John Ghalt | Anchorage, AK | February 11, 2016
Back in the mid-80s I'll guess that the typical American man had never "interacted" with a bidet (and wouldn't admit to it, if he had). Thirty years later, that's still true, but I'm willing to admit that Joannie might be onto something with her interactive urinals.
Chris Parkins | London, UK | February 10, 2016
I've been reading the 45-years-ago-today Flashback strips with some bemusement, wondering when the rough artwork and simplistic and sexist scripts would evolve into the work of genius that Doonesbury became. I think today's strip marks the turning point.
Neal Byles | Voting today in Concorc, NH | February 09, 2016
Reading the 30-Years-Ago-Today section of Flashbacks over the past couple of weeks, it hit me: we are now twice as far removed (30 years) from Duke's "death" by zombification as that was (15 years) from the beginning of Doonesbury itself. Sobering.
Allan Levine | Toronto, CANADA | February 09, 2016
Kim, Kim, Kim, you gotta speak up about these things! And no, it's not too late, but it isn't super early either, is it? Carpe diem! And all that. And good luck, eh?
NEVER SAY NEVER
Allie | Gettysburg, PA | February 08, 2016
Just caught Sunday's strip. I'm 52 and my husband is 51. We've been married three years. Our daughter will be two in May. Never say never.
Grant H. | Hamilton, CANADA | February 07, 2016
Re: Delaying kids. Ow! My head hurts. Signed: The nail.
Angie | Nova, VA | February 07, 2016
Oh dear... Between today's nostalgia for a future that never happened and the strip where Kim walked out when Mike paid more attention to his smart phone than he did to her, I'm getting worried. Please don't let this be foreshadowing!
Ian | Frankfurt, GERMANY | February 07, 2016
It is amazing how poignant GBT can be. These are just cartoon characters for gawd's sake, but I felt so sad as the last frame of today's strip rolled into view. Why on earth didn't Kim address this earlier? They've been together for 20 years now. I fear the worst for their relationship. Kim's clock is ticking.
Cyrus B. | San Diego, CA | February 07, 2016
Thank you for letting Kim share her sense of loss with us. For those of us who never got our dream of having kids of our own, this strip was dearly touching.
K. Snook | Alberta, CANADA | February 07, 2016
Oh please please please give Kim and Mike babies! You're the author, you can make anything happen!
Gina | Lovettsville, VA | February 07, 2016
What a great online community this is. I only wish we could "like" the comments in Blowback, and reply to them a la Facebook style. Thanks, as ever, for inspiring and connecting us. :-)
James H. | Fairfax, VA | February 07, 2016
I chuckled for a minute after reading today's strip. Then I looked at it again, and I felt a bit sad. I wonder if Kim has wanted children of her own all these years, if she ever told Mike she wanted them to have kids, and, if she did, why it hasn't happened. If Doonesbury were publishing daily perhaps GBT would be exploring this storyline in-depth.
Patti H. | Rome, NY | February 07, 2016
Oh dear. With the 20-years-ago Flashback strip bringing us to the first meeting of Mike and Kim, today's "too late to fantasize about the future" is just too poignant!
Tom | San Francisco, CA | February 07, 2016
I wondered what became of the "pregnancy" story arc. At 40-something and 60-something (by my reckoning), biological children (who would be younger than their own nephews) might not be in the cards for Kim and Mike. But it's never too late (or too soon) to be a foster grandparent, a Big Brother / Big Sister, or a Court Appointed Special Advocate for children, or to foster a refugee child. As the children's story goes, "There's always room for one more!"
CLICK ON 'ENLARGE'
Linda | Gainesville, FL | February 04, 2016
I wish you would use bigger type for the wording in your comic strip. I am 60, and can no longer read your daily strip, because type is too small. I can read other comic strips without problem. I believe many of your followers are like me and have been reading your comic strip for years, and now we are aging and need larger type. Thank you.
Good news! Go to our home page -- Doonesbury.Washingtonpost.com -- and click on the red word ENLARGE, which appears just below the final panel of the strip. A considerably larger version of the strip will then pop up for your reading pleasure. Just click on the larger image to revert to the smaller one.
Rick Gordon | Highland Mills, NY | February 02, 2016
I find it more than ironic that the "dump" B.D. exclaims it's time Mike moved out of, is the same home in which B.D. and his family currently reside.
Perle O. | Baton Rouge, LA | February 02, 2016
I admit, I found myself resorting to the "donation in your name" for my nieblings, whose tastes in actual gifts I can no longer keep up with. I picked Kiva, the microloan charity, which reflected their volunteer interests. They get to pick which needy people to loan their gift donation to, and when it gets paid back, they will get to loan the same money over and over again, selecting the person each time.
John Ghalt | Anchorage, AK | February 01, 2016
I was pleased to see GBT plugging the "quaint" custom of old-school thank-you cards, right along with forgetting what Aunt Mary's gift actually was. I can't help but wonder which of his relatives (or friends) so polishes his halo. Another custom worthy of skewering is the annual self-aggrandizing "Christmas newsletter."
Bobfaser@hotmail.com | Hobart, AUSTRALIS | February 01, 2016
I wish to defend the use of charity donation cards as presents for Christmas (or other occasions). They work particularly nicely when combined with other smaller gifts. A $30 charity card plus a $5 lottery ticket plus either a CD/DVD/decent bottle of wine, makes a nice and substantial gift for many discerning adults. (And, besides, the smiling goat on the gift card gives a distinctive touch to the collection of various seasonal cards.)