Lucky Ducky, in "Deficit Hawk Down"
Author: Ruben Bolling
Afghan Trek
UPDATE: EASY LINKS
CARTOONISTS ACROSS AFGHANISTAN
———————
Cartoonists Ted Rall, Matt Bors and Steven Cloud are currently in Afghanistan, on their own (i.e, un-embedded), trekking across the northern and western parts of the country. Ted's a good friend (I just about begged him NOT to go), and I know Matt well as a great guy and a great cartoonist.
This is an amazing adventure, and you can follow their progress every day through Ted's DAILY comics (I hope he can keep this up)…
Matt's sketchbook drawings on his blog…
and Steven's photos (if he's posting sketches or comics, I haven't found them). Here is Matt and Ted TODAY drawing for some Afghan kids. I hope they like alternative, highly stylized, politically trenchant comics!
On twitter, you can follow Ted at tedrall, Matt at mattbors, and Steven at boasas
Nearing a milestone number of followers on twitter!
Who will be the lucky 100,000th follower?
More of same
Ross Douthat's column in the New York Times today defending those who oppose the building of a Muslim cultural center in downtown Manhattan is EXACTLY the same as his column last week against the legalization of gay marriage:
Yes, yes. I'm a smart, enlightened conservative, and I agree you liberals make some excellent points. But you've got to realize that heterosexual marriage (last week) and white xenophobic discrimination (this week) are American institutions that are so ineffably awesome and special that you're just gonna have to go along with us conservatives on this.
join the party
Why not follow me on twitter?
How to quit.
I find people's reaction to the raging Jet Blue Flight Attendant interesting. Most, including me, seemed to respond, "good for him!" even though what he did was irresponsible, dangerous and abusive to the 99% of the passengers who were innocent of being surly, uncooperative jerks.
I think it has to do with an escape fantasy. If he'd become famous for only cursing out the passengers, or quitting in some other spectacular way, such as toppling a beverage cart or flinging luggage, I don't think he'd have become a folk hero. But who among us, feeling trapped in a degrading situation/job/fuselage, and wouldn't dream of escaping by releasing a giant inflatable slide and jumping out into the sunshine? Every office, cubicle and work station should have a giant inflatable slide next to it for when that straw breaks the camel's back. So long, suckers!
There seems to be something in the air that's got people dreaming about quitting. This series of photos showing a woman quitting in a spectacular way has gone viral over the past couple of days. It's been pointed out that it's certainly a fake, and it's decidedly less funny as a scripted comedy piece than as real termination theater.
But it takes my good friends at Boing Boing to point out the very best "screw you" to an employer ever. And of course it's associated with the very worst job ever — slave. Seems that in 1865, freed slave Jourdan Anderson was contacted by his former owner, P.H. Anderson with the request that he return to work at the plantation. The New York Daily Tribune published Jourdan's masterpiece of a response.
The highlights, culled by Boing Boing's Maggie Koerth-Baker:
"I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than any body else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable.
As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost Marshall-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for 32 years, and Mandy 20 years. At 25 dollars a month for me, and 2 dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to $11,608. Please send the money by Adam's Express, in care of V. Winters Esq., Dayton, Ohio.
Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when your were shooting at me."
I'm honestly overcome with emotion when I think of what this poor man has been through, and has yet to go through. But I can imagine that armed with this level of intelligence, wit and cool, he had a good chance to do all right for himself and his family.
And by the way, in case you feel any sympathy for the owner, now publicly revealed to have harbored rebel soldiers and killed a stranded union soldier, read the actual letter and you'll find a passage that takes an even darker turn to the story. How Jourdan was able to maintain an ironic stance in this letter, through the bitterness and rage he must have felt, is nothing short of unbelievable.
"In answering this letter please state if there would be any safety for my Molly and Jane, who are now grown up and both good looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve and die if it come to that than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters."
Who ya gonna call?
A panelist for a discussion at the Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art (SHIELD) had to drop out, so I got a call asking if I'd pinch hit at the last minute. Can I help out? Am I there for a friend in a tight spot? Every time.
The official topic:
The Future of the Traditional Comic Strip in the Era of Dying Newspapers
But I ain't talking about anything traditional or dying. I'll be talking about tweets, monogamous gibbons, boing boing, smuggler's cape, kanye west, dr. scholl's, and whatever you ask about.
Bring your curiosity, your thirst for entertainment, and cash, because I'll be bringing some long out-of-print impossible-to-find Tom the Dancing Bug books for sale at rounded-up cover prices.
Provide proof that you follow me on twitter or facebook, and you win the right to buy me a beer afterward.
*************************************************
Thursday August 12, 7 PM
The Future of the Traditional Comic Strip in the Era of Dying Newspapers
A panel discussion with Rina Piccolo, Tony Murphy, Kevin Kobasic and Bill Roundy. Plus Ruben Bolling. Moderated by Thomas Baehr.
Admission: $5 | Free for MoCCA Members and Ross Douthat
594 Broadway, Suite 401
(btwn. Houston and Prince)
New York, NY 10012
Tel. 212-254-3511
Mr. Natural
In Ross Douthat's column in the New York Times, he makes what he might call "enlightened" case against the legalization of gay marriage.
Mr. Douthat
He basically argues that lifelong, procreative, heterosexual monogamy should be defended not because it is universal and natural, because it is not. But rather because it, as an ideal, is "one of the great ideas of Western civilization."
He somehow makes the leap from an unsupported declaration that this vision of marriage is ideal to the conclusion that we need to "defend" it by excluding from the definition of marriage homosexual unions, without excluding serial and/or non-procreative heterosexual unions, without any explanation.
But I want to note a spectacular 180 degree shift in anti-gay marriage arguments here. For years, those against gay marriage (and any gayness at all) maintained that homosexuality itself is unnatural. Humans were given a Tab A and a Slot B, and the instruction manual clearly explains what to do with them. And if it's natural, it's good; doing something unnatural with those thingies is an abomination.
Yet here, Mr. Douthat argues that monogamy is unnatural.
"Nor is lifelong heterosexual monogamy obviously natural in the way that most Americans understand the term. If 'natural' is defined to mean 'congruent with our biological instincts,' it’s arguably one of the more unnatural arrangements imaginable. In crudely Darwinian terms, it cuts against both the male impulse toward promiscuity and the female interest in mating with the highest-status male available."
So while some argue that heterosexuality is natural and therefore is good, in this case, Mr. Douthat argues that promiscuity and polygamy are natural, but we must rise above that, and act in a civilized, rational manner, in keeping with our finest cultural traditions.
Why is the ideal of true heterosexual monogamy so worth cherishing?
"This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship."
Isn't a commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually same human beings an even greater surrender of their reproductive self-interest? Shouldn't that make it even more admirable?
Of course not. And neither type of fidelity is necessarily against reproductive self-interest. Nor would that make it any more deserving of legislative support.
This conservative obsession with what is "natural" is laughably disingenuous because it's used all the time on both sides of its own argument. Heterosexuality, the mother-child bond, the idea that the strongest of the group leads it and takes the most rewards — they're all the natural way, and that, in and of itself proscribes it as admirable and desirable. Violence (well, certain violence — violence against property rights), promiscuity, cheating — they're natural, primitive, animalistic impulses and it's our obligation to rise above them. Wouldn't it be a bit more intellectually honest to say that regardless of what's deemed natural or unnatural, we're going to rationally decide on a behavior's morality on its own merits?
But this "nature" obsession is also fallacious because it's all a bunch of meaningless hooey (pardon my French) in the first place. Humans are animals, so if humans do it, it's natural, Chester.
Of course homosexuality is natural. We're pretty sure there's a human genetic component to it. And various forms of homosexual behavior is seen all over the animal world.
And of course monogamy is "natural." And "congruent with our biological instincts." Lots of other animals practice monogamy: countless species of birds form monogamous bonds for a breeding season or for life. Rumor is that many mammals, such as foxes and beavers form these bonds that are "arguably one of the more unnatural arrangements imaginable." Even our fellow apes, gibbons, enter into monogamous relationships for most of their lives. They must have heard about Western Civilization's Greatest Idea. (Our closest relatives, chimps, on the other hand, are total sluts.)
In more biological ignorance, Mr. Douthat implies that our more "natural" state is polygamy. Actually, there is an excellent indicator of how strong a species' impulse for polygamy is: sexual dimorphism in size. Males are often larger than the female of a polygamous species so that they can fight off other male invaders to their harem. One of the most fiercely polygamous animals is the elephant seal, with one male roaring and brawling his way to exclusive access to up to fifty cows. In this species, the male typically weighs more than three times what a female weighs.
Mr. Elephant Seal, with one of the Mrs.'s
Closer to home, gorillas form polygamous relationships, and the males are over twice the size of the females. Gibbons are monogamous, and the males and females are exactly the same size. Where do we fall? Human males apparently weigh on average about 10% more than females, so while there may be some propensity for polygamous behavior in humans, there may not be great evolutionary pressure on that behavior.
All this is to say that our "natural" state is not only undefined and unknowable, but ultimately irrelevant to morality and public benefit.
But the truly breathtaking aspect of this column is how Mr. Douthat thinks it's okay to use this flimsy, sloppy bit of sophistry to justify denying millions of good Americans a right they want and deserve.