Pointless Man

I think I'm Sole.

2011-11-13T00:32:00.000-08:00

I believe stupidity is a condition of humanity (much like tribalism or social drive). I think the one thing that unites everyone is they're wrong about something (and probably most things, often for bad reasons). I don't believe in the certainty or inerrancy of any proposition. I believe people inevitably make mistakes (though no one mistake may be inevitable). Perhaps as a result, though I am not above following others, it isn't something which typically appeals to me. So, it's weird listening to someone who says a fair amount I agree with almost completely, as here.

Or, in the case of Doug Stanhope, it's depressing and alienating. Seeing Stanhope live was one of the most angst inducing experiences of my life. It felt a bit like staying up 'til three a.m. alone doing nothing for fear of not being able to sleep, hating all the motherfuckers cozy in bed, but with laughter added in.

Anyway. ... Sole has far better raps, music, and videos than that. ...

"Work makes free."

2011-09-04T13:47:00.000-07:00

Vichy France, the short lived French State, printed its own money during the second world war. I bought some (along with a few other French coins) when I was 13, though I had forgotten all about it by the time it fell out of a box of papers I was carrying to recycle. I picked the coin up, took it out of its protective packaging, put it my jacket pocket, hurried off to work, and forgot about it again until a couple weeks ago.

Not much call for jackets in the summer, even in Seattle, but it was threatening to rain, so I found myself wearing this old leather number. This time, when I fingered the coin, I noticed how oddly light it was. Taking a look, I found myself holding an aluminum* two Franc piece from 1943. On its face, there is a two headed ax towering above split wheat and the words 'Etat Francais'. On the back, the bold number '2' stands between sets of leaves and beneath the slogan 'Travail, Famille, Patrie' (or 'work, family, fatherland').

When I tell people about this, they ask me if it's worth anything. I reply, 'I don't know', but I do. It is a rather common coin. If I said so, they mightn't care about the motto which replaced, 'Liberty, equality, freedom'; they might give no thought to this telling contrast, nor to what it might say about men's values in general. Leaving the one thing they do care about a mystery makes the coin, still in my pocket, of interest.

*The other metals being busy killing people.

Publishing apocalypse predicted in Edinburgh.

2011-08-22T23:02:00.000-07:00

In an interesting but spottily researched article, Ewan Morrison argues that authors, booksellers, and publishers are all about to lose the revenues they have become accustomed to because of a new business model, one in which content (with a price trending toward zero) is simply a means to attract consumers whose interests and information are then sold. He tells us this new approach, driven by both pirates and online publishers, is destroying the current industry; it will leave creative sources underfunded and unrewarded. His analysis focuses on 'the market'. Morrison finds his worries and (small) hope in business and models thereof.

However, there are other approaches which might yield different concerns and answers. Historically, the arts have been buoyed by patrons. 20th century American and British authors had businesses as patrons, in a (hopefully) mutually beneficial relationship. Morrison suggests those businesses are dying, and encourages fans and authors alike to find some way to save them. Perhaps writers and readers would do better to simply look for new patronage. Direct appeals to governments, wealthy individuals, interested organisations, and fans may need to be made. 'Business' and 'the market' should not be completely overlooked in finding a future for working authors, but they are not the be-all-end-all.

My biggest worry, beyond nothing being done to stave off Morrison's (slightly overstated) dystopic fears, is that the nominal democratisation of publishing will eventually mean the end of good editors, proof-readers, and fact-checkers, leading to a distinct loss of quality. I doubt this part of the industry will be able to find new patronage. As Cory Doctorow writes, "Much of value will be lost."

My room is a mess, my painting unfinished.

2011-08-18T11:28:00.000-07:00

...and I still haven't found a good alternative to my scanner with its missing power-cord. Almost finished with this painting, though. I just need to put in a bus seat in front of and behind the passenger.

Incidentally, the Seattle Metro buses have the ugliest upholstery I can remember seeing, and I spent five years working at a used furniture store.

British society: from 'Big' to 'broken'

2011-08-15T10:19:00.000-07:00

Cleanup following the English riots.

After the three days of riots around England, Britain's PM, David Cameron, has gone from calling for the people to raise themselves up by their bootstraps (in a 'Big Society'), while government cuts back, to calling for government to fix British ills (in a 'broken society'), while government cuts back. Short of clicking his tongue at perceived moral lapses and starting a 'war on gangs' (while lessening funding for police), it's not entirely clear what Cameron intends to do, but this is still a surprising shift in rhetoric from the Conservative government. --One wonders how much influence the Liberal Democrats (the minority party in the UK's governing coalition of conservatives and liberals) might have had on this.--

Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May both said, "There are no quick fixes." On top of booing improper ethics and declaring a war in England, the British PM suggested studying the issues at hand. His opposition proposed 'a national discussion'. Decisive action! Meanwhile, things seem to have mostly settled down.

Tim Pawlenty has sadly dropped out of the race.

2011-08-15T01:17:00.000-07:00

"You won't have T-Paw to kick around anymore!"

I would like to propose 'Tim Pawlenty's mullet' as a write-in candidate for POTUS. I think it's something the Club for Growth could get behind, at least.

Seriously, though, I hope he grows it back. He looks happy there.

Okay, so Newsweek's Michelle Bachman cover was stupid.

2011-08-15T00:56:00.000-07:00

That magazine has unfortunately become a rag under its current editor in chief. However! Is a crazy cover-picture (and title) choice, which gives even greater excuse for right-wingers to complain about the 'liberal media', excusable if it leads to something awesome? As a principle, probably not. But in this case, maybe so. Observe:

Mitt Romney with Michelle Bachman's eyes-from-the-cover-of-Newsweek.

'Announcements'

2011-08-13T11:59:00.000-07:00

Does anyone else find it strange that the press buys into the notion of announcements or press releases on things that have already been announced? On Thursday, the BBC reported Texas' governor, Rick Perry, had said he was going to run for his party's nomination for POTUS, and that he would announce this on Saturday. And so he has, but wasn't his previous statement good enough to confirm his already telegraphed intentions?

I understand the notion of official communications. As I recall, that sort of thing used to follow rumors, unattributed comments, and buzz from lower level members of the group which would eventually make the announcement. No more. Now, SONY can tell you what they are going to do, get coverage for letting you know, and then do it all over again. The appeal to those looking for press is obvious. The appeal to the press, a little less so.

That is, assuming the aim of the fourth estate is taken to be informing the public, as opposed to lazily rehashing stories. If that's the reason they play along, I understand. Work is hard.

Seattlest appears to be run by teenagers. Also, I am an unrepentant pedant.

2011-08-13T00:21:00.000-07:00

If at any point, reading this becomes laborious, please stop. I'll understand. It is long, and probably uninteresting. I promise not to make a habit of this sort of post. I'm just venting a bit....

After having two minor spats with writers on local news site, Seattlest, I was disallowed from commenting on their articles. Fair enough. That's their right, and no one else seems to respond to them anyway. I was, however, surprised to see a resident author tell me to basically stop reading their articles shortly before I was to be banned. After all, isn't online business based (at least indirectly) on traffic? Don't they want people to go their site? So, setting the present petty argument aside, I e-mailed the editor, and had this untidy exchange:

Subject: You might want to suggest to your authors they not actively drive away readers.

Myself:
In the comments section for 'Hail to the Co-Chairwoman!: Murray to lead "Supercongress"', I am engaged in a discussion with the author which has become unnecessarily heated. I have no problem with spirited debate, but I'm not sure this counts. Whether or not my initial suggestion and subsequence responses gave Everett Rummage sufficient cause for sarcasm, it seems to me poor business for writers to discourage their readership from commenting or even reading. I like your site, particularly its culinary coverage, but I can't say I'm impressed with Mr. Rummage's professionalism.

hanna brooks olsen, editor-in-chief [who apparently doesn't capitalize her name]:

Dear Sir--

To be honest, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Rummage. The entire staff, actually, has been engaged in watching this discussion in the comments, and have all been behind his responses. While it may not exactly be best practices to discourage readers, your particular comments have added little insight to our future reporting, and have mostly been perceived as unnecessary trolling.

Best,

Myself:
It is true my comments have no bearing on future reporting. This is because they concern the article and discussion at hand. Whether or not my initial post was helpful, there were several things a professional might have done in reacting to it:

-he might have remained silent, ignoring something you all appear to think trivial anyway.
-he might have politely thanked me for my input and left it at that, despite considering my statement unnecessary.
-he might have replied in an even tone that he didn't find my input essential, but thanked me anyway.
-or otherwise found some inoffensive means of letting the issue quietly go.

He did none of these things. Instead, your writer responded with a condescending dismissal. By responding in kind, you think I am trolling? I had hoped you'd have higher standards of propriety, befitting Rummage's pride as a journalist. I am saddened to find you do not.

Regards.

hanna brooks olsen, editor-in-chief:

Dear Sir--

Respect and professionalism beget respect and professionalism. You show us yours, and we'll show you ours. You have not, thus, we won't, either.

Myself:
Here's the thing, I don't work for you. It is not my job to promote your paper. It is, one assumes, a part of the writer's duties, and ostensibly why you even allow for interaction between writers and readers. That is the only reason I brought this to your attention.

Tell me, though. Do you really think my initial post was disrespectful? Do you really think it merited the argument which followed, and which had nothing to do with the substance of what I or Rummage had initially written? If the answer to either of those is no, then perhaps you should think about how you and your staff have handled this, and consider approaching things differently in the future.

Obviously, this is entirely up to you. I merely offer a suggestion. Take it as you will.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

hanna brooks olsen, editor-in-chief:

Dear Sir--

Yes, I have found you entirely disrespectful in every single one of your dealings with myself or any one of my writers. In fact, every writer who has received one of your unhelpful, vicious, incorrect, and ill-researched comments has felt the same way.

You are obviously a person with a lot of time on your hands. But what you forget when you are attacking people for their doing their jobs is that they are human beings, whose feelings get hurt by people who, instead of educating themselves or opening their minds, immediately respond impulsively and rudely. When you leave comments like yours online, you are being disrespectful. And to expect to receive respect in exchange speaks volumes about you.

Which is why I am telling you very politely:

Thank you for your imput. Your comments are no longer welcome on our site, and I will no longer be responding to your emails.

Myself:

So, when I wrote that Joy Division had stopped performing in early 1980, that was untrue? When I said that Patty Murray had turned the 'soccer mom in tennis shoes' label to her advantage, that was vicious and ill researched? When I thanked your beer reviewer, was that altogether unhelpful? Or was I incorrect in citing the OED for a definition? If you don't like me, that's fine, but why make things up? Please, don't pretend to remain polite after insulting me, all while crying about your own inabilities to take criticism. It's unbecoming.

"Has the sheep eaten the flower?"

2011-08-12T22:25:00.000-07:00

Any ant we observe can seem to disappear, perhaps into its colony. The colony is itself obscured by the ground or ant-hill it is in. The signs of any such lair are diminished or consumed by their surroundings. The whole scene is rendered insignificant by the world at large. On this scale, the ant's civilisation is nearly invisible. Satellite photos of North America will not show the crack in the pavement on this street from which ants crawl. Still, the ant lives. His existence, experiences, and import go on, or stop, unaffected by what we see in satellite born images.

Those who would dismiss them may cast us all as ants. They say the individual is illusory, transitory, and unimportant; in the big picture, his time and place on Earth are insignificant or else nothing at all. What a weird fate it must be to reason oneself out of existence.

Yes, we are indeed each individuals much smaller than skyscrapers, planets, or galaxies, yet we are also part of a society, the world, and the universe at large. Without a whole, there may be no parts, but without any one of the parts, the whole changes.

Obama is a fantastic figurehead.

2011-08-01T12:36:00.000-07:00

At once tired and energized. Likes energy drinks. Me, too, Barrack. Me, too.

About 3 years ago, I predicted Barrack Obama would be elected President of the United States of America. Not a big deal by itself, considering I had a 50% chance of being right, but the reason I did so might shed some light on recent goings on in D.C.:

"The President is a figurehead....I am not saying the President of the United States is merely a figurehead, but that job is implicitly a part of the position. Which is why supposed lack of experience didn't stop Bill Clinton or George W. Bush from winning the office; why people whose best interest and politics ran counter to Ronald Reagan voted for him; and why Nixon was forced out not over engaging in illegal and unauthorized wars or for destabilizing countries and plunging them into decades of tyranny, but for having some of his staff break into a hotel. It is also why Barrack Obama will beat John McCain."

Now, with the debt ceiling debacle coming to a merciless close, we see President Obama (along with most of Washington, D.C.) backing down in the face of irrational opposition from a minority within a party which controls one half of one of the three branches of our federal government. By the end, both Democrats and Republicans moved further to the right of their starting positions, forcing a 'compromise' about which no one is happy; which likely wouldn't have seemed reasonable to Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or either of the Bushes; and which stands to cut spending while each state and locale is already strapped for cash, when millions are out of work, while economic growth is nearly stalled, and as much of the country's infrastructure is actually crumbling. No new streams of revenue are proposed. Tax cuts and shelters will remain in place. Rating agencies will continue to harbour niggling doubts of what once seemed certain. Now isn't the right time, but, maybe, if we are lucky, further down the line, this may help to lower the deficit, if it doesn't blow up in our faces.

This is a major failure. It impugns the Tea Party, the Republicans, the culture and capabilities of those in the capital, and the leadership of those nominally in charge. And, of course, since the president is the most nominally in charge, his abilities are most in question. We are left to wonder, for example, whether he's any good at brinkmanship, negotiation, selling a plan of action to the American people, or even making such plans. Perhaps he is too charitable, too reasonable, and too willing to bargain to handle the intransigence of right-wing ideologues. Perhaps he himself is an ideologue, driven to follow a mantra of compromise even when there is no give-and-take, only give. More likely, his worries centre on two things: avoiding a complete meltdown in relations between his administration and the Republicans (who have shown they will stop any bill they want, no matter what might happen to the country), and getting reelected.

The first aim, if not fruitless, shall offer nothing sweet. After all, the Republicans have set out to force what have been predicted to be economic doomsdays if they didn't get their way on this and (previously) on extending Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. They are willing to sacrifice the well-being of the country in order to get what they want, and the President is not, so they will win every time. Obama isn't be cut-out to deal with passengers who would rather see the boat go down than let him steer it.

The second aim (while probably pointless if things persist in this manner) actually seems to have been well served over the course of this mess, despite polls. Obama has come out looking reasonable and level headed. He has been seen as one of the few adults in the fracas, and the American people largely came to his position before Congress did. His speeches and press conferences went well. Republican leadership to requested his further involvement in the negotiations, as they declared him to be the only person who really mattered in all of this--even when they did so as an attack, the underlying principle remained. Whether he can steer or not, Obama cuts a dashing figure on deck. People like him. He seems presidential, and that can go a long way to winning a presidential election.

If he had only been born the King of England, he'd have it made.

I like hockey, and so should Tim Pawlenty.

2011-07-28T15:19:00.000-07:00

With the mullet.

Former Minnesota governor and current candidate for the Republican nomination for POTUS, Tim Pawlenty, has a problem. People think he is boring. To be fair, he is. In the rare case where they talk about him, it is usually to point out how few people care about the guy.

He might have avoided this issue if he had just refrained from cutting his hair back in 2008. You see, Tim's biggest problem isn't that he puts pundits to sleep, but his lack of a hockey mullet. With that funky hair style he once had, people would have been happily talking about him. Sure, they would have been making fun of the dude, but not in any sort of damaging fashion.

Rather, it would have turned his biggest weakness into a strength. If people looked at him, and thought he was a goof, the fact that he is actually dry would make him seem 'serious' and 'electable' in contrast to expectations. Meanwhile, the mullet would have given him an immediate sense of place--the sort of thing most candidates spend millions of dollars trying to establish for voters.

Without the mullet, he's just a boring jerk.

Without.

More political thoughts and observations

2011-07-15T20:31:00.000-07:00

-On his June 26 Meet the Press appearance, Gov. Chris Christie blithely said the US murdered Osama bin Laden. "I do think that we have achieved a lot of what we wanted to achieve in Afghanistan, especially after the murder of bin Laden." Bizarre word choice for an American, let alone a politician of national stature. Still weirder to throw the claim out there in such cavalier fashion. I assume murder is still a serious charge in New Jersey.

-Tea-Party-style Republicans are willing to make a deal with Obama, so long as it only contains cuts like ethanol subsidies. Admittedly, ethanol is a largely ineffectual waste, the greatest effect of which is to cause food to cost more, but it's also a major interest/industry in several states key to any victory in the Electoral College. In other words, doing away with ethanol subsidies means doing away with one's chance to be elected President of the United States of America any time soon.

-Similarly, Mitch McConnell's awesome 'compromise' plan to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling by himself (so long as Obama names areas he is willing to cut, but without any guarantee of these cuts passing Congress) is brilliant. It sets Obama up to seem to be the only one responsible for increasing the debt (despite Congress holding the purse-strings), allows his enemies to go after him for specific cuts (which they will conveniently oppose), and (since they will oppose these cuts) it will leave Obama looking week and ineffectual--all while letting Republicans say they fought for cuts and attained concessions from the President. It's just too bad this maneuver is in the name of protecting tax cuts for rich corporations and individuals.

-I am tired of hearing about "front-runners" in races that haven't even started or have just barely begun. No one calls the favourite in a marathon the front-runner before anyone's running. No one cares about who seems to be in the lead two paces in. Polls change from day to day, most voters aren't even paying attention at this point, no one's cast a vote, and most of those running are going to drop out two or three states in to the fifty to go, but the media's got Mitt Romney as the front-runner in the Republican race for the nomination for the national race for President. There have to be a few newsfolk out there who feel silly saying the things they do, right?

Art Installation

2011-05-31T12:39:00.000-07:00


Just south of the newspaper vending machine. From Duty Free Seattle: http://jimhamerlinck.blogspot.com/

The aluminum and glass Winchell's Donuts stands abandoned, dilapidated, its partial gutting on display through a fishbowl lens. More than two years after this shop's closure, the manual newspaper stand at its front continues to be serviced.

Today's headline reads, "Art of decay".

Things I've been wondering for a short time now:

2011-05-27T13:36:00.000-07:00

If Israel's 1967 borders are "indefensible", as Benjamin Netanyahu claims, why did Israel have so little trouble beating three nations in six days from within those same borders? How is it they lasted for over 18 years before being expanded? Were they so untenable, why couldn't this supposed problem be addressed by negotiated 'land-swaps', as has been suggested by most parties since before the Oslo accords?

If the Israeli PM's claim seems unjustified on its face, why are so many politicians and pundits eager to repeat it ad nauseum? Why do they cheer this false objection?

Is it because Israel is our friend? How? We give it cover on the world stage and in the UN Security Council. We give it hundreds of millions of dollars a year. What does Israel offer us in turn? Lectures and insults?

I'm not anti-Israel. Its people deserve to live in peace and prosperity alongside their neighbours. But this will not be achieved by an intransigent Israeli PM who remains dismissive or derisive of both those he would actually have to negotiate with and those who would assist in the negotiations. Why should we happily put up with his snubbing of our VP and his lecturing our President? What's in it for us?

An introduction to a book that doesn't exist:

2011-05-18T23:05:00.000-07:00

Prose and verse are generally accepted as distinct writing formats with their own rules, styles, and grammars. Though their borders are somewhat vague, they have come to be seen as something of a dichotomy in the eyes of the general public. There are, however, at least 3 other popular approaches to writing as exhibited in picture-books, comicbooks, and plays. Though sometimes given short shrift, these styles are accepted as literature. They are included in libraries, book stores, and academic study. Most importantly, they are read.

In the general case, there is clearly writing being done in the creation of any one of these. But what of the wordless comic or silent play? Should we consider scripts written, but fully realized plays, comics, and picture-books, to be performance, art, or some other kind of non-literature? These worries of theory are kinks to be worked out, surely, but they are not of immediate practical concern to the writer.

On firmer ground, we may say, where words and pictures or performance coexist in a synergistic relationship, writing becomes a part of the art, and art a part of the writing. Thus, artists may be authors, with or without fashioning words. Authors, of course, are artists in their own right.

These look better in person.

2011-05-05T01:45:00.000-07:00

My scanner doesn't seem to work without it's power cord--surprising, I know. I seem to have lost it in a recent move. Such items are frustratingly difficult to replace now that Radioshack has become something like the sad little brother of Best Buy. As a result, I am reduced to using camera-phones, with which I am nowhere near skilled enough to make my drawings look good. This is why I haven't uploaded any sketches or comics in a while.

But here is a sample anyway. The face on the left has become my phone's background image (without the blue noise). The lady on the right was kind enough to sit for me one day, or rather, she sat in front of me on the bus, and I sketched her without her knowledge. It's all the same, right?

If the Tunisian revolution carries...

2011-01-27T02:35:00.000-08:00

...that is, if its waves in Egypt, Yemen, and perhaps elsewhere unsettle the current governments, I predict future Republicans will praise George W. Bush for bringing Democracy to the Middle East. They will be wrong, in many ways, but it won't stop them. They might even Reaganize him. How weird would that be?

Palin and 'Blood Libel'

2011-01-13T14:11:00.000-08:00

Sarah Palin recently released a video striking against those she claimed had committed 'blood libel' (by saying violent, martial rhetoric and a vitriolic political atmosphere fostered by Palin and her ilk had contributed to physical violence, as in the case of the recent shooting in Tuscon, AZ). At first, I thought this was the sort of write-first-ask-questions-later, gut-reaction I've become used to seeing in Palin's reported tweets. Then I heard quotes from the release, and watched it myself. It didn't have the diction of the governor's extemporaneous remarks, but instead sounded and looked highly prepared.

Palin almost assuredly did not write this speech herself, or decide to release it without consulting professional advisers. Thinking so, I wondered what political aim her team might have in avoiding the three more obvious, standard, and palatable routes of respectful silence, a brief statement offering sympathy and prayer, or a call for a sort of rhetorical calm. Any of these are fit for a politician with serious aspirations. The last would even allow her to get out in front of the debate about vitriol, and come out looking responsible without having to admit to any past mistakes. Did she take her own path merely to build on her reputation as a rogue? I doubt it.

My guess is she felt it was her sole option if she were to have anything to say in the future. Palin's been trading on martial speech and machismo ever since she stepped on the national stage. If you take away metaphors involving guns or hunting, talk of being a grizzly or a pit-bull, and her attempts to emasculate those who disagree with her, all you're left with is sarcasm--and if you call for civility, you can't go back to that, either, without coming out a pariah. Thus calls for an armistice were not available to her. And because silence, particularly in the face of attacks on her past actions, isn't in her; because Sarah Palin is incapable of turning the other cheek, she had to go after her opponents, no matter how ridiculous or ill-timed the video might have been.

More, had she been patient enough to simply bide her time and stay out of the spotlight while the country mourned, without arguing a case for just the sort of dangerous talk she has become known for, she would not have created a space for her style of politics; she would have been shouted down the moment she took up her same old shtick. But now, her followers and supporters may be able to rest on this charge of 'blood libel', painting Palin as the victim, rather than the aggressor, whenever people decry her approach.

Will it work? Not on a large enough scale for Sarah to be a workable national candidate any time soon, but it will almost surely leave her enough room on conservative talk radio, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing circuit to keep the money and attention flowing in. I'm betting that's fine with her. Though she may still entertain higher aspirations, at present, it matters little that her arguments are absurd, and less that she uses words and phrases she doesn't understand. What does matter right now is her continued viability as a commodity on cable television.

A pitiable, bizarre, unwelcome, but clever move, and as bold as ever. Is it good for the country? No, but it might be good for Sarah Palin.

Beting Against America, a draft

2010-12-16T11:43:00.000-08:00

To be trimmed and sent to pundits and democratic strategists:

Last week, we saw popular and just legislation for 9/11 rescuers and civil rights in the military stymied by cynical Republicans in Congress. For the last two years, they have been stonewalling progress on every front for their own political gain. Republican politicians have been crying, "Things are terrible," while banking on the situation getting worse, so they can run on Obama and the Democrats not fixing things.

Times _are_ tough, but we, as a people, have always known ours will be a better tomorrow. We share this faith. Nevertheless, in fighting aid to workers, small businesses, first responders, and our armed services; in refusing to work on health care, energy, and immigration reform; in constantly stalling, saying 'no', and hoping for the worst, Republican in Congress have bet against America. They are wrong. Every one of us knows, you don't bet against the American people, and you don't bet against the United States.

We know things _will_ get better, but it will be harder for everyone if Republicans in Congress, and especially in the Senate, persist in pushing only gridlock and measures benefiting the richest among us. The Senate's recent passage of a major tax-cut compromise has been greeted with relief, simply because it bucks the trend of inaction. However, Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House remain firm on their general strategy of _not_ compromising and not allowing the other side anything akin to an accomplishment. They have set their sights on defeating Obama and the Democrats, rather than fixing the problems faced by our nation. This strategy is new, it is hurting America, and it is wrong.

In times of crisis, Americans have always worked together, and come through for the common good. It is time to follow the example of generations before. It is time for people to be as patriotic as they say they are. It is time for responsible Republicans to push for more than just tax cuts, and to start working across the aisle. It is time for Republicans in Congress to start helping, and stop betting against America.
...

And revised:

Last week, we saw popular and just legislation for 9/11 rescuers and civil rights in the military stymied by cynical Republicans in Congress. For two years, they have been stonewalling progress on every front for their own political gain. They have been crying, "Things are terrible," while banking on the situation getting worse, so they can complain Obama and the Democrats haven't fixed our problems. By fighting aid to Americans in time of need; by refusing to work on reforms; by constantly stalling and hoping for the worst, Republicans in Congress have bet against America. They are wrong. Every one of us knows, you don't bet against the American people, and you don't bet against the United States of America. Times are tough, but Americans have always known ours will be a better tomorrow. Our brightest days _are_ still ahead, but it will be harder for everyone if Republicans in Congress persist in pushing only gridlock and measures most benefiting those who need it the least.

The Senate's recent passage of tax compromises has been greeted with relief, simply because it bucks the trend of inaction. However, Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House remain firm on their general strategy of _not_ compromising and not allowing the other side any accomplishment. Rather than fixing the problems faced by our nation, they have set their sights on defeating Obama and the Democrats. This strategy is new, it is hurting America, and it is wrong.

In times of crisis, Americans have always worked together for the common good. We need to follow that great example. It is time for politicians to be as patriotic as they say they are. It is time for responsible Republicans to push for more than just tax cuts, and to start working across the aisle. It is time for Republicans in Congress to start helping, and stop betting against America.

[Addendum from February 3, 2011: Storing this away, and not sending it to anyone, given the change in tone following the Phoenix shooting. Still possible this might be applicable later, but likely not if the House can work with Obama on some things, which is the only way anything will get done.]

A brilliant move from Lieberman

2010-12-09T16:05:00.000-08:00

Joe Lieberman is making noise about pushing through a stand-alone repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', alongside Senator Susan Collins (Republican of Maine). He claims to have the votes. If he can get this done, he'll have a nice liberal feather in his cap for his 2010 reelection. Considering that he had roughly 25% job-approval ratings in his home state at the beginning of the year, he'll probably need it.

Just being able to claim he co-wrote this, the most significant federal civil rights bill in recent memory, would be a major victory for him in Connecticut, and do a lot to mend fences with Democrats, many of whom have come to revile him for his hawkishness and anti-health-reform views. If it passes, he may even end up a hero.

A brief note on MMA's rules

2010-12-09T15:50:00.000-08:00

In Mixed Martial Arts' current unified rules (used by almost all promotions and athletic commissions in the United States and Canada), fighters are scored on are effective striking, grappling, aggression, and cage control. I would suggest dropping 'aggression', and instead focusing on penalizing fighters who stall. Points should not be given for effort, but for effectiveness.

This would encourage competitors to fight smarter and more technically, while discouraging them from merely defending themselves or finding a position to rest in and staying there. This would make for better fights and easier judging.

I hate to ascribe cynicism to a Press Secretary.

2010-08-12T00:30:00.000-07:00

Recently, some poll or other concluded 55% of likely voters think the President is a socialist or can fairly be described as one. Secretary Robert Gibbs' derision of the "professional left" is probably intended to create vocal response from liberals to show Obama is anything but a socialist. I doubt this is really about anger at liberals for not giving this administration its due, but by offering that as the narrative, Gibbs has given the press a nice package, which will include this White House's accomplishments while implicitly arguing against the notion that Obama is too liberal.

Do liberal pundits like playing along while their emotional buttons are pushed? By playing the game as though there were no game, they offer their tacit approval of just that.

I will treat this entry as though it were in a journal.

2010-07-31T23:55:00.000-07:00

It is easy for a TV series to lose me. When House became more interested in poorly written interpersonal relationships than silly practical jokes and Holmesian medical mysteries, I stopped watching. When Burn Notice focused several episodes on its incredibly talented spy lead (who had handled murderers, con men, gangs, the FBI, and a host of foreign operatives) having trouble because a cop was harassing him, it took me a year to decide to give it another chance. When Dexter botched its second season, killed its best character, and then opened its third with Dex acting like an idiot for the convenience of the writers, I dropped it. When Madmen slowed down in the middle of the third season, I simply lost interest. These are shows I loved at one point.

A lot of people won't just let go of such things. Even those sympathetic to my reactions will usually have just kept watching. I've been trying to figure out why my reaction is different for a while now, without easy excuses like 'refined taste' or 'snobbery', which I think miss the point, anyway. Today, it hit me, I think of most of my entertainments like I do a novel. If it's the sort of thing you pick up and put down again, only to come back to later and continue the process, I have little problem just stopping. And why shouldn't I?

A few political thoughts:

2010-07-31T04:22:00.000-07:00

-Obama has recently made several appearances where he said, approximately, "Don't bet against the American worker." Yesterday, he began to turn the corner on this argument, and intimate that the Republicans (whom he termed 'the party of "no" crowd') had broken this maxim by opposing government aid to and intervention in the auto industry (and, now, for small businesses). I expect to see this line of thought to be extended, firmed up, and ramped up until our president feels comfortable saying the 'Republicans in Congress' are betting against America. Gonna have to move quick there, if they want to have time for the message to sink in nationally before the midterms.

-Chris Matthews, among others, has claimed to see big trouble for Democrats if the Justice Department is successful in either declawing or striking down Arizona's racist anti-apparent-immigrant laws. Right now, Hispanics account for roughly 15 percent of the US population. The Census bureau projects this number will go up by a little more than 2.2 every ten years, such that Hispanics will account for just under 25% of the populace by 2050. They are already the nation's largest minority.

I don't see clear support of racism against Hispanics being a good long or short term strategy for Republicans (particularly outside of red districts), but maybe I'm just not hip to the new, Southwest version of the Southern Strategy. Considering the percentage of the US population which is white is dwindling (down from 69.4% in 2000 to 65.1% in 2010, and expected to drop to 50.1 by 2050), I doubt this remix will be as big of a hit as was Nixon's original piece.

-I am tired of hearing people say Reagan spent us into massive debt to destroy the Soviet empire and end the Cold War. He didn't know that would happen. I defy anyone to show me serious evidence that he or his advisors predicted anything akin to that. Sovietologists were surprised when Russian socialism imploded. Reagan wasn't prescient, nor was he better informed than his top advisors.

He spent a lot of money, drove us into trillions of dollars of debt, and massively inflated the defence industry because he had a vision involving lasers in space, missile defence systems we still can't work out, and all sorts of cool stuff which probably would have made a very neat sci-fi setting for an early George Lucas film (like, say, Star Wars), but could not have been predicted to get us anything useful. Such foolish action doesn't become smart just because of a serendipitous upshot. Reagan's undying charisma shouldn't get him unearned, nonsensical accolades, no matter how many right-wingers clamber for them.

Struggling with Sisyphian thought.

2010-07-18T00:13:00.000-07:00

Does anyone else find 'Sisyphian struggle' not just hard to say, but also ironic?

Sisyphus's tale, as metaphor, isn't really a lesson in what will happen to you if you piss off the gods multiple times (say, by skipping out of Hell and chaining Death up), though there is that element. It's more about how daily tasks and the cyclical, repetitious aspects of life can be crushing. They may require something heroic in us, and yet remain mundane (because everyone faces them in some form, and no one can shirk them all). Worse, if we accept the metaphor fully (or are taken with arguments for a universal viewpoint, where we are but specks in the big scheme of things), our labours are ultimately futile and fruitless.

Camus thought this especially pertinent to modern living--though I suspect the ancients faced challenges not too removed from our own. His answer, that we must imagine Sisyphus happy at times, seems to require a leap. After all, how can a man cursed to toil on, pointlessly and endlessly, be happy?

But, of course, we know we can be happy. We have been before, and will be again. And, however small or ephemeral, accomplishment is also achievable. Sisyphus always makes the top of his hill, and the boulder always leaves him as it tumbles down, and we, too, have our moments of triumph. So it's not all dim, is it?

Still, the thought nags, why must we 'imagine Sisyphus happy'? If, in this thing, I am he, as you are he, as you are me, and we are all together, wherefore this doubt?

Carrying the pale forward, and going beyond it again.

2010-07-17T13:03:00.000-07:00

Mark Williams, a radio personality, talking head, and tea-partyist, had made what may charitably be characterized as 'controversial' statements before stepping into the realm of satire on July 14. After the NAACP passed a resolution condemning racist elements and acceptance of them within the Tea Party movement, Williams complained about the organization's supposed hypocrisy on NPR, CNN, and finally his own website, where he produced a gleefully racist letter purportedly written by NAACP President, Ben Jealous, to Abe Lincoln. Among other things, it demanded the withdrawal of the 13th and 14th Amendments, and the return of slavery. Within two days, it was taken down, and replaced by a non-apology denouncing racism, declaring the NAACP's title racist, saying his earlier satire was only condemned for its use of the term 'colored people', and, of course, calling for a healthy and open discourse on such matters. Because Mark's such a good guy, he even offered to buy Ben Jealous a couple beers.

These sorts of antics can be seen to have worked out well for the tea party, so long as you believe 'no press is bad press'--which, in their case, it might not be. In the age of infotainment, the media is happy to have jesters, and the Tea Party is often pleased to entertain. What's more, those outlets which wish to retain some credibility as offering disinterested journalism are pressured by the right to avoid really going after these types, lest they be characterized as liberal and biased--or, worse, pressed to no longer rely on commentary from crazy talking heads like Mark. Thus criticism of the really fringe-like actions of right wingers comes largely from the left, and therefore seems more liberal and "out of the mainstream".

Williams' original screed garnered him attention. In a clever bait-and-switch, the present entry (at the same location) almost seems reasonable, and even cordial. Having staked out new ground, Mark has found a way to make it look far less troubling than it actually is, and has thus paved the way for going yet further along that crazy road so often trod by American racists and bigots.

Go, man, go!

Addendum July19

Apparently, the bait-and-switch wasn't clever enough for some, or maybe the pressure brought by the NAACP is having some effect. Yesterday, Mark was expelled from the Tea Party Federation "because of the letter he wrote." However, he remains a part of the Tea Party Express. There are a lot of tea parties.

Follow up

2010-06-05T14:18:00.000-07:00

So it would seem Obama is doing what I suggested, just in a slow, measured, 'I'm really disappointed in you, BP', kinda way. Too cool for school.

Meanwhile, he still seems to be taking a watered down version of the Republicans' "all of the above" approach to energy, which will make no one happy, leave us open to future oil disasters (with continued drilling in shallow waters and on land), and not push hard enough for renewable energy technologies. This is pragmatism carried beyond what is pragmatic to where it no longer takes prudential concerns into account, or at least places them at a distant second to idealistic visions of political harmony. In the past, Obama has taken steps which have seemed timid and not always worked to his or his party's advantage, but which have eventually resulted in something being accomplished. Unfortunately, though oft deemed an acceptable outcome, that product is often watered down, panned even by those who benefit from it, and not apparently the best end which could have reasonably been achieved. Perhaps we are walking that path again.

Politics, change, and the Deepwater Horizon

2010-05-25T15:01:00.000-07:00

The story is that we need BP, as they are the only party with the closest thing to the know-how to handle this spill and which has the responsibility to do so. I'm not sure I buy that. They were knowingly irresponsible in the construction of their well; they seem to be pulling the wool over our eyes on the amount of oil that has escaped their well; and they apparently either do not have the will or the ability to handle this by themselves in a timely manner. It has been five weeks. We've seen oil washing up on our shores now. If things continue at this rate, we can expect our present problems to increase, and to see oily hurricanes, once tropical storm season hits.

More clearly needs to be done. Current public and governmental pressure is not enough. Nor are the actions being taken by BP or the various local and federal agencies at work. People can feel this. Recently, there have been comments from both 'the right' and 'the left' that this crisis is Obama's political doom, his Katrina. At present, that seems entirely possible, though we haven't gotten there yet.

The bigger, much more direct political loser here is obviously BP, and the rest of the oil companies, by extension. Attention is now being paid to the cozy, accommodating relationships between regulators and 'big oil'. Questions of the safety of off-shore drilling carry far more weight than a couple months ago, when Obama partially lifted the moratorium on new drill sites. More pointed campaigns are being made regarding the need for cleaner, renewable energy sources. The President has a chance to harness these movements, to turn this crisis (if it must be compared to a Bush-era disaster) from his Katrina-to-be into an environmental 9/11.

Obama ought to drop a rhetorical hammer on BP and its compatriots, and then quickly pivot to the answer: a crusade for better sources of fuel, a new and greener infrastructure, and a reinvigorated industrial sector focused on these needs, creating a healthier, safer, more secure nation, and a new economy. This is the sort of vision, the kind of leadership Americans desperately crave in times of despair. We want hope for a better tomorrow.

It shouldn't be a hard sell. Recent wars, economic and environmental crises, global competition, and (less directly) that amorphous anger we keep hearing about on the news all the make the case for change. Change that Obama has already called for in both concrete and general terms. This is the change that we can believe in. It's also the change Obama needs in order to distance himself from the incompetent early handling of the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

Bush was able to jump away from responsibility for allowing the terror attacks of 9/11, mostly by refocusing our anger, dismay, and desire for action. Obama could learn from that, and actually accomplish something useful at the same time. So why isn't he?

Chris Ware's greatest fans are philistines.

2010-05-14T02:53:00.000-07:00

Chris Ware's comics are playful, well honed, much honoured, and have been highly influential over the last decade. However, their appeal eludes me. His drawings, design, and layouts are cold. So, too, his bone dry humour. Frankly, I find his work boring, in form and function. Intellectually and as entertainment, it offers me nothing.

I feel (somewhat) similarly disconnected to the music of Charles Mingus. Still, when people tell me Charlie is a genius, a fantastic band leader, and quite possibly the greatest jazz bassist ever, said persons almost always know more about jazz than I do. I believe, in this case case I may be missing something others key into. I believe it because it is an oft held view among people who understand the medium and its history better than I do.

I don't think that's what's going on when someone tells me Chris Ware is a genius. More often, it's like people who hardly know anything about art praising 'the Mona Lisa' (of which there are something like 14 largely comparable versions, mostly by Leonardo's students) simply because others have done so. I call BS. I don't doubt there are people who have exposed themselves to his material for better reasons than copying others, following indy trends, or the like; I don't doubt some of them have enjoyed his fare; but I do doubt anyone who calls the man or his work 'genius' knows what they are talking about. That is, unless they're using irony, or selling something.

I do like the flowers he's drawn, though.

Another fantastic bit of editorial photojournalism!

2010-04-30T00:50:00.000-07:00

This is Lloyd Blankfein, pictured in a BBC News article on Goldman Sachs execs testifying to Congress entitled, 'Goldman Sachs "Profited at Clients' Expense"'. Lloyd is Sachs' CEO.

Seems a proper reaction for having to play in the absurdist theatre of a Senate hearing on a scandal, where everyone is positively outraged by the actions of their patrons. Not like it's news that Wall Street is filled with dicks who just want to fuck you. "I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment!"

Meanwhile, our representatives will continue to whittle down their not-quite-strong-enough to begin with legislation set on reigning in just these sorts of excesses. Of course, even should it be detoothed and declawed, our Republican friends and officials will still lament it being much too intrusive, stifling, and 'big government', as they call for the tougher reform of largely letting the markets manage themselves.

Perhaps I shouldn't, but I can't help it. I love politics.

I hate Frank Luntz.

2010-03-11T11:34:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to get that out there.

Addendum (4/30)--

As per Media Matters:

'Right-wing story time this week -- brought to you by Frank Luntz -- centered around the claim that financial reform legislation would encourage perpetual and permanent taxpayer bailouts. The genesis of this particular tall tale is Luntz's January memo that advised opponents of financial regulatory reform to tie the issue to big bank bailouts. Message received. Driving the clown car was Glenn Beck, who appeared on Fox & Friends to decry the "insane" idea of using $50 billion to save failing firms; Michelle Malkin claimed the bill would "institutionalize and make permanent financial bailouts"; Fox Business' Charles Gasparino said the bill contained a "slush fund" of "$50 billion to bail you out." Actually, the $50 billion fund would be paid for by the financial services industry and would cover the costs of the orderly liquidation of failing firms, quite clearly the opposite of a bailout. No worries. The Wall Street Journal's John Fund tried to argue that the bill was bad because it would bail out firms and because it let the government liquidate them. Rush Limbaugh complained that it was "a bailout bill, or a destroy 'em bill." Neat trick.'

As usual, our Republicans' talking points have been brought to you by Frank Luntz, supposed pollster and former worst-contributor to Hardball. Screw that guy.

A very old drawing I have lost.

2010-03-02T12:15:00.000-08:00

With mild editing, and a quick background added in Photoshop.

Wish I could find the actual hard copy. Shoot.

At this point, it is hard not to call Tea Party folks 'teabaggers'.

2010-03-02T11:53:00.000-08:00

And it's not because I think they're largely foolish racists with ill thought out ideas being manipulated by corporations and right wing pundits, though that is how I feel. Rather, I've just heard (and read) them called 'teabaggers' so often now, it's hard not to. Nevermind the humour or that it rolls off the tongue much easier than 'tea partiers'.

It becomes more apropos when you see signs from their rallies suggesting they should tea bag the Democrats or Obama. For further enjoyment, may I suggest Morons with Signs?

I have to say, it's odd to see Democrats engage in this sort of (admittedly low) tactic and actually seem to win the battle of words.

Obama's Political Concessions and Potential Gains

2010-02-24T14:28:00.000-08:00

Much has been made in the media (or at least, the segment that I have concentrated on, that being the New York Times, BBC, and Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews's programs on MSNBC) about Obama's alleged concessions to Republicans who will later refuse to cooperate in the final legislation. The general argument here is that the President gains nothing by making these moves, and that it is therefore foolish for him to seemingly abandon some of his stated goals, which could produce a more liberal result. While I am persoanlly in favor of such an outcome, I believe that the Obama administration has taken the long view, which many critics may have missed.

By publicly reaching out to Republicans--and reminding the voter that he is doing this--while adding some of their ideas into the mix, he has not only arranged for the over-all legislation to pass, but has accomplished the following:

(1) Taken the centre, which establishes Obama--and possibly the Democrats riding on his coattails-- to be seen as the best choice for the country's moderates and independents. This strategy will either force Republicans to work with him to at least some extent, or to be seen as occupying the far right fringe--something that is not palatable to many in this voting block. Continued blatant Republican resistance could negatively effect their own hopes in both statewide and national elections. Given enough alienation, Republican incumbents could possibly stand to lose seats . Added pressure could be felt by Republican members of the House who hail from more moderate districts and, if left unheeded, could result in Democratic inroads. This is especially true if the current mood of anti-Congress, anti-Gridlock continues on into the midterms.

(2) Forced many Republicans to either support Obama's proposals (an action that could be politically hazardous, given a year of amped-up Republican rhetoric), or to come out opposing positions that they have previously taken (we are seeing the latter pointed out more and more by Rachel Maddow, who is quick to pounce on exposed targets). For this reason, Republicans will either be forced to cooperate--thus alienating their base and reducing their party's attractiveness--or to send more radical candidates to the primaries, who--if they win--could possibly lose in a quick flip of seats in the next general election.

(3) Worked with potential Republican leaders of the 2011 House (should Democrats lose their current majority), and has thereby established a rapport which may be applied to future legislative iniatives.

This is the larger picture. Obama and his team have shown themselves to be nothing, if not successful with grand strategies. They are also known for playing their cards close to the vest.

I have no idea where I was going with this.

2010-01-03T01:47:00.000-08:00

[From April 09]

Rational thought (a system or as a line of thinking) is not inerrant. It is not supernaturally endowed with its own special light. It is, more often than not, done in pursuit of rationalising our dispositions, prejudices, and actions. But this does not deny its usefulness, or condemn such thinking to the patent absurdity of gibberish. Instead, it makes the rational into a real practice, like others: fallible, common, and not some shining ideal.

Rendering such thinking little more than an attempt to fashion itself into something more internally consistent, and perhaps better in tune with the world it is a part of,

Turn The Crow on its head

2010-01-03T01:42:00.000-08:00

Man who is tired of living, but unwilling or unable to kill himself is brutally murdered by ass-hats. A raven revives him. He spends more time trying to catch the bird and kill it than he does inadvertently doing away with his murderers. In taking out some of these goons, he earns the enmity of several gangs who, unfortunately, cannot kill him.

Addendum:

The bird should be a pigeon, as opposed to a raven.

Proposed endings

2009-12-31T20:42:00.000-08:00

...for comicbook villains. After all, who deserves it more?

-Doc Oc, in a retirement home, drives those around him nuts. Inevitably, he regains his tentacles, and breaks a hip. Convalescing, he continues to annoy those around him.

-The Joker, declaring, "It's just not worth it, anymore," goes straight (but remains unhinged) and realizes his dream of being in showbiz, as a radio DJ and late-night host. Batman doesn't believe it, and wastes an hour every night watching Joker's show, refusing to admit he likes it.

-Bullseye careens into a self destructive pattern that finally does him in. Everyone he's ever worked for or against tries in some way or another to talk him out of it, to no avail. Deadpool offers to make it quick and kill Bullseye himself, but is turned down. The man who can turn anything into a weapon is eventually slain by some no name punk in a foreign country, where no one knows him.

-Luthor, dying an inadvertent death, has his life flash before his eyes, and dies happy, even without having killed Superman. In a brief epilogue, various media and personal reaction follows. The last panel has Clark at Lex's funeral, looking sadder than one might expect.

-The Penguin throws a party, where he remains at once aloof from and tangentially tied to both crime and legitimate business and social concerns. He will never have to tangle with the likes of Batman again.

-Bane decides he's happier in prison than out, and gets himself put away for life with an intentionally bungled gas-station burglary. He ends up running life inside the prison while wearing glasses and reading the latest high literature.

-An elderly Riddler trains a kid to take his place, perhaps with the reveal that this kid is, in fact, the new Robin on his first assignment. If that route is taken, this remains unknown to Edward Nigma.

Longer comics series

2009-12-31T04:50:00.000-08:00

Some recommendations for those interested in something longer lasting than a graphic novel:

Usagi Yojimbo - a heartfelt exploration of a society long gone by a masterful Japanese cartoonist, Stan Sakai, who has spent almost his whole life in Hawaii; deceptively simple and cartoonish on first glance, the art and storytelling share a strong sense of economy rare to comics; Sakai is an award winning letter, and his inking is some of the best in the business; 22 volumes and counting

Vagabond - perhaps the best comic being published anywhere today, this manga follows the lives of Miyamoto Mushashi, wandering swordsman, and his contemporaries (with a particular interest in two of his childhood friends); the art effortlessly slips between bold brush strokes to light line work, or watercolours to black and white; the layouts and transitions from panel to panel are excellent; the fight scenes progress logically and show a surprisingly realistic understanding of both the mental and physical sides of conflict; a joy to read, everything about the series gets better as it goes along; 29 volumes and still going

Blade of the Immortal - a sometimes cynical, sometimes sentimental story of revenge and redemption focused on a young teen girl whose parents have been murdered and the immortal swordsman, whom she convinces to help her; the 22 volume drops in January

Cerebus - an odd, absurd, surreal parody of anything and everything Dave Sims could think of, but especially of comicbooks; at turns serious and intellectual, at turns completely farcical, each book is a dense read, and there are something like 30 volumes

Hellboy & BPRD - perfect for when you feel like curling up with a ghost story; I've lost track of how many books there are in these series, but it's over a dozen combned

Kane - Paul Grist delivers some of the best crime genre work in contemporary comics; his layouts are fantastic, and the art's not shabby, either; may be out of print in the US, but still available on the used circuit, often at descent rates

Madman - the pop-art action series that launched Mike Allred's career; good, quirky fun

Preacher - its convoluted plot and sophomoric, angst ridden anti-Christian bent aside (and, being an atheist, I am well acquainted with such rants), this series is highly entertaining for those with a dark sense of humour and a taste for a bit of gore

Berserk - at one time, this was the best manga being published; a heady adventure series which starts with a dark and disturbed world run by monsters, then shows how things got to that point, while following a youthful band of highly successful mercenaries

GrimJack - a genre bending work set in Cynosure, the nexus of all realities, and following John Gaunt, an aging badass who works as something of a private detective out of the back of a bar; classic work recently revisited by John Ostrander and Tim Truman

American Flagg - newly back in print, this was Howard Chaykin's big break, and he went for it, envisioning a corporatist future engulfed in violence and vice; its hard edges are softened by a pulpy sense of humour

Conan - high adventure of all sorts written and drawn by some of the best

Nexus - Baron and Rude's ongoing masterpiece follows a man given mysterious powers and driven (by visions and headaches) to execute mass murderers throughout the galaxy; deals in politics, romance, espionage, and comedy, as well as action

Love and Rockets - perhaps the definitive black and white alternative collection, the Hernandez brothers form a drama spanning countries and generations; balanced between pulpy and sometimes soap-operish tendencies, and a real care for humans as living, breathing, feeling individuals

The Flaming Carrot - following Wally Wood's Plastic Man, this is the next step in semi-surreal comics action; a hard boiled parody featuring a hero whose mask is a giant, flaming carrot

American Splendor - real life tales and reflections from a very interesting and intelligent author

The Goon - ridiculous thirties pulp action involving the mob, zombies, giant robots, and sundry animals

Independent authors many of whose works may as well be series:

Jason - a minimalist with a strong sense of story, and real feeling for his subjects

Will Eisner - one of the early masters and innovators of the medium remained among the best until his death a few years ago

Paul Hornschemeier - at turns poetic, absurd, and touching, Hornschemeier has written some of the best comics of this decade, especially Mother Come Home, which stands as one of my favourite works of literature in any genre

Joe Sacco - comics' best journalist and historian; his art, writing, and layouts are all distinctive; he has an eye for engaging characters, and a mind made for exploring their personalities

Chabon

2009-12-26T01:00:00.000-08:00

I have now read three novels and one collection of essays by Michael Chabon, and a series of comics based around his character, the Escapist, created within the pages of The Amazing Adventures Kavalier and Clay. All were satisfying in their own way, and I admit I couldn't put down the aforementioned award winning book, but none were quite so compelling as The Yiddish Policemen's Union.

The later it gets, the more typos I make.

2009-12-25T03:12:00.000-08:00

Not happy about the prospect of getting up early (especially with it being 3am) tomorrow to help my dad's church celebrate the politically chosen day of an ancient rabbi's birth. Why couldn't the Catholics have decided to do this sometime when I wouldn't freeze my balls off waiting for the bus?

These is me, 9 years ago or more.

2009-12-12T00:21:00.000-08:00

I have more of a beard, now.
But less hair.

Remakes, sequels, and originality in Hollywood

2009-12-05T01:03:00.000-08:00

Many people decry Hollywood for its lack of originality, what with all the sequels, rehashed plots, adaptations, and remakes. I understand this critique. I feel its draw. But, when I think about it, I'm not against those things. Riffing on a theme is the basis for a lot of great art, including some movies. If we couldn't appreciate taking the same pieces through different moves (or different pieces through the same moves), we'd never retell our own stories, never play the same boardgame twice, and hate all music not based on random note choices.

I'd like to say I am simply against bad movies, but this is not entirely true. I can have fun with bad movies. Hell, I've seen They Live and Class of 1999 at least a dozen times each; Blade 2 is one of my favourite films; and while I didn't like Mission Impossible 2, I did like making fun of it.

What's more, even less than enjoyable material can offer us something, when it points to better works. I never would have seen Death Race 2000 (with David Karadine and Sly Stallone) if it hadn't been for the lesser Death Race of 2008, nor would I have watched The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (starring Walther Matthau) had it not been for the recently panned remake. Similarly, there are many (more or less) worthy books and comics which have gained exposure thanks to arguably less inspired films.

I propose a rule I know will not be followed--and not just because no one in Hollywood will read this: Only bad movies with good concepts or premises should be remade; producers and execs shall make it their goal to directly recycle, reuse, and refashion only the bad so it becomes good.

The first of these should be The Big Hit. There's so much there. Whoever works on it, just needs to decide to take it in one direction or another, rather than trying to make it dramatic, absurd, comedic, and tragic without any sense of itself as a whole. Shoot. You could even have Marky Mark reprise his lead role. That alone would sell the film. Come on, you bastards, I know you're not reading this. Remake The Big Hit.

Mark Millar brings loser chic to superheroes.

2009-12-03T22:44:00.000-08:00

By using superheroes in titles like Wanted and Kick Ass, Millar has brought the navel gazing and Gen-X-style angst of self indulgent, pity-party indie comics to what may loosely be termed a mainstream audience. This would be pathetic enough by itself, but it gets worse.

Part of his popularity is based on dismantling the superhero (or supervillain, as the case may be) as fantasy fulfilment. Nevermind that this work was done with far more aplomb (and even subtlety) well over twenty years ago by the likes of Alan Moore, Frank Miller, John Ostrander, Mike Grell, Steve Ditko, and Howard Chaykin. Millar's protagonists exist in a hyperrealistic world where they remain scrawny cry-babies at heart, no matter how good they have it. This isn't deconstruction, it's embracing all that is wrong with nerd culture. Aggrandizing petty suffering and self doubt to such heroic heights as to make martyrs of geeks everywhere reinforces the need for fantasy fulfilment. Playing into and then gleefully accepting a character's poorer justifications for proactive, yet anti-social (and often self debasing) behaviour veiled in a thin veneer of cynicism discourages normal interaction while building into the old hero-worship another prototype, a new mythology: that of the loser.

This is evidently what Mark Millar thinks of his readership. --It's probably also what he thinks of himself. His writing shows, if not a lot of thought, a depth of experience in and feeling for 'mainstream' comics and nerd culture.-- Meanwhile, fans clamour for more. Do they want to be told they are losers, or do they want to be told that is okay?

Either way, it's sad.

--And don't get me started on his Civil War nonsense for Marvel. That just shows he thinks comics fans are dumb, too. That series may have had the worst resolution of any major 'event' series in American comics, and, yes, I know there have been some bad ones.--

If zombies were intelligent...

2009-11-15T02:09:00.000-08:00

There would be no zombie apocalypse. One of many reasons I want smart zombies, or no zombies at all. Please, and thank you.

Tim Hensley and David Heatley are hacks.

2009-11-11T22:08:00.000-08:00

I am tired of seeing their work in alternative comics anthologies like Mome and Best American Comics. If those guys are turning out some of the better indie and small press cartooning, then the industry is in a sorry state, but that's still no excuse for printing such tripe.

A page from Hensley's Wally Gropius story, where he exhibits a complete inability to draw, and a dry, unearned sense of overburdened irony:

Heatley's illustrations suck, even when he's not writing:

And in its more or less original format:

2009-11-11T12:30:00.000-08:00

Sans colour artificial. Much closer to how it would have looked when I drew it in 2003 with some crappy cartridge loaded ink-brush.

Being the result of spilt ink.

2009-11-11T12:17:00.000-08:00

Everything after that first punch is probably superfluous, but who said you had to be kind in a fight?

I am large. I contain multitudes.

2009-11-06T21:33:00.000-08:00

An anti-Kantian strip (from 2003) in direct opposition to a previous post. I have more respect for Kant's epistemological work nowadays, but still feel roughly the same about his ethics. Boo, Kantian ethics!

Features the infamous Bottle of Injury and that familiar trope of the artist as God.

A vision of the east-side

2009-07-13T00:01:00.000-07:00

Being the greater Seattle area's east-side, home of Microsoft, Nintendo, and so on. Quick, unfinished ink sketch from memory of the odd sort of office buildings you see over that way.

Variations on a signature, with notes.

2009-07-11T02:14:00.001-07:00

The back of a page from a sketchbook, with minimal editing, featuring a silly attempt at developing a personalized hanko, eventually resulting in an abstract of a hamster in a wheel, as seen at the bottom left, a few odd sketches, and this rather long sentence fragment.

Note that, in that link which sort of explains what a hanko is, you can save one cent by purchasing a square stamp, rather than a round one.

Of empty and full cups and glasses.

2009-07-10T23:16:00.000-07:00

I posit: A cup is half full if you are filling it. A cup is half empty if you are emptying it. If it is just sitting there, it is half a cup of whatever's in the damn thing.

I love editorial picture choices in journalism.

2009-06-10T01:32:00.000-07:00

NYT headline: Poll Finds Paterson Deeply Unpopular

You should click on the photo to get a full sense of the composition. It really makes the man look lonely.

This is not a rhetorical question:

2009-05-21T12:54:00.001-07:00

The rationale for having people deal with graphic depictions of Nazi internment camps and all that is not usually just that it is a fact of history, and people should acquaint themselves with it, nor that it tells us something important about the human condition, but that we must know about it so we can stop its like from ever happening again. So, I wonder, have efforts to educate people about the Holocaust actually done anything to stop other acts of genocide or mass murder?

In skimming Sam Beckett's wiki entry...

2009-05-21T02:33:00.000-07:00

I came across the odd statement, "Though many of the themes are similar, Beckett had little affinity for existentialism as a whole." Right. Name me an existentialist for whom that isn't true.

How many grains of salt must one have before one is prepared to read an encyclopedia?

In which Tavis explains why he should not have read The Walking Dead.

2009-05-19T00:34:00.001-07:00

Call it a compulsion. There was a time when I would have read any and every comic I could get my hands on. I've gotten better, and far pickier. Nevertheless, after coming across a cache of the much hyped Walking Dead books, I thought I'd give them a chance, despite the art, writing, and layouts all seeming boring. About four issues in, I began to wonder why I was doing this to myself. Eventually, it felt like punishment for some unnamed misdeed.

Thirty-seven(!) issues in, I believe I can say The Walking Dead showcases the reasons there has been so little interest in comicbooks (as opposed to comic strips) in the American public. The series offers up everything that is wrong with so-called mainstream comics--the real mainstream being either the aforementioned strips, or else manga, both of which are more popular and widely read than adventure books published by Marvel, DC, Image, or so forth. I suppose this also explains its appeal to many comics readers, many of whom seem to enjoy:

-Characters who always tell others how they're feeling, their motivations, what took place last issue, and what the author wants you to think as bluntly, blatantly, and often as possible.
-False moral ambiguities masking simple conflicts between 'good' and 'evil'.
-Forced melodrama and hyper-violence for that 'gritty', 'realist' edge.
-Characters who change on the fly, to support the needs of the plot and to keep the comic going, and who are thus 'developed'.
-Dialogue which hurts when you read it aloud.
-Hilariously overplayed emotions on the face of at least one character every three panels or so, whether it makes sense or not.
-Cliffhangers and twists bordering on the absurd, even relative to the work at hand.
-Mid way through, at least one character dresses like a superhero. No cape, though.

Walking Dead is the sort of thing that convinces anyone curious enough to venture into the comics section of their big-box book store they made a mistake. Fans, on the other hand, are wont to excuse such faults (if they will admit them) as either necessary (because it's the industry standard, or else what fans want) or (even better) "random--just like life!" Uh huh. The characters act haphazardly to sustain a plot which has no catharsis, no real structure outside of its cliffhanger endings, and no reason to continue beyond being a continuing series which sells relatively well. Even were life like that, once an author has brought the dead back to life, 'realism' is no longer a ready excuse for his actions. Less so in the case of bad writing. I could draw a thousand pages of a statue in a locked room not moving or having anything interesting happen around it. That's usually what happens around statues in a locked room. This would be far more true to life than The Walking Dead, but it would also be boring and unpublishable. The former is true of Walking Dead. The latter ought to have been.

Unfinished business

2009-05-14T00:00:00.000-07:00

And I don't expect to be paid for a job I never completed. Or any other, when it comes to art. >_>

Other notes:
-Drawn somewhere around 2004/2005.
-I like blue.

As Digital Underground said:

2009-05-12T01:52:00.000-07:00

Do whatcha like.

--This might be from 2004.--

A public service announcement.

2009-05-10T11:19:00.000-07:00

'Leary' and 'wary' are synonyms. This does not mean you should combine them. 'Weary' means 'tired'. It should not be used in place of 'leary' or 'wary'. Stop raping your own language. It isn't pretty.

Breakout!

2009-05-09T00:00:00.000-07:00

A classic game, but not really what I was expecting from the title, to be honest. This remains a mild disappointment, all these years later.

Mining my somewhat surreal past.

2009-05-08T04:01:00.000-07:00

Circa 2005: 10 panels, 3 moods, 1 piece. A little worse off for being bent while copied. The result of using a cheap scanner. Alas, my misspent dollars.

Smoke gets in your eyes.

2009-04-22T00:00:00.001-07:00

Drawn at a small concert some months ago, coloured on my computer a few days ago, this is a (belated) dirge for indoor, public smoking in Seattle. The show's venue was an indoor courtyard in what felt like a cross between a public theatre and somebody's house which just happened to be tucked between two bars and a couple doors down from a tattoo parlour. The club had no sign, no bar, and allowed customers to bring their own booze to the party. Smoking was also allowed inside. Scandalous, I know.

Pointless Man fears compromise.

2009-04-20T17:48:00.000-07:00

Conceived and drawn on a bus, my only two panel comic ever.

3 Guys, 1 Gun: Season Finale

2009-04-08T12:00:00.000-07:00

Maybe people would be more interested in following through with their moral convictions if those beliefs were themselves more stylish. Adding colour just makes sense, damn it.

3 Guys, 1 Gun: This is the Plan.

2009-04-07T12:00:00.000-07:00

You don't know what it's like. You don't have a clue. If you did, you'd find yourself doing the same thing too. Planning to break the law! Planning to break the law!

But does the reader ascribe this intent as intentional to the characters at hand? Perhaps they are innocent of societal or legal mores? Again, many comics operate on this assumption. Just how stupid (or grossly ignorant) are these guys supposed to be?

'3 Guys, 1 Gun', part the second. Or is it parts three and four?

2009-04-06T12:00:00.000-07:00

This series functions as both an implicit critique of and an explicit attempt at the traditional three panel comic strip. There is a similar ambivalence here towards violence and guns. Some people are confused by this, though I don't consider it very subtle.

What was I doing four years ago?

2009-04-05T20:10:00.000-07:00

Game testing for Nintendo (a 12 hour commitment for an 8 hour day, between lunch and the commute by bus) feeling very tired, and drawing this comic in between. Took me all of one walk to conceptualize the four pages I've drawn in this series, but I just now managed to get them to look close to decent in a digital format. No one ever accused me of knowing my way around Photoshop. Anyway, I'll post them up over the next few days, and, who knows, maybe I'll try my hand at finishing up the series.

Sorting comics is hard.

2009-03-16T14:24:00.000-07:00

Given that there are often at least two people with authorship over a comic, and that these comics sometimes star franchise characters, it becomes hard to sort comics in a meaningful way. Going alphabetical-by-title will split up the works of authors, and often break up series. Alphabetical-by-author splits franchises and (sometimes) series, as well as leaving one to decide whether to sort by writer or artist. Switching between styles leaves a bookshelf with no logic, which can even confuse the person who placed the tomes there, and almost defeats the purpose of sorting in the first place.

Like the earlier Beck problem, there is no easy solution to this petty issue, which arises from something I enjoy, albeit indirectly.

A Forest view

2009-03-15T13:55:00.000-07:00

I'd like to thank Frank Miller for lending me this scarf.

This, by the way, is from a really bad scan.

I am so, so very ambivalent about Beck.

2009-03-14T12:00:00.000-07:00

Nevermind his stage name messing with my attempts to talk about Jeff Beck from time to time. I can live with that. But I cannot stand Guero or 'Loser', and can only tolerate Odelay due to distance of time. On the other hand, I like Modern Guilt, and think Midnight Vultures, Sea Change, and Mutations are brilliant.

Beck is, therefore, one of my favourite and least favourite musicians. He presents a problem when filling out lists for sites like this or Facebook. Should I just list his albums I dig? And if I do that, should I do so for other artists? I know I'm overthinking this, but there is no way to happily solve this matter, as far as I'm concerned.

That was a fatal combination.

2009-03-13T13:32:00.000-07:00

Villains! This is what happens when you watch too much Fist of the Northstar!

Will G. W. Bush era culture make sense to people years from now?

2009-03-12T12:44:00.001-07:00

Listening to Sage Francis's 2005 album, A Healthy Distrust. The opening track, 'The Buzz Kill', is, among other things, about an American denial of supposedly quintessential American values via our rhetorical offensive on the French. 'Freedom fries' are referenced, but never mentioned. These are juxtaposed with '50s-sounding clips about 'the Sage', a supercomputer protecting America from the nuclear threat of the Soviet empire.

This is (sadly) complex enough to render its meaning obtuse to many. But how will future generations of those smart enough to unravel the song interpret it? If America gets the break it so clearly desires from the general feel or effects of the Bush era (perhaps as was afforded those of my generation with the fall of the USSR and its walls), how will a girl who's ten now understand Sage's lyrics when she's twenty and getting into hip-hop?

Back, then, to the titular question. Those of us who were paying attention at the time should be able to put them into context, but what will post-9/11 political and social statements of pop culture mean to those who weren't really around for them?

The human race is awesome.

2009-03-06T00:37:00.000-08:00

Some will counter by calling humanity a cancer upon this earth. Fie. Nature, for all its beauty is not ethically pretty. Life feeds on life. The world-without-man is no guide for moral living. It is, by and large, amoral.

The awesome power of humanity is only further evinced by its impact upon the globe. Consider its scientific feats, its aesthetic achievements, its incredible willingness to crash in upon itself through war and economic strife. Humanity's arm is as God's. It's voice thunders across the globe. It is decked in majesty and excellency, arrayed with glory and beauty. It casts abroad the rage of its wrath. It looks upon every proud beast, and debases him, bringing him low, and hiding him in the dust; binding his face in secret. Even the Christian God would confess man is capable of bringing about his own salvation.

--Further rambling which may readily be ignored:--
But, while the human race is amazing, most humans are less impressive. Most humans kind of suck. So, if we have the power to save ourselves only as ourself, in the collective, will we also end up saving those undeserving bastards? And if we are unwilling to do so, do we damn ourselves as ourself? And if we are unwilling to do so, does this undo our murder of God? Does it reinvigorate the need for religion, amongst those with a desire for slavation? If we have answered the God of Job, can that constitute a denial of just such a deity? Are these seemingly conflicting conclusions stated as questions truly at odds?

No. We simply subvert the drive to worship, and find other things to congregate over. Even where a god may be resurrected, and given new purpose, we can supplant him with new clothes. Not quite as easy today as it was ten years ago, when we might have replaced deities with new cars and such, but money's tight right now.

If actions in war can be just or unjust, might some Hamas actions be justified?

2009-01-21T14:12:00.000-08:00

Let us assume for a moment there are some rules which should typically be followed in war, and that these rules are generally agreed to have legal and/or moral force. For those who think rules, laws, and ethics do not or cannot apply to war, that war is too barbaric or too disorderly to allow for rules, or that a sort of cruel pragmatism which places victory as the sole and ultimate value attains during times of war, I ask that you pretend to deal within other people's views and follow this post's assumptions for its duration.

So there are rules. As rules, they probably have exceptions. Let us say, "Killing civilians tends to be wrong," is among these rules. People have argued over whether going after those who indirectly supply the war effort is just or justifiable, in talking about allied bombing raids of civilians during WWII. As a result of the Gazan conflict, there has been some debate on whether it is wrong to kill civilians being treated by one side as human shields. But it strikes me as odd, I have seen no one ask if Hamas could be justified in attacking civilians in a state where military service is compulsory, such that any person of or near military age is a potential and likely combatant and any adult of breeding age is a potential and likely source of more fighters who will harass, shoot, and bomb Palestinians.

Now, I do not suggest Hamas is a good organisation. They are wrong to think they can stand up to or topple Israel in any meaningful way. They are wrong not to accept coexistence. They are wrong to work against peace. But, in the present environment where war seems to merely ebb and flow in the lands that have been Israel and Palestine, in a situation where people feel it necessary to justify Israel's apparent use of white phosphorous on civilians and humanitarian facilities, is it possible Hamas is justified in trying to kill or demoralise their potential enemies?

My answer would be 'No,' but it can be wrong, only if one also acknowledged Israel is wrong to kill civilians for tactical reasons. Of course, many are unwilling to admit Israel has done anything unjust. And what do they say of Hamas's rockets?

Why you might want to consider watching Punisher: War Zone.

2008-12-21T14:08:00.001-08:00

It's gotten terrible reviews. It can't be good. Ignoring the whole comicbook thing, its pedigree is questionable, at best. Yes, yes, I know. Just like the Punisher cannot be good in comparison to other heroes, it seems Punisher movies cannot be good in comparison to other action or comicbook flicks. Even when I was a kid, the Dolf Lundgren Punisher was laughably bad, but not so much that it was really worth seeing. The series reboot, starring Thomas Jane, seemed so uninteresting, I didn't even consider watching it.

Just like the Punisher cannot be good in comparison to other heroes, it seems Punisher movies cannot be good in comparison to other action or comicbook flicks. Rebooted and recast, again, this time with Titus Pullo--known to those who haven't watched Rome as 'Ray Stevenson'--in the lead role, would the Punisher fare any better this time around?

I decided to find out last week. It was Tuesday night at 7PM, so even though I was at the only screen showing the movie in all of Seattle, I wasn't really surprised my brother and I were the only ones there. Especially considering its critical reception.

The Punisher originated as a side character for Spiderman and Daredevil types, a vigilante with similar aims but who takes things one step too far. He causes our heroes to reassess their approach, making the lead character look that much stronger of a moral figure upon rejecting the Punisher's methods. He functions well in this role, but not as a lead, where his only real appeal is being relentless and too well armed. Previous directors may not have realized they were drinking from a poisoned well in partaking of the Punisher coolaid.

Lexi Alexander, PWZ's director, seems to have understood this, and found it freeing. No, you cannot make a decent Punisher film, but you can make it violent and ludicrous. And, as George Romero has shown, knowing you are making something ridiculous allows you to focus on other things, like social commentary. PWZ hits on that, humorously indicting our culture for its cyclical reliance upon violence, and our government for its ineffectiveness, easy corruptibility--for justice, of course--and its recruitment tactics. It does this in clear moments of parody, and even works in some relatively subtle satire.

Critics (even those who enjoyed PWZ) seem to have missed this altogether. Instead, they focus largely on the awesome, over-the-top, a guy-gets-hit-mid-jump-with-a-rocket action, and take it far too seriously. They complain that the film is mindless, and then moan that it expects us to take it seriously (which makes me wonder if they even watched the movie).

Few seem to appreciate Ray Stevenson's portrayal of Frank Castle, the titular man who punishes, which is a shame. Stevenson is badass, and brings a menacing, tank-like presence to the screen; but he is also a fine actor. He does everything he can to give the flat character he is tasked with a 'soul'--and, really, the Punisher's never been anything but two dimensional. Stevenson doesn't have many lines, and most of those are merely necessary. When he's not smashing things in spectacular fashion, he does most of his acting with his eyes. About all the Punisher ever feels is remorse, saddened nostalgia, hardened determination, and brief moments of grim satisfaction, which isn't enough really, but Stevenson valiantly tries to humanize his character in the slower moments.

Like Stevenson's acting, the movie's brains are underrated. This modest success is not necessary, however, because Punisher: War Zone isn't the sort of project that admits to success. It is, however, the sort of thing fans of hyper-violence, ridiculous action, and enjoyably bad films will love. This should become a cult favourite.

Before watching it, just remember: It's gotten terrible reviews. It can't be good.

I am in demand.

2008-11-28T01:41:00.000-08:00

The city of Toronto apparently thinks I can stop violence. So why not give it a go? There can't be much there, right?

Nevermind the drawing of a (rather one sided) fight in the post below this. Better on computer screens than on the streets, right?

Magic tricks

2008-11-18T02:44:00.000-08:00

How to make a bad sketch into something entertaining. Slapdash digital editing optional.

Pointless Man: Death to Pretty Boy Groups! (10, 11)

2008-11-10T12:55:00.000-08:00

Trivia: Pointless Man is living in the past.

Pointless Man: Death to Pretty Boy Groups! (9)

2008-11-08T12:44:00.000-08:00

Trivia: Pointless Man leaves notes in the margins of books he sells to second hand stores.

Pointless Man: Death to Pretty Boy Groups! (8)

2008-11-06T12:39:00.000-08:00

Trivia: Pointless Man neither confirms nor denies his rumoured affair with the girl from Ipanema.

The Who's Who's Next never fails me.

2008-11-05T23:55:00.000-08:00

The original release (less the CD 'bonus' tracks) is the best rock album of all time. 'Baba O'Riley' opening notes always make my eyes crinkle in a smile. After many listens, my whole body anticipates the moments the drums kick in from that first bit of synth. When you hit the fiddle at the end of that opening track, you're reached the plateau. No flagging moments on this record; just a rush right through to 'Won't Get Fooled Again'.

Who's Next may not offer the forward thinking production of late Beatles material, or the towering rock of Led Zepplin, but, in exchange, the Who offer superior commentary and vision (both satiric and earnest), as well as better played piano, bass, and drums, in a tight little package whose coherence as a single piece is rarely challenged in classic rock.

Now, to tie this in to recent events, many is the revolution people have cheered. How many have brought the 'change we need'? Here's hoping this boss isn't the same as the old boss. Not that that should be too hard. But if all 'change' means is, "not relevantly similar to G. W. Bush", well, I don't think that's what people have been celebrating. Obama's better than that, right?

Man. I hope so.

As Robert Redford silently shouted, "Now what?"

2008-11-04T22:29:00.000-08:00

Obama has won. Change has come to America. I'm damn happy, but now what? Sure, Obama has a good plan when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, but what are we gonna do about this recession? Tough work ahead, and no guarantee of success.

Pointless Man: Death to Pretty Boy Groups! (7)

2008-11-03T12:34:00.000-08:00

Trivia: Crawling through ventilation ducts is not just dangerous, it is nigh impossible. Don't try this at home, kids.
Commentary: Tavis should have redrawn this page, but got lazy.

Pointless Man: Death to Pretty Boy Groups! (6)

2008-11-01T12:30:00.000-07:00

Trivia: Pointless Man wears a mock-turtleneck to bed in honour of mock turtle soup, which is actually quite tasty.

Pointless Man: Death to Pretty Boy Groups! (5)

2008-10-30T12:18:00.000-07:00

Trivia: Dastardly Bank, owned and operated by the Whiplash family, triggered the American financial crisis through its practice of tying clients with variable rate mortgages to train tracks and walking away while laughing maniacally.

Pointless Man: Death to Pretty Boy Groups! (4)

2008-10-28T00:00:00.000-07:00

Trivia: Pointless Man folds his futon daily, airs it out weekly, and uses it to make a fort in the living room at least once a month.

Pointless Man: Death to Pretty Boy Groups! (3)

2008-10-26T12:06:00.000-07:00

So, I decided to just be lazy and get this series done (digitally) using a few quick filters, instead of the gruelling process I used on these first few pages. (Screw that nonsense.) As a result, I'll be able to get the rest of the comic up at my leisure. I think I'll put up pages three a week 'til I'm done. There's only 11 pages, so it won't take that long.

More denial of will.

2008-10-25T11:20:00.000-07:00

--Preamble: I would like to flesh out my remarks from June 23, 2008. This is an attempt to make a more coherent whole out of comments made at the Forum over at GameFAQs. Those familiar with my postings there may find little new in this entry.--

There are no acts of will. For there is no will. Thus concepts such as 'free will' or 'constrained will' are meaningless. In denying the usefulness, meaningfulness, and existence of the will as a special faculty (and thus any basis for questions of free will), I deny terms and distinctions such as 'determinism'. Of course, not everyone agrees with me.

Determinists claim we do not have free will because either some deity, arbitrary fate, or the laws of physics constrain the will in an important and meaningful fashion (typically due to everything being thus predetermined), perhaps leaving us without personal responsibility. Some supporters of 'free will' (as concept) respond, 'Determinism is meaningless to everyday life.' They point out that experience (specifically, the subjective feeling of having and making choices) seems inconsistent with determinism. Even were this not so, even if determinism were the case, we could never confirm it through testing or prediction because the universe is far too complex. Thus, determinism (true or not) is without bearing on people.

I agree, except that I do not believe determinism can be true or false. I believe it is nonsense, because it is built upon the nonsensical concepts of the will and volition.

It has been argued the will has proven to be a useful concept, or if not useful, at least too pervasive a concept to be entirely mistaken. But simply having some idea is no justification for continued belief in it. Concepts of will and volition are neither necessary nor all that helpful to matters of choice or mindful action. Instead, they cause complications and confusion. It is better to leave behind these ideas laden with obsolete philosophical and psychological ideas. Volitional acts as an exercise of the will necessary to conscious action stand as the basis for any conception of the will which allows for questions of 'free will', but neither experience nor any science I am aware of can confirm such a thing. Should we insist on continuing to talk about will in terms of experience, we must admit it is not a special faculty or a component of every intentional act, but merely a particular kind of wishing (sometimes accompanied by wish fulfillment), as where one wills oneself to get out of bed when sick and weak.

"Objection! Aren't choices acts of will? Doesn't my picking out clothes to wear exhibit free will?" No. Choice and will may be synonymous to many, but they are not equivalent. If someone were to pull a gun on me and demand my wallet, and were I to give it to him, I would not do so freely; my choices would have been constrained. But those who believe in free will cannot claim this as an instance of my supposed metaphysical will not being free just because I did something I didn't particularly want to do (any more than they would say acceptance of some much desired gift is not free). So, my choices were controlled in this instance, but my (supposed) will was (supposedly) free; the two are not the same. One need not deny choice in order to deny the will.

"But, if there's no will, we're not responsible for our actions, right?" Not so. Since will and action are not necessarily related, since choice and will are not inseparable (for choices can be made even where a person who buys into the idea of free will would say the will is constrained), and since responsibility is explainable, justifiable, and typically addressed without reference to the will, I see no necessary or important connection between responsibility and the will.

"I don't think the ranger is going to like this, Yogi."

2008-10-12T14:07:00.000-07:00

If you had to choose, would you call this a depiction of contempt, anger, or something else?

Scott McCloud's Making Comics has a section on basic expressions, which he thinks we will all recognize. I found that I disagreed with some of his characterizations there. More so, when he 'combined' base looks to show more complex emotions. Outside of context, human facial expression seems wildly interpretable and subjective to me. Yourself?

Sideshow Overtakes Centre Ring: the Vice Presidential Debate

2008-10-03T11:59:00.000-07:00

A lot of people tuned in to the debate last night, more than watched the first Obama-McCain face off, according to Nielsen ratings. Some of them had to be hoping for or expecting gaffes, which didn't quite materialize. By this token, both Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin are said to have outperformed expectations (and, in the process, disappointing Jon Stewart).

From the onset, Biden's strategy was to attack McCain instead of Palin, tie McCain to Bush, and explain in concrete terms how an Obama-Biden administration would be different. Palin's was to avoid specifics, dodge questions and rebuttals she didn't like, and keep after Barack Obama (and thus to put Biden on the defensive) while smiling and delivering as many folksy colloquialisms as possible. She made a point of saying that she would not necessarily respond to the moderator or her debate partner, because she wanted to talk directly to the American people.

Both made attempts to exhibit their 'mainstreet' cred, and while many commentators seem to think Palin won that battle, Biden had the more memorable and humanising moment. While pointing out his working class bona fides, and his ability to understand the struggles and doubts of the average American, he choked up about the accident which killed his wife and daughter, and almost killed his two sons.

Both candidates did what they set out to do without embarrassing themselves, so in that sense, they both 'won'. While only Democratic hacks placed this as a route for Biden, Palin was charged with such a paltry task, due to lowered expectations, few other than Republican hacks came away thinking she had won at all. Most polls I read about late last night showed a 15 to 20 point margin in favour of Biden. CNN has Biden winning 51% to Palin's 36%. CBS's snap poll showed undecideds giving Biden the nod 46% to 21%. The senator may not have offered any crushing blows, but the crowd definitely came away thinking him the victor. This, despite the governor coming off as more likeable, according to both polls. Apparently, people care less about who they'd rather have over to a barbeque or share a brew with when the economy's on the verge of collapse.

Does any of this matter? The conventional wisdom is, "No one votes for the vice president." But McCain seems to have altered the dynamic with his choice of running mate. Some, who might have stayed home, will likely vote for the Republican candidate now, others may not attend the polls or go to Obama, in part because of how ill prepared Palin has appeared. Obama's perceived troubles with white, working class voters and McCain's inability to address the problems of the economy to anyone's satisfaction have also placed more apparent import on each ticket's VP pick, as kinds of populist anchors. In this setting, both Palin's and Biden's performances mattered. Palin, for her part, has likely staunched the bleeding of support her ticket was suffering, and might even have attained a second chance in the public's eye. Biden offered contrast in every way imaginable, perhaps showing there is nothing the governor can do in the next thirty-odd days to truly be prepared.

People still aren't going to go out and vote for the Vice President come November fourth, but they'll likely shade their choices based on the running mates to a greater degree than in previous elections. How much remains to be seen.

Right now, Obama is kicking McCain's ass, so the senator from Arizona needed more from his pick than a gaffe free appearance. Barack's ahead in every 'battleground state' and national poll, except in Nevada (which, according to Real Clear Politics, is a virtual tie). McCain's proxies announced yesterday his campaign was pulling its operations out of Michigan, a state into which it has sunk a good deal of money--a state which McCain might still have been competitive in had he chosen to run alongside former Massechusetts governor and CEO, Mitt Romney, son of a Michigan governor. Meanwhile, Obama has used his monetary advantage to force McCain to place resources in supposedly solid Republican states. At this point, McCain can't hope to win with the kind of 'victory' they no doubt are presently claiming Palin had last night.

Miike Takashi's Sukiyaki Western Django

2008-09-27T00:30:00.000-07:00

I am a big fan of prolific Japanese director, Miike Takashi. His movies are not always good (which would be an accomplishment, considering he averages about three feature length films a year), but he doesn't mind experimenting or playing around. Not everything he tries works, but when it does, it can be pretty damn awesome.

His subjects and genres vary wildly from a musical about a family running an inn, to a kid fighting goblins, to some of the best yakuza flicks I've seen. Meanwhile, he tends to get good performances from his actors, even when they are children or non-native Japanese speakers. The only time I've been completely disappointed with one of his pieces was a rejected instalment in Showtime's Masters of Horror, entitled 'Imprint'. The story was stupid, and the acting was bad. This was Miike's first all English production, and it showed.

So, when I found out one of his 2007 films, Sukiyaki Western Django was in English, I was a bit put off. How did I find out? Well, I started watching it, and that was the only language track. You could tell the actors hadn't been dubbed over, either from the way much of the all Japanese (except for Quintin Tarantino) cast struggled with their deliveries. As such, the film is an excellent example of Bertolt Brecht's 'theatrical alienation', constantly forcing us to deal with the movie as a movie, but this is not something we are entirely comfortable doing.

It took me about 45 minutes to get over the choice of language. So, for artistry, the original dub accomplishes what it sets out to, but, man, it would be nice to see it overdubbed by native speakers in several languages. This is probably the only time you'll ever see me say that about anything that isn't a comedy which I want revoiced by Mexican actors. Mexican voice actors make everything funnier.

Diction aside, it was pretty good for an adaptation/prequel of the second Italian, western adaptation of Kurosawa's wonderful tip of the hat to the genre, Yojimbo (which, itself, was an adaptation of a noir novel). That's right, Sukiyaki Western Django is both an adaptation and a prequel to the Spaghetti western, Django, which came out two years after Sergio Leone's A Fistfull of Dollars, both of which were adaptations of Yojimbo, which was a samurai nod to westerns, but based on Dashiell Hammett's noir novel, Red Harvest. Follow? SWD is less derivative than you might expect.

Sure, Red Harvest, Yojimbo, Fistful of Dollars, Django, and Sukiyaki Western Django, all centre around a martially talented drifter who finds himself in a town with two warring factions and a demoralized civilian populace. All their lead characters attempt to play the two sides against eachother and are eventually dragged into fighting both, ostensibly for the good of whatever's left of the town by the end. But SWD fashions its own world, unlike the rest.

It is apparently set in something like the mid to late 1800s, after the Shogunate has begun to lose power, but before the Meiji emperor's government has gained dominance; a time in which Japan appears to be in decline, and has been humiliated by foreigners. It's hard to pin down, though, because the film doesn't really concern itself with such matters. The competing groups are the remnants of the Genji and Heike clans, whose twelfth century conflicts were famously recorded in the performative epic poem, Heike Monogatari. One of the gangs' leaders finds inspiration in Shakespeare's Richard III.

The two factions face off in a town whose very architecture conveys the strange lineage of this film, looking for its fabled treasure and fighting eachother with guns, swords, dynamite, and whatever happens to be handy. Their garb fits with the architecture, and exhibits occidental, Japanese, feudal, and semi-modern influences. Their dialogue is peppered with hackneyed western cliches, delivered in by actors who mostly no have idea what they're saying.

In the few reviews I read, and on IMDB, I saw some glancing comparisons to the arch, technicolored western tribute, Tears of the Black Tiger. They're both recent Asian films offering tribute and parody of the same (outwardly) American genre, so that's understandable, but I think SWD is better compared and contrasted with The Quick and the Dead. They have a more similar purpose, but where Sam Raimi failed (despite a stellar cast) to find a decent treatment for westerns along the lines of his horror and superhero flicks, Miike has mostly succeeded by introducing a bizarre cultural mix and his own cult cinema sensibilities.

Anyone who likes weird should check it out.

More movies

2008-09-25T13:41:00.000-07:00

When I am at my mom and stepdad's place, I sometimes end up seeing movies I would never watch otherwise. Recent titles have included Codename: The Cleaner and A Night at the Museum, both of which were better than I would have thought, though the leads played to my expectations. Cedric the Entertainer is still hilarious, and Ben Stiller is still better suited to serious acting than comedy.

While baking some banana bread, I also ended up seeing about half of Shut Up and Sing, the documentary about the Dixie Chicks pissing off all their patriotic country fans and dealing with the fallout. Getting past the terribly uninteresting music, the film was pretty interesting and well made. The Chicks and their manager can be genuinely entertaining as people, and watching the business side of things is fascinating. It's also disturbing to see just how dumb some of their former fans are.

On my own, I've recently watched:

Miike Takashi's 2007 flick, Crows Zero, is a stupid, but enjoyable romp through an all boys high-school where teachers are powerless (and often absent) and the kids are just there to fight eachother. Students break into groups and attempt to conquer the school, a feat no one has ever accomplished. It is based on a comic, a manga, and is more interested in school boy comaradery, silly music, and feats of toughness than in giving any real motivation to its characters. The drama that it attempts to add, about one of the young thugs' getting possibly life saving (but also life threatening) surgery, feels forced. There are bits that show off its low budget, such as some of the shoddy sound editing, but its (nearly) unrelenting sense of fun makes up for that.

1975's Death Race 2000, stars David Keradine with Sylvester Stalone as drivers involved in a race from New York to (New) LA, where time and the number of people run over decide who wins. While not frenzied, it is too fast paced to get mired in the human drama of its dystopian vision, which would have ruined it. Keradine's character, Frankenstein, is like a proto-Vader, running down pedestrians, fans, and race officials. Highly recommended for fans of schlock. Nominally the basis for the recent Jason Statham action flick, Death Race, the two are generally held to be different beasts.

Mr. Brooks was good, except for its last 30 seconds or so, which are a bit of a cop out. The photography has some nice moments, and Kevin Costner shows more flexibility in acting than I've seen from him in a while. Plus, it's a movie about a serial killer with an imaginary friend.

Not everything I watch by myself is pulpish and violent, but there's definitely a contrast here.

Doomsday and The Long Good Friday

2008-09-24T02:39:00.000-07:00

After watching the unrated version of Doomsday I think it took an unnecessary beating at the hands of critics, but who knows how different the theatrical release was? I've enjoyed Neil Marshall's exploration of variations on horror tinted pulp, so far. I don't see how Doomsday was any worse than Dog Soldiers, but I guess people were hoping for his latest effort to top The Descent. Good luck there. Not only was he back to editing his own product (rather than Jon Harris, editor of Snatch, Ripley's Game, and Layer Cake), but the synergy between writing and location in The Descent couldn't be improved upon. That movie was scary long before any traditional horror elements were introduced to it.

As a film in the tradition of Mad Max and Escape from New York, Doomsday did just fine. It had a decently disturbing near future, a nasty supervirus, and some badass action sequences, including some really fucking cool fights. A few moments stretch the viewer's suspension of disbelief, including an impossible jump involving a Bentley and a bus, but so what? It was fun and gritty, which was all I was looking for.

Inspired by Bob Hoskins' appearance in Marshall's latest offering, I decided to finally get around to watching The Long Good Friday. It was everything I wanted it to be. At the opening, you are treated to obviously related, but not quite contiguous scenes; a puzzle before the plot kicks in.

That's when you're introduced to Harold Shand, Hoskins' impassioned, complex criminal boss (possibly an inspiration for James Gandolfini's Tony Soprano), who alone would drive the film even if it weren't all that well directed. Harold and his wife have an interesting dynamic you don't see a lot in organized crime flicks. It unfolds for us while they're trying to keep their organisation operating, placate prospective business partners, maintain the peace between gangs, and gain more of a legal, public face. What happens if that all falls apart?

And why should it fall apart? Well, you see, they've got to solve a mystery: Who's trying to blow up Harold?

Incidentally, The Long Good Friday seems to be scheduled for a remake. I can't say I'm surprised... or pleased.

Sorry about the delay.

2008-09-15T15:19:00.001-07:00

I'm having some trouble working through the third page of 'Pointless Man: Death to Pretty Boy Groups'. It's not easy trying to colour separate hand coloured, digitally scanned drawings, but that's what I'm working with. Hopefully, I'll find the time and wherewithal to finish it and move on soon.

"Drill, baby, drill"?

2008-09-05T14:26:00.001-07:00

I don't understand people who say alternative energy sources aren't ready yet. If we're talking about cars, we've had electric ones for at least half a century, and we have all sorts of means of creating electricity, including existing alternative energy technologies, such as solar, wind, and thermo; all of which could be more efficient (kind of like our internal combustion engines), all of which could benefit from further investment in research and infrastructure, but which are already being used now.

It's funny to hear the Republicans attack some Democrats for their tendency towards protectionist rhetoric, to hear Republicans deride Democrats for not accepting the forming global economy, and then to hear Republicans complain that we're giving too much money to foreign countries for their oil, and that we should be self sufficient when it comes to such matters.Then they briefly endorse alternative energies (which they never really want to talk about, unless it means nuclear power plants can be constructed) before getting to what they really like: the idea of drilling for more oil in places previous generations, largely unaware of the looming environmental crises, would have considered unwise.

Instead of the short term, protectionist solutions favoured by the party in the pocket of big oil--solutions which won't even begin to show their meager results for years--we should work with any companies and countries willing to implement, improve, or create new and existing 'alternative' technologies with an eye to more power and better efficiency. As we debate, methods of so called greener living are being explored and implemented. We should encourage this at home and abroad. It should be among our top priorities. Finding new, environmentally sensitive sites to drill for oil should not.

There is little question in my mind...

2008-08-31T00:00:00.000-07:00

...Hillary will now seriously, earnestly, and ardently support Obama, not just in form, now that a woman is in the race with an 'R' next to her name. Especially given McCain's age, his not always perfect health, and talk of maybe only holding one term. For if McCain were to win, and if anything were to happen which might keep him from seeking office for a second term, the likely Republican candidate in 2012 would be a woman with more executive experience at more levels than Hillary has.

There's been talk about how Bill or Hillary might not be serious in supporting Obama. It happened before their speeches. It came, to a lesser extent, after them (more so following Hillary's less enthusiastic, less masterful performance). But, my quick take is both the personal and political aims of the Clintons now coincide with those of Barack Obama and their shared party. Especially since Obama has allowed Hillary to fashion it into a shared party.

Pointless Man: Death to Pretty Boy Groups! (2)

2008-08-30T19:30:00.000-07:00

Still working on page 3, but it should be up within a few days. In the meantime, I'll probably supply some more political rants to keep things interesting. Stay tuned.

It's not about experience.

2008-08-30T17:11:00.000-07:00

If you honestly think the careers of Senator Obama and Governor Palin are comparable, or contrast well in Palin's favor, I think you're crazy, but that's beside the point. Why? Because experience doesn't mean you'll do a good job. Because supposed lack of experience doesn't mean you'll do a poor job. Because being the President of the United States isn't quite like any other job in America.

Former Presidents and Governors Carter and Clinton have both expressed the opinion that nothing can really prepare a person for the top executive position in American government. Though they have been expressing this sentiment of late, either to cast aspersions of doubt on Obama or (alternately) to deride the claim that McCain's seniority in Washington better prepares him for the job, I seem to recall hearing much the same from them in years previous, as little more than honest reflection. Whether you trust their judgement on this or not, it is arguable, both showed in their early days at the highest office that being a governor really doesn't do much to get you ready to be POTUS, although Clinton recovered where Carter foundered. And many would point out that George W. Bush, who went from being governor of Texas to the White House, has further exhibited that previous executive experience in elected office doesn't always count for much.

We can also look to the arguments being rallied against McCain, as being wrongheaded on much foreign policy and clueless on many domestic matters, or Biden, as having never learned the diplomatic discipline of decorum or 'knowing when to keep his mouth shut', despite all their years as Senators.

So, if it's not about experience, what is it about? Perhaps judgement; leadership; character; the ability to listen to advisers of different bents, come to one's own, sound conclusions, and then make sure those decisions are carried out properly.

The longer a candidate has been around, the more a candidate has done in the public eye, the greater our material from which we can judge whether one has these abilities or others we hold important. It makes sense that we should shy away from the unknown. This, not questions of experience, is the essence of the, "You're gambling on Obama," or, "I wouldn't trust Palin," arguments; the idea that we don't know them well enough. And that's a matter of judgement on your part.

I've seen both Obama and McCain make much the same point, in levying the argument that one is ready to lead due to his proven judgement, while the other has a less than desirable track record when it comes to what he has or hasn't supported. They do the same in debating who is offering the right sort of change, the right policies, and so forth. That they can (and sometimes, if rarely, do) have substantive debates on these issues shows that each man has enough of a record for folks who pay attention to know who they should vote for.

So, here's my question to you:

What do you know about Sarah Palin's judgement?

Not since Spiro Agnew...

2008-08-30T00:32:00.000-07:00

Not since Spiro Agnew has one so well qualified, so thoroughly prepared, and gifted of such evident judgement been appointed as a major party's candidate for Vice President of the United States of America. But, I think we can all agree, Agnew, who held the same advanced degree as Barack Obama does, was a little too educated, and this might have been his downfall. Not so for John McCain's excellent choice, Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin.

She has held that esteemed office for almost two years now, and before that, was the part time mayor, part time council member of her home town of 5,000 plus. What truly qualifies her, though, are her support of creationist teaching in science classes, her keen pro-life position, her willingness to place the environment at risk to attain greater oil revenue, and her staunch opposition to gay rights.

A hearty congratulations to her and Senator John McCain. May they receive all the votes they deserve.

Pointless Man: Death to Pretty Boy Groups! (1)

2008-08-28T00:17:00.000-07:00

Page one of an eleven page epic sets the stage for Pointless Man's battle with the boy bands of the late '90s. For those unfamiliar with boy bands, and unwilling to do a bit of research on their own, don't worry. There's an afterword which should clear up any confusion.

There's a bit of text on this page which you will probably have trouble making out at this resolution. It says, "Yes, in his tireless search for a way to end all evil, PM has extended his criteria of wickedness. First, it was the foolish, then--no, wait. First, it was the ignorant, then the foolish, and, finally, annoying people, too, were considered evil. --Luckily, he forgot to add the forgetful!--" This last aside is near impossible to read, even knowing what's written. What can I say? I'm learning as I go, especially with getting my stuff digitized.

This has been a while in the making, dating back to an original one page comic drawn in '99 and placed on my dorm room door, but it's finally finished. Now, it's just a matter of going through and cleaning up the other pages. I hope to get two pages up a week or so.

Look forward to it. All six of you.