October 4, 2012 - There's now less than a week left in the indiegogo fundraiser and it doesn't look like it will make it. Which is fine because it would have been a lot of extra work and I was far more interested in it as a something to talk about than act on. But if you'd still like to contribute, you're more than free to do so and I encourage you to do such.
I'm going to avoid talking about the debate as much as I can. Unlike CNN, I believe Obama won by a narrow margin, but I unsurprisingly support Obama (actually I'd love Jill Stein to win, but she's got no chance). I don't think anything earth shattering was said at the debate, and for the most part if you support a particular candidate, I would think you believe that candidate did well. I don't want to influence one's opinion on the election one way or another, and I encourage everyone to vote who can.
All that said, today's comic obviously ties to issues of for-profit health care that was an issue during the debate. I'm not a huge fan of Obamacare. It's full of problems that I question will get fixed. Still, it's way better than nothing, and I'm not convinced Romney has much understanding that individuals and families struggling to get by don't get to pick between medical insurance options, they either get something or nothing. Obamacare guarantees something, and despite its faults, I haven't seen Romney guarantee anything better.
Okay, that's seriously all I'm saying about the debate. Hopefully it wasn't too preachy and biased. I really want to explore this topic a bit more in depth with the next storyline, so, um, belated spoiler alert.
To a certain extent this comic also deals with the practice of "booth babes." That is people (usually attractive women) hired at conventions to look pretty yet have little to no knowledge about the product they're advertising for. Cheryl may not quite be at the extreme level it's reached at video game expositions where PAX expressly prohibited the policy and other conventions have garnered severe criticism for such practices. I'm generally highly critical of advertising (which, yeah, is a bit of a catch-22 with my policy of advertising myself and running ads), and products resorting to such base tactics I believe must therefore not be worthwhile. This doesn't always hold true, but I hope anyone reading this has the power to scrutinize any advertising material regarding how it represents its product. Is the information provided appropriate or relevant or is it just a distraction because there's something worth hiding in the actual product (this is also why I try to avoid watching movie trailers online)? I'd love advertising to not be necessary, but well, it does work and it's a way to make money.
-D
I'm going to avoid talking about the debate as much as I can. Unlike CNN, I believe Obama won by a narrow margin, but I unsurprisingly support Obama (actually I'd love Jill Stein to win, but she's got no chance). I don't think anything earth shattering was said at the debate, and for the most part if you support a particular candidate, I would think you believe that candidate did well. I don't want to influence one's opinion on the election one way or another, and I encourage everyone to vote who can.
All that said, today's comic obviously ties to issues of for-profit health care that was an issue during the debate. I'm not a huge fan of Obamacare. It's full of problems that I question will get fixed. Still, it's way better than nothing, and I'm not convinced Romney has much understanding that individuals and families struggling to get by don't get to pick between medical insurance options, they either get something or nothing. Obamacare guarantees something, and despite its faults, I haven't seen Romney guarantee anything better.
Okay, that's seriously all I'm saying about the debate. Hopefully it wasn't too preachy and biased. I really want to explore this topic a bit more in depth with the next storyline, so, um, belated spoiler alert.
To a certain extent this comic also deals with the practice of "booth babes." That is people (usually attractive women) hired at conventions to look pretty yet have little to no knowledge about the product they're advertising for. Cheryl may not quite be at the extreme level it's reached at video game expositions where PAX expressly prohibited the policy and other conventions have garnered severe criticism for such practices. I'm generally highly critical of advertising (which, yeah, is a bit of a catch-22 with my policy of advertising myself and running ads), and products resorting to such base tactics I believe must therefore not be worthwhile. This doesn't always hold true, but I hope anyone reading this has the power to scrutinize any advertising material regarding how it represents its product. Is the information provided appropriate or relevant or is it just a distraction because there's something worth hiding in the actual product (this is also why I try to avoid watching movie trailers online)? I'd love advertising to not be necessary, but well, it does work and it's a way to make money.
-D
comments powered by Disqus
