Losttoy

[Greg Stephens]

The fact is that atheists do not go around trying to impose their beliefs on people...

Well... Some do. The thing is that there are a smaller percentage of them and they have less to be vocal about.

Somebody once told me that the only reason we even have "Under God" in the pledge is that they added it to add on to anti-communist sentiment (since commies were all about some atheism and us red blooded Americans believe in God). Has anybody else heard this?
-Casey

Yup, I've heard that, especially recently. Though I'm finding it hard to find documentation that backs up that claim (and not having been born at the time "under God" was added to the pledge), the fact that it was added in 1954 seems to bear this out. One short history is here: http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm

And another short history is here: http://www.legion.org/our_flag/of_pledgehist_flag.htm

[InkAddict]

Maybe I'm overstepping my boundaries here, but I'm just curious as to what religion most of the people on this board consider themselves. Remember, atheism is a religion too!

To add to the discussion (and the confusion....heh heh) :

I myself am a sceptic agnostic and a practicing atheist at the same time:

I try not to believe in anything (i.e. being sceptic), and admit the fact I cannot know anything for sure (being an agnostic), but at the meantime I don't believe in God as the holy books/people are telling us, and consider the idea "GOD" as created before ever someone thought about causality, moral dilemma, and creating principle, words used by modern theologists to prove "God" in new ways, because the old ways have proven faulty.

I see no reason why anyone should believe in God, but everybody is free to do so (it even fascinates me).

Trouble is: God isn't just "belief": it's also (and mainly) a moral system, saying "I'm right" and you don't have to argue about it.

Whenever GOD is used in a non-religious context, people are asked to make MORAL decisions spelled out to them by others.

When a person pledges on the Bible, it IS morally wrong, because that same Bible could mean different things to that person, as in... "Priests can't be wrong and should be protected", or "God is white and hates niggers so this guy should burn in hell!"


Strict seperation between state and religion are also necessary because of the danger of getting discussions with purely religious arguments.

Things like "It's in the book", or "God meant it this way", can be very dangerous, because there are a lot of books around and even more Gods (or interpretations of Gods).

Trouble is... a religion doesn't start out saying "There is a God", ... it starts with "I'm telling the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth,...... so help me God".

Belief is accepting things without ANY proof, wether it's a moral system or an imagery of an afterlife.

That's why many atheists make me feel uneasy: they have often chosen for atheism because they hate religion or are disappointed by it. Few choose atheism because of the above reasoning.
Also some people DON'T believe with the same blind faith as believers BELIEVE (makes me think of a "morality" teacher, the atheist equivalent of religious class, who would hark at the mere "suggestion" that God might simply be too complex for our logic and understanding, a little like quantum physics to a guy like Newton. This teacher REALLY made me think about how stupid anyone can be to simply say God doesn't exist ... I prefer to say I see no need to believe in His existence, as I don't need to believe in blue martians.... maybe they're all green or pink, I just don't know and am happy in my life... I do believe Aliens exist though but....wow... I'm drifting again)
What scares me more is the fact that most people DON'T know such a bunch about their own religion. Who, practicing or believing, has read all Holy books used by their religion, knowing what is in it, who has written what parts, and STILL considers everything in it valuable.






Let me tell you, the part about burning the worshippers of Baal (a Mesopotamian fertility God) in its own Temple (children and wives too) after luring everyone inside for a "celebration" isn't a thing to find a consistent and helpful message in.


I hope everyone will eventually become an atheist, not because of disappointment or hate, but simply because it seems the LOGICAL and BEST way of viewing life and the universe,...


But of course, I am also an utopist

[Greg Stephens]

Trouble is... a religion doesn't start out saying "There is a God", ... it starts with "I'm telling the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth,...... so help me God".

I don't think this is quite accurate. Religion starts with suggesting, recommending, maybe even dictating behaviour based on the supposition of the existance of a deity or deities.

An interesting viewpoint on all of this can be found in a speech that Douglas Adams, an athiest and a highly logical thinking man, gave, which sort of reached this point:

So, my argument is that as we become more and more scientifically literate, it?s worth remembering that the fictions with which we previously populated our world may have some function that it?s worth trying to understand and preserve the essential components of, rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water; because even though we may not accept the reasons given for them being here in the first place, it may well be that there are good practical reasons for them, or something like them, to be there.

The rest of this speech is highly recommended (by me) an you can find it both online and in dead-tree format in The Salmon of Doubt.

[Alexander D.]

One of the biggest problems with religious morality is that the reasons behind the moralisms are obscure or non-existent. And some will say, "You don't need logic, you just need to know that God said so," but the problem with this is that even in a historical context, it's just not true. Most religious morals, at their inception, had logical motivations and useful purposes. But over the centuries, these purposes have been lost or misconstrued, frequently to the extent that the moral isn't even accomplishing what it was intended to accomplish -- and therefore has nothing to do with the religion it's a part of.

Here are a few that I've heard of, or reasoned out myself. I'm not an expert, I can't attest to the absolute veracity of these. But they make sense, and even if these in particular are inaccurate, they still illustrate the point.

The Christian ban on premarital sex -- this really served two purposes. First off, women were considered property, and that property was more valuable if it was virgin. Essentially, the ban was a way for a father to protect his investment. Secondly, it actually served as a sort of protection from women -- protection from being stuck with bastard children, which could easily ruin a woman's entire future in those days, especially since it was far less likely for the father to stick around, or even care. So is this moral still relevant today? Well, women are no longer property, nor is virginity such a valuable asset -- so it's irrelevant on that count. And with reliable birth control readily available, pregnancy doesn't need to be a concern either. So this moral no longer serves the function it was meant to, so it's no longer necessary.

Judaic dietary restrictions -- as I understand it, many of these rules actually related to nutrition and food rationing. The ban on eating meat and cheese together, for instance, was a way to encourage people to stagger their protein consumption. These were rules that were developed during times of famine, and were meant to help people get through such times. That is certainly not a concern now, and there are far more effective ways of acheiving good nutrition. On the other hand, the requirement that meat be Kosher -- this involves assuring that the animal itself is killed in the most humane way possible, so as to minimize its suffering. This part of the morality is certainly just as valid today as it was in times past.

The Hindu ban on eating beef -- Cows are considered holy animals, and so it is inappropriate to eat them. But why are cows considered holy? Historically, beef was perfectly permissable -- in fact, they were such an important source of food that they came to be considered a divine gift, ie. "holy." Eventually it became taboo to eat them, specifically because they're holy. Problem is, the only reason their holy is because of their value as a food source! If they're not being used for food, then there's nothing holy about them, as per the ancient context of the tradition.

My point, of course, is that if you're going to embrace a religious morality, it's important to understand the origins of that morality, so that your behavior truly is in keeping with the intent of the rules, and not just the letter. This is ESPECIALLY important if you truly believe these rules to come directly from God. After all, what good is it to follow the letter of the law if the letter of the law doesn't actually reflect God's will?

[InkAddict]

I gree with Douglas Adams, but even if some good things are to be kept from religion (and religious ideas and morality), I prefer to reconsider EVERYTHING and build my own values from scratch. Most of them are changing every day. I find that I'm less biased than I was before, and feel this to be partly because I have accepted emotional bias.


I don't like to kill people because it reminds me too much of killing people close to me (parents etc...).

Otherwise why bother?

Thisfeeling of recognition though, once embraced and not killed or obscured by prefab morality or laws, will make it less difficult to respect other beliefs, races, opinions, and even animals.


... without losing my appetite for criticism, since I'm doing it all the time!


As to religious laws with a sound basis...

Circumcision (Jewish, Islamitic and even Early Christian), is an easy way of keeping clean willies in places with a lot of dust and sand, and not enough water to wash yourself in.

In some Jewish book, (I believe the Torah itself) The only children not having to be circumcised, are the ones whose uncle on his mother's side, has bled a lot during circumcision. Thus they show they have a fair grasp of mendellian genetics (or at least a fair grasp of observational genetics) as the hemophiliac gene (which means your blood will keep on running once you cut yourself) is passed on on the mother's side.

Meat and dairy seperated at all times, is because of some bacteria, present in milk, who can rapidly poison the meat (or the other way round... )... or it's a parasite, I can't remember anymore.

... I had a website somewhere where a dude explained away ALL relgious precepts... well...

TO GET BACK TO COMICS...

Does anyone find religion in comics offensive and over the top, or should more religiously inspired work be written/drawn?

[Greg Stephens]

TO GET BACK TO COMICS...

Does anyone find religion in comics offensive and over the top, or should more religiously inspired work be written/drawn?

Religion in comics can be done poorly or done well (though those value judgements are my own).

[losttoy]

Straying only slightly away from religion, I have posted a neweditorial cartoon. Since there was no discussion over my non-polictical comics, I guess we will just have to talk about this. What do you think of my new comic? What do you think about the war in the Middle East? Do you agree or disagree? Do you prefer my gag-a-day comics over my editorial one (or vice a versa)? Have visited my site more than once? Will you go again? Does your opinion on the Israeli occupation (or the previous comic about George W. Bush) effect your decision whether you will visit my site in the future? Do you have a online comic and would like to trade links? Or are you tired of me posting here trying in a pathetic attempt for people to read my comic?

[Rip Tanion]

Get out of politics, Losttoy, and stick to drawing funny vegetables. You are just way too naive. You don't seem to understand what it's really all about. You views are way too simplistic.

First off, you show me one war that didn't involve civilian casuaties. You can't. War is messy buisness. War is hell.

Second, Israeli civilians are being killed almost every day by Palestinian civilians turned suicide bombers. Besides, when you indoctrinate an entire population to become cowardly terrorrists, or "martyrs" as they like to call themselves, including the women and children, there is no such thing as "innocent civilians." Besides, these brainwashed children will only grow up to be terrorrists themselves, and the women will only give birth to more of these murderous cowards.

Yes, cowards. What else would you call it, when grown men with AK-47s, stand behind teenage boys (aka human sheilds), and command them to throw rocks at armed soldiers? But then, cowardice seems to be an Arabic trait. They can't beat the Israelis in a REAL war, so they turn to bombing people in cafes and restaurants.

These so called Palestinians are not interested in peace. Israel has tried to make peace in recent years, offering to give back the West Bank, and other lands, which Israel gained in wars which were started by the other Arab nations. They don't care about having their own home land. Instead, they are dedicated to the destuction of Israel, and the extinction of the Jewish people.

Israel is fighting for its very existance. I would hope, if we, in America, were faced with a similar dillema, that we would fight back anyway possible, and not lay down and die. And why, you may ask, has the United States supported Israel all these years? The answer is simple. Israel is a democracy, the ONLY one in the middle-east. And the United States, through out it's history, has traditionally suppoted democratic governments. A Palistinian state under Arafat, or anyone like him, will NOT be a democracy, but a monarchy or dictatorship, just like every other Arab state.

[Merlin]

I can't really see how Losttoy's cartoon is anymore naive in its views than Rip's post. In fact, Losttoy's cartoon reads to me like a pretty accurate summation of Israel's official stance on their internationally condemned attack.

Also, Losttoy didn't write this:

there is no such thing as "innocent civilians." Besides, these brainwashed children will only grow up to be terrorists themselves, and the women will only give birth to more of these murderous cowards.

So he gets points from me for not being ABSOLUTELY FUCKING INSANE.

I mean, for fuck sake!

[zerofoks]

And the United States, through out it's history, has traditionally suppoted democratic governments.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahaHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
*SNORT*

no, seriously. sorry to bust in this meaningless "controversy", but that's a lie. an outrageous one.

[losttoy]

First off, you show me one war that didn't involve civilian casuaties. You can't. War is messy buisness. War is hell.

I'm not going to disagree with that. However there are ways to make it less messy and follow Geneva Convention rules. I understand Israeli powers wanting to get Hamas out of the picture. Let's put aside the morality of political assasinations (something that the U.S. long decided was immoral), and say there are better ways to kill a target then taking a fighter jet and missle attack a residental compound. It's like if somebody decided to nuke your apartment building because your neighbor was a theif (okay, an imbalanced analogy, but you get the point). You can attack their office/base/training ground/whatever, but killing 14 people and injuring 126 people because they were neighbor to somebody which they consider bad is just insane. Why don't we all just forget the court systems, the Israeli armies have decided to be judge, jury, and executioner of anybody they see as a threat. Do you not find this kind of justive a little extreme. Peace does not come at the end of a missle. If you kill the military leader of Hamas, do you think there will be no retaliation? I do not care who started it, but the cycle won't stop with these methods. Hamas attacks Israel, Israel attacks Palastine. The difference is that Hamas is not an offical political group in Palastine, nor does it have any power in it's government. Not all Palastinians are even muslems. It is a rouge group. When they attack, they are are trying to defend their homeland because their government can not. The problem is that when Israel attacks it is not a rouge group, it is an offical state sponsored military action. The UN has constantly condemned the actions of Israel and continue to do so. Yet Israel continues to ocupy Palatinian territory, care out political assasignations, destroy residential buildings with tanks and fighter jets, missle attack Palastinian police and jails so that they can not arrest and process extreme groups, surround Arafat's compound with tanks (what would you do if another country invaded the US and surounded the White House with tanks?), and commited several war crimes. I am not saying the rouge Palastinian extreme groups are not at fault too. They are. But one suicide bomber does not justive the military action that Israel has made. The problem is that you are blind ... why do you think people are commiting suicide in the first place? They are fighting injustice and opression at their extremes.

Second, Israeli civilians are being killed almost every day by Palestinian civilians turned suicide bombers. Besides, when you indoctrinate an entire population to become cowardly terrorrists, or "martyrs" as they like to call themselves, including the women and children, there is no such thing as "innocent civilians." Besides, these brainwashed children will only grow up to be terrorrists themselves, and the women will only give birth to more of these murderous cowards.

I just got to say, "sick" (or perhaps "sic", latin for incorrect). It really sounds like you are brainwashed by all the propaganda the counries are putting out instead of searching out the facts. Not every day is a suicide bomber, however it seems if you read the news (try either NPR or BBC News, they seem to be less biased) there is another 14 year old boy being shot in Palastine. Not everybody in Palastine even support groups like Hamas. In fact about two weeks ago there was a full page ad in the papers from the leading Palastinian scholars condeming the suicide bombers. It sounds like you are the type to support racial profiling. Why don't we kill all the Japanese or put them into interment camps just because of Pearl Harbor. This kind of broad generalization is sick, rasist, and very narrow minded. Stereotyping is a form of propaganda. It is the way Israel has gone out of the way to make all Palastinians look like monsters. America did it to their enemies in WWII with posters of apes and asians in very rasists protrayals. Let me tell you, it was ugly, but if you believe the propaganda you might as well be brain washed.
Did you once ask your self why these Palastinians are commiting suicide bombings? They are dying for a cause, but that is pointless if you ignore what they are saying. I am not trying to justive what they are doing. I do not even agree with suicide bombings. I think it is counter productive. It gives the Israeli armies more excuses to kill and occupy Palastinian teritory. But I can understand why they are fighting. Understand your enemy first before you go to war.

Yes, cowards. What else would you call it, when grown men with AK-47s, stand behind teenage boys (aka human sheilds), and command them to throw rocks at armed soldiers? But then, cowardice seems to be an Arabic trait. They can't beat the Israelis in a REAL war, so they turn to bombing people in cafes and restaurants.

No matter what you say, I think there is a big difference between civilians throwing rocks and the Israeli army making missle attacks. I do not think Arabs are cowards at all. It takes balls to even leave your house to try to get food with Israeli soldiers walking through the streets. You can be killed just for being in the wrong place. I think it is cowardness to not let internation aid into Palastine. I think it is cowardness when Israeli armies attack ambulances or just refuse them to reach injured. I think it is cowardness to sit in a jet plane and fire off missles and never see your enemy face to face.

These so called Palestinians are not interested in peace. Israel has tried to make peace in recent years, offering to give back the West Bank, and other lands, which Israel gained in wars which were started by the other Arab nations. They don't care about having their own home land. Instead, they are dedicated to the destuction of Israel, and the extinction of the Jewish people.

Peace does not come at the end of a missle. The Israel are not interested in peace. I think you are confused ... Palastinians are not Nazi's. The roles are reversed. Israel is occupying Palastinian territory and killing innocent people because of their religion. Sounds like when Germany occupied Poland and killed innocent people because of their religion. What is the difference?

Israel is fighting for its very existance. I would hope, if we, in America, were faced with a similar dillema, that we would fight back anyway possible, and not lay down and die. And why, you may ask, has the United States supported Israel all these years? The answer is simple. Israel is a democracy, the ONLY one in the middle-east. And the United States, through out it's history, has traditionally suppoted democratic governments. A Palistinian state under Arafat, or anyone like him, will NOT be a democracy, but a monarchy or dictatorship, just like every other Arab state.

Israeli is fighting for existance in Palastinian territory. For every 1 Israeli killed, there are about 20 Palastinians being killed (give or take). Do some research ... You will also find that you also have a major fault is your statement. Arafat is an elected offical. There is a democratacy in Palastine that Israel and America are refusing to aknowledge. You have things very wrong and if you actualy cared to search the facts you would see that you are wrong. You are making statements without knowledge of the situation. This is just ignorance. Why don't you look in a history book or actually read the reports coming out of the Middle East?

Regardless of your ignorant/propagada biased opinion about the war in the Middle East. Here are the facts. There was 140 injuries and or deaths in a missle attack from Israeli military action. Websters defines "terrorism" as:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

What is the difference between the terrorism of the suicide bombers and the death of over a hundred innocent in Israeli state sponsored military missle attacks on a residental compound? There is there rules for international war crimes and they are being ignored.

Get out of politics, Losttoy, and stick to drawing funny vegetables. You are just way too naive. You don't seem to understand what it's really all about. You views are way too simplistic.

You do not have to agree with me, just get your facts straight before you call somebody naive. Frankly being ignorant and rasist seems the simplistic veiw, because you don't actualy have to base your statements on facts.

[losttoy]

It took me a long time to type that large responce, that I guess the system logged me off and posted my reply as Anonymous (Greg anyway to fix that or at least edit the author?). I made that last post.

[Greg Stephens]

It took me a long time to type that large responce, that I guess the system logged me off and posted my reply as Anonymous (Greg anyway to fix that or at least edit the author?). I made that last post.

I've fixed the ID on that post so you should be able to edit it now if you want to correct anything. For everybody's general knowledge with regard to the session length, it's set for 60 minutes, so if you do take a very long time to write up a post, you may find that you've been logged out by the time you post.

As I said above in this thread, I don't think that political cartoons can help but be simplistic and often even biased in their views. The Israel/Palestine (Conflict? Disagreement? Hostilities?) situation has been going on for a Very Long Time and I don't think that any single panel comic can present a very objective view at this point.

To get back to comics and your request for critique, my personal bias is toward comics that are more highly rendered than some of what you've done. You have a good grasp of coloring, and on the previous political comic you pointed to ("Under GOD"), the coloring made up for the shortcomings of the linework (but the G. W. Bush monkey face is great). The current panel doesn't seem to have the same balance: Sharon is nicely done, but the soldiers are indistinct and there seems to be a lot of empty space. Based on this, I would advise: Pay attention to and tighten up your composition (including dialog placement, which is a fundamental part of composition with regard to comics) and while you work on your drawing skills (a slow process, always), keep the coloring as strong as it is now and maybe even do some experimentation with that.

In some of your multi-panel comics (people may have missed this one), the compositions are better and (probably because the individual panels are smaller) the drawing seems tighter. I think that you're stronger as an artist in this format. I'm also more interested in those strips than in the political ones, but that might just be me.

[Rip Tanion]

Well it seems I've stirred the pot again. Of course, if you're going to do a political cartoon, you better be prepared to back it up. Losttoy, to his credit has explained his position a bit better here than he does in his simplistic cartoon, though I TOTALLY disagree with him, and think he is DEAD WRONG.

I must admit my words may have been a bit harsh, and were an immediate reaction to a cartoon which offended my political sensibilites, but I stand by my words none the less. The Palestinian claim to Israel is faulty at best. First of all, the name Palestine is a European word for that region of the middle-east. They are actually Bedouins, a nomadic, goat herding people, who enchroached upon the land (which was now occupied by the Ottoman Turks, originally from central Asia) only in recent times, and never buit a thing there. The Jews lived on that land for two-thousands years before their home-land was destroyed by the butchery Rome (c.100AD), and they were scatted all over the world. This was followed by centuries of persecution, mainly from Europeans. The Nazi Holocaust (Nazi Germany was a state which incedently modeled it-self in many ways after Imperial Rome) was the last straw, and filled European Jews with the resolve to return to their homeland.

This movement back to Israel actually began before the Nazi's even took power, but that's because anti-semitism was rampant in Europe even then, especially in Tsarist Russia, where Jews were frequently killed in state sponsored riots known as pogroms. Many Jews from Eastern Europe at that time, such as my ancestors, came to America to escape persecution, and I thank God every day they did. Personally, I'd much rather live in the good ol' USA than in Israel. However, I sympathise with what the Israeli's are going through, and support their right to exist, and to self-preservation.

When the Jews returned, they actually DID something with that land. They built towns out of the widerness. They planted crops where nothing grew before. On that basis alone they have shown they have a solid claim to the land. And isn't funny, how in the the comparitively huge land area of the Arab world, they are all upset about this one skinny strip of land? The Arab world could have taken the Palestinians into their own countries years ago, but decided not to, because they would rather have an excuse to kill Jews. The Israeli's have tried to live in peace with their neighbors, but constant attacks from the Arab world have forced them into a militaristic, and sometimes paranoid stance.

And let's remember, the Israelis are fighting against the same Jihad mentallity that led to 9-11. Remember the Palestinians jumping for joy when the WTC fell? These people don't just hate Jews, they hate the entire western world, and all the freedoms we enjoy. They are the enemies of freedom and sanity.

I could go on forever about this, but Greg is right, this ain't the place for it. However, Losttoy did ask for opinions on his cartoon, and I gave it to him.

Meanwhile, if REALLY want to know what's going on check out these articles...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 7328460526
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 7328460594
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 7328460511

And finally, one story. A friend of mine worked once with an Arab at a hotel in Manhattan. It was 1995, when the Braves played the Indians in the World Series, and there was a great debate about Native-American team names and mascots. The Arab co-worker asked my friend what all the hub-bub in the news was about, and my friend explained the controversy to him; afterwhich the Arab co-worker replied, "FUCK THEM, [the American Indians] are lucky to be alive!" That's Arab mercy for you.

[Greg Stephens]

I could go on forever about this, but Greg is right, this ain't the place for it. However, Losttoy did ask for opinions on his cartoon, and I gave it to him.

Well, this may be the Reinventing Comics forum, but open and reasoned discussion on any topic is certainly welcome and with that in mind, I'm glad that you decided to follow up on your earlier post with this one, which both clarifies your viewpoint and reads as a more reasoned stance.

And since I am far from educated on the full nature of the Israel/Pasestine situation (other than to know that it's really very complex and defies simple answers beyond "Stop killing each other, for Heaven's sake!") and Losttoy did ask a couple times for opinions on the comic itself rather than the subject of the comics, I thought I would take up that slack.

[Merlin]

That's Arab mercy for you

No, that's an incidental story about a guy who knew a guy. But hey, you say tomato, I say shoddy racist bollocks.

Lets call the whole thing off.

[InkAddict]

Rip Tanion, I have t say you are generalising waaaay too much.

LostToy, you should tell longer stories. The things you need to tell are deeper than a one-image gag could justify.

I have to say this, though: "Arabs" and Islam are cultures and religions as wide as "western" and Christian.

Did you see Waco? Do you remember how Jesus preached compassion and tolerance (towards prostitutes and towards those that didn't follow orders blindly)

I myself am an atheist, but try to remember that there is NO such thing as "AN arab". It's always one particular Arab doing things.

Rip, try to open up your horizon. You remind me of what people said about Jews in the 1930's in Europe, and what Americans said about the blacks in the 1940's and about the communists (socialists, left-wingers, progressive thinkers,...) in the 1950's.

[thrdgll]

Rip, Rip, Rip....

You're not really buying this "enemies of freedom" crap, are you? These are conclusions that might make us feel cozy and comfortable that we understand something complex on such simplistic terms, but let's not forget that under every missile, beside every suicide bomber, is someone who didn't give a rat's ass about religious or national idealogy.

Without a resistence to stereotypical thinking, we might as well bomb Alabama because Klansmen live there.

It might give us migrines trying to consider that the world is populated with individuals with free wills, but if we don't consider this at every turn, THEN THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON!!!!!

Lostoy, keep using your cartoons to express whatever you need to express. Feedback is nice, but don't let it rule your decisions as an artist. Keep doing what you're doing and you'll get better and better at being yourself.

Ashley
www.thrdgll.com

[losttoy]

ugh! I am having the hardest truoble posting ... this is David "Losttoy" Ano
let's try this again

First off replies:

To get back to comics and your request for critique, my personal bias is toward comics that are more highly rendered than some of what you've done. You have a good grasp of coloring, and on the previous political comic you pointed to ("Under GOD"), the coloring made up for the shortcomings of the linework (but the G. W. Bush monkey face is great). The current panel doesn't seem to have the same balance: Sharon is nicely done, but the soldiers are indistinct and there seems to be a lot of empty space. Based on this, I would advise: Pay attention to and tighten up your composition (including dialog placement, which is a fundamental part of composition with regard to comics) and while you work on your drawing skills (a slow process, always), keep the coloring as strong as it is now and maybe even do some experimentation with that. In some of your multi-panel comics (people may have missed this one ), the compositions are better and (probably because the individual panels are smaller) the drawing seems tighter. I think that you're stronger as an artist in this format. I'm also more interested in those strips than in the political ones, but that might just be me.

The reason why this comic looked junkier then others I have done is because it was rushed. I do most of my comics between assignments at work. With regular comics I have taken time to consider angles and layout before even starting to draw it. This comic is a current event comic and I knew with the situation in the Middle East, any event is quite literaly yesterday's news. I wanted to get it out before the next event happened and over-shadowed what I wanted to say. The previous fire/alarm comic was done in three days. I believe the outcome was better, but still could use some improving. The line work on the Bush comic was done in pen and ink at home. I haven't inked using a crow quil pen for a long time. The Sharon comic was done all in photoshop and I was not very happy with the solders as well. It is true my art shines better in multi-paneled comics with less contraversy, but I like having my voice in political comics (although it seems to be a too simplistic format). I am not sure which direction I will take the comic in the future, but it curtianly fun. Thanks very much for the fed back! I will definately take note of your opinions.

LostToy, you should tell longer stories. The things you need to tell are deeper than a one-image gag could justify.

Thanks. I am begining to think you are right.

Lostoy, keep using your cartoons to express whatever you need to express. Feedback is nice, but don't let it rule your decisions as an artist. Keep doing what you're doing and you'll get better and better at being yourself.

Thanks.


I have already replied once to Rip and for everybody sake, i will not continue the debate. However here are my last comments:

The last report I heard was 15 dead, 9 nine of which were children. I would like to point out these were not kids throwing rocks, but residents inside their own home. The BBC reported that Palastinians are seeking United Nations for international protection. It looks like the UN might grant their request (no word yet, though). No matter which side you are on, or Israeli or Palastinian, these questions have to be asked:

Did Israeli leaders know they were going to bomb a crowded civilian area? If yes, then why did they go ahead with the attack? If no, then why did their intelligence fail them?

Personaly from reading the news, Sharon declared it a victory and has not apologized or even sound regretfull that that many innocent people were killed or injuried. My position is that Israeli's should get out of Palastine. The circlular logic that is going on does not work. They are in Palastinian territory to "police" the suicide bombings, but the the suicide bombings are happening because they are in Palastinian territory. The answer to me sound simple. By the way, this idea of Arabs being evil is just horrible. Most Muslems believe that suicide is against their religion and is unholy. The people that are making these attacks are extremists and should not be considered as representitives of a whole country, religion, of region of people. There are also plenty of non-Arabs in Palatinian territory that are getting opressed too just because they are there.

[Guest]

I am building a links page on my web comic site. Anybody want to trade links to help cross-site traffic?

[zerofoks]

*raises hand*


but I think that subject deserves an own thread.

[losttoy]

Still working on my Links page and seeing if there are any more people interested in trading links. Any takers?

I have also drawn two comics since that one editorial comic that got everybody talking. Odd how I get no replies when I draw simple gag comics. They may be more PC, but at least I get a response.

[Kris Lachowski]

Well this is like two years late and really not very much on topic with the supposed subject of this thread, but reading this big long discusion about Isreal and the Palestinians and Rips view point and people argueing and blah blah blah, I can't help but be remindined of Adolf by Osamu Tezuka. I can't honestly claim to know enough about the conflict in Isreal to judge how logical a point Tezuka makes in the last book of Adolf about the similarities of Jews in current Isreal to the Nazis in Hitler's Germany, but I do know he makes quite a convincing emotional arguement on the subject.

[losttoy]

Wow. Yes it has been subject from a long time ago, but it is an honor to be compaired with Osamu Tezuka one way or another, although I have never read Adolf. I do wish I could capture the feeling of Palastine better than what I have done in those crappy comics I did way ago.

I am also impressed that somebody is actualy reading my stuff after all this time. Thanks for reading.