It's hard being a right-winger in a left-wing Internet...

[LoneWolf23k]

Well, Bruno the Bandit has finally gone and given in, and is making a Bush-bashing comic, even though it's set in a completly made up fantasy-world, criticizing a fictional king and his own "War on Evil".

...A year and a half after the invasion of Iraq...

...A year after Saddam Hussein's regime was destroyed, allowing the Iraqis to know real freedom after a generation of living under his tyranny...

...half a year after Saddam Hussein was captured, his sons and most of his key underlings already long dead, allowing the Iraqis to begin knowing a sense of justice after all the wrongs he and his cronies did to them...

...And his storyline began the very day the US-led coalition handed control of Iraq's government back to it's people, thereby making any claims that "America's Taken Over Iraq" completly irrelevent.

...And yet BtB author Ian will still continue with his storyline, and no doubt get praised for it by left-wingers all over the Net.

*Sigh* When did the left-wing come to dominate all my favorite webcomics? Newshounds gave up any pretense of subjectivity back at the start of the war on terror and finally became as biased as real-world big media; SSDD seems more interested in bashing Bush and Blair then in continuing to explore the lives of it's characters...

And I can count the number of webcomics out there that favor the Right over the Left on one hand, Under The Lemon Tree being one of them.

I've always rooted for the underdog, but this is ridiculous...

[DracoDei]

Ralph does good work...
But if you are looking for more: Have you looked at some of the comics on http://pandora.xepher.net ?
I particularly recommend a plot line in Room For One More, including an analog for the War on Terrorism a while back involving evil bugs.

[Squirrelly61104]

When did the left-wing come to dominate all my favorite webcomics?

Sigh.
I've started this post four times so far, but it is so hard to respond. Please, excuse me if I ramble more than usual.
By it's very nature, no one can force a particular political view point on the net, especially something as chaotic as web comics.
If all of the good comics are left wing, then either
a) the right wing has no artistic talent
b) the right wing has no sense of humor
c) the right wing lacks the gumption to do the work needed to put out a good strip.

The world is not right wing/left wing. It is mostly muddled shades of grey. If web comics are questioning the president, his policies, and the nations course, then that is the artists choice and right.

Right now, a lot of President Bushes decisions are coming back to haunt him. People are expressing understandable doubt about events and web cartoonists, being less concerned with general public opinion than commercial cartoonists, are putting their feelings right out in public view.

I consider myself a moderate, with liberal leanings. I guess by right wing standards that makes me a screaming commie pinko.
I also spent six years in the Navy, four years on hazardous sea duty,

My advice: if the jokes stop getting funny, go elsewhere.
Me, I get my political insight from news magazines, radio and television news.
I go to web comics to wash the taste of the news out of my mouth.

postscript: i didn't include RH Jr. in the list of reasons why right wingers don't publish web comics. I don't know if he considers himself right wing. There is a world of differance between 'conservative' and 'right wing'

[RHJunior]

Sigh.
I've started this post four times so far, but it is so hard to respond. Please, excuse me if I ramble more than usual.
By it's very nature, no one can force a particular political view point on the net, especially something as chaotic as web comics.
If all of the good comics are left wing, then either
a) the right wing has no artistic talent
b) the right wing has no sense of humor
c) the right wing lacks the gumption to do the work needed to put out a good strip.

Well, one or two others you ain't listing:

d)The right wing has a job, and can't spend its time drawing cartoons on the web, or

e)The right wing has a hard time getting published by syndicates run by the left, or promoted by leftist critics, or.... well.

The world is not right wing/left wing. It is mostly muddled shades of grey.

Allow me to be the first to call "bullshit."

The real world is not "muddled shades of grey." PEOPLE are often "muddled shades of grey," but the self-serving nature of fallen man is NOT the determinate of what constitutes reality. What is, and what is not, is not a matter of popular vote. Political philosophies are what we believe ABOUT the real world. It is the beliefs, not the world, that are often muddled.

The real world is objective. It is concrete solid, crystal clear, and is, to get to the point, the scale by which we measure the veracity of political philosophy-- theories on paper are all quite nice, but it is the functioning model put in place that determines what is, and what is not.

The two political viewpoints labeled "right and left" have both been tested in the real world. Of the two, objective empirical observation has shown conservatism to be most in alignment with natural law, i.e., it actually works in the real world. Leftism, on the other hand, has been a pure unadulterated failure wherever it has been attempted, on whatever scale it has been used.

The political spectrum is not between two equally valid hypotheses. It is between two TESTED BELIEF SYSTEMS. It is a schism between truth and falsehood, between a philosophy built on historically confirmed success and one built on wishful thinking.

If web comics are questioning the president, his policies, and the nations course, then that is the artists choice and right.

No one, anywhere, ever, whether by omission, distortion, presumption, or false strawman argument, has the right to lie. They have the right to question, to debate, to demand proofs. Once said proofs are presented, and if those proofs refute your beliefs, it requires either wilful malevolence or mental derangement to persist in presenting those beliefs.

Case in point: one of the more popular tinfoil hat conspiracy theories was that the Afghanistan war was all for the sake of putting a titanic oil pipeline through the middle of afghanistan. Three years later, not so much as a foot of pipe has been laid anywhere, and noone has even written out a proposition for such a project or ponied up a single dollar. <I>But still the conspiracy theorists insist that the pipeline is part of the plan for Afghanistan.</i> Likewise, we were supposed to plunder Iraq for oil. We have not taken a single drop. We turned the oil wells over to Iraqi control ages ago, and have just recently turned the whole country over to the new Iraqi government. <i>Yet still, without even so much as a single drop of pilfered oil as evidence, the howling moonbats are insisting that Iraq was a "blood for oil" war.</i>
To persist in restating beliefs that have been proved false is to prove oneself a malicious liar, an irrational lunatic, or both.

Right now, a lot of President Bushes decisions are coming back to haunt him.

And you base this on?
Observe this statement closely, people; it's an excellent example of presumption of the conclusion. It is not an objective statement--- it is writtent to <i>deliberately establish the premise</i>, without presenting any evidence or even stating what decisions are being discussed, that Bush's decisions have been wrong.

People are expressing understandable doubt

And yet again an attempt to establish presumed guilt.
Doubts are only "understandable" if they are based on logic and evidence.
Are these unstated 'doubts' in the President based on such-- or have they been clung to <i>in spite of</i> all the logic and material evidence that has been brought to address them?

I consider myself a moderate, with liberal leanings. I guess by right wing standards that makes me a screaming commie pinko.

Straw man. You attempt to establish that any questioning of your "moderate" nature is equivalent to calling you a 'screaming commie pinko,' and that 'right wingers' would call you such.

For the record, what 'right wingers' would call you is a fence-sitter (if they're being polite) and a hypocrite (if they're being pointed.)
A moderate is someone who wants to enjoy the socialistic moral smugness of being on the left wing, while clinging to the moral *respectability* of the right wing.
INDECISIVENESS IS NOT A VIRTUE.




To readdress the subject of the thread. It's rather simple as to why so many artists are left-leaning. Outside of the stated truism that 90% of everything is crap, that is.
Politics is an intellectual pursuit. It involves hard data, concrete historical record, objective observation of events both past and current, an eschewing of emotional wishfulness for the sake of objective rationalism and acceptance of the world <i>as it is,</i> rather than some philosophic ideal of <i>how it should be.</i>
And quite frankly, artistic pursuits are rarely conducive to developing skills in unemotional, rational analysis. Art leans heavily on emotion, feeling, subjective tastes and responses. It is a "soft" pursuit that, unfortunately, lends a superficial appearance of higher intelligence by virtue of artistic skill and aesthetic popularity. We forget that a person with skills in one area does not necessarily have tremendous aptitude in another, and that someone with breathtaking skills with brush, pen, and easel may easily be a howling dunce when it comes to matters that involve invoking objective facts rather than subjective emotional reaction.

It's why people actually listen when hollywood starlets start talking about politics.

[UncleMonty]

The internet is not the real world, but is instead primarily fantasy.
Liberalism thrives in an environment of fantasy. That's why it does so well in Hollywood, the newsroom, and the classroom.
Why should I allow someone's fantasy to upset me? Be it an online comic, front page news, or the latest Michael Moore paranoid piece, it means nothing.

[TheBladeRoden2]

Because when we don't like something about the government, we go and take more congressional seats, instead of sitting at home singing songs and making drawings of Gearge Bush as a monkey.

[Maxgoof]

There is a cartoonist who, despite his left-leaning personal opinions, tries to keep his comic even handed, and free from preaching. He wants his comic to be fun to read, and he succeeds.

That cartoonist is Thomas K. Dye and the strip is <a href="http://www.newshounds.com">Newshounds</a>.

I recommend him.

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Theres's also "Mallard Fillmore", which runs on syndication. The Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com) runs it, but it also runs the liberal "Big Picture", apparently to balance things out.

[UncleMonty]

Because when we don't like something about the government, we go and take more congressional seats, instead of sitting at home singing songs and making drawings of Gearge Bush as a monkey.

That's OK. I fully expect that, once the Republicans have made this nation safe and prosperous again, the people will elect another Democrat to lead us down another long slide into economic depression, military weakness, higher crime, war, a more powerful centralized government, and less freedom.
That's just how it happens, time after time. The Democrats ran this country for the half-century prior to George Bush being elected. So I'd guess this current lapse into sanity will be brief at best.

After all, the Democrats have an unbeatable plan. Take from those who risk the most, work the hardest, and earn the most, then use that stolen loot to buy votes from the lazy, incompetent, and corrupt.

[RHJunior]

You have to keep in mind, none of us has really been long enough to remember how this nation was, prior to the long, long night that began in the 60's. We are, quite frankly, trapped in a social upheaval caused by that "pig in a python" known as the Boomer generation.

Consider: with the return of the soldiers at the end of WWII, we experienced an unprecedented demographic phenomenon--- the sudden presence of an excessively disproportionate youthful demographic. In plain english, there were more babies than there were anybody else. Out entire social structure by necessity became focussed on that youth demographic.... where will baby go to school? What toys will baby want? what shows will he watch? what music will he like? This was basic business and politics: you make the most profit in business and gain the most votes in politics by catering to the majority. And if the majority were suddenly mommies and daddies, and mommy and daddy were all about baby, well then by dang so were you. And when Baby got older, and had his OWN money to spend.... and there were more Babies than anyone else... by dang, you catered to Baby.

Unfortunately, 20 years of conditioning-- from the late forties to the late sixties--- became fifty years of ingrained bad habit.

What were the consequences?

1)The Boomers grew up being told that the world revolved around their generation. Everything they did or thought was given an overinflated sense of importance.

2)Because culture, commerce and politics was all about "the young people" when they were growing up, they became convinced that what was a demographic eccentricity was actually how things had always been, and always should be. Hence, a culture that is STILL youth obsessed.

3)When the Boomers grew up, hit their thirties, forties, fifties, they carried the ingrained-- and mistaken-- notion from their overinflated childhoods that if you were old, you were unimportant. So they became obsessed with clinging to their youth for as long as inhumanly possible. This is why our entire culture is obsessed with health scares, plastic surgery, fanatical diet and exercise regimes, oil of olay, baldness, grey and thinning hair... because the aging Boomers are obsessed with such things. (This is why so many leftist politicians are also appalling philanderers--- just another attempt to cling to youth; hey, I can still have any cute young thing in the Commune I want, baby.....)



4)More importantly, they became stuck in adolescence.... fixated on the naive worldview and irrational politics of their long-lost childhood, because to cling to that is to cling to the last of their youth.

5)When confronted with the inescapable (such as aging), people go through specific phases--- shock, denial, bargaining/pleading, anger, depression, acceptance. The Boomers have already gone through shock (the 70's), denial (plastic surgery, toupees, other cosmetic assaults on aging) and are deep into bargaining (diet and exercise, I swear God, I'll be good and eat my veggies if you make me young again !). To judge by the raving vitriol coming from the left these days, They're just starting to get into the "anger" phase. They're not young anymore, their bodies are sagging and their hair is greying and on top of it all, their politics are fading away too. The tides of change are finally coming in, washing away their beloved socialist sandcastle, and it's just another nail in the coffin to them.

So they fight back with all the energy of embittered geezerdom--- by damn, we'll MAKE it the age of Aquarius, and LIVE FOREVER!

Eventually, though, they'll run out of gas. Or out of numbers, one way or the other. And the pig will pass out of the python, much to its relief, and it will go its slow, slithery way once more.

[Earl McClaw]

And the pig will pass out of the python, much to its relief, and it will go its slow, slithery way once more.

With the exception of a few "harmonics" as the children of the Baby Boomers (raised into the opinions of their parents) and then their progeny generate their own diminishing surges in generational demographics.

I find your analysis is chillingly on-target.

As for "non-left" comics, what's the consensus on Better Days (currently experiencing techical difficulties)?

[RHJunior]

These things are, expressly, the residual consequences when someone who can create tulpas goes bonkers. They're not full tulpas like the Posse... more like crude, half-formed simulacra. Tulpa MASTERS (as opposed to weaker, novice tulpa fathers like Ben) can create these "nonliving" homunculi as effectively disposable servants, set them to a task, and then dissolve them at will when done. Unfortunately only the tulpa master who made them can "dissolve" them. (Full tulpas such as the posse are totally autonomous and cannot be dissoluted in this manner, btw.) When a tulpa master goes nuts, he starts throwing these boogers off left and right, generally being a nuisance for those around them. The caste of tibetan monks in question are dedicated to capturing these by-blows and imprisoning them in boxes like the one Ookami just broke... their buddhist-like beliefs, however, forbid destroying the homunculi, so they store them in the vaults below their monastery indefinitely.

(that ridiculously over-wrought enough for y'all? )

Yes, tulpas can live on after their progenitor dies... Though they lose much of their power and potency, as they are no longer connected to someone who is constantly revitalizing them, and they are no longer effectively immortal. Were ben to die, the posse would continue on, albeit diminished, and considerably more mortal than before.

[EvilJayson]

Hay there

There are a few things that I

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Catena is basically non-political, but you might enjoy it.

http://www.catenamanor.com/

[Kanaeda Kuonji]

Okay, I have been lurking forever, but, given the nature of this discussion, I have decided to step in:

I am personally fed up with the political parties myself. I see no use for them, nor any desire to remain in them. I instead choose to go by my own conscience. I would abolish the death penalty (it executes the wrong people more often than not, I believe every 2 out of three. If you can contradict this, feel free to do so), as life in prison and dying old, gray. and forgotten would be the more suitable punishment.

I am pro-gun and pro-choice, and also pro-gay marriage (within reason. And by that, I mean that two consenting, un-related adults, can marry, but NAMBLA and little kids need not even bother trying).

Ralph, your argument is that there are no shades of gray in regards to right and wrong. I beg to differ.

Let's take something like...killing. Killing in self-defense, or in war is permissible. But what about murder? Is it right? No it isn't. Yet the Bible considers killing a sin, as per the 10 commandments.

In law, there is something applied known as "the reasonable person standard." IE: What would the reasonable person do? This is how our legal system works. The gray areas of right and wrong are taken into account.

I used to be so conservative it hurt, then I grew up, and realized that political parties aren't always right. So I went independant, and I also left organized religion, and am now walking my own path, thank you very much. I am leaning towards deism: "God gave you life, and that is all he will give you."

[Mjolnir]

I used to be so conservative it hurt, then I grew up, and realized that political parties aren't always right.

If you wouldn't mind clearing this up, are you saying that it is impossible to be a conservative and not in a political party? Just curious.

- Mjolnir

P.S. No group of people is always right, just like no individual is always right. To believe otherwise is nieve. I'm glad you grew up.

[Rmunn]

Let's take something like...killing. Killing in self-defense, or in war is permissible. But what about murder? Is it right? No it isn't. Yet the Bible considers killing a sin, as per the 10 commandments.

That's a very common misperception, actually. The word in the original Hebrew text of the sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") is ratsach, which refers to illegitimate killing -- that is, murder. A proper translation of the sixth commandment would have been "Thou shalt not murder" -- and, in fact, nearly all modern translations translate it thus.

BTW, I am not a linguist, so please forgive any mistakes in spelling or transliteration of the Hebrew.

[DESSRET]

uhh... actually... last i checked... the 6th commandment was referring to adultery (although i agree totally with u on the 5th commandments' interpretation).

As far as political parties go, everyone, including YOU, is involved with politics. It's in our daily lives. We cannot help but be part of it. Personally, I'm for what we are doin in Iraq. I'm sorry, but I'm not a fan of a nation whose motto is "Vote for me or I blow your head off." Argue what you will, but hearing the feedback from its' citizens, that's pretty much what it was. Even if Iraq were not at war with the US, they're always at war with someone else. They have been since the beginning of time. We just fought back and emerged victorious. That tends to always drive the liberals nuts--along with God (christian terms), morals, patriotism, honesty, integrity, and maturity.

--Dessret

[Dr.Otto]

---It's tough to try and stay out of politics, especially when the internet gives everyone such an open and instantly heard voice. It seems (and correct me if I'm wrong) that in general the artistic community leans left in their political standings, and this is why there seems to be a lot of bile directed at the current administration. I'm of a mind that we don't REALLY know 100% what's happened or what currently is going on...extremists on both side of the fence (Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore) seem to be way out of touch with reality since they're locked away in their ivory towers. The important thing is that you should listen, not just to who you like, but also who you don't. It's imperative to become as educated as you can about the political process, that way you don't take anyone's opinion as truth since you can make up your own mind about the 'facts' you hear.

[RHJunior]

To hell with "listening to both sides." Listen to, and observe, the FACTS.

I would dissent with comparing Limbaugh to Moore. Limbaugh may be bombastic, but bombast does not an extremist make. Moore on the other hand has been caught out in <i>blatant fabrications</i>--- to the order of 58 different fabrications and obfuscations in his current "opus."
Folks, when a politician from a nation in the former soviet bloc calls your movie <i>akin to communist propaganda,</i> it's time for a reevaluation of your "impartiality."

But I digress.

Material facts, and multiple verification, are what an ethically responsible person depends upon for the development of their political views.... not feelings or charisma. Trust, but verify. And in most cases skip the trust part.