I have the first letter about this cartoon, and that's good for McCain.

the mainstream media has taken over the strip and decided to use it as a vehicle for disseminating the news.

Honestly, I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I look to "This Modern World" to reassure myself that I'm not the only one thinking along similar lines. This week's cartoon is brilliant. Why is no one else on the Left pointing out the slant of everyday's news articles and commentary with the clarity that Tom brings to the picture. Seriously.

So, Tom, as a serious commentator on the state of our politics, media, etc., I hope you could at least look into the following subjects that I've been curious about:

1. Are there any laws that pollsters and their corporate media owned news outlets must abide by when conducting, compiling, and reporting poll results? Are pollsters subject to ANY sort of regulation? Frankly, I find most of the reported results unbelievable and view them suspiciously as preemptive attempts to assist in later explanations concerning suspicious election results.

2. Are provisional ballots counted in time to matter to an election's results? I swear I remember reading somewhere that many provisional ballots are simply set aside and serve more as a balm to soothe the nerves of the disenfranchised voting masses on election day than as actual, countable votes.

3. In geneaological terms, doesn't the "Mc" in some names simply mean "son of" ... therefore literally rendering McCain's name as "son of Cain" ... and, wasn't the biblical Cain the murderous brother?

Thanks, Tom! Please keep up the great work.

P.S. How about a strip, wherein Satan is the

GOP candidate and Jesus the Dem candidate, showing the lengths the media would go to to get Satan elected if that were the scenario? Maybe that's too pointed and unfunny, but I swear it would happen that way.

This comic could have been created at any point during the Bush years. Then as now, somegow the Republicans unabashedly transmogrify their every failed policy, flawed plan and corrupt behavior into an advantage, as masters of evil are apt to do.

Or maybe a comet or the sun explodes. Whatever, just make it quick and make it fast.

And why aren't Democrats better at casting things in the best possible light? After all, the truth has a liberal bias.

What I want at the debates is for Obama to look McCain right in the eye and say, "You're a lying sack of shit!"

And then I want Biden to look Palin right in the eye and say, "You are a lying sack of moose dung to claim that you sold a plane for profit on E-Bay and gave back the bridge to nowhere money. Neither of which you did!"

What about the state that wanted to secede from the Confederacy?

That was the one that started it all, South Carolina.

The Constitution protected the slave trade until 1808. Congress had outlawed it.

The main point of the Civil War was slavery. Most of the slave states were satisfied to have that.

South Carolina wanted to restore the slave trade. Get more slaves from Africa.

After Sherman's march to the sea, the capital of South Carolina was burned to the ground by Union troops. Many sources say the Union troops were angry with the state that started everything.

A letter written by my great grand uncle at Sister's Ferry, Georgia in 1865 says the reason was that the Confederates in South Carolina were setting torpedos in the road. Today, we call those land mines. The idea was to blow off a man's foot.

The letter was written to my great grandmother and my great great great grandmother. Interesting find on eBay.

Right on the money, Tom.

I particularly liked the panels about Palin's lack of experience being a positive. Two weeks ago after the announcement of Palin as McCain's running-mate, a number of alleged pundits claimed this would take the heat off Obama's lack of experience. They said the Republicans couldn't use this as an argument against him.

By the lack of response from the Democrat side it seems they fell for this line of nonsensical argument, too. How many times do they have to be 'Swiftboated' before they get it?

They're like a mugging victim who not only says, "I walked into a door," but actually seems to believe this is what happened.

What about the state that wanted to secede from the Confederacy

um, I think they seceded FROM the union to form the Confederacy

Just to correct you a little, slavery was the emotional issue that the Northern papers used to sell the war to its people after the defeat at 1st Manassas (Bull Run)

The secession of the southern states was about states rights & the tenth amendment.(rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution for the federal government, are left up to individual states)

The slavery issue was created by Lincoln as an emotional issue that the sheeple will support. (sounds like Iraq/9-11 doesn't it)

'Well, that's all for now' asked about them.

IMO, whether they are looked at or not usually depends upon the closeness of the race.

If candidate 'A' is ahead of candidate 'B' by 5,000 votes & they have 4,000 provisional ballots, then there is no way candidate 'B' can win race, even if he/she gets all the provisional votes.

In that case, they will be counted at a later date.

It is only in a very close race, where the provisional ballots could make difference, that they have to be counted ASAP. They can also stop counting them (right away, that is), once it bacomes apparent that there aren't enough remaining votes to overcome a lead.

your saying that slavery was not the major reason the civil war happened certainly comfirms your handle.

The main 'states right' that the Southern states that seceded wanted was the ability to override federal law & maintain slavery.

Nice try, though.

If it comes to that the US will probably disintegrate into a lose confederacy of sorts, made up of autonomous super-states. I'm thinking in my lifetime, maybe 20 years. You simply have lost the will and the resources and the common values and goals to stay as a single country. And it will go in a court battle not a battlefield. Make no mistake, when the US goes broke it won't be able to hold together. It will be every man for himself, so to speak. And strangely this is the kind of ethno tribalism that both the left and the right would prefer anyhow. The fundamentalists want a 19th century theocracy. The Greens want Tofutopia, and so on.