On oversight on my part: I should have mentioned that “Funky Winkerbean” began the trial last week of the comic book store owner up on obscenity charges. John Byrne makes an appearance as an expert witness, and the strip echoes the Jesus Castillo case (right down to the notorious, “C’mon…everyone knows comics are for kids” comment from the DA which wound up swaying the Castillo jury.) The strip can be found here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/funky.asp?date=20051120
PAD
• 
The problem, as you know, is that the elections are a year off, and a lot can happen in a year. They’re afraid to stake out a position now and have it turn around and bite them in the ášš.
Which is the biggest problem democrats have right now by expecting a leader to emerge from the Senate. The Senate is the absolutely worst environment for staking out a strong position and holding on to it until the bitter end. The Senate is designed to foster continuous debate and compromise. It’s a dealmaker’s paradise, not a place to find someone with strong convictions. It’s also what makes the Senate the absolutely worst place from which to launch a presidential campaign. When was the last time a sitting US Senator was elected president? Kennedy?
I still say go for it–hard to beat something with nothing–but you can understand why they are reluctant to do so. So far, Hillary has done the best job of playing the game, which is why I still say she has the nomination practically locked up.
I would disagree. Her position from the start is similar to Kerry’s, being both for and against the war at that same time.
Also, I still think it’s pretty premature to say anyone has the nomination locked up. The election is three years away and if you think a lot can happen in one year, think of how things can change in three.
Remember, there was a time when everyone just knew that Howard Dean had the nomination locked up. That evaporated in less than a month.
It doesn’t have a timetable
How convenient.
But then, it’s even more convenient that the Pentagon now claims to say we’re going to start getting troops out, with only a year to go until mid-term elections.
This rhetoric wasn’t there a few months ago, when those in the Bush Administration were saying we’d stay for 10 years if that’s what it takes, and they gave NO indication when anybody might be coming home.
Are you shocked, Craig? Just last week, Murtha was a coward for even suggesting that we start a pullout, now it’s policy.
Look at this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051128/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/wilkerson_interview
Everytime I get a glimpse of the inner workings of this administration, I want to go run screaming into the night.
Are you shocked, Craig?
No, I’m not.
I said before we went to Iraq that we’d be in a war to get Bush reelected.
And now for the troops to be out of Iraq before he leaves office? Brownie points for the next set of dûmbášš Republicans who covet the Oval Office.
Nor should I be shocked that the rest of America is so stupid as to believe that this is anything other than political meandering.
When that Google search came up a couple of years back referring to Bush as a “miserable failure”… well, it’s only become more and more true as time as gone on.
Simple those that voted for it were timorous cowards. Those that thought it was the right thing to do – do not exist.
Simple enough for you?
Simple but useless. Why would you think that was true? Is it so incomprehensible to believe that people honestly differ from you on this issue for reasons that are not pure cut and dry you’re good, they’re evil?
I may be partisan but I won’t be so self indulgent as to assume that anyone who disagrees MUST do so for bad reasons.
Like most republicans I encounter, Bill, you seem to labor under the misperception that because I am anti-Bush, I must harbor a deep love for the Senate Democrats.
Not at all. And if I did, you’ve cleared it up–you have a degree of contempt for them that I would never imagine.
Which is the biggest problem democrats have right now by expecting a leader to emerge from the Senate. The Senate is the absolutely worst environment for staking out a strong position and holding on to it until the bitter end.
But when you’re right, my friend, you’re right. senators always have their names on bad bills that were simply the best they could get at the time; they have votes that are embarrassing when looked at years later. They also tend to be bad at the rough and tumble aspect of campaigning, having been led to believe that life is like the Senate, where even people who hate you call you sir. It’s been said that a Senator is someone who, when they look into a mirror, sees the face of the next president of the United States.
So who else do they have? Richardson’s star was fading even before he struck out on the resume revelation. Mark Warner is a real possibility though. Wes Clark? I wasn’t too impressed the first time but maybe he’s learned. Wow, imagine having to vote for a contributer to Fox News!
Remember, there was a time when everyone just knew that Howard Dean had the nomination locked up. That evaporated in less than a month.
Right again, and I should know better. But…she has WAY more money than anyone else and can raise tons more with barely any effort–factor in the fact that Bill Clinton can probably raise even more for her and you have an advantage that will be hard to beat. She appeals to a lot of liberals even though she is less liberal than other candidates and appeals to less liberal voters because, again, she is less liberal than other candidates. That’s a pretty deadly combination right there. I just don’t see anyone gaining much traction against her. She will also be very hard to campaign against for any other Democrat.
I may well be wrong but the only thing I see stopping her is if she decides not to run and I’m not sure why she would do so.
Simple but useless. Why would you think that was true? Is it so incomprehensible to believe that people honestly differ from you on this issue for reasons that are not pure cut and dry you’re good, they’re evil?
I said cowardly, not evil.
I may be partisan but I won’t be so self indulgent as to assume that anyone who disagrees MUST do so for bad reasons.
They’re politicians. I always assume that their motives are suspect.
Not at all. And if I did, you’ve cleared it up–you have a degree of contempt for them that I would never imagine.
I find you have fewer disappointments if you hate all politicians.
So who else do they have? Richardson’s star was fading even before he struck out on the resume revelation. Mark Warner is a real possibility though. Wes Clark? I wasn’t too impressed the first time but maybe he’s learned. Wow, imagine having to vote for a contributer to Fox News!
Well, I think a governor or a retired general might have a better chance of winning the general election then a senator. Richardson will probably still run. A lot of people are talking up Warner, some even calling him the new Bill Clinton, but at this point, I know next to nothing about him. Wes Clark’s biggest weakness was simply that he wasn’t telegenic enough. Maybe with better handlers, he could do better.
John Edwards is out of the Senate now, which as I said, might actually work to advantage.
Most senators do see the next president in the mirror, but if you look at the list of recent failures to emerge from the Senate: Kerry, Dole, Gore -hëll, Johnson only got to sit in the Oval Office because Kennedy got shot- it’s clear that since WW II at least, there’s been a preference for governors (GWB, Clinton, Reagan, Carter) over senators. Losing a senate race probably helped Nixon get elected in 68.
Yeah, Hillary has the name recognition and a lot of financial support, but it is still three years away. Few people were putting any money on Bill Clinton in 1989 or GWB in 1997, but they both managed to emerge as leaders three years later.
Hillary’s biggest weakness is Hillary. Her demeanor and the baggage she brings (ie, Bill) will alienate as many people as it attracts. Plus, early leaders tend to fizzle out fast once the primaries actually get under way (see Howard Dean again, also Paul Tsongas and Bob Dole in 1988).
We’ll see. One thing is for sure, 2008 will be an interesting race.
I hadn’t considered Edwards as being from outside the Senate. Yeah, that would work to his advantage.
I wouldn’t consider Gore as an example of senatorial weakness since, for many, they knew him only as the VP.
You are absolutely correct about why Hillary should not be considered a lock and yet I can’t stop thinking that she is. For one thing, we have to acknowledge that times have changed. We know far more about the candidates than before and they can emerge, rise, dominate, falter and collapse in a matter of weeks (The Howard Dean Story). I think that makes it less likely that a dark horse will emerge that can withstand the Clinton Money Machine–I have a feeling that if she wins just a couple of primaries it’s Game Over and the rest will be jockeying for the Vice Presidential spot (she could do far worse than Clark).
The thing about Hillary is that she is an entirely unique situation. New paradigms are needed.(Amazingly, in all our discussion, the fact that she’s a woman hasn’t come up. If anything, I think it may help her or at least be a much smaller negative factor in her getting elected than would have been imaginable even 10 years ago).In her case she was famous before the senate thing and she has done a good job as senator. A rare example of the Senate actually helping.
Yeah, it’ll be an amazing election, at least up to the conventions. Looking forward to it.
I still hold out hope for a crossover party. It would be an interesting exercise in political and sociological theory: would more people from both sides vote for the cross-over canidate, or less?
but in all probability, it is going to be Hillary. This leaves two large questions. First, who will run as VP? And second, who will the Rep’s put up? Will they do what they did against Carter, and basically abandon all hope?
Or will they put up someone strong? Really this depends on how bad Bush does in the next 3.5 years. If he does REALLY bad, they may decide not to waste the money (especially against someone as well funded as Clinton.) However, if he stays at the same level, the Rep might decide it is worth a fight.
And THAT will be fun to watch.
Incidentially, once again demonstrating the eerie genius/prescience of this column, here is a column from the Christian Science Monitor with exactly the same topic as we have been discussing here.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1129/p09s01-codc.html
I swear I didn’t see this earlier.
The Republicans gave up against Carter? Then they were pretty dámņ stupid because Ford came very close to winning. Carter only got 50.1% of the vote (Which is still the highest percentage of any Democratic candidate since Roosevelt). You may be right though; as I remember the election Ford was behind the whole time and expected to lose but for some reason came back very strong in the last week or so. I don’t remember why but I remember people being surprised at how close it was.
I seriously doubt that the republicans will just sit out the chance to fight Hillary but I do see a danger that if they nominate either of the 2 guys who could beat her decisively–Guliani or McCain–there might be a third party spoiler by angry (and politically suicidal) conservatives. But I still think they’d win–McCain could peel off as many Democrats as he would lose to whoever the rightwing throws at him. And if he picks Jeb bush as his VP he ensures that the party powers now in place will support him to the hilt (At 72 in 2008 he may well be planning for only 1 term anyway. Actually, that could be a selling point; a president who is not obsessed with re-election.)
The biggest thing holding McCain back is the very real fears about his health. Any sign of illness could be devastating. Expect Hillary to make a big deal about releasing health records, something Bill never did but all’s fair…
At any rate, while I think that Hillary has far more appeal than is currently thought, there is a good chance that independents will turn against her, so I doubt that the Republicans would let her take it in a walk. She’s never wowed me in debates so they might want to take that into consideration. Imagine Guliani vs Hillary–you’d have to expect Rudy to clean her clock (though he’s better not come off as a bully).
Boy, if this turns out to be just Edwards vs Romney I’m going to be very disappointed.
Guiliani has one thing in common with Hillary and that’s the more people get to know him, the less they like about him. Seriously, NYers were ready to run him out of office in 2001. 9/11 basically saved his political ášš. Like Hillary, he comes with a lot of baggage that will alienate the social conservatives, so between him and McCain, he’s the one who is most likely to inspire a conservative spoiler candidate.
McCain remains a wild card. He’s conservative, but has enough of an appeal to moderates that he’d be a good choice for the GOP IF they want to try for a centrist approach. But that flies in the face of the Rovian “base forward” thinking that has dominated republican strategy for the past several elections. The fact that this strategy has worked in the last two elections, albeit by razor thin margins, may indicate that many in the GOP leadership will want to push for another name that the social conservatives will prefer. That would put both McCain and Guiliani SOL.
If McCain gets the nomination, it will be despite the wishes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al. And if he does, I doubt he’ll tap Jeb Bush for his VP. There isn’t exactly a lot of love between him and the Bush camp. If we do see a McCain-Jeb Bush ticket, expect Jeb to be one of the most marginalized VPs since Johnson.
There probably is, as you say, very little love lost between the Bush and McCain camps, but McCain did campaign enthusiastically for Bush against Kerry and the fact that this came after Kerry all but offered him the chance to be on the ticket wounded kerry a great deal. Bush may owe his re-election to McCain.
And look at the beauty of a McCain/Bush ticket; Job is well liked by the conservatives who are the least likely to support McCain and with the Senator’s advanced age he becomes the obvious heir apparent in 2012 or 2016. For McCain it gives him the backing of the establishment and almost ensures victory.
Guiliani is an interesting case. yeah, New Yorkers were tired of him before 9/11 but that’s teh nature of being mayor of New York. He still went out on his own, which no other NYC mayor managed to do within my memory. Having a rep as a guy who can handle a crisis is a dman good one to have in a post 9/11/Katrina world.
I’m not sure how “enthusiastic” McCain was in campaigning for Bush. Yeah, he did his bit as a loyal republican, but from the appearances I saw him on TV, he didn’t look that enthusiastic. Plus, IIRC, he was the only prominent republican to condemn the Swift Boat vets ads.
And honestly, could this country survive Jeb Bush as the “heir apparent”? Isn’t that kind of like going to see Deuce Bigelow III and expecting it not to suck?
Guiliani, on the other hand, didn’t really go out on “on his own.” He was the first mayor to be term limited out of office in NYC. And after 9/11, he was making noises about wanting to run again if he could get the law changed. With the mystique of 9/11 worn off, I don’t see him as a winning strategy for the GOP.
Bill: I may be wrong on that whole Ford thing, but that was the way I was taught it. Heck, there are plenty of people here who remember it, so what do I know?
Where Jeb Bush is concerened, I once again think that it all rests on his brother. If Bush continues to suck (and there is NO doubt that he will) then the American people won’t want to hear about him, his brother, or anyone else ever REMOTELY connected with him, which would kill Rummy too.
If he does mediocre (which would fill me with joy) then the people in the administration might have a chance. I still think the Reps. are gonna try to avoid the administration entirely. Cheney is too easy to bring down on health issues.
I think it will be McCain. Hes got the outsider opinion, the War Vet status, and, quite frankly, hes a good guy. If the Democrats put up another wiffle ball like Kerry, then I can see a lot of more moderate Democrats voting for him, including myself.
Of course, this might be all wishful thinking, and it degenerates into edward’s v. Cheney.
My fear with Jeb is the infamously short memory of the American voter. In 1992, voters turned out Bush the first because he was detached and out of touch with the concerns of the common people. Bush II realized this, so his people contrived this image of him as the down home Texan who understands the common folk.
And the American people bought into it. They ignored his Ivy League legacy status and his entire past life as the spoiled son of a millionaire. It took Katrina to open up the American people’s eyes to see that in reality, George W. Bush is detached and out of touch with the concerns of the common people.
So, even if Bush continues to bumble his way through the last three years of his administration, Jeb Bush can still create some kind of image of himself that he is different from his father, brother and mother by 2012.
And in all honesty, those republicans who think Jeb is the obvious “heir apparent” do you really want to create a political dynasty? Should having a relative who was president really be enough reason to vote for someone in a republican?
I still have my doubts that McCain will get the nod. His maverick status in the GOP may give him crossover appeal with moderate voters, but it also works against him with the GOP establishment. It’ll all hinge on whether the primary voters will want a fresh start or an “heir apparent.”
NOT GUILTY!!!
Woo Hoo!….(Yes, I know it’s a comic strip….I’m goofy that way.)
Ironically enough, I really couldn’t understand what John Byrne was trying to say during his testimony…and I re-read the thing three times.
Posted by: Kyle Dasan at November 30, 2005 04:52 PM
Ironically enough, I really couldn’t understand what John Byrne was trying to say during his testimony…and I re-read the thing three times.
Byrne was there as an expert witness to refure the assumption that comics are only for kids (and that animation is just for kids, too)
I seem to recall him making the point (as a sort of reductio ad absurdum) that the written word can be appropriate, can be produced, for any level or age of reader, and visual art can be, also … but put them together in the form of a comic, and suddenly it has to be appropriate for the youngest audience, no matter what.
This reminds me of the run-in i had (at Dennis Dolbear’s old Betz Avenue home, quite possibly “gone with the wind” now)with John Guidry, of the 1988 New Orleans (SF) WorldCon committee — “Watchmen” was in its eligibility year for Hugos (i think it might actually have had a potential eligibility in two years, since it was a serial and i think that segments came out in two different calnedar years).
A lot of people — including me — felt it deserved to be nominated (and probably lose, but that’s another story) in the “Best Novel” category. NOLaCon didn’t, so they created a special “Other Forms” category (as allowed by the rules) to appease those who supported “Watchmen” (it di win that award).
So, why wasn’t “Watchmen” allowed into the “Best Novel category”?
Quoth Jawn “It’s not a novel.”
Quoth i “Yes, it is.”
“Not according to the Rules,” he said.
“I happen to have a copy of the Rules right here,” i said, “and a ‘novel’ is defined as … ‘a work of sf or fantasy of at least 4000 words’, which i’m sure ‘Watchmen’is.”
Quoth the Guidry: “It’s not a novel. it’s a comic book.”
Mike, that’s a lot like Neil Gaiman’s experience with the World Fantasy Award. In 1991, he won best short story for an issue of Sandman, the first comic to ever win the award. The next year, they changed the rules to make sure it would also be the last.
Somewhere, a scruffy-looking young man wearing a “Resistance is Futile” T Shirt releases a single white dove….
Well, that’s a nice sentiment, but it’s clearly fiction. It makes me sad to think that, in the past, and in many communities today, if this were a real trial, we’d see a conviction.
But I guess the point is to get the idea circulating, and a large, mass-media distributed strip like Funky is a good start.
Mike, that’s a lot like Neil Gaiman’s experience with the World Fantasy Award. In 1991, he won best short story for an issue of Sandman, the first comic to ever win the award. The next year, they changed the rules to make sure it would also be the last.
Heh. Actually, it was more like the next *day*.
What’s up with award ceremonies changing the rules to limit who can win? After the score to Two Towers won the Oscar, they changed the description of the category to exclude film sequals. Yet, while there are similar themes running through all the LotR movies (or Star Wars, or Star Trek, etc.), each of those soundtracks is a unique piece.
Didn’t the New York Times (or someone) change the way it ran its Bestseller lists after one of the Harry Potter books sat on the top spot for a little while? Separated children’s books or something?
The reason for those types of changes, I think, is that a work that’s deemed “not good enough” by the rules committee manages to win (this would happen a lot more in People’s Choice Awards or other consumer-driven awards like the Bestseller list), and rather than rewrite one’s preconceptions, it’s easier to just rewrite the rules.
Also, I didn’t really want to get involved in the earlier political discussion, but I did want to see if anyone could answer this question (inspired by someone pointing out that many Senate Democrats later admitted they didn’t read the Patriot Act): We pay these people good money, and their only job is to pass laws. If your senator (regardless of his/her political party) admitted to voting on a bill he didn’t even try to understand, why would anyone consider voting for him ever again? Why wouldn’t a political opponent jump all over that? I know, the obvious answer is that they all do it, but it seems absurd to me that we let them get by with it.
After the score to Two Towers won the Oscar, they changed the description of the category to exclude film sequals.
In the end, either they did not end up going through with that, or RotK somehow still got by this exclusion, because it was nominated and won for Best Score.
I think the better example was the Oscars creating the Best Animated Film because of Shrek.
“In the end, either they did not end up going through with that, or RotK somehow still got by this exclusion, because it was nominated and won for Best Score.”
I would guess that it was determined to be eligible, despite attempts to prevent it from being accepted. Rules are at http://www.ampas.org/77academyawards/rules/rule16.html
“I. Original Score:
An original score is a substantial body of music in the form of dramatic underscoring written specifically for the film by the submitting composer.
B. ELIGIBILITY
1. The work must be specifically created for the eligible feature-length motion picture.”
Looks like they were trying to keep sequal music out, but series like LotR and the Star Wars films, while carrying familiar themes, each have unique scores.
Another online comic some here might appreciate.
Another online comic some here might appreciate.
That’s hilarious stuff. I’m adding that one to my daily visit list. 🙂
Another online comic some here might appreciate.
That’s hilarious stuff. I’m adding that one to my daily visit list. 🙂
——————–
Unshelved will often have comic and science fiction references. Besides having the entire strip archived, it’s also been collected in three volumes.
David
It ain’t over.
On 29 November, John was acquitted.
Lisa won the case. The people who pulled together and supported John and partied for him after the acquittal hang around at Montoni’s.
Lisa’s office is a walkup either over Montoni’s or next door.
The complainant was humiliated.
The humiliated complainant is a City Councilwoman.
In the strip for 8 December (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/funky.asp?date=20051208), with no warning, city workers began tearing up the street and sidewalk in front of Montoni’s, completely closing off the sidewalk.
It ain’t over till it’s over.
So an innocent pizza joint suffers because one woman was made to look the fool. le-sigh. If only that were just fiction.
Weird.
Did a post here a while back. Went away to work on my own blog.
Came back here.
Checked the “Most Recent Comments” list, and my post was listed.
Clicked the link, and it brought me to the bottom of the vomment list… but my comment wasn’t there.
So i’ll try to remember what i said:
Yeah, Lisa won John’s case for him, and got him an acquittal on the obscenity charges.
Yah, John’s friends gave him a big party at Montoni’s, the pizza parlor that is the moral center of the “Funky” universe. (And in whose basement John has the shop.)
But did they really “win”?
Recall the Backy’s mother, who brought the charges, and was humiliated on the stand by Lisa, is a City Councilwoman.
What a co-incidence that the city has, without notice, discussion or warning, during what Tony Montoni says is his biggest business period of the year, decided to totally close down and tear up the street in front of Montoni’s (and, even more co-incidentally, the Komix Korner and Lisa’s second-floor walk-uip law office!
It don’t matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Posted by: Sasha at December 1, 2005 09:43 AM
Mike, that’s a lot like Neil Gaiman’s experience with the World Fantasy Award. In 1991, he won best short story for an issue of Sandman, the first comic to ever win the award. The next year, they changed the rules to make sure it would also be the last.
Heh. Actually, it was more like the next *day*.
“Heh” right back. When Bill Veeck (as in “wreck”, to quote the title of his autobiography), the man still reviled by many for attempting to make baseball fun*, owned the White Sox, he had variable height oufield fences — that is, there were like six-foot high chain-link extensions to the tops of the fences that the grounds staff would put up before games when the incoming team had better hitting power than the Sox, or take down when the Sox could expect to outslug the visitors.
Perfectly legal.
Then one day he was bored, had an inspiration, read the Rules Book VERY carefully, and called in a friend who owned a hydraulics contracting firm.
Comes the game when (let’s say the Yankees) were in town, and they *Definitely* outpowered the Sox in long-ball hitting, and the game begins, as expected, with the extra fence extensions in place.
They finish the top of the first, and the Yankees are getting ready to take the field and the Sox’s first batter is in the on-deck circle, when a creaking and a jingling is heard… Everyone looks toward the outfield fences…
And the extension chain-link sections are folding along the outside of the fence.
The opposing manager is yelling at the umpires.
The umps, who were caught by surprise, are yelling at Veeck.
Veeck is holding the Rule Book and pointing out that fences are the sole responsibility of the home team and *doesn’t* say that they can’t be changed during the game.
The game continues, under protest.
Within an hour of the end of the game, a special telephone meeting of the League Owners’ Association outlaws moving fences during the ghame.
Veeck says it cost him a lot… but he got more publicity out of it than he couls ever have bought for the same money.
=================================
*He created the first fireworks-shooting socreboard that exploded when the home team hit a home run.
Sorry about the multiple posts; over some time (a period of hours), the “Most Recent Posts” list kept showing me as having poted, but the posts didn’t appear… so i tried again.
And the *%&&* “Preview” still seems to be broken.
Posted by: Bobb at December 9, 2005 02:55 PM
So an innocent pizza joint suffers because one woman was made to look the fool. le-sigh. If only that were just fiction.
If it were only that it were only Montoni’s suffering as a result of the Councilwoman’s bigotry. (As a matter of fact, judging by the 10 December strip, Montoni’s isn’t hurting too badly.)
As i pointed out, this action also harms Komix Korner (probably actually the main target), which being a shoe-string business probably can’t take a second major economic hit this soon and it hurts Lisa Moore’s law practise, which is a little more financially solid than Komix Korner, but not tremendously so. Which is probably Just Fine with the Councilwoman, considering her past history with Lisa and English-teacher husband Les.
And it harms every other business on that block.
And that’s bad enough. But that’s localised to one neighbourhood.
But, beyond that, how much does it cost the entire city to have men and machines out there in the holiday season, doing what is almost certainly non-essential work?
And, before that, what was the cost to the entire city of arresting and prosecuting John and losing? (It ain’t free for the prosecuting side, either.)
And all because one woman is stupid, intolerant and vengefully arrogantly stubborn.
(*coff*Nancy Reagan*coff*War on Some Drugs*coff*)
If only