Home Warranty Companies or Extended warranties For a Variety of Objects and machines.
How to select:
Get a copy of their mission statement, contract or statement of operation.
Determine if their customer service is local (speaking your native language)
Request in your native language if you need it.
Do not believe the statements of coverage and the cadre of contractors across your area or the country.
Better Business inquiries usually do not yield much useable information. Even if the company has good or bad rating.
In their advertising they tout how many contractors they have, 24-hour service.
The reality: The service quality depends on the company’s relationship with the contractors.
1.Your basic fee may be less that the contractor fee.
2.Replacement or repair price is negotiated with the contractor to get the cheapest price for the job.
Relative to their location: contractors have a basic fee (which the customer pays) to make the visit and evaluate the problem. When the evaluation is complete the contractor provides that information to the company and the company approves the evaluation after some negotiation (the company always goes for the cheapest way not necessarily best way e.g. If you have a high-quality product and the repair would exceed the price of replacement, the company will offer the customer a” token” amount for replacement maybe with installation according to the product).
Summary:
Read the contract
Talk only to customer service people who speak your language
Get specific details on Contractor fees (even if you have a contracted fee with the company All of these companies express their ability to service but have the basic objective of getting as many signed up as possible but can and will fail the customer at some point usually in the negotiation with the contractor. Remember contractors are being hosed as well as the customer and for that reason the better contractors do not remain in the service of these companies. The hype of what you save in time and money from these companies varies from state
Comments Off on Discovery: When Trump touts, its bad!
Or illegal.
Without any in depth analysis, I have noticed that anytime the Resident tout anything with his regular hyperlatives, it mostly turns out to be the opposite. Near time iteration: “tariffs will make America rich”. Tariffs are a tax on goods coming into the country ergo a tax on goods we consume so whenever we (consumers) purchase these goods we pay a portion or all of these “Tariffs” aka “taxes”. By the facts: the Resident is taxing the people above our normal state and local taxes. He and his supporters are really good at gouging the public and smearing superlatives on them to distract us. Solution become educated voters-aka “all that glitters is not gold”!
Earlier today, I asked rhetorically: When it comes to the necessity of speaking out against this dangerous and detestable regime, where are Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and where are their vice presidents, Al Gore and Dick Cheney? When I wrote this I had not come across a particularly powerful speech Al Gore delivered last week in San Francisco at Climate Week. My error. Here it is, in full:
***
It is abundantly clear, after only three months and one day, that the new Trump administration is attempting to do everything it possibly can to try to halt the transition to a clean energy future and a deep reduction in the burning of fossil fuels. The climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis, basically 80% of it.
Many of you here today have likely felt the chilling effect of the policies and the rhetoric coming from Washington, D.C. and what the effect has been on businesses and investors and far beyond.
The Dow Jones, of course, today fell another thousand points and since Donald Trump’s inauguration it’s gone down six thousand points. But while the most visible impacts of what the new administration is doing may be in the market for stocks and bonds, that’s not the only thing that he has caused to crash.
The trust market has crashed.
The market for democracy has taken a major hit.
Hope is being arbitraged in the growing market for fear.
Truth has been devalued and confidence in U.S. leadership around the world has plummeted.
We are facing a national emergency for our democracy and a global emergency for our climate system.
We have to deal with the democracy crisis in order to solve the climate crisis.
The scale and scope of the ongoing attacks on liberty are literally unprecedented. With that in mind, I want to note before I use what is not a precedent, I understand very well why it is wrong to compare Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich to any other movement. It was uniquely evil, full stop. I get it.
But there are important lessons from the history of that emergent evil, and here is one that I regard as essential.
In the immediate aftermath of World War II, a small group of philosophers who had escaped Hitler’s murderous regime returned to Germany and performed a kind of moral autopsy on the Third Reich. The most famous of the so-called Frankfurt School of Philosophers was a man named Jurgen Habermas – best known, I would say. But it was Habermas’ mentor, Theodor Adorno, who wrote that the first step of that nation’s descent into Hell was, and I quote, “the conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power.” He described how the Nazis, and I quote again, “attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false.”
The Trump administration is insisting on trying to create their own preferred version of reality. They say Ukraine attacked Russia instead of the other way around, and expect us to believe it! At home, they attack heroes who have defended our nation in war and against cyberattacks as traitors.
They say the climate crisis is a “hoax” invented by the Chinese to destroy American manufacturing.
They say coal is clean.
They say wind turbines cause cancer.
They say sea level rise just creates more beachfront property.
Their allies in the oligarchic backlash to climate action argue that those who want to stop using the sky as an open sewer, for God’s sake, need to be more “realistic” and acquiesce to the huge increases in the burning of more and more fossil fuels (which is what they’re pushing), even though that is the principal cause of the climate crisis.
You may not be surprised to learn that this propagandistic notion of “climate realism” is one that the fossil fuel industry has peddled for years.
The CEO of the largest oil company in the world, Saudi Aramco has said “We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas.”
His colleague, Exxon CEO Darren Woods, has claimed that “the world needs to get real. … The problem is not oil and gas. It’s emissions.”
The American Petroleum Institute says that we need “a more realistic energy approach” – one that, you guessed it, includes buying and burning even more oil and gas.
So, allow me to put this question to all of you: What exactly is it that they want us to be realistic about?
Their twisted version of “realism” is colliding with the reality that humanity is now confronting.
The accumulated global warming pollution (because these molecules linger there on average about 100 years and it builds up over time), it’s trapping as much extra heat now every single day as would be released by the explosion of 750,000 first generation atomic bombs blowing up on the Earth every single day!
Is it realistic to let that continue?
Is it realistic to think that if we opt out of taking action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, we’ll be able to just wish it away and continue with business as usual? Well, Mother Nature makes a pretty good case against that argument. Every night on the TV news is like a nature walk through the Book of Revelation.
Is it realistic, for example, to continue stoking the risk of wildfire in California, after what has already happened to so many communities in Northern California? And just look at the devastation caused by the Los Angeles wildfires in January.
Is it realistic to tell homeowners around the world that the global housing market is expected to suffer a $25 trillion loss in the next 25 years? Fifteen percent of all the residential housing stock in the world if we do not change what we’re doing? Is that realistic in their view?
Is it realistic to continue quietly accepting 8.7 million deaths every single year from breathing in the particulate co-pollution that also comes from the burning of fossil fuels? That is the number of people who are already being killed. According to health experts, it is, and I quote, “the leading contributor to the global disease burden.” When you’re burning coal, oil and gas, it puts the heat trapping pollution up there and it puts the particulate and PM 2.5 pollution into the lungs of people downwind from where the facilities are burning the fossil fuels.
Is it realistic, in their view, for governments to manage 1 billion climate migrants crossing international borders in the balance of this century? That’s how many the Lancet Commission estimates will be crossing borders in the decades to come, if we continue driving temperatures and humidity higher and making the physiologically unlivable regions of the world vastly larger by continuing to put 175 million tons of man-made heat-trapping pollution into that thin shell of the troposphere surrounding the planet. You know what that blue line looks like, that thin blue shell is blue because that’s where the oxygen is. And it’s so thin, if you could drive a car straight up in the air at highway speeds, you’d get to the top of that blue line in five to seven minutes.
That’s what we’re using as an open sewer. Is that realistic? I don’t think it is.
We’ve already seen, by the way, how populist authoritarian leaders have used migrants as scapegoats and have fanned the fires of xenophobia to fuel their own rise to power. And power-seeking is what this is all about. Our Constitution, written by our founders, is intended to protect us against a threat identical to Donald Trump: someone who seeks power at all costs to get more power. Imagine what the demagogues would do as we continued toward a billion migrants crossing international borders. We could face a grave threat to our capacity for self-governance.
Is it “realistic” to continue inflicting the financial toll that the climate crisis is taking on the global economy? According to Deloitte, climate inaction will cost the economy $178 trillion over the next half century. And is it realistic to miss out on the economic opportunity that we could seize by going toward net-zero? Over that same period, climate action would increase the size of the global economy by $43 trillion.
A question with particular relevance in nearby Silicon Valley: is it realistic for the semiconductor industry to experience losses of up to 35% of annual revenues due to supply chain disruptions caused by the stronger and more severe cyclonic storms and supercell storms?
Is it realistic to continue with a system of financing that leaves the entire continent of Africa completely out? Right now, the entire continent of Africa, fastest-growing population in the world, has fewer solar panels installed than the single state of Florida in the United States of America. That’s a disgrace to the makeup of our financial system. But Africa has three times as many oil and gas pipelines under construction and preparing for construction to begin than all of North America. It is ridiculous to allow this system to continue as it is. How is that realistic? Or fair? Or just?
Is it realistic for us, all of us here, to consign our children and grandchildren to what scientists warn us would be Hell on Earth in order to conserve the profits of the fossil fuel industry? The predictions of the scientists 50 years ago have turned out to be spot on correct. Their predictions just a few decades ago have turned out to be exactly right. Should not that cause us to listen more carefully to what they’re warning us will happen if we do not sharply and quickly reduce the emissions from burning fossil fuels?
Is that unrealistic to listen to a proven source of advice?
This newfound so-called climate realism is nothing more than climate denial in disguise. It is an attempt to pretend there is no problem and to ignore the reality that is right in front of our faces.
What’s never present in any of this so-called “realism” is any credible challenge whatsoever to the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. They never address that. They just wish it away and say, “Oh it’s unrealistic to actually do anything about it.”
I wish we could wish it away, but we cannot.
The hard reality is that the fossil fuel industry has grown desperate for more capital. They’re seeing their two largest markets wither away: electricity generation, number one and transportation, number two. They’ve been losing their share of investment in the energy market to renewables and so they’re panicked.
That explains why they are so aggressively using their captive policymakers to block meaningful solutions. Of course, as you know, they’re way better at capturing politicians than they are at capturing emissions. They’ve grown very skillful at that.
They are the wealthiest and most powerful industry lobby in the history of the world. They make the East India Company look like a popcorn vendor. They are the effective global hegemon.
They have used their war chests and their legacy network of political and economic power to block any reductions of fossil fuel burning emissions – whether at the international conferences that we call the COPs, the Conference of Parties in the UN process, or at the global negotiations for a plastic treaty. They blocked anything there, too.
Why? They’re losing the first market of electricity generation because 93% of all the new electricity generation installed worldwide last year was solar and wind. They’re losing that market steadily. EVs are rising dramatically. They say they’ve slowed down. Well, we just got the new figures – an 18% increase year-on-year here in the United States. In many countries much faster than that.
And so, their third market – they’re telling Wall Street that they’re going to make up all of the expected lost revenue in their first two markets by tripling the production of plastics over the next 35 years.
Well, we might have a word to say about that. Is that realistic? Because we’ve already found – the scientists say – that some seabirds are manifesting symptoms like Alzheimer’s disease from the plastic particles in their brains and they found that it crosses the blood-brain barrier in humans, and the size of the amount has doubled just in the last decade.
Do we really want to continue that?
It’s crazy, but they are blocking action at both of these international forums and they’re blocking action in the deliberations of nation-states, even in states and provinces, and even at the local level. Anywhere in the world where there is an effort to pass legislation or regulations that reduces the burning of fossil fuels, they are there with their money, with their lobbyists, with their captive politicians, blocking it as best they can.
And the solution is what you’re doing here at Climate Week here in San Francisco. We have got to rise up and change this situation.
That’s also why they are ballyhooing ridiculously expensive and hilariously impractical technologies like building giant mechanical vacuuming machines to suck it back out of the atmosphere after they put it up there. Could that someday be a realistic part of the solution? Perhaps, perhaps. But not now! Not even close.
They use it as a bright, shiny object to distract attention and say, ‘see this, see this, this could be so miraculous, we don’t have to stop burning fossil fuels at all! We can actually continue to increase the burning of fossil fuels because look at this bright, shiny object. We’ve got this vacuuming machine.’
Well, CO2 is 0.035% of the molecules in the air. You’re gonna use an energy-intensive, ridiculous, expensive process to filter through the other 99.965% of the molecules? It’s absolutely preposterous.
In reality, the Sustainability Revolution is powering more and more of our global economy. It has the scale and impact of the Industrial Revolution and is moving at the pace of the Digital Revolution.
By the way, in Texas, which used to have a free market for energy, over 90% of all their new electricity generation last year was solar and wind. And, you know, they’ve got captured politicians there. They’re pushing legislation in Texas to legally require any developers of solar and wind to spend time and money developing more oil and gas before they’re given permission to develop renewables.
That’s not realism, that’s pathetic.
That is a sign of desperation.
They don’t trust the free market. They’re just relying more and more on the politicians who will jump when they tell them jump and ask how high when they tell them to jump again.
So, around the world, the market is transforming. Since the Paris Agreement, the cost of solar has dropped 76%. The cost of wind is down 66%. Utility-scale batteries are down 87%.
In 2004, when Generation was founded, it took a full year for the world to install one gigawatt of solar power. Now it takes one day to install one gigawatt of solar power.
And it’s not just renewables. We’re seeing the Sustainability Revolution rapidly take hold across the rest of the global economy from transportation, to regenerative agriculture, to circular manufacturing, and so much more.
So, as we gather here to kick off Climate Week and as we gather on the eve of Earth Day, we have to treat this moment as a call to action.
So, I’m here not only to respond to the invitation for which I’m grateful…. I’m here to recruit you.
Many of you are already working on this, but those of you who are not, I’m here to recruit you. We need you. This is the time and this is a break glass moment. This is an all hands on deck moment.
Now is the time to look at every aspect of your businesses, your investments, and your civic engagement to determine whether or not you can contribute even more to solving the climate crisis.
It’s easy to adopt our own versions of climate realism to say that the challenge is too great. Some people worry about that. To say that our individual role is too small to have an impact. Some use that as an excuse: that if the government won’t act, what can any of us do about it?
Well, just as the climate crisis does not recognize borders between countries, it does not either recognize delineations between the duty of government and businesses and all significant participants in the global economy.
Climate change is already impacting your life and work and will more so through disrupted supply chains, increased liability, changes in consumer demand, and more.
This is a moment when we all have to mobilize to defend our country. And remember the antidote to climate despair is climate action. It was in this city in the 1960s that Joan Baez first said that the antidote to despair is action. And we need to remember that now.
And during a time of when people were tempted to despair in the struggle for civil rights in this country, Martin Luther King said something about overcoming the forces that try to discourage you and halt progress. He said this: “If you can’t fly, run. If you can’t run, walk. If you can’t walk, crawl. But by all means, keep moving.”
And that’s where we are.
Every one of the morally based movements in the past had periods when advocates felt despair. But when the central choice was revealed as a choice between right and wrong, then the outcome at a very deep level became foreordained.
Because of the way Pope Francis reminded us we have been created as God’s children.
We love our families.
We are devoted to our communities.
We have to protect our future.
And if you doubt for one moment ever that we as human beings have the capacity to muster sufficient political will to solve this crisis, just remember that political will is itself a renewable resource.
Comments Off on Elon Musk Backs Warren Buffett’s Brutal ‘5-Minute Deficit Fix’ To Ban Congress From Reelection If They Blow the Budget: ‘100% This Is the Way!
There is no reason to complain if you are paying attention to what is happening in our legislative house. The vote has always been the answer! MA.
Ivy Grace-Benzinga
Fri, July 4, 2025 at 6:00 PM CDT
Elon Musk Backs Warren Buffett’s Brutal ‘5-Minute Deficit Fix’ To Ban Congress From Reelection If They Blow the Budget: ‘100% This Is the Way’
More than a decade ago, Warren Buffett said the national deficit could be solved in just five minutes. His plan? “You just pass a law that says that any time there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection.”
That 2011 quote, from an interview with CNBC’s Becky Quick, resurfaced in early June — and this time, it gained traction with one of the world’s most influential voices.
On June 4, Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) posted the clip on X and asked, “Would you support this amendment?” Elon Musk didn’t hesitate. He reposted it with the words “100%” and “This is the way,” signaling full endorsement of Buffett’s blunt solution.
Comments Off on Big Beautiful Bill: Effects on Freedom and American Lives
This will be the fourth of July to remember- we have seen our(?) Congress gives us up to the demands of a child. That being said: pay attention to the results of the Big Beautiful Bill’s effect on the country as a whole and how it affects individual lives. This is not so much political as it is an attack on the freedoms that we have enjoyed for hundreds of years, the current actions of Congress and the administration is a perfect example of excessive government while ignoring the will of the people (us!). Our shining example is being tarnished and held up as maybe not so great.
Watching Donald Trump deliver the news of an American attack on Iran Saturday night, I wondered how many viewers had the same reaction I did: How can the United States be going to war — and that’s exactly what it is — with advisers whose collective experience managing international conflict is see-through thin? There was Trump, a draft dodger who has long derided the military, surrounded by his war cabinet of second-rate choices, who owe their professional and political souls to him. Will any of them ever question Trump’s decisions? We know the answer to that. Trump did not have solid evidence Iran was building a nuclear bomb. Nearing the time when they might be able to build one is the best that can be said. Similar, although not identical, to the situation when George W. Bush didn’t have hard evidence that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction. Bad intel back then led to a war that lasted eight years and killed nearly 5,000 Americans and reportedly 200,000 Iraqis. No WMDs were ever found. Lessons learned? Hardly. Bombing Iran was easy enough. Did anyone at the White House think about what would happen on Day 2? Forty-eight hours after the United States launched bunker-busting bombs and dozens of cruise missiles at Iran, the Iranian regime retaliated. Iran launched missiles at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East. The Defense Department said there were no injuries because Qatari air defenses were able to intercept the Iranian attack. Also, the Iranians gave advance warning to minimize casualties. No one should be surprised by this escalation. And no one should think this is the end of hostilities. Forty thousand U.S. troops are stationed in the region. It is a consequence of going to war, which is exactly what Donald Trump did when he called for strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites. Even if Vice President JD Vance says otherwise. “We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program,” he said on “Meet the Press” Sunday. The Iranian people likely quibble with Vance’s semantics. Iran has other retaliatory options from which to choose. In an internal FBI email obtained by The New York Times, American officials warn that Iran and its allies have “historically targeted U.S. interests in response to geopolitical events, and they are likely to increase their efforts in the near term.” The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow strip of water between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, is one of the world’s most important strategic choke points. And Iran controls the north side of it. The 20 million barrels of oil produced daily in the region — a fifth of global output — must travel through the strait. Some influential Iranians are calling for Hormuz to be closed, including Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor-in-chief of a popular hard-line Iranian newspaper, who has the ear of the supreme leader. “It is now our turn to act without delay. As a first step, we must launch a missile strike on the US naval fleet in Bahrain and simultaneously close the Strait of Hormuz to American, British, German, and French ships,” Shariatmadari wrote in his newspaper. Mohammad Ali Shabani, an expert on Iran, told CNN that Iran’s control of global shipping lanes gives the government the “capacity to cause a shock in oil markets, drive up oil prices, drive inflation, [and] collapse Trump’s economic agenda.” If Hormuz is closed, oil prices will skyrocket. But perhaps the ayatollah will put his pocketbook before payback. China is the No. 1 buyer of Iranian oil. The money Iran earns from Chinese oil sales accounts for 50% of government spending, according to The Times. It has allowed the Iranian regime to fund terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. By the way, need we remind ourselves that China, not Iran, is the most potent foreign threat to American security? Also that Iran, along with China and Russia, has the ability to launch destructive cyber attacks. But now back to the strikes themselves. Trump claimed victory, saying the U.S. bombings “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. No evidence has been given, and a bomb damage assessment has yet to be released. This administration is not known for truth-telling, so a wait-and-see approach is justified. Using satellite imagery, the Israeli military’s initial assessment is that Fordo, the main nuclear site, where the U.S. dropped at least six bunker busters, was damaged but not destroyed. Israeli intelligence believes Iran moved equipment and uranium from the site prior to the bombing. All this means that Saturday’s attack was not a one-and-done as the president would have us believe. Add to that Trump’s changing tune on regime change. Initially he said the goal of the bombing was “destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity.” Vance, Pete Hegseth, and Marco Rubio were reading from the same script as they made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows. The administration’s view “has been very clear that we don’t want a regime change,” Vance said. Perhaps the president didn’t get a copy of the talking points. Not four hours later, Trump took to social media. “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!” he posted. No one thinks the Iranian government is made up of good guys. It has an abysmal human rights record and is the poster child for state-sponsored terrorism. These leaders have a long record of hating America and all for which we stand. They have been known to subvert our Arab allies in the region. But regime change seldom if ever works out the way the changers intend. See: Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. But calling for regime change versus seeking to destroy a country’s nuclear capabilities — no matter how spurious the intelligence — are very different goals with very different long-term prospects. It’s been widely reported that the U.S. defense secretary was not included in planning the Iran mission. Perhaps Hegseth’s Signalgate scandal has finally caught up with him. At least he was by Trump’s side as the president delivered his version of the war news. Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has been put on ice by Trump for testifying to Congress — in March — that the intelligence community did not believe Iran was close to building a nuclear weapon. So Trump needs advisers who will guide him by telling him the truth, rather than what he wants to hear; because they are beholden to him for jobs they aren’t qualified for, they never will. Trump learned from his first administration: Don’t hire the smart people, elevate the sycophants. A few closing notes from your reporter, who has spent a fair portion of his life covering wars: Truth IS the first casualty of war. The first things you hear often are untrue, and so are many of the things you hear later. Wars are by their very nature chaotic and unpredictable. What you most expect frequently does not happen; what you least expect often does. Up close and personal, wars are almost unbelievably savage. The television screen and the printed word do not come close to conveying their harsh realities. Stay Steady, Dan
Wow, those military parades can’t even keep a totalitarian awake. Jun 16
President Trump’s Shitstaffel Chief Stephen Miller, who is currently getting a busy signal from his wife, the New Musk GF Du Jour, has had a busy week rounding up school children, four year olds, and people who pick crops to feed his emaciated Goebbels face.
He had Trump send U.S. Marines, the California National Guard, and any loose Boy Scout troop to patrol the streets of Los Angeles, to no real effect, since what was, in fact, going on was 4,000,000 people getting ready to go to a Dodgers game, brunch, or Disneyland.
This cartoon features a device called “transmogrification”, which means that you make a human into some other weird, surprising object. I think. As I have previously noted here, I am always looking for a little phrase that I can turn into a drawing. They’re not puns, per se, they’re word play. So I kept thinking about the phrase, “Stephen Miller’s biggest fan,” which, of course ultimately called for me converting Trump into an actual fan, which was surprisingly easy to do. Sometimes, this doesn’t work, at all. This worked fine, as Trump’s mouth is open all the time when he’s not pouting. Throw in a whirling blade, build the face around it, and there you go.
I am remiss in not featuring Miller more. I drew him a few times during Trump 1.0, but mostly haven’t done that much about him. I can see this needs to be done much more going forward. It’s my patriotic duty.
I can only imagine the chitchat between Miller and his equally odious wife when he found out she was going to join Musk and his 12 other wives in California.
X-wife, if you will.
Anyway, let’s move on, shall we?
I couldn’t resist doing this, even being part of the Resistance. I have always called The Home Depot “The Home Despot”, and even genius buddy Joel Pett, my colleague late of the Lexington Herald Leader (don’t get him started, either) said he calls it the same thing.
When I set out to do a storefront, I always have to take some care that it at least vaguely resembles the actual business. I drew Walmart the other day, for example, and carefully reproduced the Walmart logo. In this case, I noted that Home Depots usually have that orange lattice on the top of the building. Not exclusively, but usually. When I draw lattice (most frequently on NASA rocket launch gantries, I am usually kind of winging it. I suppose if you carefully examined the lattice, you would probably note that it isn’t technically correct, but I also know it’s unlikely you will give it that level of scrutiny, and thank God.
Then there’s the tank.
I almost never look at tank photos anymore, and just draw a tank the way I want it to look. I suppose that now I have brought this up, I also may have to do that, just to amuse myself. I remember looking at older cartoonists work in 1980, and noting that they would draw television cameras from 1950, with multiple interchangeable lenses sticking out. I would sigh, and draw them correctly, because I am so hip and with it.
I drew a camera a few years ago, and I got a note from a cameraman saying, hey buddy, you might want to check out the way cameras look now, which I did. Wow, were they off. I assume this means that there’s now a new generation of cartoonists looking at my cameras and shaking their heads about how out of it I am.
I’m 64, after all. You can’t keep up with everything. I used to listen to American Top 40 in 1976 and knew every single on the Billboard chart, and whether it was rising or falling. “Oh, Bungle in the Jungle has dropped to Number 24”.
Let’s resume the countdown. NUMBER THREE!
Normally, I don’t like to do cartoons like this, which are simply paens to someone. I’m not above it, but I was delighted to see and hear Gov. Gavin Newsom’s speech the other day where he acted like he wasn’t exactly setting the table for his political future. He sounded like a guy who actually was passionate and sincere about the direct threat of authoritarianism facing this country, California, and him.
Look, I know Newsom is, in fact, a politician likely lining up for 2028, if we have an election, which I do not assume at this point. But he showed a lot of courage and character, and I give him props for doing so.
When doing these types of cartoons, the subject is usually dead or leaving office. There is a fine line between interesting and cornball, so I kept thinking “beacon”. That’s when I saw Gav as a lighthouse. I also really enjoyed drawing this as:
I enjoy drawing water.
I enjoy drawing dark skies.
I enjoy drawing blue and yellow drawings.
I enjoy drawing Newsom.
Newsom is beyond good-looking, honestly. I’ve talked to him many times in person, and I find myself looking at him as an objet d’art—how did they do that? He looks better in person; he almost has an AI appearance to him. Obama: same. JFK: same. Reagan: same. When we have to tackle the good-looking politicians, male or female, it’s something of a challenge. Prior to television, it was perfectly normal to elect politicians who weren’t handsome or pretty. Radio faces, and all. Now most electeds look like weekend weathermen or saleswomen at Nordstrom.
Next?
This was kinda fun.
I’ve never drawn the iconic JFK birthday song by Marilyn Monroe, who was dressed in “skin and beads, and I didn’t see the beads,” according to historian and Kennedy guy Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.. Finally I got my chance here.
I had originally labelled Marilyn Monster as “FASCISM,” which would have fit better. Labeling is tough, people, and the only space I had was where you see it, although in closer examination I could have put it on the tail. I then decided to say “AUTHORITARIANISM,” which was still a bit more accurate than fascism, although I am very open to your counterarguments.
“Donald Trump is holding a North Korean-style military parade, Soviet-style military parade through the nation’s capital, something that we just don’t do as a country,” said Hayes. “The last one we did was after the first Persian Gulf War, which was celebrating the end of the war.
He continued, “We don’t have that here. It just so happens to fall on his 79th birthday. He’s even fundraising from it, if you could believe it — well, you can, of course — sending out this email with the subject line, quote, ‘Please help me before my military parade!’”
Hayes broke into laughter reading that last line aloud, as a screenshot of the email was displayed onscreen. He quickly composed himself and continued his coverage on the impending Washington, D.C., event.
“I’m sorry, that’s a funny sentence,” said Hayes. “‘My military parade.’”
Trump has never served in the armed forces and reportedly avoided the Vietnam War draft with a diagnosis of bone spurs in his feet. The daughter of the doctor who provided the diagnosis later said he had done so as a favor to his landlord — Trump’s father, Fred Trump.
The parade and surrounding festivities are meant to celebrate the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary, though the event notably also falls on Trump’s 79th birthday.
Hello. From a Washington Post story by Maura Judkis, we get a new account of what appears to be the real reason why Donald Trump is hellbent on replacing Kim Sajet, director of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery. It turns out that eight years ago she didn’t like, and rejected as too political and “no good”, the cloying portrait of Trump created by the evangelical conservative, knockoff schlockmeister and ardent Trump enthusiast Julian Raven. The art is pictured above. Its title is “Unafraid and Unashamed.”
Let us be fair and give this some artistically critical thought. Please consider the portrait in a dignified, professional manner. Step back a bit. Sit on well-padded couch we have provided in this online museum, for restful contemplative assessment. If needed, puke into the bucket we have provided as well.
In rejecting the art, Ms. Sajet pointed out to Raven that it was both overly politically advocative and essentially every bit as sophisticated as a velvet Elvis or crying clowns or those dogs playing Texas Hold ‘Em — if not as expertly rendered.
As we approach the revolting spectacle of Trump spending wads of taxpayer money to ostentatiously celebrate the Army’s 250th anniversary and, um, his own birthday, with a multi-million dollar shithole-country-style military parade featuring unscalable fences and hundreds of magnetometers, it would be prudent to discuss this issue.
Actually, no. All you have to do is look at some other similar ass-sucking works from the past by ardent political enthusiasts. Here’s one of Hitler, by Hubert Lanzinger, from 1932:
Here’s another of Mussolini, by Gerardo Dottori, circa 1933:
You get the idea.
—
Speaking of appalling things, I was on a walk with Lexi the other day when she suddenly alerted and started her hound dog roo-ing at something she saw that was approaching us.
Dogs are suspicious of things that do not seem to conform to the way things are supposed to be. People wearing hats, or delivery people carrying big boxes, for example. My previous dog, Murphy, got freaked out if she saw people kissing.
This thing was even more outrageous to Lexi, though. And I agreed.
It was a guy on a one-wheel Segway, roaring down the street at maybe 25 miles an hour, which in itself is disturbing. But what really got to Lexi, and to me, is that he was simultaneously pushing a stroller with a baby in it.
Opinion: Many of have forgotten the altering, removal and possibly banning of historical information regarding WWII. The folks who lived it, those who studied it and those who teach it recognize the value of that information but this is lost on short sighted individuals whose objective is to create a society like FFLOTUS wants. MA
Looking at the Movie “Iron Man” today and was reminded of the past year of the Gaza “conflict?”. Much of the action that occurs in the Middle east shows natives being rounded up and killed, sent packing or enslaved. Meanwhile the political classes (asses) discuss and guess as to what should be done. And in America the new “Sheriff” has begun to dismantle the government agencies because either they can or because they don’t understand how Government works. The policy of “nuevo Trump 2.0 is to get even at all costs with the overt and tacit approval of the GOP. It is unfortunate that the DEMs are so weak as to present a meager objection even though they do not have control of Congress. All political change starts with small voices that build with facts as the foundation. This political weakness appears to voters as the weakness that it is. If the status quo is to shift, then the political winds need to shift also. It is bad enough that the public is apathetic, complacent or just doesn’t care but the public servants need to take the heat and do their jobs with as much honesty as they can muster or just because it is what they were elected to do.
I could quote numerous warnings from the past and near past about the rise of populists and the results thereof but until the public at large learns to or start to learn what information history has shown we will continue down the road to a “kingship” for an extremely incompetent leader and his suck up minions!
Michael1942's Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.