YES! JOIN FOR FREE!
Enter your address below to receive free email alerts when a new comic or a blog post is published:
You may unsubscribe easily at any time & your email will never be shared with anyone!
SHARE
FOLLOW
SEARCH
EAGANBLOG ARCHIVE
Explore the current collection.

Truth is Irrelevant, if that Helps
Trump supporters, when explaining their enduring faith in our President, often point to the way he “tells it like it is.” This rationale has long been a source of wonder to me. Until recently, that is.

What had stumped me was the disconnect between their perception and the mountain of evidence showing that almost everything he says is not true. What was even more perplexing was that his supporters seem to know that he regularly gets his facts wrong. How can that be?

I have finally solved that conundrum, and now that I have, in retrospect the explanation seems so obvious. When Trumpers say he tells it like it is, they are not talking about the factual basis for his declarations. Instead they are agreeing with his conclusions. This is not about evidence, then, but about a confirmation of what they feel is true.

In this universe of “truth” dictated by feelings, the mainstream news has to be fake. That's the only way to explain why the so-called facts contradict what our feelings tell us. The team of career prosecutors investigating Trump must be part of a secret deep state conspiracy. Why else would they keep investigating collusion and criminality that we know don’t exist? Of course immigrants and elitists are working together to destroy America. Why wouldn’t they?

I’m still not sure where these people’s feelings come from. Perhaps changes in our culture have made the Trumpers uneasy. When the majority of their fellow citizens have come to accept ideas they find troubling, even threatening, we should expect them to freak out. Add to this their frustration from generations of unfulfilled political promises (unless we count Obamacare, which for some reason they don’t), and we might get a glimpse of their rage. We should not be surprised when that rage seeks out some way to feel righteous — even if it has no basis in fact. I don’t really get it, but I have to acknowledge that it exists.

Even if I can’t fully empathize with their anger, however, at least now I can stop trying to make sense of their thought process. There isn’t one. It is their emotions we need to contend with, not their tortured logic.

I wish I found that realization more comforting.
F**k!
You see f**k in print a lot these days. It used to be spelled “f—k” or sometimes “f__k”, but because it’s thought to be so vulgar, so obscene, the whole word is rarely seen or heard. Up until recently, it was spelled “f___” in an even sterner attempt to honor civility and good taste. The K, apparently, was thought to bring the reader dangerously close to the actual expletive. “____“ has also been an option, though that choice requires parenthetical elaborations such as “a harsh vulgarity” or “a four-letter-word” or some such prim phraseology.

“The F-word” still enjoys wide usage for this purpose, as does “F-bomb” and ponderous evasions like ‘rhymes with mukluk.” For those of you who don’t know, by the way, the word we’re figleafing here is “fuck.”

F**k is an old, if not honorable, word, but only in the last decade has it gotten the attention it deserves. F**king, it should be mentioned, is a very common practice among humans, and it is certainly not obscene in and of itself. Even so, it didn’t appear in the Oxford English Dictionary until 1972. Even now it is kept hidden in most public reporting when the usage is thought to be gratuitous (as in “that’s fucking gratuitous, dude”).

F**k has been getting a lot of play recently, mostly in connection with politics. Robert De Niro, for example, shouted “Fuck Trump!” from the stage at this year’s Tony Awards. That event brought on a storm of controversy. Since Bob’s usage was anything but gratuitous, many outlets printed the word (as I just did) or said it out loud. The nut of the controversy, however, was not the word itself but the effectiveness of the usage. Many thought that throwing the F-bomb was counter-productive and gave Trump a rare chance to seize the high moral ground in our political discourse. Rather than winning support for De Niro’s sentiment, the epithet was dismissed by critics as simply cursing to the choir.

Last week another F-bomb dropped after the murder of five journalists at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland. Trump (or at least his twitter feed) responded to the killings with boiler plate condolences about “our thoughts and prayers.” One survivor, apparently unimpressed, shot back that he "didn’t give a fuck” about the President’s thoughts and prayers. This usage hasn’t been critiqued in the same way, perhaps because it is not a direct ad hominem attack. Instead, it calls attention to the shameless hypocrisy of our leader, who regularly refers to the press as “enemies of the people.” The “f**k” in this case (if my outrage detector is functioning properly) was deemed acceptable.

I have tried to be scrupulous within this essay in the use of f**k and its derivatives. I wanted to hold the line against language that might offend you while exploring what the f**k is going on with the word fuck.

Maybe my effort is a waste of time. There was a time when uttering a public F-bomb would draw hard looks or even a punch in the nose. They’re raining down everywhere these days, and rarely get more than a shrug. Gratuitous usage has expanded into overuse. Even on news websites the word is used freely, particularly in sports sections. Sure, it’s vulgar, but it appears to have lost its status as an obscenity. So why try to keep the barn door closed if the f**k has already escaped?

I don’t know whether to lament the coarsening of our culture or celebrate our liberation from the taste nazis. I guess I will simply continue to walk the ever-shifting line between politeness common usage. At least I will be not participating in its overuse, which is an obscenity to me no matter what the word.
Not With a Bang But a Chirp
Normally, I hesitate to expound on the subject of theoretical astrophysics. I don’t want to give the impression that I am presenting myself as some kind of expert in these matters. I really prefer the term “gifted amateur.”

But let’s not waste time on such distinctions. I’ll let you be the judge. In case you didn’t hear the recent news from deep space, here’s the skinny: 1.3 billion years ago, two black holes in a galaxy far, far away were spinning around each other at the rate of 250 rotations per second. As they spun, gravity waves spiraled out into the universe in every direction at (what else?) the speed of light. The two behemoths’ frantic dance of courtship finally ended in a cataclysmic climax, releasing one last pulse that was equal in its power output to 50 times that of the entire visible universe.

The sex was so good, in fact, that both lovers died. But a new black hole, almost twice the size of both together, was born. Ordinarily, nobody on Earth would have noticed. The usual means of observing the universe — optical, radio, and x-ray telescopes — could not have detected this event. By the time that last wave reached Earth, however, it so happens that scientists had just created a whole different kind of observational device. Instead of looking for stuff, they were ready to listen for it — specifically, for the kind of gravity waves produced over a billion years ago by those two black holes in heat.

Those scientists and engineers weren’t even sure such a thing existed, even though Einstein had predicted that it did. They built LIGO, this 2.5-mile-by-2.5-mile right angle filled with precision gizmos, to see (or rather, hear) if Albert was right. Maybe, just maybe, these ripples in space/time could be discovered at last.

Bingo! Or rather, chirp! No Booms or Ka-blooies or thunderous roars to match the event itself…just this one little musical note. In the key of middle C, they said.

Big deal, you say? Nice goin’ fellas, but what’s a chirp when we can already see the universe bellowing at us? What’s so freakin’ special about this new thing? The answer: it’s special because it is new…a new and unique kind of information available in no other way than this. Furthermore, black holes aren’t the only things that produce gravitational waves. Any mass that moves will do it, and that includes everything in the universe. We are swimming in such waves.

A new kind of data means a whole different take on then universe. Have you ever stood on the roof of your house? It’s different up there, isn’t it? Gives you a different perspective, doesn’t it? You see things you’ve never seen before, you notice relationships you never knew existed, you’re above, beyond, and outside your previous understanding of the world.

So, yeah…it’s a big deal. What the experts can’t tell you, however, is what we will discover from observing these new data. They can’t, of course, because we haven’t discovered it yet. It’s been several months now since that first chirp. So where are the other chirps?

UPDATE: Hi, it’s me, interrupting myself. I wrote the above in February 2016, but never posted it. I was writing right after the LIGO team published its paper about their first big detection from the previous year. There have been (to answer my own question) several noteworthy chirps since then. The first four were also the results of colliding black holes. In October of 2017, however, LIGO and its Italian counterpart Virgo detected something new — the merger of two neutron stars.

Meanwhile, the LIGO team has copped several awards, including a Nobel Prize in Physics. LIGO-India, or INDIGO, is now under construction. Improvements to the original system continue to be made, increasing the sensitivity and scope of future observations. That means more people standing on the roof and enjoying that unique perspective on the universe.

So far, observations have confirmed what scientists had predicted. Einstein’s theory of general relativity got a boost because it had imagined gravity waves in the first place. The data from the black hole collisions proved that those mysterious objects do, in fact, exist. Observations of the neutron merger proved (when taken with data from regular, old-fashioned observations) that gamma rays ands heavy metals are indeed products of such collisions.

I do like that we’re getting confirmations of previous scientific insights. It goes a long way toward chumping out the science deniers, and that’s a good thing in this era of “alternative facts.” When it comes to what I look for as a gifted amateur astrophysicist, however, this is not the ideal outcome. For me to do my best work, there must be new, inexplicable data to contend with — something that utterly dumbfounds the scientific community.

So I’m fine with the chirps, but I want more. A trill, perhaps, or a cheep. A distant hoot would be great, or even a full-on gobble. That might be too much to hope for, but I will take anything that calls for the kind of analysis that requires no data to speak of — much less an understanding of the laws of physics. That’s where I will come in.
Run It Up the Flagpole
Flags have been in the news a lot this year. I’m thinking about the American flag in particular and the taking of a knee during the national anthem. Some folks get pretty het up about that kind of thing, finding disrespect even if the protest is done in a sad and solemn way. They take flags very seriously, so much so that some are willing to lay down their lives for their flag.

So I don’t want to start any fights here. I honor the sensitivity of flag worshippers, but full disclosure: I don’t care that much about flag reverence. It seems extreme to me, and I don’t see what all the fuss is about when it comes to pieces of cloth versus flesh and blood humans. I am here to examine flags as a broad concept, okay? I am simply exploring my own vexillophilia, not rattling your cage.

The first thing that jumps out at me is that there are a lot of near duplications in flag design. Three simple stripes is a popular motif. The stripes might run either horizontally or vertically, and in most cases they are of equal size. The French, the Russians, and the Dutch, for example, feature different arrangements of this pattern in red, white, and blue. I can’t help wondering if these nationalities are just as willing to die for their flags as some Americans are. If one isn’t paying attention, one might end up dying for another country’s flag.

There are also some geographical themes that stand out. Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Iceland all display simple crosses with one vertical and one horizontal element. Georgia and Switzerland are also in this group, but the Norse connection is what catches your eye. It’s unanimous up there, and even England (an unofficial member of the Norse club) uses the St. George’s Cross flag (which predates the Union Jack) as its standard in sporting events. We could call this similarity a coincidence or evidence of a some dark, menacing conspiracy. I’ll let you decide.

Africa is heavy on red, green, and gold in its color schemes, and suns are a regular feature across the tropics. Five-pointed stars are everywhere (with some accompanied by crescents), but there is only one six-pointed version. While the three-equal-stripes pattern is dominant, many of these feature the addition of crests or emblems. Mexico’s, for instance, is an Italian flag with the eagle-on-a-cactus-with-a-snake coat of arms in the middle. There are many examples of this design style, but I confess that I find it a little disappointing. It’s like the flag designers gave up on fundamental symbolism and just went with something they had lying around the studio. Again, I’m not looking to start a fight.

I must say that I like the American flag. It’s homemade, according to the story, and it has a pretty clear layer of symbology. The red, white, and blue scheme is a nice one, though perhaps I am showing a color prejudice for that combination that seems common in the northern latitudes. I also like the fact that it changes every time a state is added. We may see Puerto Rico get shuffled in any time now, bringing us to a total of 51 stars. It’s an unusual design, too, so I give it points for originality. This could be national pride speaking, but I think that it’s an unusually attractive banner.

I am not alone in my admiration. Old Glory seems to have spawned its share of, if not imitators, then derivative designs. Chile, Cuba, and Liberia all have nice flags that seem to have sprung directly from Betsy Ross’ creation. Malawi’s flag takes ours and puts an Islamic star and crescent where the field of stars sits on ours. That’s a nice touch.

That said, the Stars and Stripes is not my favorite. It’s in the top ten (which is not hard given the large number of banners that fall into the “godawful” category), but not in the top three. My preferences for that honor are strictly a matter of taste, of course, and I try not to let politics (or racism, for that matter) play a part in my choices.

I put Morocco’s flag near the top because it is simple and potent. That green-on-red color combination gives me a mainline buzz, and the Seal of Solomon pentagram at dead center is an anchor of credibility. Class all the way.

Yemen (poor Yemen) is also high on my list. It features the classic three-equal-stripes pattern I’ve mentioned (it’s a classic for a reason), but it gets that basic design absolutely perfect. For starters, the stripes run horizontally rather than vertically. To my eye, that arrangement is the more stable and pleasing of the two — the way you’d want your country to be. Most important, though, they got the very best colors and sequence for this beauty. Red, white, black. Clean, strong, gorgeous.

I’d be proud to have either of those two as the symbol of my country (although I wouldn’t die for either). My choice for number one, though, has got to be Sri Lanka. It is unique in practically every category: design, color, symbology, goofiness. It’s got a lion (somehow holding a sword!). It’s got bo leaves on it, and they represent the Buddhist principles of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. The color choices are meant (I am told) to include other religions and ethnicities.

Better yet, it doesn’t really look like a flag. More like a wall-hanging designed to encourage contemplation. I can’t find any nationalism in it either, unless it’s pride in their yearning for gentle inclusiveness. I might not die for such things, but I could be talked into living for them.

Sri Lanka, I salute you!
first  previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  next  last
image
Trump supporters are people who know what they believe.
~ JC, Bonny Doon