each other civilly, the government DOES have the authority to step in and stop the bullying, the assaults, and the violence.
As we've said already once this year, enough is enough.
Particularly in some political races, the bully mindset has become almost acceptable this year - but it had yet to cross over into physical violence, until Monday night.
In case you missed it, on Monday night, prior to the final debate for the Kentucky U.S. Senate seat between GOP candidate Rand Paul and Democratic candidate Jack Conway, a GOP supporter - one of Mr. Paul's own campaign coordinators, who was also a local Kentucky Republican party official - physically attacked a Democratic supporter of Mr. Paul's opponent, who was attempting to get the attention of Mr. Paul. The primary assailant had help from several other not-yet officially identified Republicans, who held, pushed, and eventually stomped on the head of the Democratic supporter. The victim later ended up in the hospital with severe bruises, a sprain, and a concussion.
The bullying hasn't stopped there.
On Tuesday, NPR received a bomb threat with the apparent goal of scaring or silencing them in the wake of firing commentator Juan Williams. Cartoonist Mike Thompson of the Detroit Free Press also received a similar bullying attempt from Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and his rabid audience, who obviously didn't see the irony in attempting to silence the free speech of a cartoonist, who drew a cartoon about Mr. Williams' job-ending gaffe.
We're well aware of the opinions of many people around the country on both ends of the political spectrum. Many of them are of the opinion that President Obama and the Democrats have allowed the Republicans and Tea Partiers to bully the Democrats around. Many Tea Partiers also hold similar opinions of the Republican party as weaklings, unwilling to stand up for the views of those on the far right.
Unfortunately, these are just the latest attempts this year in the U.S. to use fear and intimidation to gain political advantage. There have been too many bullying political ads to count. A large number of clergy bullied from their pulpits this fall too, in direct violation of Federal laws. And an enraged listener of Glenn Beck was stopped in California earlier this year on his way to massacre people at a progressive-allied group.
We're aware that Americans have violently differing opinions on topics ranging from taxes to religion, and from abortion to euthanasia. For all that, though, it's not just a quaint idea that we should be able to agree to disagree in a civil way.
If we cannot treat each other civilly, the government DOES have the authority to step in and stop the bullying, the assaults, and the violence.
As we've said already once this year, enough is enough.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Angels, Devils, and Uncompromising Stupidity
With the elections just a week away, something several of our staff members recently saw on Facebook has been brought to mind again by the recent comments of Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell.
What we saw last week as we were updating our Facebook pages was a comment proudly boasting the following:
That disappointment continued late yesterday, when we read the interview of Sen. McConnell by National Journal's Major Garrett.
No matter who wins the election next week, it's obvious that BOTH sides will have to find REAL compromise in order to accomplish anything the next two years. Yet McConnell, the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, said the following in his interview:
We've said it before, and we'll repeat it again: there are members of each party who are less than shining examples of either their party's politics or ethical conduct in general. Voting strictly party line only keeps these morally bankrupt fools in office. It's also an almost guaranteed way to end up with a deadlocked political system that isn't responsive to the needs of the people it is supposed to serve.
Sure, most of us have the metaphorical little devil on our shoulders who says the same thing as the misguided parent we saw on Facebook, especially when we encounter situations that favor our chosen political party.
The truth, however, is that - unlike Sen. McConnell - we should vote for people whose policies we agree with, those who will work in a bipartisan fashion in order to make things better for all of us.
There is a reason President Obama campaigned on the idea that we need to appeal to the better angels of our nature, instead of the little devils. We hope you'll remember that as you head into the voting booth.
What we saw last week as we were updating our Facebook pages was a comment proudly boasting the following:
Overheard at the dinner table tonight : "Remember kids, tomorrow is the Weekly Reader election, and we only vote for candidates with an 'R' after their name. -[spouse's name] I married a good [person.]"Aside from the fact that brainwashing one's kids instead of teaching them critical thinking is disgusting, we're not entirely surprised at this admission of thoughtless behavior, given the current political environment in America. We are disappointed, however.
That disappointment continued late yesterday, when we read the interview of Sen. McConnell by National Journal's Major Garrett.
No matter who wins the election next week, it's obvious that BOTH sides will have to find REAL compromise in order to accomplish anything the next two years. Yet McConnell, the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, said the following in his interview:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."Even though MILLIONS of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Even though we are still fighting one war (and truly haven't finished cleaning up from another). Even though there are massive problems with the budget, with the need to find more revenue and to refine the Federal budget further. Even though our entire political system is practically up for grabs to the highest bidder right now, the GOP's most powerful Senator seems to think NONE of those issues are more important than simply sinking the agenda of a President who happens to be from the opposing political party.
We've said it before, and we'll repeat it again: there are members of each party who are less than shining examples of either their party's politics or ethical conduct in general. Voting strictly party line only keeps these morally bankrupt fools in office. It's also an almost guaranteed way to end up with a deadlocked political system that isn't responsive to the needs of the people it is supposed to serve.
Sure, most of us have the metaphorical little devil on our shoulders who says the same thing as the misguided parent we saw on Facebook, especially when we encounter situations that favor our chosen political party.
The truth, however, is that - unlike Sen. McConnell - we should vote for people whose policies we agree with, those who will work in a bipartisan fashion in order to make things better for all of us.
There is a reason President Obama campaigned on the idea that we need to appeal to the better angels of our nature, instead of the little devils. We hope you'll remember that as you head into the voting booth.
Monday, October 25, 2010
When You're In A Hole...
In an election season with an economy still recovering from the worst failure by Wall Street since the Great Depression, and during the same year that saw the worst oil disaster in history, we'd hoped to hear a few new ideas this fall. We thought it would have made sense for candidates to be talking about jobs programs, fixing the problems with the banks, mortgages, and corporate America. We even thought energy and environmental issues might be on the table.
Instead, for the most part, we've had "I'm not a witch", and "Aqua Buddha", while outside interests from who knows where have attempted to buy our midterm elections out from under the American people.
In a few rare cases, there have been candidates seriously debating substantive issues, and we applaud those few who have done so.
However, the most important discussion we've heard on energy, the environment, and jobs recently has been from two incumbent U.S. Senators, neither of whom is up for reelection.
At the end of last week, Nebraska Democratic Senator Ben Nelson and Republican Senator Mike Johanns both announced they had significant concerns with the proposed Keystone oil pipeline being built by a Canadian company. The pipeline's proposed route travels from Canada through Montana and South Dakota, across Nebraska, then down through Kansas and Oklahoma to Texas, where the raw crude would be refined.
Currently, the proposal also takes the pipeline through the Nebraska Sandhills, a large area of incredibly porous soil and rock, that sits on top of the Ogallala Aquifer. That aquifer isn't just any insignificant underground puddle. It's one of the world's largest underground sources of water, and provides water suitable for agriculture or drinking for eight states throughout the central portion of the U.S. Without the aquifer, some of the most fertile farmland in the country would dry up and turn into desert.
The company attempting to build and operate the pipeline is the same company responsible for the disastrous oil spill in Michigan this past July, that ranks as one of the worst disasters of its kind in the Midwest.
For now, the Keystone pipeline project has been put on indefinite hold, in part due to the Senators from Nebraska, and in part due to significant trouble the oil company is running into in the wake of new Federal regulations imposed by the Obama administration. Those delays may not hold forever, though, as Sec. of State Clinton mentioned late last week.
It's these kinds of incredibly important issues that we wish we'd seen and heard far more debate over this election season.
If there is a candidate you can vote for, who seriously tackled an issue of this importance, and came down on the correct side of the issue?
We recommend you vote for them as soon as possible. That is, if an actual candidate like that exists where you are.
Instead, for the most part, we've had "I'm not a witch", and "Aqua Buddha", while outside interests from who knows where have attempted to buy our midterm elections out from under the American people.
In a few rare cases, there have been candidates seriously debating substantive issues, and we applaud those few who have done so.
However, the most important discussion we've heard on energy, the environment, and jobs recently has been from two incumbent U.S. Senators, neither of whom is up for reelection.
At the end of last week, Nebraska Democratic Senator Ben Nelson and Republican Senator Mike Johanns both announced they had significant concerns with the proposed Keystone oil pipeline being built by a Canadian company. The pipeline's proposed route travels from Canada through Montana and South Dakota, across Nebraska, then down through Kansas and Oklahoma to Texas, where the raw crude would be refined.
Currently, the proposal also takes the pipeline through the Nebraska Sandhills, a large area of incredibly porous soil and rock, that sits on top of the Ogallala Aquifer. That aquifer isn't just any insignificant underground puddle. It's one of the world's largest underground sources of water, and provides water suitable for agriculture or drinking for eight states throughout the central portion of the U.S. Without the aquifer, some of the most fertile farmland in the country would dry up and turn into desert.
The company attempting to build and operate the pipeline is the same company responsible for the disastrous oil spill in Michigan this past July, that ranks as one of the worst disasters of its kind in the Midwest.
For now, the Keystone pipeline project has been put on indefinite hold, in part due to the Senators from Nebraska, and in part due to significant trouble the oil company is running into in the wake of new Federal regulations imposed by the Obama administration. Those delays may not hold forever, though, as Sec. of State Clinton mentioned late last week.
It's these kinds of incredibly important issues that we wish we'd seen and heard far more debate over this election season.
If there is a candidate you can vote for, who seriously tackled an issue of this importance, and came down on the correct side of the issue?
We recommend you vote for them as soon as possible. That is, if an actual candidate like that exists where you are.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Friday Funday: Absence, "Boobs" And A Friendly Reminder
We hope you're not taken aback by our headline today. Boobs - less intelligent folks - might be offended or take our headline in a negative way. Thankfully, we know our readers are generally more astute.
There are a few small but important topics we've been meaning to discuss with you, so conveniently we'll wrap them all up today, to end the week.
First, to answer the questions we've received over the last few weeks, yes, we HAVE been traveling - quite a lot over the last month. Including trips by half our staff to Italy, and trips to conferences in Omaha, Nebraska, and Columbus, Ohio, it's been quite a busy few weeks on the road. That's why we've been delivering so many "Best Of" cartoons lately. As some of our readers have noticed, Paul's cartoons often remain timely long after he first creates them - so we're glad you've enjoyed them this second time around.
While we've been traveling, we've also been hearing more than a few comments of praise and approval for our work. You've told us that not only have our writing and links continued to improve, but they seem to compliment Paul's cartoons even better since our "remodel". We still earn the occasional angry comment on Facebook or in our email boxes, from readers who think we're too liberal - or even occasionally conservative - in our work.
We're just glad people are reading our work, even if they "dislike" it on Facebook or act like boobs in their hate mail.
Speaking of boobs, because of being on the road so much we have yet to tackle an important topic that we might have otherwise gotten to before now - that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Many syndicated cartoonists we know celebrated on October 10th, by having all of their 50+ features colored in various shades of pink - which we applaud. Several other cartoonists have also mentioned breast Cancer Screening month in their work earlier this month.
Consider this our reminder to you; the battle against cancer, like many diseases, doesn't stop when the month of October ends. We hope that you'll remember to get breast cancer screenings - or prostate and colon cancer screenings - any time of the year. If you don't have decent insurance? Find a clinic.
Cancer is one of those things that you can never detect too early. We hope you take some time this weekend, and look ahead to next week or next month, and then find some time to get a checkup.
We'd prefer that all our readers are healthy - and preferably happy.
Even the boobs.
There are a few small but important topics we've been meaning to discuss with you, so conveniently we'll wrap them all up today, to end the week.
First, to answer the questions we've received over the last few weeks, yes, we HAVE been traveling - quite a lot over the last month. Including trips by half our staff to Italy, and trips to conferences in Omaha, Nebraska, and Columbus, Ohio, it's been quite a busy few weeks on the road. That's why we've been delivering so many "Best Of" cartoons lately. As some of our readers have noticed, Paul's cartoons often remain timely long after he first creates them - so we're glad you've enjoyed them this second time around.
While we've been traveling, we've also been hearing more than a few comments of praise and approval for our work. You've told us that not only have our writing and links continued to improve, but they seem to compliment Paul's cartoons even better since our "remodel". We still earn the occasional angry comment on Facebook or in our email boxes, from readers who think we're too liberal - or even occasionally conservative - in our work.
We're just glad people are reading our work, even if they "dislike" it on Facebook or act like boobs in their hate mail.
Speaking of boobs, because of being on the road so much we have yet to tackle an important topic that we might have otherwise gotten to before now - that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Many syndicated cartoonists we know celebrated on October 10th, by having all of their 50+ features colored in various shades of pink - which we applaud. Several other cartoonists have also mentioned breast Cancer Screening month in their work earlier this month.
Consider this our reminder to you; the battle against cancer, like many diseases, doesn't stop when the month of October ends. We hope that you'll remember to get breast cancer screenings - or prostate and colon cancer screenings - any time of the year. If you don't have decent insurance? Find a clinic.
Cancer is one of those things that you can never detect too early. We hope you take some time this weekend, and look ahead to next week or next month, and then find some time to get a checkup.
We'd prefer that all our readers are healthy - and preferably happy.
Even the boobs.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Using Their Heads
Autumn is a time of year seemingly made perfect for the average American sports fan. College and pro football heats up, Major League Baseball heads to the playoffs, and basketball and hockey start up as well. With all of those different sports going on, there's bound to be some crybabys, whiners, and outright cheaters (And we're not even talking about the fans this time). Of course, there's also bound to be some bruises and injuries. Overall, the games are enjoyable events.
That is, until someone ends up paralyzed for life because another player didn't follow the rules.
In case you missed it last weekend, Eric LeGrand, a football player from Rutgers committed a helmet-on-helmet tackle against a player from Army. It was the last football tackle he'll ever make, as he's now paralyzed from the neck down. In the NFL this same weekend, several different players displayed conduct that wasn't just unsportsmanlike - it was downright dangerous - as they committed similar hits on the field. Like the college player from Rutgers, they also broke the rules of the game.
This time around, they're only being fined. Yet much of this week, those penalized NFL players have been whining to the media, claiming that the NFL's application of rules that already existed will take all the fun out of the game. Some childish players have even threatened to retire early, as though their presence is key to the game's continued existence.
The NFL and its players union over the last few years have been instrumental in drawing attention to the long-term effects of concussions and other common sports injuries. When it comes to concussions, the NFL has become hyper vigilant, after repeated studies have shown multiple concussions cause early onset Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, as well as loss of memory and early onset dementia.
Finally, after the three concussive tackles this weekend, and the college player who became paralyzed, the NFL decided to finally get serious about enforcing existing rules.
We say it's about damn time.
As Gregg Easterbrook pointed out at ESPN.com. the league has told officials to be strict about enforcing the celebration penalty, and they don't kid around about that. Why should enforcing rules of conduct that save the function - and maybe even the lives - of players in all sports be any different?
The rules exist for all of us. And no one - no fan, no corporate media contract, no player, no coach - is above the rules, or the game.
Their lives - or their ability to walk - depends on it.
That is, until someone ends up paralyzed for life because another player didn't follow the rules.
In case you missed it last weekend, Eric LeGrand, a football player from Rutgers committed a helmet-on-helmet tackle against a player from Army. It was the last football tackle he'll ever make, as he's now paralyzed from the neck down. In the NFL this same weekend, several different players displayed conduct that wasn't just unsportsmanlike - it was downright dangerous - as they committed similar hits on the field. Like the college player from Rutgers, they also broke the rules of the game.
This time around, they're only being fined. Yet much of this week, those penalized NFL players have been whining to the media, claiming that the NFL's application of rules that already existed will take all the fun out of the game. Some childish players have even threatened to retire early, as though their presence is key to the game's continued existence.
The NFL and its players union over the last few years have been instrumental in drawing attention to the long-term effects of concussions and other common sports injuries. When it comes to concussions, the NFL has become hyper vigilant, after repeated studies have shown multiple concussions cause early onset Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, as well as loss of memory and early onset dementia.
Finally, after the three concussive tackles this weekend, and the college player who became paralyzed, the NFL decided to finally get serious about enforcing existing rules.
We say it's about damn time.
As Gregg Easterbrook pointed out at ESPN.com. the league has told officials to be strict about enforcing the celebration penalty, and they don't kid around about that. Why should enforcing rules of conduct that save the function - and maybe even the lives - of players in all sports be any different?
The rules exist for all of us. And no one - no fan, no corporate media contract, no player, no coach - is above the rules, or the game.
Their lives - or their ability to walk - depends on it.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Reality Bites
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Stephen Colbert
2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner
While the quote above is from the fictional character that writer and comedian Stephen Colbert plays on TV, it still has a ring of real truth to it.
With less than two weeks remaining until the 2010 midterm elections, money from anonymous sources continues to flow into the campaign coffers of candidates all over the country. While there is some flowing into war chests of both major parties, the overwhelming dollar amounts are flowing into Republican hands.
Like other observers of politics, we're not naive enough to think that those shadowy donors will remain anonymous after the elections. They'll expect political favors, as any donor always does. For example, the millions of individual donors to the Democratic Party and Mr. Obama didn't just cough up their hard-earned money two years ago because they didn't know what to do with the few dollars they had left when the Bush economic programs tanked.
For those Republicans who are certain that their side will at least win a majority in the House of Representatives, we think they're in for a rude awakening over the next two years if they expect the kind of change they propose.
If we simply look at the basic outline of the 2011 Federal budget, as syndicated columnist Eugene Robinson points out, where exactly do the supposed paragons of economic virtue in the Republican party plan on cutting?
Mandatory items - items that it would take a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and the President to override - comprise two-thirds of the budget. So there won't be any cutting going on there. What's left are a long list of supposedly discretionary items - like food inspection and air traffic control - as well as items that the Republican Party leadership has already put "off-limits" from potential cuts, including military spending and homeland security.
As we've said before, anyone who posesses basic math skills is aware that if no serious cuts are allowed, the government will have to find additional revenue - which means raising taxes, even to a small degree, if the budget is to look like Republican and Tea Party candidates claim they want it to be.
The invisible donors of millions won't be the only ones looking to string up Republican lawmakers if the GOP wins a Congressional majority. Those on the far right who claim to want the health care insurance reform law killed will also be livid in two years if their unrealistic demands aren't met - which they won't be. Some Congressional Republicans have already admitted that repeal of the health care insurance reform law won't happen, no matter who wins.
We wish all of our potential legislators good luck in achieving any goals that will move this country forward. But we'd be remiss if we didn't remind them: if you insist on pouring blood in the water, don't be surprised if you get bit when you swim with the sharks.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The Dangers Of Fanaticism
We are two weeks from the midterm election today, an election that may have far more importance in the future than we know at this present time.
As we hope you've gleaned from our other writings, no one on the Daily Felltoon staff believes that government is worthless or should be destroyed, unlike many in the Tea Party and on the extreme right. Nor do we think government should do everything for everyone. There is a balance, a place in the middle where people of different sides can agree on many things. If nothing else, we can usually agree to disagree.
Than again, none of us are fanatics.
While there are no fanatical candidates with any serious chance of winning in any geographical areas near us, there are plenty of fanatical candidates running this year in races throughout the country. What concerns us most is about these candidates is that they don't seem to know what the laws they'll be working with actually say - and they don't seem to care.
As syndicated columnist Frank Rich pointed out earlier this week, the media continues focusing on the insanity of Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell, or the bigoted Carl Paladino who uses violence as a threat, or even the Ayn Rand acolyte, Rand "Aqua Buddha" Paul. Yet there are other candidates who truly represent a clear and present danger to the ability of our government to govern going forward.
Over the weekend, after a debate held on public property, at a public school in Alaska, a reporter for an online news outlet followed Mr. Miller. The reporter was still in the public school, on public property, and well within his rights. The reporter did what reporters do - intensely continue questioning the subject, until the subject gets away. Mr. Miller's private security guards had other ideas, however - and they handcuffed the reporter, claiming they had the right to arrest him. Further, as other reporters began covering the detainment of the first reporter, candidate Miller's guards began getting needlessly physical with other reporters.
Leaving aside the appalling hubris and disregard of the law required for a private security firm to claim it has the powers of the police, ignoring for a moment the illegal detention and assault of private citizens - reporters or not - there is a reason that freedom of the press - the media, these days - is one of the items explicitly enshrined in our First Amendment.
When you go to the voting booth in two weeks - or if you're filling your ballot out right after you hop offline - some of the key items American citizens need to know are who the candidates really are, what their opinions are on important issues, and what their character tells us about how they might vote on future issues.
As we've said repeatedly, while we hope everyone votes, we also hope that everyone is well educated on all issues and well informed on all candidates appearing on their ballot. The only way a person becomes that way is through the effort of hard working journalists and members of the media.
Any candidate for public office who thinks that attacking the media is an acceptable campaign tactic has a lot more to learn about the United States.
Starting with the First Amendment.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Just Plain Clarity In DC
It should be no surprise to anyone who has ever written a paper for a professor or is involved in the media, that writing well is NOT an easy skill to master. Every member of our staff has been writing for many years now, as part of their professional obligations, and the commentary you're reading now still goes through multiple edits every day.
When our legislators craft laws, they're often acutely aware of all the less-than-ethical lawyers and lobbyists who will be looking to weasel their way through loopholes in any law that's passed. Unfortunately, that means lengthy and highly specific wording is a requirement in most government documents.
Still, only an extremely tiny fraction of the documents issued by the U.S. federal government are written laws. As of last week, President Obama signed a bill into law simplifying the rest of them.
H.R. 946 - The Plain Writing Act of 2010 - wasn't a sexy law and despite this hyper-partisan atmosphere before the midterm election, was an incredibly bipartisan bill. Sponsored by Democratic Representative Bruce Braley of Iowa, the bill practically flew through Congress, even though thirty-three House Republicans voted against it.
It's not as though this is a new idea. Members of both parties have been attempting to get something like this bill passed in one form or another since the 1950s. Yet it took until this past week to accomplish yet another law that many others in Washington, DC have tried and failed to get passed. We're certain this won't be the end of the effort to simplify government documents - and it certainly won't be a law that lawyers looking for loopholes will shy away from.
Nonetheless, we think this is yet another example of the kinds of positive change that can happen in government when members of all political parties work together.
It's simple.
Really.
When our legislators craft laws, they're often acutely aware of all the less-than-ethical lawyers and lobbyists who will be looking to weasel their way through loopholes in any law that's passed. Unfortunately, that means lengthy and highly specific wording is a requirement in most government documents.
Still, only an extremely tiny fraction of the documents issued by the U.S. federal government are written laws. As of last week, President Obama signed a bill into law simplifying the rest of them.
H.R. 946 - The Plain Writing Act of 2010 - wasn't a sexy law and despite this hyper-partisan atmosphere before the midterm election, was an incredibly bipartisan bill. Sponsored by Democratic Representative Bruce Braley of Iowa, the bill practically flew through Congress, even though thirty-three House Republicans voted against it.
It's not as though this is a new idea. Members of both parties have been attempting to get something like this bill passed in one form or another since the 1950s. Yet it took until this past week to accomplish yet another law that many others in Washington, DC have tried and failed to get passed. We're certain this won't be the end of the effort to simplify government documents - and it certainly won't be a law that lawyers looking for loopholes will shy away from.
Nonetheless, we think this is yet another example of the kinds of positive change that can happen in government when members of all political parties work together.
It's simple.
Really.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Friday Funday: Home And Away
This weekend is another busy one for us, no matter where we happen to be in the U.S.
Some of us are celebrating the weekend at the 2010 Festival of Cartoon Art in Columbus, Ohio. The first day of the festival was technically yesterday, but the festival still runs through Sunday. Tickets are still available for two events: "An Evening With Matt Groening," the creator of The Simpsons and Life in Hell cartoons will be Saturday evening, while "Art Spiegelman: In Conversation" will be Sunday night.
If you're in the Ohio Valley region, we hope you'll come join us.
Our staff members in the Washington, DC area are hoping to get some sleep this weekend. Jet lag and infant teething can be hard things to recover from - but both overseas travel and generally happy kids are enjoyable experiences.
If you have the chance, we highly recommend visiting Italy and especially the island of Sicily.
Or spending time with your kids or grandkids.
As for the rest of our staff, we'll be in Nebraska this weekend, getting ready for what we hope will be a fantastic weekend of Husker sports viewing, including a significant - and long overdue - beating of the Texas Longhorns in college football.
No matter where we go, home or away, inside the United States or overseas, we continue to notice that most Americans - and most regular people - are beginning to reject the histrionics of the fanatics.
The fanatics may dominate the TV and radio - and it's obvious that many of them are simply shills for those groups attempting to buy the election - but contrary to the yammering of infotainment media, more Americans seem to be looking a bit deeper at subjects they'll be voting on in just a few weeks. They're doing research - actual research from legitimate sources, like those we link to - and having civil discussions again, even with people they don't agree with.
To paraphrase a letter released by the legendary Tom Osborne this week, regarding the conduct of Husker fans this weekend, this is a great time for us all to display the pride we have in our country. Be courteous, responsible, and respectful of those we agree with - and those we don't - by showing our pride in ourselves, through our behavior.
We couldn't agree more, sir.
Enjoy your weekend.
Some of us are celebrating the weekend at the 2010 Festival of Cartoon Art in Columbus, Ohio. The first day of the festival was technically yesterday, but the festival still runs through Sunday. Tickets are still available for two events: "An Evening With Matt Groening," the creator of The Simpsons and Life in Hell cartoons will be Saturday evening, while "Art Spiegelman: In Conversation" will be Sunday night.
If you're in the Ohio Valley region, we hope you'll come join us.
Our staff members in the Washington, DC area are hoping to get some sleep this weekend. Jet lag and infant teething can be hard things to recover from - but both overseas travel and generally happy kids are enjoyable experiences.
If you have the chance, we highly recommend visiting Italy and especially the island of Sicily.
Or spending time with your kids or grandkids.
As for the rest of our staff, we'll be in Nebraska this weekend, getting ready for what we hope will be a fantastic weekend of Husker sports viewing, including a significant - and long overdue - beating of the Texas Longhorns in college football.
No matter where we go, home or away, inside the United States or overseas, we continue to notice that most Americans - and most regular people - are beginning to reject the histrionics of the fanatics.
The fanatics may dominate the TV and radio - and it's obvious that many of them are simply shills for those groups attempting to buy the election - but contrary to the yammering of infotainment media, more Americans seem to be looking a bit deeper at subjects they'll be voting on in just a few weeks. They're doing research - actual research from legitimate sources, like those we link to - and having civil discussions again, even with people they don't agree with.
To paraphrase a letter released by the legendary Tom Osborne this week, regarding the conduct of Husker fans this weekend, this is a great time for us all to display the pride we have in our country. Be courteous, responsible, and respectful of those we agree with - and those we don't - by showing our pride in ourselves, through our behavior.
We couldn't agree more, sir.
Enjoy your weekend.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Great Success In The Journey To The Center
Most humans disagree with each other from time to time. It's natural, after all - even identical twins don't always agree. So it goes to reason that anytime one billion people - that's one in every six people on the planet - is paying attention to any one event, and cheering the results, it's not a small event at all.
That was the case over the last couple of days, as the rescue of 33 miners trapped for 70 days in a remote mine in Chile culminated in success. We're fairly certain you, or someone in your house, saw some of the footage, read stories, saw pictures or heard coverage of the event.
It's not been a small feat.
In under 70 days, a team comprised of engineers from twelve countries, plus advisors from many other countries, have assembled and built a transit system like no other. Built with parts, experience and knowledge from Chile, Germany, Japan, South Africa, the United States, Argentina, Spain, and even Bolivia - Chile's rival neighbor - this unique system was designed to transport one person at a time, inside a capsule less than 3 1/2 feet wide, through a hole over a third of a mile deep.
As many of the media reporters from all over the world have continually marveled, the focus of virtually everyone on the site hasn't been cost or nationality, politics or religion. No one has refused to help because the miners haven't paid a $75 rescue fee, or because the mining company broke the law. Nor did the Chilean government turn away any offer of help, because some minor law might have been temporarily broken. It has been a team effort, in every way.
It hasn't just been the rescuers on the surface that have been teaming up successfully.
The miners themselves organized their own - literally underground - society. They designated tasks and responsibilities, chose leaders, rationed resources and kept the peace. Because of their ability to work together with people they don't always agree with (or even like), after 70 days, they've all emerged alive and in a relatively healthy condition.
Whether it's an official coalition or just an ad hoc group, no group of human beings can manage to organize themselves and achieve any significant task without working TOGETHER, as a group, for ideas that will move everyone forward - or in this case, upward - to a better place.
If an event like this is what it takes for a group of people to be able to find some productive consensus, we see no problem with the idea of sending all of Congress back down the mine shaft, and closing things off for another 70 days. Strangely, we think citizens of many other countries may have the same idea regarding their legislators.
Who would have ever expected that Jules Verne would be the one to come up with the solution to our hyper-partisan politics?
That was the case over the last couple of days, as the rescue of 33 miners trapped for 70 days in a remote mine in Chile culminated in success. We're fairly certain you, or someone in your house, saw some of the footage, read stories, saw pictures or heard coverage of the event.
It's not been a small feat.
In under 70 days, a team comprised of engineers from twelve countries, plus advisors from many other countries, have assembled and built a transit system like no other. Built with parts, experience and knowledge from Chile, Germany, Japan, South Africa, the United States, Argentina, Spain, and even Bolivia - Chile's rival neighbor - this unique system was designed to transport one person at a time, inside a capsule less than 3 1/2 feet wide, through a hole over a third of a mile deep.
As many of the media reporters from all over the world have continually marveled, the focus of virtually everyone on the site hasn't been cost or nationality, politics or religion. No one has refused to help because the miners haven't paid a $75 rescue fee, or because the mining company broke the law. Nor did the Chilean government turn away any offer of help, because some minor law might have been temporarily broken. It has been a team effort, in every way.
It hasn't just been the rescuers on the surface that have been teaming up successfully.
The miners themselves organized their own - literally underground - society. They designated tasks and responsibilities, chose leaders, rationed resources and kept the peace. Because of their ability to work together with people they don't always agree with (or even like), after 70 days, they've all emerged alive and in a relatively healthy condition.
Whether it's an official coalition or just an ad hoc group, no group of human beings can manage to organize themselves and achieve any significant task without working TOGETHER, as a group, for ideas that will move everyone forward - or in this case, upward - to a better place.
If an event like this is what it takes for a group of people to be able to find some productive consensus, we see no problem with the idea of sending all of Congress back down the mine shaft, and closing things off for another 70 days. Strangely, we think citizens of many other countries may have the same idea regarding their legislators.
Who would have ever expected that Jules Verne would be the one to come up with the solution to our hyper-partisan politics?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Full Disclosure
Over the last few weeks, and especially over the last week or so, the issue of unlimited amounts of corporate money - and possibly foreign money - being used by organizations to buy influence in our American election process has been covered extensively here and elsewhere.
There have been some in the media who've attempted to drag the focus away from the main problem with the campaign finance law as it now stands. There has also been a great deal of squirming and non-denial denials coming from those who have been abusing the current system, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Karl Rove.
What there hasn't been a lot of is full disclosure, which is what Americans are truthfully looking for, in finding out who is attempting to buy elections. In fact, that's what the DISCLOSE Act - which passed the House in April of this year, but remains stalled in the Senate - was specifically designed to do.
Thankfully, full disclosure appears to have come to another contentious issue that's been argued over for most of the last 17 years.
Last night, a judge in California finally pulled the trigger and killed the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, by barring enforcement of the policy worldwide, by the U.S. military.
In the suit, which was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of LGBT GOP members, Federal District Court Judge Virginia Phillips said that DADT infringed on the First and Fifth Amendments of servicemembers and potential servicemembers. In her ruling, Judge Phillips also permanently enjoined enforcement of DADT and forced the military to "immediately suspend and discontinue" any DADT related military separation in progress.
The Defense department's recommendation on how to implement the elimination of DADT - not IF it should be buried, but HOW to move from current standards to new ones - was already scheduled to be released in early December. In some ways, yesterday's ruling is merely another step on the path to eliminating DADT completely.
It's also a step towards aligning the methods and laws with which we treat our armed servicemembers with the rhetoric of freedom, openness, and full disclosure those members of our military fight for.
Notice - the defeat of DADT was accomplished with support from BOTH Republicans AND Democrats.
Let's hope achieving the full disclosure of campaign finances doesn't take another seventeen years.
There have been some in the media who've attempted to drag the focus away from the main problem with the campaign finance law as it now stands. There has also been a great deal of squirming and non-denial denials coming from those who have been abusing the current system, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Karl Rove.
What there hasn't been a lot of is full disclosure, which is what Americans are truthfully looking for, in finding out who is attempting to buy elections. In fact, that's what the DISCLOSE Act - which passed the House in April of this year, but remains stalled in the Senate - was specifically designed to do.
Thankfully, full disclosure appears to have come to another contentious issue that's been argued over for most of the last 17 years.
Last night, a judge in California finally pulled the trigger and killed the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, by barring enforcement of the policy worldwide, by the U.S. military.
In the suit, which was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of LGBT GOP members, Federal District Court Judge Virginia Phillips said that DADT infringed on the First and Fifth Amendments of servicemembers and potential servicemembers. In her ruling, Judge Phillips also permanently enjoined enforcement of DADT and forced the military to "immediately suspend and discontinue" any DADT related military separation in progress.
The Defense department's recommendation on how to implement the elimination of DADT - not IF it should be buried, but HOW to move from current standards to new ones - was already scheduled to be released in early December. In some ways, yesterday's ruling is merely another step on the path to eliminating DADT completely.
It's also a step towards aligning the methods and laws with which we treat our armed servicemembers with the rhetoric of freedom, openness, and full disclosure those members of our military fight for.
Notice - the defeat of DADT was accomplished with support from BOTH Republicans AND Democrats.
Let's hope achieving the full disclosure of campaign finances doesn't take another seventeen years.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Price Of Complacency
While the level of conflict and the degrees of severity can be debated - and have been previously by our staff - what isn't up for debate is where the next American war is happening. It is already going on, and its location is right here, in America. It's a class war - one where far too many Americans don't even know which side represents their interests.
Our comments today aren't hyperbole. We wish they were.
Unfortunately, the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court earlier this year is, as we've mentioned before, proving itself to be the kind of full-frontal attack on democracy we feared it could be.
There are still those, however, who think that there's nothing wrong with unlimited outside influences in politics, and that those outside influences should be able to raise and spend as much money as they want to influence our representatives and elections.
Here's where they're wrong - and where the war is really taking place.
In the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court, led by its activist conservative majority, ruled that unlimited outside campaign spending by corporations or unions "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy."
The problem is, Americans are indeed losing faith in their democracy.
Setting aside the statistical fact that only about 30 percent of Americans think members of EITHER major party can fix the problems we now face, the capability of any organization to buy unlimited amounts of media exposure - and not be forced to tell us where that money is coming from - scares anyone who isn't living in some academic fantasy land.
If corporations are persons, and money is equal to free speech - both positions we vehemently disagree with - and corporations can spend as much money as they want to influence voters, than corporations (and unions, to a significantly more restricted degree) have more free speech than other Americans.
The idea of Americans being equal to one another is the first basic premise of who we are as a country, one from which a large portion of our laws emanate. It's why we have the Bill of Rights, the 13th and the 19th Amendments. It's why we have the Civil Rights Bill and the Voting Rights Act. It's even why we had worked incredibly hard on campaign finance reform multiple times in our nation's history, before the Supreme Court made its fatally flawed decision.
Without the hope and opportunity that any one American can achieve an equal level of happiness and security equal to any other American, there is no reason for us to continue to be a nation.
If that isn't cause for "the electorate to lose faith in this democracy", we're not sure what is.
Our comments today aren't hyperbole. We wish they were.
Unfortunately, the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court earlier this year is, as we've mentioned before, proving itself to be the kind of full-frontal attack on democracy we feared it could be.
There are still those, however, who think that there's nothing wrong with unlimited outside influences in politics, and that those outside influences should be able to raise and spend as much money as they want to influence our representatives and elections.
Here's where they're wrong - and where the war is really taking place.
In the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court, led by its activist conservative majority, ruled that unlimited outside campaign spending by corporations or unions "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy."
The problem is, Americans are indeed losing faith in their democracy.
Setting aside the statistical fact that only about 30 percent of Americans think members of EITHER major party can fix the problems we now face, the capability of any organization to buy unlimited amounts of media exposure - and not be forced to tell us where that money is coming from - scares anyone who isn't living in some academic fantasy land.
If corporations are persons, and money is equal to free speech - both positions we vehemently disagree with - and corporations can spend as much money as they want to influence voters, than corporations (and unions, to a significantly more restricted degree) have more free speech than other Americans.
The idea of Americans being equal to one another is the first basic premise of who we are as a country, one from which a large portion of our laws emanate. It's why we have the Bill of Rights, the 13th and the 19th Amendments. It's why we have the Civil Rights Bill and the Voting Rights Act. It's even why we had worked incredibly hard on campaign finance reform multiple times in our nation's history, before the Supreme Court made its fatally flawed decision.
Without the hope and opportunity that any one American can achieve an equal level of happiness and security equal to any other American, there is no reason for us to continue to be a nation.
If that isn't cause for "the electorate to lose faith in this democracy", we're not sure what is.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Three Weeks - And A Sucker Bet
As of tomorrow (Tuesday), the 2010 Elections will be only three weeks away, and many news outlets are ramping up their political coverage, attempting to tell one oversimplified narrative or another.
Except, as the facts prove, there is no simple narrative that applies to this election cycle.
That's not something you're likely to hear from many of the cable television "news" channels or the radio talk shows over the next three weeks. You will hear it from us, and you will hear from our information sources, like the great team at fivethirtyeight.com.
Over the past weekend, Nate Silver and his team published their latest House forecast - with a great number of caveats. This earned them scorn from sectors of the political media realm, but great praise from us. Nate went over his methodology and reasoning in a second article published on Sunday, but the bottom line from Nate - a former professional gambler - is this:
There are a great many factors that have led to this kind of severe uncertainty; one factor is that significantly more Congressional races have contenders from both major parties this year. Another is that both sides have been actively campaigning for more than a year in most of these races, which is unusual for a midterm election. Another factor is the unlimited corporate money - and even questionably foreign money - flowing into outside political action groups, due to the horribly poor "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling.
The long and short of it all is this: you'll likely hear forecasts of the number of Congressional seats Republicans may pickup from all kinds of media outlets over the next few weeks, all ranging somewhere in the mid forties. However, the statistics and factual data that Nate and his team - the best in the business - look at says any number around 50 has a plus or minus chance of around 30 seats in being correct. Meaning Republicans could pick up nearly 80 seats - or as few as 17.
So, over the next three weeks, while there will likely be a heavy push from corporate backed media organizations to claim one political party will "almost certainly" win or lose, the statistics and facts say otherwise. It's still anyone's election to win or lose.
Our suggestion to you, our readers is this: If you're looking to make some extra money for the holidays, find one of these overly certain fools from either party - and follow Nate's suggestion.
We just ask that when you win, you remember us - preferably with cash.
Except, as the facts prove, there is no simple narrative that applies to this election cycle.
That's not something you're likely to hear from many of the cable television "news" channels or the radio talk shows over the next three weeks. You will hear it from us, and you will hear from our information sources, like the great team at fivethirtyeight.com.
Over the past weekend, Nate Silver and his team published their latest House forecast - with a great number of caveats. This earned them scorn from sectors of the political media realm, but great praise from us. Nate went over his methodology and reasoning in a second article published on Sunday, but the bottom line from Nate - a former professional gambler - is this:
"One good bet you might consider taking up with a friend this year, for instance, is asking him to forecast the number of Republican gains within a range of ±5 seats. If our analysis of this race is correct, then no matter which number he picks, you’ll be at least a 3:1 favorite to win this bet..."
There are a great many factors that have led to this kind of severe uncertainty; one factor is that significantly more Congressional races have contenders from both major parties this year. Another is that both sides have been actively campaigning for more than a year in most of these races, which is unusual for a midterm election. Another factor is the unlimited corporate money - and even questionably foreign money - flowing into outside political action groups, due to the horribly poor "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling.
The long and short of it all is this: you'll likely hear forecasts of the number of Congressional seats Republicans may pickup from all kinds of media outlets over the next few weeks, all ranging somewhere in the mid forties. However, the statistics and factual data that Nate and his team - the best in the business - look at says any number around 50 has a plus or minus chance of around 30 seats in being correct. Meaning Republicans could pick up nearly 80 seats - or as few as 17.
So, over the next three weeks, while there will likely be a heavy push from corporate backed media organizations to claim one political party will "almost certainly" win or lose, the statistics and facts say otherwise. It's still anyone's election to win or lose.
Our suggestion to you, our readers is this: If you're looking to make some extra money for the holidays, find one of these overly certain fools from either party - and follow Nate's suggestion.
We just ask that when you win, you remember us - preferably with cash.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Friday Funday: Sixty Years... and Still Smiling
A week ago, we mentioned the birthday of an animated cartoon legend - but we also could have mentioned the sixtieth birthday of another cartoon legend, one that's been in newspapers across America for sixty years this month. A somewhat snarky but lovable beagle, with his small, yellow-feathered best friend, and his owner, a round-headed, good hearted young kid, and his friends.
Of course, we're talking about the gang from Peanuts.
We're not exaggerating when we say that Snoopy, Woodstock, Charlie Brown, and their friends have been a daily part of our lives in one way or another for much of those sixty years. When our webmaster was a child, he received a yellow-covered, thick, hardcover copy of a Peanuts collection called "The Snoopy Festival." When he and his wife lost their home in a fire more than two years ago, he thought his favorite childhood book had been destroyed - until his treasured copy was happily discovered intact in the unattached and undamaged garage.
We've each had all kinds of Peanuts "gear" from stuffed Snoopy dolls to Peanuts lunchboxes. Over the years, we've referenced Lucy and Charlie Brown's "football practice" gag more times than we can count. Don't even ask us who had a security blanket like Linus.
And what would October be without "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown."
Without giving away our readership list, we have to say "thank you" to certain people involved with Charles Schulz' work when he was alive, and with his foundation now. The work of Mr. Schulz - Sparky, to those who've earned the right to call him that - has more than earned the right to be considered "art" and put in some of the finest museums in world.
Conveniently, if you're near our Washington, DC offices, one of the best museums in the world, the Smithsonian, is currently featuring a small exhibit of Peanuts cartoons and other pieces of Schulz' work. A brand new portrait of Schulz is also now hanging in the National Portrait gallery at the Smithsonian, not far from portraits of other great American heroes, like Washington and Lincoln.
With all of the topics we read, hear about, see online and on television, and deal with in our own daily lives, we could easily become jaded, depressed, angry, or disappointed. So it's comforting when we can open a daily newspaper, or make a short click online, and still see Charlie, Linus, Lucy, Sally, and of course, Snoopy, ready to help us take ourselves just a little bit less seriously.
After all, if a round-headed kid and his crazy dog can look that good at sixty, after all they've been through, there's no reason we can't take on another day.
Especially if that day is Friday.
Of course, we're talking about the gang from Peanuts.
We're not exaggerating when we say that Snoopy, Woodstock, Charlie Brown, and their friends have been a daily part of our lives in one way or another for much of those sixty years. When our webmaster was a child, he received a yellow-covered, thick, hardcover copy of a Peanuts collection called "The Snoopy Festival." When he and his wife lost their home in a fire more than two years ago, he thought his favorite childhood book had been destroyed - until his treasured copy was happily discovered intact in the unattached and undamaged garage.
We've each had all kinds of Peanuts "gear" from stuffed Snoopy dolls to Peanuts lunchboxes. Over the years, we've referenced Lucy and Charlie Brown's "football practice" gag more times than we can count. Don't even ask us who had a security blanket like Linus.
And what would October be without "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown."
Without giving away our readership list, we have to say "thank you" to certain people involved with Charles Schulz' work when he was alive, and with his foundation now. The work of Mr. Schulz - Sparky, to those who've earned the right to call him that - has more than earned the right to be considered "art" and put in some of the finest museums in world.
Conveniently, if you're near our Washington, DC offices, one of the best museums in the world, the Smithsonian, is currently featuring a small exhibit of Peanuts cartoons and other pieces of Schulz' work. A brand new portrait of Schulz is also now hanging in the National Portrait gallery at the Smithsonian, not far from portraits of other great American heroes, like Washington and Lincoln.
With all of the topics we read, hear about, see online and on television, and deal with in our own daily lives, we could easily become jaded, depressed, angry, or disappointed. So it's comforting when we can open a daily newspaper, or make a short click online, and still see Charlie, Linus, Lucy, Sally, and of course, Snoopy, ready to help us take ourselves just a little bit less seriously.
After all, if a round-headed kid and his crazy dog can look that good at sixty, after all they've been through, there's no reason we can't take on another day.
Especially if that day is Friday.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
"Trust Me" Politics
You may have noticed the links section we added in our "Notable News" area several weeks ago titled "Attempting To Buy The Election: The Effects Of Citizens United." We hope you've noticed that section, and we've seen that more than a few of you have clicked on the links in it.
A question we're still asked on a regular basis, however, is "What is that Citizens United thing, anyway?"
In short, Citizens United is the case that allowed elections to be bought, outright, in the United States.
When the case Citizens United v Federal Election Commission first came before the Supreme Court in 2008, we had a feeling that, if the conservative Roberts Court became judicially activist, politics in America could take a severe turn for the worse.
Unfortunately, in January of 2010, our concerns were proven to be valid. The Supreme Court ignored nearly a century of settled law, including many cases they had decided before, and threw out most campaign finance regulation, including the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
Since that decision was handed down earlier this year, the floodgates have opened on campaign financing. In television ads alone - the most expensive part of political campaigning - outside groups and major political parties are expected to spend nearly $3 billion dollars. That's "billion." With a "B". On TV ads.
While the stories and statistics show that groups that are conservative, neo-conservative, corporatist, and heavily allied with standard Republican causes are the biggest abusers so far of the loopholes caused by Citizens United, don't think that dishonor belongs to just the corporate groups on the right. Unions like the SEIU are also ramping up their fundraising and media buying in competitive districts.
As long as most of these groups are spending at least half of the money they raise on "issue ads" that don't TECHNICALLY advocate for or against a specific candidate, they're still legally in the clear - and don't have to divulge ANY information about where their money is coming from.
The DISCLOSE Act put forth by the President and White House would have stopped that shameful loophole - but, after passing the House, it was held hostage in the Senate by Republicans, and left to die.
As several people have noted, there's one sure-fire way groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and far-right wing groups like Karl Rove's "American Crossroads" could put to rest the question of where their money is coming from - for example, whether it's coming from overseas corporations (which is still illegal): release the list of their donors.
Contrary to their protestations, releasing the names of those donors would be perfectly legal, so long as they choose to make that information public (as opposed to being forced to release it). Doing so would also follow along with the logic that groups like the Chamber and individuals like Mr. Rove have previously claimed to adhere to on so many other topics.
As they themselves have said before about similar issues, like warrantless wiretapping, "If you have nothing to hide, there shouldn't be a problem - should there?"
A question we're still asked on a regular basis, however, is "What is that Citizens United thing, anyway?"
In short, Citizens United is the case that allowed elections to be bought, outright, in the United States.
When the case Citizens United v Federal Election Commission first came before the Supreme Court in 2008, we had a feeling that, if the conservative Roberts Court became judicially activist, politics in America could take a severe turn for the worse.
Unfortunately, in January of 2010, our concerns were proven to be valid. The Supreme Court ignored nearly a century of settled law, including many cases they had decided before, and threw out most campaign finance regulation, including the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
Since that decision was handed down earlier this year, the floodgates have opened on campaign financing. In television ads alone - the most expensive part of political campaigning - outside groups and major political parties are expected to spend nearly $3 billion dollars. That's "billion." With a "B". On TV ads.
While the stories and statistics show that groups that are conservative, neo-conservative, corporatist, and heavily allied with standard Republican causes are the biggest abusers so far of the loopholes caused by Citizens United, don't think that dishonor belongs to just the corporate groups on the right. Unions like the SEIU are also ramping up their fundraising and media buying in competitive districts.
As long as most of these groups are spending at least half of the money they raise on "issue ads" that don't TECHNICALLY advocate for or against a specific candidate, they're still legally in the clear - and don't have to divulge ANY information about where their money is coming from.
The DISCLOSE Act put forth by the President and White House would have stopped that shameful loophole - but, after passing the House, it was held hostage in the Senate by Republicans, and left to die.
As several people have noted, there's one sure-fire way groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and far-right wing groups like Karl Rove's "American Crossroads" could put to rest the question of where their money is coming from - for example, whether it's coming from overseas corporations (which is still illegal): release the list of their donors.
Contrary to their protestations, releasing the names of those donors would be perfectly legal, so long as they choose to make that information public (as opposed to being forced to release it). Doing so would also follow along with the logic that groups like the Chamber and individuals like Mr. Rove have previously claimed to adhere to on so many other topics.
As they themselves have said before about similar issues, like warrantless wiretapping, "If you have nothing to hide, there shouldn't be a problem - should there?"
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
What A-La-Carte "Limited Government" Truly Looks Like
This week has already been another busy one, from a news perspective. The ongoing foreclosure scandal - from the same Wall Street "geniuses" responsible for the economic crash two years ago - seems ready to boil soon. Nearly unlimited campaign financing, allowed by the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision, is putting some of the highest offices in America up for sale to the highest bidder. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been discovered taking foreign money and depositing it in the same bank accounts the Chamber is using to try and buy local U.S. elections. And according to leading economists, the legislative gridlock by Congressional Republicans on Democratic economic plans could conceivably keep unemployment levels near 10% for the next decade.
Still, the fire we're looking at putting out today is, we think, just as important as any of these topics. It's about the very nature of our government, about why we create communities.
In rural Tennessee last Friday, Gene Cranick's grandson was burning trash legally when the fire got out of control - and spread to his house. Normally, you'd expect that he could dial 9-1-1 and the fire department would come racing to the scene to do their jobs.
Mr. Cranick, however, lives in Obion County, a place where the extreme conservative view of limited government is a reality every day. While the nearby city of South Fulton has a fire department, the county where he lives does not. About twenty years ago, his county instituted a policy requiring those living in the county, outside the city, to pay a fee - now $75 - in order to receive fire control service.
Mr. Cranick hadn't paid his fee. So the fire department came out - and watched his house burn to the ground.
While we could call Mr. Cranick stupid for not paying the $75 annual fee, or mention how the entire "pay for spray" policy sounds more like a Mafia protection racket, the fact of the matter is that we organize communities for the health and safety of the community as a whole. The founding fathers even thought the "general welfare" of a society was important enough to include in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Any service that is vital to the public's health and safety should never be optional - that's why we have taxes.
We agree that there are details that could be argued: for example, Mr. Cranick offered to pay "whatever" it cost to put out the fire when he called 9-1-1 - and the city fire department had temporarily waived the $75 fee in other previous cases.
Details aside, the extreme conservative, tea party, social Darwinist position that we are each on our own, and just happen to conveniently live near each other has been moved from a paper theory to a reality in the ashes of Mr. Cranick's home. Pretending that kind of ideological insanity serves the public good is... disingenuous at best.
While the merit of other, less pivotal public services, such as beautification, can be debated, taking care of the stability, health, and safety of our communities is something anyone who truly believes in America supports. The idea of an "ownership society" - the kind where we are each on our own - is uniquely UN-American, and anyone who supports such a disgusting idea should be ashamed of themselves.
Still, the fire we're looking at putting out today is, we think, just as important as any of these topics. It's about the very nature of our government, about why we create communities.
In rural Tennessee last Friday, Gene Cranick's grandson was burning trash legally when the fire got out of control - and spread to his house. Normally, you'd expect that he could dial 9-1-1 and the fire department would come racing to the scene to do their jobs.
Mr. Cranick, however, lives in Obion County, a place where the extreme conservative view of limited government is a reality every day. While the nearby city of South Fulton has a fire department, the county where he lives does not. About twenty years ago, his county instituted a policy requiring those living in the county, outside the city, to pay a fee - now $75 - in order to receive fire control service.
Mr. Cranick hadn't paid his fee. So the fire department came out - and watched his house burn to the ground.
While we could call Mr. Cranick stupid for not paying the $75 annual fee, or mention how the entire "pay for spray" policy sounds more like a Mafia protection racket, the fact of the matter is that we organize communities for the health and safety of the community as a whole. The founding fathers even thought the "general welfare" of a society was important enough to include in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Any service that is vital to the public's health and safety should never be optional - that's why we have taxes.
We agree that there are details that could be argued: for example, Mr. Cranick offered to pay "whatever" it cost to put out the fire when he called 9-1-1 - and the city fire department had temporarily waived the $75 fee in other previous cases.
Details aside, the extreme conservative, tea party, social Darwinist position that we are each on our own, and just happen to conveniently live near each other has been moved from a paper theory to a reality in the ashes of Mr. Cranick's home. Pretending that kind of ideological insanity serves the public good is... disingenuous at best.
While the merit of other, less pivotal public services, such as beautification, can be debated, taking care of the stability, health, and safety of our communities is something anyone who truly believes in America supports. The idea of an "ownership society" - the kind where we are each on our own - is uniquely UN-American, and anyone who supports such a disgusting idea should be ashamed of themselves.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
More Uncommon Sense: Investments, Polling, and Car Seats
At first glance, it may not seem like infrastructure investments, cell phones, infant carriers, and political polling have anything in common. However, it occurred to us today that these objects all share a common thread.
Most popular innovations, once they've been introduced to the public, often seem obvious in hindsight - as though they should have always been around in that same form.
For example, we now have infant car seats that are really just a buckled-in base that a portable infant carrier snaps into. It makes perfect sense: for years, parents and grandparents removed the infant from the car seat in the vehicle, then put them in the carrier, then picked up the carrier and toted the baby to the next location. Why not skip the hardest part of the procedure - moving the squirming (or sleeping) youngster from one carrying mechanism to another? Carriers that also snap into stroller frames - or even full-size strollers - are another logical extension of this idea, now that the click-and-go concept is so common.
In its own way, political polling metaphorically seems to be stuck in an outdated infant carrier from the 1980s.
Political polling has always relied on the participation of random American citizens willing to answer questions from a stranger on their phones. As Nate Silver has been pointing out in his five-part series at fivethirtyeight.com, the fact that some modern political polling may be missing an ever-increasing number of young, progressive, and Democratic-leaning voters is attributable to a whole host of reasons beyond the control of political pollsters.
No one reason is bigger than the cell phone, as Nate explains. When one-quarter of American households are eliminated from most polls before the pollster even hits the phone bank - and those Americans are predominately younger and more progressive - the results are likely to be skewed, at least some. When reading Nate's series, it's easy to see the potential for media organizations to make faulty assumptions about electoral outcomes. The polls have always worked very well before, so why aren't they working quite as well now?
In a similar way, Ezra Klein, over at the Washington Post points out that - from a fiscal standpoint - there has rarely been a better time for Americans to invest in their own infrastructure needs. Labor & supply costs are insanely low, and there is a huge supply of construction labor, ready and willing to go to work. For much of the last forty years, however, Americans have neglected the costs of delaying infrastructure repair, as though it didn't actually cost any money to put off until after the next election what should have been done years ago.
The question isn't whether systems like how we choose to allot our public tax money to pay for infrastructure - or how we handle our political polling - need to be innovated. It's as obvious as a child carrier from twenty years ago that we need to innovate now.
The question is, can we find the will to actually follow through, innovate, and improve those systems now? We're betting that, once these innovations are in place, things will be better - and there'll likely be a lot less squirming and crying too.
After all, it worked for the kid carrier, right?
Most popular innovations, once they've been introduced to the public, often seem obvious in hindsight - as though they should have always been around in that same form.
For example, we now have infant car seats that are really just a buckled-in base that a portable infant carrier snaps into. It makes perfect sense: for years, parents and grandparents removed the infant from the car seat in the vehicle, then put them in the carrier, then picked up the carrier and toted the baby to the next location. Why not skip the hardest part of the procedure - moving the squirming (or sleeping) youngster from one carrying mechanism to another? Carriers that also snap into stroller frames - or even full-size strollers - are another logical extension of this idea, now that the click-and-go concept is so common.
In its own way, political polling metaphorically seems to be stuck in an outdated infant carrier from the 1980s.
Political polling has always relied on the participation of random American citizens willing to answer questions from a stranger on their phones. As Nate Silver has been pointing out in his five-part series at fivethirtyeight.com, the fact that some modern political polling may be missing an ever-increasing number of young, progressive, and Democratic-leaning voters is attributable to a whole host of reasons beyond the control of political pollsters.
No one reason is bigger than the cell phone, as Nate explains. When one-quarter of American households are eliminated from most polls before the pollster even hits the phone bank - and those Americans are predominately younger and more progressive - the results are likely to be skewed, at least some. When reading Nate's series, it's easy to see the potential for media organizations to make faulty assumptions about electoral outcomes. The polls have always worked very well before, so why aren't they working quite as well now?
In a similar way, Ezra Klein, over at the Washington Post points out that - from a fiscal standpoint - there has rarely been a better time for Americans to invest in their own infrastructure needs. Labor & supply costs are insanely low, and there is a huge supply of construction labor, ready and willing to go to work. For much of the last forty years, however, Americans have neglected the costs of delaying infrastructure repair, as though it didn't actually cost any money to put off until after the next election what should have been done years ago.
The question isn't whether systems like how we choose to allot our public tax money to pay for infrastructure - or how we handle our political polling - need to be innovated. It's as obvious as a child carrier from twenty years ago that we need to innovate now.
The question is, can we find the will to actually follow through, innovate, and improve those systems now? We're betting that, once these innovations are in place, things will be better - and there'll likely be a lot less squirming and crying too.
After all, it worked for the kid carrier, right?
Monday, October 4, 2010
One Nation Really IS What It's All About
If you were in Washington, DC this past Saturday - and especially if you were on the National Mall - we're fairly certain you would have been hard-pressed to miss the "One Nation Working Together" march.
While the crowd is estimated to have been about 175,000 - nearly 100,000 more than was estimated at the ultra-conservative Glenn Beck-organized rally about a month ago - this crowd also had a significantly different makeup. Instead of being mostly white, older, politically far-right conservatives, this gathering seemed to include a racially, economically, generationally, and politically diverse group.
Old labor groups like the AFL-CIO mixed with new ones, like the SEIU, the New York City Democratic Socialists rubbed elbows with the National Baptist Convention - even the mine workers and the environmentalists seemed to be getting along at Saturday's Washington DC event.
We point this out in light of a syndicated column by Thomas Friedman published over the weekend. Friedman's opinion piece calls for some amorphous, new third party to come to power that could cut a middle course between the left-leaning Democrats, and the far-right Republicans. It's not that we think such an idea is impossible or implausible; we've even discussed amongst ourselves that such an idea might not be bad for the nation.
The problem lies in Mr. Friedman's premise that some third party would be able to solve the massive array of issues that face America by somehow pushing both long-established parties out of the way, and grabbing the mantle of change. That idea is simply ridiculous, on its face.
As we've mentioned before, the soul of government is compromise - and our own government is set up specifically to work best when compromise occurs.
A great many Americans foolishly convinced themselves that Mr. Obama would be able to provide the kind of instant change they've become used to seeing in TV and movies when he and the Democratic Party were swept into power just a short two years ago.
Instead of instant change, forced upon the country, what Americans have received is the kind of gradual change achieved through hard-fought compromise, change that - if allowed to work - will likely lead to longer-term prosperity for all Americans, as it did when Republicans and President Clinton worked together on effective policies in the 1990s.
As the march this past weekend in Washington, DC displayed very well, when different groups work together for common causes, the effect is usually greater than when groups of one ideology work alone.
While the crowd is estimated to have been about 175,000 - nearly 100,000 more than was estimated at the ultra-conservative Glenn Beck-organized rally about a month ago - this crowd also had a significantly different makeup. Instead of being mostly white, older, politically far-right conservatives, this gathering seemed to include a racially, economically, generationally, and politically diverse group.
Old labor groups like the AFL-CIO mixed with new ones, like the SEIU, the New York City Democratic Socialists rubbed elbows with the National Baptist Convention - even the mine workers and the environmentalists seemed to be getting along at Saturday's Washington DC event.
We point this out in light of a syndicated column by Thomas Friedman published over the weekend. Friedman's opinion piece calls for some amorphous, new third party to come to power that could cut a middle course between the left-leaning Democrats, and the far-right Republicans. It's not that we think such an idea is impossible or implausible; we've even discussed amongst ourselves that such an idea might not be bad for the nation.
The problem lies in Mr. Friedman's premise that some third party would be able to solve the massive array of issues that face America by somehow pushing both long-established parties out of the way, and grabbing the mantle of change. That idea is simply ridiculous, on its face.
As we've mentioned before, the soul of government is compromise - and our own government is set up specifically to work best when compromise occurs.
A great many Americans foolishly convinced themselves that Mr. Obama would be able to provide the kind of instant change they've become used to seeing in TV and movies when he and the Democratic Party were swept into power just a short two years ago.
Instead of instant change, forced upon the country, what Americans have received is the kind of gradual change achieved through hard-fought compromise, change that - if allowed to work - will likely lead to longer-term prosperity for all Americans, as it did when Republicans and President Clinton worked together on effective policies in the 1990s.
As the march this past weekend in Washington, DC displayed very well, when different groups work together for common causes, the effect is usually greater than when groups of one ideology work alone.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Friday Funday: Cartoons Aren't Just For Kids - And Haven't Been For Fifty Years
Long before Stewie, Bart, and their friends took over at least one prime time night of television, the somewhat gruff tones of Alan Reed combined with the animation work of folks like Ed Benedict to bring American television viewers a cartoon character in prime time by the name of Frederick Joseph Flintstone - Fred Flintstone, to most of us.
It was fifty years ago last night, in fact, that the Flintstones first were introduced to the world.
It's often easy for us to forget, as we zoom through our daily lives that the year really is 2010. While we may not be contacting aliens as Arthur C. Clarke predicted we might be, we are still making amazing discoveries - and cartoons are still a huge and important element of everyday life in nearly every country in the world.
Most of us doodle as children, coloring with crayons, pencils, markers - or even sticks 'n dirt. Yet, as we grow older we hear all too often that kind of thing is for children, that drawing and artwork aren't real professions - or at least professions that pay well.
We'll admit it: cartoons - like most kinds of artistic work - are neither as respected nor as lucrative as they probably should be. The comic book industry alone has significant problems, including a perpetual distribution issue, graying readers, and the challenge of moving cartoons to the web.
Even so, we have yet to meet someone who - when they see Fred and Wilma Flintstone and their best friends Barney and Betty Rubble, or any one of the myriad characters so familiar to most of us - doesn't have a smile drawn to their face.
We've always loved the idea of all of our favorite cartoon characters living in some kind of alternate world, all together, much like in the movie "Who Framed Roger Roger Rabbit?" So when we had the chance to have John Read's collection of over 130 different cartoons, all of which were published on the same day this past April, put together in one gallery showing at our annual meeting of the North Central Chapter of the National Cartoonists Society, we jumped at the chance.
We hope you'll make it to Omaha this weekend for the North Central Chapter NCS meeting. The festivities will include workshops, presentations - and, of course, lots of cartoonists.
Even if you don't make it to Omaha, we hope you look around you and realize how many items have characters, icons, graphics, and logos on them. Each of those graphical flourishes were created by an artist of some kind, maybe even a cartoonist.
How dull and boring the world would be without cartoons.
Yabba dabba doo, indeed.
It was fifty years ago last night, in fact, that the Flintstones first were introduced to the world.
It's often easy for us to forget, as we zoom through our daily lives that the year really is 2010. While we may not be contacting aliens as Arthur C. Clarke predicted we might be, we are still making amazing discoveries - and cartoons are still a huge and important element of everyday life in nearly every country in the world.
Most of us doodle as children, coloring with crayons, pencils, markers - or even sticks 'n dirt. Yet, as we grow older we hear all too often that kind of thing is for children, that drawing and artwork aren't real professions - or at least professions that pay well.
We'll admit it: cartoons - like most kinds of artistic work - are neither as respected nor as lucrative as they probably should be. The comic book industry alone has significant problems, including a perpetual distribution issue, graying readers, and the challenge of moving cartoons to the web.
Even so, we have yet to meet someone who - when they see Fred and Wilma Flintstone and their best friends Barney and Betty Rubble, or any one of the myriad characters so familiar to most of us - doesn't have a smile drawn to their face.
We've always loved the idea of all of our favorite cartoon characters living in some kind of alternate world, all together, much like in the movie "Who Framed Roger Roger Rabbit?" So when we had the chance to have John Read's collection of over 130 different cartoons, all of which were published on the same day this past April, put together in one gallery showing at our annual meeting of the North Central Chapter of the National Cartoonists Society, we jumped at the chance.
We hope you'll make it to Omaha this weekend for the North Central Chapter NCS meeting. The festivities will include workshops, presentations - and, of course, lots of cartoonists.
Even if you don't make it to Omaha, we hope you look around you and realize how many items have characters, icons, graphics, and logos on them. Each of those graphical flourishes were created by an artist of some kind, maybe even a cartoonist.
How dull and boring the world would be without cartoons.
Yabba dabba doo, indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)