Um, no...

by Doc Nickel

They beaned him because nobody wants to hear political crap in their comics.

Comics are generally an entertainment medium. You read them because they're enjoyable- they make you laugh, they make you think, they make you feel for the characters, whatever.

Politics are too partisan these days- moreso now than back in '09. I've had a few quasi-political strips over the years, mostly in relation to 9/11 or the capture of Saddam Hussein, but over those same years, I've found myself annoyed by other comics that felt the need to shoehorn in a political jab at some politician or proposed law or currently-favored group.

So I've dropped most of those myself. I still like to acknowledge holidays that fly under most readers' radar, like memorial Day (my grandfather fought in WW2) and to note events like 9/11.

But unless I'm reading an explicitly-political comic, like Doonesbury, Mallard Filmore or Day By Day (which, I'll note, I don't) I don't like having the author's political views shoved in my face.

I've dropped at least five comics over the years, probably more like twice that many- that is, comics I actually at one time read on a regular basis- because the author decided he'd spend a couple of weeks telling his readers how stupid they are for having X viewpoint, or not realizing how wonderful proposed, largely unconstitutional law Y was, or blaming Z event on an entire political party.

One comic eventually evolved to the point where it was clear the one and only acceptable viewpoint was that of militant, literally-blow-up-the-movie-theaters feminism. Another author constantly injected his religious views, to the point where the reader was basically told if he or she didn't believe in precisely that same favor of religion, he or she was a doomed sinner. A third constantly equated President Bush with Hitler. A fourth was so full of ad hominems and straw men I would have sworn it was a parody.

And so on.

I'm not going to take TWB down that road. My comic is for entertainment purposes, not for preaching my political views. If I wanted to do that, I'd start a blog or something.

It's worth noting, however, that despite the fact we were all told we'd start seeing more and more storms, and more powerful ones, thanks to Global Warming after Katrina, Harvey is the first "category" level storm to hit the Gulf since Ike in 2008- nine years ago.

Considering eight hit the Gulf between '04 and '05 (Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma) and none since '08, to a thinking man that kind of calls into question the dire predictions from the Katrina aftermath.

And considering that virtually none of the... what is it, eighty-seven different climate models used to predict global warming has tracked with actual measured results (virtually all wildly overestimating the actual amount of warming) that, too, kind of calls into question those dire predictions.

Worse are calls for dissenting opinions to literally sit down and shut up. That's not how science works! There is no such thing as "settled science"!

The list of stuff that was "settled science" that was then proven wrong is endless- like the old "we only use 10% of our brains", or that cracking your knuckles would give you arthritis, or that sharks don't get cancer, or that people believed that the earth was flat until relatively recently. (Eratosthenes not only knew but measured it's circumference around 200 BCE.)

On a more scientific scale, Edward Teller thought that detonating the original nuclear bomb at Trinity could possibly "ignite the air"- IE, causing the nitrogen in the atmosphere to fission in a chain reaction. (Oppenheimer ran the numbers and said it was virtually impossible, before the test was run, by the way.)

Science is not a thing or a target. We don't reach 'the end of science' and then go on to something else. It's a process of analysis, and attempting to explain the results of that analysis.

And in this case, we have two major data points: That we were "supposed" to have more and stronger storms, but haven't, and that the vast majority of climate-change models have already been proven wrong. That suggests, to the thinking man, that perhaps the science is not so settled as some would have you believe.

And that blaming the current storm, the thirty-seventh to hit the Gulf states since 1900- an average of one every three years- on Global Warming, might be a weee bit presumptive. happy.gif


Posted on Aug 26, 2017, 2:20 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

  1. Thank you!. TheFnord, Aug 27, 2017
  2. Ah, I see.. FerreTrip, Aug 27, 2017
    1. Politics and climate.... Doc Nickel, Aug 27, 2017
      1. Obama & Stuff. FerreTrip, Aug 27, 2017
        1. [cracks knuckles] :). Doc Nickel, Aug 27, 2017
          1. You've made your point.. FerreTrip, Aug 27, 2017
            1. Hold the phone, here.... Doc Nickel, Aug 27, 2017
              1. Thank you.. FerreTrip, Aug 28, 2017
                1. Addendum.... Doc Nickel, Aug 29, 2017
                  1. Okay.. FerreTrip, Aug 29, 2017
                    1. Of course!. Doc Nickel, Aug 29, 2017
                      1. Knew you'd have backup.. FerreTrip, Aug 29, 2017
          2. Re: [cracks knuckles] :). Donkey, Aug 28, 2017
  3. I agree with you. Irregular Logic, Aug 28, 2017
    1. Ugh. That guy.. TheFnord, Aug 28, 2017
    2. Yeah, unfortunately.... Doc Nickel, Aug 29, 2017
      1. It's funny . . .. DannyBeans, Aug 29, 2017
      2. He already HAD.. TheFnord, Aug 29, 2017
      3. Oh dear :(. FerreTrip, Aug 29, 2017
        1. Well said!. Dave H, Aug 30, 2017


eXTReMe Tracker