Ok, so my computer had a stroke this morning, and it's telling me different things are wrong with it. Software scans say some of my drivers are bad, but hardware diagnostics say there's something wrong with my hard drive and memory.
So what that means for Khatru is that I have no idea if I'll be able to get my computer working long enough to scan the comics, photoshop them, and post them. The longest it's gone so far without hitting the Blue Screen of Death has been 45 minutes. I'm cautiously optimistic that the period I'm in now will last longer, though.
I'll try to keep people informed via public computers (wow, we're sure living in the future) if anything changes. I'm going to try and take it into the university's tech support office tomorrow to see if they can give me a better diagnosis. I hope it doesn't cost too much, or take too long..... (knock on wood)
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
A Foray Into (Partisan) Political Commentary
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/27regulate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw
It seems the Senate Republicans are trying to kill the economic reform bill. I wish they would just have the decency to be honest; just come out and say it, guys. You don't want tighter government regulation of the financial industry because it would cut into your own profit margins. Just get it out in the open. It'll feel better. It's not like you really care what the common folk think anyway, so you might as well get it over with.
The casual reader might think I'm being overly dramatic and cynical, and you might be right.
'“We shouldn’t put in place a regulatory regime that overly reacts and, as a result, significantly dampens our capacity to have the most vibrant capital and credit markets in the world,” he [Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire] said.'
This sort of 'regime' is what prevented media consolidation (which is strangling the journalism industry, and, selfishly, my chances of using my degree) until the late 1990s, when the Telecommunications Act began deregulation of media ownership (among other things, but I'm griping about regulation, so I'm focusing on the parts of the Act that affect my argument. See? Transparency!)
It seems to me that what proponents of deregulation, like the Senate Republicans here, forget is that ancient axiom "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The financial meltdown of 2008 showed the populous that the people who control our money don't really care about anything besides the bits of our money that end up in their pocketbooks (actually, there were warnings for years, but everyone treated them like exceptions rather than the rule. See further: Enron; Halliburton; etc.).
It seems obvious that we can't trust the people who actually control these funds to manipulate them responsibly. And republicans want to remove more oversight? Um. Who's side are they on again? Oh right. Their own side. Huh.
From the NYTimes article: "The bill would also establish a consumer protection agency intended to end predatory lending practices and require that consumers receive detailed information on mortgages, credit cards and other financing. ... They [Republicans, presumably] said the bill would give too much power to the new consumer protection bureau."
I'm not sure if I'm nitpicking the Times' reporter's writing here, or just finding a flaw in the argument, but wouldn't ending predatory lending be a good thing? I did cut out a few paragraphs between the above statements, but they don't contain anything that seems overly draconian. "...provide new oversight of hedge funds and impose tough rules on the trading of derivatives" oversight is good, right? "restructure the federal system of bank regulation, moving many small banks out from under the Federal Reserve" Doesn't that remove government control over the small banks?
Anyway, it just seems to me that republicans are trying to appeal to the Libertarian population, who tend to reject government control over their lives. The problem is that Libertarians (according to my limited knowledge of them) tend to focus on government intervention at the personal level, having less to say about government control over institutions. Maybe I just don't have a good grasp on Libertarian philosophy, but it seems like if you were a Libertarian, and you weren't all that bright, you might fall for this Republican scheme (better tone it back, there, bucko. You're sounding a little bit vitriolic).
I could go on for hours about this article and the problems I see in it and it's subject matter, but I think I'll leave the rest of it to the professionals.
It seems the Senate Republicans are trying to kill the economic reform bill. I wish they would just have the decency to be honest; just come out and say it, guys. You don't want tighter government regulation of the financial industry because it would cut into your own profit margins. Just get it out in the open. It'll feel better. It's not like you really care what the common folk think anyway, so you might as well get it over with.
The casual reader might think I'm being overly dramatic and cynical, and you might be right.
'“We shouldn’t put in place a regulatory regime that overly reacts and, as a result, significantly dampens our capacity to have the most vibrant capital and credit markets in the world,” he [Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire] said.'
This sort of 'regime' is what prevented media consolidation (which is strangling the journalism industry, and, selfishly, my chances of using my degree) until the late 1990s, when the Telecommunications Act began deregulation of media ownership (among other things, but I'm griping about regulation, so I'm focusing on the parts of the Act that affect my argument. See? Transparency!)
It seems to me that what proponents of deregulation, like the Senate Republicans here, forget is that ancient axiom "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The financial meltdown of 2008 showed the populous that the people who control our money don't really care about anything besides the bits of our money that end up in their pocketbooks (actually, there were warnings for years, but everyone treated them like exceptions rather than the rule. See further: Enron; Halliburton; etc.).
It seems obvious that we can't trust the people who actually control these funds to manipulate them responsibly. And republicans want to remove more oversight? Um. Who's side are they on again? Oh right. Their own side. Huh.
From the NYTimes article: "The bill would also establish a consumer protection agency intended to end predatory lending practices and require that consumers receive detailed information on mortgages, credit cards and other financing. ... They [Republicans, presumably] said the bill would give too much power to the new consumer protection bureau."
I'm not sure if I'm nitpicking the Times' reporter's writing here, or just finding a flaw in the argument, but wouldn't ending predatory lending be a good thing? I did cut out a few paragraphs between the above statements, but they don't contain anything that seems overly draconian. "...provide new oversight of hedge funds and impose tough rules on the trading of derivatives" oversight is good, right? "restructure the federal system of bank regulation, moving many small banks out from under the Federal Reserve" Doesn't that remove government control over the small banks?
Anyway, it just seems to me that republicans are trying to appeal to the Libertarian population, who tend to reject government control over their lives. The problem is that Libertarians (according to my limited knowledge of them) tend to focus on government intervention at the personal level, having less to say about government control over institutions. Maybe I just don't have a good grasp on Libertarian philosophy, but it seems like if you were a Libertarian, and you weren't all that bright, you might fall for this Republican scheme (better tone it back, there, bucko. You're sounding a little bit vitriolic).
I could go on for hours about this article and the problems I see in it and it's subject matter, but I think I'll leave the rest of it to the professionals.
Khatru 67!
I decided on having some background action for Kira and Ranger this week. Ordinarily, they would just vanish into the aether when not delivering lines or reactions, but tonight they're bickering in the background. I find this terribly amusing.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Khatru 66! Finally!
Khatru 67, originally slated for Monday, may be a day or two late.
Khatru 66 Will Be Slightly Late
Regret to inform y'all that Khatru 66 will be slightly late. I've had a busy couple of days and haven't had as much time to work on Khatru as I usually do. Luckily, it's at the stage where all I have to do is resize it and do the text, so it shouldn't take more than a half hour to finish up. The trick will be finding the half hour with which to complete it. Oh, and Monday's might be a bit late as well. Not sure yet.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Most Disappointing Music of 2009 #1
The Boss’ previous album, Magic, was one of my favorite albums of 2007. Magic revitalized Bruce in my eyes after over a decade of irrelevance. At one time, I considered Springsteen obsolete, his best work (Born To Run, “Thunder Road,” etc.) long past him. I filed him away with Billy Joel, Tom Petty and John “Cougar” Mellencamp as icons of a bygone era. But then came Magic and my hopes were restored! And then came Working on a Dream and my hopes were dashed upon the rocks of cast-off tracks rejected from Magic.
“Working on a Dream” and “Outlaw Pete” were the only half-good songs on the album, and even then they were retreads of ideas Springsteen already brought up. Also, “Outlaw Pete” is at least three minutes too long. Springsteen tried to synthesize his (read as: Bob Dylan’s) brand of folk rock with Petty/Skynyrd-style songwriting. And he failed. Plus, I kept picturing ‘Outlaw Pete’ looking like the brutish cartoon antagonist of ancient Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it's difficult to feel compassion for that big, ugly brute.
The rest of the tracks were entirely forgettable, samey-sounding songs that contributed nothing of substance to the album. It’s possible that “The Wrestler” worked well in context with the film of the same name, but hearing it alone didn’t do anything for me.
The reason Working on a Dream tops the list of disappointing albums is that 1) It was musically and lyrically unimpressive and forgettable compared to it’s predecessor, Magic; 2) it didn’t add anything to Springsteen’s philosophy; 3) and between the first time I heard it and this writing, the album hasn’t grown on me at all. I dislike it as much now as I did then; hearing the other albums again changed my opinions of them. Not so here. Sorry, Bruce.
Disney image source: http://mmfolliesbw.blogspot.com/2007/10/steamboat-willie-november-18-1928.html
What's next? The best music of 2009!
Monday, April 19, 2010
Khatru 65!
Tonight, we take a look back at the childhood of one of our time's greatest thinkers, Kira Hicks.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Khatru 64!
And now, updates on what I'm up to!
I'm probably going to post the #1 Most Disappointing Album of 2009 (finally) tomorrow.
I've got the scripts done for the rest of the "Come Clean" storyline. If all goes according to plan, I hope to have the last one posted on or around May 7.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Khatru 62!
Thus concludes McKaela's flashback. Tune in next week for a peek into someone else's past!
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Most Disappointing Music of 2009 #2
Unlike Wolfmother’s second album, Cosmic Egg, where the band’s style didn’t change enough, Lily Allen changed her entire musical style between albums. Her first album, Alright Still, bounced between dance, synth-pop, and just enough hip-hop to spice things up. No single style dominated the album. I’ll say more about Alright Still at a later time, because I really liked it. For now, I’ll just say that hearing her first album was an appetitzer for more. But the chef changed the recipe half-way through, to strain the metaphor. Read more tortured metaphors after the break.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Khatru 61!
I drew this comic on my Super Productive Thursday last week. It was pretty fun to draw, coming up with what I thought McKaela looked like during her formative years.
I've also decided that Dead Flours is my new favorite fake emo band. If I ever do merchandising, I'll definitely have to make a Dead Flours T-Shirt. Maybe I'll do a fake layered short-sleeved shirt over long-sleeved, so it'll look extra emo. I'll even cut a little thumb hole in the wrists so people can poke their angsty thumbs through. It'll be super awesome!
Friday, April 2, 2010
Khatru 60!
There's something to be said for the affects beautiful weather has on my productivity. I got this one finished and both comics for next week done yesterday while hanging out in the sun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
