other side of the world

I have to say that its a bit strange being on this side of the globe. I think that we all get these romantic notions that things are better here or there because they're there and not here and there are so many problems with here and none that you can really focus on there. That is, of course, until you're there and then you also realize that they've got problems as well.

It all makes sense in the head, seriously it does.

Since this is my first real post from abroad, I figured it needed to be wordy and deep or just wordy. As someone once told me about opening bands, "if you can't be good, be loud". I plan on being plenty loud. How can I not? I'm in the UK and if they're anything they're about the subtle humor vs the American "pie in the face" kind. They suffer awful weather graciously. Wear monkey suits when they go to their day jobs and in general, are fairly pleasant even when they don't need to be. Generally speaking though, humor wise, I prefer a mix, sarcasm and slap stick, yes, there is room in my comic universe for both Carrot Top and John Stewart.

I will say that the news here is about a thousand times better than what you get in the states, if for one simple reason, I can turn on my teevee and watch Al Jazeera and make my own opinion about it vs having that opinion made for me by cable marketing execs who fear the fallout of rightwing wacko conservatives who get their noise from the Big Dick's secret bunker. And strangely enough, I like Al Jazeera. A little more mid-east focused than I'd really care about but you have to figure that'd be the case with a station that is based in Qatar. Otherwise, its clean (no waving flags or 18 different news banners going off at the same time or crazy graphics) and professional and unlike the Dick's secret bunker, it is quite balanced.

It is certainly a different world here though. Yesterday there was a story concerning the controversial issue of bi-weekly garbage pickup. Basically, the news did an admirable job of attempting to tie the issue to global warming, which is now the justification for any poorly thought out policy. This is probably going to ruffle a few feathers but I don't completely buy into the man made global warming story. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no issues with using less carbon, recycling, etc and I can see their merits outside of a "global warming" prism but I suppose its the cynic in me. Something about this just seems too neat, it smells. But if it makes people wake up a bit and attempt to reduce their footprint on mother earth, then I'm fine with that, gospel truth or not. That having been said, a purely financial decision and an unpopular one at that was being tied to global warming so as to lower the amount of criticism for it. Cause if you just came out and said, we're not going to pick up your garbage and recycling every week because we don't want to pay people to do it, that might get a lot of people's gander up. But if you tie it to global warming, then anyone that complains obviously doesn't care about the environment and so on and so forth. Sort of like stuffing spinach farmer relief and other pork into defense authorization bills. If you veto that, well then you must hate our military.

The justification for the 2 week pickup was that most waste is food, food is carbon but "encouraging" people to not throw out as much food since having it piling up is a bad thing, then you're lowering carbon and saving the earth. This all fails basic logic when you start thinking about things like, well, the carbon from your grapes that you didn't eat would still be carbon some place else, in your rubbish bin or someone else's. Basically the only thing you've done is move it around like a bad shell game. Not only that, but there are people who seriously need to have their trash picked up, like families with kids (imagine two weeks of dirty diapers). This doesn't even begin to cover things like rats and other vermin that will more than likely thrive under such a regime, etc.

Recently, there was a new tax on flying here in the UK. It was brought in to help curb the effects of global warming or some such nonsense with respect to flying. Are the proceeds of the tax going to make the airlines more efficient? No. Are the proceeds going to making airports more efficient, either by adding new systems that would mean less taxi-ing or more direct routes to destination airports, expanding airports so that flights don't endlessly circle when there is bad weather, limiting flights so that their aren't more scheduled than safely take off or land at a particular time, etc? That'd also be a big fat no. Basically, they've just added a tax to discourage the average Joe person to not fly. But a 40 pound tax isn't going stop Joe Holiday Maker from putting off his vacation plans. A 400 pound tax on the other hand, would. But you don't see people screaming for that, do you. Why not? Because people really wouldn't fly. This is less about global warming and more about putting money into the hands of the government and then painting anyone against it as someone who hates the earth.

Anyway, I just with people would think a bit more critically about this kind of stuff. I'm not against paying taxes or anything of that nature (goodness knows I was for the monorail and I owned a car in the city) I just want the revenues for such things to basically go for the justification that was given for levying it. I mean, wouldn't it be great if the lottery revenue (I'm not sure about WA but the lottery was sold in NY for this purpose) actually went to schools? Or tolls from roads actually going to fixing the road? How about global warming taxes that actually went to reducing carbon emissions? Or encouraging people to use less of it or buy more efficient cars, lightbulbs, appliances, etc? Placing windwarms off shore or using wave energy?

Been around the world and I'm cynical. Its good to see that some things don't change. Though I do have to say that the outlook on life certainly did.

Now I wonder what those boys are doing with that new fangled Globe Theatre thing...

Fascinating.

The Authoritarians - by Bob Altemeyer

To Christians who talk like the Devil

You almost make me ashamed to call myself a Christian.

Then I remember that you do not speak for Christ.

When you go around threatening people with beatings, rape, and murder because you disgree with them politically or culturally, you do not speak for me, you do NOT speak for the church, and YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR CHRIST.

As a matter of fact, you're acting in direct disobedience to the teachings, spirit, and example of Jesus, as well as several Biblical principles. Anybody with even a passing acquaintance with the most watered-down versions of Christianity knows this. You know it.

SO SHUT UP.

Or stop calling yourselves Christians.

If you care anything for the Gospel, retract your vitriol. Repent of your threats, and your hatred. Because you are harming this country, and you are harming the cause of Christ. What does a non-christian have to judge the claims of Christ by, but the behavior of those who profess to follow him?

However, I suspect that you care nothing for the Gospel, not the real one. I suspect you think "winning the world for Christ" means forcing everyone to act, dress, and think like your preacher tells you, so you don't have to ever think about whether you're doing right. Except that you're too lazy to even do that for yourself, so you'd rather have the government do it for you. The same government you so resent paying taxes to so that people in real trouble have food and clothes for their kids, and decent care when they get sick. REAL things that Jesus ACTUALLY MENTIONED AS HOW CHRIST WILL IDENTIFY HIS FOLLOWERS

Think i'm Kidding?

Matthew 25: 31-46 (King James Version, just in case you consider all other versions corrupt)

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
King James Version (KJV)

You've sold out. You wouldn't know Jesus if you tripped over Him on your doorstep, and he certainly wouldn't recognize you.

Dine and Dash for the Rich

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone came out with a fab piece on the Bush 2008 budget and correlation between the elimination of the estate tax for the country's wealthiest families and cuts to social programs.

I'm not going to rehash his entire article, but for reference, these are some of the disgusting examples he sites:

If the Estate Tax were to be repealed completely, the estimated savings to just one family -- the Walton family, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune -- would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years.

The proposed reductions to Medicaid over the same time frame? $28 billion.

the heirs to the Mars candy corporation -- some of the world's evilest scumbags, incidentally, routinely ripped by human rights organizations for trafficking in child labor to work cocoa farms in places like Cote D'Ivoire -- if the estate tax goes, those assholes will receive about $11.7 billion in tax breaks. That's more than three times the amount Bush wants to cut from the VA budget ($3.4 billion) over the same time period.

Cox family (Cox cable TV) receives $9.7 billion tax break while education would get $1.5 billion in cuts

Nordstrom family (Nordstrom dept. stores) receives $826.5 million tax break while Community Service Block Grants would be eliminated, a $630 million cut

Ernest Gallo family (shitty wines) receives a $468.4 million cut while LIHEAP (heating oil to poor) would get a $420 million cut

In typical fashion, the libertarian and conservative yahoos posting comments on blogs that have written about this article are using the same old, tired, untrue arguments.

For Example:

Whahhhhh, you want to STEAL from dead people!

Whahhhh, rich people earned their money, they should get to keep it.

Whahhhhh, all the money the government gets from taxes just disappears and no good comes from it.

Whahhhhh, those poor people who want social services should pull themselves up by their bootstraps like the rich heirs to trust funds do.

Etc.

But those are all false. Government services are like food in a restaurant, sometimes you get surf 'n turf with a really good wine, sometimes all you can afford is a hamburger and a coke. But you pay for what you get, or at least you are supposed to. Bushco has been trying to turn that around for years so that us hamburger eaters are paying surf 'n turf prices while the mucky-mucks get their lobster free.

For example, I do not need a trade agreement with China or Mexico and the Doha trade talks won't really do anything for me. But Wal-Mart needs Uncle Sam to go in and get China to whip up some Peking Duck on the cheap. It is not my container ships or trucking companies that need to make sure oil is free flowing so that my goods are too. And I don't need some jacked-up war in Iraq or Iran or wherever we are fighting this week so that I can fatten my pocketbook with military contracts or pilfered oil resources. Those are expensive, steak and lobster level meals that the wealthiest in the country need and need to pay for.

I need healthcare, education, safe water and food, transportation and domestic security. So do you. Those are hamburger meals, nothing fancy. And we pay for them.

Whining that the estate tax is stealing from the dead is ridiculous. When do you pay your restaurant tab? The only time you pay it before you eat is at an all-you-can eat buffet (think socialism) where everybody gets to take what they need for the same price and nobody eats for free. (very simple analogy- but suck it if you've got a problem)

Nope, you pay your restaurant tab at the end of the meal when you know you've had your fill. Those who die with mountains of money generally have had a much better meal than the rest of us. Shouldn't they pay for what they've eaten? What, you think they should be able to pass it onto their heirs instead of paying their government waitstaff? Whose gonna pay their tab then? Whose gonna pay for Doha talks and free trade agreements? What, all the rest of us who gain little to no benefit from such things? Why? Capitalism is supposed to mean you pay a fair price for the goods and services you get. You can't very well go around screaming that capitalism is the best way if your not willing to pay your tab at the end of the night. No dine and dash for the wealthy, they need to pay for what they eat just like the rest of us.

Oh those dumb girls

Dear Andrea Otanez:

Please pull your head out of your ass. I have no idea where you get the impression that women "do not follow politics or foreign policy, and that some, if married, rely on their husbands for political news. Men read newspapers and news magazines for that kind of information while women, in general, do not." But I think it must come from inhaling "exceptionalism" fumes.

Let's see, just today I have read the NY Times, LA times, Salon, numerous political blogs, and obviously the Seattle Times, where you thought it was ok to spew your ignorance. I plan on checking out the Guardian and Le Monde once I am done telling you to shove it. Oh and I read the Economist and Atlantic Monthly because they are both just damn good magazines.

Yes, women are busy. We still do the lion's share of the housework and child care. We work full-time, go to school, take care of elderly parents, etc. All of these things may make us run around with endless to do lists, but they also make us acutely aware of the personal costs of government policies. We know how sad educational funding is because we are volunteering at our children's schools to make up for budget shortages. We know how screwed up the healthcare system is because we make the doctor's appointments. We worry about the current wars and the ones Dear leader wants to start because we have husbands or boyfriends or girlfriends or sons and daughters who already are fighting, or may have to go fight in the future .

These things make us more compelled to read the newspaper, not less. They make us more aware of how personal the political is.

Your argument that women let their husbands do all the news hunting for them is almost as old as the "we can't let the little ladies vote cause it would corrupt them" idea. It should have gone out with the corset.

I mentioned exceptionalism before because you seem to think you are special, one of the few women in a sea of men with enough sense to read the paper daily. You are not so special. Please stop lecturing us women on how we should be more informed and get some actual information next time. You are a journalist and professor, shouldn't you spend more time teaching and writing about facts rather writing idiotic columns with no purpose other than to give you a platform to spew bullshit and make you feel superior?

Sincerely,
Red Queen

PS- I have no idea whose Anna Nicole Smith's baby daddy and a large portion of us would like to see more real news and less celebrity sensationalism, or in the case of your column- journalistic hubris.

Fun with sharpies

For the last few weeks I've been working on some little cartoons. This is the first one and sadly, the basis for all of these are situations I've actually been in. I need to come up with a name for them, but no reason not to post them for now.

I really hate the phrase "knows how to treat her man". It translates to "Will put up with my whiney little boy demands and not expect me to act like an adult".

A Primer on Free Speech

With all the bust up in the blogosphere over the last few weeks about Shakespeare's Sister and Amanda at Pandagon, I thought it was time to remind a few people what it is that free speech means.

Free speech means that as long as I am not saying something slanderous or threatening, I have the right to say what I want. I can be idiotic, I can be a bigot, I can be a complete and total asshole. But with that I also have to expect that someone else has the right to use their free speech to call me on my assholery.

Unless what I am saying is threatening, I cannot be jailed for what I say.

That said, nothing that Amanda or Shakes wrote was bigoted towards Catholics, but even if they had written something bigoted, the death threats and rape threats that they both received are not free speech.

When this country was still just an idea in a bunch of revolutionaries' heads, Benjamin Franklin printed an ad in the Pennsylvania Gazette for an ocean trip. The ad stated "No black gowns" were allowed. This did not mean that the ladies had to leave their little black dresses at home. It meant no clergy allowed. In the brouhaha that followed the printing, Franklin wrote:

If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed.

A few years later, in 1735, John Peter Zenger was prosecuted for seditious libel, or for having printed derogatory comments about the government. This is where the basis for our idea of free speech and freedom of the press comes from, so pay attention. Under this law, it was even more illegal to print derogatory truths about the government than to print derogatory lies. The point was, lies could be disproved but printing the horrible truth could not.

Zenger's lawyer argued that printing the truth was more important than protecting the government from public scrutiny. The jury agreed and went against the law and the judge to acquit Zenger.

For us in the here and now, this means criticising the government for it's actions in Iraq is not, in fact, treasonous or traitorous. It means that Joe Wilson's actions in the Yellow Cake debacle were not something that the government could take punitive actions for (like endangering his wife by exposing her CIA status).

Now in the case of the above mentioned bloggers, the screaming meemies on the right were calling for blood because they had been offended by the bloggers' opinions.

Let's make a big distinction here folks- opinions, whether you agree with them or not, are not facts. They are hopefully based on facts (not always- see Bill O'Reilly). Opinions can be agreed with or disagreed with, but having a different opinion from someone else does not give you the right to threaten them with harm.

Some examples:

Fact (or truth): Numerous Catholic Priests in the United States were child molesters and there is evidence that the Catholic Church hierarchy used measures to hide this from their parishioners.

This is a fact because it has been proven, repeatedly, in a court of law. There is evidence to back it up and court decisions to support it.

Opinion: I think the Catholic Church hierarchy is a slimy piece of work for having risked the children in their parishes rather than deal with pedophile priests.

This is opinion because it is what I think. If you disagree you are free to state an opinion to the contrary- maybe you want to say that "Those children were blessed by the priests' hot sticky love fluid and should shut their pieholes".

Threats (actual threats taken from Pandagon)

It's just too bad your mother didn't abort you. You are nothing more than a filthy mouth slut. I bet a couple of years in Iraq being raped and beaten daily would help you appreciate America a little. Need a plane ticket ?

This is a threat because this person has stated that Amanda should be raped and beaten (both things are illegal- for those too ignorant to know)and the oh so literate author wants to helpcommit those illegal acts by sending her to a place where she will be raped and beaten.

Nowhere in our constitution does it say that if you have offended me with words that I have the right to escalate the fight into physical violence.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that you can counter someones opinion by threatening to commit illegal acts.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that there is a right to not be offended.