Good article, Andrew, and I would like to add a clarification which you alluded to but didn't explicity state. An opponent of genetically modified food and a believer in global warming are interested in the same thing - the natural, unaltered world. Global warming, to the extent it has been caused by humans (a lot), can be seen as an unnatural (read: invented) process, like genetic modification via scientific human intervention. I think the environmentalists believe that staying as close to the uninvented, unmanufactured world as possible is a good thing, and should be aspired to, brought about, made a priority for humans as a whole. They're right. Overengineering the system is what has brought us global warming and "artificial" genetic modification. And transfats. And enriched uranium and plutonium. And on and on. Just plant regular corn, for chrissake already.

Of course it has. Overaltered is what I personally am concerned with. When the alterations become unhealthy for those affected by or near the alteration, as in too much carbon in the air, too much mercury in the lake, too much we don't know what in the genetically modified corn, etc, that's when I think everyone needs to be concerned. I haven't become aware of a scientific consensus that GM crops are safe. Crops are also modified for different purposes. Crops modified to increase their nutritional content might well be less dangerous than crops modified to kill other organisms. It's sounds to me like bushwacker00 has stopped thinking about what we're doing and whether it's helpful or harmful and has simply become angry at environmentalists.

It isn't because Journey is slickly produced that they suck (David Byrne, XTC). It isn't because they write short, punchy songs that they suck (Ramones, White Stripes, Elvis Costello, for gods sake). It isn't becuase they are technically talented and can play well that they suck (King Crimson, Santana).

It's simply because they suck, with some exceptions prior to Steve Perry's arrival. Chicago and the Doobie Brothers... even the Police followed similar arcs... a powerful performer begins to dominate the band, the writing becomes more and more tuned to big sales and the lowest common denominator, and away from meaningful individual self-expression, and the group mind that made then so creative and dynamic disappears into the cult of personality of the offending band member. (Steve Perry, Peter Cetera, Michael MacDonald, and even Sting)

There is an "it" factor that Journey, especially after they became successful, do not have. I was at the Bill Graham memorial show at Golden Gate Park, and the spectacle of Steve Perry begging the hip San Francisco crowd to "sing along, just once with me. Please!" on "When the Lights Go Down in the City" was enough to turn my stomach permanently, and yours too, had you seen it. Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young were as much of a different era, no more contemporary, but they didn't have to beg anyone to sing along with "Ohio". Their material stands up over time. Journey's does not.

Journey may be closer to the Ramones than Led Zeppelin, but they're closer to Christopher Cross than either. It takes a lot more than short songs to be punk. Journey is soulless because their songs are soulless, and it makes them a perfect match for Tony Soprano's dysfunctional existence and family.

One of the things that made David Chase's choice of "Don't Stop Believin'" so effective is that first moment after a viewer hears the song start... and they say, "Oh god, I can't believe they're using this song." Then, two minutes later, as the song is still playing, the incredulous, "They're still playing it!". Why does this moment occur? Why is it an unbelievable and jarring musical choice?

Because. Journey. Sucks.

See?

Since when is the Ukraine the hottest democracy operating outside the rules and installing the unelected by cheating and manipulation? Getting these two admittedly nice and fairly attractive people "elected" by bots serves as a great metaphor for the US under George W. Bush. "Everyone knew that the only way to get ahead was to play outside the rules." Ew.

Craig's take on Romney now: "He not only threw me under his campaign bus, he backed up and ran over me again."

Like the Republicans do to gay people? Exactly?

Anyone? Seriously, I'm at a loss with this strip.

I personally had no trouble realizing that Obama was not admiring Ronald Reagan's policies. He could have, and should have, stated it differently, and made it crystal clear that he wasn't in agreement with Reagan's policies.

He was reduced in the debate to saying,"I didn't say they were good ideas." Well, he didn't. He just said that Reagan read the electorate very well and achieved a governing majority with crossover appeal. He said that the Republicans were the "party of ideas". I think what he should have said is that they presented themselves as the party of ideas, and America, at the time, believed them.

It was Reagan's political technique and strategy he was admiring, from a technical standpoint, if that makes sense. You can admire Tom Brady and the Patriots' abilities and winning record, and yet deplore their existence as inhuman cheaters. (Not saying I feel that way, just that it's possible)

Hillary fights dirty. She's disingenuous about how she presents information about Obama. Obama hasn't been perfect, but I really feel like he's trying to keep the dialogue at a higher level. It's pretty hard when you're running for election in the biggest political cesspool available.

Tax money for religious schools. The public coffers bent to the goals of evangelism. Period.

Just fix the schools. Now.