Month: February 2011

THIS WEEK’S COMIC

Ruben Bolling

HERE is this week's comic, "After the Revolution."

 

1026cbTH after the revolution

I'm not one to publish essays explaining a comic strip, but I did want to point out a couple of the things that got me thinking about this one.

 

I was pointed to this study by Paul Krugman, and it's pretty remarkable.

 

Percentage of Program Beneficiaries Who Report They “Have Not Used a Government Social Program”

Program

“No, Have Not Used a Government Social Program”

529 or Coverdell

64.3

Home Mortgage Interest Deduction

60.0

Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit

59.6

Student Loans

53.3

Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit

51.7

Earned Income Tax Credit

47.1

Social Security—Retirement & Survivors

44.1

Pell Grants

43.1

Unemployment Insurance

43.0

Veterans Benefits (other than G.I. Bill)

41.7

G.I. Bill

40.3

Medicare

39.8

Head Start

37.2

Social Security Disability

28.7

Supplemental Security Income

28.2

Medicaid

27.8

Welfare/Public Assistance

27.4

Government Subsidized Housing

27.4

Food Stamps

25.4
Source: Suzanne Mettler, “Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenge of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era,” Perspectives on Politics (September 2010): 809.

 

This doesn't say that 44% of Americans forget that Social Security is a social benefit program.  It says that 44% of people who ACTUALLY RECEIVE Social Security were UNAWARE that they had received any social benefits from the government.

 

And I remembered this study that shows which states are net recipients of federal funds (receive more from the federal government than they pay in taxes), and which are net donors of federal funds (pay more in taxes than they receive).  Notice anything about the political philosophy and attitude toward the federal government of the states that generally are net recipients?

 

000fed

 

 

THIS WEEK’S COMIC

Ruben Bolling

Judge Scalia kicks butt across the time/space continuum in search of ORIGINALISM!

 

BONUS POINTS: Can you find the one thing Scalia and I agree on?  (Hint:  it has to do with pizza and Chicago.)

 

1025cbt scalia - originalism

 

You think I'm makin' this stuff up?  From the January, 2011 issue of California Lawyer:

 

Q:  In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
Scalia:  Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

…

 

Q:  You more or less grew up in New York. Being a child of Sicilian immigrants, how do you think New York City pizza rates?
Scalia:  I think it is infinitely better than Washington pizza, and infinitely better than Chicago pizza. You know these deep-dish pizzas—it's not pizza. It's very good, but … call it tomato pie or something. … I'm a traditionalist, what can I tell you?

 

Oh, Antonin.  How can you be so very wrong, and yet so very right?

 

 

Please Stand By

Ruben Bolling

This week, many people had problems viewing the comic both on Boing Boing (fixed as of Wednesday afternoon) and Gocomics (not yet fixed fixed as of Friday evening).  It's a shame, because I'm as happy with the way this one came out as any comic I've done in a long time.

 

I suspect both viewing problems are my fault.  A couple of weeks ago, as if acting in concert, both Boing Boing and Gocomics simultaneously approached me about my posting the comics to those sites myself.  The previous method was that I'd email the comics to them, and they'd do whatever magic was necessary to make them appear on the websites at the proper time.  They both sent me instructions on how to do this myself, which were detailed and thorough, but unfortunately not idiot-proof.

 

As an example:  Gocomics sent me instructions on labeling the posted file with the code 110211 for the year, month and date.  Then Boing Boing sent me instructions to use the code 20110209.  I actually wrote an email back with what may be the dumbest question I've ever asked:  I said that I understood that 11 was the year, 02 was the month and 09 was the date, but asked what the 20 prefix was.  Apparently I forgot what millennium I was in.

 

Anyway, I ended up making what I think was the same technical mistake on both (RGB vs. CMYK?!), causing the comic to be unreadable by Internet Explorer.  Since the issue still isn't fixed on Gocomics, here is the comic, in a form that should be visible to everyone (I hope!).

 

000louis

 

By the way, one reader reported that he can only see the comic's colors, which is strange.  But he linked to that image — it created an interesting effect:

 

000louis colors