Check out Argumentation and the Public Sphere, an analysis of my recent Pederson / Perlman cartoon.

It’s by a Nebraska Wesleyan student presumably named Ian Boren, and I stumbled upon it this afternoon while glancing at my incoming links. I can only describe the feeling of reading such a deep analysis from a total stranger as “super awesome.” Even if he would’ve hated the cartoon, it’s really flattering to have someone put so much thought into wondering how and why I do what I do.

from the San Diego Reader

from the Omaha Reader

from my friends at Happy Young People:

I recently used an Amazon.com gift certificate to pick up some old books on cartooning that I’d had my eye on. Most revolve around magazine-style gag cartoons, but I was still fascinated by the idea of these books. I’m not really sure why, but something about the idea of writing a how-to book on something that seems so chaotic - that being the process of coming up with a good idea - seemed just so…quaint? So…1950s? I’m not sure. But it seemed charming, and I picked up a few.

That excerpt above certainly fits my concept of a mentality from a time long gone…back when American Indians were just cute sources of punchlines. It’s from Jack Markow’s Cartoonist’s and Gag Writer’s Handbook (Writer’s Digest, 1967). If it’s not politically correct, at least his AP style is.

Adrian Smith, who apparently knows the Beatrice Fiddler uses typepad.

Third district congressman Adrian Smith just keeps making life more interesting.

A few days ago, I wrote about his lies on SCHIP - now, his official congressional website is blocking incoming links from blogger accounts!

The same Lisa Hannah of Smith Watch who did the hard work on the aforementioned entry posted this over at New Nebraska Network — her step-by-step attempt to solve the mystery of why Adrian Smith’s official congressional website wouldn’t load from the link on her blog.

Of particular note is the response from the Blogger.com technician. Again, these are the Blogger.com technician’s words, not Lisa’s:

The problem isn’t with your link. It’s with THEIR server. It’s rejecting (giving a 404) when the link comes from blogspot. What a douche this guy is. He’s blocking requests when it comes from bloggers.
…
His Official Government Website, that WE pay for (well I’m guessing on that part), is throwing up a 404 when the referrer heading comes from blogspot.com. I tested from one of my test blogs and it doesn’t work either, also uploaded a test page to googlepages (a different domain) and it works. So it really is blogspot they are blocking via the referrer.
…
Looks like you can get a new blog post out of this. Congressman Adrian Smith is afraid of Bloggers!

So to sum up, everything on your end is correct. It’s the dear congressman that is playing games. Notice how his taxpayer server is also configured to Identify itself as NOYB (none of your business). Nice guy. Nebraska huh? Without looking I’m going to guess he’s a Republican.
…
Looking around, I don’t see many others but you linking to him from blogspot, so it must’ve been you that scared him. Great Work!!!

That’s just such a pathetic thing for them to do. I shouldn’t be surprised I suppose, but good god.

UPDATE!!! (11/05) You may notice in the comments that there is a post from GovTrends, who take responsibility as the “website vendor” for Smith.

Upon further investigation we discovered our servers were set by default to block all referring traffic from Blogspot due to the proliferation of spammers. So, in effect, this ‚Äòblocking‚Äô of Blogspot is affecting all of the websites on our server…To be clear, neither us nor our client were aware of the blocking being done prior to today (we have over 2000 different websites on our blacklist that we download from gotroot.com) and we apologize for any inconvenience this has caused Blogspot bloggers.

I was a little suspicious that such a large vendor with a client list such as theirs would be completely clueless about this, and fortunately for all of us, Lisa Hannah again does the legwork. She contacted GovTrends, who failed to give her any kind of satisfactory answer, so she put their words to the test:

He said, as you can see, their servers are set by default. He kept on wanting to tell me about some site on the internet that tells about the biggest spammers, and that blogspot.com was one of them…

So, we have Smith’s office continuing to refuse to comment on this, and a provider wanting us to take them at face value.

So let’s look at some of the clients that they serve, as noted on their site:

- JP Morgan
- NYC Health
- Sirius Satellite
- Snapple
- Godiva Chocolatier
- WebMD
- Wharton: University of Pennsylvania
- The Bahamas

So far, their own site and the ones I’ve tested that I can see they run have all been accessible through Blogspot.com.

GovTrends pleads ignorance regarding the blogger blocking, saying it was just automatic for all their clients due to apparent “spamming” from blogger.com (still not actually sure how incoming links from a blog can be spam, but anyway). Yet this threat posed by blogger.com is apparently so severe that none of their large clients - nor GovTrends themselves - have incoming blogger links blocked.

from the Lincoln Journal Star

from the Omaha Reader (online exclusive)

Adrian Smith, who is either a liar or a moron.

Nebraska’s three congressmen continue to spew the repeatedly-debunked Bush administration rhetoric against SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. I’m careful to not say Republican Party rhetoric, because some of the bill’s most outspoken supporters have been Republican. In spite of several people’s claims that a bi-partisan bill is needed, this is a bipartisan effort.

In her New Nebraska Network post Rep. Smith Misleads Constituents Regarding SCHIP, Lisa Hannah of the extremely thorough SmithWatch blog has contributed a point-by-point response to Adrian Smith’s latest batch of claims. But her terminology is too generous - he’s simply lying. Based on his campaign statements and quotes in interviews (and third-person anecdotes), I have little respect for the intellectual capacity of our third district congressman. But I refuse to believe he’s so thick that he really has no understanding of the bill.

Here’s a taste:

CLAIM #1 - The current SCHIP bill would make it possible for illegal immigrants to receiving federal benefits.

FACT - Sec. 605 says, “Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents.” Further, funds could be denied if this does occur at the state level.
…
CLAIM #3 - The bill would not serve poor children first, and would allow states to cover families making $84,455 per year, even though it exceeds 300 percent of the federal poverty levels.

FACT - Sec. 114 specifically notes that no child can be covered in a family that makes over 300% above the poverty level ($61,950).

Currently, the only state covering families above 300% is New Jersey, at 350%. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer tried to get coverage for up to 400% ($82,600), but was denied.

The present bill would allow an exception for these two states, but this has to be approved by HHS. New requirements would be issued to keep higher guidelines, but after Oct. 1, 2010, if those requirements were not met, those states would not get federal funds for children above 300%. If they did meet requirements, their federal matching rate would still be reduced.

Overall, 70% of children covered would be in families that are at 200% of the poverty level or less ($41,300 per year). Currently, 31 states have their SCHIP levels set at 200% or less (Nebraska is at 185%).

Two of the comments by NNN reader ColumbiaDuck demonstrate even a further level of dishonesty on the part of the Bush administration and their mouthpieces:

I would like to make one minor correction - New Jersey is the only state that would be allowed to cover over 300% in the most recent bill. And, as you note, they can only do this if they show they are making a targeted effort to reach those under 200%. New York is not allowed to go over 300% (and would need a waiver to go over 200%).

Another reason this is a disingenuous argument for Republicans to make - BUSH’s HHS approved the Jersey waiver. So he was for covering up to 350% until he was against it (ie until he could use it as a political weapon).
…
If New York’s petition earlier this year had been approved, then they too could have gone above the 300% threshold. However, it wasn’t.

Ironically, it was the Bush people who rejected New York’s application. So they absolutely know that the 400% number (82,000) is total b*llsh*t, yet they say it again and again and again. The only way that number could have been real was WITH the approval of GWB.

For the Lee Terry fans, here Kyle Michaelis of NNN offers a response to the 2nd district congressman’s similar lack of honesty about the bills he votes on.

from the San Diego Reader