Art of the Union

View high resolution

Well, when I started this drawing it was relevant. I thought I’d still post it since I haven’t been on here as regularly as I used to be. As stated in my last post, things have been extremely hectic. I’m finally getting settled into my new home in Baltimore and it’s opening up more time for me to start posting here again. As much as I would’ve loved to post regularly for the past few months, sometimes life just doesn’t allow it. I make little-to-no money for the things that you see on this blog, so sometimes it has to take a backseat because my bills won’t wait for me to draw a picture of John Boehner in a diaper (by the way, I would never draw that. Don’t worry). So with that said, I apologize for the long gap and I will be back to posting art and commentary. Thanks for your patience!

View high resolution

With the Obama Administration’s nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, drone warfare is being treated with the same caution as a kite-flying contest at a Cub Scout summer jamboree. While drone warfare may be hailed as a new, cost-effective way to wage war, it has many implications that often go unreported. One being the effect drones have on driving up militant group enlistment, another being the heavy psychological toll that they inflict on the inhabitants of drone patrolled regions.

But perhaps the most heated topic when it comes to drones is the civilian casualties that it produces. When politicians and media outlets claim that the drone program has low to no civilian casualties, it should be taken with a grain of salt. As a report conducted by Stanford and NYU states, the CIA declares all adult males killed by drone strikes as militants. The report also goes on to state that out of roughly 3,325 people killed in Pakistan by drones, between 474 - 881 were civilians. 

The Stanford/NYU report titled “Living Under Drones” can be found at http://livingunderdrones.org/

I wanted to touch on the drone warfare issue one more time while it’s back in the spotlight, thanks to Rand Paul’s filibuster. If you are unaware, Paul filibustered the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director to obtain an answer from the Obama Administration about whether they had the right to use drone strikes against U.S. Citizens.

Siding with Rand Paul on any issue can open up a long and dark conspiracy cavern on infowars.com if you aren’t careful, but he was not totally off his meds by asking this question. No matter how unlikely or inconceivable it may seem, historical occurrence’s such as the Kent State massacre can act as an example that even the U.S. Government can muster enough gumption to kill some citizens.

With that said, Rand Paul’s question is not my biggest concern when it comes to drone warfare. Even foreign civilian casualties, which I’ve touched on before (see above) is not my biggest issue. My true fear when it comes to drone’s is that it marks another step forward in the United State’s population being completely disassociated with it’s countries operations. 

Our news media is noticeably absent went it comes to covering our war efforts, with Mother Jones’ fixture “We’re Still at War” being the only day-to-day coverage that I can think of. In fact, up until 2009, there was an 18 year ban on news coverage of dead soldiers returning from war zones.

Even more to that point, if the average American is aware of our war efforts, they probably only know of our recent adventures in the Middle East, being left unaware of our ever expanding war efforts into Africa. And yes, the African front has proved to be prime real estate for drone strikes.

Advocates for drone warfare often sight that it will make war cheaper and safer, but is that actually a positive? War inherently is not safe, cheap, or even good. When a nation goes to war, it should be an all in effort and experience, where even those who are not serving at least have some knowledge of what is happening. Drone warfare marks a change of sweeping war under the rug, not requiring the citizenry to be kept aware as the operations of the Government become ever more exclusive.

This Tuesday is scheduled to be the Senate vote for defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, finally one step closer to the ending of this incredible storyline and letting Hagel take the nap that his face has been screaming for since it started.

You are probably familiar with the accusations that have been trotted out against Hagel, everything from the Dan Friedman “Friends of Hamas” joke that went viral in the Senate halls to the idea that Hagel hates Jews (the monster probably didn’t even cry during Schindler’s List). Tactics that don’t even involve Hagel have been used to block Hagel, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham vowing to block the nomination until he receives more information about Benghazi. Don’t worry though, every other embassy attack during 2012 is ok in Graham’s book.

Most of the holdups on Hagel’s nomination have been purely cosmetic, an effort by a handful of Republicans to make sure we know they still exist after the election. But then you get to the real criticism against Hagel, and it seems that he is being punished for being ahead of the curve when it comes to disowning George W. Bush.

The Tea Party movement and new Republican ideology was (supposedly) spawned in part by a party upset with the direction that had been taken under Bush’s lead. And don’t forget that the 2012 Republican National Convention hid Bush in a closet like was a young Harry Potter. And yet, Hagel is being put to task for his tendency to go against the Bush Administration, primarily when it came to the Iraq War.

Fast forward 2009, and the whole Republican party had turned their negative opinions of everything that happened during the Bush Administration into the Tea Party movement. Anti-immigration, anti-government, and anti-spending. Logic would tell you that Hagel would be the “not in the mainstream” wet dream that Republicans are always trying to brew up in their dusty cauldrons.

Unfortunatley for Hagel it seems that he was ahead of the trend. And as with fashion, no one gets credit for predicting a trend, it’s not cool until it’s accepted by groups in the know. Hating Bush 10 years ago only made Hagel the guy in a coffee shop with a handle bar mustache trying too hard. 

I’ve been watching the new Netflix series “House of Cards.” A quick synopsis for those unaware: “House of Cards” is a political thriller/drama based on various characters dealing with life and business in Washington, DC (The main 2 characters being House Majority Whip Frank Underwood and reporter Zoe Barnes.)

To be honest, I love the show and have become completely enthralled with it. But, every time I watch the show the same question rings in my head - “What political world does ‘House of Cards’ exist in?” You see, “House of Cards” is a show populated with handsome men, beautiful women, and all are definitely not left wanting in the coolness category. Juxtapose that with the political world I worked in which consisted of a bunch of dudes eating Cheeze Nips in a small office bathing in their own smells. Sure, everyone was nice, but I feel like I missed out on a party.

Now granted, the political scene of Florida is probably a very different scene than that of Washington, DC. But still, every character looks like they just got off of an L.L. Bean photoshoot and are on their to an Aerie video shoot. Has anyone actually looked at the political elite while watching the news? At best they look like a mannequin pulled out of a Marshall’s store window. On average, they’re like watching a turtle exhibit at the National Aquarium.

Also, I feel like the bravado and intent on display by the characters is a bit of a fairy tale. Main character Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) is a calm, cool, and conniving Southern Democrat. He’s what we would’ve gotten if Charles Bronson ran out of death wishes and ran for Congress. His wife, Claire Underwood (Robin Wright), is a supermodel who heads a non-profit. The closest real life example I can think of to this power couple is the Gingrich’s, and the coolest thing they can boast is that their hair hasn’t moved out of place since the 90’s.

Obviously this is just nitpicking, and the show is a great watch. It especially is worth checking out if you are tired of the same dull real life story lines of Washington do nothings that seem to be on a repeat track these days.

To me, the biggest scandal about the new NRA attack ad is that the election has been over for 2 months and I’m still saying the words “new” and “attack ad.” Lord help me if I open my mailbox tomorrow and find a piece of campaign mail.

The ad starts out by asking “Are President Obama’s children more important than yours?” As anyone who’s ever seen the movie “First Kid” knows, the answer is yes. We as civilian children didn’t need the combat expertise of Sinbad because we stood a far less chance of being held hostage by Timothy Busfield everytime we snuck out of the house.

This ad also highlights Americans strange view of police authority. We want to outfit our schools like a Riker’s Island inmate housing facility. But, whenever we get pulled over for driving 75 mph in a 45 mph zone while instagramming our steering wheel, we scream that we are being downtrodden by big brother’s muscle.

I’m really confused by Ann Coulter’s career. She is a prominent media figure, but never has anything of worth to say. Imagine if you will, the Mumm-Ra of the political media class. It’s as if whenever she opens her mouth, all I hear is the sound of a shop vac sucking up nails. The things she says are just disgusting, but she’s allowed to have a career because she’s one of the only female talking heads that Republican media can cart out who isn’t thumbing through a pamphlet for the National Institute of Senior Centers.

Saying things like non-whites are “nitwits who deserve lives of misery and joblessness” are especially bold statements coming from someone whose job is to be a contrarian while looking like a piece of chewed gum stretched over a pretzel rod.

Most recently, Coulter acted out in a paycheck induced outrage on Sean Hannity’s show. She went on to suggest that since the New York Journal news published a list of gun owners, then they should publish a list of people who have had abortions so that people would know who would “murder a child.” Despite what your or my opinion is on gun ownership or abortion, this statement is incredibly stupid for the sake of filling empty space. In New York, gun records are public, and obviously abortion records are not. But yet, this haggard saltine cracker will receive yet another paycheck for just saying words, regardless of their validity. 

View high resolution

Things I learned this year:

• Gov. Rick Scott hates everyone who lives in Florida.
• Sheriff Joe Arpaio is not Joe Peschi’s racist grandmother, despite fooling me in pictures.
• Congress’s idea of doing their job is playing I Spy with their genitals, not legislating.
• Mitch McConnell’s head is not a thumb sewn on to a torso.
• Legislators refer to video games like they are a lost tribal people in the South Pacific.

Things I want to learn next year:

• Is Charles Krauthammer a human or a tie-wearing tobacco leaf?
• Newt Gingrich’s hair – real or glued on doll hair?
• If my suspicion that Harry Reid buried all the bodies of aide’s who didn’t like his garden in a Nevada Desert.
• What exciting thing Republicans think will happen once Hillary Clinton testifies on Benghazi, like that Jimmy Hoffa is buried under a Tampa Bay Huddle House.

So a while back I had expressed my utmost faith that our Congressional leaders would reach a deal on the “fiscal cliff,” stating that surely they aren’t crayon eating morons that need to wear styrofoam suits so they don’t hurt themselves. Well, it looks like Mitch McConnell is in the kitchen whipping up a Crayola salad because the deadline will pass with no deal voted on.

It doesn’t mean much, as a deal could be voted on tomorrow. Also, “fiscal cliff” is just a term that news networks overplay in an effort to boost viewership and sell advertising time so that they can keep bringing you stories about old white men not doing their job. But still, inaction in Congress is becoming too normal. Why didn’t anyone think to rename it the “abortion cliff”? Or we could’ve told Lindsey Graham that every minute he delays a vote, an illegal immigrant gets one step closer to the border. You know, get their attention, because the issues of middle and lower class citizens have been off of their radar for along time.

View high resolution

Hope everyone is having a Merry Bi-Partisan Christmas. May you have the strength to survive the inevitable political dialogue that will break out at Christmas dinner. Have the eggnog and rum handy for when your uncle wants to blame Obamacare for killing his business that’s been bleeding money since 2006.

To end the night, I wanted to talk about Kay Bailey Hutchison on MSNBC today saying that we need to look at “XBox 360 and Wii” when it comes to violence. First off, why do politicians always refer to videogame names like they’re a cousin that the family disowned in the mid 70’s. Second off, this attempt to keep blaming media violence is making me so angry because it shows how out of touch these old decrepit mummies are who we elect to govern. We already addressed this, it’s called a ratings system. Every form of entertainment has it, and it tells you exactly what’s in that form of entertainment that could be offensive.

These officials are so behind everything, but it’s not surprising since the last form of entertainment that most of these relics of time participated in was candy cigarettes and trying not to catch meningitis from the local swimmin’ hole.