A clean, well-lit place to vent
Please feel free to contribute to this frequently-updated forum, which posts selected commentary on our favorite comic strip. If you’d like your critique to be posted, please note that civility, if not approbation, counts. Click here to submit a comment.
Thank you, Doonesbury, for finally expressing what many of us feel about Perry. Perhaps in the future commentators and journalists will simply say that he has been bribed repeatedly.
It hardly seems possible that BLOWBACK could be as entertaining as the strips, but I am enjoying this debate with a cartoon character about theory vs. fact. vs. law...
I just wanted to say "Thank you" for today's strip. Thank you, Garry, for understanding so well.
Wow! Science week at the water cooler. Carl Sagan and Bill Nye would be so proud...
I want to express my thoughts and hurt about the current storyline. When you are in this vein, bashing conservatism and Christianity, you are toxic. I believe that you deliberately injure. You misuse your one talent, the humor that brings joy to others. Find what festers in you and root it out. It is killing you.
There is a Law of Gravity. It is what Newton worked out -- that two objects are mutually attracted by a force proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the distance between them. And then there is a Theory of Gravity which is the explanation for why the Law of Gravity exists. I suppose in the Rick Perry world (or is that "Parry"?), the theory would be something like "because that is the way it was designed to work."
Today's strip showed the clueless interviewing the clueless. Evolution is so well established we may as well call it the Law of Evolution. But it is assuredly not the "foundation of all life sciences." Without evolution "whole fields from biology to genetic to ecology" would be just fine. Those disciplines validate evolution -- not the other way around.
Re. this BLOWBACK comment: "I believe gravity is a theory, not a law." Actually, gravity is a force. However, there's another problem with the comment: It will almost certainly serve to muddy the waters concerning the scientific use of the word "theory." Scientific theories are the best available general explanations of reality. The rules contained in theories are called "laws." Newton's law of universal gravitation states the rules that govern the interaction of masses due to the force of gravity.
In science as in philosophy there is no certain knowledge. This gets right up the nose of those who crave certainty where there is no evidence. Even as we try to lift them gently up they put us cruelly down.
An earlier BLOWBACk is incorrect on the matter of gravity (said the chick who got straight A's in engineering physics). Gravity as considered to be an attractive force exerted in a predictable way is indeed a law. There are theories about gravity and the way it functions, particularly around neato thingsies like black holes, but the existence of gravity is demonstrable, proven, and shown to behave as an attractive force beyond all shadow of doubt. Scientifically speaking, that's the difference between theory and fact. One might even make the case that gravity is an incontrovertible fact. On the other hand, if I could abolish gravity when I hit the scales, I'd be a happy camper! Where's that petition?
Careful with that sweeping statement, Redfern. Saying those sciences "can't exist" without the theory of evolution is a fallacy. (And note that while those sciences have been validated, evolution is still rightly referred to as a theory.) Saying "can't" where science is concerned is a very dangerous position.
Let's come to scientific agreement (for if those who love Doonesbury cannot, who can): What is called "the law of gravity" is a theory, and Climate Change is only 99.9% certain, not incontrovertible, and the word "absolutely" should never be used, except with "fabulous."
I have it on good authority (my father told me, and his father, who died in the 1920s, had told him) that a newly elected Representative to the Iowa legislature who was depressed by the level of knowledge of his fellow legislators, made a bet with a friend that he could introduce and get passed a law repealing the law of gravity on the grounds that it had been imposed from outside the state. He is said to have succeeded, but moved quickly to ensure the law was not ratified (perhaps the governor was in on the bet?). But my father contended that the stupidest law he had encountered was one which was on the books for some time in Texas, to the effect that "when two trains meet on the same line both shall stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone".
Re. your strip today, I believe gravity is a theory, not a law.
As a Texan, I cannot relate to today's comic. Sure, Perry says crazy and offensive things every once in a while, but he's no GW. No one would have ever accused Bush of being "slick," -- folksy, down-home, perhaps a bit plain, sure. "Slick Rick" Perry falls to the other side of the spectrum. He's usually so smooth that you can't tell whether it's Perry telling you what he believes or what he thinks you (the electorate) want to hear—like a used car salesman or a professional politician. Please don't turn Perry into another W—he is anything but.
I enjoyed the honest man strip. Not because I agree that global warming opponents are morons. The evidence is strongly in favor, but people can have valid reasons for disagreeing; that doesn't make them stupid. No, I enjoyed it because it slapped at the real morons in the world: people who are stupid or biggoted but don't have the guts to admit it. Thanks, GBT, for again throwing the obvious out there where the world can see it. "Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors." Doesn't mean he knows anything about climate, does it?
I sometimes stay up until after midnight to check out the new Doonesbury strip online -- it's a treat I can barely resist. The current Presidential Campaign story lines crack me up. After reading the strip, I always visit Blowback to see what inquiring minds have to say for themselves. Re. the comment on the character Jim Andrews using the word "morons," I just want to point out that the physicist who resigned from the American Physical Society apparently took issue less with the pronouncements and
predictions surrounding global warming (though he has issues there). It seems he quit the society because they used the word "incontrovertible," not over the science. The man is a scientist, and many scientists don't believe anything we think we know about the universe to be incontrovertible.
I laughed out loud at this morning's rugby club strip. A couple of years ago, my wife and I returned home from Nantucket to find our newly refinished wooden floors covered in cleat marks. In our shed, we found two industrial-sized garbage bags filled with empty containers of every alcohol imaginable. Enough to kill an elephant. Our son, a recent graduate of one our finer institutions of higher learning and the only person residing in the house at the time, denies to this day that it was a party. This is one reason why I have labeled his age group Generation Whatever.
Thanks, GBT, for bringing me closer to my father. I'm sure Zonker aggravated him as much as Zipper and Jeff aggravate me.
Is that a sh*t-eating grin on Mark's face?!? Perhaps he didn't truly anticipate just how honest his guest was going to be!