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!
Explore the current collection.

Rooting Posture
“Root, root, root for the home team
If they don’t win, it’s a shame…”

The Philadelphia Phillies are a fine team. They have a proud tradition, and their rivalry with my San Francisco Giants is spirited without being unfriendly. My problem is with their fans.

Phillies fans, like fans from many East Coast cities, often get credit for being “knowledgeable.” That is code, of course, for “abusive.” They regularly booed the greatest player in Philly history, hometown boy and first ballot Hall of Famer Mike Schmidt. That is only the most famous example of their scoliotic rooting posture.

As a sports fan, there’s not a whole lot you can do to affect the outcome on the field. Scream, cheer, stamp your feet, boo, pray. You want to think it will help your team, but it would be hard to prove that any of that makes a difference. Very rarely do players pay attention to anyone in the stands; they are rightly focused on the ball, their own execution, and the actions of other players.

If you are at home, your connection to the action is even more remote, and your participation in the web of causality even more imaginary. Often, no one can see you, much less hear your shouts and moans. It would only be natural to feel that your rooting counts for nothing and that you are powerless to help your team.

I reject this notion of helplessness. In doing so, I rely on no less an authority than the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. For our purposes, that principle holds that mere observation of phenomena, no matter from what distance, can affect it.

On a quantum level we are not only at the game, but we are actively participating in it in a meaningful way just by paying attention to it. In fact, we are members of the quantum team we root for.

I’ll admit that, under the Heisenberg Principle, we are also members of the other team, a face in the crowd at the game, part of the umpiring crew, and also intimately connected to every blade of grass on the field. Even so, I think we are bound to have the greatest effect on the things we pay the closest attention to: the play on the field, and particularly, the thoughts and actions of our (quantum) teammates.

It is important, therefore, for us to be good teammates by adopting an appropriate rooting posture — a positive one. A team riven by backbiting, finger pointing, and dissension is not a team but a collection of losers. I’m talking to you, Phillies fans.

But no hard feelings, Phillies — whatever your quantum status. Bottom line, it’s hard to bear ill will against a team that the Giants regularly thump with such gusto in the playoffs.
The Future Is Bright
And hot, and really crowded, too, thanks to us and our technology. But climate change doesn’t have to be a bummer, even if we do have to give up some of the things we love:

Like meat. Animals are just too inefficient as food sources, requiring way too much water and space per ounce of nourishment provided. Plus all that fat is bad for us, and cow farts contribute mightily to global warming.

No more war, either. It’s always been painfully obvious that, if we really want to save humanity, we should probably stop blowing each other up. Now it’s become a necessity; even if the bombs don’t get us, the massive release of greenhouse gases would eventually finish us off.

No more privacy, of course, but you already know that; I can tell by the look on your face.

All of this is inconvenient, but look at the unexpected benefits. Earth, it appears, will be inhabited by healthy, peaceful vegetarians who have to be open and honest with each other.

And they’ll need to be. All six billion of them will be living together in Antarctica.
I did a Deep Cover cartoon a couple of weeks ago (7/19/12) that dealt with hate. It’s a topic that has interested me for a long time, both others’ and my own. Later, I saw comments on the web suggesting that I had “played the race card” by bringing up race as a possible reason for the crazed antipathy some people have toward Barack Obama.

My point, however, was not that racism was the reason for peoples’ hatred. I was simply saying that it’s the one motivation they will rarely cop to. They’ll admit to believing he’s the antichrist, or an alien, or a commie, or any other of the nutcase theories about him, but never to flat-out racial bigotry. I don’t think racism is necessarily at the bottom of their hatred, though it might be. The reason people hate Obama is because they like hating him. They get off on it. The rationale behind the hatred is irrelevant.

As an emotion, hatred provides a pretty attractive up side. It unplugs the rational mind and all the pesky nuances rationality can introduce into your thinking. Giving in to hatred, in other words, simplifies things. All considerations become binary: bad, not bad. Any logic, no matter how false or simple-minded, will do fine.

Hatred brings its own special rush, as well. The feelings of righteousness, of empowerment, ferocity, and clarity of purpose are all part of the hate high. For those reasons, hate can be positively addictive.

Unfortunately, there is a downside to this addiction; it is deadly poisonous. Ask the members of the Sikh temple or the workers in the federal building in Oklahoma City. The killers in those situations were poisoned by their addiction, and so were the innocent people they killed.

I confess that I still hate George W. Bush. I’m not proud of that, though in my defense I consider it a completely rational hatred (if there is such a thing). He did, after all, start a foolish war that killed a million civilians. If there were ever a good reason to hate, that would be it. But what’s the point? He’s out of power, and I’m not getting the hate high anymore. All it does now is make me feel lousy.

More enlightened people than me might suggest love as the antidote to all this hate, and they might be right. That approach sounds so rational and sane, but I can’t get there with W; not yet, anyway. So I try not to think about him, because to do otherwise would only poison my state of mind. I guess that’s my solution to the hate epidemic, whether it’s racial or not: admit you’re an addict, and resolve to avoid the drug. Then hunker down and wait for sanity to return.
Naming Rights III
The Large Hadron Collider seems to have found something very important. The Higgs boson, or “God particle,” does indeed exist, just as Peter Higgs predicted back in 1964. The particle literally allows the universe to exist by “conferring” mass on other particles.

Please, no snoring in class. The quantum physics portion of this piece will end soon, I promise you. Just let me say that the Higgs boson isn’t really a God particle any more than it’s an atheist particle. Its discovery merely verifies that the potential for somethingness is inherent in all nothingness — and sets the stage for spontaneous creation of universes from an absolute void.

Any better? Okay, forget it. It’s a Very Important Particle is all I’m saying. So important that it needs a name worthy of its standing as the facilitator of Big Bangs.

Why not “Higgs boson,” as it is currently called? I know it’s common for discoverers of things to have the thing discovered named after them. Common, perhaps, but distasteful.

Permit me, if you will, a small digression here into my naming philosophy. Above all, names of things should convey something fundamental or meaningful about the thing itself. What does some one’s big, fat ego have to do with that? I can see naming a person after a thing (Pigmeat Markham and Twiggy come to mind), but not the other way around.

Now, I have nothing against Dr. Higgs. By all accounts he is a modest, personable, and very bright fellow. His personal identity, however, has nothing to do with the identity of this particle. The same goes for Dr. Satyendra Nath Bose, after whom the original boson was named. Nice guy and smart as a whip, but to name anything after a human being shows a lack of respect for the physical universe and a yawning void where humility should be.

In my naming universe there would be no Pike’s Peak, no Lake Champlain, no Strait of Juan de Fuca, no Magellanic Cloud. Europeans, and particularly the English, seem oddly fond of this lazy, misguided naming practice. Their maps of the world are filled with natural wonders that have been permanently diminished in this way. We should not be parties to this sad injustice.

My exception to this naming rule concerns things that have been created by the namer. Bring on your Hondas, then, and your Schwinns, and Eiffel Towers, and your Big Mac. Those naming rights are all theirs.

All right, then ... back to our task of naming the God particle. And no, I won’t even consider “the God particle,” even though it does attempt to transmit the essence of the thing. Too long and too flip.

I did consider “vip” (for Very Important Particle), but it’s just not definitive enough. Furthermore, vip might cause some confusion with the cartoonist Virgil Partch, who signed his work as “Vip.” I’ll admit that might not be a problem for most people.

For a time, the word “creon” was at the top of my list. It’s short, unique, and it fits the standard format used for naming other particles. Ultimately, though, I had to reject it. This particle does not really create anything. It simply permits the universe to be by conferring mass in differentiable amounts.

Then it hit me. Permitting the universe to be? That particle can only have one name: the “beon.”

That’s it, then. I invite you to use beon the next time the subject of quantum physics comes up. And really, there’s no need to mention my name (even though I did create it).
first  previous  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  next  last
No "new normal" for me, this shit ain't normal.
~ MS, Truckee