Cartoons II

Many of my all time favorites are the old Dr Seuss cartoons during world war II.

Here’s a link to a cartoon published two days before Pearl Harbor

Although I couldn’t find it on this website I swear I saw a cartoon Seuss did the day before Pearl Harbor, in which Japanese Americans were to coordinate with the Japanese to attack California.


Political Cartoons

I’ve always been a big fan of political cartoons. This guy has been doing them since 1994. He does web-development (and cartoons) here in Northern Virginia. Some of his work actually shows up in the print version of the National Review.

Be warned, even though the name of the site is “Politically Correct”, (which contrasts real well with the URL) it could possibly be considered on the “conservative” side or as he explains…classically liberal. The good news is he loves hate e-mail (or comments in the “Forum”) from those who disagree with him…especially those who disagree with him…VEHEMENTLY. Anyway, here is one of my personal favorites of 2005…so far.

Posted at 08:43 pm by Logipundit

Evolution and Social Darwinism

A colleague of mine who is attempting to learn about neuroscience let me borrow a series of lectures on tape from a big name professor named Robert Sapolsky, Stanford professor and author of “Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers”. He will show up on PBS or NPR occasionally as well to tell us something about stress. I listened to this series of lectures mainly for style points, to see how he conveys complex neuroscience stuff to the masses.

At about the sixth lecture, Sapolsky started talking about how increased levels of circulating prolactin (hormone involved in breast feeding) from new mothers is a potent contraceptive. The key to prolactin is it needs to be released at low levels throughout the day. In other words, mothers can’t make the kids wait an hour or two and then give up the milk, it has to be little spurts all day long.

Then he goes off on this tangent (and I paraphrase): ‘People in Western culture seems to think that hunter/gatherer societies tend to live in horrible conditions. We think of these people as nearly starving, always succumbing to diseases, but in fact that’s not the case. In an anthropology study on (some tribe in Africa) it was shown that these people live just fine. They spend three or four hours a day foraging for food and spend the rest of the time doing social anthropology. They are the cream of the crop, health-wise. In agricultural societies people spend 10-12 hours a day producing food and are susceptible to all kinds of diseases due to the stress. One of the biggest mistakes in human history was the invention of agriculture. All agriculture does is allow for the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, which results in stratified societies etc. etc….maybe a little political motivation there’

Now I’ve read a little about Sapolsky. He seems like a nice guy. Definitely from a family of concentrated wealth, he attended tory Ivy League schools and succeeded everywhere he went. I’m sure he does wonderful charity work with the royalties from his textbooks, which are foisted upon college undergrads throughout the country. But the question I’ve got for Sapolsky is, how can the product of an agricultural society learn all this science, and why don’t the hunter/gatherers have some expert teaching kids about neuroscience (or music, or language, or film history, or biochemistry). The arrogant way these professors sneak some marxist propaganda into any topic they see fit makes me cringe.

Posted at 11:27 pm by Johnny B

Posted by BP @ 07/18/2005 08:40 PM PDT
Ok this post takes the cake as the most thought provoking of the month…anyone disagree?

Posted by Bonnie G @ 07/19/2005 04:28 PM PDT
I’ll say one thing for sure, it certainly isn’t comment provoking.

Posted by PB @ 07/20/2005 04:27 PM PDT

I guess one could make that argument, Bonnie…

However, it just goes to show you…that breasts in and of themselves…don’t sell.

Posted by Name @ 07/21/2005 11:39 PM PDT
maybe if there was a picture or something and not all them damn words

CAFTA blowback

I was wondering what the eyes and ears on the ground in LA are seeing and hearing with regards to CAFTA. Is Landrieu et al. drumming up a block? I mean, I love sugar cane growers as much as the next guy, but blocking trade to benefit a handful of farmers who have enjoyed a monopoly for 50+ years, at the expense of cheaper sugar for all Americans, is ridiculous. Even if the farmers are in Cajun Country.

Posted at 11:45 am by Johnny B

Posted by Name @ 07/11/2005 06:17 PM PDT
Amen brother.

For the Love of God, Please Stop!

This comes from our good friend…the Coach.

It just goes to show you that simply “good intentions” can sometimes do worse than nothing.

I’d love to hear some arguments from some that disagree with Mr Shigwati. Does anyone see any parallels to a failed public welfare program in our own country?

Posted at 06:24 pm by Logipundit

Posted by scottie @ 07/08/2005 10:05 AM PDT
very interesting article, with many good points. i do see a parallel between his arguments and the public welfare system in the US, but in regards to the mindset of the people on welfare, and how they must pursue an independent and empowering course to get themselves out of the system. There are a few big differences, though. The poor in Africa do not have to deal with the drugs that surround the welfare recipients in the US. So that problem must be addressed simultaneously. Many African nations are fighting civil wars, which lends to the chaos and the poverty, and the corruption, which withholds “proper” aid. Those circumstances are not seen in the public welfare system in the US.
To be clear, I think there should be little public assistance, and that people should have to work for what they get. Adam Smith’s philosophy of “you don’t work, you don’t eat” should be driven into people’s minds. Most of our founding fathers, especially the authors and contributors to the Constitution, espoused beliefs that are closely associated with one party’s platform today, and I’ll give you a hint, it ain’t the Repubs or the Dems ….

Posted by Johnny B @ 07/08/2005 10:26 AM PDT
Is it the constitutional law party? Just guessing.

Posted by Johnny B @ 07/08/2005 11:10 AM PDT
From now on logipundit has to dismiss Scottie’s arguments as “Smithite”.

Posted by BP @ 07/08/2005 04:48 PM PDT
LOL…that’s good, and I’m 100% in agreement with Scottie on this one (even if he is a Smithite)…I’m assuming we’re talking either Constitutional or Libertarian…the former of which I definitely have a lot in common with, as does Scottie.

You also have no disagreements with me that the Republicans are just as guilty of throwing money at problems as the Democrats and the nature of the modern Senate is such that very little is seldom accomplished EXCEPT throwing money at things.

I do have a question, though, for clarification: do you think the civil wars, brutal dictators, famine, etc, is MORE or LESS stringent (or equal for that matter) on someone’s free reign for growth than the drugs, gangs, and violence associated with the inner city projects in the US?

Posted by scottie @ 07/09/2005 07:14 AM PDT
hey butch
clarify that last question for me.
i didn’t quite understand the question.

Posted by BP @ 07/09/2005 02:09 PM PDT
I had offered a parallel between the damage caused by aid to Africa and the damage caused by an overly generous welfare system in the US. Here was your response:

“There are a few big differences, though…The poor in Africa do not have to deal with the drugs that surround the welfare recipients in the US. So that problem must be addressed simultaneously. Many African nations are fighting civil wars, which lends to the chaos and the poverty, and the corruption, which withholds “proper” aid. Those circumstances are not seen in the public welfare system in the US.”

So is what you’re saying is that the corruption, civil wars, and tyranny surrounding the poor of Africa are as damaging elements as the drugs, gangs, and violence in US cities. In both cases, throwing money at the problem does not help unless the other problems surrounding it are addressed.

That’s the parallel…so I agree there are differences, but I think the differences have the same result:

A dependent population unable to satisfy its own needs because of a political system (whether it be the US Federal and local governments in the case of the American Welfare system, or the UN and the entire developed world vis-a-vis G8 summits, etc., in the case of Africa) that has done nothing but throw money at the problem for about 50 years.

The only time that the poverty level drops in the US is when welfare is restricted; not when it is increased. We’ll most likely find that if aid to Africa is DECREASED, then things will begin to happen. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen any time soon, given the recent meeting in Scotland.

Posted by scottie @ 07/10/2005 07:25 PM PDT
ok, i now understand your question, and i further understand your comments, and you make a good argument. money thrown into a system that is riddled with problems on the periphery is not a panacea for ending those inherent problems, and i have nothing to say in response, as the point is quite good.


by the way, did you check out the annual reports from amnesty on the israel-palestine issue (that i included in response to another entry, as i am still in the dark on how to make my own entry, despite sending you an email earlier this week), and did you notice that this group made a strong case that israeli defense forces and the over-arching institutions in israel treat palesinians like cattle ? did you further notice that criticism of israel is NOT anti-semitic in nature?

this argument is quite frequently used when discussing the israeli-palestinian issue, but the argument itself has been de-bunked over and over again, ad nauseam. so i expect that eventually that realization might slowly penetrate the US media outlets …. and the US citizens who put great stock into what the US media outlets claim.