When I went to church today, the priest talked about Lent and how instead of giving something up like chocolate, that we should work on self-reflection and do something to make us a better person. So, instead of giving something up, I will try to write every day for the next forty days and hopefully continue writing past that. I will edit the entry from yesterday to include pictures and start from here. See you on the other side.
To drop a book or not drop a book…I wish it was a question. Instead, it is a several month dilemma of weighing factors of quality, quantity, and more. I buy comics that I have bought for sixteen straight years – no questions asked. There are books that I drop after the first issue. However, the hardest books to deal with are those that have something I really like, but also something that makes me not want to even open the cover. Prophet and Doctor Who are two examples of this current dilemma.
Prophet is a reimagining of a character created by Rob Liefeld back in the earlier days of Image comics. It is a book I want to support – independent creators trying something new; beautiful art and imagination that expand what a comic can be; and something that is deeper and more intense than a typical 20 page flip-through. I open up each issue and love looking at it.
It has a unique stay that brings all the weirdness to life. The art team of rotating penciled featuring Roy, Milonogiannis, and Dalrymple have created a beautiful universe to play in. However, I have no idea what is going on and remember nothing from the previous issue, even if I read it only hours earlier.
Brandon Graham is an interesting creator that I really want to like. I have bought King City and Multiple Warheads. Some of the themes are utterly fascinating. But I don’t care. It reads hollow to me. I understand why people love this book and I see all of the interesting turns Graham is taking. But it just isn’t for me. And I should not continue to spend $4 hoping that the book will finally click with me.
But unlike a novel where I can just walk away and not think twice about disregarding something that other people obviously would like, comics makes me want to support products that break the mold so that publishers continue to break the mold. The fear is that they will just release another Green Lantern series or an Avengers spinoff, so anything unique deserves my money, even if I don’t like it. Weird, huh?
Unlike Prophet, I love and get the concept of Doctor Who. I watch the television series and think these characters would translate well to comics. But I am again disappointed. However, Andy Diggle’s writing is not the problem in this recent issue. He provides the lightness to the characters as they exist on screen. He creates a nice setup with the wise cracking alien, a femme fatale, a ship captain, and various peripheral characters. It hits the twist at the end of the first issue to get wrapped up in the next issue. It has great pace and charming dialogue.
But the art is incredibly distracting. It looks incredibly rushed. But remember this is a two-issue arc. Josh Adams started with this issue and it looks completely rushed. If this was a rush job by IDW, they need to work on their editorial mandates right away. This is unacceptable work. If this is how Josh Adams wants his characters to look, then he may need to reexamine his motives.
For example, the aliens have nothing unique about them. One is a short gray blob. The artist can do anything. Look at what any of the Prophet artists do with this freedom to create above. The characters has interesting aspects to their costumes. A lot can be read into them by a quick glance. All of the aliens here look like they have to meet the BBC budget guidelines from 1974. There are never any backgrounds. It is always just a color wash. Again, look at any of the work in Prophet. If this is written to be 1974 or low-budget, then I suppose I am not the market for this book, but it is incredibly distracting to never have nice backgrounds in panels or to have any imagination going into any of the character designs.
Additionally, below are pictures of how Rory and Amy look in the issue. This actually looks like something that the artist used a photo reference for. It has Amy’s inquisitive face and Rory looking at her with a little bit of awe and fear.
But they have different facial features as the story continues. I have no idea how tall or chubby Amy is from these drawings. Rory’s strong features get molded by clay into a blob. Amy’s arms come out at her at angles that don’t even make any sense
The art is incredibly rushed and incredibly lazy. And it makes me want to ditch the story. It is distracting and bothersome. Rory looks like and old man who is waiting for someone to feed him pudding and Amy went from being tall and thin and only a couple inches short than Rory to a fireplug with a square face. She looks like she was turned into an ape woman.
On my way home today, I needed a pick-me-up. I needed to feel a little better. I put on my Smokey Robinson and the Miracles Pandora channel and drove home. Motown always makes me feel better. But the last song I heard before arriving in my driveway was Just My Imagination by The Temptations.
I have been househunting for about a month now. My mom’s cousin is a realtor and has been graciously helping me view houses. When I started the process, I had talked to a mortgage broker who told me I had approximately $110,000 in buying power. He recommended I pay off a few of my student loans in full to increase my buying power. I did. I paid off a $1,500 loan and a $6,500 loan. It felt good and I got excited. I set up several viewings for houses under $150,000 to get a sense of what I could buy. None of them really made the grade, but it was a start. A week later, I viewed 9 more with my parents. Two seemed good. But I didn’t think I could afford them.
So, I called the mortgage guy to rerun my numbers with the loans I paid off no longer on my credit report. He told me earlier that that would get me to $150,000. I was incredibly proud. But when I talked to him, he told me I was not yet to $160,000, but that I was in a good position. And I had 9 more to view with John. They were a little more expensive but they seemed in the realm of possibility. I had about $4500 that I could spend on another loan to push me even higher.
We got to the first house that was listed at $169,000. It was great. I was excited, John was excited, and it seemed like I could move out of my parents’ house. The second one was not so great. None of us liked it. We were in and out in a few minutes. When we got back into the car, my realtor told me he talked to the mortgage guy and he told my realtor that I was about $300 per month short of being able to afford a house listed at $140,000. My heart dropped. We went to several more houses but all I could think about was how I couldn’t afford any of this and I don’t know if I could ever afford it.
John picked up my spirits a little. And we completed the rest of the tour. We ended up seeing three places we really liked. But I was still heart broken. I have been working really hard to pay off my student loans. In the last five years, I have lowered my debt by over $60,000. I have saved and stopped buying lots of things. I don’t buy expensive clothes or shoes. I don’t pay rent since I live at home and my parents don’t ask for rent. I watch my budget very closely and have even dropped my comic book haul by about half in the past few months to help prepare me for a mortgage. But as we sat at Boston Market and reviewed the houses, all I could think about was how none of this was going to happen anytime soon. It was just my imagination running away with me.
The next day, my realtor had contacted the mortgage guy who gave me the exact details. I could afford a house at $140,000 with $5,000 per year in taxes. If I cut my monthly debt by $128, I could afford a $160K house with $5,000 per year in taxes. I lit back up. The house we liked the best was $140,000. Back to being a reality.
Today, I was scheduling a second viewing of that house to look more closely and if it all looked good, we would put in an offer. I emailed my realtor and he was going to schedule me for a time on Wednesday. I was excited, but heading to lunch, so I didn’t respond. I had a nice lunch but got back to my desk to see a new email from my realtor entitled “great…”
The house was under contract as of that morning. Just my imagination once again…
I’m not doing well. It is not easy for a depressive to have these ups and downs all in three days. I started with an up on Friday, a down on Saturday, an up on Sunday and back down on Monday. I emailed my realtor and told him that I need a break. I don’t know if that is the best idea, but I physically cannot take anymore right now.
I’m fatigued and sad. Each day, I began thinking what my life could be becoming. I saw the beginning of a life. I saw happiness and joy. I saw excitement and new adventures. I would close my eyes and see how things are going to be.
“But in reality…she doesn’t even know me.”
I got into a discussion on Facebook today that doesn’t really end up looking like a discussion. A little background – someone posted something, I responded, my response was deleted, I responded on my own wall, a response was posted on mine, and the rest is history. Since we were not in the same physical space, this was as close as a discussion as was possible.
I love politics. I love discussion. I love hearing points of views.
But my greatest fears of our political system played out in this discussion between two people who probably agree on over 90% of issues. I call it the echo chamber. People flock to people of the same ideology and only want to hear points that verify what they already think. This is a left and right problem. Gun rights activists won’t ever hear that there may be a good reason for gun control. Universal health care proponents don’t want to hear that there may be people who don’t want health care. Conservatives listen to talk radio and watch Fox. Liberals listen to NPR and watch MSNBC.
A few years ago, I read a book by Cass Sunstein regarding extremism and noted that when people discuss anything, an extreme position is generally reached. He basically was arguing against the marketplace of ideas, but didn’t know how to relate that to how democracy works.
I do not believe that. I don’t live that. You put two people in a room and let them discuss something rationally and it will lead to understanding. Maybe both sides won’t agree to something, but something can be learned. But when you decide on your own that you know better based on things you read and things you heard and disregard anything to the contrary, you are not following a sound logic. It leads to faulty logic that it your political opponents used against you, you would decry it as heresy or just plain wrong.
And honestly, it is easier to just find similar thinkers and go with it, but I like to be challenged. I enjoy reading what Judge Richard Posner has to say on issues. I enjoy reading The National Review to get a sense of what my ideological opposites are worrying about. I will critique them and argue against them as much as anyone – look at anything I have said about Paul Ryan – but I will listen to them.
I could easily just read Ezra Klein, read The New Republic (I love the redesign and became a subscriber late last year), watch The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, and discuss this with only my liberal friends. But then my positions won’t grow. I become isolated in my ideology and become no better than any other ideologue.
Life and politics is complicated. There is generally not a right or a wrong. There are scales of both of those. There are lots of grays. There are no simple answers. There are only simplistic answers. If problems could be so easily solved, you’re fooling yourself if you think our leaders wouldn’t accomplish them.
But I ask you, next time you are thinking bout something, take the approach from To Kill A Mockingbird, walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. You might come to the same conclusion, but you will at least thought about why the other person might not reach the same conclusion as you.
When I was in sixth grade, I remember someone asking me what I wanted to be when I grew up. And at this point in your childhood, you stop saying you’re going to be a race car driver or a fireman or something outrageous and begin thinking seriously about your career. Kids begin to understand what their parents do. They begin to understand what their friends’s parents do for a living. Lawyers emerge. Doctors blossom. And I said that I wanted to be the Pope.
I never aimed low. I wasn’t going to be happy as a local parish pastor. I wanted to be the Pope. Most likely, if you want to be the Pope, you shouldn’t be the Pope. But I was an altar service and Mass was incredibly important to me. I was coming up to my confirmation and was about to become an adult in the Church, which meant I decided if I wanted to go to Church and how I would grow up as a Catholic.
To put it lightly, this was not something that continued as I got older. I drifted from the Church for multiple reasons. But recently, thanks to a few of my friends, reacquainting myself with Father Larry when he was back in the United States and the fact that John likes to sleep in and I have nowhere to really go on Sunday mornings if he sleeps past nine, I have returned to the Church.
I go just about every Sunday and have rediscovered why I love it so much. But it is hard. I disagree with so many positions that the Church and its representatives have taken. I am incredibly happy with myself and how I live, but I doubt the Church would agree. So, when I was at the library last week to find a few books to read to try again to read a book a week, I saw Fearing the Stigmata by Matt Weber.
Mr. Weber works for CatholicTV and does short videos about being a young Catholic – young being 27. The book made me very intrigued by Mr. Weber’s videos. And I really enjoyed his book. He wrote about a lot of events and situations that reminded me of fears that I had growing up Catholic.
Weber seems like a guy I would really enjoy talking to about the Church and life. He has a great perspective on what the Church means and how he describes the universality of it. The stories that stuck out to me involved him going to a Portugeuse mass and realizing that it is still the same thing and that even though he understood nothing of it, it was still powerful and it still showed exactly why the universal Church is so amazing. I also enjoyed his stories of fear. The title of the book points to this, but the Church does make someone who truly wants to live a holy life fearful of so much. All of the mysteries and miracles are frightening. The altar is also a frightening place – you cannot cross it, you must bow in front of it, its reverence. But it is frightening, not like a horror movie, but in its glory. All that it represents makes you feel small and that is scary. Many of the stories that Mr. Weber tells relate to this fear of what the Church represents.
My only dilemma with the book is its subtitle: “Humorously Holy Stories of a Young Catholic’s Search for a Culturally Relevant Faith.” I don’t know if these stories really hit on the search for a culturally relevant faith. The only part of the book that touches on this, in my opinion, relates to how one’s Catholic-ness figures into one’s American-ness. Unfortunately, it is only a few pages. I wanted more of this and hope to find it in Mr. Weber’s videos.
But as a 30 year old who is trying to navigate his way through and back into the Catholic Church, I really enjoyed the stories and how Weber details what the Church and religion means to him.
2012 ended pretty well for me. I got my Christmas cards out on time. John was able to be here for Christmas eve and Christmas Day. I made a pretty good ham and got some nice presents. I spent most of the last week in Milwaukee as John worked, I played. I only spent about 20% of my days reading tax law stuff. Never thought I would be saying that…And then we went to see The Book of Mormon in Chicago.
Last night, we saw The Book of Mormon at the Bank of America Theater with my friend from work. It was a really good time. I drove into the city and traffic wasn’t too bad. The usual spots on the inbound Kennedy were troublespots, but we got downtown after picking up my friends on the way with time to spare. We had a nice dinner, though it was a bit slow. Generally, when you get at a restaurant a few hours before the show starts, there is not a concern regarding making it on time. But our entrees did not come out until almost 6:45. Our reservation was 5:30 and we didn’t really dally too long in making choices. There were four entrees to pick from. This wasn’t the menu for Applebee’s where there is eight different kinds of every protein. We had four choices: beef, chicken, fish, rice. Go! But it was great to sit around and talk about movies, TV, life, the holidays, and a little bit of work. I told John to look at the clock when we first started talking “shop”: 75 minutes. Not bad…
Our seats were in the mezzanine, which became my seat of choice after a few bad orchestra seats and a great view for Next to Normal on Broadway. The Bank of America Theater does not have the greatest mezzanine. It is pretty high and very large. I had to lean forward through most of the production to see the entire stage. However, the staff there was really nice and the concession stand was not as overpriced as I thought it was going to be. Yes, the $3 water was small, but it wasn’t $6.
The show was pretty great. The cast sang well, acted well, and had a good chemistry. Ben Platt as Elder Cunningham was easily the best performance I have seen in Chicago theater in years. He brought a different direction from what Josh Gad did on Broadway (from what I could hear on the soundtrack) and gave the show a lot of heart. I can see why Nic Rouleau had the role of Elder Price on Broadway. He was a lot of fun to watch. He played his character’s direction perfectly. We are lucky to have them at The Book of Mormon Chicago.
Overall, I enjoyed the underlying story. Faith is something that I incredibly important to me and I found it a refreshing take on the concept of faith and specifically, Mormonism. It is, however, not surprisingly, crude and vulgar. I will admit to laughing at some of the crude jokes. But some of it is just a little over the top. When I saw Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf there, I thought I would never see a play with more swearing in it in the halls of that theater. But I was wrong. Really wrong. I doubt the F word has ever been used so much.
My favorite song in the show is the “showstopper”: I Believe. As an altar boy for a few years and a relatively devout Catholic growing up who dreamed of being a priest, the concept of just believing hits close to home, especially in the face of the story behind the song. The doubts I had when I was in college and the doubts that were created in me as I grew up really turned me angry. And then I came back to the Church in law school and would go during every lunch – to just feel screwed by the church again. Nevertheless, I am back to going almost every Sunday to get out of John’s apartment in the morning so he can sleep in without me causing him to get up early with my boredom.
The other fun part of the musical is how much it riffs on other musicals. You will hear certain famous phrasing or chords or see famous choreography. I just looked around and listened to people giggle when someone would swear and I would wonder if they were going to smile and laugh when they heard famous tones from Sunday in the Park with George or West Side Story. Or scenes that literally came straight out of The King and I. I know I was, but then again, I play Call of Duty while listening to the Sondheim Pandora station – they play a lot of A Little Night Music and Into the Woods – please try to get a little more diversity, Pandora.
I would love to see it again – but don’t want to drop another $100 for tickets. So, I’ll probably just read the book instead! Book of Mormon Chicago
When asked why Justice Scalia relates homosexuality with bestiality, he points to an argumentative style: reduction to absurdity, which demonstrates that a statement is true by showing that a false result follows from its denial or that a statement is false by showing that a false result follows from its acceptance. In other words, if we accept that homosexuality is okay, then bestiality or incest is okay. But bestiality and incest are not okay, therefore homosexuality is not okay.
For a legal scholar, this is faulty logic, to say the least. This is a combination of a straw man and fear mongering. An absurdity can be drawn from any argument. To make a valid argument, the assertions must actually exist in the argument. In mathematics, this is a proof by contradiction. For example, when proving that the square root of two is irrational, the approach is a proof by contradiction.
Assume that the square root of 2 is rational. Thus is can be expressed as a fraction of a/b, where a and b are integers, where at least one is odd because the fraction is expressed in lowest terms. If a/b is equal to the square root of 2, then a^2 = 2b^2. Thus a is even. Thus b must be odd. If a is even, then a^2 is a multiple of 4, so 2b^2 is a multiple of 4 and thus, b^2 would be even and so would b. So b is odd and even – which is a contradiction because b cannot be both odd and even. This is an assertion. Therefore, the initial assumption that the square root of two is rational must be false.
For Justice Scalia’s argument to be true, there must exist some assert in the argument between bestiality or incest and homosexuality. I wish someone would push him on this point.
His second point seems to be completely different: ”If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
And I say, yes. You can have moral feelings against homosexuality, murder, or anything. You can have moral feelings for homosexuality, murder, or anything. But we live in a society where mores are discussed by cultures. If a culture decides that murder is immoral and then illegal, then if there are three people in that culture who disagree, it is up to those people if they want to shift their beliefs, leave the culture, or just accept that they are different.
I believe it is morally reprehensible that capital punishment is legal in this country. I believe our use of torture and the current use of drones are morally wrong. I can have these beliefs, just like Justice Scalia can have his beliefs. But at the end of the day, capital punishment is legal because more people believe in it than disagree with it. I live in a state with a capital punishment moratorium. I voted for a President who uses drones all the time. I made these decisions as a member of my society.
Justice Scalia is more than able to believe that homosexuality is wrong. But he is on the losing side of history. More and more people don’t agree with that morality. Morality changes – I just saw the movie Lincoln and will be writing about that soon. To think that people at the end of the civil war were still debating if slavery is a moral right or that universal suffrage was against all moral fiber does not make sense today.
Previously…Cyclops, possessed by the Phoenix, killed Professor Xavier. Wolverine runs a school. People are afraid of mutants again and there are more and more appearing after a few “years” of No More Mutants.
All New X-Men starts on a strange note. Like the last book called New X-Men, something is happening to Beast. But Stuart Immonen draws an awesome Beast. He is the focus of this first story arc, even though he falls ill. But you can tell exactly what is going on with him through his pain, his sorrow, and his decision to go back and grab the original X-Men at their most innocent.
Immonen does emotion well. In the third issue, where the story seems to pause for an issue, all of the problems with Magneto’s and Cyclops’s powers are apparent in their body language no the interesting use of cartoonish power failures.
The ink lines are consistent with recent Immonen pencils. It is a thick style that allows the characters to pop off the page. X-Men is at its best when it is a pop comic (as Grant Morrison noted when he took over the book). Though this isn’t the same pop he was referring to, it works. In the image below, the line work surrounding the returning X-Men but the background structures do not have the same dark lines. And for whatever reason, when I took this picture, Angel consumed the flash. Read what you will into that.
As for the story, we have three new mutants who I am sure will be Chandler-style guns: a girl who can stop time and space, a boy who can bring the injured back from the dead, and someone who can mimic the look of another person. So, obviously, we have a double agent, someone will be revived, and time and space will continue to be manipulated. As Cyclops builds his team, they will probably be there.
But why? Cyclops is supposedly trying to rehabilitate himself but he killed or injured a whole set of cops who had Emma in custody. Magneto is right – this isn’t a redemption story. Cyclops knew what he was doing and he will have to accept who he is now and how he came this far. I hope Bendis goes with this storyline as it could be really interesting. After finishing his Avengers run, there were so many possibilities that didn’t go anywhere. Let’s hope X-Men stays on track. And that Scott doesn’t do the X-arm sign like his just scored a touchdown again.
The story is about the steps we take to get where we think we need to get. Beast warped time. Cyclops started a revolution. The other characters are there-but I will assume they will have more to do soon. And I hate Illyana. Why do so many Marvel writers like her? I don’t get the character at all. She seems horrible.
I enjoyed the dialogue. The story has a lot of potential. The art is amazing. It is definitely the cleanest artwork that I have seen thus far in Marvel Now. I’m in. If you’re interested, I have a digital code in the books, so the first person to leave a comment can get my digital codes for the three issues.
Every year, the writers of Slate Magazine post who they are voting for and why. I think it is a noble decision as they write about politics and culture the world. It gives readers a sense of where they come from. As I write often about politics and post even more about it on Facebook, I wanted to share who I will be voting for as I go to the polls tonight.
President/Vice President: Barack Obama/Joe Biden (D)
When I voted for President Obama the first time, it was the only time I ever felt strongly about a candidate. I am not as liberal as I once was and have a practical side to me. I like people who believe in compromise and coming to the table with ideas. I like people who don’t always curtail to the popular will. Barack Obama is that person. He took ideas that originated on the other side of the political spectrum and adapted them. He worked on a grand compromise that was only destroyed when the other party realized it was better politics to have the President fail. Additionally, I do not trust Mitt Romney to run this country with anything besides a weather balloon. He doesn’t have a solid bone in his body.
U.S. House of Representatievs: Janice D. Schakowsky (D)
I have never voted for a winning Democrat for Congress. I am not a big Schakowsky fan, but I will vote for her.
State Senate: Matt Murphy (R)
The Democractic Party failed to run any candidates in the primary and therefore lose my vote. If you don’t compete throughout the election cycle, I don’t feel you deserve my vote. I have heard nothing from the Democrat and don’t know why I should vote for him. Matt Murphy is a relatively conservative Republican and I doubt I agree with him on any issues at the end of the day. But the Tribune believes him to be a good senator and I feel that he put in the time.
State House: David Harris(R)
See above. The reasons.
State’s Attorney: Anita Alvarez (D)
I am not a big fan. Her opponent seems like a decent candidate, but I believe Alvarez has done a competent job.
Recorder of Deeds: Karen Yarbrough (D)
Tribune liked her. Nothing else. She’s the recorder of deeds.
Clerk of Courts: Diane Shapiro (R)
The Cook County court system is disgusting. Dorothy Brown is an embarassment. I have no idea what Shapiro will do, but anything is better than the status quo.
Water Reclamation: Debra Shore (D), Kari Steele (D), Dave Ehrlich (G)
The Tribune likes the first two a lot and my friend, Louis Mercer, recommended the third on Facebook. This is one of the first times that Facebook impacted my vote. Way to go, Mark Zuckerberg.
Board of Review, First District: Dan Petlak (R)
Has done a good job. Deserves to keep his job.
Judges I voted no on:
I vote no if any bar association, newspaper, or legal group says the person in not qualified, even if it is a group I don’t agree with. If someone says that they are not qualified, they must be biased in some way and should not be on the court.
Rodney Hughes Brooks
Lisa Ruble Murphy
Joyce Marie Murphy Gorman
Pamea E. Hill-Veal
I will not disclose the rest of the judges as they don’t matter as most are unopposed or barely opposed.
They say that there are two things that you shouldn’t talk about: religion and politics. However, these are two of the strongest things that bring us together. The reason that we are told not to talk about it is because people have high passions for both and in many instances, think that the other side’s perspective is wrong. I have always felt this is a short-sighted view of both topics.
Politics is the way we organize ourselves. Aristotle defined politics as the thing concerning the polis, or the citizenship. It is the thing that defines us as a citizen. But we treat it like a black and white decision between good and evil.
I have never been shy about my political beliefs. There is no reason in my mind to be afraid of anything in regards to my opinions. I feel that as long as you respect someone else’s beliefs that your beliefs will be given the same regard. I am friends with Republicans, Democrats, and Green party members. No libertarians…just kidding.
I know this isn’t a given for everyone. Yesterday afternoon, John and I went to see Hotel Transylvania with our friends Karl and Loryl. The movie was fun and it is always great to spend time with friends. But then we got to our car and there was a slip of paper on my windshield. I was not happy. The last time this happened a kid busted up my front headlight and bumper such that one light sometimes still dangles off of the car. I didn’t know where this new person hit my car and why they had a small scrap of paper.
I suppose this is funny in Brookfield, WI. I am sure the person who thought it was funny to put it on my car just giggled and walked away. But what is the state of our polis if this is something that a person carries around with them? How does this affect the marketplace of ideas?
I would be curious to know what this person thought my response would be. Would I read this, see the error in my ways, and repent and get a Romney/Ryan sticker? There was a reason I donated money to the Obama campaign. I paid attention to the issues important to me and saw where the candidates fell. So, I gave him money. I voted for him in 2008 and have not lot any faith. Honestly, I trust him more today than I did four years ago.
So the knucklehead who vandalized my car was me and I am proud to have the sticker. I don’t think I look like an idiot or a complete fool, just like I don’t think that of anyone with a Romney sticker. But I do think that someone who has printed out pieces of paper to put on Obama supporters’s cars might want to look in the mirror and find a better way to spend their time than by touching my car.