Check out the draft version of the CD cover I am doing for Mushroom Suzie!
scroll down....

The War President

Class Warfare Made SIMPLE
Mood:  irritated

Ever wonder why liberals and conservatives come to the positions they do? Here is your easy simple guide:

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Liberals believe that social security should be an inviolable safety net in case the worst happens. In other words, if your whole life goes to shit and your legs get cut off and the stock market crashes, you have a fall-back position.

Conservatives consider Social Security as simply a form of investment, and one which, being potentially less lucrative (and also more secure) than the stock market, should be abolished as soon as possible. Since Conservatives represent the interests of corporations as will become evident, having a form of emergency relief is not high on their list of priorities.

ABORTION:

Liberals believe that the government should stay out of the issue, aside from potential health ramifications (an indigent pregnant woman who goes into a public hospital and will die if the baby is not aborted, for example).

For Conservatives, this is a triple whammy issue. First off, abortion decreases the labor force and thus increases the wages of labor. It's supply and demand, and business wants the supply of labor high and the labor force desperate and pliable. Look at Mexico for an example of this philosophy in action. Unwanted children also keep families over a barrel and hence make them more pliable and more willing to put up with bad working conditions.

Secondly, Christianity is an important force for keeping the labor force meek and pliable and abortion has become a hot-button Christian issue, so the conservatives get a double benefit out of this.

CIVIL UNIONS:

Liberals: None of the government's business, two people of whatever sex can enter into any contractual relationship they please, so long as they aren't violating the rights of anyone else.

Conservatives: A double whammy issue for the conservatives. Gay marriage also decreases the work force since gay couples can't have kids of their own. It's also a hot-button issue with their devoted minions the Christians.

PHARMACEUTICALS FROM CANADA:

Liberals: People need medicines, they are not optional in many cases but necessities of life, and thus any means that can put cheaper drugs into the hands of the people who need them, particularly lower income people and elderly people on the aforementioned Social Security, is a good thing.

Conservatives: Representing as they do the interests of corporations, the pharmaceutical corporations are powerful and helpful allies, and anything that would impact on their profit margins is therefore a bad thing.

WAR:

Liberals: War is only to be used as a last resort.

Conservatives: War is an instrument of national political and economic interests and also makes money for a large number of corporations at taxpayer expense. Since individuals represent a larger percentage of the tax base than corporations do, that increase in tax cost is a good deal overall: all forms of corporate welfare are a good deal for corporations even if they wind up paying slightly higher taxes as a result.

DISSENT:

Liberals: Dissent is patriotic since the country is based on the idea that no individual or group has an ironclad claim on the truth.

Conservatives: Dissent is unamerican since it rocks the boat and disturbs the status quo, which is favorable to corporations.

SOCIAL SPENDING IN GENERAL:

Liberals: Social spending is a legitimate way to further better conditions for everyone.

Conservatives: Social spending is a disincentive to a pliable workforce. A desperate workforce is a cheap workforce. Any governmental attempt to make citizens more secure in times of need is therefore counterproductive.

MINIMUM WAGE:

Liberals: Everyone needs a living wage.

Conservatives: A minimum wage costs corporations money and works contrary to their desire to get the most work out of you for the least wage.

TRADE UNIONS:

Liberals: Workers have a right to organize for better conditions, and it was precisely this right to organize which is responsible for doing away with dangerous, inhumane, and abusive practices which corporations so willingly participated in in the past.

Conservatives: Conservatives don't like unions. Why? Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".

I could go on and on, it's the same story.


These same sorts of business-motivated conservatives historically:

Opposed anti-trust legislation.

Opposed child labor laws.

Opposed universal free public education. Some of them still do.

Opposed literacy for African-American citizens, in particular.

Supported the establishment of "Jim Crow" in the south.

Opposed state laws guaranteeing minimum wages and restricting working hours for industrial workers.

Opposed the right to vote for women.

Supported prohibition.

Opposed the League of Nations - and continue to oppose US participation in the United Nations.

Were involved in countless financial and government scandals, including, manipulation of stock prices during the Civil War, rampant cronyism and nepotism during the Grant administration, the Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920's, Watergate, the Savings and Loan crisis, the present "no bid" contracts for Halliburton - the former employer of the Vice President - and many, many more.

Opposed agricultural subsidies, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Rural Electrification, and almost all of the rest of the New Deal.

Opposed Social Security.

Opposed the Fair Labor Standards Act establishing the eight hour work day and overtime pay, and some still do.

Opposed the National Labor Relations Act guaranteeing workers the right to collectively bargain.

Opposed US entry into World War II to fight fascism.

Traded with the Nazi's during the war. Noteworthy cheap-labor conservatives "trading with the enemy" included Henry Ford and one Prescott Bush, father and grandfather to two Presidents.

Opposed the GI Bill of Rights.

Opposed creation of the United Nations.

Opposed the Marshall Plan.

Opposed FHA Mortgages.

Opposed the creation of Interstate Highways. These had to be billed as the "National Defense Interstate Highway System" to get some of them to go along with it.

Opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Opposed the Civil Rights of 1964.

Opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Opposed Medicare.

Supported both overt and covert intervention, leading to the creation of right-wing dictatorships in Iran, Guatamala, Cuba [before Castro, mind you], Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, the Congo, Chile, Brazil, El Salvador, the Phillipines, Indonesia and many others.

Supported the war in Vietnam including "bombing them back to the stone age".

Supported covert and illegal air strikes against Cambodia.

Supported domestic "surveillance" of opponents of the war, civil right supporters and other "dissidents" who believed in things like equality and democracy.

Opposed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

Opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.

Supported shifting the tax burden from the top to the middle, and the creation of massive deficits for the purpose of bankrupting the Federal government.

Opposed the act creating "family leave" - unpaid mind you.

Opposed and continue to oppose National Health Insurance.

Support taxing the wages of working people, but not passive investment income such as dividends and "capital gains".

Support "vouchers" to subsidize parochial and private schools, in order to create a "two tiered" educational system. Remember, they opposed universal public education.

Support "free trade" policies that allow US manufacturers to export jobs to third world cesspools.

Support the dictatorial regimes in those same third world cesspools.

Oppose restrictions on green house gasses and other pollutants.

Support "privitization" of Social Security, something they have hated since its inception, and which they have concocted a novel way to get rid of.

Oppose government support for the development of alternatives to fossil fuels, but they . . .

Support invasion of Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, in order to secure our supply of those same fossil fuels.

AND YET, SOMEHOW, these people have the unmitigated gall to call themselves the party of the people, as versus those "New England Liberals" and "Hollywood" and "cultural elites".

Just goes to prove Hitler's dictum: TELL BIG LIES.

Someone set up us the bomb
Mood:  cool
I am a sucker for this mad-scientist stuff. I think that if anybody manages to make putting a pound of stuff in orbit cheaper, it will probably be some sort of private enterprise.

In the realms of home-made rocketry, we've got Dallas's own Armadillo Aerospace, run by Id Software's John Carmack, which was a competitor for the Xprize. But the most interesting developments are in hybrid rockets, which was also the type of rocket which powered the Xprize-winning SpaceShipOne, but which people are also playing with on a more amateur basis. Basically, hook up a tank of Nitrous Oxide (also good for fun & killing brain cells after the launch)to a metal tube coated on the inside with rubber basically, something to spark it off with, and you're good to go. Chemically stable, it won't blow up on you at least until you fire it off, and almost as efficient as liquid-fueled systems, and environmentally friendly.



They also come in micro sizes, check out http://mywebpages.comcast.net/seanmca79/hybrid/
These however are on an Estes-rocket scale of thrust, which to me would seem pointless unless it's a prelude to making bigger ones.

Making the engines, in theory at least, are as easy as buying yourself some hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene, a synthetic rubber, not majorly expensive, mixing it with the activator like you would epoxy, and molding it into the casing. The engine nozzle is a bit tricky, you'd have to have it machined from graphite, but for your own space program it's not too bad. There is also some research underway for using paraffin wax as the fuel.

As far as the nitrous goes, there are 20 pound tanks which are used for hot rods, which ought to get you pretty far. I don't know how adjustable those tanks are as far as output. They are designed for 2-5 minutes of boost for cars.



One question which would be interesting to answer is, could you use this same principle in ramjets? In other words, lets say you use a hybrid with nitrous to get the rocket going fast enough for a ramjet to work: if you then spark up a ramjet-shaped tube with this fuel in it, would it work? This would save on oxidisers, or it might be possible to do a ramjet with reduced nitrous flow, which means that much less heavy oxidiser to carry around.

Disdain for Science portends Decline of Nation
Mood:  sad
Now Playing: Moveable Deck Chairs on the Titanic
I apologize for quoting this article at length, but I think it's important enough to do so. I have nothing to add, it speaks for itself.

The url for this editorial is here

Disdain for science portends decline of nation

SCIENCE

05:22 PM CDT on Sunday, October 24, 2004

By TOM SIEGFRIED / The Dallas Morning News

Google the phrase "so goes the nation" and you'll find a multitude of claims for the determiner of national direction. Most of the hits apply that distinction to states - from Maine to Ohio to Texas to California. But you'll also find sites contending that the nation goes as does Harvard, the family, Microsoft, gay marriage, and Google itself.

Sadly, you won't find the correct answer - which is, of course, science.

Science's lack of prominence in the popular mind certainly doesn't match its importance for public life. Even though science drives the economy, medical care, entertainment technology and intellectual culture, it gets about as much respect as the late Rodney Dangerfield.

For decades, however, that didn't seem to matter. After World War II, U.S. science and engineering became the world's model, turning nature's untapped resources of knowledge into the commodities and comforts of the planet's richest country.

It used to be that science enjoyed particular prestige within the halls of government, where grateful politicians acknowledged the benefits of nonpartisan expertise. But lately, among many of the nation's leaders - both political and industrial - science has been treated with neglect and disdain. Consequently U.S. pre-eminence in the scientific world no longer goes unquestioned, and the future of science has become more and more questionable.

Some of the nation's scientific decline is dramatic and clear, such as the exodus of leadership in high-energy physics to Europe - the predictable outcome of the 1993 congressional refusal to finish a super atom smasher then under construction in Texas.

Other signs are more subtle. Enrollment in science and engineering graduate programs has been unable to regain its 1993 peak, and would be vastly below that level if not for rising numbers of engineering and computer science students from foreign countries. Judged by papers published in top science and technology journals, U.S. scientists are producing a diminishing share of the world's scientific output. Government funding levels for federal science research agencies, after several years of growth, are now projected to be flat or declining in the years ahead.

"How can we recruit the best young people to science careers if they foresee a grim funding picture for their future work?" asks Alan Leshner, the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

But the real issue, Dr. Leshner asserts, is not American pre-eminence over the scientific world. "The United States should not be wasting energy right now on the question of its global scientific dominance," he wrote in the Oct. 8 issue of the journal Science.

Rather, the pressing problem is science's relationship to society, and especially the government's policy-making process.

"Both the U.S. policy climate and funding trends for science are deteriorating, and those changes pose significant risk to the future of U.S. science," Dr. Leshner declared. "The relationship between science and large segments of the U.S. public and policy communities is also eroding."

In the closing weeks of the U.S. presidential race, a cadre of scientists, including half a dozen Nobel laureates, have embarked on a speaking tour in several states to deplore political interference in scientific research and ideological distortion of scientific evidence in the policy process. The scientists allege that policies on AIDS, global warming, stem cell research, environmental protection, evolution education, missile defense, space missions to Mars and future energy sources have all ignored or distorted the consensus of leading scientific experts and the preponderance of established scientific evidence.

Scientists requesting funding for their work have been questioned about their political allegiances. Research in "sensitive" topics (such as sexual behavior and drug abuse) has been subjected to special scrutiny, Dr. Leshner points out. Congress has voted to disallow research grants "whose subject matter made them uncomfortable."

Officials defend the government's actions, but cannot deny the scientific community's perception that the free pursuit of scientific knowledge has become endangered by politico-religious ideological opposition.

"We are now experiencing," wrote Dr. Leshner, "a counterproductive overlay of politics, ideology, and religious conviction on the U.S. climate for science."

And so it seems that U.S. science's real enemy is not stars of foreign science, but ourselves. It was science that provided the economic, military and intellectual power that made America supreme in world affairs. If that very power is turned against science, then its source will evaporate, and America will go the way of past empires where dogma trumped intellect and propaganda overwhelmed reason.

"Worry about whether the United States is better in science than everyone else in the whole world is misplaced anxiety," wrote Dr. Leshner. "We need to focus our full energy on the U.S. home front, because the serious erosion of the climate that originally led to America's pre-eminence in science is now threatening its very eminence - and thus, its future."

True-Color Global Imagery
This is da bomb. If you ever wanted to know what the Earth looks like from space - close up, as if you were actually in a space capsule - this is your website:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/

The Earth images are incredible. I wish I could put these images on the walls of every schoolkid in America to let them know, you know, this is where we are, and your generation might want to do a better job at protecting this than we did.

Speaking of protecting the earth, hello, has anyone noticed that gas prices have gone dramatically upwards? While I'm sure that gas prices may fluctuate downwards occasionally in the future, on the whole the trend will be for gasoline to become more and more expensive, and energy costs to become more and more of a drag on the world's economy, until things reach a breaking point. This may drive home a point we should have gotten in the freaking 70's, that dependence on oil not only compromises our national security, our economies, and our environment, it compromises our existence as a civilization. We WILL have to switch to other energy sources, within the lifetime of a middle aged person today, or else the world economy will go to hell, and likely our whole civilization will go to hell. And what are we doing today to facilitate that switch? Not shit.

Now we do have plenty of coal, however because of this coal and the mercury contamination it causes, American women have levels of mercury in their bodies sufficient to present a severe risk of birth defects and nervious system damage in their unborn offspring. The new study found excess mercury levels in 21 percent of the 597 women of childbearing age who were tested. More than 15 percent of the total children being born in America -- may have been exposed before birth to mercury at levels that are considered to increase risk of adverse neurological developmental effects. Stupider children, just what the Religious Right wants.

So if we rely more on coal, experience leads us to believe that environmental regulations will be relaxed even more to relieve the economic pressure caused by shifting more energy production to coal, and the situation will be even worse than it is now.

If the American people and their government set their minds to it, they could transition to a markedly lessened dependence on petroleum in 10 years, increased use of alternative and less polluting energy sources, and more efficient use of the energy we are already using, and be well on the way to making the transition to the economy of the late 21st Century which will not be and cannot be petroleum-driven in the way that we are today. Petroleum should be for plastics, not for throwing in the trunks of our car like so much firewood.

How do you overcome stupidity? How do you overcome willful blindness to the threats that are impingeing on this planet as a result of our dependence on mostly foreign oil? Environmental threats, national security threats, economic threats, threats to the very existence of technological civilization, all hinge on this one issue. What will it take to get people to see the light? Here we are, about to elect an oilman President, and these crucial issues aren't even on the national radar screen. Do we have to slap people upside the heads with an empty oil barrel to get them to grasp the actual situation here?

Episode 14 is here!
Now Playing: Exodus Episode 14
Episode 14 is finished, whew. It weighs in at a whopping 5 megs, so apologies to any dial-up viewers out there are in order, maybe some apologies to high-speed viewers for the wait in downloading some hefty animations.

I think that after I finish the Centauri episodes, which I am hoping will be Episodes 14 through 18 (I think it will actually be 14 through 16 which is why I say 14 through 18 because it always takes longer than I think), I am going to do a for-pay Samia Prequel. Basically pages out of Samia's life before the story in Exodus. The information won't be essential to the storyline in Exodus, but definitely will enhance the experience, as they say on those Viagra commercials. The cost for each Samia Prequel episode I do will be $1, one slim buck, so reach deep into your beer money and slide me a George to see the first very cool prequel episode when it comes out.

Also, remember that Mushroom Suzie is going to do the music for the upcoming New Intro which will be coming out probably Episode 17 or 18, somewhere in there, including the delectable singing of Laura Arellano and the inspired instrumental work of Chad Hagedorn.

The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades. :)

Episode 14 almost finished
Now Playing: Playing soon Episode 14

Well Episode 14 is now about 85% finished, with a way cooler shuttlecraft than the one I showed you, about 400% better. I'm about 3 scenes from completion. This episode has been the hardest one yet, in terms of complex modelling and animation, but I think you'll agree it's well worth it.

Speaking of well worth it, it's beg-a-thon time. :)

[begathon]

Your donations help keep this web series going. I'll say right out, I am a poor man and that's no bull, but fortunately I'm low-maintenence. If I make enough money to cover meds and cigs, and pay my car insurance, I'm a happy camper. Basically, if I am compelled to get a real job instead of doing this gig and that in my happy-go-lucky fashion to make ends meet, the rate at which episodes are released will go down pretty drastically. If you need a website done at a reasonable price, email me. My email address is on the mailing list page. And if you appreciate having Exodus here and having episodes come out at a reasonable rate, donate whatever you can. If you consider Exodus as a paper comic, you are getting essentially 2 comics a month or so, which if Exodus were a paper comic would be at least a $4 value a month. And of course Exodus is way better than a paper comic. My paypal link is on the info frame on the website under the pic of a panhandling Sami.

Don't force Samia to hit the streets. I don't want to have to be a digital pimp. :)

[/begathon]

Slight Service Interruption

If you came by the Exodus site yesterday, you might have noticed we were down. There were minor technical issues which have been successfully resolved. Thanks be to our hosts at The Sock Monkey Project for resolving the issue and for generously providing Exodus this space.

Episode 14 is well underway, and part of it at least takes place on the planet Tsudio. I've got a lot of modelling to do to get this episode out, I've got to model locations on Tsudio and a Centauri shuttlecraft, probably a Centauri VTOL which will be different from the VTOL I have already started modelling for Mobaris. The Tsudio cityscape especially will be quite a lot of work.

I did a prototype of a Centauri shuttlecraft which I am showing here because I am not sure I'm going to actually use it. I'm not happy with it. I need to figure out how to do it both more messy and more realistically, putting in a lot of pseudofunctional surface detail that is lacking here.



With any luck, I can put together something that can double as shuttlecraft and aircraft so that I don't have to do two models.

A frame from an upcoming animation for Episode 14 and...
Just thought I'd share a frame from an animation that I'm working on for Episode 14:



Also, an animation that I didn't do, but I think it's cool as all get-out. Robot love story?

http://www.hirezfox.com/loxley/Telezart/impact.html