Garfield Without the Cat's Thought Balloons:

Garfield without the cat's thoughts: random cartoons

Garfield without the cat's thoughts: Jon goes into Madness

Here's a couple of links which takes a look at that most generic of all comics: Garfield. Thing is, they take away Garfield's thought balloons and leave Jon talking to himself.

Very existential, and sometimes morbid. Can also be funny, with the right cartoons.

There's also been some odd items where Garfield was totally removed, and also a Garfield randomizer which was removed when Mr. Davis (owner of Garfield) realized it was funnier than he'd ever be and "Intellectual Property'd" it out of existence.

Do I hate Garfield? Nah. Could care less about it, as it's probably the blandest thing out there. I've seen much better, smarter, and more sensual comics die untimely deaths while stuff that makes pablum look tasty, juicy and colorful lives on and on.

Just my two cents worth.

2004: The year the moral shoe dropped

1981. Ronald Reagan was elected to office thanks so some dodgy activities by Iran and the good luck of running against a president who was both unlucky and bad. After getting shot by some lovesick dweeb (It makes total sense to me that Jodie Foster's queer. Thank you, Hinkley.), he was able to crush the PATCO union, setting off the persecution of workers that marked the Reagan Administration. The Minimum Wage becoming useless.

Thus the economic shoe was dropped. This is why CEOs get millions of dollars specifically for disinvesting in America and looting worker's retirement funds. This is why unemployment is now considered God's Justice. That's why Bankrupcy law now only exists for corporations (the bankruptcy law needed adjusting, not gutting and ruining).

2004. A president who got in thanks to his brother's fixing the vote in Florida (and a Democratic Candidate who chose to lose instead of admit the party's need for Black voters) gets a(n appearant) majority of the popular vote the second time. As such, it counts as a mandate (twice: first for gaining in percentage of votes, second because before he had the minority of votes and now he got the majority of votes) not just for him, but for the Xians who supported him at the pulpits and ballots.
      

Thus we see the moral shoe drop. How far this will go is not yet known, but already there've been changes: A historically conservative justice nominee was tossed aside for a known moral conservative. One state (admittedly the least important state in the union) has taken the two rulings (Roe v Wade: No Bans on Abortion; Doe v Bolton: Must Allow for Life and/or Health of Mother) to its most restrictive interpretation: Abortion allowed ONLY in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. Other states are jumping at the bit to take that step, and should the Supreme Court accept it (No need for reshaping precident -- as I stated above, it can be read as fitting in the Roe v Wade/Doe v Bolton mix) be assured that you'll be able to count the states with "liberal" abortion laws (allows for incest and rape, also some overly busy clinics for other cases) on two hands (although not with all fingers and thumbs).

And no, this isn't paranoia talking: Voting Christians are the most active group in politics (outside of the corporatistas, of course) in the United States. And while it's supposed to be majority rule (or consideration), usually it's those who shout the loudest that get what's theirs. And who was the largest group of voters in 2004? Voting Christians, with 22% of voters, 40+% of Bush's support. Needless to say, the loudest voice gets heard and listened to and obeyed; just watch the laws passed.

Just read "Why America Stopped Voting"

Okay, so I'm a bit late on this, but I finished reading the above listed book recently and found it a good, interesting read.

The gist of the book goes like this:

1. In the last two decades of the 19th century almost everyone who could vote, voted. While this excluded most of the women, it included every man -- even those who had not yet become US Citizens. And they voted often, as votes were planned monthly and many seats were up for election every year.


2. The two parties were a part of everyday life. Everything was done to whip up support for the party, every day. This, of course, included every tactic under the sun, from those supporting their people to those ripping at the other to activities now deemed illegal and immoral (many votes were paid for back in these days).
   
   
3. The benefits of winning elections were enormous for the party faithful. The parties had control of where the money went, so many benefits that came from the Government (mail, roads, infrastructure, help) went to those who supported the winning side. This also led to a corruption society in government that led to instability at various points.
   
   
4. The parties were wide-ranging collections of groups. Some groups were steadfast with one party, other groups went with parties depending on what was going on around them, still others could shift around at will. Many kept a watchful eye at what was going on, and were bound to jump if they didn't see enough benefit from their support.
   
   
5. The result was a very instable government, in which seats weren't held for long and the balance of power could shift wildly every two or four years. Indeed, actions meant to extend the power of the party in power would often backfire, leading to an amazing amount of instability.


6. Due to various forces (some not talked about in the book, as his focus are elections activites and their effects), voting begins to go down amongst the young.


7. Reforms done in the early part of the 20th century add to the dropping rates of participation by making active participation harder and harder for many. From anti-immigrant activites to centralized (government-paid) ballots to measures meant to exclude blacks from voting (and reaching onto poorer, less literate whites) in the South to the expansion of an independent civil service, the reforms make it harder and harder for people to vote.


8. As a result, the parties retreat to their spheres of influence: The North goes Republican and the South goes Democrat.

(Note that we're talking old Democrat vs old Republican. Changes have happened since then that have flipped the parties around, a change which has actually been reflected in the map colorations -- the party colors have been changed but the coloration based on regions has stayed consistent.)

It's interesting to hear the press complain about people not voting; while I'd like to see more Democratic voters (and maybe more reason to vote Democratic without holding one's nose), I wonder if anyone REALLY wants to see what it would take to get 80% or more of the voting public to actually vote.

Also leads to an understanding of how the Republicans see themselves (more on that later...).

Side Benefit to Pregnancy??

Babies' Cells Linger, May Protect Mothers

Interesting thought, that through childbirth a woman can gain protection and healing. Does sound too good to be true, but it would be an intriguing partial explanation as to married (i.e. with children) women living longer than single (i.e. childless) women.

(If you're talking men, that has a more straightforward answer: Married men eat better, sleep better, and are watched over more by their wives than single men are. The discipline from marriage also helps out. That's why most men joke about marriage but seek it out: we men know the benefits and want them for ourselves.)

Also leads me to some thoughts on another "Too Good To Be True" idea: Abortion Leads to Breast Cancer (Too Good To Be True means it's believed because it fits your beliefs, not because of any truth behind the claim.). If both end up proven to act in real life, I could see a link in the two: Breast cells that have changed partway to produce milk may be receptive to "foreign" stem cells which cause them to mutate.

But let's remember: we're talking possibilities, nothing even tested out. The Abortion/Breast Cancer link has been pretty much shown as almost nonexistent in studies (look at the link above; there's a hint at mid-term and late-term, but nothing solid yet), while the post-childbearing healing powers of pregnancy are merely (widely) whispered about. Still, they're ideas worth looking at, but only ideas. Nothing to base life choices around, yet.

God Help Writers, Artists and Us All if Leigh and Baigent Win Their Court Case

Da Vinci Code sued for Plaigarism

I hope to God that the plaintiffs don't win this case.

Here's the implication if the plaintiffs win: Knowledge is now copyrighted. Copyrighted in that you have to pay the owner of the piece of knowledge for knowing it. For ninety years.

I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA are following this avidly. After all, we're talking about the ownership of songs. With the right technology, we could see constant reenactments of Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind in record stores and courts for a long time.

---

Why am i worried about corporations erasing people's memories? Simple: Ownership not only implies the right of use, but the right to dictate non-use. In short, if Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent win the court case, they can actually dictate that authors and others are barred from reading their book and gleaning the (questionable, in my opinion) knowledge within. And, theoretically, if they can bar knowledge, they could remove this knowledge.

Now, what would it take to remove knowledge from the mind?

Consider this: Once you stick something in your mind, it may die out or it may connect to other items in your memory. If you embrace it, the connections grow deep. Try to erase the original item without erasing these side items. If the item becomes a matter of faith with a multitude of connections to other items, can we expect a major change in personality?

And what happens when that piece of knowledge has a strong connection with the society that individual runs around with? Imagine someone losing friends, work, knowledge of his surroundings, habits -- and unable to have any sort of regular life because of the inability to learn that piece of knowledge that would link you to all these things.

And if that knowledge in intimately related to your family -- say goodbye to your identity.

THAT'S what we're going to deal with if Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent win their case. And not just for some book loaded with enough falsehoods to sink a ship.

What Rocked about the Eighties

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=13612391Okay, as I promised: What was good about the eighties. A smaller list, imho, but equally important.

1. The Underground
   As Radio became blander and more backwards looking with both "New Hits WVIC" on top of the Lansing Radio heap and "Classic Rock WMMQ" inventing the format that would take over FM radio (where Country wasn't involved), there was always the local scene. You could go to your locally owned record store (new or used), and if the owner went about his business right you could find out what was going on locally, regionally or nationally. You could find stuff that the mall chains had no idea existed, plus magazines and other bits of info that would make the world outside of the mainstream tolerable.
   
   Alas, this resource has shrunk down in recent years. Between video games, the internet and mp3 trading via P2P networks, the record store has become pretty much obsolete. There's still some around, but not nearly as many; and the college market, once the best place to find the odd, unique and underground items, has been decimated.


2. College Radio Format
   Okay, so many reference may be skewered by the fact that Michigan State got their college format radio station in 1989. But consider this: College radio became a way for many bands now barred from popular radio's narrowing formats.
   
   While not spread out across the nation (let's just say one would be hard-pressed to find alternative music in the middle of Missouri or northern Georgia), it definitely opened the ears of a truely appreciative audience. And it was these people who would take their tastes into the rest of the nation in the nineties, and why many groups from the early eighties went from college darlings to mainstays of radio.

This list isn't as big as the "What Sucks" list, but is important because sometimes one piece of good is better than ten items that suck.

Because good DOES have a power that evil doesn't.

Ten Things That Sucked About Music in the 80's

Okay, so I'm being a bit long-winded here, but probably the biggest thing about music today is that it seems to have inhereted the worst aspects of the eighties without welcoming any of the good things I remember about that time. Kinda sad that every time I listen to the radio for music I find myself wishing for the days when the idea of "sucking" was that the radio could have used more of my music, not that it didn't like music.

Anyway, here's my list: Top Ten Things That Sucked About Music In The 1980's (and that suck more today)

10. Is It Live, or Is It Memorex?
    In 1976, ELO got in trouble because they used some tape here and there in their concerts (or they lip-sync'd the whole thing -- depends on who you talk to). In 1985, much of the Duran Duran show used taped sequences, and a few years later Milli Vanilli would use frontmen as lipsynking props, much to everyone's seeming shock and dismay.
    
    Nowadays there are acts whom it's known lipsinks through their concert (indeed, their acts dictate that they must); indeed the present crime seems to be bad lipsynking or not knowing what to do when the background isn't what you want it to be.


9. The Development of the Megahit LP/CD
   In the 1970's you had billion-selling albums because the album was both artistically original and touched the soul of millions. "Tapestry" told of losing and gaining love, "Rumors" was about holding onto the good of a bad relationship. Accidental megahits, both; and proof that mass appeal didn't have to mean a pile of shit was sold to the masses.
   
   Then came "Thriller," and the game was changed. While it had something for everyone, there was nothing in it that reached into the heart.
   
   Michael Jackson never recovered. Neither has the music industry. And artists suffer: where once you had abiding loyalties you now have one-album wonders who put out five albums to diminishing returns and fanbases.


8. The Rise of Pseudo-Country music.
   Country becomes lame enough for mass-consumption. America gloms on lame country stereotypes, revels in a past they spent running away from the past two centuries.


7. Hair-Metal.
   Now admittedly this wasn't what they called themselves. I can't blame them for this, as I wouldn't want to be known as a group that spent more time in front of a mirror than practicing for the next gig, either.
   
   In many ways, this was the final, fatal outcome of trends within music during the eighties. Bands that once had to spend years practicing their chops found themselves bestowed with multi-million dollar contracts for the sole reason of being in the right place at the right time with the right look. Looks became more important than sound. And once you had your big hit, good luck hitting the charts after that.


6. "Positive Mental Attitude" Music.
   Do I honestly need to hear eighteen thousand songs telling me to chase my dreams and believe in myself? Especially when nobody else wants to believe in me or find out about my dreams, and the system is setting itself up to oppose such actions? And why does the edification get measured purely in terms of money and things? Since when did the word "We" become criminal?


5. The Isolation of Tastes via Formats
   Used to be you listened to a pop station, you got to hear a little of everything: some country, some rock, some pop, some R&B, even the occasional novelty song. Now each of these formats has thier own station, and only in lame format ideas that view variety as an aspect of the past to be invoked when playing "older songs" only (like the JACK(off) format) are they allowed to mix with any sort of freedom.


4. The CD Format.
   With LPs, you had two sides with up to 20 minutes (25 if you wanted to really squeeze things in), which gave a limit to work with, so you had to choose and edit what you chose. Double LPs were signs of bravado and confidence in your spurt of creativity, they're usually revered because such confidence was usually justified -- to put out a release with two slabs of vinyl instead of one, you'd better be sure your stuff was good enough to be worth both slabs.
   
   Then came the CD with its single 74 (now 80) minute platter. Now you could throw everything onto that disk, including the nineteen minute epic (that would rock out at a six minutes, or better yet be a hit at four), and justify it as "giving your customers thier full money's worth."
   
   Too many did just that. From Robert Palmer to Tori Amos and many more, uncooler artists to boot.
   
   A now-dead friend of mine had his own comment to this: "Triple Albums should have been Double Albums, Double Albums should have been Single Albums, and Single Albums should have been EPs (twenty minutes, faster play time, lower cost)." Add to this the idea that Doubled CD Releases (Springsteen, Guns 'n' Roses) should have been shrunk down to a single disk.


3. Reissues.
   Didn't matter if it was put out on cassette or CD, the reissues were almost always crappy, half-baked affairs complete with blank insides and cookie-cutter formats. The only thought put into them was to see how small they could make the front cover of the LP look on a cassette cover.


2. MTV bought by Warner Brothers.
   When it was first out, it brought interesting music by bands willing to try out a mix of visuals and music, the pox of Rod Stewart's sellout period to the contrary. However, once Warner Brothers got into the Video Showing business, art became covered up by commerce. Thousand-dollar video budgets were replaced by million dollar video budgets, and outsider groups were replaced by the old guard. Worse yet, the video became the center of the song, not tunes, the singer or the song.


1. The New Fame Cycle.
   Used to be bands would slog years and create a sound that both was true to themselves and connected with the audience. Bob Segar comes to mind in this instance -- an artist who spent ten, twelve years making music, then figuring out a way of staying true to himself while appealing to an audience large enough to fill stadiums. And it wasn't just Segar himself, many artists of the seventies worked their wares to the point where it was both good and popular, and the fans were rewarded.
   
   Then, in the eighties we started learning of a new fame curve: Sign, write immature songs, make hits, move on to more mature stuff, watch your audience leave you for newer bands.
   
   Now, you're given two CDs to make your case. And if that first one doesn't sell millions of platters, don't expect any support for the second CD.
   
   You don't get that in Country. Country may suck, but the format still makes you prove yourself before working you through their machine. And guess what: Country thrives. Coincidence? I think not.

Next posting (if I don't get one of the items I presently have in the editing queue polished enough to post): What was good in the eighties (and still survives in some form).

Dissolve The Democratic Party?

Time For a New Party(?)

Interesting topic, interesting viewpoint, good tack. I agree with the idea that the Dems have gone from being the party in power to the opposition party to what I call the "Straw Party" used to identify enemies to abuse and neglect.

Problem is, I'm not sure I want the Democratic Party to dissolve.

Not because I suddenly believe that Abortion should become a rite of passage for our girls to enter into adulthood with. Not because I've learned that the Democratic party has suddenly become the party of stand-ups and that the rest of non-corporatista America is about to learn that truth and line up to join. Not because the democrats suddenly realized that they could make the Republicans a moot party by changing their mind on Abortion.

But because I don't think that a second party could now legally arise in this nation.

Seriously: the way the laws are set up presently make it almost impossible for a third party to make it to the ballot at many places, and unless they receive a certain amount of votes in an election they have to go through the same thing again next time. Makes things hard for a new party to make it, and imagine some single-party state using the rules to make it impossible for an opposition party to even exist.

---

Anyway, here's a list of possible happenings, as my limited viewpoint lets me see:

1. The Democratic Party dissolves, the Republicans Split into Two


• Hoped For: The Christian Right remembers Jesus's teachings, takes on the Democrat's pre-1972 idea of standing up for the little man. While abortion may become illegal, it actually becomes folded in with the idea of caring for everyone -- and the corporatistas become the minority.


• Feared: Corporatistas rule both parties, the question becomes who'll be your God: Jehovah, or Wal-Mart (and be sure you give what both group considers their due, or suffer the consequences).


2. The Democratic Party Dissolves, Republicans stay as one party


• Hoped For: New party (somehow) arises, takes on almost all the Democrats and the Republicans who fear the Democrats but not a new party, makes the Corporatistas again the minority force.


• Most Feared: Republicans able to hold down outside dissent, give enough to the Christian right to keep them under control, create a Dictatorship of the Corporate elite


3. Democrats able to hold together


• Hoped For: Democrats start standing up, able to grab another group of voters on board.


• Feared: Democrats stay a straw party, eventually votes are faked so that certain areas are marked for attack and looting by the ruling party.

Finally: while it may be easier to enter into the Democratic Party and save it from the inside, there may not be enough time. I don't like the idea of destroying the Democratic Party (why risk letting the Republicans have a chance at creating one-party rule and recreating slavery while they're at it?) but it may need to be done.

News: Online Shopping More Satisfying Than B&M Shopping

Consumers Take to Online Buying

I remember that the skuttlebutt on Amway/Quixtar discussions was that Online Retailing was today what Catalogs were before the internet: Something for people who know what they want, what they want to give, or know they can't find what's in the store. If you can get it immediately, there's no reason to wait. Chances are, you could get it cheaper in the stores as well.

So went net wisdom. I, however, always added the caveat that the one thing Brick and Mortar stores had to concern themselves with was sales. Therefore, it was possible that Brick and Mortar stores could reduce their stock, forcing those of us who didn't fit their profile into looking onto the internet. (And something I didn't think up at the time: If they could make us buy at their e-store instead of their storefront, so much the better for them as they didn't have to stock as much to serve the same market).

---

Looks like that caveat may prove itself useful. As the linked story above notes, people get a better experience from shopping online than in the stores themselves. Aggregate satisfaction has improved three points over five years for online shopping, while Bricks and Mortar stores have dropped a half-point.

Brick and Mortar stores still hold a 97.5%/2.5% advantage over online stores, but the online place is growing MUCH faster.

---

A simple equation, really. When you buy online, you know that when you can't find something, it's not there. With Bricks-and-Mortar shopping, whehttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=13612391n you can't find an item it means the store chose not to stock it, which means it don't want to serve you.

Case in point: a recent visit to a store in Michigan City. I tried out some stuff, but what I was able to find that approximated me didn't quite fit, and little else was there for me to find. I left the place disappointed.

Of course, here's where the place will end up very happy: what I had wasn't cash, but a refund slip. I'll have to spend the money at their company anyway, so I'm going to go online to try to find what I want or need. If I don't find anything, I may end up having to buy gifts for people with it. :(

So what happens? The company gets to ship stuff instead of having to have its stock in various stores. I have to spend money getting the stuff shipped to me -- or, worse yet, maybe making a gift of something that was meant to be MY gift.

Not a happy prospect, and something I'd like to avoid in the future, if possible.

Insomnia, Or An Older Pattern Reasserting Itself?

Dreams Deferred -- New York Times Article

And for those who don't like the NYTimes, or think it's too liberal (trans: not yet to the right of Mr. Arthur Coltrane/Mrs. Ann Coulter) (or are too lazy to look it up), here's a distillation:

Americans have worried themselves into a tizzy over the lack of sleep they're getting -- so much so that they're doping themselves to sleep.

So much the pity.

First off, it's not like they have to worry about bedbugs, coldness, wild weather or pollution from trying to heat the house. We're also healthier than ever, meaning not only do we sleep well but so do those around us; and the poor have benefitted mightily, allowing them to do a full day's work.

Second, it's not as if the folks back then slept all night, even when they were able to do so comfortably. Their sleep was broken up into two parts, with a late night wakefulness to take care of business, or meditation or prayer...or pleasure, if both people were in the mood (and not necessarily the husband and wife, methinks...).

So what causes our present version of sleep, its one-segment throughout the night? Late night lighting. Remove late-night lighting from the night, and after a few weeks we shift to the historical version of sleep: sleep early, awake a little time at night, then sleep into the morning.

And that night wakefulness is different than the regular wakefullness we know and loathe. It's a calm version of wakefullness; an almost-welcome moment of peace which allows us to view the world in a more benign light. A period of time when you can be busy with your thoughts without the cares of the day invading -- is it any wonder the night has been praised throughout history?

It's also possible that our modern problem of Insomnia may be nothing more than the attempt of the body to return to its former pattern of sleep. Our attempts to impress on it the modern version of sleep (one long lock) may cause us more grief than relief.

I remember when I was going to college that I would nap whenever I got the chance. It was always during the later part of the afternoon, between the business of the day and the activities of the night; and almost always for an hour or two. I always liked it, as it allowed me an early-ish morning and a late night.

Now maybe it turns out that if I had gone to bed a bit earlier in the evening, I could have had a more enjoyable few hours late at night, with the poets and other nightlife, with a more peaceful mind and calmer presence.