See All Topics

Home / Section: Controversies

Fairrington cartoon draws criticism from NOW

A recent editorial cartoon by Brian Fairrington elicited a response from the National Organization of Women for a depiction of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan wearing buttons displaying “Never Married,” “No Kids,” “Boys are icky!” and “Kill Baby Kill.” The feminist organization felt that the cartoon played into speculations regarding Kagan’s sexual orientation.

The write:

Lesbian-baiting is designed not only to harm the person being “smeared” but to send a warning to other women that it could happen to them, too. It’s just another intimidation tactic. And the media, with it’s love for all things titillating, goes along either dumbly or complicitly (sic).

Comments on Kagan’s experience, qualifications, philosophy and ideology are fair game and should give the media plenty to talk about. But her appearance and sexual orientation should be out of bounds.

Daryl Cagle, who syndicates Brian, asked for a response and Brian wrote:

The cartoon was done with the notion that Elena Kagan was chosen in part for her perceived credentials but also for the fact that she is a woman.

Sandra Day O’Connor was chosen based on her credentials but also because she was a woman. Sotomayor was chosen in part because she was a woman but also in part so that the court could have someone of Hispanic origins sit on the bench and fill in the long-standing gap in their representation.

Elena Kagan sexual orientation should not be a factor in deciding if she is qualified to sit on the highest court the land, unless of course the Obama Administration were attempting to nominate the first gay Supreme Court Justice.

The problem with that is that Kagan herself has stated several times that she is in fact not gay. Since she claims she is not gay then does she represent the other 48% of other woman at large? Could she adequately understand and sympathize with issues that may come before the court involving situations facing the average America woman? Cases on child custody? Abortion? Equal treatment of women in the private sector?

Kagan has never been married, had any children or worked in the private sector, as most modern women have at some point in their lives do, and more often that not they do all three simultaneously. Does this mean she cannot decide fairly on women’s issues that may arise if she were seated on the bench? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Consequently, just like Sandra Day O’Connor who was married, raised children and did in fact work in the private sector, there must be other possible candidates out there who have more in common with the average American woman than Elena Kagan?

Of course if it were to come out that she were indeed a lesbian then perhaps she would in fact represent more members of this underrepresented group with greater accuracy. Unfortunately, since she is not gay she in fact really represents no one.

Community Comments

#1 Matt Bors
June/15/2010
@ 1:13 pm

“Unfortunately, since she is not gay she in fact really represents no one.”

Right. Brian swats down identity politics with one hand while begging for a nominee that has the exact specifications of being married and having children with the other, lest she not represent “modern” women. Even being gay could be good in his eyes… unless she was, in which case I’m sure he would slam her as a token pick for the gay community.

It’s increasingly normal for people to remain unmarried (or divorced) and childless. (Not to mention being gay.) Since the average American is married with children, this means ALL Supreme Court Judges must be? If you are going to obsess over it on that level, you would probably come to the conclusion that we need more unmarried people in office or on the bench to represent the people who are just like them.

#2 Ben Carlsen
June/15/2010
@ 1:22 pm

I can see both points here. I see Fairrington’s point that the cartoon isn’t about Kagan as much as her being picked, but when you only feature Kagan and not something to do with the process of her being picked, it does seem like you are criticizing her personally. The caricature of her is not exactly flattering, either, and I can definitely see NOW’s point as well. On the whole, I think the cartoon is really a flop and not well executed. Try again, Brian. Maybe you’ll get it next time.

#3 Clay Jones
June/15/2010
@ 1:23 pm

Brian, you’re a friend of mine and I hope you always will be, but looking at the cartoon then reading your explanation, I have to call bullshit on this one. It’s simply a gay bashing cartoon, dude.
Maybe, very slim maybe, your explanation would work if you didn’t include a pin in the cartoon that said “boys are icky”.

#4 Clay Jones
June/15/2010
@ 1:26 pm

“The caricature of her is not exactly flattering, either, and I can definitely see NOW?s point as well.”

Ben, you’re correct that’s not flattering. But I have no quibble with that. That’s what editorial cartoonists are supposed to do with caricatures…plus, it actually looks just like her.

#5 Dave Stephens
June/15/2010
@ 1:54 pm

A flattering POLITICAL caricature? What planet did you say you were from?

#6 Beth Cravens
June/15/2010
@ 2:01 pm

Congratulations on that convoluted explanation Brian. Now I have no idea what you meant. Do you have it in for gay women or just women who do not fit into your definition of woman?

#7 Jeff Pert
June/15/2010
@ 3:24 pm

I’m 51, never married, no kids, no relationship at this time. And frankly, I’m tired of being awarded “Most Likely To Be Gay” at class reunions. (Not that there’s anything WRONG with that.)

#8 Carl Moore
June/15/2010
@ 5:21 pm

Both Kagan and Sotomayor are examples of the quota thinking now in vogue among Democrats, and, unfortunately, to a lesser extent among Republicans. Sexual plumbing, skin color, gender orientation, etc., seem, these days, to carry more weight than brain size. What’s next, a left-handed, bi-sexual dwarf – oops, excuse me, I mean a height-challenged – octaroon? C’mon, this silly quota-thinking is getting out of hand. Whatever happened to well-qualified, wise, nominee who interprets the constitution according to the original intent of the framers?

#9 Ted Rall
June/15/2010
@ 6:14 pm

@Carl: From Dredd Scott to Komatsu to Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has repeatedly proven itself corrupted by politics and stupidity.

#10 Matt Bors
June/15/2010
@ 6:46 pm

“Both Kagan and Sotomayor are examples of the quota thinking now in vogue among Democrats,”

Yeah, the quota of two women on the court. Scary.

Always best to express the fun of discrimination through an absurdist straw man like a “left-handed, bi-sexual dwarf.” It’s never too persuasive to just come right out and tell women to get back in the kitchen.

#11 Dave Stephens
June/15/2010
@ 7:56 pm

If the Supreme Court was all female OR all male OR all black OR all white, I’d yawn and say, “Great. It’s only their judging I care about.”

But that’s me. I care about how they judge, not their gender or race or hat size.

Of course, others say that if they are all male or all white, that’s a HORRIBLE problem. Those people CANNOT say, “It’s only their judging I care about.” Funny, hm? Clearly, those people care about something else… I wonder (dogma) what (dogma) that (dogma) would (dogma) be?

#12 Jen Sorensen
June/15/2010
@ 9:20 pm

As a married woman who works in the private sector, I think Kagan represents me just fine, thanks.

#13 Abell Smith
June/15/2010
@ 10:19 pm

“But that?s me. I care about how they judge, not their gender or race or hat size.”

Sure. Clarence Thomas was as much to blame for the deplorable Citizens United v. FEC decision as Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy were.

#14 Robert George
June/15/2010
@ 10:44 pm

@Dave: “Of course, others say that if they are all male or all white, that?s a HORRIBLE problem. Those people CANNOT say, ?It?s only their judging I care about.? Funny, hm? Clearly, those people care about something else? I wonder (dogma) what (dogma) that (dogma) would (dogma) be?” If it were just the odds, Dave, sure. But most of the courts we’ve had have been all white, all male. It doesn’t take a “dogma”, or rocket science, to think that was more than chance, and that there may in fact be systemic biases in favor of white men.

#15 Robert George
June/15/2010
@ 10:46 pm

@Ted: “@Carl: From Dredd Scott to Komatsu to Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has repeatedly proven itself corrupted by politics and stupidity.”
I am shocked a human institution has been corrupted by stupidty and politics. Thank goodness we are only 30 years out from the singularity, and can look forward to the benevolent rule of our benevolent robot overlords. But in the mean time….

#16 Stephanie McMillan
June/16/2010
@ 5:24 am

Let me see if I get this… white male judges are able to represent everyone. But women can only represent other women. But only if they have children. Unless they’re gay, in which case they’re not representing women, but gay people.

Sigh.

From centuries past, like a decayed zombie clawing its way out of a putrid grave, the idea persists in tiny minds that the white male is the standard-default human, and everyone else is “other”.

Please, Brian. It’s 2010.

Also, it’s interesting that the only time I hear “It’s the skills that matter — gender/nationality/ethnic group/sexuality aren’t important,” it’s always about an institution dominated by white males, and it’s usually a white male saying it.

As someone from the childfree female demographic, I will now switch off the Stupidity Channel and go for a walk.

#17 wade brumett
June/16/2010
@ 5:55 am

Brian: great toon Dude.

#18 Terry LaBan
June/16/2010
@ 8:31 am

I think Brian tips his hand here with the “Boys Are Icky” button, as well as the zits on the chin, which I don’t personally recall seeing in any photos. A cartoonist has every right to portray someone as an ugly, man-hating bull dyke, but he at least admit he’s doing it.
In any case, his interview is confusing. I thought conservatives didn’t WANT judges that represented special interests. If Elaine Kagan really represents no one, wouldn’t Herr Fairrington think that was a good thing?

#19 Wanderlei Silva
June/16/2010
@ 11:04 am

The gulf is still flooded with oil, your wife may have had a sexual liaison with Al Gore, and the “hot chick” from The Golden Girls died two weeks ago.

With so much to feel bad about, who cares if Brian Fairrington drew Elena Kagan with chin stubble?

#20 August J. Pollak
June/16/2010
@ 11:07 am

“Both Kagan and Sotomayor are examples of the quota thinking now in vogue among Democrats, and, unfortunately, to a lesser extent among Republicans. Sexual plumbing, skin color, gender orientation, etc., seem, these days, to carry more weight than brain size. What?s next, a left-handed, bi-sexual dwarf ? oops, excuse me, I mean a height-challenged ? octaroon?”

How about an Alaskan governor? Or is picking an unqualified moron for vice-president not fall under your “lesser extent” banner?

Jeez, I can’t even deal with the density of ignorance in this comment. For someone who pretends to hate the idea of quotas you seem really demanding that only a white guy would satisfy you for Obama’s court pick. My favorite part, though, has to be where you actually forgot to mention any reason you don’t think Kagan is qualified.

#21 Wanderlei Silva
June/16/2010
@ 11:53 am

“How about an Alaskan governor? Or is picking an unqualified moron for vice-president not fall under your ?lesser extent? banner?”

What a ridiculous thing to type.

So a governor who was chief executive of a state is not qualified to be vice-president but a community organizer/senator who was chief executive of a campaign is qualified to be president?

My favorite part, though, has to be where you actually forgot to mention any reason you don’t think Palin is qualified.

Or is it that you think she’s a “moron”?

If that’s the reason, I’ll refer you to the quote at the top of this posting where you clearly don’t know the definition of “governor”.

#22 August J. Pollak
June/16/2010
@ 12:06 pm

“My favorite part, though, has to be where you actually forgot to mention any reason you don?t think Palin is qualified.

Or is it that you think she?s a ?moron??

…yes?

“So a governor who was chief executive of a state is not qualified to be vice-president but a community organizer/senator who was chief executive of a campaign is qualified to be president? ”

Well, when you were both a Senator and a community organizer longer than she was a governor, I guess, again… yeah.

Seriously, when people toss that out are they trying to actually convince me… or just themselves? Good luck saying with a straight face that Palin was the most qualified choice for John McCain.

#23 Wanderlei Silva
June/16/2010
@ 12:27 pm

“Good luck saying with a straight face that Palin was the most qualified choice for John McCain.”

That can be said of anyone in politics.

Right about now, many on the left are regretting that they didn’t go with Pantsuit.

Regarding Obama, years of being a senator and community organizer don’t seem to count for much when decisions have to be made today. He seems rather lost.

Got a leaking oil well in a gulf?

There’s an app for that.

I mean a czar.

I mean two czars.

Let’s eat ice cream.

#24 Shane Davis
June/16/2010
@ 12:53 pm

I thought editiorial cartoons were supposed to often use ridiculous hyperbole to make a political point, weren’t they?

If this is an outrage, why didn’t N.O.W. or the NAACP scream when Condolezza Rice was protrayed as Aunt Jemima by Jeff Danziger or called ‘Brown Sugar’ by G. Trudeau?

I looks like the outrage here is actually that a woman on the LEFT is being lampooned. This is absurdly miniscule compared to what has been done to Palin.

#25 Dave Stephens
June/16/2010
@ 1:34 pm

Didn’t you get the memo Shane? It’s not hilariously ingenuous to call Palin a moron while at the same time demanding Fairrington to be “nice” to Kagan… LOL

#26 Terry LaBan
June/16/2010
@ 1:40 pm

@Wanderlei The gulf is still flooded with oil, your wife may have had a sexual liaison with Al Gore, and the ?hot chick? from The Golden Girls died two weeks ago.

Well, gee, I thought this thread was about a particular cartoon, not about every problem in the world,including a few you made up. But if you’re arguing that Sarah Palin’s fit to do anything but cheerlead Tea Parties, all I can say is that if Obama ever proposes a program to pass out IQ points, you should think seriously about applying.

#27 Robert George
June/16/2010
@ 2:30 pm

@Shane: “If this is an outrage, why didn?t N.O.W. or the NAACP scream when Condolezza Rice was protrayed as Aunt Jemima by Jeff Danziger or called ?Brown Sugar? by G. Trudeau?”

You mean like here, http://web.archive.org/web/20080625034918/http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/auntjemima1121, where the NAACP did condemn a talk radio host for comparing former Secretary Rice Aunt Jemima?

#28 Wanderlei Silva
June/16/2010
@ 2:37 pm

Is he proposing an IQ tax now?

#29 Dave Stephens
June/16/2010
@ 3:32 pm

@Terry

I wouldn’t vote for Sara Palin, but I’m not sure that makes her a moron. On the other hand, I wouldn’t vote for you either…

#30 Abell Smith
June/16/2010
@ 4:08 pm

Apparently, you guys have never heard this woman speak.

#31 Shane Davis
June/16/2010
@ 5:18 pm

Robert,
I was referring to editorial cartoons about Rice as compared to the one above about Kagan, not talk show hosts comments.

But I’ll give you cred points for finding someone that did call b.s. on it. But it would have been nice if the NOW had done the same.

#32 Ted Rall
June/17/2010
@ 8:24 am

@Shane: “If this is an outrage, why didn?t N.O.W. or the NAACP scream when Condolezza Rice was protrayed as Aunt Jemima by Jeff Danziger or called ?Brown Sugar? by G. Trudeau?”

Rightists bring this up all the time. For the record, however, Trudeau was referencing the fact that George W. Bush’s nickname for Rice was–and presumably remains–“Brown Sugar.”

Neither gender nor race are appropriate considerations when considering a political candidate, but intelligence and knowledge are. I don’t know if Palin is stupid, but she is demonstrably and spectacularly ignorant. So is Obama, especially about economics and the places he likes to bomb. But he’s not as ignorant as future President Palin.

#33 Wanderlei Silva
June/17/2010
@ 10:21 am

@Rallcats (I’m going to keep using that term until it sticks… I suggest you use it as your codename in Afghanistan)

I’ve never heard Palin say something that is outrageously ignorant. She may come off as loopy at times (probably because the media has conditioned everyone to assume that she is), but nothing she says is ever outright ridiculous.

No one here is pushing for Palin to be president; that was not the original argument. It was that she is “unqualified” or that she is simply a “moron”.

What I find moronic is a president who thinks taxing air is an economic stimulus. That echoes your point that this president has absolutely no idea how the economy operates. I think that makes him substantively unqualified. It’s not name-calling and speculation.

If I wanted to speculate about things, as The Huffington Post is wont to do, I’d speculate that Barack is the one who got breast implants, not Palin. I’ve seen the shirtless beach photos from Hawaii. Ugh.

Anyways, this thread wasn’t meant to be about politics. Let me steer it back to cartooning by demonizing Scott Kurtz.

I don’t like the way he claims that you are “begging” for money to go to Afghanistan. Just because you flip your 6 pairs of underwear inside out to get 12 days of freshness does not give him the right to act like a douche.

#34 August J. Pollak
June/17/2010
@ 2:03 pm

“I?ve never heard Palin say something that is outrageously ignorant. She may come off as loopy at times (probably because the media has conditioned everyone to assume that she is), but nothing she says is ever outright ridiculous.”

“As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where? where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border.”

“I’m note really sure what it is the vice president does”

“All of ’em, any of ’em that have been in front of me over all these years.” [regarding which magazines she reads]

“Question: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.” [The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1859. “Under God” was added 90 years later]

#35 Abell Smith
June/17/2010
@ 2:43 pm

I say anyone who uses an MMA guy’s name as a pseudonym on a comics comment board is substantively unqualified to give opinions on substantive issues.

Just kidding. Kind of.

#36 Dave Stephens
June/17/2010
@ 2:55 pm

Wow – that Palin shore is ignint, ain’t she? Don’t she know that religeon is purt near the most ignint thing they is!!

So Speaketh High Lord Pollak, amen…

#37 Wanderlei Silva
June/17/2010
@ 3:35 pm

This is getting ridiculous, but…

Obama (speech in St. Paul, Minnesota):

“Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that … this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”

I think that pretty much trumps anything goofy that Palin may have said.

Cuz, champ, it’s about time you had a beer summit with that ocean to command it to recede faster so you can hop into the Gulf with a pair of waders and plug that leaking oil pipe with the wad of golf score sheets you have stuffed in your pockets.

#38 August J. Pollak
June/17/2010
@ 4:03 pm

“I say anyone who uses an MMA guy?s name as a pseudonym on a comics comment board is substantively unqualified to give opinions on substantive issues.”

It doesn’t help when they try to talk like a poor man’s Dennis Miller either.

#39 Ted Rall
June/17/2010
@ 4:20 pm

@Wanderlei: Obama sucks and ought to be in prison for war crimes, but I don’t see what’s so wild or crazy about that quote. All Obama is saying is that, if we make the effort, we could reverse global warming. Which probably isn’t true, because it’s probably too late, but it’s a pretty typical thing for an establishment pol to say.

The quotes August posted, on the other, demonstrate that Palin doesn’t know some pretty basic stuff. Also, they’re not taken out of context. It’s fairly obvious that an aspiring president–in fact, anyone permitted to vote–ought to know what the VP’s job is.

#40 August J. Pollak
June/17/2010
@ 4:24 pm

“I think that pretty much trumps anything goofy that Palin may have said.”

Obama says stupid stuff too, both intentionally and unintentionally. I didn’t say he didn’t. You however said you “never heard” Palin say anything ridiculous, and lo and behold you tried to turn it around to Obama when it flew in your face thanks to about three minutes on Google.

“Wow ? that Palin shore is ignint, ain?t she? Don?t she know that religeon is purt near the most ignint thing they is!!

So Speaketh High Lord Pollak, amen?”

I didn’t attack Palin for her religious beliefs here, nor did I call her ignorant for any level of religious faith. Stubborn adherence to baseless religious-backed viewpoints is certainly a sign of ignorance, for sure, but I haven’t said that about Palin at all here. But I don’t need to make up stuff about someone, I can actually find legitimate fault with them. What’s your excuse? My closest guess is you’re just projecting based on your butthurt from a completely unrelated thread two weeks ago.

#41 Wanderlei Silva
June/17/2010
@ 4:49 pm

Don’t make me pull out the 57 States quote. I think knowing the total number of states is pretty elementary.

Which was my point. Little stupid mistakes or errors here and there can be ignored. But having the audacity (heehee) to claim that voting for him is an action that can change sea levels? That’s not outrageous?

You’re a little extreme there with the war crimes. I’m just hoping that he’d take an online economics course from the University of Phoenix, play a little less golf, eat a little less ice cream, and keep his shirt on in public.

#42 Terry LaBan
June/17/2010
@ 6:17 pm

@Dave Stephens I wouldn?t vote for Sara Palin, but I?m not sure that makes her a moron. On the other hand, I wouldn?t vote for you either?

I never called Sarah Palin a moron. I called the people who think she’s qualified to hold elected office morons. Actually, I didn’t say that, either, but it’s definitely my opinion. It’s true, as Ted says, that she is spectacularly ignorant–she’s even made it a selling point. But she definitely knows how to make a buck, and that makes her pretty intelligent on the “if you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” scale.
Obama never proposed “taxing air”, and if he doesn’t know how the economy works, I’d like to know who does. Ted Rall probably thinks it should be controlled by the Politboro and Wanderlei Silva no doubt admires those countries where no oppressive governmental rules and regulations prevent 99% of the wealth ending up in the hands of a Generalissimo and a few of his pals. All I know is that the last 30 years of deregulation and “free markets” have left us in a hell of a mess, and anyone who’d deny it probably thinks Sarah Palin is the next Abraham Lincoln.
By the way, I wouldn’t vote for me, either. But after that election in South Carolina, I think I may be selling myself short.

#43 Carl Moore
June/17/2010
@ 6:31 pm

“… if he doesn?t know how the economy works, I?d like to know who does.”

Milton Friedman

#44 Dave Stephens
June/17/2010
@ 6:56 pm

“Stubborn adherence to baseless religious-backed viewpoints is certainly a sign of ignorance, for sure…”

LOL

You’ve described yourself! Or don’t you think your belief in Global Warming qualifies?

#45 Gar Molloy
June/18/2010
@ 2:17 am

Global warming is a religious thing now?

#46 Ted Dawson
June/18/2010
@ 8:12 am

Distrust in science in general is now a religious thing, yes.

#47 Ted Rall
June/18/2010
@ 8:40 am

@Dave: This “global warming is a religion too” meme is a smart tactic. But it’s a lie.

Like most people, I believe that global warming is happening. I came to this belief as follows:

1. When the theory was first explained, it made sense to me.

2. I am impressed by the fact that the scientific community, whom I trust more than, say, mainstream free-market economists) has studied the issue for decades and has reached nearly universal consensus.

3. I have personally observed its effects.

I bet most people who think global warming came to their POV the same way.

But it’s hardly a religion. If a good solid argument were to emerge that global climate change either isn’t occurring, or that it isn’t man-made, I would change my mind.

Of course, I would still think that pollution is bad. That seems obvious to me on a moral and ethical level. But I wouldn’t worry about global warming.

I’m pretty sure that most people who currently agree with me, faced with solid evidence to the contrary, would change their minds too.

Religious faith couldn’t be more different: faced with the 100% absence of evidence of the existence of a deity, the devout choose to believe. For no reason whatsoever, other than fear of death and the lack of higher meaning it implies for our existences.

#48 August J. Pollak
June/18/2010
@ 8:49 am

@Ted: “This ?global warming is a religion too? meme is a smart tactic. ”

I applaud your supportive attitude. My response was honestly to stare blankly. It’s like trying to help a child with their math homework while they demand, unflinchingly, that 2+2=sandwich.

@Gar: “Global warming is a religious thing now?”

Honestly, I’m amazed a grown up wrote that and I’m not sure what I could possibly say to him in response. I already called out Dave on projecting, I don’t think there’s much of a debate to have here anymore.

#49 Gar Molloy
June/18/2010
@ 8:57 am

Actually I did a little research on this. Global Warming is in fact caused by Odin farting into the upper atmosphere to express his wrath at humanity. Science is Fun!

#50 Wanderlei Silva
June/18/2010
@ 9:39 am

@Rallcats,

People have, for decades, tried to figure out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop, too, so I wouldn’t give as much reverence as you do to an obviously biased scientific community. I’m not saying they are all biased, but the Climategate scandal (does anyone remember that anymore?) plants more than a little seed of doubt.

The infinite number of variables involved in climate modeling is so staggering to account for, established Nobel Prize winning scientists like Al Gore are throwing in the towel, popping fistfuls of Viagra, and engaging in “sustainable” eco-friendly sex with their best friends’ ex-wives.

#51 Ted Rall
June/18/2010
@ 9:52 am

There’s less than meets the eye to Climategate. At most–and this is a stretch–you could say that some scientists tried to exaggerate their level of certainty in response to attacks by the right. Which was wrong, but hardly negates the fact that global warming is happening and is caused by man.

#52 August J. Pollak
June/18/2010
@ 9:54 am

I think I just won Cliche Bingo.

#53 August J. Pollak
June/18/2010
@ 10:00 am

“established Nobel Prize winning scientists like Al Gore”

Al Gore isn’t a scientist, nor did he win a Nobel Prize for being one.

“are throwing in the towel”

What?

“popping fistfuls of Viagra”

What?

“and engaging in ?sustainable? eco-friendly sex with their best friends? ex-wives.”

Seriously… this is how you try to claim authority about evidence that global warming doesn’t exist? You have the most amazing writing style I’ve ever seen, dude. Like, try actually saying out loud what you type. It’s fascinating. Who are you trying to impress so badly with these hackneyed one-liners from right-wing blogs? Are you auditioning for something?

#54 Wanderlei Silva
June/18/2010
@ 10:12 am

For a cartoonist, you’re not funny at all.

#55 Steve Skelton
June/18/2010
@ 10:19 am

Wanderlei, you have said in this thread that politics should stay out of it, but you can’t stay away from your keyboard for more than five minutes without injecting your world views. And for the record, I disagree with most everything you have said.

#56 Marty Parsons
June/18/2010
@ 10:20 am

Actually it was really funny. You just got owned.

#57 August J. Pollak
June/18/2010
@ 10:34 am

Wanderlei you are more than welcome to not call me funny but it’s hardly an insult when you yourself are gratingly unfunny and not even able to back up your own stuff with an actual name. I understand you will probably just ignore this but this is some honest, actual advice. Whatever tone you are trying to take in your comments, it’s laughable and makes you look incredibly embarrassing. You are trying so hard to look cool with these incredibly repetitive and forced cliche “jokes” that are copied and pasted from e-mail chain letters I get from racist distant relatives. Like I said, it is so obvious how forced you are writing them because they sound like nothing any human being would say in actual conversation. I’m telling you this because I wrote like that back in 2002-2003 when I was still in college and just started blogging and thought that writing like that would really impress people. It really doesn’t, it just makes you look like a jackass and it honestly has nothing to do with your political stance. Talk normally, dude, because the character you are trying to play isn’t working.

Speaking of playing a character, your other problem with the way you’re writing all this stuff is that you act as if you actually have any level of authority or respect. You don’t. We have no idea who you are, you don’t link to any blog or cartoonist’s bio, and you are writing crappy jokes under the pseudonym of a dude who makes money getting naked and sweaty and punching people in the testicles. Seriously if you are afraid to use your real name just try being “Jim” or something and even that small step will add a world of difference.

#58 Wanderlei Silva
June/18/2010
@ 11:06 am

Ok I will explain since you are taking so much time to school me.

I am not a cartoonist.

I am just a lowly comics fan.

Somehow, and I don’t recall how, I found this site and was shocked to see some “gods” of cartooning congregating here. Not you, of course, because I have no idea who you are.

People with names like Rall, Kurtz, Pastis, the Sheldon guy.

I read the site quietly for some time until I noticed the little kerfuffle between Rall and Kurtz. I spoke up then because it was shocking to see two guys that I respected arguing so childishly in a public forum.

I found it really offensive when Kurtz accused Rall of “begging”. This, from a guy who must have struggled at one point to get his webcomic off the ground. This, from a guy who wrote a book encouraging others to create their own webcomics. It was insulting to Rall and to any aspiring cartoonist.

Rall was not asking for lunch money. He was seeking donations from like-minded individuals who enjoy his work to support his next project. I happen to disagree with Rall’s politics now (as I said before, I was a fan of his years ago) but I still admire his ambition and effort.

Now let me reverse this. Rall’s incessant belief that webcomics are not viable and his doubting of Kurtz’ success is equally annoying. How much money Kurtz makes is nobody’s business but Kurtz’ wife. The man has clearly built a nice business for himself so Rall should just leave it at that.

With the explanation of my existence out of the way, let me say this. I am not knocking the cartoonists on here, but believe me when I say a lot of comics fans read this site, not just cartoonists. We don’t expect you to be funny all the time, but when you start bashing the cartoonists we like, at least make it funny. Frankly, the only guys who have made me laugh out loud are Pastis, Cline (once), and the guy named Guy. That guy is funny.

No, I am not auditioning for anything. I don’t wish to be a cartoonist. But please don’t say that nothing I say is funny just because you don’t agree with it.

Otherwise I’ll just assume that I’ve misoverestimated your intelligence.

#59 August J. Pollak
June/18/2010
@ 11:26 am

I’m not sure where I wasn’t clear. I specifically said you’re not funny because your jokes are terrible, not because of your political views. Seriously, you tried twice to make the same joke about Al Gore, and pulled out every buzzword you could think of from message boards. “Czar!” “Pantsuit!” Seriously, this isn’t A material.

I’m not sure where you not being a cartoonist comes into this. I never said you were. I said you have absolutely no clout when you use a fake name and make really lame one liners as a debate tactic. I stand by that. It’s interesting that your last comment was the most readable when you dropped the phony cool-guy jokey thing you were going for and just talked naturally. However you’re really saying it in the wrong place, this isn’t a thread about Rall and Kurtz.

#60 Mike Krahulik
June/18/2010
@ 11:29 am

I don’t agree!

#61 Terry LaBan
June/18/2010
@ 11:53 am

? if he doesn?t know how the economy works, I?d like to know who does.?

Milton Friedman

Man, oh man, Carl Moore–what is it about reality that you don’t understand? Dude, if you’d poked your head out of your gopher hole in the last 3 years, you’d know that MILTON FRIEDMAN’S PHILOSOPHY CRASHED THE ENTIRE WORLD’S ECONOMY!

Wanderlei Silva’s not a real name? Who knew? I’ve gotta get out more myself.

#62 Wanderlei Silva
June/18/2010
@ 11:59 am

I was explaining who I am and why I first posted as an illegal alien cartoonist. Isn’t that what you wanted? Are you about to ask me for my papers?

#63 Dan Bielinski
June/18/2010
@ 12:48 pm

Kurtz, a cartoonist god? Not until he is in Time magazine.

#64 August J. Pollak
June/18/2010
@ 1:41 pm

Hey did you all hear about that cartoon Brian Fairrington drew?

#65 Dave Stephens
June/18/2010
@ 4:09 pm

I heard about it – more PC kerfluffle, I wouldn’t waste much time with what NOW has to say. But thank God their ability to censor is limited.

Poor August – is nothing real without a link? Is your new name “August J. Panties-in-a-bunch”?

Here, burn your fragile eyes with some anti-AGW poetry:

To Invent Armageddon

When software supposes the world ends in flame,
And Hansen and Gore paint brushstrokes of blame,
And other false prophets scream, “GREEN” in their name,
I wonder a bit, just a tiny amount, 
How many people know what it’s about,
And how many good folk can see past the shame
While driving around in their carbon-mobiles, 
immersed in the guilt of spinning their wheels,
Intent on respecting the earth just the same,
They play the victim while playing the game…

Warming and cooling are twins of the world,
But one twin is cruel and one twin is good.
You’d know the cruel one if you saw his work,
When fog freezes flesh and wolves howl in the murk,
When the Vikings were booted from Greenland’s embrace,
And the so-called “little ice-age” tried it’s best to erase
All that we made that the warm winds delivered,
As the darkness descended, we froze and we shivered,
Awaiting the warming that came far too late,
‘Til a third of the world were slaughtered by fate.

The globe still recovers and glaciers still melt,
And though a chill in the air can almost be felt,
There’s nothing more normal than warming that’s global,
Despite Chicken Littles droning on about weather
And whether or not science daring to question
Their dogma is legal, and should even be mentioned,
Their hockey-stick lies tilt mad at the skies,
To invent armageddon, true science DIES…

#66 August J. Pollak
June/18/2010
@ 5:10 pm

My only note after Googling that: You forgot the (c) Dave Stephens tag you usually add to this on the other message boards you’ve been spamming with it for over a year.

Also, wow. Really?

#67 Dave Stephens
June/18/2010
@ 6:00 pm

Three or four websites constitutes “spamming?” Oh, and a couple of folks re-posted the poem with my permission.

Facts to chew on.

Medieval Warm Period. Global. 500 years. Glaciers worldwide melted for 500 years. Oh noes!

Little Ice Age. Global. 500 years. Glaciers worldwide grew for 500 years. Oh noes!

Recovery from the Little Ice Age continues and since it was warmer for hundreds of years, we have quite a ways to go and many, many helpless glaciers will go “bye bye” just like they probably did during the Medieval Warm Period. Funny, huh?

Really.

#68 Ted Rall
June/18/2010
@ 6:00 pm

Um…really? Wow. If true.

It’s not. Is it?

#69 Dave Stephens
June/18/2010
@ 6:18 pm

Until Michael Mann tried to “erase” the MWP with his “hockey stick”, the MWP was accepted among archeologists, geologists, and, yes, climatologists (included in older IPCC reports, then deleted in newer ones). There’s a great discussion here:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070912075054AAu0eNQ

#70 August J. Pollak
June/18/2010
@ 6:19 pm

Yeah, that Brian Fairrington. He sure does make comics.

#71 Wanderlei Silva
June/18/2010
@ 6:41 pm

Not to ruffle your feathers again, but August, you are one angry person.

I needle people on here but I’m pretty sure they don’t take it seriously.

But not you.

You sound like you have a major chip on your shoulder — working your google-fu and trying to prove people wrong while you miss entirely what they actually mean. (ex. your Nobel/Al Gore “takedown” above)

Calm down, and if you don’t understand something, let it slide.

We can all get along.

Yes We Can. (repeat)

#72 Dave Stephens
June/18/2010
@ 6:59 pm

You can learn more about August J. Pollak’s anger issues here:

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoonist/profile.cfm/PollaA/

Turns out, he’s a subversive cartoonist. Who knew? LOL

And Ted Rall was an editor of one of his books – isn’t that surprising…

#73 Alan Gardner
June/18/2010
@ 7:02 pm

I gotta admit, these last couple of days, I’ve only been skimming the comments.

HOW in the H did we get onto the topic of global warming?

#74 Dave Stephens
June/18/2010
@ 7:08 pm

I was me, when I mentioned that August’ had a “Stubborn adherence to baseless religious-backed viewpoints…” like Global Warming.

#75 Dave Stephens
June/18/2010
@ 7:09 pm

We’ve moved on to August’s anger issues for now, though. Though I’m perfectly willing to discuss NOW’s anger issues – much more interesting, of course. ;)

#76 Ted Rall
June/18/2010
@ 7:28 pm

@Dave/Wanderlei: Using sock puppets reminds me of a certain former illustrator I once met in court. Very, very tacky, not to mention a brazen violation of our host’s rules.

A few other things:

I don’t mind Scott’s comments about my begging for money. He has a point. I figure if I ask and people say OK, what’s the problem? I’m not robbing them at gunpoint or anything. But it’s not like that point is crazy or wrongheaded (unlike various other things he says).

Also, please don’t try to deflect by accusing August of having “anger issues.” August is one of the most brilliant people I’ve ever met, and though he can be passionate, he is never angry for the sake of being angry. He doesn’t suffer fools, and he really hates illogical reasoning.

I’d be loathe to get into a debate with him. I would lose.

#77 Dave Stephens
June/18/2010
@ 7:52 pm

“He doesn’t suffer fools.” = “Anger issues” = “Internet flame war”
= Ad Hominem Attacks

Also, losing a debate is far more about debating skills than the argument. After all, a skillful orator can dismiss any point, true or not. When either side “debunks” an argument, I notice the weakest toothpick point is wielded as if it were an unstoppable broadsword…

#78 Tom Wood
June/18/2010
@ 8:21 pm

Whenever the religious want to denigrate science such as evolution or climate change, they compare it to religion.

Why is that?

#79 August J. Pollak
June/18/2010
@ 11:23 pm

Dave your responses in this thread have just gotten increasingly bizarre, and keep in mind this is even before you randomly started posting your poetry. I mentioned this before and I guess it’s a pattern now but I don’t get this projecting thing you’re doing. You keep saying I’m “angry” as if you’re trying to insult me and yet you’re the one posting enraged and nonsensical rants about global warming, a subject no one mentioned but you keep furiously trying to talk about for no reason. With poetry.

I can’t possibly be angry or even frustrated like I might get with other internet trolls. There’s very little you can do to anger me, Dave. You’re just ridiculous. Everyone see this. I will emphasize once again you posted a poem about how you don’t believe in global warming. Were this a trial on the charges of your being ridiculous I would rest my case on that. Even the guy who owns and runs this site has no idea what this crazy person is doing screaming about global warming over and over. If anything I should tell you how amazed I am at your skills in deduction, such as how you just triumphantly cracked the conspiracy that I am “angry” because I was in a book Ted edited, which you seem to think was a secret except for when I’ve mentioned that a few times on this site alone and the book has been out for over five years. It is that kind of detective work that makes you a leader and revolutionary in destroying the massive delusion that climate change is real just because most people who aren’t insane say so. That and, of course, your poetry skills.

#80 Dave Stephens
June/19/2010
@ 12:59 am

Ah, we’ve moved onto my anger issues. Good move, Mr. Pollak.

Was my poem angry? Who is projecting now? LOL

And I’m a troll. The kind you yawn at. Also, you say I am crazy, ridiculous, screaming and under a massive delusion and you also think that I believe that I am a leader and revolutionary.
That’s a lot of ad hominems – and you’re not angry. LOL

“Thou dost protest too much.”

#81 Wanderlei Silva
June/19/2010
@ 7:20 am

@Rall

If you aren’t insulted that’s fine. But as an outside observer it wasn’t pleasant to witness.

Not sure from where you got the sock puppet idea.

It’s nice to see you being loyal by defending your friend, but please don’t insult everyone on here by saying that August is brilliant or ever in a position to “suffer fools”.

I’d also be loathe to get into a debate with him. Arguing with him is like arguing with the father of the kid who thinks 2+2=sandwich.

#82 August J. Pollak
June/19/2010
@ 7:27 am

I just woke up and I am out of orange juice. Oh my god I am so angry!

#83 Dave Stephens
June/19/2010
@ 8:13 am

Out of orange juice? Well, you can always chug-a-lug some vitriol – you’ve got an inexhaustible supply of that, right?
;)

Since you’re ‘brilliant’, you already knew the definition of ‘vitriol’, but here’s the definition anyway.

vitriol |?vitr??l; -?ôl|
noun archaic or poetic/literary
sulfuric acid.
? figurative cruel and bitter criticism : Pollak’s sudden gush of fury and vitriol.

#84 August J. Pollak
June/19/2010
@ 10:09 am

I bet Brian Fairrington doesn’t like orange juice!

#85 Wanderlei Silva
June/19/2010
@ 11:47 am

Stop reminding everyone how unfunny you are.

#86 Matt Bors
June/19/2010
@ 1:21 pm

Went away for a few days and missed the poetry.

#87 August J. Pollak
June/19/2010
@ 2:03 pm

It’s okay Matt, it sent me into a rage. I totally Hulked out from the power of pentameter. Thank god you were at a safe distance.

#88 August J. Pollak
June/19/2010
@ 2:06 pm

Sorry, I mean thank global warming. Since that’s what I pray to after all.

#89 Tom Wood
June/19/2010
@ 2:25 pm

If we’re going to do poetry about rage, there is only one…

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night – Dylan Thomas

#90 Wanderlei Silva
June/19/2010
@ 2:58 pm

Since you all love poetry so much, let me try:

This is a poem about Al Gore,
A man who loves Earth right to her core.

To hear him speak, he’s quite a bore,
Eyes closed, chin down, try not to snore.

“Floods, drought, famine, and war,
That is where we’re heading for!”

“Unless, my friends, you give me more,
More money, my house needs new decor.”

“Walk, ride, crawl on the floor,
But don’t let your bike scratch my SUV door!”

“Now, we must act, together, before,
Another dead polar bear washes ashore.”

“What did you read in that mag from the store?
I did what to who’s wife on my living room floor?”

“Tipper, my wife, doesn’t love me anymore,
I guess, like ol’ Bill, I’m just a dirty little …”

If you like it, feel free to share it without attribution.

#91 Wanderlei Silva
June/19/2010
@ 3:02 pm

Awww.. typo.

This is a poem about Al Gore,
A man who loves Earth right to her core.

To hear him speak, he’s quite a bore,
Eyes closed, chin down, try not to snore.

“Floods, drought, famine, and war,
That is where we’re heading for!”

“Unless, my friends, you give me more,
More money, my house needs new decor.”

“Walk, ride, crawl on the floor,
But don’t let your bike scratch my SUV door!”

“Now, we must act, together, before,
Another dead polar bear washes ashore.”

“What did you read in that mag from the store?
I did what to whose wife on my living room floor?”

“Tipper, my wife, doesn’t love me anymore,
I guess, like ol’ Bill, I’m just a dirty little …”

#92 August J. Pollak
June/19/2010
@ 3:42 pm

Oh by the way, thanks Ted! I would say I disagree, but that would create some kind of logic paradox and lord knows we don’t want this thread do descend into nonsense.

#93 Dan Bielinski
June/19/2010
@ 11:28 pm

What is this, the Daily Poet now?

#94 guy endore-kaiser
June/20/2010
@ 2:57 am

Wanderlei, that was priceless!

I haven’t laughed that hard since the last time Fox News urged me to believe in corporations instead of science.

And it rhymed too. Excellent work!!!

#95 George "Roche" St. Pierre
June/20/2010
@ 5:09 am

“Not sure from where you got the sock puppet idea.”

No, I have no idea where he got that from, Wanderlei. After all, you ARE using your first and last name. Or, y’know, somebody’s.

#96 Wanderlei SIlva
June/20/2010
@ 8:57 am

@Guy

Thank you for the pseudo-compliment.
I actually do enjoy your work.

@George

I am not impressed by your comment.

#97 Terry LaBan
June/20/2010
@ 9:20 am

So Dave Stephens thinks an internet discussion on Yahoo between guys with psuedonyms proves climate change is a lie? Wow–guess that’s how your earned your PHD in climate science, huh? Well, riddle me this, smart guy–if all the glaciers that are melting now also melted in the Middle Ages, how is that that they’re just now finding dudes that got frozen over 5000 years ago in the Italian Alps? How is it that ice in Greenland that’s over 10.000 years old is melting just this year? How is it that enough sea ice has finally melted in the Arctic to finally open up a genuine Northern Passage, something that hasn’t existed at least since the Eskimos moved there and developed their current, year-round sea ice based lifestyle? You and whoever Wanderlei really is are almost as bad as developing an argument as you are at writing poetry. If you really think all contemporary climate science is just a conspiracy organized on behalf of Greenpeace by Al Gore, I feel sorry for you. Actually, I feel sorry for you anyhow.

#98 Wanderlei SIlva
June/20/2010
@ 9:56 am

I feel sorry that your ENTER key is broken.

#99 guy endore-kaiser
June/20/2010
@ 11:39 am

@Wanerlei

“Thank you for the pseudo-compliment.
I actually do enjoy your work.”

Thanks, Jim.

#100 guy endore-kaiser
June/20/2010
@ 11:45 am

@Wanderlei, Dave Stephens, and whoever else doesn’t believe in global warming (shane?)

Obviously the Right enjoys demonizing Al Gore, but I’m curious if any of you have actually watched An Inconvenient Truth? And I don’t mean some video review of it, but have you actually watched the entire film on your own?

I saw it a number of times, and I have never understood how you could look at so much scientific data and completely write it off. I understand it’s possible to poke holes in a point here or there, but the massive tide of evidence seems incontrovertible.

This is an honest question, and I am looking for honest answers. Have you, or have you not, seen the film?

#101 Dave Stephens
June/20/2010
@ 1:07 pm

I’m embarrassed to say that I was first a believer – I believed Gore and his film and the shrill, alarming headlines. And then I became more informed (as a former Geology major, archeology aficionado and botany dabbler, I’m more informed than most about the workings of science) and realized I’d been duped and the “incontrovertible science” was full of more holes than a swiss cheese factory. All science is NOT equal and most Climatology science is still in its infancy… It is not remotely similar to truly solid theories long-established in other sciences. Fundamental underpinnings of how the climate works, basic numbers of input and output, are still mostly murky and guessed at or totally unknown. And the computer models are mostly sad attempts to model a chaotic system incorporating poorly understood theories…

#102 Wanderlei Silva
June/20/2010
@ 2:46 pm

The problem with this site is discovering the true thoughts of cartoonists you admire. When the thoughts completely disagree with your own, it’s horrible. It’s like finding out that your favorite basketball star enjoys wearing ladies’ panties every other Thursday.

At this point, all I have left is Stephan Pastis. If he were to ever come out as a hopey changey kind of guy, I might as well stop reading comics.

Don’t get me wrong, cartoonists’ political persuasions usually do not affect the quality of their strips. It’s just that, after I’ve chuckled at their doodles, I can’t help thinking “this guy supports carbon taxes”.

It’s a sad day for me, Guy.

I have watched An Inconvenient Truth. Prior to watching it, I was a mild believer as well. But it had an opposite effect on me. I realized Al Gore is an idiot.

And the people who blindly follow and defend his theories? Complete idiots.

I don’t say that to be mean, but how else can you explain why his followers recycle their toothpaste in an attempt to “save the planet” while Gore himself jets around the globe playing “hide the salami” with his favorite producer?

Global climate modeling has to be one of the most complex problems to tackle. Many are already thinking I am regurgitating a common talking point, but it’s common because it’s true. Clear your mind for a moment, and consider this:

Stock trading is very complex. There are many variables that can affect a stock price: market demand for the company’s products, competition, law suits, catastrophes, etc.

There are more people studying stock prices every day than there will ever be studying climate change. Yet, with all these great minds, no one has yet been able to figure out an infallible system with which to trade.

Swing back to climate studies. There are more variables that can affect the climate and less known certainties than in stock trading.

So how is it that a few scientists screaming about climate change can be so right, but many more people can be so wrong and lose their shirts betting on the Dow?

It’s very simple reasoning, I admit, but sometimes you don’t have to think that hard to come to the right conclusion.

Betting the economy on a theory is not a smart choice.
“Doing something is better than nothing” is absolutely moronic.

Would you risk your entire net worth on a company that makes windmills? Will you, from this moment, unplug your computer and never turn it on again?

If your answer is “no” on both counts, then by the Left’s standards, you don’t believe in Climate Change and you’re not willing to do anything about it.

#103 guy endore-kaiser
June/20/2010
@ 2:51 pm

Dave,

Where are you becoming more informed?

I am always surprised when people become more informed than 99.9% of the serious scientific community.

How does that happen?

Is there some hidden truth at the confluence of botany, geology and archeology that all the professional scientists are unable to get to?

And no need to list all the “scientists” who disagree with man-made global warming, because then I will have to list all the oil industry shell companies that funded their “research” and that’s too much work for a Sunday.

Suffice it to say that science comes out unanimously on one side, and only corporate funded research takes the opposing view.

For me, I will always trust in science over commerce.

“Science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.”

#104 guy endore-kaiser
June/20/2010
@ 2:59 pm

Jim,

There are more people studying the stock market than trying to figure out if the earth is round.

It doesn’t change the fact that the earth is round.

Also, I don’t believe you were ever a mild believer and then watched the film and changed your mind. What were the specific parts in the film that convinced you you were wrong?

#105 Wanderlei Silva
June/20/2010
@ 3:09 pm

Guy,

That Earth is round comment was weak.

And don’t call me Jim.
I assume that you’re Guy, so I call you Guy.

I was a believer as far as the media convinced me. Around that time I also read Rall’s column, so that is an indication of my political feelings then.

The moment that absolutely clinched it for me, was when Gore slowly built up a suspenseful case against skeptics’ arguments and then, right when the climax was reached he said “not really”.

Not a firm “no”. A weak “not really”. As in “I’m not sure, so I’ll leave me an out”.

With a performance like that, it’s no wonder Tipper is gone and Laurie is denying it all.

#106 Wanderlei Silva
June/20/2010
@ 3:28 pm

And the actual worth of your “peer reviewed research” study statistic?

In 1997, 99 investors thought Apple Inc. was toast. One guy didn’t. That guy is now a millionaire.

Reality is an inconvenient truth of predictions.

#107 Dave Stephens
June/20/2010
@ 3:36 pm

@Guy. Giant straw man. Sixty stories high and leaking more hay than a hurricane in Kansas…

I said I was more informed than most. I DIDN’T say I was more informed than 99.9% of scientists. And if you really truly believe there is a consensus like that, you’ve not read beyond the talking points…

The “magic” you refer to is that I read and understand those areas of science better than most because those areas have been a lifetime interest, albeit amateur. For instance, archeologists have long understood and documented both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. They’ve documented the prevalence of both worldwide and also their influence on vast aspects of cultures, especially as to their rise and fall.

Enjoy your AGW ‘talking points’ while you can – you’ll see the alarmist theory of AGW consigned to the dustbin of scientific history within the next 10 years or so, maybe sooner if the Environmental Movement (much of which I wholeheartedly support) realizes that less and less folks are buying their malarkey and figure out the hideous negative affect it is having on their entire agenda.

You know the shortest list in the world? It’s a list of things Global Warming DOESN’T cause. ;)

#108 Rob Tracy
June/20/2010
@ 6:27 pm

Wanderlei , this place really isn’t for fans. I mean, I can’t really say that because it isn’t my place. But my interpretation of this place is that it is for people in the business to talk amongst each other freely about issues that concern them.

When an artist is dealing with his/her fans or readers he/she has to be that person and can rarely be themselves. It’s a shame that someone who isn’t in the business feels the need to come in here and maybe threaten that vibe by using a fake name, posting incendiary comments and then arguing that because creators are expressing themselves as they truly are amongst their peers you have been disillusioned and may stop reading comics altogether (or at least their comics by intimation). Shame on you. Go thought police somewhere else and let use express ourselves in relative safety amongst those who are in the same field.

And as for your views on global warming… who gives a crap if it’s true or not? Seriously. I saw a vid a few years ago that really put the whole argument in perspective for me.

There are really only four possible outcomes to the issue:

We do nothing and nothing happens.

We do nothing and the world suffers horrible cataclysms perhaps leading to extinction of all life on Earth, perhaps leading to much larger deserts, less life on the planet and really bitchin’ tans.

We do something and nothing happens.

We do something and that aforementioned cataclysm comes along and we either prevent it or mitigate it through our preperation (or like the BP spill fail hard and suffer its full affect).

There is only one option that doesn’t give us any chance to mitigate or prevent a possible catastrophe and that is if we do nothing. Sure we could argue that even if we try to prevent or mitigate the issue we could still suffer the affects but at least in that instance trying gives us a chance.

Its a 1 in 4 shot that we do nothing and suffer the cataclysm. And no one can say how bad it will be. Maybe it won’t be that bad. Death Valley would become “Catch On Fire and Die Screaming Valley”, who needs the Florida Keys or most of the coastal areas anyway? Or maybe the summers will just be a bit warmer. Who knows?

But let me ask you something. If I put on my psychic hat and told you with absolute certainty that if you left the house today there was a 25% chance you would stay home? Even if you didn’t believe in psychic powers wouldn’t you feel better if you took some precautions? Maybe walk or drive extra careful? Double check your mirrors? Maybe take a different route to work?

If your in the camp that believes we should just keep on keepin’ on risk the 1 in 4 shot of either warmer summers or to the other extreme the end of all life on Earth you are living life with your head in the sand. If it was an asteroid coming at us you would probably be all like “Nuke it! Blow it up… save the planet!” even if we weren’t positive it was going to hit Earth. Because that’s a tangible thing you can see with a telescope. But because you can’t be convinced that Global Warming exists you’re ok with risking… everything.

That’s a decent poker strategy. Guess what it isn’t so great for?

#109 guy endore-kaiser
June/20/2010
@ 6:45 pm

@fake name

“And don?t call me Jim.
I assume that you?re Guy, so I call you Guy.”

You assume that I’m Guy because I list my actual name, as this board requires.

Your name isn’t Wanderlei Silva.

Also Jim, if you base your entire conviction about a huge issue on the way someone says, “Not really”, than you’re an imbecile.

I’m glad you like my comic strip though.

#110 guy endore-kaiser
June/20/2010
@ 6:48 pm

@dave

“You know the shortest list in the world? It?s a list of things Global Warming DOESN?T cause. ;)”

So you saying global warming does cause a lot? Okay then.

#111 Tom Wood
June/20/2010
@ 7:02 pm

This thread needs more poetry.

And rage.

And poetry about rage.

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

#112 Terry LaBan
June/20/2010
@ 7:17 pm

@Dave For instance, archeologists have long understood and documented both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. They?ve documented the prevalence of both worldwide and also their influence on vast aspects of cultures, especially as to their rise and fall.

You’re absolutely right, Dave. Everyone who’s ever cracked a history book knows about the climate changes you mention. Neither has ANYTHING to do with the current climate situation. Again, it is transparently obvious to anyone who doesn’t have an all-consuming emotional investment in attacking Al Gore, a man who hasn’t held elected office in a decade, that the world is undergoing massive climate change on a scale unseen in the last 10,000 years. You claim to know more about this subject than most, but so far it sounds like most of what you know you’ve learned from oil company press releases.
As for Wanderlei or Jim or whoever you are, you have some stones coming on here and talking about how disappointed you are to discover the “true thoughts” of cartoonists. What exactly have you done in your life that would count as an achievement, besides squirting a lot of barely coherent, psuedo-clever nonsense all over the internet?

#113 Wanderlei Silva
June/20/2010
@ 9:27 pm

@Guy,

You asked about the movie. I told you an exact point in the movie when Gore came off as unconvincing. I never said his “not really” was confirmation to me that global warming is not happening.

Revealing that I am a fan of your comic/humor was not a shield I put up to, er, shield me from your criticism. However, no one likes to be called an imbecile by someone they had respect for. Understandably, my opinion of you is different now. But, of course, you don’t care because what’s one fan when you have many many others.

@Rob,

I usually do not post at all. As I said before, it is interesting to read the opinions of cartoonists on here, but certain ones openly berate others and, as a fan, I decide to speak up. I am not sure how it got this far. There isn’t an intention to “thought police”. And, with great apologies to Stephan Pastis, I should not have brought up his name like that.Or any other cartoonist I mentioned who was not involved in this strange thread. Especially Kurtz, since I reference him often.

I don’t think my comments are incendiary. It all started when I disagreed mildly with August. I don’t think I intentionally attack people in a non-mild manner. At least I hope not.

@Terry,

Yeah, “true thoughts” does sound worse than what I meant.

What I have or haven’t achieved is irrelevant. I don’t doubt the achievements of anyone on here. Well, maybe August, because judging by the way he treats others, he takes his first name a little too literally.

And if what I type is incoherent to you, well, that’s not my fault.

To Global Warming fanatics:

We will get nowhere arguing about global warming.

The “just do something, ANYTHING!” crowd will never consider costs or reality.

Say by some miracle, you manage to convince every country that begins with the letter “U” to cut emissions 50% by next Wednesday. What about the other countries? They’ll keep chugging along burning coal while you’re standing outside in your underwear puffing at a windmill, trying to generate enough energy to make a cup of coffee.

So while countries like China and Russia are growing their economies, there you are (along with Uruguay), sorting your garbage into multiple bins and bumping into each other in the dark.

You will NEVER convince everyone on earth to follow a green lifestyle. Impossible.

So with that in mind, I’d rather be the last man standing on an inevitably melting earth than the first guy dead because an energy saving light bulb failed to illuminate an open manhole.

Finally,

to Alan Gardner,

Thank you for your patience. You run a great site and I apologize for the slight breach of your rules. I will stop posting after this post as I wouldn’t want others to post against your rules thinking that it is ok.

When you come in here later looking for “whose ass to kick”, I already kicked mine.

Because, after all, illegal aliens shouldn’t be here in the first place.

Bye everyone,

October J. Tunafish

p.s. if anyone is planning a protest on Capitol Hill for my return, don’t. I want to go back to a quiet unfunny life.

#114 Ted Rall
June/21/2010
@ 12:29 pm

@Alan: You may want to consider allowing only registered users to post here. And allowing only professional cartoonists to register. Rob has a good point; it’s bad enough to know fans are reading this site without allowing them to post as well.

#115 August J. Pollak
June/21/2010
@ 12:49 pm

I disagree that the site needs to be cut off to readers and commenters who aren’t “professional” in whatever context that might be. I had a lot of fun with a couple of people who clearly made themselves look worse than anyone they were trying to insult, but in all seriousness the bigger problem is just moderating.

I appreciate all the work Alan does and I understand how much time watching a comments section takes but simply cutting people off before they demand, over and over and over and over again that a thread about a cartoonist becomes a thread about their pet conspiracy theory would be a lot better than saying comics fans aren’t allowed. The guys who derailed this thread said they were comics fans. Their problem was that they kept not wanting to talk about comics. And as several people have noted one of them repeatedly broke Alan’s requirement of using a real name.

You shouldn’t be told to go away if you’re not a professional cartoonist. You should go away if you don’t want to talk about cartoons and are too lazy to make your own blog.

#116 Alan Gardner
June/21/2010
@ 12:59 pm

@Ted – the issue with this thread wasn’t the participants, but me not enforcing my rule about keeping the conversation on topic. I was distracted with the AAEC convo and wasn’t monitoring this thread well and really, I should have capped it long ago.

Be sure that I will more tightly direct the threads in the future.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.