Enjoy GoComics?

A Recent Favorite:

Uh Oh, Nothing Here Yet

Why don't you go browse some Comics or Editorials and pick a few to favorite?

Recent Comments

  1. jeffiekins commented on Doonesbury 20 days ago

    Indeed, she has had ample opportunity to do better, and consistently not done better.
    It’s not hard to see the choice as between someone you know will consistently make bad choices, and the guy who will probably make bad choices.
    (Don’t get me wrong: I’m not sure I can bring myself to vote for him, either.)

  2. jeffiekins commented on Doonesbury about 1 month ago

    Yes. Like a lot of sensible solutions to problems, it’s illegal.

  3. jeffiekins commented on Doonesbury about 1 month ago

    The whole idea of “proof” is contrary to the Scientific Method.
    You can only disprove.
    That’s why Special Relativity could come along 300 years later and finally disprove Newton’s Laws of Motion.
    His opponents had to admit that, as long as Einstein had solid evidence of (some esoteric) things that didn’t work like Newton predicted, that’s that, regardless of the 300 years that everyone used his theories to good effect.

  4. jeffiekins commented on Doonesbury about 1 month ago

    > The science minded “skeptics” are much harder to put down.
    If you’re not skeptical, you’re not scientific. The whole point of the Scientific Method is that a small bit of solid evidence to the contrary invalidates a theory, no matter how popular it is, or how much evidence there may be in favor of it.
    History is littered with Phlogistons, Humours, and other theories that were widely accepted by scientists for decades before another theory came long that better explained the small amount of contrary evidence. Students today (I taught Physics) ask “how could they have been so stupid?”
    In a “normal science” world, the Warming theory would be frequently adjusted to take into account the (numerous) difficulties with it, and might be on much more solid scientific ground today.
    In a “political science” world, the supporters of a theory refuse to admit any weakness in it, or the validity of contrary data, keeping the theory from developing, locking it in at an early stage where it can’t possibly be right.
    I went to great pains to avoid using “dustbin of history”.
    If you’re paying attention, you might notice that precisely the same thing happened with Evolution in the U.S. No serious biologist believes the simplistic version taught in high school, but the political cost of changing the theory presented to the masses is just too high.
    See Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for how this works in more detail.

  5. jeffiekins commented on Arlo and Janis about 1 month ago

    Though I know people who, a couple of hours after the copperhead bit them, were wishing they would die.
    (A few hours later, of course, their opinion changed.)

  6. jeffiekins commented on Arlo and Janis about 1 month ago

    > No need to get up that early.
    Actually, the chefs shop that early. By 10, they’re in the middle of their pre-lunch prep.

  7. jeffiekins commented on Doonesbury 2 months ago

    You win the Internet today.

  8. jeffiekins commented on Doonesbury 2 months ago

    > She understands diplomacy.
    This might be the most ridiculous statement in today’s comments (so far). The diplomacy she participated in was really bad. I played a lot of tennis, but if I were playing with the pros, you should definitely not bet on me.
    If you say anything about any of the 3 candidates other than “(s)he’s less bad than the other guy,” you’re obviously not paying attention.

  9. jeffiekins commented on Doonesbury 2 months ago

    > Has he never heard of a microwave or toaster oven?

    In the mid 70’s, no and no. You simply have no idea how good you have it.

  10. jeffiekins commented on Overboard 2 months ago

    You must have my garden (or lawn) in mind.