Favorite editorial cartoons: July 2009

[Gee-Perwin]

I think that oath is more important than the promise you made to your spouse.

I'm not so sure I agree. I'd like to think that if my word to my spouse came into conflict with my word to my constituents or an ideal, I'd uphold the former over the latter.

The promise you make to your spouse is very important, and as a married man I don't want to trivialize that. When a soldier, politician, etc. swears to protect & defend the Constitution, that person is now bound to the country, not just a single person. When a soldier makes the ultimate sacrifice, it was in defense of his or her country, which includes his or her spouse. I know a lot of soldiers who take this oath very seriously, as they should. Most politicians could learn a few things from them.

So yes, swearing an oath to a single person is very important. Swearing an oath to an entire country, spouse included, is about as important as it gets.

 

[Tempest]

So yes, swearing an oath to a single person is very important. Swearing an oath to an entire country, spouse included, is about as important as it gets.

There is/was a scene in West Wing (TV Show) where Leo McGarrity (the Presidents lead counselor) is having marital issues because he is working too hard and the wife asks for him to slow down.
"I have an oath to serve my country"
"What about your oath to me, your wife?"
"You are part of this country"

 

[jpariury]

The promise you make to your spouse is very important, and as a married man I don't want to trivialize that. When a soldier, politician, etc. swears to protect & defend the Constitution, that person is now bound to the country, not just a single person. When a soldier makes the ultimate sacrifice, it was in defense of his or her country, which includes his or her spouse. I know a lot of soldiers who take this oath very seriously, as they should. Most politicians could learn a few things from them.

No, I get the whole soldier thing. My father was a Huey pilot for two tours in Vietnam, went on to do air rescue out of Colorado before Lifeflight had its Pampers on, and flew nuclear warheads all over Europe during the Cold War. Doesn't change the fact that when you lay your head down at night, you're not sleeping next to the whole country (and really, who'd wanna?).

So yes, swearing an oath to a single person is very important. Swearing an oath to an entire country, spouse included, is about as important as it gets.

Well... you could swear an oath to the continent, the hemisphere, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, or the universe. More people means you're even more accountable, right? I'd suggest that the true value of your word is measured in how you keep it with the smaller groups, not the larger ones.

I dunno. I suppose it ultimately depends on your hierarchy of values. If you end up with a spouse or country that doesn't jibe with that, they probably shouldn't be your spouse or country.

 

[Gee-Perwin]

I'm talking about the document that protects our freedoms & liberties. Like I said, most politicians probably don't take it too seriously, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't. When you swear to uphold & protect that document, you are swearing to protect that which secures our freedom. That is a very serious responsibility that I don't believe enough people who take the oath fully consider beforehand.

 

[jpariury]

I'm talking about the document that protects our freedoms & liberties.

Again, I think you're applying an oath to an object, rather than a set of ideals. Ultimately, the document is merely representative to the elected official (or enlisted soldier, or commissioned officer, or what have you) of a set of ideals. The document itself does jack other than, perhaps imperfectly, put into words some set of ideals. And its those very imperfections that result in the divide that we see in politics in general. When everyone can agree on what a right to freedom of expression means, maybe we can visit again the idea that everyone is swearing an oath to the same document.

That said, I don't know that an oath to support the right to bear arms should necessarily supersede an oath to be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie. Much like I rather agree with Carlin's parsed-down version of the Ten Commandments, I suspect that there could be a significantly shorter list of covenants designed. What good is defending the freedom of a people you would individually stab in the back and betray at every turn in the name of so-called higher duty?

 

[Duke Frost]

Mike, I think there are hypocritical members of both parties. Very possibly a lot of hypocritical members of both parties. I guess I believe individual people can be hypocritical and groups are just...groups. Saying the GOP is hypocritical implies every member of that group condones adultery, which obviouasly they do not. It's insulting to every loyal husband or wife in that group. Just as it would be if it were Democrats or professional baseball players or union butchers. I don't like painting millions of people with such broad brush strokes because a few screwed up.

JP, I would think someone who becomes president likely has a spouse that is going to understand the duties of office. A LOT of people don't want to be president or a senator or a VP of a company because they know it will take them away from their spouse or family too much. I agree with Gee that the oath of office should supercede marriage vows because of the magnitude and the person taking that oath should know that and so should their spouse going into it. However, I don't see too many situations where the oath of office and marriage vows would actually conflict. I also applaud your personal choice of sticking with your wife above anything else. I myself have made a similar choice. Good politicians, and they are few and far between, sacrifice a lot to be a public servant...including the all important family time.

And listening to the radio this morning, it seems politics are becoming irrelevant. ABC refused to air the president's address at 9 tonight because their #1 show, America's got talent, is on tonight. So did two other networks. The president moved his speech to 8. Fox still refused to air it because "So You Think You Can Dance" is on, but they're going to have text on the screen saying the speech is on another station.

Scott

 

[jpariury]

And listening to the radio this morning, it seems politics are becoming irrelevant. ABC refused to air the president's address at 9 tonight because their #1 show, America's got talent, is on tonight. So did two other networks. The president moved his speech to 8. Fox still refused to air it because "So You Think You Can Dance" is on, but they're going to have text on the screen saying the speech is on another station.

Not irrelevant, just, you know, not as important. I mean, those kids CAN dance!

 

[Duke Frost]

And listening to the radio this morning, it seems politics are becoming irrelevant. ABC refused to air the president's address at 9 tonight because their #1 show, America's got talent, is on tonight. So did two other networks. The president moved his speech to 8. Fox still refused to air it because "So You Think You Can Dance" is on, but they're going to have text on the screen saying the speech is on another station.

Not irrelevant, just, you know, not as important. I mean, those kids CAN dance!

Not irrelevant yet, but becoming so. People used to listen to Roosevelt every week with rapt attention (not that there was much else to do).

My wife won't let me watch that show anyway.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

The point once more is not whether people cheat on their spouses, it's whether they hold themselves to be above that while criticizing others of the same -- and then proving to be just as imperfect as everyone else. It's the hypocrisy that is being criticized here.

If you make an oath to uphold The Constitution, you SHOULD be above that. I think that oath is more important than the promise you made to your spouse. It is the ultimate promise you could make in this country, so it has to be above family & loved ones.

Also, please don't assume everyone in a party agrees with the rhetoric spouted out by the loudest mouths. That just isn't the case no matter what cable news says.

Absolutely true, with both parties.

The whole problem here is, in some ways, cartoon limitations. It's not an editorial that can go into detail, it's a quick drawing meant to make a quick point. You should never read too much into them.

 

[Tempest]

My wife won't let me watch that show anyway.

DVR'd every week, and the wife makes us (kids and all) watch it... Yes, they can dance...

 

[jpariury]

My wife won't let me watch that show anyway.

DVR'd every week, and the wife makes us (kids and all) watch it... Yes, they can dance...

If they want to. Or, you know, leave their friends behind.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

 

[Gee-Perwin]

I can't find any political cartoons on this, but I wanted to ask this question to all, but especially to someone who voted for change this past election cycle (that doesn't necessarily mean Obama, as I voted for change but not for McCain or Obama). There is a lot of support right now for HR1207 in the House & S604 in the Senate. As I've said a million times this is a bill that allow for a full audit of the Federal Reserve. No exceptions to certain things, like they have now (basically a book of exceptions). HR1207 has 276 co-sponsors, and S604 has 19 co-sposors.

If you google "Federal Reserve audit" you will find all kinds of information regarding why this needs to happen. An audit would provide transparency of the Federal Reserve. I can't even imagine how it could ever be a bad thing for us to audit the central bank that is responsible for our money. Yet Senate Democrat leaders are blocking efforts to make this happen. With so many cosponsors in the House Barney Frank still hasn't brought this bill up in the house financial services committee. Pelosi also isn't bringing it to a vote on the floor. Obama has already said he wants to give more power to the Fed (Yeah these links are google searches, but there are just too many links to pick from. Read them all if you gotta.).

My question is simple--do you believe we need to audit the Federal Reserve? Forget about your political affiliation. I just want to know if you think Fed transparency is a good or bad idea, and why.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

I'm afraid that my knowledge of economics is such that I don't feel qualified to comment one way or another. I do agree that transparency is always a good thing, but I also know that people with political agendas (on both sides) will frame their issues in such a way that people will say "Hey, I'm in favor of that!" without knowing exactly what the details are. (see, for example, "The Patriot Act," "The Clean Air Bill" and other missnamed laws that do the exact opposite of what they appear to do)

 

[Gee-Perwin]

I'm afraid that my knowledge of economics is such that I don't feel qualified to comment one way or another. I do agree that transparency is always a good thing, but I also know that people with political agendas (on both sides) will frame their issues in such a way that people will say "Hey, I'm in favor of that!" without knowing exactly what the details are. (see, for example, "The Patriot Act," "The Clean Air Bill" and other missnamed laws that do the exact opposite of what they appear to do)

Excellent points! I'm glad you brought these up. Before I go into that, allow me to share this great & simple to understand video. This is a great video from MSNBC the other day that basically explains what happened with the Fed & Banks, and why we need to now do an audit. It is very simple to understand and is even a bit comical. There are hats--and garbage bags! I think the camera guy was drunk, though :lol: :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAtSmR7Z-Kg[/youtube]

Let me say this much more about HR1207 & S604. HR1207 was introduced in the House on Feb 26, 2009 by Ron Paul (he wrote the bill. He also voted against the Patriot Act). S604 was introduced by Bernie Sanders on March 16, 2009 with the exact text of HR1207.

The Patriot Act contains hundreds of pages. It was introduced & voted on so quickly that no one had time to read it. Wanna know how long HR1207/S604 is? Check this out:

2111th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 1207

To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 26, 2009

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. KAGEN, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. JONES, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. POSEY, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL

To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009’.

SEC. 2. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.
(a) In General- Subsection (b) of section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking all after ‘shall audit an agency’ and inserting a period.
(b) Audit- Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘(e) Audit and Report of the Federal Reserve System-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be completed before the end of 2010.

‘(2) REPORT-

11‘(A) REQUIRED- A report on the audit referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and any other Member of Congress who requests it.

‘(B) CONTENTS- The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.’

That is it--word for word. We're talking 5-10 minutes of reading.

edit:

As I said before there is already an audit bill on the books, but with a huge number of exceptions & restrictions. All this bill does is basically edit the wording of the bill. Where it says something like, "The GAO may audit the Federal Reserve, except for..." it puts a period after Reserve & deletes everything after that. There is nothing tricky in this bill. No hidden agenda. We're talking about a period, and then deleting the rest.

 

[Robb G]

awesome comic. here's how a liberal argues:

The GOP wants the healthcare overhaul to fail.... because they don't want lesbians to get married... :roll:

 

[Duke Frost]

Robb,

I'm sorry you and Amanda can't get married because of the GOP.

Scott

 

[Robb G]

it's fine. once the rest of my hair falls out people will mistake me for a dirty redneck with a skullet instead of a girl. then we can get hitched and save up for a trailer.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

awesome comic. here's how a liberal argues:

The GOP wants the healthcare overhaul to fail.... because they don't want lesbians to get married... :roll:

No, there's no causal relationship. The point is priorities. Democrats think health care is a priority, and Republicans think keeping gays from getting married is a priority.

I really shouldn't have to explain these things to you.

 

[Robb G]

No, there's no causal relationship. The point is priorities. Democrats think health care is a priority, and Republicans think keeping gays from getting married is a priority.

I really shouldn't have to explain these things to you.

I don't glean that at all from that comic. The comic represents that the GOP want Healthcare to fail because it will somehow aid in returning them to power. Once in power, they will ban gay marriage or some such thing.

The truth though is that most of the opposition to "healthcare reform" by both the GOP and the newly coined fiscally conservative democrat "Blue Dogs"is that all of the proposals thus far cost trillions and do little to change the system in a way that will actually benefit Americans.

BUT because this liberal comic artist can't actually tell the truth and expect to sell his work, he is once again propagating the stereotypical non sequitur lies that work only to further polarize American politics.