Since Charlie Hebdo, I’ve been fooling around with ideas for cartoons.
One simple, re-usable one is a silhouette smoker watching TV, and responding to it in some way.
The example below is a prototype cartoon, with the figure on the screen a skewed grayscale photo of ASH’s Deborah Arnott. The thought bubble is the smoker’s response to seeing her.
I think it works quite well, even though it’s a mixture of photography and drawn lines. In fact it works well enough for me to drop any idea of drawing cartoon likenesses of public figures. I think I’ll put together a collection of photo heads. For example David Cameron, Nigel Farage, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin. There are plenty of photos of them out on the web.
And if I want to comment on something they’ve said or done, I could just paste in the appropriate figures, adding speech bubbles if they’re saying something. And I might draw in anything extra that’s needed.
I could also use several of the images to create narrative cartoons of the kind you find in comics:
There are any number of possibilities here. It doesn’t have to be a TV screen. It could be a computer display if a keyboard was added in the space in front of the screen.
And people could make suggestions. Last week Walt suggested a nice simple cartoon, so I had a shot at drawing it. It’s on the right.
With the TV/computer screen, people could suggest screen images and speech/thought bubbles.
It should make for an interesting variation on the usual blog format.
Frank Davis 
Cartoons are a cool way to expose the Orwellian Oversight imposed by the Tobacco Control cult.
Really like the desert island more and more each time I see it and I liked it to start with.. Nifty idea too of combining photos and drawings. Keep going
More on the Science article on bad luck cancer. The first link below shows aspects of the furor, the most interesting of which explores the human mind’s demand for explanations, even if they’re wrong, but the second link shows the kicking and screaming of the NGOs. The WHO was also quick to condemn it for the same reason of protecting the Lifestyle theory on which its employees base their own lifestyle, at least financially
http://blogs.plos.org/onscienceblogs/2015/01/16/cancer-bad-luck-bad-science-writing-maybe-bad-paper/#comment-31414
http://www.cancerletter.com/articles/20150116_2
Lifestyle theory – Generated as a means for political control of the masses. Its use includes blaming all disease on actions deemed deplorable by those in control. It began with the Farnham Heart disease study in 1948 their the term lifestyle risk factor was born.
From then on the Microscope was abandoned along with general chemistry in a pursuit for the control of the one world government created by the UNITED NATIONS thru its WHO health arm. Its secret mission to teach and enforce health edicts as a means to condition free people for the final condition of surrendering their national pride and individual liberty. Thus becoming puppet controlled world citizens.
Funny how shit happens I wrote the above jokingly then bam look what pops up from my own Kentucky Senator and Neighbor. Maybe Rands got a direct wire to my micro-processor chip they put in my head while I was sleeping……lol
Friday, 16 January 2015
Sen. Rand Paul Would be “Happy to Dissolve” the UN
U.S. Senator Rand Paul (shown, R-Ky.), a leading contender for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, would be “happy to dissolve” the United Nations, the senator told gun-rights activists at a recent gathering in New Hampshire. Widely ridiculed in the United States as the “dictators club,” the controversial global body has become especially unpopular with American gun owners outraged about the UN’s accelerating attacks on the God-given rights enshrined U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. The message was apparently popular in New Hampshire.
During a campaign-style gathering packed with gun-rights supporters at the Londonderry Fish & Game Club, Senator Paul reportedly addressed a crowd in what was supposed to be a press-free briefing. While the senator mostly answered questions on gun rights, with the UN increasingly wading into the discussion and pushing a deeply controversial global gun-control scheme known as the UN Arms Trade Treaty, the global outfit inevitably came up.
According to a reporter from RealClearPolitics.com, who apparently did not leave the room when journalists were instructed to get out, the Kentucky senator said that a body to “discuss diplomacy” was not necessarily a bad idea. The UN and its current structure, though, and the fact that American taxpayers are forced to provide a “huge chunk” of the UN budget — about a fourth, by most estimates — is what Paul said he found objectionable.
“I dislike paying for something that two-bit Third World countries with no freedom attack us and complain about the United States,” explained the senator, whose father, former Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, was a leader in the growing national effort to have the U.S. government withdraw from and defund the UN. “There’s a lot of reasons why I don’t like the UN, and I think I’d be happy to dissolve it.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19921-sen-rand-paul-would-be-happy-to-dissolve-the-un?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_campaign=c370cddcff-The_Editors_Top_Picks_3_12_143_12_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8ca494f2d2-c370cddcff-289798669
I thinks its time Nigel and Rand had a lil beer summit of their own.
Personally, I don’t think we need to stoop to this level. We see what confusion? and virtual high-fives (from a few of the already converted) the idea attracted from those who thought as I did (I don’t believe it was just me).
As Dick Puddlecote says, “We are on the side of the angels here.” A campaign of cold-blooded murders by gangs of cowards down alleyways as was described during an actual murder of a cannabis informant of young people – retold with glee in the comments – would put back the cause years. Cartoons about it would sway the switherers towards the Antis and years would be lost.
As singing legend Joe Jackson wrote here two posts ago and well worthy of another airing,
“I also don’t feel depressed about the situation, but angry and frustrated. I’m angry at people like Mike Bloomberg, Stanton Glantz, Simon Chapman, ASH, the WHO etc. But the frustration is with the kind of situation I found myself in yesterday: chatting with 3 people I didn’t know very well, who, when the subject somehow got on to smoking bans, all said they didn’t really care about them because they didn’t smoke. Then someone said actually, if anything, I like them, because I’d rather not have the smell on my clothes etc., at which point the other two said yes, me too. Then I pointed out a few things: government intrusion into private space, property rights of bar owners, the unfairness of a total ban rather than more freedom of choice, that a smoking ban does affect them if their favourite bar closes, etc – and within five minutes, they were all agreeing with me. And we didn’t even get to the SHS fraud!
“What’s frustrating is that people like this – who are reasonable people and, I think, the majority – are simply not exposed to any point of view other than an antismoking one.
“I’m not sure why I’m posting this – apart from the fact that it’s nice to feel ‘among friends’ – but maybe someone somewhere will read it and it will spark a helpful idea. That seems to be about all any of us can do . . .”
It’s a battle for hearts and minds, as generals say as they’re about to kill thousands of civilians as “collateral damage”.
Consider the “Splattergate” video (“No Pressure”) from the ’10:10′ environmental group where some children were ‘murdered’ for refusing to go along with climate change panic and the predictable aftermath of outrage from Joe Public led to the withdrawal of most of the group’s main (technological) sponsors for whom sales mean more than the environment after all.
Nasty doesn’t cut the ice with the sort of people who need to be persuaded for change to be enacted. For ordinary people, thus far kept in the dark, being “exposed to any point of view other than an antismoking one” involving murder would be totally counterproductive.
You’ve noticed how the Opposition have only got away with the fraud by colouring it as “care” and “compassion” and “health” and “safety”. Sure, they use gore, but in a “good way” – to help convince the proles of their propaganda.
As Joe Jackson said, “…maybe someone somewhere will read it and it will spark a helpful idea. That seems to be about all any of us can do . . .”
I’m sure you, Frank, of all people can devise a more beneficial idea.
I don’t think we need to stoop to this level.
Stoop to drawing cartoons? Do you think I should stick to my usual sedate prose?
As Dick Puddlecote says, “We are on the side of the angels here.”
Or was it “Drop dead willya” that you objected to? Because angels would (or should) never express such sentiments?
I’ve never claimed to be an angel. And if you read some of the earliest things I wrote on this blog (in the form of fiction), you’d see why.
I’m on the side of freedom and choice. People like Deborah Arnott are on the side of control and restriction. Yet they think they’re on the side of the angels too. And Michael Bloomberg was saying recently that when he died he was going straight to heaven.
It’s a battle for hearts and minds… Nasty doesn’t cut the ice with the sort of people who need to be persuaded for change to be enacted.
I think it’s just a battle that we’re in. In fact I think it’s a war. And I always have. I’m not trying to win people over – because I don’t think it can be done. Once someone has become an antismoker, it seems to me that they have adopted an entire new set of values (of which “smoke-free” is just one). They’ve joined a new religion.
And if you like, my guardian angel these days is my dead Spitfire pilot uncle, whose photo I keep on my mantelpiece. I don’t think he was trying to win hearts and minds. I think he was just fighting against something he hated. He was fighting Nazism.
When I say that Tobacco Control must be destroyed, I mean exactly that. I don’t mean that they should be persuaded to change their ways or their beliefs – because I don’t think that can be done. They have to be defeated just like the Nazis were defeated.
It wasn’t an attempt at defaming your noble efforts, Frank. It probably seemed that way, for which I apologise. I should have expressed my suggestions more carefully, so I hope you’ll forgive me. You do a brilliant job which i know everyone appreciates more than we can say, which is why I should have shown more love in the way i expressed my reservations. Sorry, Frank.
Aw fer chrssake’s, Stewart. First of all, it was a prototype with the “smoker [merely] responding in some way.” and as such he might have filled the prototype bubble with anything at all. (“And so’s yer old man,” “blah blah blah” or “Sbpffle zblat.”) Then too this isn’t flashed on the cover of Vanity Fair, it’s a ramble among friends, no murder was committed or implied as you seem to so baroquely opine, and then finally on the subject of free speech/ self-censorship, I’m gathering vous n’est pas Charlie. No, finally, consider the nasty cartoons and ads about smokers. Relax, will ya? Something not easily done on a high horse.
I thought you might descend to those depths, Walt. I had hoped not. Enough said about your lack of capacity for empathy, civility, integrity, or kindness, not to mention your propensity for predictability.
The tragedy is, you’re not even offending me; it’s not my name you’ve taken in vain and I half expected it anyway.
As for being Davis’ Bulldog, I’m sure he’s able to defend himself and in more courteous and skillful a fashion than you seem able and with perhaps some appreciation for my genuine and heartfelt efforts in offering my suggestions at improving matters, if I could have phrased it better.
Try wiping the spittle from your specs and read my initial comments again and try to understand the helpful advice I was offering.
I care about freedom. If one doesn’t have the freedom to smoke, one doesn’t have freedom, period and I don’t appreciate people jeopardising that with unsound suggestions. .
For Walt’s sake try to understand that!
it’s not my name you’ve taken in vain
You really do ride a high horse, don’t you?
No, I don’t, Frank. I wrote that because it’s Walt’s hand that hammers a nail harder into Christ. Of course it hurts me too; my remark was to try to shame Walt, but he intended to hurt me, of course, which he did, needless to say, but you didn’t comment on that. It’s all right to hurt me. Well, don’t I know it.
You don’t know me to merit that remark. “You really do ride a high horse, don’t you?” You wouldn’t believe what I am and what I’ve done for people to be at the door of bankruptcy after building up a successful business from the ashes of my life. There’s another exclusive for you. I was an alcoholic for ten whole years. Saved from death back then by Christ a few times, but I’m still no angel. I’m trying to make up for those lost years now. Maybe that’s why I’m burning myself up trying to save the world single-handedly, as Smokingscot wrote. Maybe I’m just being stupid when the world burns up anyway to cleanse it from the totalitarian, anti-Christian filth imposed on it by the NWO I’m trying to save it from and the assorted other evils.
I’m a good comrade (to use an unfortunate leftist word) in the fight, not that anyone seems to appreciate that, like they haven’t appreciated the roof I’ve given over their heads or the money I’ve given them, or the camaraderie, but that seems to be par for the course.
Not that I’m bitter. I’d have done the same, but differently. I have fought a good fight with God’s help. That’s why insults no longer harm me.
he intended to hurt me, of course, which he did, needless to say,
FFS, Walt was using a routine throwaway expletive (or maybe just intensifier) that’s uttered by millions of people every day.
If that ‘hurts’ you, then I’m surprised that tobacco smoke doesn’t also.
You say you’re in favour of ‘freedom’, but you want to curtail people’s freedom to speak in the way they usually do.
I don’t mind if you do that in your own blog, but I don’t want you coming here and trying to impose your values on my commenters.
Frank, it was a deliberate attempt to hurt my prized feelings about my faith. That obviously means nothing to you and it’s no throwaway line, believe me, no matter how many millions use it.
And I never intended you to moderate your blog to suit me. Do you think I would have stayed so long otherwise? I made the comment that some people are more equal than others when it comes to who is allowed to be offended.
And with freedom comes responsibility. The ‘freedom’ to deliberately hurt someone who has supported your common cause for years is not a freedom I wish to exercise, thanks. That’s a ‘freedom’ I don’t hear anyone calling for, nor desiring.
“If that ‘hurts’ you, then I’m surprised that tobacco smoke doesn’t also.”
That’s beneath you. That is utterly shameful after the immense effort I have expended – and exacerbated my depressive illness in the process – by supporting your/our cause; another throwaway line that doesn’t hurt, is it? – another line of utter contempt. All because I didn’t feel your line was quite right, although I should have said it in a better way, but I have apologised for that.
By the way, I never willingly leave a blog or unfriend someone on FB or Twitter, I let the other person further show himself up for the turncoat he is if that’s what this is all about.
Yes, Frank, I’ve been through all this at yours and Leggy’s and my own blog on occasions and loads of other places for years and years while my business has been going down the pan – and smoking cigarettes, roll-ups, a pipe and the odd cigar – because tobacco smoke hurts me.
I’ve come across some crassly stupid comments in my time, but that surely wins the first prize.
I’ve run my life into the ground – my finances and my health – by supporting something that I hate. Yes, frank. Reckon you must have nailed it there.
You’ve come back here after a long absence after attacking Smokervoter, and in the space of two days you’ve attacked first Smokingscot and then Walt, both of whom are respected, long term commenters here (and personally helpful to me personally in other ways). I don’t owe you anything.
Sorry for butting in here.
it was a deliberate attempt to hurt my prized feelings about my faith.
Stewart, sorry, as a reader I did not get this impression. And, I must admit I have modified a biblical quote by substituting a camel with a rich man. (“A Camel with pass through the eye of a needle”) simply because it was a good opportunity to point out that the arrogance of Mr. Bloomberg might well bring him some surprises. I am not too sure that the gates he eventually rushes in, bypassing the queue “without being interwiewed”, are the gates of heaven. But he believes he’ll make it there in his usual fashion: – not taking no for an answer and having enough cash to not take no for an answer.
And with freedom comes responsibility.
Of course it does. In a way a kind of “responsibility” made smokers not to rebel when the smoking areas were getting smaller and smaller – until eventually in 2007 we found ourselves kicked out the buildings.
We should have stopped the smoker haters at the point where the majority of the rooms were non-smoking!
The Anti-smokers have the responsibility to allow us COMFORTABLE space, too.
So, WHO does not understand and act the concept of freedom?
As already said further down here:
Cartoons have a special place in our society – a cartoon can show something that no-one dares to say. So in effect cartoonists take the role of the ancient “Hofnarr” (?jester). The Hofnarr was the only person who would survive giving a king a piece of his mind.
Cartoons are about voicing an opinion without getting killed. That is, until last week.
People recognizing this “Hofnarr” (?Jester) freedom to say uncomfortable truth being under attack react a little stronger than might be expected.
@Frank – I’ve come back after five weeks, as it’s my favourite blog!
To risk going over old ground (but you started it) I attacked Smokervoter as he appeared to admit to a murder. It wasn’t just me who thought so, but a few others were congratulating him for killing a grass. Go figure!
I had noticed that of all the people who welcomed me back a couple of days ago, Smokingscot was not one, but who had plenty of apparently friendly advice on the Smokervoter incident and who wrote on my return, “Absolutely no need whatsoever to welcome you back.,” after his totally incorrect psychological report he made on me after the Smokervoter incident. Nobody else has definitively not welcomed me back as we’re supposedly on the same team. That might change now I’ve mentioned it.
Walt directly insulted me. He attacked first. He should have behaved better – he only did it as he knows I’m a Christian and a ‘landlord’ of your experience should have put him straight, not me.
His problem with me seems to be the same as Smokingscot’s, that I’m a Christian. According to you, Frank, the only difference you see in people now is whether they’re a smoker or non-smoker. I recall you saying something like black or white doesn’t matter, Catholic or Protestant doesn’t matter, etc, etc.
Well, me being a Christian matters for these two, so we’re not on the same side on this issue, due to their prejudice and you won’t be able to sort out hatred like theirs and they mean so much more to you.
I have been commenting since at least November 2010 when you posted one of my blog pots.
I was probably commenting much earlier as I didn’t have a livejournal a/c so would probably have appeared as ‘Anonymous’ to start with. I was there with Leg-iron when you went all stroppy with him (how he had good reason to completely disown you, but didn’t).
I don’t owe you anything.
Isn’t that charming for 4 or 5 years of almost daily comments and support, other than those cartoons yesterday?
Never imagine anyone on the internet is your friend when you can support them for years then one disagreement and sides are picked and other ‘friends’ appear and you’re “not owed anything” despite devoting at least 2 hrs a day in comments and study to this blog = say 10 hrs a week x 4.5 years = 2,340 hours = 60 weeks unpaid work = over a year of my life is what I have given you, Frank, as part of my efforts to right wrongs. That has cost me many tens of thousands in lost income. I know – my fault.
You owe me nothing. Fine.
Just know you have no friends on the internet, everyone. You are the easiest to dispense with.
Right. I’m putting you on moderation. I won’t let you post anything unless I approve it.
Love the general idea, but have to agree about the sentiments/thoughts expressed in the cartoon. Remember the stink the Antis made about one or two things in the past which, when taken out of context of the full surrounding discussions, allowed them to paint us as behaving/thinking the same way they do.
These blogs are always open to everyone — which is a good thing as the Antis can’t credibly run around claiming that we’re secretly plotting with undercover operatives from Big Tobacco — but that openness also allows them to constantly scrutinize everything we write with a fine tooth comb (to mix a metaphor… :> ) and pull out our weakest chinks to stick an arrow into. Over on the New Orleans boards recently one of the Antis pulled a quote out from one of the blogs here or over at the Smokers’ Club or somesuch that was calling on our folks to help get our side of the arguments out on those boards. The slant they gave to it though, painted it as a highly organized and unethical attack by “Big Tobacco Lobbyists” on the poor little gasping choking local folks in New Orleans who just wanted to be left alone to talk amongst themselves and make up their own minds. Of course WE know that “Big Tobacco Control” has been and is continuing to “make up the minds” of those people for them in many different and subtle ways … but THEY don’t know that: they just see us, sticking out like a sore thumb because they’ve never seen anything LIKE us before (remember: 95% of their input for years has been coming from them from a strongly antismoking media influenced by the annual expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars on “Tobacco Control.”
It’s a tricky line to walk: to offer them enough to break through the mental walls that have been so carefully constructed by the Antismokers, but also to keep it friendly and unobtrusive enough that they don’t feel like they’re “under attack” and so that it’s very difficult for the Antis to PAINT them as being “under attack.” When I’m board posting there are lots of times I’d like to stick more stuff up there, but I always try to keep an eye out for how heavily our side, either through me or others, has already been represented compared to the opposition and the local people. One short posting that someone spends an hour on shortening/editing/perfecting can have MORE punch on a site sometimes the five longer postings all attacking points by one or two locals or all pouring tons of information on them that most aren’t going to take the time and effort to read. Remember: the average person reading a newspaper never makes it much beyond the front page headlines, the editorials, and the comics pages. And it’s that average person we usually have to aim for in our writings: they want something (1) funny, short, and/or a bit bloody; and/or (2) something that will make them feel there’s been a fair argument on a point and that the argument was won by US!
– MJM, who realizes he rambled a bit from a simple cartoon. LOL!
It’s a tricky line to walk: to offer them enough to break through the mental walls that have been so carefully constructed by the Antismokers, but also to keep it friendly and unobtrusive enough that they don’t feel like they’re “under attack” and so that it’s very difficult for the Antis to PAINT them as being “under attack.”
Why should we be friendly and unobtrusive? We’re under constant attack from the antismoking zealots. And every time they win one battle, they start another one.
Like I said to Stewart above, I’m no angel. And I think we’re in a war, not a debate, with antismokers. The only debate is among smokers like ourselves as to how best to combat them.
I had assumed that you were trying to change the minds of the ordinary people who have been fooled that Joe Jackson was talking about.
I don’t think you’ll ever change the Antismoking zealots, who are psychopaths and therefore probably incapable of changing, when the massed ranks of ordinary people are easier to reach and change with common sense and facts
I had assumed that you were trying to change the minds of the ordinary people
No, I’m not. I don’t know what to do about brainwashed drones.
The people I’m concerned about are smokers. This is a blog for smokers. If any antismokers show up here, they usually get banned pretty quickly.
Frank, I may be telling you things you already know. However, as I recall, you had a problem with drawing lines that looked fuzzy (or something to that effect.) For what it’s worth, and it may not be worth anything….
Microsoft Paint has a free-form “pencil” and also a “brush” drawing tool. (The latter is just a wider line.) The top menu has a “size” option to change the width of these tools. You can also alter the color. Any of these commands can be changed at any time. You can also set the View command to show “gridlines” which may make it easier to draw. I’d think increasing the line width would solve your problem. But maybe you’ve already tried this?
Paint doesn’t have many features. If you’re really interested in drawing, there are surely better shareware or nominally costing (or real expensive) programs.
Re changing photos of people into cartoon drawings, with a better program than Paint, I think you could. Display a picture and classify it as “object 1.” Then line draw over this, tracing the features of the person’s face (in effect creating “object 2”). Delete object 1 and you have a cartoon line drawing. Maybe…. It’s been many years since I’ve played with this stuff.
I wouldn’t overlook copywrite on the above. Some people may ask that you pay for (or credit them for) the use of their picture.
If you can draw on paper, I’d think it would be a lot easier to use a computer screen since you can easily undo a bad line. But I can’t draw at all….
Re using Paint etc… Once you’ve got your basic image, you might want to download the free GIMP program. It’s *VERY* similar in power and functionality to Photoshop but it’s free! I’ve been using GIMP 2 for about two years now (The graphics in TobakkoNacht were pretty much all created/tweaked with it) and while writing this post I’ve seen that Gimp has now upgraded to Gimp 2.8 and I’m about to download it!
http://gimp.soft32.com/free-download/?lp=adwords&kw=Gimp+2.8&mt=e&ad=59805636198&pl=&ds=s&gclid=CjwKEAiA8_KlBRD9z_jl_fKBhQkSJABDKqiXVuKrijAiaslXg7Ll3lztNTcmdSQ-snXFB-TouvERJxoC8d_w_wcB
:)
MJM
Mike, is there a (near enough) foolproof online tutorial for GIMP (or video series on YouTube preferably)? I’m used to CorelDraw, but now I’m on Linux, I find GIMP next to impossible in comparison.
Stewart, sorry, but I don’t know of a good tutorial though they probably exist. I learned via trial ‘n error — as I needed or wanted something particular I’d just pull down the tabs and half the time I’d probably find something *better* than what I was looking for. If you have TobakkoNacht you may remember a very scary picture of a Horror Smoker Phone. That was just an ordinary old black phone dug out of my basement and posed in front of a quilt. I played with the image for an hour or so and eventually came up with a phone that would have scared the Addams Family! LOL!
:>
MJM
Hi Mike,
Thank you. I appreciate the advice. I have read some of your writings, although i forget which ones without re-reading them. :/
Mike, is there a (near enough) foolproof online tutorial for GIMP (or video series on YouTube preferably)? I’m used to CorelDraw, but now I’m on Linux, I find GIMP next to impossible in comparison.
Stewart, if you can’t get a tutorial on GIMP, read up on adobe photoshop. If you know photoshop, you can work your way through GIMP.
Thanks for that, beobrigitte, but I can only use Coreldraw, Dreamweaver/Fireworks and of course, Paint, but now that I’m on Linux, they’re all redundant. From what I’ve learned of GIMP so far, it’s quite a bit like Corel, but seems to take me forever to work out what came naturally with Corel. Corel’s like GIMP but as if it was programmed by sadists, making the simple difficult – or maybe it’s me who’s the gimp?
Stewart, it takes a little while for getting used to all things Linux. It is well worth persevering, though!
I used to have dual boot (windoze + Linux) – now I run Linux only. It’s so much better!
I do use MS Paint. It’s fairly limited, but useful nonetheless. The thought bubbles above and the text inside them were done using it.
And I’ve sorted out the fuzzy line problem, and changed my cafeteria cartoon accordingly.
And yes, I can draw on paper fairly well. Walt’s cartoon island was drawn on paper and scanned in.
But I’ve also got a 20-year-old version of PaintShop Pro, which I know my way around fairly well. But it’s on another computer, and won’t run on my main machine. I used that to process the Arnott image.
I’m still learning.
Cartoons is a nice idea, Frank. I had an experience the other day that I thought could be turned into one: I was sitting on the bench outside our (notoriously congested and chokingly diesel-smelly) bus station recently, and a woman who gets the same bus as me came and chatted for a while. Then a man a few yards away lit a fag. ‘Oh no,’ said the woman, flapping her hands, ‘I’ll have to move away.’ And she went off to stand nearer the diesel fumes.
It’s not much, but I thought it a bit ironic.
That’s a nice simple idea.
Yes, and it speaks volumes about the brainwashing techniques that have been deployed by TC over the past few decades.
I always find Dick Puddlecote’s stick figure cartoon of a bully kicking a smaller person already in floods of tears while shouting “Take my advice dammit”, very emotive.
For me, it says it all.
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/aghast-from-past.html
Those stick images can work very well. I may do a few myself. They’re dead easy.
Health zealots have taken over the asylum
Spiked
In what must be considered a lunatic move, East Lancashire NHS Trust has banned smoking inside and outside all of its mental-health facilities.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/health-zealots-have-taken-over-the-asylum/16472#.VL0KOGM3McA
Smoking in the presence of a child is regarded as a physical violence, says new law in Latvia
19-01-2015
Revised tobacco control law to protect citizens from tobacco smoke came into force in the end of 2014 in Latvia clearly establishing citizens’ rights to be protected from tobacco smoke. The aim of the law emphasizes the rights of non-smokers to live in an environment free from tobacco smoke over smokers’ rights to smoke. In addition to the earlier restrictions on smoking in public places, the new law prohibits smoking in any other public place, if someone objects. Following the law on Children Rights Protection stating that smoking in the presence of a child is regarded as a physical violence, the tobacco control law now clearly states that smoking in the presence of a child is prohibited. The revised law applies also to electronic smoking devices, containing nicotine or not.
The Ministry of Health believes that the new approach and the philosophy of the law will help to push forward even more stringent rules in the future to fulfill obligations of the WHO FCTC and its guidelines. For the first time Latvia has established in the law, that tobacco harms people and that there is a possibility for them to protect themselves from this harm.
http://www.euro.who.int/en/countries/latvia/news/news/2015/01/smoking-in-the-presence-of-a-child-is-regarded-as-a-physical-violence,-says-new-law-in-latvia
No that’s not from the ONION that’s right off the WHO’s own website
Margo’s cartoon:
No drawing involved. I did it using Microsoft Paint (which is a standard package in Windows) in about an hour. It would have been less if I’d made it even simpler.
That’s actually lovely, Frank. It works well for me as stick characters. and it conveys the meaning clearly in three simple frames. Bravo, mate. You have hidden talents!.
It didn’t need talent. Or at least no more talent than is needed to create images using MS Paint. Margo could have done it herself. So could Rose. Half an hour of fooling around on Paint would have given them the skills.
Rose couldn’t.
I am computer illiterate, still type with one finger and wouldn’t know where to begin with drawing on a computer.
I am in awe of everyone else’s computer skills.
Rose, you wrote, “I am in awe of everyone else’s computer skills.”
Heh, that’s how *I* feel about the people who are flying around the net and typing at high speed on their tiny little telephones!
:>
MJM
My Grandad used to say; “A picture speaks louder than a thousand words.”
The stick figure cartoon could carry the caption:
“This is how the anti-smokers want you to act and they think that you are stupid enough to do so.”
How about a direct quote from a London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine press release as a caption.
‘It was pointed out that individuals could avoid the dangers of smoking but not those of pollution.”
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/pressoffice/press_releases/2002/smogpollution.html
Frank – you are very talented, Nisakiman I right.
Perhaps you could create a stock image of an Anti along the lines of them being prod noses, how everybody else’s rights end at their nose and the fact they tell so many lies (think Pinocchio). Actually when they open their mouths, I often think “Oh Noes …”
That’s a good idea too.
Everyone seems to have good ideas.
Something like this, Roobee?
Election poster from 1929, I’ve broken the link incase it posts itself.
http: //www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/poster-for-the-british-conservative-party-from-the-1929-news-photo/91877716
Thanks Rose – there’s no way I can vote Conservative again.
Me neither, these days that poster could be applied to any of the main parties.
Me, too. Labour is not an option, either; it’s election campaign is about making life even harder for me.
Rose, that’s an absolutely WONDERFUL image, and since it’s a 1929 ad, you’d expect it to be public domain. I was surprised to see that there seems to be a charge for using it, but figured, well, maybe this site collects millions of images and is charging a small fee for the work it does in cataloging them, or maybe they’re selling the original antique paper copy itself. Seemed reasonable.
Then I was further surprised to see all the detail and formality about how I might want to use the image (for how long I’d use it, how many people would be viewing it, what industry would it be used in, whether I wanted “digital” use, etc etc) and I picked the shortest, lowest, smallest options every step of the way and STILL got hit with a $200 or 200 pound price tag at the end! Strange! Heh, needless to say, I didn’t hit the “purchase” button!
– MJM
Good isn’t it, MJM?
I have no idea where I saw it, maybe on tv, but it certainly stuck in my mind.
The image is also available here:
And it’s available there a LOT cheaper than $200! LOL!
Prodnoses are sore at the end from all the prodding:
THAT is a really GOOD !!!!
Frank! You know, that actually suits her face …
How about a joust between Debs and one of the Sugar/Alcohol/Salt/Fat/Meat Antis? Winner gets the claim the most amount of deaths. And a cash prize, of course.
A joust! That’s a good idea.
I’ve been thinking about giving them curly prodnoses that can extend for great distances.
Curly like an elephant … trumpeting ‘Think of the Childreeen’? And then carrying off a wodge of cash.
Ooh, curly so it can smell round corners, and put a little ‘no smoking’ sign on the end.
The example below is a prototype cartoon, with the figure on the screen a skewed grayscale photo of ASH’s Deborah Arnott. The thought bubble is the smoker’s response to seeing her.
I have never thought: ‘Drop dead, willya’, less even said it. But I do admit reacting to BBC coverage with the words: “Get yer ******* mouth cemented, dimwit – and while the cement mixer is out, get that empty cavity in your head filled, too!!”
Cartoons have a special place in our society – a cartoon can show something that no-one dares to say. So in effect cartoonists take the role of the ancient “Hofnarr” (?jester). The Hofnarr was the only person who would survive giving a king a piece of his mind.
With tobacco control (and it’s long tail of whatever latched on to them) there is no such freedom of cartoon expression; they steamroller EVERYONE.
I’d love to see a cartoon of “Debbie’s” face after having walked into a jam packed jazz cellar, in the background someone with a cigarette in his/her mouth to be seen to pocket the key of the door he/she just locked.
That’s a good idea too.