Apparently they’re now talking about a “rolling end” to the war— meaning that there probably won’t be a formal surrender & fighting could go on for a while. While I can see how this might be valid from a military standpoint, the political side scares me a little. Think about it– commentators and politicians are currently hammering any sign of dissent with charges of “treason,” “not supporting the troops,” and/or “not supporting the commander-in-chief in time of war.” Worse, many Americans seem to buy these attacks, effectively shutting off vital debate. So here’s the thing: if the war doesn’t really have a definite end, then these same conditions will exist indefinitely.
*Sigh* I guess Orwell was 20 years too soon…
Went to see Macy Gray in concert last night, and holy crap did that girl put on a show. I’ll admit that I’ve only got her first album, but I wasn’t prepared for how funky she (& her band, of course) turned out to be. If you get a chance to see her live, don’t pass up the chance.
Funny thing is, she made a couple um…”non-supportive” comments about Bush, and enough people walked out of the show that she noticed. Fortunately, I suspect Macy’s fan base will be a little more forgiving of that than that of certain country acts…
Saw another editorial this morning bemoaning the new US policy of “pre-emption” and talking about how damaging it could potentially be. While I agree with the sentiment, I feel compelled to remind folks (well, whoever reads this claptrap, anyway) that this is a relatively new policy, and one that could easily be changed in the future:
Yeah, you read that right. Pussies. Who’s a pussy? Why? Well, here’s a list:
Supposedly anti-war Democrats in Congress: Because they’re against the war until the bombs start dropping, at which point they fall in line behind the President. Listen guys, if the war is wrong before the shooting starts, it’s just as wrong after. Get some cojones and stand up for what you believe.
Conservatives who equate opposition with treason: Because they’re apparently so afraid of holes being punched in their positions that they try to squash any dissent with accusations of anti-Americanism. Last I checked McCarthyism went out with fins on Cadillacs.
Hollywood: Because they’ll “tone down” or cancel an awards show for fear of what– attack? Susan Sarandon speaking her mind? Just put on the show, people.
Journalists: Because they let PR flacks push them around, don’t ask enough tough questions, and let politicians off the hook too easily. Guys, you want to get ratings & notoriety? Stand up in that press room & tell Ari Fleischer you think he’s full of shit.
Me: Yeah, me. Because a few weeks ago I posted a political cartoon on this site and then pulled it after applying for a job. Well, I’m not going to do that any more. Life is too short to go around being afraid of offending someone.
I’ve been watching a lot of C-SPAN lately, where I’ve been amazed at seeing the British & Canadian parliaments in action. Apparently in both countries the Prime Minister meets regularly before parliament and joins in debate on the issues of the day. And these are nothing like the “debates” you see in the U.S. Congress, where people politely take turns droning on (& on & on…), but no one seems to really care what they say. I was stunned to hear people shouting in support or derision of the positions being taken, and being able to spontaneously stand up & ask questions or state positions. (I have to say that my favorite example of this came from the “Daily Show” though, where one Australian minister yelled “Murderer!” at the Prime Minister.)
So why can’t we do that here? It seems somehow pathetic that the only regular time the President meets with Congress is for the State of the Union address, which is strictly a monologue and the strongest dissent you see is people not rising to applaud on one side of the aisle. Of course, our current president would probably blow a gasket at the thought of having to face something like that (regardless of how bright he may or may not be, he doesn’t seem to like being disagreed with), but it would probably do everyone good to get really engaged in discussion with each other, rather than doing so by proxy through PR people, advertisements, etc.
According to a NY Times article on the new Clinton/Dole debates on “60 Minutes”:
When CBS announced that it had persuaded Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole to joust…some conservatives complained that it was demeaning for a former president to appear regularly on a commercial television program.
It’s swell that conservatives are so concerned about Bill’s reputation, but c’mon…aren’t these the same people that dragged us through that whole Lewinsky thing? My money says they’re less concerned with presidential stature than they are with Clinton’s power of persuasion.
Just heard that somebody’s suing movie theatres for running ads before showing the flick.
Personally, I just sit in my seat & boo them. Decorum (and Chandra telling me to shush) keeps me from doing it too loudly, but it makes me feel a little better. Plus, I have to admit that knowing those ads are there plays a factor in deciding whether or not we’ll go to a movie or just wait to see it on video. Is that petty? Maybe, but then so is taking $20+ from us (tickets + requisite snackage) and then trying to squeeze out just a little more by forcing us to sit watch ads for cars, Coke, & the army. Thank you, but I’ll rent it for $3 and watch it at home with no ads, a glass of ice water & air-popped popcorn.
Did a political cartoon over the weekend, something new for me. Not as nice as some of my 3D pictures, but I think the message should be fairly clear. It somehow didn’t seem appropriate to use a 3D rendered image, although that’s how it began. Maybe if I do another one at some point I’ll go 3D the whole way.
Turns out the UFO picture is a hot item, at least compared to everything else here. I got another request last week for the image sans UFOs. So…for everyone’s convenience, I’ve now made that image available at TurboSquid. Ten bucks and it’s yours to do whatever you want with.
In other news…meet my new site mascot. I know, he’s got nothing visually in common with the rest of the site design, but I don’t really care. The dude needs a name, though. Any suggestions?