3 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 22 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AndrewLohr would log on every day,
"The Bible is clear", he would say.
He would talk about hell,
and the fate, not too swell,
that awaited our cartoonist Clay.

On The Contrarian

5 of 5 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 15 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AndrewLohr-

You only paid 'casual attention' to Sarah Palin? How is that even possible when it involves a woman who refuses to be ignored?

As for your boss's comment, "I don't know if Sarah Palin would do any better than the other guys, but I do know she'd look better doing it." Well, I'm not altogether sure this supports your claim that he's a 'sharp guy'.

I must give you credit on your defense of Sarah Palin, however. Never in my life have I heard 'dereliction of duty' described in such noble and honorable terms. Just a note to someone who (admittedly) paid only 'casual attention' to the woman: at the time of Governor Palin's resignation, not only was her approval rating in Alaska just slightly over 50% (down from the mid-80% level that the McCain campaign touted), but her relationship with the state legislature and even her own state Republican party had become seriously strained.

She didn't quit her job because she was a success, she quit because she was a failure. I do agree with you that quitting is not always a bad thing. I may not see it in the glowing light that you do, but I can say that if Sarah Palin was my governor, I would support her resignation wholeheartedly.

On The Bookstore

4 of 4 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 15 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rolando writes, "<Yawn> Ho-Hum. They're still runnin' scared, I see."

Oh, come on, rolando, this Sarah Palin book is a big story. You'll be seeing a lot of coverage of this book and her related book tour in the days and weeks to come, so I hope your boredom is not unbearable. But it's not Clay who keeps dredging up this sludge, it's Sarah Palin herself who keeps throwing it out there.

Seeing that she currently has the second-highest unfavorable rating of any national political figure (second, only to John Edwards)*, for you to dismiss any criticism her as fear for the left, is laughable.

*Oct. 19 Gallup Poll

Sarah Palin poses no threat to us on the left. In fact, we're quite thankful for the important part she played in the election of Barack Obama. The only fear that the left ever had of this woman, was the prospect that she might be one heartbeat away from the presidency.

On The Bookstore

3 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 7 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I haven't the time, or inclination, to rebut those of you who oppose gay marriage or disapprove of homosexuality. You have a right to be bigoted against anyone or anything you like. But when the laws of our land reflect the biases of such bigotry, it's unconstitutional.

Whether you're gay or straight, it's an instinctual orientation, not a 'lifestyle choice'. Most people, by nature, are heterosexuals. A minority of the population is gay, but they are also, by nature, homosexuals. But while the majority group enjoys full rights and unconditional acceptance, the minority community does not. Gay people in America currently have no federal protection to equal treatment in the workplace and no federal right to legally confirm a committed relationship.

Both of those injustices will be corrected, and it won't happen by the will of the voters in any state, but by the federal courts. It will not happen through the establishment of new law, but by simply enforcing current law to its full and rightful extent.

So, get used to the idea of full and equal rights for gays. It may not happen in my lifetime (although I pray to the god who created me the way I am that it will), but it will happen one day, just as sure as you're reading this right now.

You can't stop the world from turning, guys... and you can't stop justice from finally, one day, being fully realized.

On Maine

1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 4 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To me- an asterisk always symbolizes something that is conditional, or something that has limitations. In light of all of the recent in-fighting in the GOP between the moderates and the far right of the party- that's how I saw this cartoon.

So, I think OllieH has this one just about right, or at least he gave it the same interpretation as I did.

On Welcome

4 of 4 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 2 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rolando writes, 'That's not a euphemism, OllieH, clever or otherwise. It is a statement of fact. That is what he is...just like his compadres in Venezuela, China, N. Korea, Cuba, et al...you know, those wonderfully humane countries."

What is it with conservatives who can't seem to refer to the president by name.

Such juvenile name-calling not only demonstrates a total lack of respect for the president, but for the debate as well. Your ad hominem tactics don't really help you make a point. It really only serves to diminish whatever point you're trying to make.

On Afghanistan

Posted on October 30 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But don't worry, dt4c...

...you too, will be of no interest to the zombie.

On The Zombie

Posted on October 30 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dt4c stated, "Seriously, Bennett, you are absolutely the worst editorial cartoonist in the country."

Unfortunately, dt4c, you lost every shred of credibility after that opening sentence.

On The Zombie

Posted on October 27 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dss wrote, "The same generation that flaunted the tumor-free phone also possessed lead paint and lacked car seats and bicycle helmets. Not exactly a danger-free era!"

Lead paint is the best of your three examples, dss. Once we discovered the health risk related to the use of lead paint, it was corrected, or its use was limited to areas that were less accessible to gnawing children.

That's all we're asking of cell phone companies. The level of radiation of each model phone is well documented. Although the phone industry insists that the phones are harmless, the models with the higher emission levels are usually the models that are given away for free or at a nominal charge. The phones with the lower radiation rates are usually the more expensive models.

The point is- these companies can, and do, produce safer phones. But like the automobile manufacturers who resisted mandatory seat belts or air bags, they fear any increased manufacturing cost would effect sales.

Public safety, and not profits, should be the main concern. I'll gladly pay a couple of hundred bucks more for a cell phone now, to save the cost of brain surgery twenty years from now.

On Cell Phones

2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on October 18 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lightnup writes, "Breaking News: Bush is no longer in office. He hasn't been for 10 months?"

Breaking News, Lightnup- Obama has ONLY been in office for 10 months! Is your statement implying that all of the problems we face are Obama's fault, or that you would have expected that he would have all of those problems solved by now?

Lightenup follows with, " OllieH, if you're too obtuse to understand how the things I mentioned are related to why the GOP says NO to the dem's grand schemes of fundamentally changing our country, there's nothing I can do about it."

Quite frankly, Lightenup, I don't see how your first post applies to the Republican's obstructionism either. I guess I'm as obtuse as Ollie, or you're just trying the exact tactic that he accused Republicans of employing when they have no argument- to poison the debate.

If you truly think that President Obama's agenda is fundamentally changing our country, your grasp on the fundamentals needs some serious work. If you can't make a rational case against something, do you just call it un-American and hope that will convince others you're right?

Lightnup follows with, "With a Democrat in the White house and a Democratically controlled Congress, they can pass whatever they want without a single Republican vote. So, why haven't they? Why don't they? "

They will pass a health care plan... don't you worry. As for the Republicans, well, Obama gave them a seat at the table, but most rejected it. The few who didn't tried to work out reform in the Senate Finance Committee. Even then, the compromise bill was only able to garner one Republican vote. Compromise is near impossible if you're dealing with someone who's goal is diametrically opposed to your own.

Republicans talk a good game about their desire to do something about health care. Oddly, this desire only surfaced after they lost power, and only involves a desire to something less then what needs to be done. With five versions of health care reform being debated, it's a multiple choice decision. The Republicans, unfortunately, just keep writing in, 'none of the above'.

On The GOP