Friday, April 21, 2017

It's almost Fan Expo time again

Once again I have secured a table at the Regina Fan Expo (May 6 & 7) where I will be selling my comic book Censor Monkeys Have No Class.  Last year was lots of fun and I hope to have even more fun this year.  By strange and somewhat surreal coincidence, I will be seated at the exact same table that I had last year:

Fax Expo 2016
Fax Expo 2017
Crazy, right?  Well, hey, I consider this a very good turn of events for me.  Since I am already familiar with that particular area of Evraz Place I can use that space more to my advantage (but still stay within the expo's guidelines of course).

One thing not at all the same as last year is the list of celebrity guests who will be there.  This year they are:

Bret Hart - a classic WWE wrestler who hails from Canada.

Michael Cudlitz - he plays Sgt. Abraham Ford on The Walking Dead.
Bruce Boxleitner - I remember him from a now obscure show from the 80's Scarecrow & Mrs. King but he has earned his "scifi cred" by appearing on Babylon 5.
Pat Mastroianni - he played Joey Jeremiah on the Canadian teen drama series Degrassi Junior High (and later Degrassi High).
Stefan Brogran - a fellow alumni from Degrassi. He played 'Snake' on that show.
I hope they'll get the band back together and play their hit song!



Oh, but of course, I am saving the biggest for last.

The captain himself, William Shatner will be there.  If you need me to list this man's filmography for you then I will just say to you "congratulations on becoming a zygote in your mother's uterus.  You have 9 months of development ahead of you and then a grand emergence into this big beautiful world where you will become familiar with Mr. Shatner's presence in no time."

I would also like to caution that if Bill here says that there's a gremlin on the side of the Fan Expo trying to sabotage it, believe him.



For a full list of guests, you can check out the Fan Expo website.

I hope to sell lots of books/merchandise, see lots of great costumes and meet lots of fun and interesting people just like last year.  See y'all there.

Saturday, April 08, 2017

Jordan Peterson: A Man Who Is Paving The Way For An Enlightened Future

Anyone paying any close attention to the news has undoubtedly seen and heard stories surrounding one university professor named Jordan Peterson.  He's gained some notoriety in the passed few months for being a very stubborn champion of free speech and vehemently resisting the mandatory use of the pronouns that the trans-gender community have been, shall we say, aggressively promoting.  (A handy little chart of some of the pronouns is posted above for convenience).  While he does feel that these new pronouns are superfluous and unnecessary, his biggest concern is the push to make them mandatory.  No government should be involved in forcing people to say and/or not say certain words whether people want to say them or not.

I you've followed my blog at all, then you know full well why I support someone like this man.  I've been on the side of free speech for not as long as Dr. Peterson but for more than two decades for sure.  My characters the Censor Monkeys are a testament to that.

Of course, one of the main components of free speech is that while Dr. Peterson has the freedom to say whatever he wants, anyone who disagrees with him also have their freedom to express any thoughts that contradict his.  He in turn has a right to counter their arguments which thus becomes a debate.  Unfortunately, Dr. Petersons opponents have an alternative approach to confronting his speech as you can see below:



Their strategy seems to be to act like a drunken tail gate party that got lost trying to find the football game and thought that a university lecture was as good a place as any to make jackasses of themselves.  Rather than engage with him they want to physically and audibly shut him down.  That sort of thing is antithetical to free speech in every way.  Why would they do such a thing?  Well, this poster put up at McMaster's University can give you some insight into how their head works.


Yep.  More than one person wrote that up and thought it was a good solid argument.  Any rational thinking person can see that it's not.  I'd even go so far as to say it's the exact polar opposite to what a functioning brain would fabricate.  Pretty much every sentence has an error of judgement that needs addressing.  I feel the need to do exactly that right now.  Those of you who can see all of the problems in this text, please show this to someone (either someone who attends McMasters or anyone who would sympathize with this diatribe) and help set them on a better path of wisdom.  Here we go:

Did you fall for his drivel?
Did you really get tricked into thinking that Jordan Peterson is a heroic champion of free speech?

Oh you mean by how he says exactly what freedom of speech fully means?


Is this the stuff right here?

You poor sap…. seduced by another youtube demagogue.

Youtube demagogue, eh?  Oh you mean like...


...this melanin-infused Stalin-ist who actually rationalizes her brand of tyranny by saying that silencing someone from speaking is still within the guidelines of free speech because it's not a government official doing it?


....or how about this mental-castrato who thinks all masculinity should be drained from the culture because he can't admit that he's too much of a preening poofster to handle any big action (or any action at all for that matter)?


...or possibly this man-lady who thinks that he/she is a lady-man?  He/she/it/they/xir/quiditch/helicopter/zim espouses that words are equal to violence, that refusing to date someone is a form of rape, and has admitted to actively trying to ban people from youtube who disagree with him/her/zapped/pat/starfish/extra terrestrial.

Are any of these three people the 'youtube demagogue' this poster's author is talking about? Whatever!

Don’t you see how full of shit he is??? Let’s think about it for a minute:

Yes, let's subject your analysis of Jordan Peterson's philosophy to public scrutiny to see how it measures up.

What if my freedom of speech involved calling him Shitstain Peterson?

By crackie, yes it does.  Oh, I guess the person who made this poster does understand freedom of speech after all.  Nothing more to...

That’d be funny right? Especially if all of his students started doing it. But what if everyone started doing it?

Ok, the humour of the situation is a matter of individual opinion but it could be viewed as funny to some.  Also, yes every single person in the world has the right to freedom of speech no matter how hard certain governments (or citizens) try to suppress it so every single person would have ample opportunity to say that.  Alright then, this person seems to fully understand the important components of free speech so I guess I can just...

What if Shitstain Peterson was someone who had experienced unspeakable violence and humiliation since he was a kid because of that name?

Oh ok, that doesn't make sense at all.  Any violence or humiliation (hypothetical or otherwise) Peterson would have experienced didn't come about BECAUSE of that name.  The torment would have come about because of the prejudicial attitudes held by the surrounding community.  Likewise, those prejudices would have been brought about by economic, environmental, and/or historical factors that could fill many volumes upon volumes of books.  Simply changing the name from "Shitstain" to "Happiness Rainbow" would be useless and unproductive.  Just as "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", so too "a person you don't like called by any other ad hominem would still be a person you don't like".  Words merely help to identify things they don't magically transform things.

What if Shitstain Peterson was only allowed to use bathrooms designated for him and other Shitstains simply because we didn’t want to stop labelling him that?

Ok this is just desperate conflation from an absolute shithead.  First of all, every single person on the planet is only allowed to use public bathrooms that are designated for them.  All men (of every race, creed & sexual orientation) must use the men's room and all women (of every race, creed & sexual orientation) must use the women's room.  That is not a situation unique to transgender people.  It would be no problem if we could live like animals and expel our waste into every bush, tree, pile of dirt, or human shoe we can find but we can't because we're (supposedly) civilized.  Therefore, we all use whatever public bathrooms we can access.
This brings me to my next point.  The issue of transpeople having to pick one bathroom or the other has absolutely nothing to do with any labels that exist.  The reason bathrooms were divided up between male and female in the first place was for public safety.  We don't want unstable grown men to assault little girls or grown women while they're vulnerable and peeing.  So, having people who "sometimes identify as male and the times as female" get granted access to either or bathroom leaves things wide open for that very assault to happen.  No, I am not saying that transgenders will commit all of these assaults.  A 'cis male' could claim 'identify as a female' then make his way to the ladies room and POW!!!
Everywhere else in the world, people are free to identify as any gender they want.  It may irritate some people but as far as maintaining a functional society goes, it's not even an issue.  However, for the sake of public safety, when it comes to using a public bathroom pick a gender and stick with it.  All this whinging and complaining about "society must change to accommodate us" bullshit makes the crowd supposedly on the side of the LGBTQQ2+...etc community sound like snivelling bratty children.

What if he was part of a population that had been fighting for decades for the right not to be called a Shitstain anymore, only to be attacked by people who think it’s their “free speech” to keep calling marginalized people whatever they want? Not so funny anymore, eh?

Ok, this bit contradicts itself in the worst way.  This 'right not to be called something' cannot exist because it infringes on other people's rights, namely the right to free speech.  The basics of this can be explained with property disputes.  I have every right to grow an apple tree on my property.  For the most part, since it's on my property, it's entirely my business.  However, if the branches of my tree grow so long that they extend over into my neighbour's property and drops apples all over his lawn, then there's some conflict.  My right to have a tree that produces apples is now infringing on his right to not have a tree that produces apples.  I can't enforce my right to make him have apples he doesn't want.  But, if my tree full of apples remains within my own property, everything is fine.  In that case, if my neighbour doesn't like my apple tree, he is free to not look at it.
The words we say are like that apple tree.  They are spoken from our mouths and are thus on our own property.  When someone or a group of someones makes any kind of demand to change or remove any words we say, that is the same as trespassing onto our property and chopping down our apple tree.  No civilized democracy would allow such a violation of civil liberties to happen and any uncorrupt law enforcement personal would be quick to arrest anyone who participates in such an act. So it is indeed everyone's free speech to refer to other people however they want whether it be "dirty tranny" or "shitstain".
I must also reiterate that people are free to find anything funny or not funny based on individual opinion.  But of course people finding this situation humorous or not is somewhat irrelevant.

If using people’s preferred gender pronouns is too much of a strain on your linguistic capabilities you probably don’t deserve to speak in public. 

There's a term in psychiatric circles for a statement like this: delusion of grandeur.  The person who wrote that wishes to have the authority to officiate who can and who cannot be allowed to speak in public.  Thankfully, the system we have here in the free western world is set up so that no such person can become such an authority and thus deny anyone's to speak.
Of course there have been such authoritarian types who have infiltrated various journalistic publications and social media sites that are finding ways to either silence or inconvenience those with whom they disagree.  They try to invoke the 'apple tree analogy' I used above by stating "My property! My rules!"   While they free to run their properties any way they like, they would be more  in line better with democratic principles if they gave everyone an equal voice to share ideas.

You deserve to be silenced by people who don’t want ignorant & harmful ideas spread in their communities.

Okay this takes the previous statement one step further towards a dictatorship.  While the previous notion put forth was somewhat passive saying"...you probably don't deserve to speak..." this new statement is more demanding and says "...you deserve to be silenced...".  The person who wrote this wishes there was a dungeon or a Guantanamo Bay type of place that Jordan Peterson could be sent and thus effectively 'silenced' forever.  Well, there was a system of government like that at one time.  There was a family of monarchs consisting of a king, a queen, and many other royal subjects who would rule with impunity.  They would often time collude with more corrupt popes in charge of the Catholic church and carry out all sorts of punishments for saying things they found unfit to be spoken aloud.  Poor Galileo was a tragic victim of this system.  Thankfully, a document known as the Magna Carta would be drawn up that would give more power to the people and less to authoritarians. Then sometime later, the Founding Fathers of the United States would set up a system of government that would separate church from state and establish freedom of speech for all of its citizens so as not to go back to such a vulgar and barbaric system ever again.

We often don’t bother to debate these ideas because, like the ideas of all fear mongering & hateful people, they can’t be debated. 

Actually, every idea can and should be debated, even if the debate ends quickly because its basis is strong and can't be disputed or its basis is weak and thus falls apart under scrutiny.  To simply declare an idea "undebatable" is a very authoritarian stance taken by an extremely closed mind.

(Ever tried to debate a Nazi? I have. It doesn’t work. Their hate and ignorance will always find a way to “trump” your smart ideas.) 

Here we go.  HEY, MORON!! FUCKING MORON!!! (Aw crap, I used a catchphrase from Undoomed.  I guess I owe him something like 7 million dollars or whatever).
I'll ignore the pathetic attempt to shoehorn Donald Trump into this mess of a statement since he has fuck all to do with any of this.  I'll also ignore the childish attempt to label all dissenters as "nazis".  I will say that if you have to tell people that your ideas are "smart" then you don't have smart ideas.  A truly smart idea can stand on its own.  You know an idea is smart when you can present it to various groups of people and none of them can find anything to argue against this idea.  If this idea is challenged because more than one person found a few flaws, found numerous flaws, or flat out called the idea a big smouldering ole of stupid, snapping back at this opposition by simply saying "SHUT UP! IT'S SMART!" will not persuade anyone to think it's smart.  If anything, it would sway people away from your argument.  I suspect that's how the previous argument ended with that "nazi".

They either have a platform or they don’t. We prefer if they don’t.

Uh, no.  Everyone that has ever existed and ever will exist is born with a platform.  It is with time, charisma, displaying skills and meeting other people that one manages to expand that platform of theirs so that bigger and bigger crowds will gather to listen.  Truly, the only way to 'take someone's platform away' is through death.  When people die, their platform goes with them.  However, if they managed to expand their platform to good size while they were living, others will gladly take that platform and make it part of their own.  That makes the purpose of deplatforming someone a rather moot exercise in futility.
The best way to combat someone you disagree with and has a platform that you feel is too large is to develop your own platform.  Keep expanding your platform in an effort to reach more people until it's big enough to get your opponents' attention.  Not only is it the high road, it's completely legal and constitutional.

It’s not about free speech - it’s about self determination and basic human dignity.

Yeah..... attacking reporters and physically trying to shut down speakers through excessive noise and intimidation is the exact opposite of dignified.



It’s not about free speech - it’s about people with different genders fighting for their right to be called by an appropriate & respectful pronoun.

Like I stated above with the apple tree analogy, the 'right to be called by a certain pronoun' cannot exist because it infringes on the right to free speech.  Being called a certain title you want to be called is a privilege that is earned not just given.  As an example I'll use a joke from the first Austin Powers movie.  While Dr. Evil is talking to the world leaders one of them refers to him as "Mr. Evil".  He quickly corrects them and says, "Ahem! That's Dr. Evil!  I did not spend an extra four years in villain school to be called 'mister' thank you very much."  It's a good funny joke and it perfectly illustrates my point.  The privilege of being addressed by labels of your choosing must be earned through respect.  Completely ignoring democratic principles and trying to force everyone to use these pronouns (even through violence in too many cases) at the expense of civil liberties is not respectful behaviour.  If you don't know how to express your desires and have them implemented without using the basic bullying tactics to intimidate others and thus tree upon the freedom and democracy that many people fought and died to protect, then regroup and get back to us when you have learned this.

It’s about you not being a Shitstain.

More like it's about the collective 'you' not being a Shit For Brains!



This is some great artwork from an excellent artist named Jesse Oliver.  I just had to use it.

Anyway, that's my opinion about why Dr. Jordan Peterson is great and why too many of his opponents have proven themselves to be useless morons.  I wish him the best for all future endeavours and I hope he helps everyone he encounters to see the light.



Saturday, February 25, 2017

Did Tex Avery dislike Daffy Duck?

For my Tex Avery birthday post this year I'd like to address a hypothesis of mine that's been nagging at me for some time now.  Tex Avery is the one revered and celebrated as the man who created Daffy Duck.  However, as far as being his creator goes, Tex didn't seem to do much with Daffy.  I've read that Tex was not fond of very screwy characters constantly chewing up the scenery and going crazy, which feels like a contradiction when you see the very zany and highly active style of his cartoons.  For instance, Tex was so disenchanted with his other wacky creation Screwy Squirrel that Tex actually had Screwy killed off in his 5th and final cartoon.  He also

had a red hot strong disdain for Woody Woodpecker.  I can venture a guess as to why he felt this way. If one character is so wild and crazy that he dominates the screen then for balance every other character has to be sane or normal.  Maybe Tex did't want to spend agonizing time designing boring old normal characters just to accommodate a wacky one?  If Tex Avery himself were alive to explain himself that would be ideal.  Sadly, since that hasn't been possible since August 26 of 1980, we'll have to settle for theories.

The first Daffy Duck cartoon, as many people know, is of course Porky's Duck Hunt first released on April 17, 1937.



Tex had no special plans when he made this cartoon.  It was just a rudimentary storyline of their current star Porky Pig going out duck hunting.  Unfortunately for Porky, one of those ducks is "less than cooperative".  Bob Clampett was given the awesome duty of animating this duck's first big scene.  Tex' instructions to him were "bring him in from the left and take him out on the right.  What you do in-between is completely up to you."  Well, that inspired Bob to go as wild as possible.  He had that duck jump all over the lake and even bouncing on his head a few times.  That duck became a huge hit in theatres causing many patrons to ask when they could see that duck again.  That duck of course would be called Daffy and the rest is history.
As pleased as Tex was that this duck now called Daffy from his cartoon was doing well, I think he was hoping for another creation of his to become a star.  That same year, Tex made a cartoon called Egghead Rides Again starring his other creation Egghead.


It looks like Tex deliberately put the character's name in the title so that audiences would catch on to him quicker.  Also he hoped that adding the phrase "rides again" would give some validity to Egghead.  People would read that and subconsciously think that Egghead had 'ridden before' as in many cartoons about him had been made before.  You can also tell Tex really wanted Egghead to go far by the next Daffy Duck cartoon:



It's actually called Daffy Duck and Egghead and was released on January 1, 1938.  It looks like Tex was hoping that some of Daffy's popularity would be transferred to Egghead just by proximity and association.


Of course, Daffy would continue to be a popular character while Egghead would fade into obscurity without ever really developing any kind of following.

Later in 1938, Tex would release his third and final Daffy cartoon:


Legend has it that the pig director character in this cartoon, "Von Hamburger", was a caricature of a real director who was brought from Germany to Warner Bros. to make live action movies.  Apparently he was an egotistical jackass who constantly ordered people around and made demands of everybody.


I guess Tex Avery felt that unleashing Daffy Duck into his personal space would be a suitable punishment for him and bring him and his ego down so many pegs.

Then after that, Tex never worked with Daffy ever again.  Fortunately for WB and the animation industry in general, other directors at the studio like the aforementioned Bob Clampett as well as Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, Frank Tashlin, Bob McKimson, and Art Davis all put Daffy into many of their cartoons thus making him the very complex dynamo of a character we know today.  But Tex seemed to have walked away from Daffy for some mystery reason.
Animator and animation historian Mark Kausler has talked about his dealings with Tex Avery back when Tex was still around.  One anecdote of his is that he would constantly write fan letters to Tex with a drawing of Screwy Squirrel in the top corner.  These letters received no replies.  Then, he sent a fan letter with Droopy drawn on the side which did receive a reply of something "thank you, I appreciate it".  So obviously Tex had no qualms about expressing his low opinion of his squirrel creation.  But I personally haven't heard Tex say a thing about Daffy, good or bad.

Oh well, I guess I'll leave that as a mystery for the ages.  So now, I'll end this post with Tex Avery's cartoon that started it all.  Happy 109th birthday Tex.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

My SJW video now in easily digestible increments

It has come to my attention that people are having some troubles watching my recently made video.  Besides the copyright strikes that I mentioned earlier making it unavailable to anyone on Youtube, people are also uncomfortable with the video's length of 1 hour and 22 minutes.  Hey, the movie All Dogs Go To Heaven was about that long and I don't recall too many people complaining (except for some movie critics, some parents that had to take their kids to it, some online personalities pointing out its flaws, and from artists who actually worked on the movie).
But yes I can understand the disgruntlement.  It's much easier and more delightful to watch animated dogs have a grand adventure for approximately 82 minutes than it is to watch me prattle on about my opinions in a cold basement for that same amount of time.  So here's what I've done.  I've divided my video up into its 14 individual segments and embedded them below.  That way you can watch one or two or three (or however many you can muster) at a time.  Then if you're ever tired, you can go rest for a bit and then start again where you left off.  Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

"Why did I even make this video so long in the first place?", you ask.  I just had  a lot to say.

Also, as an FYI, this{these} video{s} was meant to promote both of my books, as it is with pretty much everything on my blog since about 2010.  So, here's yet another link to those books on Amazon: Jesus Needs Help and Censor Monkeys Have No Class.

Now on to the video(s).  Enjoy!  If you've seen it/them already, feel free to enjoy again.








sjw_004_tippergore by Daffyduckandthedinosaur












sjw_010_francesca ramsey by Daffyduckandthedinosaur







Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Steve Bannon is NOT a nazi.....


The notion of Steve Bannon being the second coming of Goebbels and thus spinning America and then the world into some nazi-like dystopia is at best a paranoid hypothesis presented by irrational children.  However, I do agree that Mr. Bannon is a problem and it would be best if he were not in the powerful position that he is in at this time.  I will use this blog post to explain that.

Steve Bannon's ultimate goal can be seen in a movie he created called Torchbearer.  I have embedded the trailer for it below:



I think this trailer might have started the rumour of Steve's affiliation with nazis.  He used a lot of old stock footage of Hitler and third reich marches in it.  So, if one was to just quickly glance at it, they could easily jump to the conclusion that "OMG Steve Bannon supports nazis! Run for your bomb shelters everyone!!!"  But you have to actually pay attention to the full trailer (and possibly even the full movie) to really see the agenda Bannon wants to push.  His opinion is that all the strife in today's world is caused by atheists turning their backs on God thus angering him and setting the apocalypse in motion.  The old nazi footage was simply used to conflate atheism with nazi activities.

That would explain why fellow Breitbart employee Milo Yiannopoulos gave a speech saying that "Catholics were right about everything.



It also explains why he's wants Trump to reunite 'church' with 'state'.  Everyone's afraid of this administration making the world return to the 1950's when they should be more concerned with a return to the 950's.  That church and state reunion is a huge mistake for several reasons.

1. That kind of thinking is what made the Medieval or Dark Ages so dark.  By incorporating the most dominant religion (that being catholicism at the time) with the government many innocent people were slaughtered for not showing allegiance to that religion and intellectual enlightenment was pretty much forbidden.  Galileo famously was put to death under this system for the crime of scientific discovery.  Thankfully, historical figures like Martin Luther and Leonardo Da Vinci lead a Renaissance and helped free the world of this suppressive way of life.

2. The founding fathers of the United States made sure to keep church and state separate for a very good reason.  The reason the US came to be in the first place was because the Quakers were being religiously persecuted in England.  They set sail for a better life and found a whole new continent full of indigenous and non-judgemental people with which they could live in harmony. (Of course many settlers that came afterwards would disrupt this harmony but that's a whole other blog post).  The clause about 'Freedom of Religion' means that every citizen is free to practice whatever religion they so choose and be free from persecution for it.  That separation of church and state is there to insure that no one religion dominates enough to impose itself on any other religion in the country, and that includes atheism.  Really, if church and state are reunited, there's potential for Muslims to dominate and thus impose sharia law which is what Donald Trump is trying to prevent and what the Muslim version of Sarah Palin, one Linda Sarsour, is fighting to implement.


So really, the worst or most problematic thing you can say about Steve Bannon is that he's the Preacher Monkey among my Censor Monkeys.


His desire to return to 'traditional values' could make him the Victorian Monkey as well.



Also, yes I know at the very top I said that Steve Bannon is not a nazi.  However, by rising to the position of Trump's advisor, he is obviously trying to infiltrate the US government to put his opinions into practice thus making him very much the Nazi Monkey.



But I will end this post by also saying that Breitbart "News" is not a 'nazi recruiting website' nor is it a news site.  It's simply an opinion site meant to amuse and/or horrify some for the amusement of others.  They're just on the opposite end of the same propagandist horseshoe that Buzzfeed is on.



No need to panic, folks.  All we have to do is remind Steve Bannon (an the Antifa while we're at it) about the constitution, keep him in check and then sit back to enjoy the ride.