Lou Pickney's Online Commentary
Comic Strips
Monday
September 18, 2006
"Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes her laws."
-Amschel Meyer Rothschild
One downside to travel is that, from my experiences, time on the road makes a person more susceptible to illness. Airplanes are the worst for this, with their recirculated air acting as a de facto incubator for germs and viruses. But even time on the road via car can leave a person feeling worn down and tired. I mention this because I feel my body fighting an oncoming sickness, with the usual symptoms: scratchy throat, stuffy nose, etc. If it persists, there's always DayQuil... but,
as I've chronicled before, DayQuil puts you in more of a daze than Topamax.
If you've ever read the comic strip Garfield, you probably know that it is pretty low on the intelligence level. To be fair, it is the most widely syndicated comic strip of all time, but it can be argued that panels from the series thrown together randomly can actually be funnier than the originally-written comics. Here's a website that demonstrates that: http://www.dougshaw.com/garfield.html. And from that website, here's an example of what you can create:
I know what you might be thinking: "That's not all that funny, Lou." But that's the point. Most Garfields (or most comic strips, for that matter) aren't all that funny.
Besides the bizarre but humorous Close to Home, there's not much out there anymore that I like. Peanuts passed on with Charles Schultz, while both The Far Side and Calvin and Hobbes ended while public demand for both was still high.
You have to hand it to Calvin and Hobbes creator Bill Watterson for sticking by his principles and not marketing the comic strip with licensed commercial merchandise, holding true to his artistic vision. Though it came at a hefty price, as Calvin and Hobbes licensing could have netted him tens of millions of dollars, if not more. Don't misunderstand; I think Watterson was an idiot to pass up that money, but I admire him for doing it because of his principles. He's a rare example of someone actually sticking to his beliefs in the face of big money; most people use their beliefs, sadly, to simply try to tell others what to do with their lives.
There is growing clamor that Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is contemplating a run for President. I'm not quite sure what to make of his situation. Senator Feingold allegedly pressured Clear Channel to remove Randy Michaels from power (leading to the free-fall of the company into the medicority in which it wallows today), and he's clearly behind many big government initiatives (i.e. government-funded health insurance, which would cost a fortune.) But, by the same token, he was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, and he has been a vocal opponent of the Bush administration's illegal encroachment into the privacy of American citizens.
In this modern era of Authoritarian Left and Authoritarian Right (no more Democrats and Republicans in my eyes), he's at least something different from the mainstream. I know I'd take Feingold over Hillary Clinton any day, or even John McCain. The idea of Feingold vs. McCain is funny, since the memorable "McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform" bill (which ended up changing nothing of substance in DC) had their names attached to it.
But think about it... who else is out there? Rudy Giuliani? Talk about Authoritarian, he fits that title with the heavy-handed way he dealt with forcing out legal but "seedy" businesses in parts of NYC. I'm planning to vote for whomever the Libertarian candidate is, but realistically, who out there from the Big Two is capable of a viable run who doesn't intend to further encroach upon the liberties and freedoms of Americans?
The sad reality is that anyone who seeks to curb the growth of government faces a mountain of opposition from many, many fronts. For those who might hope to do that in the Oval Office, the level and intensity of the opposition is such that it is nearly impossible. Even a billionaire like Ross Perot, who funded his own way into nearly winning the 1992 election, ran into a million roadblocks, and it's not as if he was any less an Authoritarian or big government type than most (but at least he advocated things like a balanced budget.) Perot was in first place when certain forces pressured him out of the race; he later re-entered, though by then it was too late.
So, in a roundabout way, that's why I mention Feingold. Is he, as Dave Matthews would say, the best of what's around? I'm not sure. But he offers at least some reprieve from the Authoritarian chokehold that this country is now suffering from, and there's something to be said for that.
|
