Here I come a politic-ing so fair to be seen…

This morning my wife, Karin, was reading in Judges and found the name "Barack" means "thunder bolt".

"How delightful!" I mused as I was getting in the bath, "thunder bolts are Brief, Noisy, and Cause a lot of Damage."

Karin called my Dad on the phone and told him what I'd just said. Dad said, "Put it on the news and let it go around the world!" (Probably the most positive affirmation I've gotten from Dad in a month or so).

Now, this isn't to say that I'm going to be down on Mr. Obama. He's in a tough position. Everyone who has ever been President of the United States will always be next in line to be "worst President EVER". And by the time he leaves office, he too will have been (at least in some people's minds) the worst ever. Even George Washington faced this (it's true).

When one is elected President they are actually being elected official scape goat. Not a job I'd want.

And Mr. Obama is already facing criticism from both sides about nearly everything he's been doing during his transition. Some of it has even come from me.

But, as a gesture, I'd like to extend a Merry Christmas to the President Elect. And I'd also like to ask him (if he reads this) to tell his staff to quit emailing me (see last post).

Voters against Spam!

When I began this blog, I intentionally stayed away from the topic of politics, and while I don't intend that this blog should become the typical "I'm right and you're wrong" political mish-mash--I'm going to tell anyone reading this a couple of things.

One: Early in the summer I was asked if I would care to send both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama a note about what I thought were important issues they should address in their respective campaigns. Being a Christian in more than just name, I felt that it was my duty to do so, in hopes that either or both might take these things to heart.

A week or so later I began receiving e-mails from Mr. Obama's campaign asking for contributions. I got no confirmation that he'd even read any of what I'd written to him either by personal e-mail nor by his public statements about what he stands for.

I began by simply discarding the e-mails as they came. A minor annoyance as they came perhaps one or two a week. Then they went to daily. Then twice daily! I began pressing "report spam".

But apparently AOL will not honor "report spam" on politicians (at least not liberal politicians).

So after months of this abuse of my inbox, I decided to actually look at one of Mr. Obama's e-mails. Nothing of a great shock therein, his usual vague statements about "change".

Well, I've got "change" from Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Obama! I used to get dollars, now all I get is change. I don't need any more of that kind of change.

Anyway, I found an "unsubscribe" button in the e-mail and went there to unsubscribe. Bearing in mind that I had never "subscribed" to begin with. But when I went to submit my "unsubscribe" there was a video of Mr. Obama that had to be downloaded before it would allow me to submit.

I'm on dial up.

I've tried this approach several times and each time the result is the same. Today I attempted to respond to "info@barackobama.com" and got an automatic reply that said they didn't read letters sent to that address, that I must respond through the website comment page.

So I went there.

Same jazz. A video is downloading and my comment won't go through until it's done.

Does Mr. Obama's campaign think that I'll change my mind if I sit through another one of his vague speeches? "Oh, my! What was I thinking? No, please fill up my inbox with your semi-daily comments about nothing! I can see it all so clearly now!"

During all of this, Mr. McCain's campaign has not cluttered my inbox with letters.

I did get a very nice letter from Elizabeth Dole the other day, asking nicely if I'd mind if she sent me an occasional update on her campaign. "Why, thank you for asking, Mrs. Dole, I think I would like a note or two from you, since I actually plan on supporting your re-election campaign."

Two: This is all pretty silly stuff though, as I figure the race is over already. When Sarah Palin stepped up on the platform, that was it.

Everyone is talking about the lady. Everyone on both sides is talking about her.

Good for her.

I hope when she's President she'll do something about inbox spam.

"Orphan Works" not addressing important issues!

Steve Haynie, treasurer for the Southeast Chapter of the National Cartoonists Societty, just sent this link on the "Orphan Works" legislation that is being discussed in Congress. You'll recall that this was a hot topic in 2006 that got dropped when that Congressional session ended, but it's back.

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html

You may want to look at this testimony from a representative of the Copyright office at length. It's about 20 minutes worth of read (and like most "legalese" may cause mild headache and dizzyness in those of us not accustomed to its use).

While I have to respect that the Copyright office has done some to address concerns about throwing the doors open to copyright abuse that were inherent in the 2006 version of this legislation, the couple of bones they seem to be offering to the "other visual artists" (I have to say I sort of resent being listed as a sub-category of Photographers) don't appear to truly address the issues.

First of all they have allowed for owners of works that are not truly "orphaned" that are "mistakenly" used by another party to be "reasonably compensated". The rate of reasonable compensation appears to be set at $200. While this might be true compensation of some works at this time the Copyright office seems unaware that visual artists usually price their work by applying any number of criteria for the use.

Additionally, this "improvement" has a loophole that you might miss if you don't read carefully. If the "mistaken user" (I didn't notice a lot of use of the term "infringer" in this testimony) removes the offending work from use "quickly" he or she is not liable for that resonable compensation. In other words if some advertiser lifts your work, runs it during the Superbowl, you find out about it and they never run that commercial again, they don't owe you a red cent. At least that's how I read this.

There seems to be a rather Pollyanna-esque view on the part of the Copyright office that nearly all of the people clamoring to use "Orphaned Works" are museums and libraries. I'm not sure, but I suspect that most of us "other visual artists" would not mind if museums and libraries used our works even if we clearly hold copyright…unless it's uncompensated print sales, and things like that. This view ignores the fact that in the past twenty years that advertising agencies have resorted more and more to clip-art rather than hiring illustrators for unique creations. While this has offered them a greater profit margin, it's been rough on those of us trying to sell those illustrations. However, some of us have managed to get our work used in spite of this mentality, while others have adapted and packaged works for use as licensed clip-art.

This legislation seems to open the door to abuse by almost anyone in the advertising field. Offering them the opportunity to A) use any work they happen to see in their own local market hoping that the actual copyright owner will never be aware that their work has been infringed upon, B) that if caught they can hopefully argue that they were unaware that the work was NOT in public domain, and if all other remedies fail they can C) pay a minimal rate arbitrarily established by the Copyright office and not reflecting any of the criteria normally used to negotiate compensation.

In other words, this legislation says to would be art buyers: "Big sale on art today! All pieces just $200 (if you get caught)".

I am also particularly upset by a missing part of what should be inherent in Copyright protection; the right to associate my work with movements, products, or persons that I wish to be associated with. This is the cardinal rule I look at when negotiating any contract. I have never been simply a "gun for hire". I debate long and hard with myself before agreeing to work on any project, no matter what kind of compensation I am offered. By my reading, this legislation in no way addresses that right.

Actual news and some thoughts

I have three (count 'em THREE) comics coming out in 2008 and the year's just begun.

First off, Transfuzion Publications

http://www.transfuzion.biz/

Is releasing "Saint Germaine: Tales of an Immortal" which is already in the January Previews catalog and will hopefully be in a number of regular book stores as well. This TPB collection of the Saint Germaine series (originally published by Caliber) features a good 40 pages of my art, in a story about Casanova.

Second, Azzurn Publishing

http://www.comicartistsdirect.com/index.html (look for the ads center page)

Is releasing "Adam Among the Gods". This book is all my pencils and inks, done in collaboration with my webmaster, Gary Scott Beatty, who also happens to be owner and publisher of Aazurn Publishing. I hope a lot of people will be buying Aazurn books, because then Gary will be able to pay me to do more! Look for Adam in the February Previews.

Third, (an outgrowth of the first event)

Negative Burn

http://www.desperado.lightcubed.com/BOOKS/NegativeBurn.htm

Will be featuring a never before seen Saint Germaine story in the May issue of that anthology. If I understand it correctly it will be a Caliber reunion story. What happened is Gary Reed (not to be confused with any other Garys that I work with) got in touch with Joe Pruett after we worked out the deal for the ST.G TPB. Gary realized that we had another ST.G story that had never been published. Well, what we had was 18 out of 24 pages. Gary talked me into doing the last 6 pages and I just finished that up Friday. I scanned all the pages on Monday and they'll be lettered (in all likelyhood by Nate Pride who did a bang up job on my work at Caliber) and solicited in March.

The interesting thing is that I actually drew the bulk of the story back in 1998, after doing the bulk of the Casanova issue mentioned above. Someone else was supposed to do the framing art, but for one reason or another couldn't complete that assignment. So Gary had me draw some additional pages to "Casanova's Lament" and that was ST.G issue #9. I was set to draw the additional pages of the "new" story when Caliber went out of business. Now ten years later I found myself trying to draw in my old style.

To make things even more interesting, the story is about reuniting people after a long time apart. So life does imitate art!

Look for this "Caliber Reunion" soon.

I hope everyone reading this buys 200 copies of all of these soon to be released books. That would make a huge contribution to paying off some of my bills. Think about it. ;)

More Sunday School (for those who care to read)

This is the Sunday School lesson I taught on Sunday March 11, 2007. I know it's been a while since then, but if you read my last post, I decided to run these here (after the fact) because I've been spending a lot of time doing them and as a consequence have had little time to write a blog. Hopefully they'll be helpful to someone.

James chapter 1: 19-27

• “Mirrors”

James 1: 19 “…my dear brothers…”

As in last week’s lesson, I was tempted to pass over this statement--as if it were a mere pleasantry. James here identifies with all believers in an exceedingly intimate way.

The ironic thing is that I was tempted to pass over that phrase, in spite of the fact that James immediately follows it with “Take note of this: everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak…”

But I wanted to get to the part where I got to speak! Is that human or what?

So let’s go back again.

Last time we discussed James’ radical statement about being a slave of God, slave to Jesus. Here he calls his readers (us) “dear brothers”. Isn’t this like saying, “I’m a slave--you be slaves too” ?

Q: How do we act as slaves?

A: By being “quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry”.

Remember that I said last week that James is sort of self-outlining. He achieves this outline by anticipating his reader’s questions and following up quickly with answers to those unspoken objections.

Q: So why should we be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry?

A: “For man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life God desires”. (vs. 20)

Now if I were listing sins in the order of most grave to least down to most minor I don’t think that

• Not listening
• Speaking too quickly
and
• Anger

would top my list--that is, prior to reading this closely. I do all three of these constantly--and practically consider them virtues at times, not vices. But James lists these three, (perhaps summed up in the term “impatience”) first.

Let’s back up again:

What did James speak of in the previous section? Remember that this letter wasn’t written to be read over several weeks time, it’s all one short letter to Christians, and meant to be taken in close context.

James just told us about Persevering with Joy. Summed up in one word: “Patience”.

vs. 21 “Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you which can save you.”

This is both a practical statement AND a high theological concept.

IF we discard moral filth and humble ourselves we are going to be less frustrated by our selfish desires (remember them?) and consequently NOT be easily angered, NOT be quick to speak, and have the Patience to listen to both God and man.

We need to listen to God--we all know this--and I’ll submit that this is the primary meaning of “listening” that James is speaking of here. But sometimes I wonder if I don’t have a harder time listening to men than God. Which probably means I wasn’t really listening to God in the first place.

Guess what? James anticipates this in…

vs. 22 “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.”

The word here obviously indicates the word of God (the written word, since James says, “Do what IT says”, not , “what HE says”. This should silence any talk of “ongoing scriptural revelation”).

vs. 23 “Anyone who listens to the word and does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.”

I look in the mirror in the morning and I see a man with hair sticking up--I’ve got glop in my eyes, dried drool on my cheek, maybe one of those breath right strips on my nose, I don’t know where my glasses are some days…Karin says it’s cute--but I don’t want to go out in public like that. I want to be prepared if I meet anyone.

I’m pretty sure that this is what James is talking about. We’re disheveled, and we look into the mirror to see what we look like so that we can begin to put things right for the day. And notice that this is a daily thing.

Just so, a Christian looks into the word to get a good look at himself and begin the day’s work of putting things right.

vs. 25 “But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it--he will be blessed in whatever he does.”

We need to look at our “reflection” in the Perfect Law.

Let me digress for a minute. In James’ time, mirrors were highly polished pieces of brass, hardly a perfect reflection. The fact is, even now mirrors are less than great. We think they’re pretty swell, but you’ll notice that there’s some distortion caused by the glass interfering with the silver backing. In fact mirrors used for artistic purposes or photography have the silver on the facing side, otherwise you’ll get a double image.

But James re-affirms the scripture as “The Perfect Law”.
Q: How Perfect is the Law?

A: It can give freedom.

We tend, as humans, to think of law as being restriction. But God’s law isn’t about restricting us, it’s about freeing us to be what we were meant to be.

Let’s give this a context. The speed limit on the bypass is now 60 m.p.h.. Sometimes I am in a rush--okay, MOST of the time I am in a rush, and that speed limit seems like a restriction. But suppose I carelessly exceed that “limit”, get in an accident, and wind up in the hospital or the grave. The “restriction” had the power to keep me out of the hospital or grave, making me free to continue living my life.

God’s law is like that, only much higher. What seems like a restriction here and now opens to a freedom I probably can’t anticipate--especially if I am, what?

• Not Listening
• Busy Talking
and
• Getting Angry about the “injustice of it all”

vs. 26 “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless”.

Have you ever noticed how people with a bunch of bumper stickers aren’t usually too pleasant to be around? The couldn’t sum up their complaint in just one sticker, so they add another and another, until the whole back of their car is one big quilt of vinyl? Do you ever seek out a conversation with these people? Or do you see their car in the parking lot at Ingles or Bi-Lo and think, “be on the lookout for that guy!”

Q: Why do we do avoid the opinionated bumper sticker guy?

A: Because he hasn’t “gotten it off his chest”.

He doesn’t feel better-- he’s in the grocery store somewhere waiting to pounce on the cashier, or the stock boy, or the manager, or you and me!

Of course there’s two problems with this observation:

As soon as I began writing down the “bumper sticker analogy” I thought about my own car. “How many bumper stickers have I got?” I asked myself. “Five, but that’s not so many,” was my answer, “and mine aren’t all opinionated like that other guys!”

So my bumper stickers express no opinion at all? Of course they do!

Let’s see, I’ve got one for Denmark, that’s where Karin’s family comes from. I liked visiting there, although it had it’s problems. That sticker says to the world, “I’ve traveled outside the U.S., so don’t think I’m too provincial.” I’ve got two Route 66 stickers. Those say, “I’m a bit of a traditionalist, and don’t mind driving my car anywhere I want to go.” I’ve got an Apple Computer sticker that says, “I like a computer that doesn’t require programming skills on my part.” And I’ve got a Ron Jon Surf shop sticker that says, “I wish I could surf, or want you to think I can.”

If you count my antenna topper (that would be number six),that says, “I like fast food, and I’ll even eat hot dogs.”

So I guess I’m a loud mouth too.

The second problem (a function of the first) is that I can’t be doing any listening if I don’t even want to meet the guy who I think has “a chip on his shoulder”, and all those bumper stickers.

Remember that James told us to be quick to listen. I think that I need to learn to listen to both God and men.

vs. 27 “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

I should define the word “religion” here. This refers to outward acts of religious devotion. The sad fact is that it’s very easy to appear religious--particularly in the eyes of the world. Dress up, go to church on Sunday, drop something in the plate…if you’re rich or a politician you can throw a fund raiser.

But James tells us we should “look after widows and orphans in their distress”, and then keep ourselves “from being polluted by the world.”

Remember before, James told us to “get rid of all moral filth”, why?

So we can:

• Not be angry
• Not speaking quickly
and so we can be
• Listening

How are we to know about the distress of the widow and orphan if we’re trying to fill ourselves with our selfish desires--failing to do so (which is inevitable), getting angry (as a result of our failure), ranting about how unfair it all is, and not listening?

James seems to be re-affirming the statement Christ made in Matt. 6:3

“But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.”

As humans we want to do our sinning in secret and our religious acts in a big way. But Christianity says, “keep your religious acts to yourself, and confess your sinfulness openly.”

It’s an upside down thing, this faith of ours. Seems to me this mirror we’re looking into is like a fun house mirror--except it’s showing us that we’re the ones that are actually inverted.

While I was making my notes on this, a young boy was in the same hallway talking to his mother, “I want my toys--I want to go home to my toys.” His mother replied, “I want a good boy, who’s going to have a birthday in three days.” “Yeah, but I want my toys!”

This fellow was tired after a long day, and his mother was being exceedingly patient with him (his baby sister was asleep on her shoulder). “We’re going to go home tomorrow and then you can have your toys, AND then you’re going to have a big birthday party too.”

God treats us with great patience. We’re too busy talking to hear him saying, “we’re going home soon, and then it will be better than you can imagine.” “Yeah, but I want this thing right now.” God replies, “I don’t think you should have that thing right now, it’s not the right time.” “Yeah, but I want it anyway.” And so it goes.