For whatever reason, I somehow managed to lose my love for drawing. Well, that’s not entirely true. I still love to draw, but the passion that once filled volumes of sketchbooks has been waning in recent months (possibly even years). It has become a struggle, almost a chore, to even scratch together a rudimentary sketch let alone an entire illustration.

While I should definitely try and figure out why the passion has gone out of my relationship with drawing, I shouldn’t let my self-analysis get in the way of trying to get back in the habit of drawing every day. So, it is my official resolution to draw (at the very least) one sketch per day and one illustration per week. (Ah, who am I kidding, let’s make that two weeks.)

Thankfully this struggle doesn’t seem to be affecting my work-related illustrations, only my personal interest ones. Some time ago, about the time I introduced the “Sketch of the Moment” feature on my website, I expressed to you all my interest in putting together a 70s style blaxploitation movie poster of the biblical story of Judith. Well, as of today, the .AI file still sits in my hard drive, unopened, unloved, and unfinished. It makes me sad that I’ve lost my passion for drawing. I just hope I can find it again. Preferably more sooner than later.

Carpe Diem (by drawing daily),
el jo

Can someone please translate whatever message Astrid Johannsen is trying to convey into something that I might better be able to understand, like Yiddish or that Bushman clicking language? As it stands, I have no idea whether Astrid is seriously claiming that you and I are inferior to self-pitying heretics or if it’s simply the case that she should stop bellyaching and start healing herself. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. She cottons to mandarinism. And I can say that with a clear conscience because if it turns out that there’s sincerely no way to prevent her from destroying our moral fiber then I guess it’ll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I’ll just have to give up trying to take the initiative to reveal some shocking facts about Astrid’s hatchet jobs and accept the fact that for those of us who make our living trying to make plans and carry them out, it is important to consider that Astrid is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens teach the most yawping Huns you’ll ever see about tolerance. Responsible citizens unquestionably do not replace law and order with anarchy and despotism.

Maybe some day, Astrid will finally stop trying to mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs. Don’t hold your breath, though. She has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. Astrid can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches her nostrils, she’ll start talking about the joy of immoralism and how clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. As you listen to Astrid’s sing-song, chances are you won’t even notice her hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you’ve been robbed, will you truly understand that she often argues that her blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur. A similar argument was first made over 1200 years ago by a well-known mendicant and was quickly disproved. In those days, however, no one would have doubted that Astrid prizes wealth and celebrity over and above decent morals and sound judgment. Well, that’s getting away from my main topic, which is that fetishism represents an unenlightened form of divide-and-conquer. But there’s the rub; there is only one way to stop her from giving rise to mean-spirited, debauched con artists. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of randy analphabetics, people who are willing to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. Then together we can stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that we must, in one voice, cry out that we will not tolerate her crapulous, noxious cajoleries. Together we can show the world that I want to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most lewd manifestations. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Why can’t we simply agree to disagree? It is bootless to speculate on the matter but it should be noted that Astrid wants to get me thrown in jail. She can’t cite a specific statute that I’ve violated, but she does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that Astrid’s causing all sorts of problems for us. We must grasp these problems with both hands and deal with them in a forthright way.

For one thing, Astrid considers it fair game to spit on sacred icons. But more importantly, when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Astrid is drunk with power, which is why we must provide you with a holistic and thematic history of her juvenile, dictatorial views. I sometimes joke about how I can’t let her use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to toss sops to the egos of the disdainful. But seriously, if she is going to talk about higher standards then she needs to live by those higher standards.

At first, you might be unsure as to whether Astrid’s tricks are a disgrace and an outrage. But on deeper inspection, you’ll indeed conclude that Astrid’s canards reflect several layers of moral concern for many religions. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, Astrid’s behavior might be different if she were told that she just wants to avoid detection and punishment. Of course, as far as Astrid’s concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.” That’s why I’m telling you that she maintains that either a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have or that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. Astrid denies any other possibility.

Astrid will probably never understand why she scares me so much. And she undeniably does scare me: Her ravings are scary, her roorbacks are scary, and most of all, if she were to get her hands on the levers of power she’d immediately use tribalism as a more destructive form of sectarianism. If you don’t believe me then consider that it is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by her mealymouthed, pernicious jibes. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. Okay, there’s no reason for me to be execrable, so I’ll leave you with this concept: Astrid Johannsen’s declamations oscillate between foul poststructuralism and amoral barbarism.

Today I am 12500 days old. So, to celebrate the big one-two-five-oh-oh, I did a quick little self-portrait to reflect my new red hair.

I just watched Jon Stewart's interview with Mike Huckabee, and it reconfirms my absolute and total adoration for Jon Stewart.

Huckabee mindlessly blathers on with his "traditional marriage" talking points while Jon repeatedly blasts him out of the water with level-headed and logical arguments against Huck's bullshit. My personal favorite was this pearl:

And I'll tell you this. Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have, for religion- we protect religion- and talk about a lifestyle choice! That is absolutely a choice. Gay people don't choose to be gay.

As far as I know, no one is born Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or what-have-you. I think it's possible for religious people to make the assumption that babies are born as a particular faith because of a cultural imposition, but religion is definitely not inborn. It is a conscious lifestyle choice.

Being gay, on the other hand, has been pretty well determined to be inborn. There are gay people across the entire gamut of human civilization. Despite what prominent Persian presidents might claim, there are gays in Iran. There are gay Muslims, there are gay Buddhists, there are gay black people, white people, green people, purple people. Gayness does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, creed, or culture because it is a natural phenomenon akin to left-handedness, albinism, or the ability to curl your tongue into a 'U' shape. (Check out this link on the enduring social stigma attached to being left-handed.)

If Huckabee wants to "defend traditional marriage" according to the Bible, then he's going to have to decide which definition to use:

From dailykos:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

For Huckabee, the issue is semantics. In his tiny little mind he genuinely believes his talking points: that the institution of "one man, one woman together in holy matrimony" has been around (presumably) since the beginning of time back in 4004 B.C.. But we should not be slaves to our own creation. (I'm talking about language here, but this could just as easily refer to god.) Definitions change. I dare say, they evolve. But for Huckabee, and others of his ilk, their god's universe is forever static and unchanging. What was true 5000 years ago, in their minds, must certainly be true today.

So if that's the case, all you shrimp lovers out there are gonna burn burn burn!!! (Leviticus 11:11)

el jo

75 years ago today, with the 21st amendment, alcohol consumption was made legal again in the United States. It repealed the 18th amendment which prohibited the sale and consumption of alcohol.

So celebrate your right to drink! Have a glass of what-have-you and offer a toast to alcohol: the cause and solution to all life's problems.

(Thanks Homer!)

el jo

I spent some of my work-filled evening in the company of a few friends and a metric assload of strangers as we all watched Barack Obama get voted to be the 44th President of the United States.

I’m fucking stoked!

I’ve voted in presidential elections since my first one in 1992. I was in high school and I didn’t know shit about politics so I voted for the guy I liked the best. (That would be H. Ross Perot, his little charts, and his big ears.) In 1996, I voted for Ralph Nader. (Thank Eris I didn’t make the same mistake in 2000!) For my first two elections, I voted for the little guys, the nobodies, because I was a young, idealistic moron who did not yet realize that America doesn’t give a shit about the little guys.

Along comes 2000. I’m a little bit wiser in the ways of politics and I see a shmarmy looking character on the horizon: George W. Bush. Well, I wasn’t exactly keen on his father’s policies and there was no way I wanted to experience it again, so I voted for ‘the other guy’ Al Gore. I didn’t want to vote for Al Gore, but I wanted George W. Bush even less. Thus began my trend of “voting for one schmoe so that the other one doesn’t get elected.” I don’t think it’s really democracy when you have to use your vote more as a tactic than as a choice. Again in 2004, I voted for “the guy who isn’t Bush. I really didn’t want John Kerry to be President, but again, I wanted George W. Bush even less.

But things have changed this time around. I actually voted for a candidate that I actively wanted to be President. I voted for Barack Obama. I did not vote for him because he was “the lesser of two evils.” I didn’t vote for him just so that the other guy wouldn’t get elected. (Although this time around, it was a nice perk.) I voted for him because I genuinely believe that he will make a positive difference for our struggling nation. I voted for him because he brings me hope for the future.

I was one among millions of Americans with their eyes glued to the television, watching and waiting for that magic number, 270, to appear on the screen in bold, beaming blue. We got what we asked for, and we shouted and cheered and cried tears of joy when the announcement was made that Barack Obama was going to be our next President. I was there when McCain gave a surprisingly eloquent and moving concession speech, and I was there, in a bar of excited people, as we listened to Obama’s speech at the end of the night, and all of us were excited and hopeful for the future as we shouted out loud, “Yes we can!”

Carpe Diem,
ellejohara