Cartoonists With Attitude

Ballgame has a good point:

The notion that “Children GENERALLY do better with parents together�? could be taken to mean that, out of the 100 families described above, children from the 80 non-divorcing families end up being mentally and emotionally healthier (as a group) than the children from the 20 divorcing families. That is very easy to believe. Indeed, there are any number of studies that show this, and these are the studies that are typically trotted out to misleadingly imply that divorce hurts children. In fact it’s just another rather banal observation that children from happy families do better than children from emotionally fraught ones, and hardly worth the price of a billboard. It’s almost like saying, “People with money are less likely to have difficulties making ends meet.�?

But the other meaning of “Children GENERALLY do better with parents together�? is quite different: namely, that the children in the 20 divorcing families would have been better off if those parents hadn’t gotten divorced. THAT notion is purely speculative as far as I know. I don’t know of any study that demonstrates this … indeed, I don’t know how any study could demonstrate it. There would be insurmountable practical and ethical issues: you’d have to do some kind of double blind study where couples considering divorce who have children would be permitted to divorce or compelled to stay together at random.

I’d also add that what “parents” means needs to be defined. If a child is being raised by a same-sex couple, would the people who put up the billboard say “great! The parents are still together!” or would they scowl and grumble that same-sex parents aren’t real parents? What about adoption? Etc, etc.

This is also the start of an experiment with a new moderation style for “Feminist Critics”: each post will now have two separate threads, one of which will be deemed “no hostility” and moderated appropriately, in the hope that more feminists will be willing to participate in discussions where we’re not attacked. (The change is due to Daran stepping down as moderator, because he’s enjoying his new relationship too much to waste time blogging.)

I don’t know if the new moderation style will work out — after all, the previous moderation style had the same good intentions, but wasn’t successful at retaining feminist comment-writers — but I hope it will.

[This is email I sent to my mom, who asked why I thought the Employee Free Choice Act is better than secret ballots.]

Happy Chanukah to you!

And yes, the reviews of “The Spirit” movie have been dismal, to my delight.

I’m sorry that your cruise didn’t live up to hype.

As for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), it’s important to understand that the Employee Free Choice Act won’t stop employees from having a secret ballot election. Under EFCA, if even a minority (30%) of employees prefer a secret ballot election, then that’s how it’ll go.

Under our current system, it’s effectively the employer who decides how unions are formed, card check or secret ballots. That choice should be up to workers, and that’s what EFCA would do.

Right now, employers routinely fire union organizers, force workers to sit through mandatory anti-union meetings, threaten to close down the workplace if a union is voted in, etc.. Imagine if Republicans got to do that in regular elections — we’d get to have a secret ballot, but first Republicans would get to remove citizenship from Democratic organizers, promise to shut down the government if Democrats win, have hours and hours of mandatory anti-Democrat propaganda that voters are compelled to attend (while Democrats wouldn’t have the right to respond or hold similar meetings), and so on.

I don’t think anyone would consider that fair or democratic. But that’s pretty much how union elections work.

The EFCA would let employees avoid that if they want to. Instead, if over half the workers want to unionize, employers have to recognize that. But if employees want to do a traditional election — or if, after the union is put in place, they want to vote the union out — they can still do so. EFCA just gives the employees that choice — and gives employees a way to avoid the abusive and unfair practices that US employers are using to fight unions.

The problem we are facing is unfair tactics and intimidation by employers. I can understand being concerned about the prospect of union intimidation, but that doesn’t seem to be an actual problem we’re facing in the real world. Quoting Jonathan Zasloff:

For 50 years, from the 40’s to the 90’s. the province of Ontario had a card-check organizing system, until a right-wing government killed it. (Labour law goes province-by-province in Canada). So what was the record there?

I used advanced research techniques unknown to many reporters, and called up Harry Arthurs of York University, Canada’s pre-eminent labour law scholar. Arthurs literally wrote the book on this stuff. And I asked him: what does the evidence show?

Arthurs answered that in all of his research about labour law complaints under card check, he could not find a single case where the employer complained of a union intimidating workers to unionize when they didn’t want to.

That’s right: zero. Zilch. Nada. Efes. Rien.

Arthurs did find two cases complaining of union intimidation in the card check process: but they were both in cases where two unions were competing against one another, i.e. both the Teamsters and SEIU were trying to organize a particular plant. That’s it.

This isn’t some obscure jurisdiction. It’s Ontario, the largest and richest province in the country. 50 years. A half a century. Zero.

If you think about it for a moment, it becomes clearer why this is so. Employers will have their ears to the ground to find out about such things, and if they have a credible claim, they will be able to call for a secret ballot decertification election. And the workers who are intimidated will take their revenge then. It’s just not in the union’s interest to do it.

I guess I’ll be seeing you in just a couple of weeks. I’m looking forward to it. Take care!

Love, Barry

Rick Warren claims he never said it:

I have been accused of equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia. Now of course as members of Saddleback Church you know I believe no such thing, I never have. You’ve never once heard me in 30 years heard me talk that way about that.

Rachel Maddow has the video proving him wrong.

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do.

(Transcript via Pam’s House Blend; video via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

Maybe Warren misspoke; if so, the thing to do is apologize and move on. Instead, Warren simply lies about what he said.

The video is also well worth watching for Katha Pollitt’s segment at the end, in which she outlines some of Warren’s genuinely outlandish misogyny. For instance, you probably already knew that Rick Warren thinks wives should be subject to their husbands; but did you know that Warren says the only acceptable reasons for divorce are abandonment and infidelity? Abused spouses, presumably, should just suck it up.

Transcript of Maddow’s chat with Pollitt is below the fold.

Joining us now is Katha Pollitt, a columnist with “The Nation” and author of “Learning to Drive: And Other Stories,” which is currently on sale now. Katha, nice to see you, thanks for coming in.

KATHA POLLITT, AUTHOR, “LEARNING TO DRIVE: AND OTHER STORIES”: Thanks so much for having me.

MADDOW: I was surprised that Rick Warren is continuing to talk about this publicly. Are you?

POLLITT: No, I`m not. Rick Warren, I think when you said he confuses himself with Christ, I think you`re on to something. The man obviously has a colossal ego. He`s a best-selling author. He`s got churches all over the place. He is not going to shrink away. This is a big opportunity for him.

MADDOW: The thing that seems, I guess, even more surprising to me in watching this 22-minute video today and spending more time than I ever thought I would in my life with learning about him and his politics as an activism, is that he sort of seems like a “not ready for primetime player” here.

That was an unscripted 22-minute screed that had a lot of very impolitic comments, things that are not going to help President-elect Obama take this heat for having extended this invitation. I would have thought that a man that`s so experienced internationally and in national politics would be more careful.

POLLITT: Well, I had a different feeling about that video which I watched while I was having my little dinner before coming here. I thought, my god. He`s very – he does project that teddy bear geniality – I`m talking to you. He has that ability to seem like he`s just talking to one person when he`s talking to, you know, hundreds of – however many – hundreds of thousands are watching.

And I thought that the things that you noticed would fly by the people that that was aimed at who share those beliefs. They also think that they`re the real Christians. So if you don`t like Rick Warren, you don`t like Christ.

MADDOW: How big of a political problem is this for Barack Obama? And is it getting larger or getting smaller?

POLLITT: Well, I think it is getting larger. I think that the Proposition 8 and the disappointment and anger over that has given it a news hook that might not otherwise be there. When I wrote about it in the “L.A. Times,” I focused on some of the other things that Rick Warren believes that I find very disturbing.

Besides the anti-gay stuff and the anti-gay marriage stuff, that he has compared people who are pro-choice to holocaust deniers. He says that women who have abortions are like Nazis. And compared – you know, it`s like comparing their wounds to Auschwitz.

He has very disturbing ideas about the inequality between the sexes, that he believes, and his church believes – it`s all over the church`s Web site – that wives should be subject to their husbands and that the husbands where it goes.

I learned today – and I think everybody should spend time on the Saddleback Web site because it`s very educational. He believes there are only two reasons you can get divorced, so all those gays who want to get married better think about this.

MADDOW: Yes. The exit strategy.

POLLITT: And the reasons are abandonment and infidelity, but abuse is not a reason. Abuse is not a reason for divorce.

MADDOW: Wow. I think that this problem is getting larger for Barack Obama, and I think that is largely the choice of Rick Warren at this point which itself should be a bit of a warning bell. Katha Pollitt, columnist at “The Nation,” author of “Learning to Drive: And Other Life Stories,” it`s really nice to see you. Thanks for coming in. `

POLLITT: Thanks so much for having me.

Daisy at Our Decent Into Madness writes:

In Iran, a woman was attacked by her scorned suitor turned stalker: he threw sulfuric acid on her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her. He’s been sentenced to a punishment of having five drops of acid put in each of his eyes. [...] This is cruel and unusual punishment, a human rights violation. They’re very right. This man has been sentenced to torture.

What struck me, though: cruel and unusual punishment relative to what? It’s very easy to sit here in the United States and say it’s barbaric to put acid into this attacker’s eyes. But what would happen to him here? He’d be thrown into a prison, where, chances are, he would be raped for years with absolutely no consequence.

Our courts don’t sentence convicts to torture. (Not that this stops our government from torturing!) No, we just let them be tortured by other convicts instead.

The School Library Journal blog has a “best graphic novels of 2008″ post, in which longtime friend of Hereville Brigid Alverson is nice enough to recommend Hereville. Thanks, Brigid! (And reading through the rest of the post, I’m very jazzed to be in such great company.)

And the blog Jewschool, which I’ve liked for a long time, posted a very positive review, as well.

Beyond the thrill of a well-told story that is steeped in Jewish culture without feeling forced or condescending, it’s a pleasure to read a story with an Orthodox heroine who’s both a feminist and feminine without being, well, a cartoon.

(th)ink by Keith Knight
the K Chronicles by Keith Knight

*HAPPY HOLLANDAISE…
Hope you and yers have a pleasant transition and a wondrous New Year!!

*EMAILS/LETTERS OF THE WEEK…

Hi there,

I emailed you yeeeeaaars ago saying I really liked your stuff as I saw it online. I work as a part-time freelance cartoonist here in Ireland and have periodically checked out your site to see what you are up to. I work full-time in a bookshop and when I heard you were publishing your stuff with Dark Horse in a kinda omnibus edition I ordered it for the shop (in all of Ireland ((this includes Northern Ireland) there are about 6 comic shops so outside of them we are probably one of the best stocked comic wise regular bookshops in the country and my boss still can’t believe how well comics sell). I put it aside for myself in my pile of stuff to buy (it’s a pretty big pile everytime) when it arrived and after coming home this eve, conking on the couch and now not being able to sleep I started reading the book beside my girlfriend who is currently drooling in sleepy bliss. She would be liable to beat me with it if I woke her and it is a hefty book so with
that in ming I have had to move from the bedroom to the sitting room as I cannot contain my laughter.

Thanks for a great read. I am only about one third of the way through and I will be mentioning it on me blog thingummy that I have started only this week. Anyway thanks I near wet meself with laughter. Please bring out another sometime and if you can ever make it to the Dublin Comic Convention it would be class!

All the best for the Christmas

A.

(yes!! somebody bring me out to dublin as a guest!!-kk)
—————–

Mr. K.

Having finished the Complete K Chronicles
(which I checked out from the local public library)
I just had to give a little bit of support……………
for my appreciation of your work, wit, and the worth
of what you added to my last couple of days…..

thanks, M.

(props to his local librarian!!-kk)
————–

Hi Keef,
I just wanted to say keep up the great work. I discovered you through Funny Times and read you regularly on Comics.com.

A middle-age-middleclass-suburban-white-guy-fan.

Sincerely,

B.

(53-year old white guys are my bread-n-buttah.-kk.)

————-
Dear Keith:

I see your work reproduced in Funny Times, and it’s the bomb. Funny and smart is really
hard to achieve, but you’re doing it.

Thanks for keepin’ on.

J.

(the FBI came to my house asking about this “bomb” stuff.-kk.)

————–

Mr. Knight

Hi, I am from St. Croix but saw that you will be gracing our shores In Dec 11! Great to have you here. I am a big fan of comics in a variety of forms and I am glad that a socialy concious artist is comming. We have issues we do not like to disscuss or face locally here. You could give us some perspective on that from your point of view.

I had to ignore my passion for comics because I was told ” Be practical” Well I did and the passion for comics is still there! My passion for my “socially accepted” career choice is waining. Would love to have you on St. Croix sometime. But do enjoy your stay!

S.

(please bring me to st. croix!!-kk)

————
Keef,

After years of getting my fix monthly through funny times, I opened my monday minneapolis star/tribune to find they had your strip. Yes!!!
With zippy in the st paul press/dispatch I my morning reading is now fulfilled

(they’re referring to my new daily, the knight life, check it out at:
http://www.knightlifecomic.com)

My kids are watching “A Miser Brother’s Christmas”, a sequel to the classic “A Year Without a Santa Claus” that made Heat Miser and Cold Miser, and their funky personal theme songs, indelible parts of postmodern childhood.

Guess the plot. Go ahead. Yep – save Christmas. Once again, Santa is sick – and thanks to Mickey Rooney’s ancient return to the role, he sounds terminal – and somebody has gotta save a holiday that, truth be told, has nothing to do with St. Nick at all. In fact, I am pretty sure the 2,000-year-old Baby Jesus will sleep cozy in his bed of hay, surrounded by a stable of creepy talking animals, without intervention from the pagan consumer god in the red suit.

Honestly I stopped paying attention a quarter-way through the production. But I felt an urge to throw together a list of random titles – culled via googling and “amazoning” – that have “Save Christmas” in them. Just to see how bad it gets.

Baby Bratz – First of all, I did not know that the notoriously trampy Bratz line had spawned a “baby” branch. But it raises the question: Are these babies the Bratz when they were younger; or the children the Bratz have brought into the world without any idea who the father is? Maybe the Baby Bratz think Santa Claus is their daddy and hope he will save them? “Set me up nice, big daddy.”

Bikini Bandits – I feel that it is important to point out aesthetic similarities between children’s entertainment and soft porn adult entertainment whenever possible. It fills my heart with warm, boozey eggnog to see the “save christmas” conceit used here.

The Glo-Friends – Um…vomit? But why is it listed on the NY Times website? Does the “paper of record” (or “website of record”) need to log this? I am feeling an inkling of resentment harshing my brandy buzz, so…

Ernest – I never saw this or any other Ernest movie. And that is surprising, because I am pretty sure that my young teenage mind thought that would be a good idea. Perhaps fate intervened and saved me from a life of utter mediocrity and failure. As opposed to whatever I am supposed to call what I do now. Er – anyhoo, moving on!

Elmo – Of course. In fact, I have to confess – I like Elmo so much, I am willing to forgive him anything. I’d even go around the world and demagnetize every VHS and scratch every DVD of every other “save xmas” movie just so Elmo could dominate the genre. Wow. I just learned something about myself right there. God, I’m lame.

Diego – my son watched this on Nickelodeon this morning. The Wonder Pets followed with a plot to save The Nutcracker (or was it a baby reindeer?), but I can’t bring myself to link to it.

Mickey – Wouldn’t you be disappointed if he wasn’t on the list? In what universe does Disney not sign up their corporate logo for the most clichd xmas movie plot ever? Is it a happy place? Can we move there?

Felix the Cat – According to Amazon.com: “When the professor [sic] and rock bottom [sic] plot to create the worlds [sic] biggest blizzard in order to ruin christmas [sic] felix the cat [sic] and poindexter [sic] must travel to the north pole to help santa claus [sic] and save christmas. [sic]” Despite the grammar and capitalization errors, this plot summary is an excellent stand-in for nearly every Christmas movie ever made.

Okay. That’s enuff. Merry Christmas. Save yourselves.

A few days ago, Charles Brubaker kindly sent me a link to Cartoon Brew, which featured an animated cartoon from 1943 called “Der Schneemann” (“The Snowman”) by my grandfather, Hans Fischerkoesen.

The very end is missing from this version of the film… at the end of the original, the bunny gazes sadly at the melted snowman, then tenderly picks up the carrot that had been his nose, and starts nibbling on it.

Coincidentally, my winter holiday cards this year are partly inspired by that moment:

Happy holidays!