Monday, January 28, 2008

Cartoon for January 28


Click on the cartoon to make it bigger.
Posted by at

5 comments:

  1. Aggie DudeJanuary 28, 2008 at 11:38 AM

    My immediate boss pointed out a disturbing reality to me last fall, since she works on food safety regulation and has a lot of familiarity with how these laws get passed.

    Very much like the prestige and advancement of scholars is based on publication -often leading to a glut of rather useless publications- advancement and prestige in the US Congress is based on writing legislation.

    So Food Safety law is a mish-mash of legislation demanding many things but all ending up in a confusing, punitive, and expensive system that doesn't necessarily make the food we eat safer.

    The clustergaggle of food safety laws without an actual "food safety policy" is but one example of the consequence of basing Congressional productivity on the passage of legislation, rather than the implementation of policies -through legislative means- that directly relate to the achievement of specific goals.

    Two elements of your clever cartoon catch my eye with this regard; One is the comment about Hillary's success in Congress, and what it's based on, and second is the comment about Obama's support of war funding.

    Rather than major legislation pushed, decisions to support legislation moving through are probably far more important. One wonders if the legislative record of these two ambitious candidates is related more to the establishment of a record from which to run for a major party (For example, Fred Thompson's Congressional record was at once utterly useless to the progress of the nation, and completely consistent with someone who is establishing a record to run on later) or out of of the desire to improve the functioning of our society.

    Clinton seems to have come out on the wrong side of right in recent years, and Obama's support of war funding appears on the surface to be baffling. However I'm not entirely convinced that this is an essential aspect of the decision of who should become President.

    Certainly it plays a roll in the fact that legislators almost never win presidential elections. Mitt Romney is pushing that statistic pretty hard in his fight against Rambo.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MGuyJanuary 28, 2008 at 3:17 PM

    Good point, AG. But why stop there?

    Prestige of police and prosecutors is based on the number of civilians converted into convicts, so the prison population continues to grow without regard to crime rates, actual guilt, or the consequences to society. Most people are paid by the hour to work lame, low wage jobs, the incentive being to milk the clock, getting sleep deprived and wrung out while accomplishing nothing. This is fun, in a sick sort of way. What are some other examples, folks?

    One growing concern I have about Clinton is in the nature of her followers. Not since Reagan have I seen a politician with so many supporters who cannot articulate WHY they are supporters. Ask them, and you get platitudes. Challenge them, and you get transparent doubletalk wrapped around platitudes. Challenge them further, and they get angry at the insolence. After all, she is heiress to the throne, right? Who are we to question her ascention? Obama is slightly better in this way because his supporters can at least say "he's slightly to the left of Clinton."

    Oh, and the cartoon: this pretty much nails it. Except for the Condi Rice part, because the real punchline is when the Green party runs Cynthia McKinney. What do these people say then?

    ReplyDelete
  3. MGuyJanuary 28, 2008 at 3:18 PM

    AG? I meant AD. I'm just not cut out for abreviations

    ReplyDelete
  4. Aggie DudeJanuary 28, 2008 at 9:56 PM

    I get that sense from supporters of many different leaders -overall it is the problem of being forced to support leaders rather than supporting issues and having public servants carry them out through public discourse, negotiation and/or referendums. We're forced to anoint a ruler and then hope for the best.

    The more cult of personality around someone usually the less their supports know why they support them. With Clinton, I would add that more people are incapable of explaining why they DON'T like her.

    But that's the insidiousness of marketing and advertising. She's been branded by the media as unlikeable and then people find themselves feeling that she is unlikeable. I even struggle with this and I RECOGNIZE the process that's at work. That's how overpowering media influence is!!!

    Even when you know it is acting upon you, it makes it no less real! Hillary's positions are actually left of her husband's as well. She could potentially be a much more progressive force. Obama is inspirational and I think that's a good thing as well. I think that may be one of the reasons why the liberal elite establishment is so angry whenever anyone criticizes him; I don't think it's because he's black, I think it's because they view criticism as stomping on inspiration.

    Why is it so hard for us to accept being inspired by anything but war heroics and God? He is inspiring, he's a great speaker, and that alone is worth considering especially on the night of the state of the union, an annual embarrassment to being American these days.

    ReplyDelete
  5. angeloJanuary 29, 2008 at 1:58 PM

    Report Cards
    Bush:
    Policy (0/100)
    Speaking (0/100)

    Obama:
    Policy (N/A)
    Speaking (90/100)

    Reagan:
    Policy (0/100)
    Speaking (93/100)

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)