Thanks for your patience! New strip is up. I'm much happier with this one (back to working in A3 size). It features robots. And a thing in a bag. And... what's Katie doing???
"In The Bag"
(And check the wallpaper section for a new DIg wallpaper, if you haven't already.)

And don't forget, guest strips are running at Encre de Chine. Awesome strips already up, more awesomey-ness to come!

I agree with my friend Steve's assertion that we should all arm ourselves with as much info (and hopefully facts) as possible regarding the messages behind 'Fahrenheit 9/11', but I have to jump in and caution that this requires diligence on our part as much as anyone else's. The site in question, brought into being to deal with facts and only facts surrounding the movie, has several amendments already and there are lots of comments that report to repudiate the blog authors on some points.

Also, there are some strangely superfluous 'facts', like "Three Members of the 2004 Cannes Jury have ties to Miramax". Uhhhhhh. Yeah, it's a film jury. Film juries are filled with... film people. I think this is somehow supposed to indict Moore for... OK, I don't know what. Sex with Tarantino at the Miramax condo? Cheating? Cuz we all know that the Palme d'Or just brings 'em in to American box offices. Hoo boy! *waits for people not interested in juried film contests to look up just what the bloody hell a Palme d'Or is*

Some other points on the site bear some looking in to. But nothing is set in stone. So if you go, go back often. I'm going back if for no other reason than to get that one guy's cites of the common 'errors of debate'. That and I want to remain informed (I can't see the movie yet). Power to the people, y'all. :)

Guest strips start today! Check em out and be sure to follow the links in their bios and check out their work!
Encre de Chine

New one's up (I know... finally... but, hey, that's 3 this month instead of 2! :D)
"By the Seat of Our Pants"

I pledge to A) not be so rushed on future instalments and B) try to do at least 3 per month, if not 4. I also pledge not to do Katie on A4 ever again like I tried this time... that's just too small. Quality definitely suffers.

Encre de Chine guest strips start Saturday (which may be spelled "Friday" in your part of the world).
And don't forget to check out Mekka Blue's guest series. :)

Lessee.... so I did the OzComics 24hr Challenge. My entry is here.

And there's a new Encre de Chine up here.
Guest strips start June 26th. Be sure to check em out. Gonna be fun. :)

And... new stuff on my 'about me' page here.

That pretty much covers it. New Katie soon! Promise!

I know... I know... So we'll see if I can keep up the pace doing the strip weekly.
No promises... but here's installment 7 of "It's Only Business".
"Now It's Personal"

Oh, but I'm doing the 24 Hour Challenge this coming weekend and spending the rest of the weekend making that up to my wife (heh), so _don't_ expect a new Katie straight away. I may need to recover.

I just sent this to the SMH and The Age. I just had to speak up.
Play School is being drug through the mud for daring to show a happy family that happens to have two mommies. The kids, of course, didn't think anything of it until the grownups started screaming.

Related links:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/03/1086203545100.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/03/1086203565206.html

I recently saw an Internet blog (it's a sort of diary kept online) sporting an icon of Pfc. Lynndie England, star of the Iraqi sex scandal. Superimposed on the image was the word "dyke".

Sorry. She's not ours. It takes more than short hair to make one a lesbian. In fact, Pfc. England is pregnant and engaged to Charles Graner, the other star of the scandal.

Catholic priests and bishops are again in the news over pedophilia charges and the church is again admitting to mishandling it.

Sorry. Also not ours. Molesting kids makes them pedophiles, not homosexuals. I suppose it needs stating once again; Pedophiles are predominantly heterosexuals.

Play School recently showed two loving mothers having a day out with their daughter and their daughter's friend. They looked very happy.
Yep. Those are ours. Thanks.

The latter also seems to be big news as anti-gay "pro-family" groups and religious fundamentalists have raised a stink about it. They say it's... something. I don't know exactly. It's forcing them to protest that they might have to discuss gay families with their kids, and purportedly it's also helping make their kids gay. Somehow. I guess they're hoping that their kids will just ignore their classmates who come from gay families and it will never have to be discussed. It appears to make them very uncomfortable and agitated.

The kids, of course, have no idea what's got the grownups so worked up. I watched some of them view the program and go right on with their normal lives. Not even blink. And not a one of them stood up, pointed at the screen and said, "What do those women think they're doing? Both loving that child... I bet it involves sex! Mommy? Daddy? You've got some explaining to do!"

Mommy and daddy do have some explaining to do, in my book. They need to explain why they insist on making this a sexual issue. And why this supposedly sexual issue is so much more heinous than those infecting the very religion that's being held up as the moral accuser of gay families.
Why is it that a pedophile priest can obtain absolution, succor, forgiveness, from the church, but a public office holder who supports a woman's choice cannot take communion? An officer of the church can sexually molest a child and be offered redemption, no matter how many offenses, but a loving same-sex family can't be a part of that church unless they "go straight"?

Explaining the two mommys seems pretty easy to me, in comparison.

As with most similar issue, I believe that ignorance and fear is at the heart of the matter. How little you, the straight and narrow, know about us. And how very much we know about them. You see, we grew up amongst them. We went to church. We went to school. We've studied the bible, we've lived with and around opposite-sex couples. Chances are our parents were. And chances are our kids will be too. They merely dismissed us and gave us no more thought than was necessary to keep us down, but not out. So what can they possibly know of our families? Of our love for our children and our spouse? The evidence implies not very much at all.

So let me address "them". Let's hear the part of the plan that comes after the two mommies are shunned from TV.

Go ahead and tell that child you want to replace one of her mommies. That you want to take her away in favour of someone you deem more fit. Any man will do, the rhetoric seems to say, but preferably the man who fertilised the egg that became that child. A man who may have helped conceive her, but is not her parent. Not like the mommy you'd like to sweep under the rug. Gay families are a fact, and hiding them from Play School's cameras won't make them go away.

So what will you tell her when she asks why you hate her? Why you hate her mommy and want her to go away? Why you need to call her mommy names but not other kids' mommies. Will you tell her it's about love? Family? Even as you strip the love and family from her. Will you try to tell her, in some neurotic way that I cannot comprehend, that it's about sex? Because it's nothing to do with sex for her or her mommies. In fact, it's only to do with sex when you make it out to be so. But will you be around to explain that now that you've made it an issue? No. because that's what you fear the most -- explaining what you don't understand and seem to fear. You say Play School is bad because then you have to explain this supposed "sex" topic to your kids. Children, especially Play School aged children know nothing of sex. But it isn't about sex and it never was. It's about love. Plain and simple. And surely you can explain love. Jesus talked about it above all things.

So. Where is the love? Where is the compassion of Christ? Is it being saved up just for people who aren't different, who don't make you uncomfortable? It's a bit like the "emperor has no clothes" story in reverse, and people on high horses keep pointing at the king's genitals, despite their being covered. Well, now I'm pointing the finger back.

And I'm asking, where is the love?