This 60 year old poster should go up in schools today. http://pic.twitter.com/FtkxOi9HJS
— jared nieters (@jarednieters) November 11, 2016
Blogged with IFTTT
Showing posts with label cartoon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cartoon. Show all posts
Friday, November 11, 2016
Listen to Supes
Blogged with IFTTT
Friday, September 9, 2016
@tomtomorrow Reminds Us On Star Trek's 50th That We're A Long Way From That Future
Happy 50th Star Trek http://pic.twitter.com/lKUUpzR0ks
— Tom Tomorrow (@tomtomorrow) September 8, 2016
Blogged with IFTTT
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
This Modern World about sums it up ...
In the Wake of Paris, Republicans Want You to Remember American Values | The Nation
From the self-aware and sharp to the oblivious and moronic: right wing xenophobes can't seem to admit they love the idea of political correctness, but only when the speech being encouraged is in line with their narrow beliefs. Where "lefty political correctness" is about asking people to treat one another with respect, "righty political correctness" is about enforcing conformance to a specific set of nationalist, Christian theocratic (might as well call it "fascist") values. So you end up with law enforcement openly calling for Christian Sharia:
In America, law enforcement simply can't do this. There's nothing funny about this. That man has to be removed from office.
From the self-aware and sharp to the oblivious and moronic: right wing xenophobes can't seem to admit they love the idea of political correctness, but only when the speech being encouraged is in line with their narrow beliefs. Where "lefty political correctness" is about asking people to treat one another with respect, "righty political correctness" is about enforcing conformance to a specific set of nationalist, Christian theocratic (might as well call it "fascist") values. So you end up with law enforcement openly calling for Christian Sharia:
In America, law enforcement simply can't do this. There's nothing funny about this. That man has to be removed from office.
Friday, April 24, 2015
The Lexicon of Comicana
The Lexicon of Comicana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The Lexicon of Comicana is a 1980 book by the American cartoonist Mort Walker. It was intended as a tongue-in-cheek look at the devices that cartoonists utilize in their craft. In it, Walker invented an international set of symbols called symbolia after researching cartoons around the world. In 1964, Walker had written an article called "Let's Get Down to Grawlixes", a satirical piece for the National Cartoonists Society. He used terms such as grawlixes for his own amusement, but they soon began to catch on and acquired an unexpected validity.Thanks, Mark D., for pointing this out. (Plewds shoot from my brow trying to keep up with the all knowledge he drops.)
Monday, March 9, 2015
The Moral Philosophy of Calvin and Hobbes
The Moral Philosophy of Calvin and Hobbes:
 |
| via io9 |
"The late political scientist James Q. Wilson described "Calvin and Hobbes" as "our only popular explication of the moral philosophy of Aristotle." Wilson meant that the social order is founded on self-control and delayed gratification—and that Calvin is hopeless at these things. Calvin thinks that "life should be more like TV" and that he is "destined for greatness" whether he does his homework or not. His favorite sport is "Calvinball," in which he is entitled to make up the rules as he goes along.I'm not so sure that all humor is about our resistance to the fact the universe doesn't care what we think or desire, but if that's a fair explanation of C&H's enduring appeal, then some of the best is.
Day-in, day-out, Calvin keeps running into evidence that the world isn't built to his (and our) specifications. All humor is, in one way or another, about our resistance to that evidence."
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
The A.V. Club Goes A-to-Z on The Best Animated Series Ever
The best animated series ever, from Adventure Time to whatever The Zeta Project is | A.V. To Z | The A.V. Club
Doing the list this way forces you not to consider the best 100 ever, but to make hard choices to include worthy entries that might otherwise not crack such a list.
What caught my eye was the spot-on selection at H and the format break at C to include Cowboy Bebop. The rest of the list looks pretty solid. If I'm going to nitpick, R looks like a miss. The Ren & Stimpy Show never did it for me. Rurouni Kenshin or Robotech probably would've taken that slot on my list.
Actually, going with a separate anime list might have made this a little easier. By including any, they've opened the door the argument several more letters are off -- Muppet Babies vs. Macross?
Doing the list this way forces you not to consider the best 100 ever, but to make hard choices to include worthy entries that might otherwise not crack such a list.
What caught my eye was the spot-on selection at H and the format break at C to include Cowboy Bebop. The rest of the list looks pretty solid. If I'm going to nitpick, R looks like a miss. The Ren & Stimpy Show never did it for me. Rurouni Kenshin or Robotech probably would've taken that slot on my list.
Actually, going with a separate anime list might have made this a little easier. By including any, they've opened the door the argument several more letters are off -- Muppet Babies vs. Macross?
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Post I Was Too Burned Out To Write Last Night
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
Full text of the opinion and dissent (Ginsburg all over it, Breyer and Kagan basically adding, 'Yeah, what she said.') at the top link. (Or, you can have the Ginsburg dissent sung to you at bottom of this post -- not by me!)
Let's take a look at some of the Ginsburg highlights and then see how our friends on the right are arguing against them.
RBG: "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
NRO: "FACT: Countless religious charities exist primarily for the purpose of showing love to needy people, whatever their faith. The dissent totally neglects groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, Samaritan’s Purse, and many others."
The NRO's objection here is puzzling. Ginsburg doesn't say all religious organizations exist solely to benefit practitioners of their specific faith. But, they pretend she does to be argumentative. Nothing about the NRO's observation changes that fact that there are religious organizations which promote the interests of their faith. Yes, there are religious organizations that help anyone, and often proselytize while doing so, but that's not the point.
As for Ginsburg's observation that workers at for-profits are not commonly drawn from the religious community of their employer, they say: "FACT: Employing people of the same faith isn’t required to receive a true exemption or accommodation. Religious nonprofit corporations, to which HHS has given an accommodation, often employ people from many different religious communities or from no religious community."
The NRO here is turning around Ginsburg's comments that are clearly meant to acknowledge the rights of workers who don't share their employers' faith to make a point about employers' rights to gain exemptions or accommodations. The NRO's objection here to Ginsburg's point then can be summed up as, screw them. Nice.
RBG: "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
NRO (responding to RBG's characterization of the opinion having "startling breadth," examples of that breadth she is inquiring about in this point): "FACT: This can’t be a decision of “startling breadth” because it only applies to closely-held corporations. Even Justice Kennedy said that “the Court’s opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent.” If any opinion in his case has startling breadth, it is Justice Ginsburg’s own dissent, which, in denying religious freedom rights to owners of for-profit corporations, went too far even for two of her most liberal colleagues. "
First, the NRO's specific argument against startling breadth on the basis of the ruling applying to only closely-held corporations and family businesses is remarkably facetious, as if family-owned and closely-held corporations are somehow a negligible segment of the employment market. Check the numbers, jerks.
Anyways, the real issue with this ruling potentially having startling breadth is ...
RBG: "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
NRO: *crickets*
In the cynical attempt at gutting precedent by issuing an unprincipled opinion on supposedly narrow grounds (only closely-held corporations, only with regard to contraception) accompanied by obfuscatory hand-waving (where's the underlying legal principle that stops other religious corporations from having an argument about other medical practices?), it seems notable that the Court majority found Hobby Lobby to be sincere in their religious beliefs, yet didn't have a problem with the fact they deal with China to get low-priced goods, which means they pay money into a state-run economy where the state has policies which conflict with Hobby Lobby's professed beliefs to a much greater degree. So, if they were sincere, they wouldn't be doing business with a country that promotes not only contraception but forced abortion via their family planning policy.
 |
| Nick Anderson via AAEC |
Let's take a look at some of the Ginsburg highlights and then see how our friends on the right are arguing against them.
RBG: "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
NRO: "FACT: Countless religious charities exist primarily for the purpose of showing love to needy people, whatever their faith. The dissent totally neglects groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, Samaritan’s Purse, and many others."
The NRO's objection here is puzzling. Ginsburg doesn't say all religious organizations exist solely to benefit practitioners of their specific faith. But, they pretend she does to be argumentative. Nothing about the NRO's observation changes that fact that there are religious organizations which promote the interests of their faith. Yes, there are religious organizations that help anyone, and often proselytize while doing so, but that's not the point.
As for Ginsburg's observation that workers at for-profits are not commonly drawn from the religious community of their employer, they say: "FACT: Employing people of the same faith isn’t required to receive a true exemption or accommodation. Religious nonprofit corporations, to which HHS has given an accommodation, often employ people from many different religious communities or from no religious community."
The NRO here is turning around Ginsburg's comments that are clearly meant to acknowledge the rights of workers who don't share their employers' faith to make a point about employers' rights to gain exemptions or accommodations. The NRO's objection here to Ginsburg's point then can be summed up as, screw them. Nice.
RBG: "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
NRO (responding to RBG's characterization of the opinion having "startling breadth," examples of that breadth she is inquiring about in this point): "FACT: This can’t be a decision of “startling breadth” because it only applies to closely-held corporations. Even Justice Kennedy said that “the Court’s opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent.” If any opinion in his case has startling breadth, it is Justice Ginsburg’s own dissent, which, in denying religious freedom rights to owners of for-profit corporations, went too far even for two of her most liberal colleagues. "
First, the NRO's specific argument against startling breadth on the basis of the ruling applying to only closely-held corporations and family businesses is remarkably facetious, as if family-owned and closely-held corporations are somehow a negligible segment of the employment market. Check the numbers, jerks.
Anyways, the real issue with this ruling potentially having startling breadth is ...
RBG: "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
NRO: *crickets*
In the cynical attempt at gutting precedent by issuing an unprincipled opinion on supposedly narrow grounds (only closely-held corporations, only with regard to contraception) accompanied by obfuscatory hand-waving (where's the underlying legal principle that stops other religious corporations from having an argument about other medical practices?), it seems notable that the Court majority found Hobby Lobby to be sincere in their religious beliefs, yet didn't have a problem with the fact they deal with China to get low-priced goods, which means they pay money into a state-run economy where the state has policies which conflict with Hobby Lobby's professed beliefs to a much greater degree. So, if they were sincere, they wouldn't be doing business with a country that promotes not only contraception but forced abortion via their family planning policy.
Friday, August 23, 2013
A Knight is Technically an Aristocrat So Ben Affleck Suits the Role Just Fine
Wondermark | A Knight is Technically an Aristocrat:
This is one of those things that reads brilliantly at first glance but perhaps dissolves a bit when we consider that Bruce Wayne also has does considerable charitable work through the Wayne Foundation or whatever. "He does both," the uber-fan declares icily, "Your argument is invalid. Good day, sir."
But, wait, let's consider Bruce Wayne's charitable work helping widows and orphans. Strikes me there are two main problems with it: first, he's obviously not giving it his all, or seriously committed to it, else he wouldn't be spending all that money on the Bat Cave, the Batmobiles, all that tech need to support his battling super-villains lifestyle; and, secondly, perhaps more insidiously, he's doing it as Bruce Wayne, indolent scion of wealth, irresponsible playboy. The message he sends by doing this work as that character is that the work of providing the social safety net and caring for most vulnerable members of society is properly left to the whims of the Titans of Industry. To give or not to give, subject to the pangs of conscience and convenience ... the real business of that lot is maintaining their wealth and punishing transgressors of the established social order.
What Gotham needs is an authentic Bruce Wayne: a man who was lucky enough to inherit a fortune, but unlucky enough to lose his parents to violence. His intelligence, resources, and passion for justice should have made him a serious, credible agent for societal good. He could be the public face of civic engagement dedicated to engineering a just society built on the greatest defense human rights and liberties have against thieves, the greedy, and those who would use force to take what they want: the rule of law.
By all means, rather than talking about what our heroes could look like, what would make them worth emulating and worth aspiring to, let's instead debate whether Ben Affleck is a good fit for the role in the next shitty franchise movie. "Does he have the gravitas to play The Dark Knight?"
Spare me. That'll be a debate worth having about the movie where Bruce Wayne puts on his big boy pants and takes on the real problems of society. Like a man, not a stunted man-child living a Libertarian fantasy.
Related: "Batman: Plutocrat"
 |
| click to see original image full size at wondermark |
But, wait, let's consider Bruce Wayne's charitable work helping widows and orphans. Strikes me there are two main problems with it: first, he's obviously not giving it his all, or seriously committed to it, else he wouldn't be spending all that money on the Bat Cave, the Batmobiles, all that tech need to support his battling super-villains lifestyle; and, secondly, perhaps more insidiously, he's doing it as Bruce Wayne, indolent scion of wealth, irresponsible playboy. The message he sends by doing this work as that character is that the work of providing the social safety net and caring for most vulnerable members of society is properly left to the whims of the Titans of Industry. To give or not to give, subject to the pangs of conscience and convenience ... the real business of that lot is maintaining their wealth and punishing transgressors of the established social order.
What Gotham needs is an authentic Bruce Wayne: a man who was lucky enough to inherit a fortune, but unlucky enough to lose his parents to violence. His intelligence, resources, and passion for justice should have made him a serious, credible agent for societal good. He could be the public face of civic engagement dedicated to engineering a just society built on the greatest defense human rights and liberties have against thieves, the greedy, and those who would use force to take what they want: the rule of law.
By all means, rather than talking about what our heroes could look like, what would make them worth emulating and worth aspiring to, let's instead debate whether Ben Affleck is a good fit for the role in the next shitty franchise movie. "Does he have the gravitas to play The Dark Knight?"
Spare me. That'll be a debate worth having about the movie where Bruce Wayne puts on his big boy pants and takes on the real problems of society. Like a man, not a stunted man-child living a Libertarian fantasy.
Related: "Batman: Plutocrat"
Saturday, February 9, 2013
*Wonders how long "cyberpragmatics" has been a word*
The origins of such usage likely can be found in text-based role-playing games in MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons/Domains), which were superseded by IRC and instant-messaging interfaces. As one "Role Play Manual of Style" explains, "Actions are enclosed in asterisks and written in third person perspective." But this type of asterisking has thoroughly infected Usenet posts, blog comments, tweets, and anywhere else online that people feel the need to describe real-world actions in a virtual space.
So, by giving yourself your own stage directions enclosed in asterisks, you treat your own words as lines in a play, and then step outside of your character to give the perspective of the playwright in the play you're acting in. It's all so meta.ᔥ NEILALIEN
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Pound for pound, political cartoonists more insightful, useful than pundit class. It's not even close.
The Strip | By Brian McFadden - Slide Show - NYTimes.com
Pundit class: "Well, we need to consider the Republican point of view and treat it as if it has equal merit, even when it's transparently mendacious and oligarchical. If we have to act like truth, logic, and reality matter, then how we can pretend there's a substantive debate, of which we are the sage arbiters, going on?"
To be clear, I'm not saying there are easy solutions. It's not as simple as, "Oh, we just make flip a switch and suddenly everything works better." What we need are productive discussions about how to fix campaign financing. When shills come on TV and lie and distort, their feet need to be held to the fire. People who are interested in serving the public good, who don't take governing seriously should not be given air time and print space to waste our time. How do we make campaigns and pundits accountable? There's no easy path to fixing an infotainment system so broken, but we can't go on pretending there's not a problem.
Pundit class: "Well, we need to consider the Republican point of view and treat it as if it has equal merit, even when it's transparently mendacious and oligarchical. If we have to act like truth, logic, and reality matter, then how we can pretend there's a substantive debate, of which we are the sage arbiters, going on?"
To be clear, I'm not saying there are easy solutions. It's not as simple as, "Oh, we just make flip a switch and suddenly everything works better." What we need are productive discussions about how to fix campaign financing. When shills come on TV and lie and distort, their feet need to be held to the fire. People who are interested in serving the public good, who don't take governing seriously should not be given air time and print space to waste our time. How do we make campaigns and pundits accountable? There's no easy path to fixing an infotainment system so broken, but we can't go on pretending there's not a problem.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012
The Return of Droney! Cartoon Challenge 2!
It's the weekly TMW pre-programmed post so I don't accidentally violate Sparky's list rules. And it's the return of the Cartoon Contest that Bret drubbed me in last week!
Here's a few panels from the cartoon that should be up by now at DailyKos to tease you into going over to check out the whole thing:
If you're up for it, see if you've got the chops to make a cartoon out of a different panel that I've stripped bare you:
Once again, I'll set a low bar ...
Here's a few panels from the cartoon that should be up by now at DailyKos to tease you into going over to check out the whole thing:
If you're up for it, see if you've got the chops to make a cartoon out of a different panel that I've stripped bare you:
Once again, I'll set a low bar ...
Friday, September 28, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
Cartoon Challenge 1
Once again, I'm reading TMW (courtesy of Sparky's List) before it's published and dying to post something about it, but not wanting to break the rules of the list and share any details before it goes live. This time, I'm pre-programming a post to pop up Monday morning at about the time it should be available, but with twist.
I've taken a panel and made a template you, dear reader, can use to compose a single panel of a toon you would write about R-Money's damning 47 percenter comments from back in May. Artwork's all set, just needs some words. After you've got your panel, you can jump over to Daily Kos and see what the pro wrote.
Go ahead, give it a go! Can you imagine how hard it would be to do this every week? To be topical, funny, and able to produce the artwork all on a deadline, with your ability to pay the mortgage riding on your success? It takes some brass.
 |
| Fill in the blanks for a fabulous no-prize! |
I won't ask you to do anything I'm not willing to do myself, so here's my crack at it ...
 |
| Good ol' Seamus. Nothing he loved more than the taste of laid-off worker flesh before a long car ride. |
As you can see, I'm clearly not cut out for this line of work. Brass. And that's why you should sign up for Sparky's List and help Tom Tomorrow remain in the middle class!
-----
I selected this post to be featured on Liberal Blogs. Please visit the site and vote for my blog!
-----
-----
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Silence at the RNC #DoctorWho
Have to time delay this post from Sparky's List, so it'll pop Monday morning. You can check the whole 'toon out at Daily Kos, but the panel that I'm digging now (Friday night ... it's all wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey up in here) fits with the S7 premiere tomorrow ... that is to say, Saturday night.
Why does no one remember? We're all to busy Eastwooding.
Why does no one remember? We're all to busy Eastwooding.
President Obama graciously meets with actor Clint Eastwood this afternoon.#eastwooding twitter.com/Twit_ster/stat…
— Twitster (@Twit_ster) August 31, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
Membership has its privileges. (A glimpse into the making of This Modern World.)
As a member of Sparky's List, I'm one of the elite few (OK, paid subscribers) who get to see Tom Tomorrow's toons a couple days before they're published. Which is cool. Because Tom is timely and relevant, occasionally he has to hustle to update comic based on current events. As such, those of us on the list now have an alternate version of the Romney VP pick 'toon that ended up getting revised due to the Ryan announcement.
What you all saw was:
But what we saw a few days earlier was:
A neat little behind-the-scenes glimpse into how a pro works and proof that Paul Ryan is, if nothing else, comedy gold.
Oh, and next week's cartoon, it features of the ghost of a very important figure in Paul Ryan's life. Good stuff. I predict you're going to want to print it out and hang it up near your computer monitor or, better still, on the monitor of that right-wing nutter in the office. You know, the one who's still got a McCain/Palin bumper sticker prominently displayed on the wall of his cubicle because, yeah, that would've been awesome you guys! *koff*
In case you can't tell by the links to Sparky's List dotting this post, I'm a huge fan of Dan's (AKA Tom) work and would like to encourage everyone to support great political cartooning by signing up.
What you all saw was:
 |
| Detail from the full comic here. |
But what we saw a few days earlier was:
 |
| Via Sparky's List |
Oh, and next week's cartoon, it features of the ghost of a very important figure in Paul Ryan's life. Good stuff. I predict you're going to want to print it out and hang it up near your computer monitor or, better still, on the monitor of that right-wing nutter in the office. You know, the one who's still got a McCain/Palin bumper sticker prominently displayed on the wall of his cubicle because, yeah, that would've been awesome you guys! *koff*
In case you can't tell by the links to Sparky's List dotting this post, I'm a huge fan of Dan's (AKA Tom) work and would like to encourage everyone to support great political cartooning by signing up.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Have you subscribed to Sparky's List by @tomtomorrow yet?
About SPARKY'S LIST
I just subscribed, and eagerly await the ability to see new This Modern World comics before they're published, so satire like this hits my inbox piping hot from the brain oven!
Mr. Tomorrow, if you happen to see this, what's the policy on sharing a snippet (such as the above) of one of the list comics to entice any readers I might have to subscribe as well? Will the email from the list say one way or the other whether some limited form of sharing is allowed or encouraged?
I won't share anything until it's published unless I understand from you or from the list terms (if there are any?) that it's OK to do.
If sharing a snip from a comic is permissible, I'd appreciate a "you go, boyo," so I know I'm in the clear.
Warm regards,
Chris (@cdogzilla)
I just subscribed, and eagerly await the ability to see new This Modern World comics before they're published, so satire like this hits my inbox piping hot from the brain oven!
 |
| Daily Kos: Boxed in |
Mr. Tomorrow, if you happen to see this, what's the policy on sharing a snippet (such as the above) of one of the list comics to entice any readers I might have to subscribe as well? Will the email from the list say one way or the other whether some limited form of sharing is allowed or encouraged?
I won't share anything until it's published unless I understand from you or from the list terms (if there are any?) that it's OK to do.
If sharing a snip from a comic is permissible, I'd appreciate a "you go, boyo," so I know I'm in the clear.
Warm regards,
Chris (@cdogzilla)
Sunday, March 25, 2012
The Sunday Not-So-Funnies: B.C.
Johnny Hart to Appear B.C. | The Comics Journal:
 |
| Image ᔥ TCJ |
Hart, caught in the riptide of Jewish outrage, issued a statement, calling Replacement Theory “an idiot theology.” Said he: “Replacement Theory is the stuff of lunatics and self-deluded fools. There is no foundation for it in scripture and there is no room for it in responsible society.” And in the orchestrated expressions of outrage, he saw a Jewish plot.ᔥ Neilalien
Friday, March 16, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
