A Recent Favorite:

Uh Oh, Nothing Here Yet

Why don't you go browse some Comics or Editorials and pick a few to favorite?

Recent Comments

  1. drklassen commented on Doonesbury about 1 year ago

    @Mark
    And most Publicans live in ex-urb rings and sparsely populated rural regions. So, the districting becomes: central district with the ring divvied up and combined with the rural areas, or do you pie-section the urban center and combine it with the ring+? The first way creates far fewer D areas, the second far fewer R areas. Guess which way it went last time…

  2. drklassen commented on Tom the Dancing Bug about 2 years ago

    First, there is no such thing as “intellectual property”. There is no property there and the term was invented to create the illusion that copyright infringement was “theft”. It isn’t.

    Second, no, nobody has to protect copyright or loose it, that’s trademark. Copyright was supposed to be the limited time monopoly right to distribute copies of a work in fixed form and to create derivative works from it. Since NOBODY creates in a vacuum, society at large is actually a co-creator of EVERYTHING, it was recognized that eventually society at large should gain copyright (i.e. public domain).

    So, yes, ex post facto changing of the rules is denying the public of their rights. Sadly, copyright law changes are one of the few areas where the SCOTUS votes 8-1 and 9-0 and somehow all of them don’t have a problem with defining 3 to 4 generations as “limited time”.

  3. drklassen commented on Pearls Before Swine over 2 years ago

    @SusanSunshine (and @Texan At Heart): the other math problem is the 1/3 of his income going to taxes. I’m in the one of those 30+% brackets but that is a marginal tax bracket. A couple years ago I went through all my expenses and using quite liberal application of what was “tax” could come up with about 17% of my gross income going to taxes.

    So either TAH really is bad at math, or he needs a tax adviser.

  4. drklassen commented on Doonesbury almost 3 years ago

    Fairly paying labor is not the same thing as communism.

  5. drklassen commented on Doonesbury almost 3 years ago

    1. Can you back that up? See, back when folks had a 90% bracket, it did NOT stop anyone from taking pay that put them into that bracket. 2. Even if you are right, how is that a “bad thing”? It means that instead of executives siphoning off the wealth created by their workers, they will have an incentive to let them keep more of it.

  6. drklassen commented on Doonesbury almost 3 years ago

    As opposed to the greedy “conservative” capitalist who only wants what they “deserve”; of course that only works if you deserve to take MOST of the wealth creation of the labor class unto yourself and leave them living in poverty.

  7. drklassen commented on Non Sequitur almost 3 years ago

    No, your version of a religious union is “one man and one woman”. Marriage is a civil contract and has had MANY definitions over the centuries.
    Why, just 50 years ago marriage was banned to those of different “races”. Before that it was a property transfer from one man (the father) to another (the groom). And before that it was acceptable for one man to own several wives—even in your Judeo-Christian culture.

  8. drklassen commented on Non Sequitur almost 3 years ago

    No, religion has no legitimate business meddling with marriage. Marriage is a civil contract and letting religious leaders be the mediators of it was the mistake. Get your marriage done at the state/county court; then, if you want, go get your religious union at your church.

  9. drklassen commented on Non Sequitur almost 3 years ago

    @plus4: I don’t hear ANYONE clamoring for a religious union. In fact, the entire argument is that the religious folks should simply disentangle their religious rite from the civil contract of marriage.
    Since religious institutions are, effectively, private clubs, there is no reason to infer that they have to a) include anyone other than their approved members, much less, b) offer their rites to non-members.
    I can envision saying that if they are not non-discriminatory, they can lose their tax-exempt status, but that’s an entirely different argument.

  10. drklassen commented on Non Sequitur almost 3 years ago

    Well, it does show that there is a fundamental difference between “marriage” (a civil contract between two persons) and “religious union” (a rite within a church, etc.). And thus why all the nonsense about “defending marriage” from gays is, well, utter nonsense.
    It may be time to, once again, separate them.