Candorville Book Sells Out

No, the book hasn't decided to wear a suit and tie and vote Theocratic. There's more than one meaning of the term "sellout," and one of them is damn good.

Back in October I decided to order a bunch of Candorville books from the publisher for use at book signings, etc... I e-mailed them about it last month, and they told me I'd have to wait until November 15 to order them, seeing as how it had sold out its first printing! They had to print up a new batch of books.

The second printing has shipped, so if you didn't find it on the shelf at your local bookstore, it'll probably be there now.

And if you'd rather buy online, you can get a signed copy directly from us. We'll even deface it with an autograph and a sketch before mailing it to you, and from now until Christmas, for every 5 copies you buy you'll get 1 free.

It makes a great gift for the hippies, neocons and degenerates in your family.
•
•
•

Misreading America's Blunder

America's intelligence agencies - and America's leaders - don't have a monopoly on stupidity. Take this recent assessment by Asian analysts, which appears to be based on America's growing domestic opposition to Bush's bungled, grotesque misadventure in Iraq:

The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China. It has been an assessment relayed to U.S. government officials over the past few months by countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea. This comes as President Bush wraps up a visit to Asia, in which he sought to strengthen U.S. ties with key allies in the region.

Most Asian officials have expressed their views privately. Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China.

'In any case, if tension between the United States and China heightens, if each side pulls the trigger, though it may not be stretched to nuclear weapons, and the wider hostilities expand, I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives,' Mr. Ishihara said in an address to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mr. Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are 'extremely incompetent' and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. Indeed, he asserted that China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities - even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation.The governor said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw."

...

Officials acknowledge that Mr. Ishihara's views reflect the widespread skepticism of U.S. military capabilities in such countries as Australia, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. They said the U.S.-led war in Iraq has pointed to the American weakness in low-tech warfare.

"When we can't even control parts of Anbar, they get the message loud and clear," an official said, referring to the flashpoint province in western Iraq.Read the whole article at Insightmag.com

Some in America will surely point to this and tell us that the growing opposition to the Iraq Occupation is responsible for our allies viewing us as weak. Those dumbasses will be just as misguided as Ishihara. War opposition doesn't weaken us -- the fact that our leaders gave us a war that Americans have to oppose is what weakens us. The fact that, for the first time in history, we're funding a war by borrowing money from China instead of taxing ourselves weakens us.

The Bush administration has long held that invading & occupying Iraq would send a message to the rest of the region and the world. Apparently it's sent the wrong message. What the analyst above fails to recognize is that while Americans detest the mounting casualties in Iraq just as we did in Vietnam, we are more than willing to sacrifice far, far more than 2000 of our men and women for a cause that's just. World War Two was such a cause. Afghanistan would have been such a cause if the President hadn't tricked us into prioritizing Iraq. The Iraq occupation is not that cause. Repelling an armed attack from China upon us - or our Asian allies - would be. If our leaders abandoned their obsession with disastrous tax giveaways to the rich that indebt us to China, and if we're forced to fight in defense of ourselves or our allies, we would have the support of the rest of the Western world and we'd have a good chance of success. Americans gradually and properly decide to cut our losses when we finally awaken to the fact that we're wrong. But when Americans are on the right side of history, there's no burden we wouldn't bear. The descendants of freed slaves, and survivors liberated from Nazi death camps can attest to that.

•
•
•

Mad Redundant

A few things in life are certain, aside from the death & taxes cliché. Frustration is a certainty. Heartbreak is a certainty. Punk-ass Democrats are a certainty. Sorry for being redundant. Yet again, frightened Democrats demonstrate why Republicans call them weak and why apathetic non-voters continue to believe they have nobody to speak for them:

"Democrats angrily attacked the GOP move, then lined up with Republicans to vote against a troop withdrawal in hopes of draining the issue of its political significance. The vote was 403-3 against the measure."
-Washington Post

The Democrats had a chance to make a stand and they blew it. They could have handed America what it wants and needs - an opposition party dedicated to bringing our troops home - and they blew it. They could have fought for the troops who are risking their lives in an occupation that's not turning out as we'd hoped, but they chose to side with the Republicans and leave them in harm's way in order to "(drain) the issue of its political significance." What's it going to take for Democrats to grow a spine and start fighting for the majority of Americans who want the troops home as soon as possible? Will Bush's dismal approval rating have to sink as low as Cheney's (19%. 19 f****** percent!)? Will polls have to show them 90% of Americans want our men and women home? What will it take before the Democrats realize it's "safe" to be brave?
•
•
•

New SUSAN GARCIA design available in the Candorville shop!

Has this ever happened to you: You're reading the comic strip Candorville. Suddenly you wonder: This is great and everything; I like Susan, Lemont and Clyde -- but maybe, just maybe... it would be even better if I could somehow get their heads on little round magnets. Maybe even a thong. Well, wonder no more!

Visit the Candorville shop to buy t-shirts, mugs and more featuring the Candorville characters, Lemont, Susan and Clyde. Right now there's a brand new Susan Garcia design available in the Candorville shop. Candorville merchandise makes excellent Christmahannukwanzaramadan gifts...

Visit the Candorville shop!
•
•
•

Profiting from terror (again and again and...)

I'm beginning to wonder if there's any tragedy or potential tragedy our leaders can't profit from...

NEW YORK (Fortune) - The prospect of a bird flu outbreak may be panicking people around the globe, but it's proving to be very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences, the California biotech company that owns the rights to Tamiflu, the influenza remedy that's now the most-sought after drug in the world.

Rumsfeld served as Gilead (Research)'s chairman from 1997 until he joined the Bush administration in 2001, and he still holds a Gilead stake valued at between $5 million and $25 million, according to federal financial disclosures filed by Rumsfeld.

The forms don't reveal the exact number of shares Rumsfeld owns, but in the past six months fears of a pandemic and the ensuing scramble for Tamiflu have sent Gilead's stock from $35 to $47. That's made the Pentagon chief, already one of the wealthiest members of the Bush cabinet, at least $1 million richer.

The Administration just demanded that we spend $7.1 billion to produce a vaccine for a disease that doesn't exist (human-human transmitted bird flu simply hasn't happened, despite the Media scare). Coincidentally, Donald Rumsfeld just got $1 million dollars richer because he owns a great deal of stock in the one company that just happens to produce the only medicine on earth that purportedly vaccinates against bird flu. Echoing the Cheney/Halliburton relationship, Rumsfeld RAN the company until he joined the Bush administration in 2001 (coincidentally, it was around this time that Bush suddenly became interested in pandemics). Based on the recent Administration track record of war and disaster profiteering, it's hard not to suspect this is, in part, a big heaping handout to Rumsfeld.

...Until I put on my tinfoil hat and tune in Fox News. That's when I realize -- hey, coincidences happen, especially when you're governed by the super-rich.

One passage that caught my eye was the part about multi-millionaire Rumsfeld being among the richest members of the cabinet. The key members of this administration are gaining second and third (hell, fifteenth) fortunes as a direct result of the actions of this administration. This administration is one giant conflict of interest.

•
•
•

Be careful what you wish for...

As Think Progress notes, the Miers withdrawal was not a victory. While Miers may have turned out to be a fanatical wingnut, we have hard evidence the new nominee already is:

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE:
In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION:
Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION:
In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT:
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES:
In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS:
In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]

ALITO SUPPORTS KICKING PUPPIES:
In Rover v. Winthrop, Alito dissented from the majority in arguing that a police officer did not violate a puppy's constitutional rights when he repeatedly kicked it in the behind during a routine traffic stop. [Rover v. Winthrop, 2005]

OK, the last one was entirely made up here in the offices of the Courier (or was it?). I believe the replacement of Miers with Alito can be found on page 231 of the Be careful what you wish for primer.