PeterDavid.net

Am I the only one who thinks it ironic for John Byrne, who often rants on his message board that comics should be for kids, is shown in a comic strip testifying that comics aren't just for kids?

Hah. I like how the whole courtroom runs to the window to see the TV crew.

With the PTC coming out against shows like Family Guy, it's clear that there is still very-much a perception by some that comics and cartoon, by virtue of the very fact that they are animated, are for kids. And by default, not for adults. Despite how many cartoon strips and other "funnies" printed into newspapers (like Funky itself) are telling stories not for kids, but for all people, adult, child, whoever, so long as they have the intelligence to understand what's going on.

Our society's attempts at segregation continue to amaze and astound me.

"Am I the only one who thinks it ironic for John Byrne, who often rants on his message board that comics should be for kids, is shown in a comic strip testifying that comics aren't just for kids?"

Since I miss a lot of the Byrne rants, I didn't think of this. My thought was "hey, it sounds like they actually spoke with JB (and assumed they had, in order to get his permission to have him appear in the strip) and put in a quote from him."

Although there's a difference between saying that all comics should be for kids, and that superhero comics should be for kids.

Based on memories of John Byrne statements as well as his intense interest in history, I would not bat an eye if I heard that he testified in support of free speech.

Fred

For those reading the strip in the archives, this part of the storyline begins on November 12th. I recommend going there 1st, then heading forward.

On this site, reading the strip is really preaching to the converted: Most people here don't want any comic store shut down, many read mature comics (I didn't say porn (not that there's anything wrong with that) which include works as diverse as WATCHMEN, Y: THE LAST MAN and several Marvel Knights titles, and I'm sure quite a few are card-carrying members of the CBLFD.

The strip is important, though, for the general public to see. No matter how many comic books are made for grown-ups or win "serious" awards, there remains the belief that comics are "only" for children. And especially in the current political climate, censorship faces much more support and less opposition if it's somehow perceived as protecting kids. (I'm now hearing Maude Flanders shouting "Won't someone please think of the children?") As long as adult materials are kept in a distinct area from the mainstream books, a comic store should be able to carry any amout if adult materials it wants. (In the days before Blockbuster and Hollywood Video conquered the world, lots of video stores had an Adults Only section, usually in the back and behind curtains or doors, and no one moved to shut them down!) Let's assume that children aren't omnipresent and that adults can select what they like.

"I like how the whole courtroom runs to the window to see the TV crew."

Not the whole courtroom. What broke me up was the guy in the juror's box who was sleeping.

PAD

Den,

He doesn't say that "all" comics should be for kids, just that characters created for a younger audience (i.e., Superman, Batman, Spider-Man) should be in books accessible to said younger audience.

(In other words, no X-rated comics featuring Superman and Lois' wedding night.)

The sad part, of course, is that if they find they can't nail somebody on the "comics are for kids" garbage, they'll just press the "obscenity disguised as comics" angle in some other fashion.

Maybe add in a bit of "it'll make kids violent" spice.

And after that, the prosecution and the jurors will all go home and watch Desperate Housewives

He doesn't say that "all" comics should be for kids, just that characters created for a younger audience (i.e., Superman, Batman, Spider-Man) should be in books accessible to said younger audience.

And I didn't say that he said "all" comics should be for kids either (you can tell that because the word "all" doesn't appear in my post), but he often doesn't make the distinction in his rants.

As to why John Byrne -- Byrne actually drew Funky for a brief period there, when Batiuk needed a break.

Looking at the art style, I think Byrne may still be contributing to the strip in an unofficial capacity.

John Byrne's contributions to Funky Winkerbean (as a guest artist/writer) are at http://jbgallery.ourbunch.net/cgi-bin/funky.cgi

which wound up swaying the Castillo jury.

Allegedly swaying the Castillo jury. The only ones that lay claim to it having any sway over the jury is CBLDF, who botched the trial. All public court records indicate that the DA presented a solid case based on research and facts. The inability of CBLDF to obtain an appeal backs that up.

The inability of CBLDF to obtain an appeal backs that up.

You would think, but this was a Texas case and the Texas Supreme Court has denied appeals when the defendent's lawyer was found to have been sleeping during the trial.

5TH Court of Appeals

"Allegedly swaying the Castillo jury. The only ones that lay claim to it having any sway over the jury is CBLDF, who botched the trial. All public court records indicate that the DA presented a solid case based on research and facts. The inability of CBLDF to obtain an appeal backs that up."

That's not necessarily true. When you appeal, you are only granted an appeal on procedural/administrative errors, or clear errors of law. "The jury got it wrong" isn't, generally speaking, a strong basis to file an appeal on. You can't really challenge an error of fact on appeal. So all the absence of an appeal means is that there wasn't a legal basis on which to grant the appeal. It by no means that the right legal outcome was achieved.

Poor John has had enough problems. First losing the love of the first(?) woman to ever love him back and now this trial. Hopefully justice will be done properly this time, but you never know with Batiuk. Look at all the problems the other characters have had over the years.
Personally, I was hoping that John and Becky would get together, but that was before Wally was rescued and returned from Iraq.
But maybe that was for the best in the long run, considering it was Becky's mom that started all of John's legal troubles in the first place.
But even with Lisa representing him, there is no guarantee of a favorable verdict or low legal fees.
Of course he can always sell the engagement ring he bought for Becky to pay for his legal fees, considering he sold practically everything he personally owned of any real value to buy that in the first place.
Here's hoping for a big "Not Guilty".

Whilr we're on the subject of Texas, did you know that they recently outlawed all marriages?

HJR No. 6 Sec. 32(b)
This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/11/did_texas_just_1.html

Hah, took me a while (I'm slow sometimes) to see what people meant by outlawing all marriages. I read that, as I'm sure its drafters meant to say, that the state can't recognize any additional unions identicle to marraige. Of course, that's not what the language says.

So, yeah, Texas just abolished marraige. Which, y'know, mostly makes the whole problem go away.

To quote from the 5th Court of Appeals link above:

"In conducting this analysis, we may disagree with the jury's determination, even if probative evidence supports the verdict, but we must avoid substituting our judgment for that of the fact finder."

That is, Bobb is correct. The fact an appeal wasn't won, doesn't mean the Court of Appeals agreed with the original decision. Just that there was no legal reason to overturn it.

On the other hand...it does appear from a quick look through the decision, that the Texas decision was based on general obscenity. Not based on selling adult material to minors. It appears to me that the Prosecution was arguing nobody should be reading this material, even adults.

// 1Am I the only one who thinks it ironic for John Byrne, who often rants on his message board that comics should be for kids, is shown in a comic strip testifying that comics aren't just for kids? //

To be fair Byrne has never said that, what he has said, more or less, is that comics that were created for a kid audience, (like Superman and Batman), should still be done for a kids audience, (Which I kinda agree with BTW), and genres that were intended for children, (like the superhero genre) should still be done for children, (Which I don't totally agree with but think is a valid argument). He has no problem with adult comics like Sin City or his own Next Men.

He is however also in favor a ratings system for comics, which I certainly don't agree with. Nothing in his Funky appearance seems to contridict his personal beliefs and the guest appearance was done with his permission.

What I don't get is why the comic shop trial story was dropped for so long. Yes, in real life a trial often does take place months after the initial arrest, but to separate the arrest and trial by months in the comic strip- with, to the best of my knowledge, _no_ mention of the situation in the interim- doesn't make any sense. I found it annoying that the incident seemed to be dropped several months ago, and there are probably readers just picking up on the storyline who are annoyed that they don't know the details of what transpired in May.

That being said, that prosecutor sure is an idiot. Too bad that mindset exists in the real world.

Rick

P.S. Was that juror asleep, or just disheartened that all those lemmings had rushed to the window?

Oaky -- i don't think Byrne is currently working on "Funky". However, some time ago, Batiuk consciously altered his own style somewhat, bringing it somewhat nearer to Byrne's style after Byrne did the strip for at least a month -- the John/Becky near-romance sited by someone upline, which at least partially set up the arrest/trial. (The complainant is Bscky's mother who was only in the sotre because Backy had mentiond it.)

(For his birthday in that sequence, Becky consulted one of the other comic-savvy characters and got John a signed Byrne Wonder Woman sketch [duly shown in a panel] as a gift.)

Batiuk's been having quiet fun now and then; when Wally and Backy went to Afghanistan on a land-mine clearing project for their honeymoon, one of their neighbours, who is Chinese, presented Wsally with a "lcuky flight jacket" that his father had gotten from a young man who flew with the Flying Tigers -- with only a little effort, one could read the nametag: "T. Lee"

More on the appellate decision (thanks to Ham for posting the link).

The language cited by the court makes no reference to selling to minors. But I think it most likely that it played into the verdict reached by the jury. If this had been an issue of Juggs (or whatever), sold in some liquor store, it probably wouldn't have resulted in a conviction. But since it was sold at a comic store, frequented by at least some kids, I think the jury's opinion about what societal standards applied were of a higher nature. You could certainly take from the decision that the Demon Beast Invasion series in Texas was obscenity, but you could also take it as only obscene when sold over the counter in a comic shop. The same material, advertised in a adult-oriented magazine, and ordered directly through the mail (after an age verification check) might very well have been passed by this same jury as not obscene.

Which I guess means that, if you're an LCS in Texas, if you want to carry stuff like this, you'd better make sure to keep it very separate from the DC and Marvel stuff.

It's too bad the SCOTUS never took this case up (or maybe they did and I'm just ignorant of their decision).

"Which I guess means that, if you're an LCS in Texas, if you want to carry stuff like this, you'd better make sure to keep it very separate from the DC and Marvel stuff."

Which is what they did. Separate shelves or even sold from behind the counter.

PAD

"Won't someone please think of the children?"

At which point someone should pipe up with "We are, madam. We are trying to ensure they will grow up in a world where they can speak their piece without fear of self-appointed censors shutting them down. We are trying to see to it that they, and their children will be in a world which doesn't stiffle their development by smothering them with overprotection."

Nawww ... probably wouldn't fly.

"Which is what they did. Separate shelves or even sold from behind the counter."

I can't tell exactly from the opinion, but it sounds like he served 12 months probation (in lieu of 180 days in jail) and was fined $4,000? So long as this case is applied very narrowly, I don't see it as a huge erosion of free speech rights. The LCS I grew up with, and the one I go to today, both have the "adult" material either in a seperate area, behind a gate that's monitored by store employees, or behind the counter. As a parent, I'd not worry about sending my kid into those stores, and wonder if maybe they were going to come out with something I'd rather they not have just yet. On the other hand, a shop that doesn't keep such a separate section probably wouldn't get my patronage, or more to the point, my kid's.

The law does say something like "based on community standards," and the harder-core Magna/hentai stuff can be really, well, hard core, not for everyone, and they really do mean "not for children" when they stick that on the cover. It should be kept out of the hands of kids, unless the child's parent/guardian decides it's ok. And even then, I'd probably challenge that idea, although not legally.

"I can't tell exactly from the opinion, but it sounds like he served 12 months probation (in lieu of 180 days in jail) and was fined $4,000? So long as this case is applied very narrowly, I don't see it as a huge erosion of free speech rights."

Of course not. That's why people are always willing to accept such things: Because it doesn't seem huge. Those who would deprive adults of their right to buy whatever reading material they want because it offends their own sensibilities are like shoplifters. A store isn't really harmed by the theft of a single item. But tote them up, day after day after day after day, and it mounts up and becomes a huge problem.

A beach doesn't wash away into the ocean all at once. It erodes slowly, over years. The key to maintaining rights such as free speech is doing whatever is humanly possible to make sure there's NO erosion, lest you turn around one day and discover the beach has washed away.

"The LCS I grew up with, and the one I go to today, both have the "adult" material either in a seperate area, behind a gate that's monitored by store employees, or behind the counter."

And if he's in the wrong town, and sells a copy of an adult book to an adult, he could then be prosecuted. And with the Castillo case on the books, an eager beaver prosecutor might well be emboldened to give it a try. That's how it works.

PAD

"And if he's in the wrong town, and sells a copy of an adult book to an adult, he could then be prosecuted. And with the Castillo case on the books, an eager beaver prosecutor might well be emboldened to give it a try. That's how it works."

Agreed. But if you accept the proposition that how some material can be sold can be regulated (no porn sold directly to kids), then Castillo isn't the kind of erosion that leads to further erosion. There's always the danger that it will be used and applied that way, and in that case you hope that they system catches that mistake at some point. It is the proverbial slippery slope, but that comes with the territory. Unless we're going to have true free speech, meaning Penthouse on the shelf right next to Harry Potter, rather than keeping the former behind the desk while the later enjoys full main-floor display, some regulation is going to have to be tolerated.

If Castillo used to advance the case that Hentai, in call cases, is obscene and prohibited, that's a case for a higher Consitutional power to come down and set right the lines.

The shoplifting example works the other way: one or two kids picking up explicit sexual content won't be harmed. But add up the impacts over time, and maybe we do get an erosion of societal norms.

On the other hand, maybe we get a liberated generation not so concerned with naked pictures and ideas. But so long as Castillo is only used to allow a community to regulate how material can be displayed or distributed, and doesn't outright prohibit it's sale to consenting adults, I don't see a problem with it. That's a big "so long as," granted. And I'd much rather see market influence, where stores that don't segregate the hard core material from the general material don't do as well financially, used rather than the penal system.

But the Castillo case isn't about *how* this material is sold and distributed. It's about making sure it isn't sold to anyone at all. Castillo wasn't charged with selling pornography to a minor. He was charged with selling adult material to an adult. Under the standard that this case establishes, there is no circumstance in which that material could be sold to anyone, anywhere.

"But the Castillo case isn't about *how* this material is sold and distributed. It's about making sure it isn't sold to anyone at all. Castillo wasn't charged with selling pornography to a minor. He was charged with selling adult material to an adult. Under the standard that this case establishes, there is no circumstance in which that material could be sold to anyone, anywhere."

Not really. When looking at judicial precedent, you always (if you're doing your job correctly) look at the circumstances surrounding that precedent. Implicit in the Castillo case is that the material was not sufficiently shielded from access to children. It's not just a case of "adult walks into comic store, asks for DBI, clerk gets it from behind counter and sells it to adult." It's "adult walks into comic store, picks up DBI from the rack, and community decides that, despite warning sign about adult section, this kind of sale coupled with this kind of display amounts to obscene."

As PAD pointed out, the solution was to have a segregated adults section. There hasn't been a rash of follow-up convictions, so unless such adult comics are no longer sold in Texas, something must have been worked out.

As PAD pointed out, the solution was to have a segregated adults section.

But the thing is, that "solution" didn't help Jesus Castillo one bit:

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/3267.html

Q:"Did you have your adult comics in a separate area where underage patrons weren't allowed to see it?"

JC: "Yes, we had them in a separate area where kids weren't allowed to go."

And earlier:

Q:"What recommendations would you have for retailers to help them avoid the situation that you were in?"

JC: "Well, I don't know. I guess it would be---get rid of your X-Rated comics--we don't sell that type of material anymore. Unfortunately, it's the only way I know to avoid the situation in Texas, at least."

So segrating the comics in an area where kids can't get to them isn't enough. In Texas, the only standard is not sell them to anyone, anytime.

I know I'm getting nit-picky, but Castillo had them, according to the recap in the appellate opinion, on the back racks, with a sign, but still sharing the same floor space as everything else. Not behind a curtain, door, or behind the counter. Kids were not normally allowed, but how hard would it be for a kid to get access to them?

Saying "So segrating the comics in an area where kids can't get to them isn't enough. In Texas, the only standard is not sell them to anyone, anytime." is a jump in logic that Castillo alone does not support. Case law is fact specific. The progeny of Castillo, should any ever come about, might attempt to take the application of this standard of obscene to the point you suggest. But that's the way case law works. The next case would have to demonstrate that the material, when additional measures are taken to prevent kids from having access to it, remains obscene.

Kids were not normally allowed, but how hard would it be for a kid to get access to them?

That would depend on how hard a clerk like Castillo policed the area.

If you want to be nitpicky, then answer this: Stores like Borders carry Playboy and other magazines with adult content. They're kept in the same area with the other magazines, usually in the top back rank with a sign stating that they are for adults only.

I have yet to see any employee at Borders walking around the magazine section to make sure the kids aren't mixing the Playboys with the Nikolodean Magazines.

So, under the Castillo ruling, the situation is even worse than at Ken's Comics. There is nothing keeping kids from viewing adult material.

So, should the manager of the local Borders in Texas be prosecuted? Under Castillo, it looks like the prosecutor has a rock-solid case.

What about DVDs? I know of a number of retailers that don't put adult DVDs in a separate room from the copies of the Incredibles. Should they be prosecuted?

Den, you a cloest lawyer? I know you're not, but those are exactly the kinds of questions that subsequent courts would look at. The answer is...it depends on the community, really.

Some Borders type stores do shelf Playboys and other "gentlemen's" mags on the same shelf. But in most cases that I've seen, they're on the top rack, out of reach of all but the tallest of 14 year olds, usually have some kind of blinder on them so all you can see is the title, and are shrink-wrapped, or have the cover covered with some non-see-throughable material. And they don't sell them to minors. Essentially, steps have been taken to keep kids from getting exposed to them.

In other places, such magazines are kept behind the sales counter, with covers covered and such. But the link is that they aren't kept in a place where kids have easy access to them. Mags like XBox magazine and Wizard are on the bottom shelf, usually in the front. Heck, I'm 5'10", and I have hard time getting to the mags in the top shelf.

Err, I mean, I'd HAVE a hard time getting to them. Yeah...that's what I mean....

And in many cases, the Border's is storing them that way because there's a local ordinance that requires them to be stored that way. Free speech is not absolute. Whether it should be or not is a totally different debate I think we've had in the past, and I know this board has discussed. But if we allow that regulation of free speech rights includes proscriptions for how certain material can be marketed, under the aims of protecting children from exposure to material unsuitable for them, there's nothing wrong with this kind of regulation. It's like requiring a 5 day waiting period for acquiring a handgun. Sure, it infringes on your Constitutional right to bear arms, but it's balancing that with the right to NOT get shot by your loved one when they fly into a furious rage because you ate the last twinkie.

As to DVDs, well, ditto. Since most people, kids included, aren't carrying around portable DVD players, the only way kids are going to get exposed to adult DVDs is to buy them, take them home, and watch them. Putting an adult DVD (assuming the cover isn't itself X-rated) on a shelf were kids can pick it up isn't exactly the same thing as exposing them to porn. Renting it to them is another matter entirely.

Do I think managers of these stores should be prosecuted? No. For that matter, I don't think Castillo should have been prosecuted. What ever happened to warnings? Especially with sorta obscure laws? Newsarama has a link up about a Home Depot that banned someone because they walked out of the store with a pencil they hadn't paid for, warning them that they were going to be charged with shoplifting. This AFTER the loss prevention thug had followed the guy around the store, waiting to pounce on him as soon as he walked out. Fer cryin' out loud, we hear people in the government complaining about how we're losing our sense of community, and it's no wonder. We're treated like criminals. Would it have killed the town Castillo had his shop in to send him a letter, alerting him to the complaints they had received, and advising him to beef up his adult's only section? Or to stop the guy at Home Depot and say "excuse me, sir, I think you have one of our pencils behind your ear?"

The majority of people want to obey the law, or at least not break it.

"I know I'm getting nit-picky, but Castillo had them, according to the recap in the appellate opinion, on the back racks, with a sign, but still sharing the same floor space as everything else. Not behind a curtain, door, or behind the counter. Kids were not normally allowed, but how hard would it be for a kid to get access to them?"

First things first...

I don't know Texas law and I've only ever been there once.

And that was some time ago.

OK, on with my bit.

I'm going to be nit-picky now. The people who want to take the argument of "it's not really that bad" seem to be missing something here. This case sucked because it was about comic books. And I mean that by it was only about comic books.

Bobb, been in a Barnes and Noble, Books-a-Million, Boarder' Books, Virgin Books, Tower Record and Books, or just about any other book shop from the Sunshine State to NJ? You can walk in and go anywhere in the store without an escort or an ID check. You can go to the kids area or the area where they keep the better sex books with their full color photo layouts and anywhere inbetween with nobody stopping by to make sure you can be there. Go to the magazine racks and you can find the Nick Kids type of stuff just a few racks down from the in plain sight Maxim, FHM, Playboy, Penthouse, etc. Step into just about any quick mart and you can find tons of skin mags right by the door in full view of everybody. And, last time I looked, kids do go into all those places quite often.

But, often, if you go to the same towns where you have that level of freedom on their part you find that comic shops don't share that freedom. You can't just put it in its own section, mark it and keep an eye on it (more then many book stores I've been in do). Nooooo. You have to lock it away from all sight and knowledge.

So, why is that a problem with me?

Comic book shops share one very important thing with big book stores and other retailers. They all want new people to be able to come in and fine something that they like/want and to then become part of the regular crowd of shoppers. Big book stores put their stock on display in full veiw so that anyone can come in and see the sights and maybe find something that they didn't know about while looking for what they came in for. You can't look for or ask for something that you don't know exists but you can come upon it while going after something you wanted to by.

Big book stores can put it all out there and catch no where near the grief that comic shops will. Why? Well, books are for everybody. Books are all ages entertainment. But not comic books. Why? Because, and everybody say it with me, comics are for kids.

My biggest gripe with cases like this is that they always hold comics to a different standard then books. Always. If Castillo and others keep their adult stock in a nice little section of the shop that they can keep an eye on (again, more then many of the big book stores really do) and keep the more graphic cover art covered then that should be enough. They shouldn't have to lock their books away in some underground vault in the same towns and cities where book stores have things like the Helmut Newton Playboy coffee table book on display for shoppers of all ages to see.

But it's comic books. It's a kids entertainment. Comics should be held to a different standard then books now and forever more. The Castillos of the world should keep the bad ones out of sight or just order copies for the regulars that ask for them. Of course, again, that doesn't help the odd newbe who comes into the comic shop to look around. It also doesn't help comic books to shake off the image of kid's entertainment when even comic readers won't fight for the same treatment as book readers.

Great, Day late and a dollar short. You hit my points already. I started typing the above post two hours ago and had to leave to work a wreck. I come back, finish my last paragraph, hit post and find that the two of you stole my thunder.

You're no fun at all.

:(

I'm not a lawyer, but I do work in government and spend a lot of time talking about regulation enforcement.

Height and shrink wrap are no deterent for clever kids determined to see some boobies. And I've seen retailers having them on the racks without any kind of blinders.

As for adult DVDs, covers on the cases alone would violate many community's standards of decency.

In my opinion, if the store did everything Castillo says they did: putting the adult comics on separate racks with signs telling the kids that they were not allowed there, the they did more than Borders (not to just pick on them) usually does.

And the bottom line is, Castillo was convicted of selling material labeled for adults only to an adult. If that's the only standard that applies, then every 7-Eleven clerk in Texas should be afraid.

"And the bottom line is, Castillo was convicted of selling material labeled for adults only to an adult."

Well, when you put it this way...you're right. He should not have been convicted at all, based on the sale. The actual act he committed should not have been found to be a crime. It's only when you add in the other stuff about access to kids and such. I guess partly what I'm doing is what the future CBLDF lawyer would do when Castillo is brought up by a future prosecuter in the next case...pointing out the facts that make Castillo more about regulation of how adult material can be displayed/sold, rather than whether it can be sold at all. If the cop had pretended to be like 16 years old, and then bought it, they could have gotten him for attempting to sell to a minor or something.

Efforts taken to keep keeps from seeing boobies are never going to be foolproof. But when those efforts are reasonable, the fact that a clever kid sneaks one off the rack and pops it open isn't going to land someone in jail. When they're reasonable. That's going to be a standard decided upon by the local community. For some, posting a sign and putting them at the back of the store will be enough. For others, nothing short of keeping them behind the counter, locked and covered with just the titles showing, will suffice. There's not going to be one Federal standard that fits. And as Jerry mentioned, comic shops, by virtue of the fact that, at least on some level, comics are still aimed at a younger audience, are going to be held to a different standard that the 7-11 or Borders. Does that suck for the LCS? I guess, although in reality they need do very little to protect themselves.

"As for adult DVDs, covers on the cases alone would violate many community's standards of decency."

Adult DVDs? You don't even need to look that far. I was doing the Christmas shopping a few years ago and picked up a heavy metal DVD by Manowar from the music section and found a concert picture on the back cover of a very healthy young woman showing what she had to the world. You can't miss it. And it was placed neatly in the music section and has been there for years since. And that's just the one where I remeber the name on the DVD. I've seen loads of others in both the sports and music sections and at least a few that come close to the line without crossing it in the movie section. Again, being treated with a bit more freedom then comics.

Den said:
And I didn't say that he said "all" comics should be for kids either (you can tell that because the word "all" doesn't appear in my post), but he often doesn't make the distinction in his rants.

Then you must have meant that you find it ironic that someone who believes that any comics should be for kids might be portrayed as stating that "that comics aren't just for kids." Why would you find that ironic?

But that's where the hypocrisy of this whole case comes into play: both Borders and 7-11 sell material that is aimed kids and material that is aimed at adults. No one thinks about magazines or DVDs as being marketed primarily at kids. Everyone agrees that there some of each targeted for both markets. But because it's *comics* the default thinking is that it's for kids and anyone selling a comic with nudity in it must be some kind of molester, no matter how many "adults only" signs he puts up or where in the store the books are located.

"But that's where the hypocrisy of this whole case comes into play: both Borders and 7-11 sell material that is aimed kids and material that is aimed at adults. No one thinks about magazines or DVDs as being marketed primarily at kids. Everyone agrees that there some of each targeted for both markets. But because it's *comics* the default thinking is that it's for kids and anyone selling a comic with nudity in it must be some kind of molester, no matter how many "adults only" signs he puts up or where in the store the books are located."

There's some significant distinctions. Maybe the biggest one being that 7-11 and Borders have large corporate budgets, with legal retainers, in order to put up a decent fight. Castillo had only the resources of the CBLDF. He was an easy mark.

But beyond that, to a degree, you're right, in that there is a double standard being applied. You can say that Borders and 7-11 do have goods that are aimed at kids...but that's not the primary nature of the goods they carry. Whether right or wrong, comic books are seen as targeted primarily at kids. The DVD ananolgy I'd suggest isn't a Blockbuster, but rather a Disney store, carrying Cinderella and Finding Nemo, and on the next rack, the Penthouse series. If a shop carries all kinds of DVDs, including but not specializing in kids films, it's not the same. Now, if the store stocks the adult stuff right next to the kids section, I'm sure they'd get complaints.

But the fact is, the modern comics shop does not carry books that are just aimed at kids. No shop would be able to stay in business carrying just Spongebob* and Powerpuff Girls comics. So, they have material appropriate for a wide variety of age groups - just like Borders and 7-11 do. The fact that the legal system and the public-at-large doesn't seem to recognize this fact means that comic shops are easy targets, even if CBLDF could manage to raise enough funds to match the lawyers that Borders and 7-11 no doubt have on retainer.

*And of course, I'm sure there is some religious right wackjob group that is planning on getting Spongebob comics banned because they bought into the whole "Spongebob is gay" nonsense.

So long as this case is applied very narrowly, I don't see it as a huge erosion of free speech rights

So how narrowly do we apply this case? It's acceptable for 1 person to lose his free speech rights, but wrong the next time? Is it acceptible to apply it to 5 people, but not a sixth? At what point do we say censorship is wrong?

But so long as Castillo is only used to allow a community to regulate how material can be displayed or distributed, and doesn't outright prohibit it's sale to consenting adults, I don't see a problem with it

Castillo does prohibit selling to consenting adults (CA). A CA sought out the book, a CA went into the adults only section, and a CA bought the book. There were no children involved, no one forced to buy or even look at something they didn't want to.

Aye, I'd agree. Comic shops do make easy targets. It's an extension of the "pick on the nerdy kid" mentality. It sucks. And the LCS owner/operator would be well advised to take steps to protect himself from it.

But I don't think it's going to change. Which is rather sad.

It is sad, because it's clear that the only way a comics shop owner in Texas can protect himself is to not sell any adult-oriented material. Which amounts to de facto censorship by the government.

Welcome to Bush's world.

"Welcome to Bush's world. "

No, thanks, I'll try living in Denial a little longer, till that clock of PAD's runs down...

WAY up the thread, Bobb said:

"With the PTC coming out against shows like Family Guy, it's clear that there is still very-much a perception by some that comics and cartoon, by virtue of the very fact that they are animated, are for kids."

Well, to be fair, some of the things they pull on Family Guy would probably be found objectionable by some no matter whether the show was animated or not. My wife sometimes watches the show, and I've come to enjoy some of it, at times (not the theme song!). But from what I've seen of the new episodes on Fox, the show's creators appear to have decided that its resurrection makes them invincible. The driving point of the show seems to be how offensive, grotesque, extreme, and "obscene" they can be - much as that seems to be the only point of "Nip/Tuck" these days (maybe even moreso in the case of the latter). But unlike Nip/Tuck, Family Guy is - in one of its regular broadcasts, anyway - on regular broadcast television, and so is held to a different, more family-friendly standard. In a society where the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake thing and a curse word on an awards show can (ridiculously) result in large fines (or has that all changed with the happy departure of Michael Powell?), I'm surprised that Family Guy - because of content, not animation - has been able to push boundaries as far as it has without more trouble.

(Not to say that I think it should be censored at all - frankly, commercials bragging about "parental controls" for your TV probably annoy me more than Family Guy ever has - or that I don't think AN objection to it could be that it's animated. But the jokes that they make on there go beyond ANYTHING I recall ever hearing on network TV, not just on a network cartoon show.)

What about DVDs? I know of a number of retailers that don't put adult DVDs in a separate room from the copies of the Incredibles. Should they be prosecuted?

How about this: in a nearby mall, the Sam Goody puts the adult DVD's right next to the anime DVD's.

Sure, there are those silly plastic things they put in front of the adult DVD's, and the display area is near the checkout counter, but is that really going to stop a kid who wants to look at them? No, it isn't.

I wonder how Sam Goody operates in Texas.

I guess, although in reality they need do very little to protect themselves.

You're right: all they have to do is close their doors permanently. Which seems to be what some in Texas want.

The fact remains that comics are more or less discriminated against when they shouldn't be - they should be treated equal to every other print medium. But they're not.

Apparently the prosecutors down there in Backasswards, Texas don't see movies like Spider-Man, X-Men, Blade, and so forth to catch the *gasp* adult themes. Or at least, themes that adults understand that children really don't.

I can't tell exactly from the opinion, but it sounds like he served 12 months probation (in lieu of 180 days in jail) and was fined $4,000? So long as this case is applied very narrowly, I don't see it as a huge erosion of free speech rights.

Well I don't know what your life situation is, but I ran a small business for about a year where I didn't have $4,000 to spare. $1,000 in unplanned expenses would have made me close the doors. So I guess how big the erosion is depends on your wallet.

Keep in mind also that Castillo wasn't the owner of Ken's Comics. He worked as a clerk there. $4,000 probably represented more than a month's pay for him.

Also, in addition to having been arrested, tried, fined, and being required to spend 12 months asking permission from a probation officer to visit out of state relatives, Jesus Castillo also now has to check "yes" next to the question "have you ever been convicted of a crime?" on every job application he fills out for the rest of his life. Can you imagine explaining in a job interview that you were convicted of selling obscene materials?

The DVD thing also shows another area where film is cut more slack in what is or isn't adult vs "adult" and what is or isn't in comics and how it can be displayed or sold.

Let me throw a story/film concept at you. You're going to have a group of actors running around mostly nude in the entire film. Some of them will be full on nude. You're going to have acts of violence throughout the entire film. You're also going to have some animalistic sex acts (at least one by violence/boarderline rape) and they will be, including the boarderline rape, shown on film.

The film is Quest for Fire. You can pick it up in any store that sells DVDs with no problems. Hell, I doubt that you would even have your ID checked for anything other then check/credit card regs. Now, try and sell a comic book with an almost all nude cast, violent sex acts and general violence as openly as that film is sold and you'll find yourself on the front page of the Metro Section under "Man Busted for Selling of Obscene Materials" in a heartbeat.

Nitwits 12,543 - Comics 0

On the subject of adult comics:

At my local Waldens there is at least 5 copies of Robert Crumbs new hardcover book with adult material. It's right next to the Superman,Batman and Marvel graphic novels.

How come there are no complaints about his book being placed next to the superhero graphic novels?

I think it's really unfair of the clerk to be prosecuted.

If he were working at Waldens and did not know who Robert Crumb is... (you can't tell it's an adult book unless you look at the back cover)..he could have just as easily sold this to a teen, thinking it was a comic novel.

Welcome to Bush's world.

Who was president in 1999?

At any rate...John Byrne comes in for a lot of criticism in these parts, mostly deservedly so from what I can see, so it's nice to be able to offer him kudos this time.

// Some Borders type stores do shelf Playboys and other "gentlemen's" mags on the same shelf. But in most cases that I've seen, they're on the top rack, out of reach of all but the tallest of 14 year olds, //

Have you looked at 14 year olds these days? My niece is 12 and about half her friends could reach those top shelves with no problem, and that's the girls, the boys in the class are, in all liklyhood taller.

Putting Playboy on the top shelf is nothing new, it was done when I was in high school and it never stopped me or my friends from sneaking a peak or even outright buying an issue. (And we were never stopped when we were buying an issue because in all liklyhood the kid at the cashier was only a year or two older then us)

Considering what kids can easily find on the internet these days, wouldn't it be sort of sweet to see them sneaking a look at Playboy again?

Good point Bill. I laughed briefly after reading it and then saw it as a very sombering point with much truth to it....... though I remember a time during my childhood when I would sneak a peek at some choice passages in Are You There God, It's Me Margaret...... it wasn't until a bit later that I found out that this was tame Judy Blume writing. ;)

Fred

Blume was a pervert! She wrote about stuff no other kid's book writer would (or needed to).

// Considering what kids can easily find on the internet these days, wouldn't it be sort of sweet to see them sneaking a look at Playboy again? //

Reminds me a few years ago when film director John Waters was a guest on David Letterman, at the time drive by gang shootings and teen age crack mothers were big in the news. Walters made a comment along the line of "don't we all miss the old days when all bad teenagers did was steal hubcaps and wear leather jackets?"

Of course I'm a big believer in "the past isn't as good as you remember and the present isn't as bad as it seems".

Who was president in 1999?

Considering Castillo wasn't charged with a federal crime, the question should be. "Who was governor of Texas in 1999?".

Hmmm?

Steve, are ya kiddin'? The "stuff" that you speak of was written for young girls and was developmental and educational in nature. She won scores of awards. The smutty stuff that she wrote was for adults only. I never even knew about her more mature stuff until I heard about it when I was in high school.

Fred

Considering Castillo wasn't charged with a federal crime, the question should be. "Who was governor of Texas in 1999?".

Yeah, but who was mayor?

But seriously, it's kooky, in my opinion, to drag national politics into this. The Governor was almost certainly unaware of this case, as serious as it is to those of us who follow it. I remember some hardcore Clinton haters dragging up some atrocities that occurred in Arkansas backwater towns during Clinton's stewardship. It was a weak argument then and it hasn't gotten better with age.

Bill,

Fine. It was a cheap shot at Bush. I admit it. But, quite frankly, after the creeping fascism that the FCC engaged in under his appointee Michael Powell, I see him as a product of the same ignorant attitude that produced the Castillo case. I know you don't agree, but that's how I see it. I consider freedom of speech to be vital to our democracy and any attempt to erode it is another step down a very dangerous slippery slope. It's bad enough that we already have to fear that the list of books we check out of the library may be turned over to the FBI, how much further down this road should we go?

Den, we probably agree on more than we disagree...if you keep on calling out those on the right for their attacks on free speech and I keep calling out those on the left for the same, we'll get the job done. We can disagree on which side is the most dangerous, but it doesn't really matter who it is that lines you up against the firing squad.

The problem always will be that too often we are willing to allow speech to be eroded if it goes after the "right people". That's a bit of self indulgence that one must always be wary of.

I have little problem with the government being able to access library records. Public libraries are a government institution, are they not? On the other hand, I don't like the idea of them being able to access your history of renting videos from a private company like Blockbuster, unless there is some very specific reason for it (like trying to show that you are copying murder scenes from a movie...outside of a CSI episode I don't think this would come up much).

At any rate, from what I've read the FBI hasn't used this power very much and it isn't all that radically different from what they had before (not that this is reason not to oppose it, just reason not to be much more fearful than you should have been under previous presidents). At any rate, I'll bet that I'm the one person here who should be the MOST afraid of his reading habits coming to light--I've perused Anarchist Cookbooks for chemistry demo ideas (and FYI, if anyone is thinking of using this stuff, don't. Unless you want other people cutting your food for you. I'm pretty sure the Anarchist left out a few ingredients in a few of those recipes); I did a unit in Bio II on germ warfare before 9/11 so I'm sure that I am on record as having done a lot of inquiries on sarin and anthrax; I've researched hate groups on both sides which means reading what they have to say (managed to make it through The Turner Diaries, no easy task that); and for the zombie movie I've been on injury websites that make Rotten.com look like the Nick at Night homepage.

Dump that profile into a Tivo and it will probably call the cops all on it's own.

I'm not nervous because I haven't done anything wrong. If my hometown is ever attacked by some crazed anthrax killer I do expect to be spoken to.

Public libraries are a government institution, are they not?

Here in New York City they're not. They're private non-profit organizations that receive a large chunk of funding from the government.

However, the problem I have isn't so much the government looking at the records, but with the parts that the person being investigated cannot know they're being investigated.

Here in New York City they're not. They're private non-profit organizations that receive a large chunk of funding from the government.

Then perhaps they should have the option to opt out of the provisions--if they agree to refuse any government funding, of course.

However, the problem I have isn't so much the government looking at the records, but with the parts that the person being investigated cannot know they're being investigated.

Well, isn't that always the case? I mean, they don't tell Don Corleone when they are tapping his phone, do they?

Well, isn't that always the case? I mean, they don't tell Don Corleone when they are tapping his phone, do they?

True, but Corleone also knew he was being investigated.

What I left out in the earlier post is the part about the gov't not needing warrants to get into a person's records, be they going for library or financial records or placing a keystroke logger on your home computer. The gov't shouldn't have that kind of unchecked power.

What I left out in the earlier post is the part about the gov't not needing warrants to get into a person's records, be they going for library or financial records or placing a keystroke logger on your home computer. The gov't shouldn't have that kind of unchecked power.

Agreed. I'm a little surprised by them not needing warrants. Surely they must get SOME kind of permission? Does a judge have to sign off on it or something?

I'll call out anyone who is against freedom of speech. It just so happens that with the right in control of everything, they're the ones doing all of the abusing right now.

Whether your local library is a government institution or not, I still believe in the quaint notion that we should have a right to privacy in this country and that includes what we read and what think. If someone can tell me how you can tell the difference between a terrorist and a student doing graduate research on the history radical Islam based on their reading lists, please tell me.

As I've mentioned before, I happen to work for a government agency, specifically, the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Anyone who has had anything to do with the health care industry in the past five years knows about the HIPAA privacy rules surrounding and the serious repercusions that can occur if you divulge confidential information about a person's medical history. Those rules apply to people who work for the government as well as private hospitals.

So, why should it be any different for someone checking out books from a public library?

Beyond that, the (If you don't vote Republica you're not a ) Patriot Act allows the government to demand lists of books you bought from a bookstore. So, unless there was a change in the law that I'm not aware of, Borders, Barnes and Noble, and Amazon aren't government agencies, but they can be forced to give the government lists of books they've sold to people.

So, if I buy "The Republican War on Science" on Amazon, should I be concerned that my name is now attached to some subversive list now?

Wake me up when we live in America again.

Surely they must get SOME kind of permission? Does a judge have to sign off on it or something?

From what I've read, no, they don't.

The FBI can check on anybody they want, whenever they want, and libraries and bookstores not only cannot refuse, they cannot tell you that it's happening.

This is why alot of places no longer even keep records that the FBI can use, such as purchase history (maybe I should bug Amazon.com about that...).

Surely they must get SOME kind of permission? Does a judge have to sign off on it or something?

At one time this was true. Under the PATRIOT Act, not any more. All the government has to do is say terrorism, enemy combatant, or national security, and they've got a blank check to look at your records, enter your home or 'detain' you.

/Democracy is on the march

Posted by Den at November 22, 2005 04:36 PM

Keep in mind also that Castillo wasn't the owner of Ken's Comics. He worked as a clerk there. $4,000 probably represented more than a month's pay for him.

Hey -- what comic shop do you patronise? I want a job in a comics shop that pays $25/hour...

More likely he makes about $1100 -- 1300 monthly

I said: Surely they must get SOME kind of permission? Does a judge have to sign off on it or something?

Craig replied: From what I've read, no, they don't.

The FBI can check on anybody they want, whenever they want, and libraries and bookstores not only cannot refuse, they cannot tell you that it's happening.

Michael said t one time this was true. Under the PATRIOT Act, not any more. All the government has to do is say terrorism, enemy combatant, or national security, and they've got a blank check to look at your records, enter your home or 'detain' you.

From what I've read, you're both wrong (unless you want to split hairs: I'm sure that Craig is correct that he has read what he said but I think what he read is not accurate.)

From Wikipedia: Perhaps the most controversial section of the USA PATRIOT Act stems from Section 215. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant from a secret federal court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. On its face, the section does not even refer to "libraries," but rather to business records and other tangible items in general.[6] Civil libertarians and librarians in particular, argue that this provision violates patron's rights. So it has come to be called the "library provision." The Justice Department defends Section 215 by saying that because it requires an order to be issued by a FISA Court judge, it provides better protection for libraries.

Similar statement can be found at library websites designed to give guidance to librarians. So the notion that no judge's order is needed would seem to be a false, though popular one. If I'm wrong about this I'll gladly admit it but I'd like an informed source.

Beyond that, the (If you don't vote Republican you're not a ) Patriot Act

Oh, you mean the one that was supported by all but 1 of the senate democrats? THAT republican bill?

Oops, my bad. Should have said 2 Senate Democrats. Mary Landrieu courageously declined to vote one way or another.

From Wikipedia: Perhaps the most controversial section of the USA PATRIOT Act stems from Section 215. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant from a secret federal court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying.

So, in other words, a star chamber, accountable to no one (due to its secret nature), sits in judgment over the question of whether or not agents of the same department need access to my records. You'll forgive me if I have a certain degree of doubt as to the purity of this "protection"...

So the notion that no judge's order is needed would seem to be a false, though popular one. If I'm wrong about this I'll gladly admit it but I'd like an informed source.

I'm sure that's correct, so I'll admit I was in error on the "not needing any permission" part.

But it's pretty disturbing that, in our society, things like this must be done in secret and without knowledge of who the warrant is being served against.

Thankfully, after that initial vote earlier this year to permanently renew/approve most of the Patriot Act, it seems like a few are having a change of heart and willing to question whether alot of the provisions are necessary.

Kind of like how many have had a change of heart about this stupid war we're fighting in Iraq...

o, in other words, a star chamber, accountable to no one (due to its secret nature)

It's "secret" in the sense that it isn't public. The name of the court is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (established during the Carter Administration). Records are kept. I'd be interested in any information that would show that it is "accountable to no one".

I tend to prefer the government to not have more power than it needs, so I am not instantly a fan of legislation like the Patriot Act. However, I have not been too impressed with the accuracy of some of its critics. Not that they all deserve blame; the media has reported the dire predictions of those who oppose the bill without bothering much to do the kind of investigations and research that would either back it up or not.

At any rate, I'll bet that I'm the one person here who should be the MOST afraid of his reading habits coming to light

I'm reminded of mystery writer Robert Crais here (who's been mentioned in a Hulk comic, so this is even on-topic!). One of his relatively recent books, Demolition Angel, is about the LAPD bomb squad. According to the talk he gave on that particular book tour, he did lots and lots of online searches about bomb-making and similar topics, and also went to talk to lots of people he knew at the LAPD and (I believe) the FBI.

Someone showed him literally hundreds of pages of printouts written by some deeply, deeply deranged people. As he put it, "I left saying, 'boy I'm glad someone's keeping an eye on some of these guys... wait a sec ... given all the searches and stuff I did lately, I probably LOOK like one of these guys!"

TWL

Oh, you mean the one that was supported by all but 1 of the senate democrats? THAT republican bill?

You say that like its somehow relevent or that I should somehow respect it because a bunch of democrats (and republicans for that matter) voted for a bill most of them later admitted they didn't read. That the democrats in the Senate became a bunch of craven cowards willing to give the Bush administration anything it wanted in year following 9/11 is a documented fact. It's only been in the past year or so that they've found their spines once again.

Honestly, Bill, when are the republicans going to get over this talking point that no one should criticize anything Bush does because he bullyed that cowards in the Senate?

It means exactly nothing to me.

Honestly, Bill, when are the republicans going to get over this talking point that no one should criticize anything Bush does because he bullyed that cowards in the Senate?

You'll have to ask them. Since I said nothing of the kind I can't help you out much. You seem to be suggesting that my pointing out the fact that what you suggested was a Republican Bill was actually one that was, by any definition of the word, bipartisan, is the same thing as saying that it should not be criticized.

Criticize it all you want. Write letters to the editor, march with a sign if you feel strngly enough. Hell, run for office on the "Let's Repeal the Patriot Act" Platform. But if you try to characterize it as a bill supported by only one of the parties don't get upset if someone points out the facts.

One thing further--I'm amazed that some Democrats are amazed that the general public doesn't support their party when these very same people consider the Democrats in congress to be cowards. In dangerous times why should anyone want cowards in office? Even if you think the other party is controlled by venal corrupt figures, that might well be preferable to cowardace. It's one thing if the near constant critiques of congressional Democrats as weaklings was meant to wake them up but I think that a lot of Democrats really do see them as weak. Why they are surprised when the voters agree with them is beyond me.

Does anyone else find it at least vaguely ironic that the REPUBLICAN party ( traditionally for smaller government) is the one putting through the PATRIOT act, creating new Departments and increasing Federal power, and the DEMOCRATIC party (traditionally the bigger government party) is fighting them?

Incidentally, Happy Holidays everyone and I am really happy to be back on Mr. David's website.

James,

It'd be more ironic if the Democratic party was actually fighting it. The damn thing passed 98 to 2 in the senate. You probably couldn't get that kind of support for a resolution supporting Mom and Apple Pie.

Obviously we don't really have a party that is actually for smaller government. We just have 2 parties that want the government to have less power only when they are not in charge.

Listen Bill, if we all followed your lead we'd be alienating all of our constituents that prefer other types of pie or family members, and even the orphans and people who don't enjoy pie at all! What you're asking for is simply political suicide, and I for one plan on voting against it.

Well, dammit, I know I'm going off on a limb here. I know that the anti-apple pie forces are well funded and the Organization of People Who Never Much Liked Their Moms Anyway (PWNMLTMA) has targeted me for defeat but by God I'm willing to go down swinging! I wasn't afraid when I was the lone voice advocating the Anti-Panda Vivisection legislation and I'm still proud that I sponsored the No Plutonium In Our Nation's Grade Schools Act, even though it failed by a 97 vote margin (would have been 99 to 1 but Kennedy was drunk and Byrd got confused). I didn't get elected just to tackle the easy issues.

speaking as a lobbyist for PWNMLTMA are you aware that nearly 75% of mothers insist on a bedtime up till approx. age 12? and that after that, they enforce a strict cerfew? and that they show NO respect whatsoever for what is cool when buying clothes? Good GOD man! think about the children suffering under this cruel regime!!

In all seriousness though Bill, it seems to me that we sometimes fail to put our money where our mouth is where our legislators are concerned. For instance, in my local paper this morning there was an article by a man who was mad at John Kerry and other Senate democrats who had begun to repudiate their pro-war votes. His problem isn't so much with that they are against the war, but that they are only against it NOW, when 57% or so of the people are against the war.
My question is: isn't that EXACTLY what we want our public servants to do? don't we want them to serve the will of the people? We tend to chew them out when they go against what we want, and now we are mad when they go with what we want.

If I recall correctly, an overwhelming majority of the people were for the PATRIOT act. Should the Senate/house bend to the will of the people?

Thats an honest question by the way. I am still not sure myself.

That's a great question. For me, the answer is no. I want my representatives to do what they think is right, not what happens to be popular.

I support gay marriage which, by any honest measure, is pretty deeply unpopular. I think it's the right thing to do and it will be right no matter what the polls say this week. Conversely, if you think it's wrong and bad for society I would hope that this assessment would not depend on the number of people who agree with you.

Support for the war will vary with the headlines--if we take a poll every week we'd be leaving, going back, leaving...it would be an impossible situation.

Personally I have more respect for those anti-war politicians who were against the war when it was unpopular to do so. Those who waited until their pollsters told them it was safe to develop a spine...eh, not so much.

I can understand a few who say "Ok, I thought this would be a whole lot easier than it turned out to be so let's cut our losses and run." Don't necessarily agree but I can respect their opinion. The weasly types who now claim they were bullied into it or would have voted differently if they only had known that there was a possibility that the WMDs weren't there...those clownshoes are a whole other matter.

Of course, there does come a point where, even if you respect the fact that your rep is a man or woman of his or her word, they are just too far off from your own philosophy to support. So...I guess the answer is you want them to do what is right regardless of popular opinion and hope to God that what they think is right happens to be the same thing that you do.

Unrealistic? Sure, but hope springs eternal.

And by the way, if the PWNMLTMA wants me to change my vote they are going to have to come up with some solid reasons for me to do so. They can write down those reasons on the back of a few pictures of Benjamin Franklin, if you get my drift.

I see your point and I think I agree with you. Actually, the best treatment of this issue I saw was in "1776," where Dr. Hall, the Rep. from GA, was asking himself the same question. At the end he quotes Edmund Burke (a member of parliment) in saying
"that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion."

Of course, he was probably a member of the House of Lords, and didn't have to worry about such mundanities as reelection. Should a represenative take a stand on an issue, even if it will cause him to lose re-election, and thus deprive the people of his talents? Certainly there are some issues worth taking such a stand on, but where do you draw the line? Or should you strive to be the "vox populi?"

*sigh*
this thing called politics is way to complex for its own good.

I agree, Bill. The ironic thing is, with all the talk about democracy and how great it is, true democracy is nothing more than the will of the moment. It's subject to all kinds of bad decisions made on short-sighted current opinion. CA, with it's voter referrendum, shows how chaotic that can be. On the other hand, our representative democracy, by placing Federal power in the hands of the elected few, is capable of rising above current opinion and doing what's needed, as opposed to what's wanted. You hope that that ends up actually being what is needed, and that it also equates with what is right. But as we've seen too many examples of, that representative body is just as susceptable to doing what's popular as the common voting public would be.

We just have 2 parties that want the government to have less power only when they are not in charge.

Something I've been saying for years now.

My point about the Patriot Act is that it was passed in a climate of fear and panic following 9/11 in which there was tremendous public pressure to do *something* about terrorists, when the majority of the public just wanted to see some action. Hell, they were even willing to support the full-scale invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11!

The democrats in the Senate are not the entire Democratic party and the climate today is very different then it was in 2002, when anyone who dared to speak against the imperial will had to fear getting the Max Cleland treatment.

Does that make the democrats in the Senate cowards? Well, yes. They are first and foremost politicians who believe in CYA above all else.

There is also no doubt that the republicans used 9/11 to re-enforce one of their favorite campaign tactics: attack the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. It worked in 2002. They are still trying to use that tactic now, just ask John Murtha (And for the record, I think his idea of an immediate pull out is a bad one). The only difference now is that the public isn't buying it, so the senate democrats, who know they were too craven in 2002 to question to the bogus intel or scrutinize things like the Patriot Act, now feel more secure to go on the offensive.

But calling the Patriot Act a bipartisan measure is like calling a mugging a voluntary donation because you gave the mugger your wallet in exchange for not getting shot.

And for the record, I think his idea of an immediate pull out is a bad one

And iirc, he has NOT called for an immediately withdrawal from Iraq.

He has
a) called for a timetable, something the Bush Administration adamantly refuses to do,
b) called for keeping some troops just off "the horizon" in case they are needed again in Iraq.

What Murtha called for (and, surprise, surprise, many republicans are misrepresenting it) is a redeployment over a period of six months to begin immediately or ASAP when we can certify the Iraqis as able to stabilize the country on their own. You know, like we did in Vietnam.

Personally, I think six months is hugely optimistic, although I have no doubt that come September or August, we will see some form of pullout beginning.

What the Democrats are calling for is essentially what the Pentagon has already decided to do. They even announced it.(see http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2005/11/winding-down-iraq.html) "ASAP when we can certify the Iraqis as able to stabilize the country on their own." sounds a lot like "Our military strategy is clear: We will train Iraqi security forces so they can defend their freedom and protect their people, and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned." which is what Bush said in June.

But I'll give full props to the Democrats on this one; they will now be able to claim (falsely but so what?) that they are the ones that prodded the administration into doing what it was apparently planning on doing anyway.

the climate today is very different then it was in 2002, when anyone who dared to speak against the imperial will had to fear getting the Max Cleland treatment.

Again, fearfulness is not a great trait in a leader or anyone who wants to be one.

But calling the Patriot Act a bipartisan measure is like calling a mugging a voluntary donation because you gave the mugger your wallet in exchange for not getting shot.

Is there anyway we can distinguish between Democrats who voted for it because they actually felt it was the right thing to do and those who did so because they are timorous cowards? I'd hate to paint them all with a broad brush but how do we know which is which?

But I'll give full props to the Democrats on this one; they will now be able to claim (falsely but so what?) that they are the ones that prodded the administration into doing what it was apparently planning on doing anyway.

What the flying fuck are the Democrats going to claim falsely here?

That Bush said he had a plan to get us out of Iraq when he doesn't?

Geez, you're grasping here, Bill.

Um...noooooo....What I said (helpfully still just right above your post) was that the plan to reduce troops as the Iraqi forces become more proficient is pretty much what has always been the plan. It doesn't have a timetable, so if that is an essential part of any withdrawal plan for you then it won't pass muster but most of the Democratic plans I have seen don't set a specific time either . Maybe that's more acceptable to you when it comes from them. At any rate, what I said was that A- the Pentagon seemed to be making statements that indicated they were planning for troop reductions. A short time later Democrats B- called for a plan for troop reductions. It would be false to claim that B, which followed A, actually caused A.

You could certainly argue that I'm wrong about this interpretation but that might take a bit more effort than just dismissing it with a "Geez, you're grasping here". Am I wrong about the Pentagon? Did I get the timing mixed up? Were Biden et al unaware of the Pentagon statements?

I also said, who cares? It was a smart move and steals political capital that Bush could have gained by announcing plans for troop reduction. Sorry if you see that as "grasping". I see it as quite obvious and a rare example of clever politics from the Dems. I think you're letting anger get in the way of reason--does every post have to include a reference to Bush being a dummy for it not to be considered a slavish defense???

ahhhh.....plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose.

What you and Bill have been saying Craig, while fascinating and insightful (as always), isn't the issue. We all know (and by we, I include about 57% of Americans) that Bush is a semi-functional idiot, who might be competent to run a local jail (actually, given his stand on torture, that may be a bad idea.) the real question is: what have WE got to offer the people? We stand in a position we have't had since Nixon: we have a BIG majority on our side. So what do we offer the people in the upcoming Senate race? Are we gonna run on the "Hey, we aren't the Republicans" ticket? Cause thats all I see. We could actually DO something, and the best thing that we can come up with is "Bush is a poophead??"

get back to me when the Deomcrats have gotten over stating the obvious and can give me something to vote FOR. I mean, didn't we learn anything from the Kerry debacle?

It's not as easy as that. You're absolutely right, of course, but consider the quandary of a potential Democratic leader; right now all the signs point toward a potentially big gain for the Democrats in 2006, not the least of which because the Republican base is justifiably disappointed in the lackluster performance of the Republicans currently in charge.

So there is a big temptation to just let it happen, to not do anything that might snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. To not get blamed by an increasingly bitter base that is ready to tar and feather anyone they see as responsible for another defeat (I was stunned to see the vitriol aimed at James Carvelle and Donna Brazille on some recent kos boards).

The problem, as you know, is that the elections are a year off, and a lot can happen in a year. They're afraid to stake out a position now and have it turn around and bite them in the ass. I still say go for it--hard to beat something with nothing--but you can understand why they are reluctant to do so. So far, Hillary has done the best job of playing the game, which is why I still say she has the nomination practically locked up.

I mean, didn't we learn anything from the Kerry debacle?

Obviously Kerry hasn't--he just voted for a bill and then a few minutes later switched his vote to against it. Breathtaking. You're John Kerry. There's already a good chance that the words "I voted for the bill before I voted against it" will appear on your tombstone. What is the one thing that you should never ever do again? Congratulations, you are now officially a smarter politician than John Kerry.

Again, fearfulness is not a great trait in a leader or anyone who wants to be one.

Never said it was.

Is there anyway we can distinguish between Democrats who voted for it because they actually felt it was the right thing to do and those who did so because they are timorous cowards? I'd hate to paint them all with a broad brush but how do we know which is which?

Simple those that voted for it were timorous cowards. Those that thought it was the right thing to do - do not exist.

Simple enough for you?

Like most republicans I encounter, Bill, you seem to labor under the misperception that because I am anti-Bush, I must harbor a deep love for the Senate Democrats. I assure you I do not. I voted for Kerry for one reason and one reason only: He was the only other realistic option to counter Bush's philosophy of government by incompetent and corrupt cronyism.

I would have preferred another option, someone from outside the Senate, but sometimes you have to take the lesser of two idiots.

The problem, as you know, is that the elections are a year off, and a lot can happen in a year. They're afraid to stake out a position now and have it turn around and bite them in the ass.

Which is the biggest problem democrats have right now by expecting a leader to emerge from the Senate. The Senate is the absolutely worst environment for staking out a strong position and holding on to it until the bitter end. The Senate is designed to foster continuous debate and compromise. It's a dealmaker's paradise, not a place to find someone with strong convictions. It's also what makes the Senate the absolutely worst place from which to launch a presidential campaign. When was the last time a sitting US Senator was elected president? Kennedy?

I still say go for it--hard to beat something with nothing--but you can understand why they are reluctant to do so. So far, Hillary has done the best job of playing the game, which is why I still say she has the nomination practically locked up.

I would disagree. Her position from the start is similar to Kerry's, being both for and against the war at that same time.

Also, I still think it's pretty premature to say anyone has the nomination locked up. The election is three years away and if you think a lot can happen in one year, think of how things can change in three.

Remember, there was a time when everyone just knew that Howard Dean had the nomination locked up. That evaporated in less than a month.

It doesn't have a timetable

How convenient.

But then, it's even more convenient that the Pentagon now claims to say we're going to start getting troops out, with only a year to go until mid-term elections.

This rhetoric wasn't there a few months ago, when those in the Bush Administration were saying we'd stay for 10 years if that's what it takes, and they gave NO indication when anybody might be coming home.

Are you shocked, Craig? Just last week, Murtha was a coward for even suggesting that we start a pullout, now it's policy.

Look at this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051128/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/wilkerson_interview

Everytime I get a glimpse of the inner workings of this administration, I want to go run screaming into the night.

Are you shocked, Craig?

No, I'm not.

I said before we went to Iraq that we'd be in a war to get Bush reelected.

And now for the troops to be out of Iraq before he leaves office? Brownie points for the next set of dumbass Republicans who covet the Oval Office.

Nor should I be shocked that the rest of America is so stupid as to believe that this is anything other than political meandering.

When that Google search came up a couple of years back referring to Bush as a "miserable failure"... well, it's only become more and more true as time as gone on.

Simple those that voted for it were timorous cowards. Those that thought it was the right thing to do - do not exist.

Simple enough for you?

Simple but useless. Why would you think that was true? Is it so incomprehensible to believe that people honestly differ from you on this issue for reasons that are not pure cut and dry you're good, they're evil?

I may be partisan but I won't be so self indulgent as to assume that anyone who disagrees MUST do so for bad reasons.

Like most republicans I encounter, Bill, you seem to labor under the misperception that because I am anti-Bush, I must harbor a deep love for the Senate Democrats.

Not at all. And if I did, you've cleared it up--you have a degree of contempt for them that I would never imagine.

Which is the biggest problem democrats have right now by expecting a leader to emerge from the Senate. The Senate is the absolutely worst environment for staking out a strong position and holding on to it until the bitter end.

But when you're right, my friend, you're right. senators always have their names on bad bills that were simply the best they could get at the time; they have votes that are embarrassing when looked at years later. They also tend to be bad at the rough and tumble aspect of campaigning, having been led to believe that life is like the Senate, where even people who hate you call you sir. It's been said that a Senator is someone who, when they look into a mirror, sees the face of the next president of the United States.

So who else do they have? Richardson's star was fading even before he struck out on the resume revelation. Mark Warner is a real possibility though. Wes Clark? I wasn't too impressed the first time but maybe he's learned. Wow, imagine having to vote for a contributer to Fox News!

Remember, there was a time when everyone just knew that Howard Dean had the nomination locked up. That evaporated in less than a month.

Right again, and I should know better. But...she has WAY more money than anyone else and can raise tons more with barely any effort--factor in the fact that Bill Clinton can probably raise even more for her and you have an advantage that will be hard to beat. She appeals to a lot of liberals even though she is less liberal than other candidates and appeals to less liberal voters because, again, she is less liberal than other candidates. That's a pretty deadly combination right there. I just don't see anyone gaining much traction against her. She will also be very hard to campaign against for any other Democrat.

I may well be wrong but the only thing I see stopping her is if she decides not to run and I'm not sure why she would do so.

Simple but useless. Why would you think that was true? Is it so incomprehensible to believe that people honestly differ from you on this issue for reasons that are not pure cut and dry you're good, they're evil?

I said cowardly, not evil.

I may be partisan but I won't be so self indulgent as to assume that anyone who disagrees MUST do so for bad reasons.

They're politicians. I always assume that their motives are suspect.

Not at all. And if I did, you've cleared it up--you have a degree of contempt for them that I would never imagine.

I find you have fewer disappointments if you hate all politicians.

So who else do they have? Richardson's star was fading even before he struck out on the resume revelation. Mark Warner is a real possibility though. Wes Clark? I wasn't too impressed the first time but maybe he's learned. Wow, imagine having to vote for a contributer to Fox News!

Well, I think a governor or a retired general might have a better chance of winning the general election then a senator. Richardson will probably still run. A lot of people are talking up Warner, some even calling him the new Bill Clinton, but at this point, I know next to nothing about him. Wes Clark's biggest weakness was simply that he wasn't telegenic enough. Maybe with better handlers, he could do better.

John Edwards is out of the Senate now, which as I said, might actually work to advantage.

Most senators do see the next president in the mirror, but if you look at the list of recent failures to emerge from the Senate: Kerry, Dole, Gore -hell, Johnson only got to sit in the Oval Office because Kennedy got shot- it's clear that since WW II at least, there's been a preference for governors (GWB, Clinton, Reagan, Carter) over senators. Losing a senate race probably helped Nixon get elected in 68.

Yeah, Hillary has the name recognition and a lot of financial support, but it is still three years away. Few people were putting any money on Bill Clinton in 1989 or GWB in 1997, but they both managed to emerge as leaders three years later.

Hillary's biggest weakness is Hillary. Her demeanor and the baggage she brings (ie, Bill) will alienate as many people as it attracts. Plus, early leaders tend to fizzle out fast once the primaries actually get under way (see Howard Dean again, also Paul Tsongas and Bob Dole in 1988).

We'll see. One thing is for sure, 2008 will be an interesting race.

I hadn't considered Edwards as being from outside the Senate. Yeah, that would work to his advantage.

I wouldn't consider Gore as an example of senatorial weakness since, for many, they knew him only as the VP.

You are absolutely correct about why Hillary should not be considered a lock and yet I can't stop thinking that she is. For one thing, we have to acknowledge that times have changed. We know far more about the candidates than before and they can emerge, rise, dominate, falter and collapse in a matter of weeks (The Howard Dean Story). I think that makes it less likely that a dark horse will emerge that can withstand the Clinton Money Machine--I have a feeling that if she wins just a couple of primaries it's Game Over and the rest will be jockeying for the Vice Presidential spot (she could do far worse than Clark).

The thing about Hillary is that she is an entirely unique situation. New paradigms are needed.(Amazingly, in all our discussion, the fact that she's a woman hasn't come up. If anything, I think it may help her or at least be a much smaller negative factor in her getting elected than would have been imaginable even 10 years ago).In her case she was famous before the senate thing and she has done a good job as senator. A rare example of the Senate actually helping.

Yeah, it'll be an amazing election, at least up to the conventions. Looking forward to it.

I still hold out hope for a crossover party. It would be an interesting exercise in political and sociological theory: would more people from both sides vote for the cross-over canidate, or less?

but in all probability, it is going to be Hillary. This leaves two large questions. First, who will run as VP? And second, who will the Rep's put up? Will they do what they did against Carter, and basically abandon all hope?
Or will they put up someone strong? Really this depends on how bad Bush does in the next 3.5 years. If he does REALLY bad, they may decide not to waste the money (especially against someone as well funded as Clinton.) However, if he stays at the same level, the Rep might decide it is worth a fight.

And THAT will be fun to watch.

Incidentially, once again demonstrating the eerie genius/prescience of this column, here is a column from the Christian Science Monitor with exactly the same topic as we have been discussing here.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1129/p09s01-codc.html

I swear I didn't see this earlier.

The Republicans gave up against Carter? Then they were pretty damn stupid because Ford came very close to winning. Carter only got 50.1% of the vote (Which is still the highest percentage of any Democratic candidate since Roosevelt). You may be right though; as I remember the election Ford was behind the whole time and expected to lose but for some reason came back very strong in the last week or so. I don't remember why but I remember people being surprised at how close it was.

I seriously doubt that the republicans will just sit out the chance to fight Hillary but I do see a danger that if they nominate either of the 2 guys who could beat her decisively--Guliani or McCain--there might be a third party spoiler by angry (and politically suicidal) conservatives. But I still think they'd win--McCain could peel off as many Democrats as he would lose to whoever the rightwing throws at him. And if he picks Jeb bush as his VP he ensures that the party powers now in place will support him to the hilt (At 72 in 2008 he may well be planning for only 1 term anyway. Actually, that could be a selling point; a president who is not obsessed with re-election.)

The biggest thing holding McCain back is the very real fears about his health. Any sign of illness could be devastating. Expect Hillary to make a big deal about releasing health records, something Bill never did but all's fair...

At any rate, while I think that Hillary has far more appeal than is currently thought, there is a good chance that independents will turn against her, so I doubt that the Republicans would let her take it in a walk. She's never wowed me in debates so they might want to take that into consideration. Imagine Guliani vs Hillary--you'd have to expect Rudy to clean her clock (though he's better not come off as a bully).

Boy, if this turns out to be just Edwards vs Romney I'm going to be very disappointed.

Guiliani has one thing in common with Hillary and that's the more people get to know him, the less they like about him. Seriously, NYers were ready to run him out of office in 2001. 9/11 basically saved his political ass. Like Hillary, he comes with a lot of baggage that will alienate the social conservatives, so between him and McCain, he's the one who is most likely to inspire a conservative spoiler candidate.

McCain remains a wild card. He's conservative, but has enough of an appeal to moderates that he'd be a good choice for the GOP IF they want to try for a centrist approach. But that flies in the face of the Rovian "base forward" thinking that has dominated republican strategy for the past several elections. The fact that this strategy has worked in the last two elections, albeit by razor thin margins, may indicate that many in the GOP leadership will want to push for another name that the social conservatives will prefer. That would put both McCain and Guiliani SOL.

If McCain gets the nomination, it will be despite the wishes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al. And if he does, I doubt he'll tap Jeb Bush for his VP. There isn't exactly a lot of love between him and the Bush camp. If we do see a McCain-Jeb Bush ticket, expect Jeb to be one of the most marginalized VPs since Johnson.

There probably is, as you say, very little love lost between the Bush and McCain camps, but McCain did campaign enthusiastically for Bush against Kerry and the fact that this came after Kerry all but offered him the chance to be on the ticket wounded kerry a great deal. Bush may owe his re-election to McCain.

And look at the beauty of a McCain/Bush ticket; Job is well liked by the conservatives who are the least likely to support McCain and with the Senator's advanced age he becomes the obvious heir apparent in 2012 or 2016. For McCain it gives him the backing of the establishment and almost ensures victory.

Guiliani is an interesting case. yeah, New Yorkers were tired of him before 9/11 but that's teh nature of being mayor of New York. He still went out on his own, which no other NYC mayor managed to do within my memory. Having a rep as a guy who can handle a crisis is a dman good one to have in a post 9/11/Katrina world.

I'm not sure how "enthusiastic" McCain was in campaigning for Bush. Yeah, he did his bit as a loyal republican, but from the appearances I saw him on TV, he didn't look that enthusiastic. Plus, IIRC, he was the only prominent republican to condemn the Swift Boat vets ads.

And honestly, could this country survive Jeb Bush as the "heir apparent"? Isn't that kind of like going to see Deuce Bigelow III and expecting it not to suck?

Guiliani, on the other hand, didn't really go out on "on his own." He was the first mayor to be term limited out of office in NYC. And after 9/11, he was making noises about wanting to run again if he could get the law changed. With the mystique of 9/11 worn off, I don't see him as a winning strategy for the GOP.

Bill: I may be wrong on that whole Ford thing, but that was the way I was taught it. Heck, there are plenty of people here who remember it, so what do I know?

Where Jeb Bush is concerened, I once again think that it all rests on his brother. If Bush continues to suck (and there is NO doubt that he will) then the American people won't want to hear about him, his brother, or anyone else ever REMOTELY connected with him, which would kill Rummy too.

If he does mediocre (which would fill me with joy) then the people in the administration might have a chance. I still think the Reps. are gonna try to avoid the administration entirely. Cheney is too easy to bring down on health issues.

I think it will be McCain. Hes got the outsider opinion, the War Vet status, and, quite frankly, hes a good guy. If the Democrats put up another wiffle ball like Kerry, then I can see a lot of more moderate Democrats voting for him, including myself.

Of course, this might be all wishful thinking, and it degenerates into edward's v. Cheney.

My fear with Jeb is the infamously short memory of the American voter. In 1992, voters turned out Bush the first because he was detached and out of touch with the concerns of the common people. Bush II realized this, so his people contrived this image of him as the down home Texan who understands the common folk.

And the American people bought into it. They ignored his Ivy League legacy status and his entire past life as the spoiled son of a millionaire. It took Katrina to open up the American people's eyes to see that in reality, George W. Bush is detached and out of touch with the concerns of the common people.

So, even if Bush continues to bumble his way through the last three years of his administration, Jeb Bush can still create some kind of image of himself that he is different from his father, brother and mother by 2012.

And in all honesty, those republicans who think Jeb is the obvious "heir apparent" do you really want to create a political dynasty? Should having a relative who was president really be enough reason to vote for someone in a republican?

I still have my doubts that McCain will get the nod. His maverick status in the GOP may give him crossover appeal with moderate voters, but it also works against him with the GOP establishment. It'll all hinge on whether the primary voters will want a fresh start or an "heir apparent."

NOT GUILTY!!!

Woo Hoo!....(Yes, I know it's a comic strip....I'm goofy that way.)

Ironically enough, I really couldn't understand what John Byrne was trying to say during his testimony...and I re-read the thing three times.

Posted by: Kyle Dasan at November 30, 2005 04:52 PM

Ironically enough, I really couldn't understand what John Byrne was trying to say during his testimony...and I re-read the thing three times.

Byrne was there as an expert witness to refure the assumption that comics are only for kids (and that animation is just for kids, too)

I seem to recall him making the point (as a sort of reductio ad absurdum) that the written word can be appropriate, can be produced, for any level or age of reader, and visual art can be, also ... but put them together in the form of a comic, and suddenly it has to be appropriate for the youngest audience, no matter what.

This reminds me of the run-in i had (at Dennis Dolbear's old Betz Avenue home, quite possibly "gone with the wind" now)with John Guidry, of the 1988 New Orleans (SF) WorldCon committee -- "Watchmen" was in its eligibility year for Hugos (i think it might actually have had a potential eligibility in two years, since it was a serial and i think that segments came out in two different calnedar years).

A lot of people -- including me -- felt it deserved to be nominated (and probably lose, but that's another story) in the "Best Novel" category. NOLaCon didn't, so they created a special "Other Forms" category (as allowed by the rules) to appease those who supported "Watchmen" (it di win that award).

So, why wasn't "Watchmen" allowed into the "Best Novel category"?

Quoth Jawn "It's not a novel."

Quoth i "Yes, it is."

"Not according to the Rules," he said.

"I happen to have a copy of the Rules right here," i said, "and a 'novel' is defined as ... 'a work of sf or fantasy of at least 4000 words', which i'm sure 'Watchmen'is."

Quoth the Guidry: "It's not a novel. it's a comic book."

Mike, that's a lot like Neil Gaiman's experience with the World Fantasy Award. In 1991, he won best short story for an issue of Sandman, the first comic to ever win the award. The next year, they changed the rules to make sure it would also be the last.

Somewhere, a scruffy-looking young man wearing a "Resistance is Futile" T Shirt releases a single white dove....

Well, that's a nice sentiment, but it's clearly fiction. It makes me sad to think that, in the past, and in many communities today, if this were a real trial, we'd see a conviction.

But I guess the point is to get the idea circulating, and a large, mass-media distributed strip like Funky is a good start.

Mike, that's a lot like Neil Gaiman's experience with the World Fantasy Award. In 1991, he won best short story for an issue of Sandman, the first comic to ever win the award. The next year, they changed the rules to make sure it would also be the last.

Heh. Actually, it was more like the next *day*.

What's up with award ceremonies changing the rules to limit who can win? After the score to Two Towers won the Oscar, they changed the description of the category to exclude film sequals. Yet, while there are similar themes running through all the LotR movies (or Star Wars, or Star Trek, etc.), each of those soundtracks is a unique piece.

Didn't the New York Times (or someone) change the way it ran its Bestseller lists after one of the Harry Potter books sat on the top spot for a little while? Separated children's books or something?

The reason for those types of changes, I think, is that a work that's deemed "not good enough" by the rules committee manages to win (this would happen a lot more in People's Choice Awards or other consumer-driven awards like the Bestseller list), and rather than rewrite one's preconceptions, it's easier to just rewrite the rules.

Also, I didn't really want to get involved in the earlier political discussion, but I did want to see if anyone could answer this question (inspired by someone pointing out that many Senate Democrats later admitted they didn't read the Patriot Act): We pay these people good money, and their only job is to pass laws. If your senator (regardless of his/her political party) admitted to voting on a bill he didn't even try to understand, why would anyone consider voting for him ever again? Why wouldn't a political opponent jump all over that? I know, the obvious answer is that they all do it, but it seems absurd to me that we let them get by with it.

After the score to Two Towers won the Oscar, they changed the description of the category to exclude film sequals.

In the end, either they did not end up going through with that, or RotK somehow still got by this exclusion, because it was nominated and won for Best Score.

I think the better example was the Oscars creating the Best Animated Film because of Shrek.

"In the end, either they did not end up going through with that, or RotK somehow still got by this exclusion, because it was nominated and won for Best Score."

I would guess that it was determined to be eligible, despite attempts to prevent it from being accepted. Rules are at http://www.ampas.org/77academyawards/rules/rule16.html

"I. Original Score:
An original score is a substantial body of music in the form of dramatic underscoring written specifically for the film by the submitting composer.

B. ELIGIBILITY
1. The work must be specifically created for the eligible feature-length motion picture."

Looks like they were trying to keep sequal music out, but series like LotR and the Star Wars films, while carrying familiar themes, each have unique scores.

Another online comic some here might appreciate.

Another online comic some here might appreciate.

That's hilarious stuff. I'm adding that one to my daily visit list. :)

Another online comic some here might appreciate.

That's hilarious stuff. I'm adding that one to my daily visit list. :)

--------------------
Unshelved will often have comic and science fiction references. Besides having the entire strip archived, it's also been collected in three volumes.

David

It ain't over.

On 29 November, John was acquitted.

Lisa won the case. The people who pulled together and supported John and partied for him after the acquittal hang around at Montoni's.

Lisa's office is a walkup either over Montoni's or next door.

The complainant was humiliated.

The humiliated complainant is a City Councilwoman.

In the strip for 8 December (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/funky.asp?date=20051208), with no warning, city workers began tearing up the street and sidewalk in front of Montoni's, completely closing off the sidewalk.

It ain't over till it's over.

So an innocent pizza joint suffers because one woman was made to look the fool. le-sigh. If only that were just fiction.

Weird.

Did a post here a while back. Went away to work on my own blog.

Came back here.

Checked the "Most Recent Comments" list, and my post was listed.

Clicked the link, and it brought me to the bottom of the vomment list... but my comment wasn't there.

So i'll try to remember what i said:

Yeah, Lisa won John's case for him, and got him an acquittal on the obscenity charges.

Yah, John's friends gave him a big party at Montoni's, the pizza parlor that is the moral center of the "Funky" universe. (And in whose basement John has the shop.)

But did they really "win"?

Recall the Backy's mother, who brought the charges, and was humiliated on the stand by Lisa, is a City Councilwoman.

What a co-incidence that the city has, without notice, discussion or warning, during what Tony Montoni says is his biggest business period of the year, decided to totally close down and tear up the street in front of Montoni's (and, even more co-incidentally, the Komix Korner and Lisa's second-floor walk-uip law office!

It don't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.

Posted by: Sasha at December 1, 2005 09:43 AM

Mike, that's a lot like Neil Gaiman's experience with the World Fantasy Award. In 1991, he won best short story for an issue of Sandman, the first comic to ever win the award. The next year, they changed the rules to make sure it would also be the last.

Heh. Actually, it was more like the next *day*.

"Heh" right back. When Bill Veeck (as in "wreck", to quote the title of his autobiography), the man still reviled by many for attempting to make baseball fun*, owned the White Sox, he had variable height oufield fences -- that is, there were like six-foot high chain-link extensions to the tops of the fences that the grounds staff would put up before games when the incoming team had better hitting power than the Sox, or take down when the Sox could expect to outslug the visitors.

Perfectly legal.

Then one day he was bored, had an inspiration, read the Rules Book VERY carefully, and called in a friend who owned a hydraulics contracting firm.

Comes the game when (let's say the Yankees) were in town, and they *Definitely* outpowered the Sox in long-ball hitting, and the game begins, as expected, with the extra fence extensions in place.

They finish the top of the first, and the Yankees are getting ready to take the field and the Sox's first batter is in the on-deck circle, when a creaking and a jingling is heard... Everyone looks toward the outfield fences...

And the extension chain-link sections are folding along the outside of the fence.

The opposing manager is yelling at the umpires.

The umps, who were caught by surprise, are yelling at Veeck.

Veeck is holding the Rule Book and pointing out that fences are the sole responsibility of the home team and *doesn't* say that they can't be changed during the game.

The game continues, under protest.

Within an hour of the end of the game, a special telephone meeting of the League Owners' Association outlaws moving fences during the ghame.

Veeck says it cost him a lot... but he got more publicity out of it than he couls ever have bought for the same money.

=================================
*He created the first fireworks-shooting socreboard that exploded when the home team hit a home run.

Sorry about the multiple posts; over some time (a period of hours), the "Most Recent Posts" list kept showing me as having poted, but the posts didn't appear... so i tried again.

And the *%&&* "Preview" still seems to be broken.

Posted by: Bobb at December 9, 2005 02:55 PM

So an innocent pizza joint suffers because one woman was made to look the fool. le-sigh. If only that were just fiction.

If it were only that it were only Montoni's suffering as a result of the Councilwoman's bigotry. (As a matter of fact, judging by the 10 December strip, Montoni's isn't hurting too badly.)

As i pointed out, this action also harms Komix Korner (probably actually the main target), which being a shoe-string business probably can't take a second major economic hit this soon and it hurts Lisa Moore's law practise, which is a little more financially solid than Komix Korner, but not tremendously so. Which is probably Just Fine with the Councilwoman, considering her past history with Lisa and English-teacher husband Les.

And it harms every other business on that block.

And that's bad enough. But that's localised to one neighbourhood.

But, beyond that, how much does it cost the entire city to have men and machines out there in the holiday season, doing what is almost certainly non-essential work?

And, before that, what was the cost to the entire city of arresting and prosecuting John and losing? (It ain't free for the prosecuting side, either.)

And all because one woman is stupid, intolerant and vengefully arrogantly stubborn.

(*coff*Nancy Reagan*coff*War on Some Drugs*coff*)

If only