ComicMix

Facebook comments:

Discussion (42) ¬

1. 
   Linda Gold

   January 4, 2008 at 1:24 pm | # | Reply

   Michael,
   if Mr. and Mrs. Conservative did what you asked we would have to call them Mr. and Mrs. Liberal.
   Great column as usual.
2. 
   Vinnie Bartilucci

   January 4, 2008 at 1:50 pm | # | Reply

   The automatic ad generators have placed a "Get 3 conservative books for a dollar" ad next to this article as I read it. God bless the Internet.

   One thing I’ve always found fascinating in political arguments is that in both cases, Liberals and Conservatives hold completely disparate views when it comes to fiscal and moral views. With Conservatives, the free market should control everything – if prices are too high, the market will drive them down through the laws of supply and demand, there’s no need for gonverment intervention on a day-by-day basis. But in the case of moral issues, the government should be heavily involved, making sure the morals of the country are kept in line. In Liberals’ case, it’s exactly reverse; people should be allowed to do whatever they like, if it doesn’t hurt anyone else then do it (unless you, you know, smoke, eat too much, like an occasional un-PC joke, etc.). But in business matters, the government should be on like Donkey Kong.

   I’m what they like to call a "South Park Republican" in that I consider myself a conservative, but don’t hold with the extreme "family values" views of the party. I am, as Jesse "The Body" Ventura described himself, a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Now technically, that makes me a libertarian, but no one takes them seriously, so I prefer to ally with the major party that hold with my views best, and try to change it from within. If I had to choose fiscal or social issues that should be handled by the Government, I’d choose fiscal, and the fiscal views I more support are the Republicans’ so there I am.

   Both the Democrats and Republicans had made themselves beholden to the extreme fringes of their parties, and they now represent to the public what the parties supposedly stand for. So the Democrats come off as tree-hugging anti-god maniacs, and republicans come off as bible-waving warmongers. And both views are are wrong. But if a politician tries to step away from those extremes and to the center (where, as the bell curve shows, most people are), he’s accused of pandering to the other side, and being a new Chamberlain.

   It’s why more and more middle-of-the-road people shy away from the politcal/voting process altogether. Neither party represents their beliefs. And that’s why the candidates become more and and more extreme, to appeal to the fringes who DO vote, and it all snowballs. The only way to get people interested is to scare them to death. (See earlier arguments about "global warming")

   "Tell me there is not racism." Oh, there definitely still is. Is there UNIVERSAL, INSTITUTIONAL racism? No. Getting rid of racism is patently impossible, it’s as hard as getting rid of the common cold. (See what I did there, I just compared racism to a disease…) You can come damn close, but people will always want a way to delineate the "We" from the "They" whether it be skin tone, hair length, intelligence or whether or not our bellies have stars. I don’t know of anyone who is patently stating there is NO racism in this country. Many are saying that the issue has abated enough that affirmative action programs are not necessary; I’m pretty much on the "Bullcrap" side of that one. AFAIC, the very fact that Obama (who won in Iowa, a state where I believe the number of black people can be counted on a calculator with only 5 spaces) could be considered a strong candidate for President SHOWS that racism is far less endemic in this country. Alas, it has no direct connection to the fact that you can’t get a cab.

   Ya see, one of the other things I cannot stand about political arguments is that is there is not 100% total success in an issue, the argument must be made as if there is NONE. So since (disease/problem X) has not yet been cured and wiped from the planet, the attempt to do so is a total failure, and all the headway made is irrelevant. I think you get much more done by saying "You’ve done a good job so far, there’s just these few areas we need to work on" than "You haven’t done enough, you’re a bad person because this isn’t completely fixed". Sometimes the reaction to "Keep the pressure on" is "Screw this, he’ll never be happy…"

   As for the whole "Not everybody likes democracy" thing, I gotta go with "Yeahbuwha?" I’m sorry, but I don’t see how you can’t think that representative government isn’t the best form of government yet invented. If the people of Iraq didn’t want it, they wouldn’t have taken their lives in their hands NUMEROUS TIMES to vote in the general elections they’ve had since Saddam was taken down.
3. 
   Michael H. Price

   January 4, 2008 at 7:42 am | # | Reply

   Yessir. Seems as though the harder America pushes to re-make all Those Other Countries in its image, the more like Those Other Countries America becomes. We're justthisclose to a theocratic transformation as a consequence — from "live and let live" to "death to the unbelievers!" in scarcely the space of two presidential terms. As Mantan Moreland would say: "Waitaminnit!"And yes, We the People have yet to integrate in any lasting way. Easier to pay lip-service to "multiculturalism" and "diversity" without actually pulling ourselves together.
4. 
   Michael Davis

   January 4, 2008 at 8:54 am | # | Reply

   I cannot believe that this piece is running next to an AD selling 3 conservative books for a dollar. THAT MUCH???

   • 
     Linda Gold

     January 4, 2008 at 2:34 pm | # | Reply

     Even better, now an ad for Ann Coulter's free e-mail is up next to this column!
5. 
   Vinnie Bartilucci

   January 4, 2008 at 9:10 am | # | Reply

   Had to get one more point in there…"Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State?"It never existed. The constitution promises freedom of religion, and that the government shall not institute a single national religion (i.e. the Anglican Church). This has been interpreted by later readers of the passage as "Church and State must be completely separated". This is a relatively new viewpoint. The majority (I believe you can still say vast majority) of people in this country follow the judeo-christian religions and ethic set. any laws are based on things like the Ten Commandments, as opposed to the Code of Hammurabi. So posting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, for example, is not a statement of support for the religion(s) that use them, but a statement that our legal system is based, to a great degree, on them.And until certain groups came along, no one was offended by them being there (or, as Douglas Adams said, at least no one worth mentioning). And no one was ever offended by the "In God we trust" on the money either. But for groups whose mission statement should read "to be offended", those things are the worst thing going on in America today. And somehow, if they were removed, the country would get better.Now, to answer your point about legislating morality, I AGREE with you. You can't (ok, shouldn't) do it. But the vast majority of laws are based on general beliefs about morality. Almost all believe that robbery is wrong, so they made laws against it. Same for killing, etc. If a majority of people believe (thing X) is bad, morally repugnant, or just plain gross, then they can pass laws about it. But if a significant number of people who believe (thing X) is ok, they will either ignore the law, or better, fight to change it. Prohibition is a good example of fairly recent vintage. It's part of Democracy, the policital system that not everyone likes.Here's an odd thing. Of all the horrific things that Democrats claim that Republicans will do when they get in power (repeal welfare, make abotion illegal, et al), how many have actually been done? The republicans had the white house and the congress lots of time over the last few years, yet money to assistance programs always went up, no abortion laws were repealed…in short, nothing happened. The same holds true for the Democrats, of course, nothing really changes when they're in charge either. So for all the claims that this thing will be made illegal if THEY get it, I just don't see ANY of it happening. They'll both wave with the wind, happily giving the majority what they say they want that day, good for them or not. To paraphrase Kay, Individuals are smart, people are stupid.

   • 
     Michael Davis

     January 4, 2008 at 10:56 am | # | Reply

     'But the vast majority of laws are based on general beliefs about morality.' Really Vinnie? Then why does PORN out sell every other form of entertainment in the universe? Clearly people want it but conservatives want to ban it. That is another reason why I am not a conservative it's CRYSTAL clear that people in this country like their porn but conservatives see it as a blight on society that MUST be stamped out. How is that part of Democracy when the people want something but Conservatives say you can't have it? I would pimp slap my kid into the stone age if she got involved in porn-but it's her right to do so and if those are her morals then it's on her. No one is saying that acts such as murder and other crimes should be someone's right to do because that's what they believe -that would be crazy. But when people decide to do something (legal) with their bodies YOUR moral out look should not have a damn thing to do with what they are doing. On the flip side (and I have said this before) my mother smokes a zillion packs of cigarettes a day if she gets cancer then that's on her. Not you,not the state and certainly not the cigarette company. If she chooses to smoke then some young idiot can decide to watch porn all day. No one should tell them not to or try and regulate their actions 'for the greater good.' You cannot deny no matter how good your argument that conservative want to impose a moral gage on America. That's why it's such an outrage when we find one of them in a bathroom playing 'booty toe' with a undercover cop or find a moral leader who is doing drugs with his gay lover.

     • 
       Vinnie Bartilucci

       January 4, 2008 at 1:15 pm | # | Reply

       Before I start, bear in mind that in the case of legislating morality I AGREE with you. It pretty much doesn't work.I also grasp you're just using porn as an example, so I shall as well.The laws against porn have gradually been weakened, or simply left unenforced, for years. Heck, I just watched a documentary about Deep Throat that showed most of the scenes that got the original film banned all over the country. When the laws were created, they were generally considered right and proper by the majority of the populace. And as time passed, those laws have changed. Perhaps not at the rate everyone might want, but they have changed. And that statement is true for just about every taboo or non-mainstream act you can think of, including the gay lifestyle, gambling and drugs.Going back to my point, despite the conservative party line that porn is so evil, where are the new sweeping laws making pornography illegal? None. There are blue laws in place in many local areas, and obviously laws against kiddie porn, but on the whole, despite endless pulpit-pounding and promises made, porn is as easy to find as ever, if not more. This just lends credence to my point – all told, either side is going to change much of anything, it'll just FEEL like they are depending which side you're on.
   • 
     Mike Gold

     January 4, 2008 at 11:28 am | # | Reply

     "So posting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, for example, is not a statement of support for the religion(s) that use them, but a statement that our legal system is based, to a great degree, on them."Well, no, that is obviously untrue. Only two of the 10 commandments are a matter of law, those being #6 and #8. And #9, but only when you testify in court under affirmation. And #1, #2, #3, #4 are actually and completely unconstitutional."And until certain groups came along,"What do you mean by "certain groups?" Anybody who does not believe in your uni-god? Sorry, dude, but we were here first and the First Amendment applies to us as well."And no one was ever offended by the 'In God we trust' on the money either."Bullshit. I am, and so are my cohorts. It's been a matter of legal challenge, it will be again. It's an act of bigotry. So is the joke about if I don't believe in it I should give my money to you. I've been known to cross the phrase off of my paper money; I will not pledge my allegiance to your god and I resent the fact that you tie my patriotism to your belief structure.I've been told that because 85% of Americans are purportedly Christian, those of us who are not should just shut the hell up, that majority rules. That is not America; the framers of the nation were not morons, and they knew damn well their document was written to protect the rights of the minorities as well.

     • 
       Vinnie Bartilucci

       January 4, 2008 at 1:49 pm | # | Reply

       "What do you mean by 'certain groups?' " Groups who choose to spend time and resources (and causing time and resources to be spent by others) arguing minutae like whether or not "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance while there are endless other issues upon which that time and resources could and should be spent. This includes people who sue Nabisco over the trans-fat content of Oreos, circulators petitions to keep Spongebob being used in educational materials because "he's gay" and people trying to get "obscene" shows like Howard Stern and O&Aoff the air. "I've been told that because 85% of Americans are purportedly Christian, those of us who are not should just shut the hell up, that majority rules."Those people are wrong, if only because religion is not enforced by rules and therefore majority does NOT rule in its case. In the case of actual laws, yes, majority rules, and if you disagree with a law you have the right to try and change it, but must obey it until it is changed, or be willing to accept the consequences.The problem I have with the way the argument concerning religion and religious references is going now is "Since we cannot all agree on what is the proper thing to say, we must either say nothing, or say ALL things." So in order to be fair to all in something as subjective as religion, there are those who INSIST we say "Happy holidays" or list Ramadan, Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Festivus, Hogswatchnight et al. In the case of the more ulterior minded of the people involved, the hope is that the issue will become so complicated and convoluted, people will drop it altogether and the "no religion at all" side wins by default.It's not a Holiday tree. We don't sing Holiday carols. It is, hoever, a Yule Log, so there's your multi-belief representation right there.But conversely, "Merry Christmas" simply means "Merry Christmas", not "Merry Christmas and go to hell if you don't believe." After "In God We Trust, it doesn't say "And F-you if you don't". The christians of the world are not attacking you directly if they practice their religion, nor are Jews when they a yarmulke in public, or when the mosque down the street sounds prayer call over the PA. They don't even know who you, as an individual, are."the framers of the nation were not morons"But they were Christian, and there are references to God (Explicitly the judeo-christian one) in every one of our framing documents, and in the most moving speeches our leaders have given over two and counting centuries. But, and I stress this; nowhere in those documents or speeches is it said, implied or hinted that since those references are there, they only apply to those who adhere to them. THOSE kind of statements are the actions of other countries, ones where if you don't follow their religion you can be arrested and possibly killed.The ones we're trying to "force" democracy on.

       • 
         Mike Gold

         January 4, 2008 at 2:11 pm | # | Reply

         You don't get it. That's sad.When you say "Merry Christmas" to me, you are not talking to me. You are obnoxiously shoving your religion in my face, no matter what your intent. "Happy holidays" covers all bases; it is not exclusionary, it is polite.By advertising your deity on our money you are making a claim in the name of all Americans. I don't care if people wear religious symbols; that's their freedom of expression. I don't even care if you dress up in Klan robes; at least I know where you're coming from. Fashion statements do not affect me.Forcing me to promote your religion as an integral part of my nation is bigotry. Defining my patriotism by demanding I pledge my loyalty to your god is bigotry. We currently have at least two presidential candidates who have gone on record as saying people who do not believe in the great American uni-god are not good Americans, if, indeed, Americans at all. They are dangerous bigots no better than Osama bin Ladin or Tomás de Torquemada, and I wish them nothing but the worst in their endeavor.Oh and, by, the way, it IS a holiday tree. You ripped it off the pagans, right down to the tinsel. But thanks for the log.

         • 
           Adriane Nash

           January 4, 2008 at 2:44 pm | #

           And it should be noted that "under God" wasn't always in the pledge.
         • 
           Mike Gold

           January 4, 2008 at 3:09 pm | #

           It came in the mid-50s as a means to smoke the Commies out. That sure worked…
         • 
           Vinnie Bartilucci

           January 4, 2008 at 3:22 pm | #

           Let's split up the discussion…Personal statements of religion – "I don't care if people wear religious symbols; that's their freedom of expression"But if they say "Merry Christmas" it's "shoving your religion in my face"? Dichotomy much? What if they wear "Merry Christmas" earrings? What if they light up? What's the line of demarcation between free speech and personal attack? What's the acceptable volume level of the muzac innthe speakers at the mall before they become actionable hate crime?People have the right to practice their religion. Publicly. If you disagree with said (or any) religion, you have the right to practice this. Penn Jillette has a shirt he wears that reads "NO GOD" in huge, in your face letters. BOY does he get comments.The part that saddens/worries/rankles me is that insist on personalizing the act every time someone refers to said religion to you. If a person offers you paprika cookies, and you LOATHE paprika, they are making an attack on your anti-paprika standpoint; they're offering you cookies. Now, if said person knows full well of your standpoint on paprika, and offers you cookies anyway in an attempt to change your mind, then you are within your rights to bristle. Similarly, if a total stranger wishes you Merry Christmas, you needn't assume they're out to convert you or in some way denegrate you. How do you respond when people wish you merry christmas, or even say g-d bless you should you sneeze? Do you let it past, seethe quietly, respond with "thank you but I don't celbrate Christmas/believe in God", or lambaste them like a feminist who's just had a door held for her?Your gut-reactions sound, to summarize tactfully, over-reactive. Sometimes a banana is just a banana.Institutional statements of religion/deity – I chose to split the points because it is easier to assume that an individual is simply being misguidedly polite, while a government or other large institution must assume they will be dealing with people of varying faith (or lack of same) systems.This country was founded by Christians. And even though this was so, they wrote in their framing documents that you don't HAVE to be a Christian, or an anything, to live and thrive here. But they were still Christians. So they filled our history and our culture and our framing documents with references to the deity they knew. Back then, it was endemic to their culture that things were because of His will or good. And yet they STILL made it clear that you don't have agree with that to be an American. That makes them INCREDIBLY forward-thinking.References to God in our legal documents do not mean to support the judeo-christian God explicitly over any other, or any period. They are decorative representations of our past, and of the beliefs of the framers who made the country. They were not put there to make you sad. They were there before we came along, and unless the aforementioned "certain groups" have their way, they will be there after we are gone. They are as connected to the image of America as the white swirl ribbon is to Coca-Cola. They are tradition. The people who maintain that they maintain that those who do not hold to them are wrong, are themselves wrong."We currently have at least two presidential candidates who have gone on record as saying people who do not believe in the great American uni-god are not good Americans, if, indeed, Americans at all. They are dangerous bigots no better than Osama bin Ladin or Tomás de Torquemada, and I wish them nothing but the worst in their endeavor. "Case in point. Agreed completely. And the fact that such a statement would endear those people to voters is unpleasant at the dead least."Oh and, by, the way, it IS a holiday tree."You know, I knew that, I just didn't bother to specify it, I figured it could be left unsaid. I've gone on endlessly about how the Catholic Church absorbed other religions' totems and mythic figures, Borg-like transubstantiating them into saints and beloved traditions. The first version of the big corporation buying up smaller companies and re-branding them, really.————–A point of explanation."If we shadows have offended,Think but this, and all is mended,That you have but slumber'd hereWhile these visions did appear.And this weak and idle theme,No more yielding but a dream,Gentles, do not reprehend:if you pardon, we will mend:And, as I am an honest Puck,If we have unearned luckNow to 'scape the serpent's tongue,We will make amends ere long;Else the Puck a liar call;So, good night unto you all.Give me your hands, if we be friends,And Robin shall restore amends."I'm a sarcastic son of a bitch who likes having spirited debates with people who are as able with banterly wordslinging as I am. While I often bring up statements (and mis-staments) of my fellow raconteurs, I expressly avoid serious personal attack, sticking only to the points being discussed. My commentary is reasoned and cautioned, and any wry comments made about other participants are mere sarcastic jibes.But as the laws of of The Tru Faith Of the Sacred Cat clearly dictate, if the discussion begins to be taken too seriously, it ceases being fun and I will happily walk away, no harm no foul. While I believe and support the things I say, my goal is debate and discourse, not defection and dissention.If my statements are being taken too much to heart by any of my playmates, I will cede my side and go back to talking about Doctor Who and One More Day. And no need to make such request publicly, either. While I am loath to hang my email out in public, Elayne knows it and has my permission to distribute to anyone she deems trustwotrthy. Drop me a note, tell me I'm wrestling too stiff and I'll quietly fade away.
         • 
           Mike Gold

           January 4, 2008 at 4:39 pm | #

           "How do you respond when people wish you merry christmas, or even say g-d bless you should you sneeze?"I make a nonsense response. People who don't know me think I'm being funny. Nobody's ever said they were offended. But if some guy says "God bless" to me when I sneeze, I cut his damn balls off!No, wait. That's not me. Maybe Penn. Or Bill Maher. I forget.The fact that this country was founded LARGELY by Christians doesn't make it a Christian nation. If so it was founded by liars and fools because they promised religious freedom. I don't think they were fools. But when I want to reference Christian beliefs, do I reach for the Jefferson Bible? It seems to me that his edits would be highly offensive to today's Religious Right. When I think of Christian morality, should I be thinking of Ben Franklin, a brilliant man who took the concept of being a father of our country to the point that would, today, incur the wrath of the Religious Right?I appreciate what you're trying to make me understand, Vinnie. I can simplify my point: America, in letter and in theory, is supposed to tolerate religious diversity. But in practice, the United States of America is a theocracy, not quite to the level of Israel or many of the Moslem states, but not that far either. It is really, really tough if you're part of that 15% that's excluded. Some of us resent that exclusion. It's very hard for much of the 85% to understand because they are both noble of heart (honestly) and, of course, completely committed to at least the most basic beliefs. So you're probably going to have to trust me on this: those of us in that 15% ARE excluded, unless we want to parrot the majority belief.I have a history of not being able to do that. Some might think I need to be regrooved (that one's for Elayne).As for your comment on One More Day, it appear that is likely to be the subject of my sermon this Monday morning. I invite — and look forward — to your participation.
         • 
           Elayne Riggs

           January 5, 2008 at 9:39 am | #

           "Some might think I need to be regrooved (that one's for Elayne)."Don't know if it worked, Mike, as I recall Vinnie knows from Firesign as well. :)I look forward to your talk about One More Day — been wanting to post something news-y about it, but not having read it I wasn't sure what to say.
         • 
           Mike Gold

           January 5, 2008 at 10:13 am | #

           Well, you probably should read it before you read my (as yet uncomposed) rant, but, then again, I'll save you the time.
         • 
           Michael Davis

           January 4, 2008 at 5:17 pm | #

           'Drop me a note, tell me I'm wrestling too stiff and I'll quietly fade away.'Oh HELL NO Vinnie. You are one of the reasons I love writing this column. If you go anywhere I have two words for you…D E A T H R A Y!!!
         • 
           Marilee J. Layman

           January 4, 2008 at 5:30 pm | #

           How do you respond when people wish you merry christmas,I say "You, too." I don't see any use in arguing with that kind of transient comment. or even say g-d bless you should you sneeze?I usually smile at them, but if someone has been pushing god at me otherwise, I just say "I don't believe in souls so I can't have lost one." Do you … lambaste them like a feminist who's just had a door held for her?I'm a feminist and I'd be happy when people hold doors for me even if I wasn't disabled. It's a courtesy. I used to hold doors for other people. These days, I still do, if the door is light enough for me to manage it.This country was founded by ChristiansNope.
       • 
         Marilee J. Layman

         January 4, 2008 at 5:12 pm | # | Reply

         The framers of the nation were not christians. Not a one of them. Many of them were deists, but that doesn't equal christianity.Vinnie, a lot of these things you're saying come from religious groups. Have you ever looked things up?

         • 
           Linda Gold

           January 4, 2008 at 11:16 pm | #

           Thanks for saying what I've been thinking Marilee.
   • 
     Elayne Riggs

     January 5, 2008 at 9:30 am | # | Reply

     Vin, I think your grasp of history here is somewhat limited. The whole "In God We Trust" thing (as well as the insertion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance) came about in the 1950s during the height of Cold War paranoia and its accompanying faux-religious ferver, the likes of which weren't seen again until this century. Likewise, the separation of Church and State was pretty well established by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 (the Danbury Baptists letter) and not really argued against until, again, the hyper-paranoid '50s. The reason there was broad agreement that Church and State should be separate was to protect religion even more than to protect government. The phrase itself didn't come into legal vogue until the late 1940s, though, so maybe that's what you meant.
6. 
   Martha Thomases

   January 4, 2008 at 9:54 am | # | Reply

   As far as I know, there are no laws prohibiting you from telling an un-PC joke. You are not, however, guaranteed a laugh. There are no laws against eating too much, at least if my eyes are not lying to me about the people walking around on the street. As for smoking, you can smoke all you want as long as you don't make me inhale your waste products.

   • 
     Vinnie Bartilucci

     January 4, 2008 at 10:10 am | # | Reply

     "As far as I know, there are no laws prohibiting you from telling an un-PC joke."Try it at work. Or around the wrong people. There are more and more laws and guidelines being passed (and trying to be passed) prohibiting the eating of junk food in schools, certain businesses, etc. I think that falls under Michael's "Be a parent" guideline too. Shugie likes Oreo Cakesters, she can have them. When we say so. And if she sneaks them on her own, we don't sue Nabisco for making their snacks so good and their commercials so irresistable that she can't resist, we punish her.So too the banning of smoking in bars and restaurants in many areas. Yes, I know, second-hand smoke, and all that (I'm asthmatic, so the laws work to my benefit too) but if personal freedom holds sway above all, should you be respectful enough of that guy's rights to walk out of HIS way?But the reaction of some people if you try to do any of those things in their presence is on par with forcing a fundamentalist to watch an abortion. For people who are as pro personal freedom as liberals claim to be, there's a lot of things they don't like you to do. Like…disagree with them.Q-How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulbA-THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

     • 
       Michael Davis

       January 4, 2008 at 10:30 am | # | Reply

       I think that if it's legal you can smoke,drink.sky dive, mountain climb to your hearts content. Just don't invade my space with it or make me pay for your medical bill.

       • 
         Vinnie Bartilucci

         January 4, 2008 at 1:55 pm | # | Reply

         So if a person on welfare sky dives, and breaks their leg…

         • 
           Michael Davis

           January 4, 2008 at 5:00 pm | #

           'So if a person on welfare sky dives, and breaks their leg…'It will hurt..duh.
       • 
         Mike Gold

         January 4, 2008 at 2:12 pm | # | Reply

         Wait a minute. I used to sky dive. That was before I went into comics — now, I don't feel the need.

         • 
           MARK WHEATLEY

           January 4, 2008 at 4:06 pm | #

           "I used to sky dive. That was before I went into comics — now, I don't feel the need."I love this quote – this should be the ComicMix slogan! If only Bill Gaines had said that to congress!
7. 
   Martha Thomases

   January 4, 2008 at 11:09 am | # | Reply

   Sorry, there's a difference between a rule at work, and a law. I went to an Episcopal boarding school where I was required to go to chapel five times a week, even though I'm Jewish. It was my choice (actually, my parents) to attend, so I had to abide by the rules. Same at your job. If you don't like those rules, get a different job.Schools work the same way. You may have a legal right to buy Oreos to serve in your home, but schools have a similar right not to serve them or sell them on the premises. In New York City, this tends to be something with which the parents' associations get involved. Again, it is more likely to be a rule than a law.Public health is public health, and the community has a right to be involved. A public place, such as a restaurant or a bar, that serves the public has an obligation to abide by the laws that protect public health. I don't want to have to breathe your waste products. You also don't have a legal right to piss on the floor.

   • 
     Vinnie Bartilucci

     January 4, 2008 at 1:02 pm | # | Reply

     "Sorry, there's a difference between a rule at work, and a law."That's true. But you'll notice that I never mentioned laws about said actions in my missive, you did in your reply, and I replied to that.Setting the health-related issues aside, there are still a great deal of social actions that liberals find offensive, and are as in favor of banning as conservatives are of others. My original point was that this is hypocritical.

     • 
       Martha Thomases

       January 4, 2008 at 1:21 pm | # | Reply

       As long as we're only talking hypotheticals, I know some conservatives who want to kill unicorns…Really, if we're going to talk about politics, let's talk about reality.

       • 
         Vinnie Bartilucci

         January 4, 2008 at 1:52 pm | # | Reply

         "I know some conservatives who want to kill unicorns"Name five. :-)If you want to talk reality about social actions that liberals find offensive, check out the back-and-forth I'm having with Mike Gold.

         • 
           Martha Thomases

           January 4, 2008 at 2:14 pm | #

           Joe, Peter, Chuck, Todd and Dwight.There are many things I find offensive. I imagine there are many things you find offensive. I know there are many things Michael Davis (our host for this discussion) finds offensive. That's not the question. The issue he discusses are conservatives who are trying to legislate their morality onto the rest of us by outlawing gay civil rights, science education (including evolution), and bi-lingualism.For the rest of it, the rules and social conventions that may or may not change with society, I personally try to follow the advice of Miss Manners.
         • 
           Mike Gold

           January 4, 2008 at 2:51 pm | #

           Martha –Todd bagged one, and he ate it. It disagreed with him, and he vowed never to shoot and eat another unicorn again.Except for the microwave stuff. Hey, when you're in a hurry….
         • 
           Mike Gold

           January 4, 2008 at 3:08 pm | #

           Vinnie, did you just accuse me of being a liberal? Damn, that's going to drive a lot of liberals I know to ComicMix. They'll be laughing their asses off.When it comes to the First Amendment, I would not ban a single book from any library, be it Huck Finn (the greatest novel ever written) or Mein Kampf (not so good). Lots of liberals think that's nuts. Heck, I'm so liberal I firmly believe banning commercial advertising of cigarettes is contrary to free speech protections. And I don't even smoke. Yeah, that's REAL liberal.I believe in the right to defend one's self and, thus, am opposed to efforts to unfairly restrict gun ownership. "Unfairly" might be where I differ with, oh, say, Chuck Heston as I don't really have a problem with waiting periods for security/sanity checks and for basic "cooling down." And we need to get us a contemporary definition of what constitutes a militia. But I'm more than essentially pro-gun, and the proof of that is my 32 year friendship (both professional and personal) with Mike Grell.Not unlike Michael Davis, my basic position of getting the government out of our bedrooms, out of our churches (separation of church and state is always to the benefit of church, and I've got a lot of history to back me up on that), and our of our bodies is, to me, a conservative position. Well, it used to be before the Religious Right took over the movement. I had a three-hour conversation with Barry Goldwater, one-on-one, on the 4th of July 23 years ago; I wouldn't trade that conversation for the world. Then again, I worked with Abbie Hoffman for three years (and received college credit for it!)… so you figure me out.
8. 
   John Tebbel

   January 4, 2008 at 11:38 am | # | Reply

   I was hoping for three books about liking sex. Sigh.The Problem, Mr. D., is that your initial four premises of conservatism are mere GOP talking points, among dozens and dozens, crafted in the Post Gingrich era to appeal to our lizard brain, making most vertebrates conservative, ipso facto, hey Moe, hey Moe, hey Moe!The idea that these four describe or rule out any organized political party is a canard, you bring the duck!
9. 
   Adriane Nash

   January 4, 2008 at 2:48 pm | # | Reply

   Michael,Those are the same reasons I consider myself a conservative and am *gasp* a registered Republican. Actually I'm a registered Republican to break my mother's heart and so I can vote in primaries (she registered Independant)But yeah, I'd like them to keep their regilatiions out of my bedroom and their Church out of my Government.

   • 
     Linda Gold

     January 4, 2008 at 3:08 pm | # | Reply

     I've re-registered as a Democrat so I can vote in the primaries and good job breaking my heart.
   • 
     Marilee J. Layman

     January 4, 2008 at 5:41 pm | # | Reply

     We don't have to register for parties in Virginia, so I get to vote for whomever I think is best. (For primaries, we're held to our honor not to vote in both.)
10. 
    R. Maheras

    January 5, 2008 at 9:10 pm | # | Reply

    Elayne wrote: "Vin, I think your grasp of history here is somewhat limited. The whole "In God We Trust" thing (as well as the insertion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance) came about in the 1950s during the height of Cold War paranoia…"Sorry, Elayne, this ex-coin collector knew instantly that you misspoke with that statement above.U.S. coinage has sported the phrase since at least the late 1880s. The Washington head quarter, introduced in 1932, sported the phrase "In God We Trust" but it was on the standing liberty quarters before that, and the seated liberty quarters in the late 1800s way before that.Here, check the back of this 1891 quarter: http://www.coincommunity.org/gallery/albums/userp…

    • 
      Linda Gold

      January 6, 2008 at 12:37 pm | # | Reply

      I sure Elayne is thinking of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance which, as mentioned above, was added in the 50's.