a little less than a year ago i started up a webcomic. i posted about it here and got some useful critiques and maybe a regular visitor or two. i figure 1 post a year looking for help isn't too bad!
now, it's evolved into a webcomic/music blog. truthfully, they're some of the only things i could consistently post about - i'm using my interests/passions to avoid dead-blog-syndrome.
http://turrbull.com/ is the site. if anyone has some free time, any critique is welcome.
here's some recently posted music and comics to give you a taste of what is going on over there.
ALSO, if you have a comic/blog/whatever, can i see it? i'd be interested to see what the TL community is doin' off-site.
In 1969, a 14-year-old Beatle fanatic named Jerry Levitan, armed with a reel-to-reel tape deck, snuck into John Lennon’s hotel room in Toronto and convinced John to do an interview about peace. 38 years later, Jerry has produced a film about it. Using the original interview recording as the soundtrack, director Josh Raskin has woven a visual narrative which tenderly romances Lennon’s every word in a cascading flood of multipronged animation. Raskin marries the terrifyingly genius pen work of James Braithwaite with masterful digital illustration by Alex Kurina, resulting in a spell-binding vessel for Lennon’s boundless wit, and timeless message.
On Tuesday night, while I stood in the middle of hundreds of thousands of emotional, ecstatic and euphoric people of all ages, ethnicities and voices, I saw the tremendous city of Chicago shake. Again and again, as state after state was called for Barack Obama, the potential of the night began to sink in for his once superstitious but unyieldingly optimistic supporters and they grew louder and louder.
At 9:59 p.m. the west coast polls were only a minute away from closing. With 30 seconds remaining, all of us felt the electricity in each cool November breeze. At ten seconds, a countdown began. 10, 9, 8, 7, ... each number exponentially louder than the last as more and more thousands joined in. 6, 5, 4,... Supporters assumed this would mean California's 55 electoral votes would be a huge boost and may lead to an Obama victory within the hour. 3, 2, 1... the crowd, which sounded as if it were counting down a new year, exploded as it was presented, in fact, with a new era.
The already loud and deep drums of CNN's breaking news graphic were multiplied ten thousand times for over a quarter of a million overjoyed supporters and what began as another overwhelmingly loud cheer for what we all believed was going to be California's return to blue became an indescribable storm of sound amidst a sea of tears, smiles, flags and hugs with strangers.
I have never seen and may never again see such a massive eruption of overwhelming joy as when I witnessed Barack Obama clinch the presidency in the jam packed Grant Park of his adopted hometown, Chicago.
To see the incalculable number of tears is all anyone would ever need for assurance of the monumental importance of this event, this moment and this result.
Barack Hussein Obama, President of our United States of America. Can you believe it yet?
A few hundred thousand of my (suddenly) closest friends and I were gladly in shock long after the announcement. Whatever fatigue had been draining us after ten hours of waiting was gone. We screamed, jumped and laughed in disbelief while at the same time knowing that each person now had something new to deeply believe in that was greater than what was there before.
The crowd. My god, the people. Did you see them all?
Our people, multitudes of the overjoyed, was a mix of young, beautiful people, awed, thrilled middle aged people and older men and women who were just a few generations removed from slavery often having tears streaming down their face. Our crowd was a truthful cross section of America. McCain's rally was a loud, telling obituary for a bruised and shrinking white, southern party that is going to need to regroup, reorganize and rethink itself.
I came to Chicago with no ticket to the rally. The 75,000 ticketed spots had been taken up immediately upon release days earlier. A friend and I went anyway. A few hundred dollars a flight for a small chance to see this? Yeah. Definitely.
Election day began, for me, with a jet airplane. I was walking back to my hotel at 12:30 a.m. on the morning of November 4th, about to get ready for the long day ahead. I passed Midway Airport. As I did, Barack Obama's plane flew so close over me that I was, at first, scared. We were not far from the runway and the jet, decorated and colorful, was enormous when placed so close above me.
That's the kind of day I had. From midnight on, every single thing went the right (left) way. From spotting his plane at a shockingly close distance to meeting Obama's supporters from around the world to seeing the sobering and powerful acceptance speech with my own two eyes, this was, without a doubt, the greatest day of my young life.
Before I finally sleep (it's been more than a day and I spent more than 12 of those hours standing, dancing and skipping and not enough drinking), I'd like to leave you with some things you need to look at:
The Huffington Post has an incredible slideshow up with pictures of reactions from around the world (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/world-leaders-congratulat_n_141337.html). The American News Project has a video essay that you should see (http://americannewsproject.com/node/174).
I'm wondering – where were you last night? How did you celebrate or mourn?
Good night. We've had some good luck.
[ps these pictures aren't mine. my pictures havent been uploaded yet. i will do that soon and put them here.]
Dear President #44 (I hope you read TL's blog section cause I know you wouldn't read general),
Hey, Barack. Yo, John. While I'm at it, I think Joe and Sarah should hear this, too. I'm not sure you folks got the memo(s) (constitution, etc.) ...
You will not be my Commander-in-Chief. George Bush was/is not my Commander-in-Chief, Clinton wasn't and neither was Bush I. You may be my President. You will never be my commander.
In fact, no President has been "our" Commander-in-Chief. I'm a civilian. "We" do not have a commander. To suggest that you are our commander is, to put it lightly, scary.
I first cringed at the misuse in 1973, during the “Saturday Night Massacre” (as it was called). President Richard Nixon, angered at the Watergate inquiry being conducted by the special prosecutor Archibald Cox, dispatched his chief of staff, Al Haig, to arrange for Mr. Cox’s firing. Mr. Haig told the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, to dismiss Mr. Cox. Mr. Richardson refused, and resigned. Then Mr. Haig told the second in line at the Justice Department, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. Mr. Ruckelshaus refused, and accepted his dismissal. The third in line, Robert Bork, finally did the deed.
What struck me was what Mr. Haig told Mr. Ruckelshaus, “You know what it means when an order comes down from the commander in chief and a member of his team cannot execute it.” This was as great a constitutional faux pas as Mr. Haig’s later claim, when President Reagan was wounded, that “Constitutionally ... I’m in control.”
President Nixon was not Mr. Ruckelshaus’s commander in chief. The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”
Joe and Sarah make this mistake most often because they spend more of their time overtly showering their mates with compliments and cooing about supposed qualifications to be our glorious, steel-spined commander. However, Barack, John - you're both guilty of it as well. Guilty, too, are the press and the people. You're stuck in a Cold War mindset (it was scary and wrong back then as well).
Worse still, to equate "the President" with "our commander in chief" is to depict the U.S. as a state of endless war and pervasive militarism. Even in the limited sense that the Constitution uses the term ("Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States"), the President doesn't always wield that power, but only when those branches are "called into the actual Service of the United States."
This is not simply some harmless slogan or inconsequential title. It is tacit approval (if not overt approval) of the very real expansion of executive/presidential power. That is why it's important that the press, the people and, for God's sake, YOU GUYS (C'mon, John, Barack, Sarah, Joe...) stop. As recent history has proven, our privacy and our freedoms are at stake.
Cato senior fellow in Constitutional studies Robert A. Levy says, "President Bush's executive order sanctions warrant-less wiretaps by the National Security Agency of communications from the United States to foreign countries by U.S. persons. Reportedly, the executive order is based on classified legal opinions stating that the president's authority derives from his Commander-in-Chief power and the post-911 congressional authorization for the use of military force against Al Qaeda. That pernicious rationale, carried to its logical extreme, renders the PATRIOT Act unnecessary and trumps any dispute over its reauthorization. Indeed, such a policy makes a mockery of the principle of separation of powers.
This is nothing new. The executive branch has been expanding for over a century. Mr. 44, I'm beginning to have my doubts that you read TL.net's blog section and so I won't put in the effort of writing a history lesson until you pm me and tell me you're dying to know. I wonder what your user name is. Are you a MiR?
(ps i quote/steal lots of things in here from various sources cause im gathering up some examples! everything is linked if you look around.)
The idea that the president is our commander-in-chief - that that should be the/a common manner in which to refer to him in casual, legislative and/or legal settings and in all contexts as it is today- is more than semantics and more than me just being a freedom hatin' terrorist.
This is all connected. The repeating of the words, the enforcement of it as an idea and then the enactment of it as LAW.
First of all! The more the President is glorified and elevated (he's not merely a public servant or a political official, but "our Commander in Chief"), the more natural it is to believe that he should have the power to do what he wants without anyone interfering or questioning. The last 8 years are a fantastic example of this but certainly not the only one. However, let's look at the last 8 years first.
Republican (small government!) Senator Kit Bond explains why telecoms should be excused for breaking the law after the commander in chief "directed" then to allow illegal government spying on their customers:
I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do.
Whoa! scary. But, wait. Beyond that (as previously quoted)-
Cato senior fellow in Constitutional studies Robert A. Levy says, "President Bush's executive order sanctions warrant-less wiretaps by the National Security Agency of communications from the United States to foreign countries by U.S. persons. Reportedly, the executive order is based on classified legal opinions stating that the president's authority derives from his Commander-in-Chief power and the post-911 congressional authorization for the use of military force against Al Qaeda. That pernicious rationale, carried to its logical extreme, renders the PATRIOT Act unnecessary and trumps any dispute over its reauthorization. Indeed, such a policy makes a mockery of the principle of separation of powers.
The idea has been used to justify/legalize warrant-less wiretaps, "enhanced interrogation techniques" as ordered by our grand leader - this is, in fact, not all.
In fact:
The administration, on several occasions, has promoted a legal theory known as the unitary executive theory, to argue that in his duty as Commander-in-Chief the President, with his inherent powers, cannot be bound by any law or Congress.
WHAT! Oh, oh, wait. Our commander is just protecting us!
....since the primary task of the President, during a time of war, is protecting US citizens, anything hindering him in that capacity can be considered unconstitutional
The same rationale was used to deny detainees in the War on Terror protection by the Geneva Conventions resulting in a global controversy surrounding apparent mistreatment. Also it is thought that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which was adopted to address prisoner abuse, might be ignored after President Bush added a signing statement, invoking his rights as Commander-in-Chief, to that bill
.
What about criticizing the President/Commander in chief/our dear glorious leader? Again, we barely need to look into the past. Remember 2005? Bush was being criticized heavily on several fronts.
It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.
-Joe Lieberman, Dec 2005
Hardly the only example of the kind of combatitive defense of our grand leader (quite literally a million are around from the past 8 years alone)- if you criticize our COMMANDER, you undermine and endanger us all! How far of a stretch is it to say that criticzing us is one step away from taking up arms for the enemy?
This is not just a matter of Republicans standing up for Republicans, Democrats for Democrats. It's this distinctly authoritarian mindset that led to the many many many abuses of power over the last 8 years (but certainly not exclusive to the last 8 years!)
A NYTimes reporter explains why many journalists such as herself were "very deferential" to the Bush administration in the run up to the war! (Very important!)
"It's frightening to stand up there . . .You are standing up on prime time live television, asking the president of the United States a question when the country is about to go to war." ... White House reporters weren't questioning a political official who is to be held accountable. They were gently -- "deferentially" -- posing questions to The Commander-in-Chief.
The way in which the press acted in the lead up to the war is of immense importance. It's huge and directly related to our going to war!
This is deliberate. A lot of the articles/essays written about this wonder, in writing, about how deliberate it is. This is 100% deliberate.
Nixon, our glorious leader in the 70's, used the idea that he was, indeed, commander in chief of the executive branch (that is CIVILIANS, not the military), to bully those working under him. Watergate, anyone? As previously quoted:
Oh, you'd like to investigate our commander??
...during the “Saturday Night Massacre” (as it was called). President Richard Nixon, angered at the Watergate inquiry being conducted by the special prosecutor Archibald Cox, dispatched his chief of staff, Al Haig, to arrange for Mr. Cox’s firing. Mr. Haig told the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, to dismiss Mr. Cox. Mr. Richardson refused, and resigned. Then Mr. Haig told the second in line at the Justice Department, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. Mr. Ruckelshaus refused, and accepted his dismissal. The third in line, Robert Bork, finally did the deed.
What struck me was what Mr. Haig told Mr. Ruckelshaus, “You know what it means when an order comes down from the commander in chief and a member of his team cannot execute it.” This was as great a constitutional faux pas as Mr. Haig’s later claim, when President Reagan was wounded, that “Constitutionally ... I’m in control.”
Well, interesting news just came out today regarding the wiretaps, by the way.
Judge orders White House to produce wiretap memos
A judge has ordered the Justice Department to produce White House memos that provide the legal basis for the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 warrantless wiretapping program......Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on calls between people in the U.S. and suspected terrorists abroad without obtaining court warrants. The administration said it needed to act more quickly than the court could and that the president had inherent authority under the Constitution to order warrantless domestic spying.
Yes, you read that right. Among everything that this administration has kept secret even the LEGAL LOGIC behind all of this is secret. It may continue to stay that way, depending on this judge!
A few friends and I are creating a little semi-private community. Our goal is to share things. Right now, we're looking to get our replay forum (cafe?) off the ground.
We are interested in inviting people who think they'd like to be part of a replay-exchange community. Here's the deal:
For a week or so, the forum will just be just that - a simple forum. However, we're going to be monitoring who is contributing high-quality replays/discussion for that week. The best of the best (as decided by admins and the community at large through the rating system) are going to be awarded web space on our servers. You'll become, in essence, our official uploaders. This, of course, carries no obligation on your part other than continuing to make high quality posts when you can.
A week or two from now is when the community will really begin to take off. We'll have our first batch of official uploaders by then along with a good group of folks wanting to discuss the game (and whatever else). By then, we hope to have flushed out all the shit.
Also, this will serve as a place to catch a game with friends. In fact, that will probably end up being as important as catching a good replay. As the community grows and we all get to know each other, we're going to have some small competitions (tournaments, ladders, etc) between forum members which will inevtiably end in illegal smurfing and controversy. We're not interested in becoming a simple 'go-download-leave' location. We are building a community.
Finally, if it's not 100% clear at this point, this is not an (asinine, dumb) attempt to replace TL or GG or any replay site/community you frequent. This is our attempt to add to your SC experience by introducing you to new people, new players, new games, new reps and new useless general forum threads.
If you're interested in being involved, you'll need to either leave your email in this thread or PM it to me so that I can invite you. The site is and will remain invite-only - users will quickly gain the ability to make invites themselves to keep the community growing but I am not looking to create a public forum now or anytime soon.
this may be a shot in the dark but i'm kind of interested in starting up an sc/sc2 podcast. i'm a big podcast fan and could definitely work out a lot of the editorial work - is anyone at all interested in doing this with me?
i have a bunch of ideas but nothing is set in stone: im willing to listen to anything. if youre interested comment here or pm me and we'll talk.
for no particular reason i've been making a webcomic-ish type thing (the adventures of). something like a softer world if you've ever read that comic(ish type thing).
i'm wondering if there are any web comic artists on TL? I realize posting this in the blog section will get less exposure but since this post is half searching for people of similar interests and half self promotion i figure i don't need to clutter up general any further.
![[image loading]](http://turrbull.com/comix/2008-10-21-dsfdjhafdsjhajkshdfuexujuhdfuishfiuwhejknfsdPage_1.png)
![[image loading]](http://turrbull.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/pprisonprisonrsorsoage_1.png)
![[image loading]](http://turrbull.com/comix/2008-12-06-maybeyouknowherPage_1.png)
![[image loading]](http://turrbull.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/stealin.png)
![[image loading]](http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2008/grant_park_election/grant_park_09.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/599/slide_599_12596_large.jpg)
