Daryl Cunningham's "Fracking" Is Scariest Comic I've Reviewed

ITEM: Scariest comic I've reviewed: "Fracking" by Daryl Cunningham. A snippet as they say:

So I read scary comics all the time about the end of the world with either zombies or mutants, interstellar wars where the Earth is kind of the bad guy (here and here) and the sex life of Chester Brown. Its all pretty terrifying and horrible. Yet I am strong and will continue to review comic books. But I can safely say that the scariest comic I’ve reviewed for Comics Forge is this beta version of an online — takes up 30 pages or more if you print it out — comic called “Fracking or Hydraulic Fracturing” by Daryl Cunningham.

If you’re not aware of this, and I barely am, “Fracking” is the next big economic thing to happen in the United States. What should be the next big thing is infrastructure investment to the tune of about $2 trillion dollars or even massive bank loans to small and mid size businesses. Republicans stopped the former because that would have helped the president and the banks stopped the latter because they own both parties.

The downside of Fracking, which this cartoon illustrates all so well, is that it leaves behind all kinds of waste which might be fine if you trust either the EPA, even under a Democrat, or the drillers. If you trust either of those entities, then you simply haven’t been watching current events. Here’s how the cartoonist, who is a British person so I presume that this will actually be a honest look at this, describes it.

Here's a panel:

Note to My Half Brother Chris Shropshire: Here's Why I Think You're a Fuckin' Moron for Enlisting

(Actually, I'll be writing more about this. You should consider this a first chapter, pretty boy Chrissy...)

 So anywho, my half brother Christopher Shropshire, who recently enlisted in the War Crimes or Us American Army  like a fuckin' moron, posted this on his Facebook page.

So, you know, I think I wrote something but by my own standards of cruelty it was quite harmless. I can't check because I've been defriended  by my own half brother (big loss but more on this Facebook thing later...) and so I think I wrote:

"Well I think that enlisting was a mistake but nobody thinks you're a pussy for it. On the other hand, it's kinda cool having a half brother who can do consulting work for 'Burn Notice'."

And that's it. His wife responded and it was kind of sarcastic because it wasn't the Support the Troops Fox news bullshit that she's used to hearing. And that's all right. I think I said that I liked the post even when I didn't mainly as a friendly gesture because if Chris Shropshire wants to go off and murder Afghan civilians, accidentally I'm sure,  hey that's up to him. We all have different and ironic ideas of what constitutes "fun". I'm sure they'll all die justifiably. Yes I'm being sarcastic all those dead civilians notwithstanding.

So then I get this private message from Christopher Shropshire, possible future war criminal or Ranger School dropout or deserving casualty of the war -- because we never know what the wondrous future may bring -- which says this:

 " i saw you comment that my joing the army was a mistake. 1. nobody fucking asked you 2. you're a not even a has been you're just a never been. we're done I'm not going to waste anymore time on this shit because just being you is punishment enough.."

First, your grammar is just atrocious. But seriously almost every word that Chris writes is, almost, completely fucking wrong. Not to mention badly written...that's the worst offense.

Well, as they say in the movies, "allow me to retort".

1. nobody fucking asked you

Actually, you can screen your posts in Facebook so that certain people only see certain things. Unfortunately, because you're kind of dim witted about Facebook protocols the post was made available  to all your so-called "friends". So, as a matter of fact, you were asking me fuckwit. I hope you're getting the details better on munitions training. Gosh, it would just break my heart if something bad happened to you.  It's good to see that the army is still recruiting the Best and the Brightest Gomer Pyle.

2. you're a not even a has been you're just a never been.

Technically, this will require some tricky phrasing, but the truth of it is that I'm a "was been" and "still am". I am a prolific and widely published professional writer because, hey, I'm smarter and more talented than you Chris.  I've written about things that you and your deeply stupid twat wife (the war (many wars in fact if you consider the range of our drone strikes)  is about defending me Jen Shropshire...are you that naive?) can barely pronounce. I don't brag  about it because I'm not so insecure about my manhood and what I've accomplished as a writer  that  I have to defriend people on Facebook who say slightly sarcastic things to me. Semper Fi or whatever....

Oh, and for the record, I'm not that impressed by one time state congressional losers and insurance salesmen. You know the funny thing about that race is that they knew you well and they still voted against you. Perhaps they saw what I see in you: a vacuous privileged pretty boy materialistic lightweight who wouldn't understand the problems of ordinary people if they bit him in his scrawny little beige ass.

Just so you know...Hey, if working for newspapers and trying to help black folks while I was doing it makes me a loser then hey I'll take being a failure in your ever so discriminating eyes.

 we're done I'm not going to waste anymore time on this shit because just being you is punishment enough.."

Well, technically again, you never wasted time on me before. We haven't had a single conversation since Dad, the conscientious objector in the Vietnam War  who I'm sure would be brimming with pride over your enlistment, died. That was 11 years ago. I think we've had two discussions in over two years on Facebook. I usually don't comment on your silly vain materialistic posts about Kewl Cars because most of the world doesn't have enough to eat. Good to see you've got your priorities in order soldier boy. I mean, I sort of get that in that I wouldn't like the kids that my dad had from a previous life, either. So I never took it personally.

Oh, and just for the record,  here's a quick list why I have no respect for your enlistment.

1.) The main fighting is pretty much over. You'll be an occupying force essentially killing people who have the audacity to live on stuff that we want. It's like joining up to fight Hitler in 1946. (Update: I don't want to underestimate our capacity for new and unnecessary wars. You might get the distinct thrill of shooting a Nigerian freedom fighter. Then there's always Iran or the hills of Pakistan, which you're not supposed to be in...ahhh, the thrills of the military...)

2.) The wars we wage are mainly against people of color, of which I am one. I remember that apparently. I think those wars are extremely dishonorable and are not the vocations of decent or truly courageous men. Look up the terms "expropriation" and "good german". That's you in the mirror there winner. You're like a black guy who fights for the confederacy.

3.) I would be hesitant to fight and die for a country that clearly doesn't give a fuck about me or other black people.  And hey if you actually lived in a black neighborhood like I do then you would know this. The direction of this country for black Americans is privatized prisons. The fact that a black president is presiding over it doesn't necessarily make it better, although I will vote for him because he's better than Romney...who isn't? I mean, if the Nazis are back or you want me to stick a knife into a confederate soldier then, hey, sign me up. Poor colored folks abroad, backward ass theocrats though they may be, not so gung ho about that. And not for this country at this time...

4.) The wars are so blatantly about resource theft that, quite frankly, they are within their rights to kill you because you're the evil invader. They have every reason not to trust the United States. I mean, there is an informative website or a thousand if you can turn off the Hannity for awhile...


I hope that clears things up for you. You know, if something bad happened to you before this I probably could have faked a tear or two for someone I didn't know very well. Now my response would be this:






You reap what you sow. Oh and don't worry I won't come to the funeral and vice versa I would sincerely hope. It's probably not fashionable to spit on the corpse.

Forbidden Pics of Possibly Why Black Kiss Got Banned in Britain

I can't publish these pics over at Comics Forge because they have standards and decorum. While here I clearly have none. These are the two pics that I think got Black Kiss 2 banned in Britain. Not sure if that ban is still in place...

 

And:

Tribute to the late comics artist Joe Kubert with full frontal nudity.

Here's some art from the late Joe Kubert. As per usual here's the completely superior obituary by Tom Spurgeon or the slimmed down Comics Reporter dude. Try here and here.

Here's something I think Joe Kubert did just a few weeks ago. Kubert might be gone but he was certainly alive when he inked this. How does one get into those  Kubert school live modeling anatomy classes? I know they must teach that.

 

Here are some other pieces I found. 

 

Get the Fully Embedded Chris Shropshire (Pre Memorial) Atrocity News

Turns out that you can embed that Chris Shropshire Atrocity News online newspaper. Or is that the Christopher Shropshire Atrocity News online newspaper? Hard to say. Very difficult.

Milton Hershey School completely folds and gives up and admits HIV positive kid.

ITEM: The big news today is that the Milton Hershey School completely reversed itself on its not admitting that HIV positive kid to its school. They offered him a spot but the lawsuit continues although I'm not sure on what issues, probably lawyer fees. I really think that was the smart move by the school because their case made no sense at all, which I pointed out here some months ago while, admittedly, perhaps picking on a girl who used to be my friend otherwise known as Connie McNamara or as I affectionately refer to her: The Face of Terror. I'm looking for video feeds of Connie offering the about face but I see nothing so far. I think that's bad for Connie because she had to go out there and explain why killing kittens with mallets every Tuesday or so was a really really great policy for the MHS. ("For the children don't you know and we're not monsters for oh my we carefully deliberated not killing kittens in front of school students with big metal mallets but we're special in that we're very very rich and the rules of science and decency don't apply to us and don't I look maternal and comforting?"...) But now that they've done the decent thing she doesn't get a chance at Youtube redemption? 

You know I run a video of her defending their "Let's carve out new discriminatory policy against HIV positive people" on the Acid Jazz Channel because Connie has a really sexy voice and it used to hit on me. And no I wouldn't have believed that either if I hadn't lived it. But I just wasn't putting out back in college...have I mentioned these are painful memories for me.? Ah well. Back to the topic...

I would certainly run a video with Connie explaining how they totally caved and decided that this was a civil rights violation. Or did she actually support that stupid policy? I sure hope not. I figure her job was a kind of putting pearls on swine kind of thing and that's her job to spin it.  I hope so. More as this news develops.

First edition of Chris Shropshire's War Atrocity Porn News

Just a few words of advice for my half brother Christopher Shropshire, who I believed I described as a fuckwit faux white boy and potential future war criminal (Or was it possible thrill seeking sociopath who murders gooks and sandniggers, who he resembles by the way so watch your back there Habib...)  over at the Facebooks: Never pick a fight with a guy who buys his ink by the pixel. The only reason I hadn't written about him before is that I didn't want to broadcast the fact that he was a one time political loser and looked to be a shallow materialistic uncreative guy, at least according to his almost unseemly worship of sports cars.

And with that we have the first issue of Chris Shropshire's War Atrocity Porn News. Or perhaps that would be more correctly stated as Christopher Shropshire's War Porn Atrocity News. I think the latter sounds better. There's also a paper featuring Chris Shropshire's name out there that collects anti war articles.

ITEM: Well if pretty boy Christopher Shropshire were to lose an arm and a leg let's hope he never has to use the VA. Or the Afghan National Military Hospital. Here's a story about The World's Greatest Army serving the World's Greatest County:

"There were glowing stories on NTM-A’s public relations web site about the progress of the [Afghan National Army] medical system," Col. Gerald Carozza, a senior Army lawyer, testified. "With conditions not changing from 2005 to 2010, why did the assessment and public relations reporting show improvement though early 2010 when the reality was clearly different?"
The new information also reveals fresh evidence of neglect at the hospital, possible corruption perpetrated by private Pentagon contractor MPRI, and allegations that top Afghan general Ahmed Yaftali sold 4.5 tons of U.S-purchased medical supplies to Pakistan and embezzled some $20 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars provided to the hospital.
Other documents obtained by BuzzFeed include new details on the Pentagon's efforts to stonewall the investigation — including attempts to keep key details from Congress and efforts to make witnesses unavailable to testify.

ITEM:  What kind of evil foreign (must be) monsters would bomb funerals? Glenn Greenwald gives us the details.

Whatever one thinks of all this, I hope that nobody will even think about comparing, let alone equating, these acts. Such a comparison would be disgusting. As Rudy Giuliani taught us when asked during his 2008 presidential bid whether waterboarding was torture: “It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it.”

Regardless of where one falls on the ideological spectrum, we must all join together to condemn the sin of moral relativism: therefore, the same act that is the hallmark of repulsive savagery when done by Al Qaeda, Assad, and the Hutaree militia is transformed into a moral and noble act when done by the Government of the United States of America. As U.S. political discourse has long taught, the crime of “moral relativism” is committed by holding everyone to the same standards – that’s “moral relativism.” One can avoid that pitfall only by exempting oneself and one’s own country from the moral dictates one imposes on everyone else.

ITEM: A nice reading list I'll be looking at from the excellent Guardian.

Watch this Breaking Bad music video feat. "On A Clear Day" Before its Pulled.

It will be added to the "Acid Jazz Channel". But I don't know how long this will be on Youtube. Who does the vocal?

ACLU Suit Against PA Neo Segregation Efforts Could Determine 2012 Presidential Election.

 The 2012 election could be determined by this lawsuit. I feel good that it will be overthrown by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court, not completely corrupt even with a Republican majority. There's a 50/50 shot The United State's Supreme Court will grant Corbett and Romney's dream.  Yes I'm making the assumption that the current composition of the Supreme Court is possibly corrupt and partisan. Related: Worse than Mississippi.

 

More Acid Jazz Channel Size That I Put At Three Rivers

I need to remember that when I'm placing this back at my own site that this is 700 width by 400 height for that unique look I like so much. 

My original review of the "Big Down"

Overall, I'm thrilled about the Internet and all of the opportunities that it affords a writer. What I haven't been trilled about as of late is how when e publications fold my work promptly heads down the Memory Hole. For example, I think I wrote about 10 columns for Better Humans which was trying to establish itself as kind of a Transhumanist information portal. I knew for a fact that the owners were trying to turn it into a self sustaining business but they failed, as new businesses often do on and offline.

What that meant, though, is that a lot of those columns simply disappeared. Now some of them I wrote out in draft form on my own websites. Turns out that means my second "Left Argument for Space" column on my own website is the only copy that survives. I couldn't find a copy of my review of the anti nanotechnology opus "The Big Down", until I made a search for it through my emails.

So here it is. I might go scrounging around for other copies as well. Double sigh as they say.

The Big Letdown
A thorough report on nanotechnology, The Big Down is required reading. But
it completely misses the biggest threat to the future: Democratic rot


By Philip Shropshire

Nobody who calls themselves a Transhumanist, a futurist, a technophile or
even an environmentalist could have missed the recent release of the The
Big Down, the poetically named, stop-nanotechnology-now report from tiny,
Monsanto-tormenting ETC Group.



But how many of you actually read it?



Well, I did. And here's what I'll say. First, the name "The Big Down"
would be great for a band. Second, whether you're for or against a
moratorium on nanotechnology
(http://www.betterhumans.com/Resources/Technologies/technology.aspx?articl
eID=2002-05-08-6) research and development, the report is required
reading.



Sure, its "Just Say No" prescription for nano is unreal and won't happen.
But the report (http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf) is an
excellent primer on a number of cutting-edge movers driving nanotechnology
forward. In that regard, it's not unlike reading Jeremy Rifkin's Algeny
(http://www.meta-library.net/gengloss/algeny-body.html) and thinking, "You
know, a lot of this stuff is really kind of cool."



In fact, ETC Group (http://www.etcgroup.org/) does such a thorough job of
outlining the benefits of working assembler technology that I wonder if
they realize how attractive they make it. You could even go so far as to
say that this is one of the best summaries of nanotechnology ever -- its
history, directions, scientific foundations and more.



I even found myself agreeing with the report's prime argument that the
public -- rather, the somewhat poorly performing democracies that
represent the "public" in our oh-so-modern world -- should have more say
in the miracle technology's development.



But overall, this report gets the important thing wrong: How we should
deal with the potential risks of emerging technologies. We can't address
the risks with bans. What we need to do is fix our broken democracies and
give the technologies to the people.

What I learned and what they want


There's no doubt that this is a well-written, well-researched report.



I found that I learned something new as I read through each page. I
learned about the history and function of atomic force microscopes. I
learned that not just do particles act differently at the quantum level,
but that they change color, density and reactivity. I learned that Eric
Drexler
(http://www.betterhumans.com/Resources/resource.aspx?articleID=2002-09-01-
1) didn't coin the term "nanotechnology," but that in fact a Japanese
researcher did. I learned that there are more than 100 companies worldwide
that are working on carbon nanotubes
(http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/carbon_nanotube) and that a French tennis
racket designer is even incorporating nano materials into its products. I
learned that one California firm is even selling an "EasyTube NanoFurnace"
for about 90 grand.



But then there are the numerous let-us-tell-you-about-this-evil-menace
quotes. The evil menace is atomtech -- a word ETC group created in a
not-so-poetic attempt to rename nanotechnology. (The ETC group also does
unfunny cartoons (http://www.etcgroup.org/cartoons.asp). And, yes, I'm
entitled to say this: I'm a professional comic book critic
(http://www.locusmag.com/2001/Reviews/Shropshire1.html).)



With the evil menace stuff, ETC Group was very unpersuasive. Nanotubes
might be used to both strengthen and lighten materials and create faster
more efficient computers. Really? Sounds horrible. We wouldn't want that
to happen. Oh but wait, there's more evil from Mr. Atomtech: On pages 52
through 57 we learn about these horrors:



  a.. Faster genome sequencing with nanoscale biochips
  b.. Precision characterization of an individual's genome
  c.. New methods for drug delivery to targeted tissues or organs
  d.. New vectors for gene therapy
  e.. Surgical access to previously inaccessible body sites
  f.. More durable and rejection-resistant artificial organs and tissue
  g.. Lighter and "smarter" biomaterials for limbs
  h.. Biosensing systems that will allow the detection of emerging disease
at a much earlier stage

For God's Sake, we have to stop this. No, really. I want the inoperable
cancer and I don't want to know about it too early.



Actually, ETC Group does make arguments about why nanotechnology won't do
the wonderful things outlined above. And as usual the group makes some
very good points about biotech hype and biotech greed -- especially when
it comes to genome patents.



But just saying, "No," and asking for some vaguely stated goal of more
community dialogue just doesn't cut it. And this is what the group
recommends in the final chapter, entitled "Conclusions and Policy
Recommendations."



I mean, I agree with the precautionary principle in some cases. For
example, I think Europe has the right to ban genetically modified foods.
It would even be nice if here in the US I could at least have a GM label.
But no: The usual suspect lobbies crushed it.



But the problem has less to do with technology than the corruption of
democracy.

It's the sick democracy, stupid


What ETC Group should be aiming for, at least in the US, is not more
dialogue and subsequently more regulation on the technologies that special
interest groups find dangerous. If it really wanted to make a difference,
it would work for more effective democratic institutions.



Right now, American democracy is an old design, easily trumped by special
interest groups and the corrupt parties that they own. And we've seen how
this can be very bad for technology.



Take broadband regulation for example. We clearly know what creates cheap
universal access (http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/0710aclu.html): the
imposition of must-carry rules and thousands of competitors. Period. The
FCC, however, chose to abandon this method for broadband, largely because
of the pressures brought on by the phone lobbyists, big contributors to
both Bush and the Republican Party.



If we had even the semblance of a fair democracy looking out for the
common good, then the FCC would have repeated the old successful formula:
Lots of competitors means lower prices for services. The Bells say the
infrastructure costs would be too expensive, but would this be true with
wireless? It couldn't be any more expensive than bribing Turkey so that we
can launch an expensive war.



And why wouldn't the government just support the costs, in exchange for
some partial ownership of a public good? That's what happened in South
Korea. But fat chance here in the US.



And ditto chance for the ETC Group's proposals.

Unstoppable drive to the bottom


Besides aiming at the wrong target, The Big Down misses one important
point: You can't stop the development of nanotechnology.



You can't stop nano for the very reason that Eric Drexler noted in the
"Engines of Destruction" chapter
(http://www.foresight.org/EOC/EOC_Chapter_11.html) of his classic Engines
of Creation. "Some force in the world (whether trustworthy or not) will
take the lead in developing assemblers; call it the 'leading force.'
Because of the strategic importance of assemblers, the leading force will
presumably be some organization or institution that is effectively
controlled by some government or group of governments," Drexler writes.



And this, indeed, is happening, with many countries throwing lots of money
at becoming the leading force. Even the Bush administration, which I
despise on a number of levels (all right, every level), has increased its
investment in nanotechnology
(http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:2kbPEhISAhgC:www.tqc.iu.edu/News/Exo
skeleton_MIT.htm+US+nanotechnology+spending+military&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) while
pulling money from all sorts of other programs.



It's no secret that militaries love nanotechnology
(http://www.nano.org.uk/thisweek07.htmhttp:/www.nano.org.uk/thisweek07.htm
). So it would be suicide for any country to give up nano research while
other countries moved forward.



Suppose the ETC Group were successful and got nanotechnology research
blocked in both the EU and the US on moral and ethical concerns. Would we
feel comfortable ceding the technological high ground to, say, China?



Countries that turn from nanotechnology would put themselves at strategic
risk both commercially and militarily. The US is pursuing this
head-in-the-sand approach to therapeutic cloning, thereby ensuring that
biotech grows in Switzerland and elsewhere
(http://www.redherring.com/investor/2003/02/biotech021303.html).



Stopping nanotechnology is neither possible nor desirable. We'd only be
establishing future servitude to someone offshore who creates the first
working assembler. Or worse: We would eliminate public funding and all the
research would disappear into the Pentagon's black budget, which covers
who-knows-what.

Bad aim


Quite simply, The Big Down has all the wrong targets.



Take its attack on some mythical nanotech corporate conspiracy. "For every
so-called 'Luddite' attempting to establish social controls over the
introduction of a technology, there is a powerful elite using social
controls to impose new technologies on society," reads the end of the
conclusions chapter.



Really? I have to confess that I haven't seen this all powerful atomtech
lobby at work. I've seen the Oil administration reduce funding for
alternative fuels, lead us backward on cloning technologies and risk WWIII
primarily on behalf of stasist fossil fuel interests. Please give me a
call when the solar sat
(http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_solarpower_01030
2.html) and bio energy (http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/) lobbies work their
malevolent mojo and get their billion-dollar corporate welfare subsidies.



Also, what's odd here is that we have an environmental group attacking a
technology that holds so much promise for reducing our dependency on
fossil fuels. Nanotechnology could, for example, raise the efficiency of
solar panels
(http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:L0O7ydEjfPEC:library.northernlight.c
om/FE20020328160000071.html+Nanosys+solar+energy&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) and make
them cheap and affordable.



I hope we don't need any precautions here.

The better way is the only way


Condensed into one line, ETC Group's concern is this: There is not enough
democratic debate and consultation about world-shattering Singularity
(http://www.betterhumans.com/Resources/Theories/theory.aspx?articleID=2002
-05-22-4)-level technologies.



And heck, I actually agree with this assessment. What good are life
extension therapies, for example, if I can't pay for them out of pocket
and don't have health insurance?



But a moratorium on nanotechnology is, quite simply, dumb. What we need to
do is bring advanced technology back into the public domain. And this
requires improving our democracies.



One of the reasons I'm for space exploration and new constitutions and new
settlements -- an ocean-going yacht might do even -- is that it's almost
impossible to change the US for the better. If we wanted to change the US,
we'd need an independent media that could question the emptiness and
hypocrisy of consumer culture and our politics of bribery. (True, there's
indy media, but compared to Fox news?) Then you would have to use the
media relentlessly to hammer away at the two-party system and its monied
entrenchment.



You would need a billion dollars in funding from the Hollywood Left,
George Soros, Norman Lear and others to create such change. But it would
get the US moving toward a world federalist position, complete public
financing of elections and a declaration that genomic, artificial
intelligence and nanotechnology advances would be put into the public
domain.



It would take about 10 years minimum. But it will never happen.



I mean, it's possible. But only in the way that it's possible for me to
gain the ability to levitate.



A more promising goal might be for us to encourage the founders of
nanotechnology, at work as we speak, to opt for open source development
(http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT8/Abstracts/Bruns/).



I remember stating a long time ago that the Microsoft lawsuit
(http://www.cptech.org/ms/nader-doj01282002.html) would go nowhere because
they would simply buy off the system
(http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/contrib.asp?Cmte=RPC). And that's what
happened.



I believed that the real threat to Microsoft was Linux and the open source
movement. This has come to pass
(http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/03_09/B382203linux.htm). It
takes technology to counter technology. Lawsuits and public dialogue move
too slow.



And this is what we need: Some kind of mandate that would put the core
underpinnings of nanotechnology under some liberal version of a Creative
Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/). Remember, the Internet is
built upon open source architecture.



Nanotechnology definitely needs its version of Tim Berners Lee, someone
who develops ideas for the common good.  In my honest opinion, that would
result not only in more public input and controls, but better science.



Now, you won't be able to stop the future -- for better or worse, a
300-year lifespan and a tripling of IQs is coming. But the upside for The
Big Down folks is that open sourcing Singularity-level technologies would
give us more choice in not only how we use them, but how they use us.

A Tribute to the Late and Great Speculative Artist Leo Dillon

Legendary artist Leo Dillon, of the legendary and interracial (from way back in the 50s when you could get lynched for that kind of thing...) artistic couple Leo and Diane Dillon, passed away on Tuesday. I could never figure out who did what (I heard one story about how they could finish each other strokes...) but the results were astonishing.

Here's all the art I could find.

 

 

PA Green Party Sensibly Chooses Jill Stein over Roseanne Barr for presidential nominee.

(Commentary with links.)

Crossposted at my Progressive Examiner Post.

The Green Party of Pennsylvania sensibly chose not silly candidate Jill Stein over the slightly silly candidate Roseanne Barr for their presidential nominee several days ago. Yet it was actually a pretty tight race as Stein only won by four points with a 51 to 47 percent margin. They're also doing it proportional representation style even though Jill Stein has won all 20 contests so far, according to the Green Party press release.

Just personally, I just don't think that Roseanne Barr would be the best candidate for the Green Party. I can sort of imagine Jill Stein being a real contender if she was able to raise about 100 million dollars or so. I guess I'm curious why Barr, who has a reported net worth of $80 million (Wouldn't swear by the source but that seems about right for a successful sitcom star...)doesn't just become a kind of rainmaker for the party where she would wield the same kind of power. She could be the Karl Rove of the Green Party...

 A while back I wrote that 35 million was the sweet spot to fund viable third party races, about 10 million for five modest senate races and $200 grand for 25 or so house seats. It was called the 5/25 Plan. You could actually win a race if you spent those kinds of amounts on a pervasive field canvass and even real ads during the last month of the campaign. It sure would be fun to find out. Here's a place to give $45000 to a progressive 527 if Ms. Barr or anyone else is so inclined to give it a try.

Roseanne, of course, wouldn't have to come up with the entire 35 million but if she gave other members of the Hollywood Left might decide to give it a try. Just dreaming out loud. She would be more effective as a financial backer than as the face of the party.

Anyway, here's the rest of the press release sent to me by the Pennsylvania Green Party:

The Green Party of Pennsylvania has completed its balloting for a presidential nominee and can now announce that Dr. Jill Stein, a Massachusetts physician, has defeated actress-comedian Roseanne Barr in a hotly contested and close race conducted through caucus events in areas with established Green Party locals.  Stein will receive four of Pennsylvania’s seven delegates by virtue of her taking 51% of the votes cast.  Barr secures three delegates through her taking of 47% of caucus support.  Kent Mesplay of San Diego, California also competed in the Green primary and received 2%, not enough support to claim any of the state’s delegates.

Upon learning of her Pennsylvania victory Stein noted, “I am grateful to have the support of the Pennsylvania Greens in their state caucuses.  The national Green Party is united as never before for a strong voice in the 2012 Presidential election, at a time when the public has been clamoring for a principled alternative to the establishment parties that have brought us to the breaking point.”  She also said she will aid the Greens in securing access to the PA General Election ballot  adding, “I look forward to working with Pennsylvanians to get the Green Party on the ballot, and give Pennsylvania a chance to vote for the solutions they are clamoring for : an end to unemployment, health care as a human right through Medicare for All, an end to student debt and foreclosures, free public higher education, bringing the troops home, ending climate change and especially putting an end to fracking.”  To date the Green Party has had contests in 19 states and the District of Columbia and Stein has won all 20 contests.  She is now slightly more than halfway to the 206 delegates needed to be assured the presidential nomination at the United States Green Party National Convention, to be held in Baltimore July 12, through July 19.

Between April 10, and May 14, the Pennsylvania Greens held caucuses around the state.  Berks County (Reading) started the caucus season; while Lancaster County was the final county holding and event.  “Since we are prohibited from participating in the PA Primary Election, we have to fund our primary season on our own, I believe the Democrats and Republicans should do likewise and spare the taxpayer” said Jay Sweeney of Wyoming County and Green Party Steering Committee member.  “Our folks were awesome.  We had caucuses from the Buzz Café in Philadelphia to Citizen Power in Pittsburgh; from Pennsylvania businesses like Boscov’s in Wilkes-Barre and Greenline Paper in York; from the Swarthmore Borough Building to Keystone College; our locals put together 13 caucuses.” Sweeney added.  

The Green Party of Pennsylvania is an independent political party that stands in opposition to the two corporate parties.  The Green Party of Pennsylvania stands for grassroots democracy, social justice, non violence and ecology.  

For more information visit our web page or call 888-721-4733.

Jill Stein http://www.jillstein.org/

Roseanne Barr http://roseanneforpresident2012.org/

Kent Mesplay http://mesplay.org/

Green Party of Pennsylvania   http://www.gpofpa.org/

Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org/

2012 Green Party Presidential Nominating Convention http://www.gpconvention2012.com/

Commentary with links.

They used to have a place at the Examiner where you could state that what you were doing was a kind of editorial news. So I'm using this site to do that.

If I link to this page then I'm writing an editorial backed up by facts and links. It's not quite objective news because I'm taking a perspective. But if I do it correctly you will learn something.

Sign the Amnesty International pledge against Shell Oil.

ITEM: Something interesting from Amnesty International. Now that we have an African American president I'm sure he'll take care of this. Or they'll use an African American president to kill Muslims and excuse the usual kinds of expropriation that evil multinationals do abroad, especially in Africa. I'm sure its one of those options...Sign the pledge.

May Day Rally at 5:30 PM today at Freedom's Corner, Hill District.

ITEM: May Day Rally to be held today.

Review of Hyperink's "Understanding SOPA and PIPA". Short version: Not good.

This was the second book that I was supposed to write for Hyperink. The book Hyperink ended up publishing is not a very good book and in fact is far inferior to the book that I turned into them.  That's what I get for trying to explain that fair use isn't plagiarism. But I do intend to self publish that book that I wrote, written by a guy who knew what the fuck he was talking about. Oh, I spent my 2.99 on the book and you know what? There is a reader response section. Well, I'm a 12 year member in good standing over there at Amazon...I think I'll make a comment or two...Do you have any idea how I wished I had this tool of the Internet when I was beginning my career? You have no idea...(On the other hand, I wouldn't have appreciated this power! This would have been something that I would take for granted as things I could do. You have to remember those days to value the present...)

Oh look. My Amazon review was approved! And here it is:

  Poorly researched "objective" book written for dumb laymen, not "hackers"., March 26, 2012

By Philip Shropshire

This review is from: Hacker's Guide To SOPA and PIPA (Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act) (Kindle Edition)

Well, first, the book that I delivered to you was a much better, much more intelligent, much better researched book than the "book", and I use that term loosely, that you actually decided to go with. Its a very good study of why the corporate mentality doesn't produce writing of interest, intelligence or vitality.

Two, the book is written for four year olds, not hackers. For example, there are workarounds to SOPA and PIPA, everything from browser encryption protocols to the old TOR network to virtual private networks. None of this is even hinted at in this poor excuse of an effort. It's not even stylishly written. Joshua should stick to code.

Three, there are a total of about seven links in this "book". (What's the nonfiction term for "short story"?)and there is almost nothing verified about any of its declaratory statements. For example, when he talks about how  "The Acts were primarily aimed at preventing U.S. Internet users from accessing illegal content", well, everybody who's anybody on the Internet disagrees with you Joshua. What's actually really really amazing is that Marc Andreessen, the guy who gave Kevin Gao, the founder of Hyperink, over 1 million in funding(!), also hates the bill! Look up "An Open Letter to Washington" on the Google...I believe Marc's exact words were that these bills would "give the US Government the power to censor the web using techniques similar to those used by China, Malaysia and Iran..." Perhaps Marc should have a good talking to with Kevin about the kinds of harmful laws that can destroy everyone's business model, including Hyperink's!

Four, it totally misses the point that the war continues with both the ACTA and TPP treaties. Inexcusable. These treaties would accomplish what SOPA and PIPA failed to do. Again, something that real hackers would want to know and that real writers would write about. Not info found in this 2000 word essay.

Five, it's "gizmodo" not "gizomodo". What do you pay your editors for anyway?

Bottom line: not worth nine cents let alone $2.99. You would be better off looking at Wikipedia entries. Pathetic. And you know what? I don't even blame Joshua. I blame his editors and his publisher. You get what you pay for. There's a difference between "objective" and "advocacy" journalists. Here you needed an advocate for your own damn business model.

 Sincerely,

Philip Shropshire

The Republican woman in this illustration begins to question her allegiance to the GOP....

ITEM: Found on Facebook. Why do the ladies vote Republican? There are signs that there will be less of that in light of this War against common sense contraception...

Yes I'm pissed off at that Trayvon Martin shooting. Who wouldn't be?

 I am, like most African Americans, deeply pissed off over the murder of Trayvon Martin in Florida. A black kid who I resembled at 17 and who resembled the current president and also the current attorney general. There isn't much I can do except fume however I wish the two slightly more powerful African Americans that I mentioned would make an angry comment or two. I guess Zimmerman has to be a dim witted terrorist you're entrapping or a medical marijuana facility in order to get the attention of those guys...no I'm not impressed by just the grand jury. I remember the everything is fine federal verdict on the Jordan Miles beatdown, not to mention not intervening in that Georgia death penalty case, or betraying me on Keystone and the public option...Washington Generals party indeed.

Atheist Billboard with questionable imagery not popular with the saved...apparently.

(This happened some weeks ago. Just getting around to posting it here...)

ITEM: Probably not the best way to convert black religious people to the joys of faithlessness (Does keep your Sunday mornings relatively free...) but it is an effort. Actually, if you read the article, which I eventually did, they're not trying to. They're looking for people who have doubts about the whole communion good times after death stuff. I suppose African American humanists are more subtle small steps kind of billboard people. Some reaction from Harrisburg's right wing rag, a very conservative paper that probably represents Pennsyltucky very well.

Related: Facebook conversation featuring religious people talking about the billboard. Verdict: Not popular with the saved.