From Jeff Sharlet's Salon article on Bart Stupak and Joseph Pitt's house-mates:

In its internal documents, the Family refers to itself as an "invisible organization" and the "prayer cells" into which it organizes politicians as "invisible believing groups.'"

The connotations run wild: part Manson Family, part Al-Qaeda, part Illuminati, part Scientology. I try not to invoke the word "post-modern" much these days, but I can't think of another word that fits. Well, other than "creepy" and "ludicrous" and "risible" and "scary."

Thanks to Stupak and Pitts, I learned another interesting word:

Together, they're poster boys for the evangelical/conservative Catholic alliance known as "co-belligerency," a culture war strategy designed to take territory within the Democratic Party as well the GOP. [em-phassis mine]

I don't know if that's the Family's word or Sharlet's own diction, but it raises an eyebrow or two (or three, if your third eye is alarmed.) On Sharlet's part, it could be rhetorical overload; he's genuinely --and rightly-- concerned about the religious right's (admittedly smart) tactic to infiltrate both parties to push their agenda forward. But the rest of us --secular left, religious left, or middle, or whatever word choice you wanna make-- could take a page from the fanatical fundy insurgency manual and (hopefully) adapt it with more intellectual honesty and transparency.

Anyhoo, just to be self-promoting "hoower", here's my relevant cartoon for this week.

Originally published at mooreroom.

Here is this week's In Contempt cartoon. I switched out the pickups and the tuners, installed a Bigsby tremelo for greater sustain, and filed down the nut. Now it plays like a dream, tone for days and the leads just SCREAM!

Originally published at mooreroom.

The Planned Parenthood Action Center has a form letter you can send to the White House to encourage President Obama to defend women's reproductive rights as the Senate debates health care reform. There's pre-written stuff, but I have heard from activists in various fields that more attention/weight is given to original writing. Maybe that's a fairy tale we tell ourselves to get to sleep at night, but I wrote my own verbage:

An unfortunate part of the health care reform legislation passed by the House of Representatives this weekend denies coverage of abortion procedures for subscribers to the so-called "public option" and receivers of federal subsidies to purchase health insurance.

This rule effectively robs women of the right to exercise reproductive rights upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court for almost four decades. Poor and lower middle class women do not have the means to pay out-of-pocket. We should not tolerate the creation of such a caste system for women's rights.

This rule also affects the coverage of women who have health insurance. Any woman who works for a small business mandated to purchase insurance through one of the exchanges will not have access to abortion procedures. Currently most health insurance companies cover abortion; yet these companies will have to create separate plans that only women who do not need public assistance can afford. This could become an increasingly small group and potentially wipe out health coverage for abortions altogether.

This is not what you promised in your run for President; indeed, you promised to uphold the reproductive rights of women. So live up to your promise. As the Senate debates health care reform, defend women's reproductive rights and fight against the inclusion of legislation that would deny coverage for abortion procedures.

Thanks for reading,

Link found via Tara Dublin.

Originally published at mooreroom.

This shooter is mentally ill. This other shooter is a terrorist.

Or perhaps this shooter cracked under economic pressures. And this other shooter cracked under anti-religious racism and the pressures of war.

Whenever these violent outbursts occur, I never feel that the explanations for them are adequate. Yet how we explain them -- and our arguments over which explanations are better than others -- say more about our prejudices and biases than the horrible events themselves. Certain factors come up again and again: mental illness, economic struggles, war trauma, religious extremism and racism. Not all of these elements are present in every case -- and based on the two most recent events, I have neglected to list other forces that strongly influence "active shooter" cases, such as misogyny and homophobia. I think a big mistake some folks make, especially those in the punditry profession (which is congenitally given to conclusion-jumping), is latching onto one of these factors in isolation from the others. Those with an axe to grind against Muslims have seized upon the Ft. Hood shooting as a case that proves all their other condemnations of Islam as a religion, political correctness, multiculturalism, and, for good measure, Barack Obama and the "liberal media." None of that is very helpful, but it isn't much better to cite the other factors of war, racism, mental illness, etc. without considering them all together as systemic forces that will eventually combine to produce random acts of violence, whether of the active shooter kind, or in cases of rape, domestic abuse, and/or suicide. After all, most people with mental illnesses (a nebulous category that we should refrain from generalizing upon, anyway) do not go on shooting rampages. So far Marc Armbinder is the only high profile media professional who has urged restraint:

Does shooter story today focus on Islam, on the man himself and his demons, on the Army and war? Lots of data points = context needed.

This event, like the Columbine shootings ten years ago, will be endlessly pored over. I still have not figured out Columbine, but there is at least the positive influence of The Columbine Project to help teens address the kinds of issues that were brought to light by that awful event. Armbinder is right, however: context is needed, and to fully appreciate it, we need time to think before we speak.

So, ya know, STFU.

Originally published at mooreroom.

I have been waiting for this shoe to drop:

Under the agreement, anti-abortion Democrats will be permitted to offer an amendment on the House floor to the health-care overhaul bill. The amendment would prohibit a new government-run insurance plan created by the health-care bill from offering to cover abortion services, congressional sources said. It would also block people who received federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance from buying policies that offered coverage for abortions.

Link found via August. Despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling written almost 40 years ago, reproductive choice remains effectively a class privilege, not a right a woman can exercise over her own body. Too poor to pay out-of-pocket for an abortion? Well, just be glad you're not an undocumented worker, missy; they get bupkis.

Not that any of the above surprises me. But it does get me wondering: What impact does such a rule have for the health insurance plans of women who do not receive subsidies? Will private insurers create a separate plan for publicly assisted subscribers? Will abortion-covered plans cost more? I don't know much about health coverage for women, save that companies have treated domestic abuse as a "pre-existing condition" -- a loathsome practice that doesn't bode well for reproductive choice.

UPDATE: Barry has more info on this compromise, including an answer to my questions above.

Because many small employers are expected to switch to using the exchanges, this means that women who currently have abortion coverage through their small employer, will have their coverage replaced with insurance that doesnt cover abortion.

Originally published at mooreroom.

Walt Disney + Jim Carrey + Robert Zemeckis + 3D animation + The Valley of the Uncanny + Charles Dickens = money that could have saved a few state social programs for the poor and the needy.

I sense some irony here.


The only "Christmas Carol" worth watching (not counting The Muppets.)

Originally published at mooreroom.

This cartoon was made for walking.

This week I started drawing at a new studio space I am renting near my house. I have wanted a studio outside of my house for so very freaking long, so I was glad to hear from friend, fellow Cartoonist With Attitude Barry Goddam Deutsch that a space was available for less than $100 a month. In my neighborhood. Near a Lebanese restaurant and a comics shop. I practically spooged.

This should up my productivity, fo sho. I am going to start doing pages of Wanderlost soon, too. Seriously. And I plan to finish it. More details on that later. I'm just glad to have the opportunity to get out of the house, write and draw without distractions from dishes and laundry. That shit is crazy-making.

Originally published at mooreroom.

Don't express anything; someone might get offended.

Wear a "positive costume" or don't dress up (but don't NOT wear anything at all or the SWAT team will take you down); but definitely do not wear a scary or creepy costume on Halloween, cuz someone might get scared or take offense or get their religious panties up in a bunch.

With Christmas and Hannukah coming, let's avoid controversy altogether by banning religious (and anti-religious) and nongovernmental displays at the state capitol. A democracy cannot countenance controversy. A free exchange of ideas and points of view is simply too much for adults to handle.

Sarcasm aside, I find the "culture wars" aspect of the holiday season to be almost as irritating as the commercial exploitation and religious indoctrination aspects. Last year Freedom From Religion posted a display at the Washington State Capitol mocking religious belief. Naturally people were offended. Fine, be offended, but FFR has as much right to mock religion in a public space as your local church, synagogue or mosque has to promote its religion.

This year, the Washington State bureaucrats chose to avoid controversy and national attention (understandably) by barring all religious and nongovernmental displays inside the Capitol campus. Here is where I, an atheist, find myself more in agreement with the religious than the anti-religious:

"It's a shame that the state is basically shutting down 95 percent of Americans that celebrate a federal holiday, which it is," said Ron Wesselius, a Thurston County Realtor who put up the Nativity the past two years. "They are not letting them celebrate."

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, said she was pleased about the new rules but added that they don't go far enough.

"I don't think Nativity scenes belong on the outside of capitols either," Gaylor said.

Maybe because I'm an artist, but I think more expression is better than less. Mr. Wesselius probably puts more creative effort into his nativity display than FFR did with their snarky placard last year (which I criticized along with another suit FFR brought against "so help me God" in the Presidential oath of office.) If FFR is out of ideas, I would happily create a satirical nativity or a Flying Spaghetti Monster sculpture or even something more positive, like a commemoration of great atheists. John Lennon and Yoko Ono, for example, who used the holiday season to promote peace, charity and social equality.

What bothers me about Ms. Gaylor's position is that it shuts down conversation and debate. The public space is where people should be able to convene and exchange ideas with all the passion, brilliance, silliness, ignorance, rudeness or politeness they can muster. FFR should not approve of the Washington State Capitol ban; they should oppose it and advocate for the right of atheists to express their beliefs in the company of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Wiccans, Rastafarians, Scientologists, and whoever else I forget to mention. Right now a ban on "nongovernmental displays" means all we get are governmental displays. Wheeee.

Originally published at mooreroom.

From David Sirota:

At a recent hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., called the language "TARP on steroids," noting the provisions would deliberately let the executive branch enact even bigger, more unregulated bailouts than ever -- and by unilateral fiat.

Whereas the original TARP included some oversight language and power to limit Wall Street bonuses, TARP on steroids includes no specific oversight or executive pay constraints. Whereas TARP permitted the government to underwrite both small and large banks, TARP on steroids allows taxpayer cash to go only to the behemoths (which, not coincidentally, tend to make the biggest campaign contributions). And whereas TARP limited the Treasury secretary's check-writing authority to two years and $700 billion, TARP on steroids would let him spend as much as he wants for as long as he wants.

Back during the Reagan era, we referred to such things as a "reverse Robin Hood," as social spending and industry regulation was hacked and slashed to funnel cash to defense contractors, friendly Cold War dictators, and giant tax cuts for the wealthy. Glad to see those Big Gubmint Socialists have rectified all that.

For more on Rep. Sherman's objections to Rep. Barney Frank's "Too Big to Fail" Bill, his statement is here.

Originally published at mooreroom.

What is more likely: an angry Latino shot at Lou Dobbs' house, or a careless hunter missed his target?

Bill Ross, a longtime neighbor of Mr. Dobbss, said gunshots were common in the area.

Every day almost, it seems like somebody is target-practicing, he said. To hear a gunshot, I dont think anything of it.

Several neighbors said Mr. Dobbs does not allow hunters on his property. Regardless, everyone around here likes him, said Rocky Russo, who was dressed in camouflage gear and bowhunting for white-tailed deer near Mr. Dobbss property on Friday. The gunshot, he said, might have been some idiot taking a shot at a squirrel in a tree. Who knows?

Even Dobbs' neighbors think he's a little hot-headed. As the New Jersey state police investigate, Dobbs is milking this incident for all its worth. Would you expect anything different?

Bring on the Fark snark: "One more job that could have been done by a red-blooded American. This is a disgrace." Hee.

Originally published at mooreroom.