"Underground Classics: The Transformation of Comics into Comix, 1963 - 1990."

At the Chazen Museum in Madison. Only one more day, so get over there tomorrow. Free.

Most of it is framed and on the wall, but there is also some cool stuff in cases:







It's not all R. Crumb. Not at all! That first sculpture, by the way, is called "Snoid and Host Woman."

Madison Saturday: street performers.

Wielding spray paint...



... and guitars...

Fortunate!

My cookie contained 3 fortunes. The 4th fortune seen here was in my companion's cookie. Perhaps you can figure out which fortune is not mine.

Sarah Palin says she resigned as governor "so that I could get out there and fight without the shackles..."

"... for our state and for our country, to fight for what is right, and to support the people who have more freedom than I do evidently to be able to cast those votes and administer the policies and the laws that we need to protect our Constitution... I’m going to be freer now to fight for what’s right."

Ha ha. That's why I like being an independent blogger, so I can identify. But I still think she's running for President... and talk about shackles!

Wait. I can't lie. I have to back off from that identification. I have no sense of fighting for what's right here. I'm just talking about things that interest me, expression for it's own sake. If the occasion to distinguish right from wrong arises in the natural course of things, it will be in the mix. But it's not a fight. It's a conversation.

I bought a bike.

Years ago, I used to bike to work regularly. But then I switched to walking — no bulky, stealable equipment to fuss with — and then to driving or walking. And then 20 years passed without my riding a bike at all. (Strange how many years can pass without your doing a particular thing when you are over 30... over 40... over 50....) But I'm in a new phase of my life now...



... so I got a bike. It's pretty fun to be at the level of mobility between walking and driving. You can get around rather quickly and still feel close to the things around you.

What kind of bike? A "comfort bike" was prescribed for me. I got one of these.

"Bruno" disappointed me.

I'm a big fan of "Da Ali G Show," where Sacha Baron Cohen plays 3 characters in short scenes that wrap up in half an hour. But, having seen "Borat" and now "Bruno," I have to admit I don't want to watch one of the characters for 90 minutes, especially "Bruno." I'm not a fan of story arcs. I love disjointed little bits. I like Bruno as the Austrian fashion reporter with the microphone in his hand. People who want to get on TV and to appear trendy will tumble into agreement with praise for Hitler or take direction that makes them look gay. (Here's an example I find especially funny.) But in the movie "Bruno," Bruno is fired from that job and comes to America to try to get famous again. That's not much of a story. It's just a narrative thread to connect different scenes — possibly generated after many of the scenes were filmed.

But why am I complaining? Didn't I just say I liked disjointed little bits? Well, but now Bruno is kind of down and out, and much of it is Sacha Baron Cohen trying to show us what Americans are really like. Fortunately or unfortunately, Americans failed to give him the homophobia footage he seems to have hoped for. I'm sure a ton of unfunny footage was thrown out, and that what went into the film was the closest he could get to hilarious, but most of these Americans simply remained stone-faced and tried to preserve their professionalism and dignity in the face of a very clownish man. Cohen did what he could — for example, wielding multiple big dildoes at a martial arts instructor — to goad people into flipping out about the gay guy, but — other than getting Ron Paul to blurt out "queer" twice — it just wasn't happening.

And the struggling Bruno can't be so outrageously bitchy. He wants people to help him. He's needy. He's more like Borat. But he's not lovable. I don't want him lovable. The Bruno I like needs to believe he's wielding power so he is able to trick people into showing their desire to leverage their fame through him. We see that in the movie in the one scene where some parents are trying to get their little kids hired as models. They think Bruno has some showbiz power, and they grovel before it. One woman is ready to make her 30 pound daughter lose 10 pounds in one week and to submit to liposuction if she can't get all that weight off. Now, that was something! It would be daring as hell to have 90-minutes on that level of pain. But that wouldn't be too funny, and it wouldn't be a blockbuster.

What Republican Senator had his hand on David Brooks's inner thigh through an entire dinner?

Brooks is talking on MSNBC — video at the link — and says:

You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering politicians and I don’t know about you guys, but in my view, they’re all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They’re guaranteed to invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here....

I’m not telling you, I’m not telling you. But so, a lot of them spend so much time needing people’s love and yet they are shooting upwards their whole life, they’re not that great in normal human relationships. And so, they’re like freaks, they don’t know how to, they’re lonely. They reach out....

What!? Perhaps the Republican Senator just periodically patted him on the thigh and technically the fingers extended into the inner part. The fact that Brooks put up with it, to me, indicates that was all it was. Why would he just think I was like, ehh, get me out of here. What stopped him from leaving? Or are we seriously to think some Senator had Brooks in an intimate grip all night and Brooks did nothing but think about how he didn't like it?

Lawprof David Trubek tries to fathom the furlough here at The University of Wisconsin.

You may have heard of Governor Doyle's plan:

The Governor’s furlough mandate, established in response to the State’s projected budget shortfall, requires an effective cut in pay for all full-time, 12-month employees equivalent to 16 days over the two-year period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011. The resulting furlough time off (FTO), required by the Governor and approved by the State Legislature, is required for all State and University employees, regardless of the funding sources used for their individual salaries and benefits. The mandatory furloughs result in a 3.065% annual pay reduction.

What's been hard for us faculty members to understand is not the reduction in pay but the requirement that we refrain from working on particular days, as my colleague David M. Trubek writes here in email that he's given me permission to republish.

The Tale of Purloined Work: Humpty-Dumpty Cracks the Case

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." (Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 5)

Everyone at The University of Wisconsin will have their pay cut by about 3% and will be “furloughed”—told they do not have to work—for a corresponding period of time. But it turns out that we not only don’t have to work, we are being told we cannot work. The guidelines ban any kind of work during furloughs, anywhere. This means that even if you are at home you are not supposed to read professional material, get and send emails, make calls, use a smart phone, etc. Employees who violate the work ban can be disciplined.

Some people think this rule is irrational, impractical and unjust. Irrational because no one is harmed if we choose to work even if we are not paid. Impractical because of the way many of us work in many locations seamlessly combining work and leisure and using electronic media of all types. Unjust because if people place a high value on work, the policy not only takes away some of our pay; it also takes away working time we value for itself.

Because I am troubled by this policy, I set out to find out how we ended up with what seems like an absurd rule. I did some internet research and think I may have discovered the tortured path that led to the work ban. Because it felt that we, like Alice, had fallen down the rabbit hole, I also sought guidance from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. Here is what seems to have happened:

1) The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has two categories of employees: exempt and non-exempt. An exempt person must be paid their full salary for any week they work, however many hours they actually put in. If an exempt person is furloughed, they would still have to get full pay. Non-exempt employees, on the other hand, can have their pay reduced pro-rata with a reduction in their hours. People in “learned professions” are exempt if they earn more than $455 a week (whether paid on an hourly basis or not), have specialized education, and do work that requires advanced knowledge in a field of science and learning.

2) Needless to say, faculty and some other academic personnel are classified as exempt. If the rules governing pay for exempt employees were to apply, the UW would not be able to get salary savings from furloughs because the law requires they be paid in full no matter how many hours they work.

3) Since that would defeat the whole purpose of the plan, the only solution is to turn an exempt employee into a non-exempt employee. Since classification depends on the level of education and the type of work people do, you might think this cannot be done by the stroke of a bureaucratic pen. But, remember: we are down the rabbit hole where impossible things are done every day. So, it appears that the University is going to temporarily declare that teachers and other exempt employees are non-exempt for the time period in which the furlough falls. Then, it will specify a number of hours they should work. This will be less than the number of hours they normally would work so it will be OK to cut their pay proportionately.

4) But now we come to Catch 22 (even in Wonderland there are catches). If a non-exempt worker puts in more than the hours specified, the FLSA requires that they be paid overtime. So, if the goal is to reduce everyone's pay, these workers not only have to be told that they only have to work fewer hours: they must be kept from exceeding that number of hours lest they trigger a legal claim for overtime. And that is the source of the guideline that tells us we cannot do any kind of work as well as the requirement that people must certify that they did not work.

In Wonderland all this seems very sensible. But isn't it based on an impossible thing? The FLSA's tests for which status one falls in are objective. One is exempt if one has a certain type of training and does a certain type of work and it doesn’t matter whether the employee is paid on an hourly or salary basis. So since the nature of our education and our work hasn’t changed, and merely putting us on hourly pay for this period cannot affect our classification, how can the state reclassify us as non-exempt?

To answer that, I refer you to Humpty-Dumpty:

When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

Omar bin Laden: My father killed my beloved puppies for al Qaeda.

Eh. Son of Osama bin Laden has a book to sell and he's playing on our love of puppies and hatred of his dad. Is there some fool who is thinking now — now! — I see that evil that is bin Laden? And I thought Muslims didn't keep dogs as pets.

From IslamonLine:

We are... not allowed to keep a dog as a pet, since it is not a very clean animal. How often have you come across the nasty sight of dogs taken for a walk licking their own excrement? Isn’t it disgusting to see their owners kissing the mouth of such animals after such incidents as if nothing happened? Would you kiss the mouth of your own baby if he were to do the same? Think how many parasites and microbes may be hiding in their mouths.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has spared us from being contaminated by such filth when he ordered us to stay clear of the saliva of dogs. If we ever come into contact with a dog’s saliva we must wash the spot seven times, the first of which should be with sand or dirt. It is also possible to use a bacterial soap instead of sand or dirt.

In conclusion: Don’t contemplate taking a dog home as a pet. If, however, you do need to keep a dog for [one of the 5 stated purposes at the link], then you may do so. But take every precaution not to have contact with its saliva, and also arrange for a separate living space.

"It is interesting to learn Levi is working on a piece of fiction while honing his acting skill."

What the Sarah Palin spokeswoman said in response to Levi Johnston's speculation that Palin quit the governorship because of money.

Snark, indeed. I'm just trying to decide how subtle that snark is.

Was Michael Jackson murdered?

I used that headline the day after the death was reported, and today I see "LAPD not ruling out homicide in death of Michael Jackson, top cop says":

Depending on "corroboration from the coroner's office as to the cause of death," [Police Chief Bill] Bratton suggested the investigation could lead to criminal charges. Detectives are focusing on five doctors who had treated Jackson in the past and whether they supplied him with the powerful sedative Diprivan.

Bratton is certainly not saying that the doctors may have intentionally killed Jackson.

2 world leaders demonstrate the 2 ways of conspicuously gawking at a woman's ass.

 

I see a distinct difference between these 2 stances. Yes, there are similarities. Both are blatant and hilarious. But the Sarkozy ass-gawking stance says: I admire but I must not act. And Obama is caught at the moment of as-yet-unconstrained pursuit.

Sarkozy holds his arms against his chest in a closed — but not tightly closed — position. The head is turned but upright. He is smiling, but the index finger lying against his lip blocks the edge of the smile from the point of view of anyone standing in front of him, though if the woman were to turn around, she would see it easily. His hand is tipped upward at a jaunty — one is tempted to say phallic — angle. The foot closest to the woman is planted firmly on the ground in the don't-go-that-way position, yet the other foot angles toward the object of desire. Still, the angled foot remains flat on the floor, and, at a shoulder's distance from the other foot, it the whole figure of the man a solid immobility.

Now, swivel your eyes over to Obama's feet. The foot closest to the woman, like Sarkozy's, is planted and aimed forward, but the other steps off in the direction of the woman, bending the knee upward into a bit of a crotch-squeeze and forming the base of a dramatic tilt of the entire body into a flexible S-shape that leans toward the woman. Obama's arms hang free, emphasizing the tilt, and either gravity or will causes the left arm to hang inches away from the torso. See how much lower the right hand is than the left? His neck is craned out and around so that the line of sight is directly at the ass. His mouth is open as if to say: That's what I want.

AND: Yes, I have seen the video, and I stand by my analysis of the still photograph.

At the Blueberry Café...

... you can burst forth.

ADDED: Chip Ahoy works his magic:

The 7th Circuit reinstates the case challenging the Wisconsin diploma privilege.

The case is Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki.

Under SCR 40.03, a diploma from an ABA-accredited law school whose curriculum includes the specific study of Wisconsin law is sufficient evidence of competency to practice in Wisconsin without a bar examination.

A class of recent graduates from ABA-accredited schools outside Wisconsin who seek a law license in Wisconsin argued that the privilege infringes on the Commerce Clause because only graduates of the law schools at Marquette and the University of Wisconsin benefit from it.

The Wisconsin Attorney General, defending the diploma privilege, has argued that the privilege is not discriminatory because of its availability to residents of any state who attend a school where Wisconsin law is taught. And if it does have an effect on interstate commerce, it is outweighed by the state’s interest in competent lawyers who know Wisconsin law, the attorney general asserts.

In its opinion, the court of appeals said that the district court’s dismissal of the action left it in “an evidentiary vacuum.” The plaintiffs had been appealing that order issued.

The court indicated that the plaintiffs should build the evidentiary record before the diploma privilege’s effect on interstate commerce can be assessed.

“[S]uppose – a supposition not only consistent with but actually suggested by the scanty record that the plaintiffs were not allowed to amplify – that Wisconsin law is no greater part of the curriculum of the Marquette and Madison law schools than it is of the law schools of Harvard, Yale, Columbus, Virginia, the University of Texas, Notre Dame, the University of Chicago, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Northern Illinois (which happens to be within a stone’s throw of Wisconsin, as are the three law schools in Minneapolis),” the court wrote.

“That would suggest that the diploma privilege creates an arbitrary distinction between graduates of the two Wisconsin law schools and graduates of other accredited law schools. And it is a distinction that burdens interstate commerce,” the court concluded.

The giant Perkins flag is at half staff. Why?

John Bachar had a "vision of purity" in rock climbing.

"Around noon Sunday, he fell from a formation called Dike Wall, not far from his home. He is survived by a son, Tyrus. He also leaves climbing routes bearing his name across the Yosemite Valley."