FA+
Shop
596
Views
Views
14
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Portraits
Species Vulpine (Other)
Size 256 x 576
File Size 114 kB
Report this content
More from Jaspian
This is a variation of the CHANGE parody (uploaded a couple days ago) to go with the "Jaspian 4 PRezidant" LJ skit (located@: http://jaspian.livejournal.com/ ).
This might be the final installment of the skit, but then again, that's what I said back in November. So no promises - no assurances - but right now I have no plans to continue the skit, despite friends urging me to go on with it. We'll see. I suppose it depends on how much ammunition the Obama Administration gives me to play on.
Even so - those of you who liked the skit, thanks for reading it.
This might be the final installment of the skit, but then again, that's what I said back in November. So no promises - no assurances - but right now I have no plans to continue the skit, despite friends urging me to go on with it. We'll see. I suppose it depends on how much ammunition the Obama Administration gives me to play on.
Even so - those of you who liked the skit, thanks for reading it.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Portraits
Species Vulpine (Other)
Size 256 x 576px
File Size 114 kB
tehe, cute and hilarious.
I like Obama and his idealism
I think he wants to do go(as least more then any other politician)
but I think you hit on one of the few things to really pick on him about
(aside from the usual racist or [insert name of president here] jokes)
Go You!
as for it being similar to communist posters
well...ya
Communist Russia kept a lot of people in line at once
even the namesake come from the word community.
something about the artwork they used supports the idea of one people
as opposed to more american artwork, which idealizes the individual.
With america pretty pissed off over the sate of things, I am not supprised that we feel that draw towards community.
Thus, that old communist style of art has a draw.
As for the vague messages.
We all have something we want changed
or something we are hoping for.
The problem is that we all want something different.
Just in my D&D group for instance, I have one guy hoping for gay marrage
and another wanting the change of abortion being illegal.
(Those two do not get along politically)
The vague messages had potential for anyone to get behind,
and they fit Obama, I think.
Like you said, he is not a very strong president.
As such, his message is not concrete
for it may be changed by the people.
Honestly, ya
we got sold by the newest ad
but that isn't a bad thing.
most of the people are not right most of the time.
That is why we, the american people, are so suspetable to advertisements.
Fortunatly, I think we got sold on something good thing time.
Now, here is something I would liek your opinion on.
He may not be a very strong president
but I hear he is wailing into BP.
good, bad?
just, unjust?
I like Obama and his idealism
I think he wants to do go(as least more then any other politician)
but I think you hit on one of the few things to really pick on him about
(aside from the usual racist or [insert name of president here] jokes)
Go You!
as for it being similar to communist posters
well...ya
Communist Russia kept a lot of people in line at once
even the namesake come from the word community.
something about the artwork they used supports the idea of one people
as opposed to more american artwork, which idealizes the individual.
With america pretty pissed off over the sate of things, I am not supprised that we feel that draw towards community.
Thus, that old communist style of art has a draw.
As for the vague messages.
We all have something we want changed
or something we are hoping for.
The problem is that we all want something different.
Just in my D&D group for instance, I have one guy hoping for gay marrage
and another wanting the change of abortion being illegal.
(Those two do not get along politically)
The vague messages had potential for anyone to get behind,
and they fit Obama, I think.
Like you said, he is not a very strong president.
As such, his message is not concrete
for it may be changed by the people.
Honestly, ya
we got sold by the newest ad
but that isn't a bad thing.
most of the people are not right most of the time.
That is why we, the american people, are so suspetable to advertisements.
Fortunatly, I think we got sold on something good thing time.
Now, here is something I would liek your opinion on.
He may not be a very strong president
but I hear he is wailing into BP.
good, bad?
just, unjust?
I've actually been very disappointed by Obama. I thought he was going to be more moderate. It seems like every new president wins by promising to be more centrist and making the other guy out to be fringe, but as soon as they get elected, they take off for their own fringe. The country gets mad, support gathers (in today's case: the Tea Party) who will probably win the legislature back this year, and WHOOSH. Now we're going back to the other fringe.
It seems to me that its far too easy to pass laws. If we always needed 67%, and if state legislatures could veto, we wouldn't have this pendulum thing. More moderates would be elected, and we wouldn't get "the worst of both worlds".
I think that selling a president like selling cologne or laptop computers is tragic. Its not Obama's fault. He was smart enough to realize how shallow and malleable the American public has become. We should be more concerned with the issues than flashy logos and slogans.
I'm also extremely individualistic. I don't like this communal identity stuff. I think its dangerous. When we begin to think of communities rather than individuals, we justify violating individual's rights for the sake of the community. In an individualist society, for example, a man cannot be put to death unless he's done something so wrong that death is an appropriate punishment. In a communal society, a man can be put to death as long as its "for the good of the people" - even if he's never broken a law.
BP is a complex issue. I think the people who're blaming Obama for it are a little ridiculous. However, I do believe it's the government's fault, but long before Obama took over. Deep sea oil is risky, and so in the late 80's, early 90's, the government passed a bunch of pro-drilling laws including one that capped the liability of deep sea drillers in order to incentivize oil speculation in the Gulf. It doesn't take a genius to realize that oil drillers are not going to take the same safety precautions if they have capped liability as if they would have to pay for the entire mess themselves if they messed up, without any government aid to bail them out. Furthermore, there's evidence of widespread corruption in the government agencies that perform safety inspections on these rigs, including bribes from BP. It would have been far more appropriate if the government had private inspectors with reputations to protect, so that they could insure the rigs. An insurance company would never have insured a rig without the pressure release wells that would have stopped the blowout, because they'd want to protect their investment.
That's my take.
It seems to me that its far too easy to pass laws. If we always needed 67%, and if state legislatures could veto, we wouldn't have this pendulum thing. More moderates would be elected, and we wouldn't get "the worst of both worlds".
I think that selling a president like selling cologne or laptop computers is tragic. Its not Obama's fault. He was smart enough to realize how shallow and malleable the American public has become. We should be more concerned with the issues than flashy logos and slogans.
I'm also extremely individualistic. I don't like this communal identity stuff. I think its dangerous. When we begin to think of communities rather than individuals, we justify violating individual's rights for the sake of the community. In an individualist society, for example, a man cannot be put to death unless he's done something so wrong that death is an appropriate punishment. In a communal society, a man can be put to death as long as its "for the good of the people" - even if he's never broken a law.
BP is a complex issue. I think the people who're blaming Obama for it are a little ridiculous. However, I do believe it's the government's fault, but long before Obama took over. Deep sea oil is risky, and so in the late 80's, early 90's, the government passed a bunch of pro-drilling laws including one that capped the liability of deep sea drillers in order to incentivize oil speculation in the Gulf. It doesn't take a genius to realize that oil drillers are not going to take the same safety precautions if they have capped liability as if they would have to pay for the entire mess themselves if they messed up, without any government aid to bail them out. Furthermore, there's evidence of widespread corruption in the government agencies that perform safety inspections on these rigs, including bribes from BP. It would have been far more appropriate if the government had private inspectors with reputations to protect, so that they could insure the rigs. An insurance company would never have insured a rig without the pressure release wells that would have stopped the blowout, because they'd want to protect their investment.
That's my take.
Comments