Nick Anderson of the Houston Chronicle is an avowed independent who covers politics and contemporary cultural issues in a way that connects with readers. His loose, idiosyncratic style carries with it an unconventional message that has broad appeal. "I approach my work with a healthy skepticism for the ideological extremists littering our political landscape," explains Anderson.
© The Washington Post Writer's Group - All Rights Reserved.
Lalo Alcaraz by Lalo Alcaraz
Robert Ariail by Robert Ariail
Comments (34) (Please sign in to comment)
Fairportfan2 said, 6 months ago
Gotta spend your time denying something that rational people know is true … that’s the Republican way.
ReFlex-76
said, 6 months ago
Of course, Climate Change is hitting all of us, not just the deniers.
ReFlex-76
said, 6 months ago
Step 1 in fixing Climate Change: ignore the deniers. If they’re not gonna lead, they’ll have to get out of the way.
Michael wme said, 6 months ago
I note that this cartoonist has stopped talking about warming, and just says ‘change.’ Who can argue that the weather doesn’t change? This should stop all the critics. Even global warming deniers can’t deny that the weather is always changing.
And Rove was absolutely right: those polls taken on November 6 were just as wrong as the biased polls that showed President Obama would be re-elected. It was the corrupt dimlibs who refused to unbias the November 6 polls and stole the election for President Obama. The Founding Fathers knew it was wrong to let women or men who didn’t own property vote, but the dimlibs counted those illegal, unConstitutional votes anyway.
Rottiluv
said, 6 months ago
@Michael wme
1) are you actually saying that voting against the way polls tell you to vote is “stealing an election”?
2) I always love to hear from those who support serfdom. Usually they’re serfs (AKA working poor) who somehow think they’d be the top of the ladder if serfdom came back.
3) There’s a difference between climate and weather. Climate is long term, weather is what is happening day to day. Whether or not you “believe” that humans are causing global warming/climate change is one thing, denying it is just sticking your head in the sand. Oh and whether or not humans are creating climate change? I personally don’t care, I would however enjoy breathable air and I’m rather addicted to potable water.
MortyForTyrant said, 6 months ago
@Rottiluv
Hey, pssst, look up the term “agent provocateur”… That’s what Michael is (in contrast to being a troll), as well as “Neocon Man”. I love them both :-)
MortyForTyrant said, 6 months ago
@Michael wme
“Climate Change” is not the same as “weather change”, the later occurs seasonally. But the expression “climate change” is much better than “global warming” for scientific reasons, it is more inclusive. Climate change can cause more snow around the great lakes and AT THE SAME TIME cause droughts in Texas. So if someone tries to argue “there can be no global warming, it’s snowing outside my window!” with “climate change” you at least stand a chance to lead them back to the real world – after you’ve smashed their AM-radio…
alff-steinberger said, 6 months ago
@Rottiluv
It was supposed to be a joke – the comment of “Michel wme”, that is … I suspect that he does know the difference between climate and weather, and was just teasing a bit.
alff-steinberger said, 6 months ago
@MortyForTyrant
Hold on – isn’t “Michael wme” just trying to be funny? No one could seriously hold the views he expressed-
Respectful Troll said, 6 months ago
If a person believes in climate change, no matter what the cause, and survives a major weather incident like Sandy, the Midwest tornado season last year, the dust storms in the southwest, etc… it is unlikely they will suddenly decide there is no such thing as climate change.
If a person does not believe in climate change and survives the same incidents, there is a very good chance they will reconsider the possibility.
As weather becomes more dangerous, the number of people concerned about it will increase.
The question is this- how bad will things have to get before enough people agree to start responding. I believe we can create jobs and new technologies that will have significant impact on how bad things might get, but I also feel that the amount of time we have to do this without going through significant pain is diminishing.
This cartoon displays an extreme example of an extreme opinion and this view is increasingly a minority in our country. This is another reason we need educated people serving on the Science Committee in Congress. One of the men vying for the job doesn’t think anything can be done about climate because it is “caused by solar flares”, an opinion disproved by actual scientists.
Respectfully,
C.
Ken M
said, 6 months ago
Just wondering… how have solar flares’ effects been disproved “by actual scientists?” Can you cite this? I think actual scientists exist on both sides and most of the ones citing the sun’s influence on our climate are not talking about solar flares, but rather the solar cycle, which is well documented, and how it heats and cools during various periods. There is a proven effect… how much is still debatable by “actual scientists.”
Yes, climate change is real, but it is way too complex to pigeon hole. Anyone remember the Ozone Hole? The mini ice-age predictions of the 1970s? The fact is, some people disagree with popular opinion for good reason, not simply to be a denier.
Finally, the motivation to do better as people needs to come from the people and not the government. In the past, the innovation has largely come from the private sector (Thomas Edison, Alexander Bell, The Wright Brothers…) first, then adopted by government. Rarely has it developed the other way around.
Kylie2112 said, 6 months ago
@alff-steinberger
Agent provacateur is a way of being funny :)
Ms. Ima said, 6 months ago
Just like liberals don’t believe in an ultimate supreme being of the universe. But we won’t talk about that because you can’t tax it.
Respectful Troll said, 6 months ago
@Ken M
Good post Ken M,, thank you.
Here’s one of a couple of sites that support my comment, tho there are others that contest it. Such are the dynamics of this topic.
http://phys.org/news189845962.html
I also agree wholeheartedly that humans need to be the solution, not government. However, patent law will need to be changed in order to prevent companies from sitting on technologies that might improve life on our planet, but competes with the “product” of the holding company.
Government has almost given grants to businesses and universities who have explored new ways of doing things, but it was the actual people dong the science and research that made the changes. Government can be a good faith partner, but business makes it fly.
Thank you again for your comment.
Respectfully,
C.
alff-steinberger said, 6 months ago
@Kylie2112
FYI – Well, “agent provocateur” might sometimes be used to mean someone with a joke in mind – but the usual meaning is more one of troublemaker – as, from wikipedia,“More generally, the term may refer to a person or group that seeks to discredit or harm another by provoking them to commit a wrong or rash action.” – or, “Un agent provocateur est une personne chargée secrètement de perturber l’activité d’un groupe” – Michael wme was just being funny, no? no harm intended.