Uncategorized

by

Will 2016 be a repeat of 2008?

In 2007, a year or so before the primaries of 2008 began, this was what people were saying:Bernie-Sanders-and-Obama

  • Hillary is unbeatable
  • America is not ready to elect a black man
  • Obama is too far to the left to ever win the nomination, much less the election
  • Hillary has too many endorsements and too much money for anyone to challenge her successfully

I kind of agreed, even though I supported Obama from the start. And I was pleased to have been proven wrong.

Now here it is, a year or so before the primaries of 2016, and this is what people are saying:

  • Hillary is unbeatable
  • America is not ready to elect a Jewish man
  • Sanders is too far to the left to ever win the nomination, much less the election
  • Hillary has too many endorsements and too much money for anyone to challenge her successfully

I kind of agree.

But boy, would it be great to be proven wrong again.

by

Editorial cartoon: How it Happened

by

Editorial cartoon: Priorities

11113976_830383840344257_6884780036179377045_o

by

Analyzing the campaign logos

Jeb Bush is now the 43,276th Republican candidate, and his logo screams excitement!  Jeb! it says. 061515_jeb_600Or maybe this is the logo for a new laundry detergent, I’m not sure. Can’t help but notice that it pointedly does not mention his last name. Can’t imagine why.

Compare this with Hillary’s logo. She’s so well known, she doesn’t even have to spell her entire name. Or maybe this is a sign pointing to the closest hospital.hillary logo.jpg.CROP.thumbnail-small

Wait a minute. Hillary’s also ignores her last name. Is that a good thing? I will say, even though I like this logo much better than Jeb’s (hope he didn’t pay money for that thing), it does bother me that the logo for a Democratic candidate features a big red arrow pointing right.

Still, compared to the other candidates, Hillary’s is a model of good design. Like Obama’s, it doesn’t have to say the candidate’s name for you to know who it is. Have a look at some of the other campaign logos we’re being subjected to:

RandPaulWhen I look at Rand Paul’s, I can’t help thinking of a quote from The Dark Knight:  “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” Looks like an investment firm to me, not a political candidate. Black letters? Black letters are used for eeeeeeeevil.

TedCruz2016Cruz’s logo is no better — It looks like he’s burning an American flag. Guess we shouldn’t expect more from a Canadian. At least it doesn’t have a maple syrup stain on it.

Rubio’s is just so cute, what with the little America over the “i” replacing the heart he was originally going to put there. Marco_Rubio_2016_Campaign_logo Rubio, of course, like the rest of the GOP, wants to send America back to the 50s so that’s why you don’t see Alaska and Hawaii there.

Lincoln Chafee’s logo looks like it was designed back when we had the last President with “Lincoln” in his name. LDC_logo_oval_color_tagline1“Fresh ideas for America” does not include graphic design ideas.

Ben Carson’s is quite funny. carson-logoHe has that “A” bumped into his name in such a way that it looks like it’s just a little ribbon design or something, meaning his logo literally says “Merica” which should be pronounced as if you have a mouth full of chewin’ tobacco while saying it.

bernieBernie Sanders’ is pretty simple, but you know, I guess that kind of fits his personality — what you see is what you get. Nothing great with this logo, but nothing embarrassing either.

Forgive me for not covering the other thousands of candidates’ logos, but they’re all pretty boring. No one should be picking a candidate based on their logo anway.

by

Libertarians dislike big government (except those parts that benefit them)

I  understand the concept of libertarianism, I really do. The idea that government causes more problems than it solves is appealing in concept, and when it comes to most social issues (gay marriage, marijuana legislation, freedom of religion) liberals and libertarians see eye to eye.all-cats-are-libertarians-mary-fanning

The problem is that most libertarians hate government except when they do. They aren’t consistent. “Government shouldn’t be providing all these services!” they say. “But don’t take away our public schools, parks, and libraries. I need that subway and the highway system so they’re OK. And my parents need their social security so we’ll keep that. Those tax breaks that allow me to deduct home mortgages is good. And it’s probably a good idea to have health inspectors making sure the food I buy isn’t tainted with disease ….”

In some ways, they are like religious extremists — they have a clear concept of what they believe in, and then they find a bunch of loopholes and exceptions that allow them to ignore the parts of it they don’t like.  (“We must obey every word of the Bible! Except that part about eating shellfish. And the part allowing slavery. Oh, and the stoning to death of people who get divorces…”)

I understand the concept of reducing government, but be honest, libertarians — you just want to reduce some government, the part that doesn’t benefit you directly.

You like government that helps you.

You’re just against anyone else being helped.

by

Why are all these losers running for the Republican nomination?

Look at this list of people who have no chance of winning the Republican nomination:  Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckbee, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum … and that doesn’t count the other long-shots that may jump into the overcrowded clown car, such as Donald Trump. Some might put Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry in that group as well…clown car

So why do they do it?  Why would they run when they must know they have no chance of winning?

A few reasons come to mind:

They love the attention. I recall someone criticizing candidate Obama once by saying he had a big ego, which made me respond, “No! Really?  Someone who thinks he can be Leader of the Free World has a big ego?  I am shocked!” Come on, big egos come with every politician. They love the attention or they wouldn’t be running.

Money. Candidates can raise a lot of money and live nice off it for a short period of time.  If they lose the nomination and remain politicians, they now have made new connections and can use the money for their own PAC and their next political campaign — or they can give the excess to another candidate who will then owe them a favor.

Promotion.  Running for President gets their name out there and keeps them in the news, which leads to book sales and  speaking engagements which will make them richer.

Auditioning for another job. If they run a good campaign anyway and get good press and appeal to a certain segment of society, they might get considered for the Vice Presidency or a cabinet position.

Auditioning for Fox News. Based on past history, failed candidates have a great shot of getting a cushy well-paying job at Fox News as a commentator.

So do these guys really think they can win? Perhaps a few of the more deluded ones, but the majority probably have other motives in mind.

by

Editorial Cartoon: Same old

by

“We bigots will leave if you don’t give us what we want!”

Hey, remember when Rush Limbaugh said if Obamacare became the law of the land, he’d leave and move to Costa Rica? Yeah, that was over five years ago and dammit, he’s still here. Not that anyone ever expected that habitual liar to live up to his words…

Anyway, the funniest thing about his comment was his choice of Costa Rica, which has had a socialized health care system far more expansive than Obamacare for many years — just like every other major civilized industrial country on the planet. homosexualdemons

This is a constant threat that no one carries out. There were plenty of liberals who screamed if Bush became President, they’d move to Canada and they didn’t do that either.

Well, now there are conservatives who have threatened to leave if the Supreme Court rules that gay people are indeed people under the 14th Amendment and as such it is illegal to discriminate against them. They somehow think their threat to leave will elicit a response of “Oh no! The bigots are leaving! Quick, we must amend the Constitution to allow for discrimination or else our country may become hate-free in no time!”

“Liberty and equality for all” is a meaningless phrase to these people, isn’t it?

by

Editorial cartoon: It’s a comedy episode

by

“They will never be treated equally or normally”

An acquaintance recently posted that people should not go around changing their sex, arguing “They will never have a normal life, and they will never be treated equally or normally.”

More likely, they will be happy that they can finally be the person they have always wanted to be, free from the constraints of society’s rules that force them into categories where they don’t fit. jenner

This seems to be a common argument that people actually believe — “Look, I will discriminate against people so therefore they shouldn’t do this. It’s for their own good, so that people like me won’t discriminate against them.”

Remember that judge (now forced to retire) who recently refused to marry an interracial couple for “their own good”? He claimed he was only thinking of the kids that could come from that marriage and how terrible it would be to have to grow up with discrimination. (After all, the poor interracial kid could grow up to be President of the United States or something.)

That kind of mindset has always been used by bigots to keep people they don’t like in their place. It’s been used against women who want to get into traditionally male professions, against blacks wanting to get into sports, and against gays and lesbians who want to marry. “We’re only trying to protect you against people like us who would treat you terribly.”

Not a very convincing argument.