Tom Tomorrow: You can’t make this stuff up

Posted on  

"Tom Tomorrow: You can’t make this stuff up"

Oh, no? Try telling that to the people rewriting history, like the Texas Board of Education and Glenn Beck — explains Tom Tomorrow in another hilarious cartoon for Salon:

This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow

Related Posts:

« »

15 Responses to Tom Tomorrow: You can’t make this stuff up

  1. David Smith says:

    Joe;

    Tech problem; The comic is clipped on the right side, not fully visible.

    [JR: Fixed. Thanks.]

  2. Jeffrey Davis says:

    You can’t make it up, but Texans can.

  3. Berbalang says:

    I have read Tom Tomorrow for years, ever since I saw it in a local weekly alternative newspaper. I was thrilled years later to find it on the Salon, which then turned into CREDO Action. Now Salon has returned? :/

  4. mike roddy says:

    Good one, thanks, we definitely need a little humor now and then. Trying to get in a rational discussion with some of those characters makes you nutty after a while.

  5. Jeff Huggins says:

    There is a Problem, and It’s a Troubling One (and it’s gonna hurt if we don’t solve it)

    When basic reasoning gets tossed in the trash and important facts are ignored, that invites (and ultimately leads to) problems that are very real and harmful. Some people seem to act as though they can ignore reasoning and fact and that the only things that lose if they do are ‘reasoning’ and ‘fact’, and the folks who respect them, all while the status quo continues.

    But that’s not correct — and is indeed downright delusional and self-destructive — when it comes to these major issues. You can’t just ignore climate change, keep putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and expect the whole problem to just disappear. Nature does Her thing, and consequences follow. And, a growing and growing number of people will simply not put up with inaction or irresponsible action, as time progresses. So, denialism and inaction are unsustainable in a very real sense — they’re doomed to failure — and they will eventually have to change or they will bring consequences upon themselves … natural, social, economic, and political.

    When humans deny basic reasoning and fact, with respect to matters that are important and that have real consequences for other humans, the whole enterprise has to quickly get back on the track of respecting reason and fact or else there are growing tensions and, eventually, if things don’t change, civil disobedience, then (if no change) isolated acts of outrage, and ultimately things like the civil war, the revolutionary war, or what have you. History shows that, eventually, people take action if other people (who are doing harm to them) insist on not allowing reason and fact to address the problem in a way that would allow avoidance of the heightened stress. Trying to deny climate change and preserve the energy status quo perpetually will ultimately lead to “things that are not good”, including perhaps war, unless the scientists are entirely wrong, which is not the case. So, the denialists are playing a game that takes them down a one-way dead-end street. How they don’t see this, I can’t imagine.

    Anyhow, we have to get back on a track that respects science and basic reasoning, and that facilitates the solving of important problems without violence, or else future decades are probably not going to be pretty, so to speak. Unfortunately.

    Sigh,

    Jeff

  6. Jeff Huggins says:

    An Important Fact — a Date — and What Reasoning Would Suggest Before That Date

    If we all want to pay attention to facts and reasoning, here are some, at least in skeletal and question form:

    ExxonMobil’s next annual shareholders’ meeting is schedule to take place in May, according to an article in the current U.S. News & World Report. The article is called “The Evolution of an Oil Giant”, by Kent Garber.

    (Yes, that’s the same magazine issue that contains Joe’s recent piece.)

    Again: ExxonMobil’s next shareholders’ meeting is coming up in May. That’s a BIG event. Only a couple months away. Many of you may know that some leading shareholders groups — including members of the Rockefeller family — have been wanting ExxonMobil to do much more, and be more responsible, when it comes to the climate change and renewable energy matters. In the past, they’ve offered shareholder resolutions to those ends (and also aimed at changing ExxonMobil’s leadership structure). In the past, those resolutions haven’t quite passed. But, according to the article, the same groups are going to try again. Good for them!

    Now, here is where reasoning comes into play. Although most people probably don’t want to travel to Houston in May, that’s not the point, unless you own oodles of ExxonMobil shares and can vote in favor of change.

    The point is this: The very best time, and highest-impact time, to boycott ExxonMobil, put warranted public pressure on them, combat them in the press, do a better job of exposing their irresponsibility (media, where are you?), and so forth, would be between NOW and the meeting in May.

    That’s right. Nature’s climate change clock is by far the largest one but is not the only “clock” ticking. ExxonMobil has these meetings once a year, I believe. The next one is in about two months (or less) from now. That’s when shareholder groups can best bring pressure to bear, and can vote, to at least point the ship in more responsible directions, step by step.

    So, these questions of whether a boycott of ExxonMobil makes sense, and of whether the press and blogs should cover ExxonMobil much better, and educate the public (so to speak), and the question of whether The New York Times will do intelligent, in-depth, and responsible reporting on the ExxonMobil problem, and all related questions having to do with ExxonMobil, … these are not questions that can just be punted or that can drag on forever. If a boycott, or improved media coverage, or improved blogging coverage, or warranted pressure on large investors, occur before the May meeting, their influence will likely be substantially more than if they occur after the meeting or, of course, if they don’t occur at all.

    And, if you want to know of someone to applaud, send nice flowers to, and send good wishes to, then try Neva Rockefeller Goodwin, a great-grandaughter of John Rockefeller and director of Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute. Although I’m not completely familiar with the proposed shareholder resolution, and (under the circumstances) it should almost certainly go farther, nevertheless, she is doing more than any other person (it seems to me) from a shareholder standpoint to push ExxonMobil in improved directions, one difficult step at a time. So, bravo to her!

    Can I put it any more bluntly: In my view, it would be great to boycott ExxonMobil before the May meeting comes around. It would be great for the media to do intelligent and in-depth reporting — what do they like to call it? oh yes, “investigative journalism” — before the May meeting. It would be great to express views (in civil and well reasoned ways, of course) to leading shareholder groups, before the May meeting. It would be great to sell any shares you may have, before the May meeting, unless of course you have lots of them, in which case you ought to vote to get rid of Rex Tillerson (in my humble opinion). And, it would be great if The New York Times could do its job that it has (incredibly) utterly failed to do, in covering the ExxonMobil problem, before the May meeting.

    OK, there you have it: A fact (the upcoming May meeting) and reasoning (why doing responsible things before the May meeting makes the most sense). Of course, I’ve left out much of the obvious part of the basic reasoning, that is, why the ExxonMobil problem is a problem in the first place. That much should be obvious to readers here, by now.

    So, what will people do with this fact and this reasoning? Will we act wisely upon them, or ignore them and let the time pass?

    Cheers,

    Jeff

  7. fj2 says:

    5. Jeff Huggins,

    re: “science and basic reasoning”

    I believe attributed to Winston Churchill during World War II:

    “When all else fails reason prevails.”

  8. MADurstewitz says:

    Climate change is physics.
    Physics is Nature.
    Nature always wins.

  9. peter whitehead says:

    i’ve never been to texas. therefore texas does not exist

    i look for bits of climate science and click them into stumble etc under the tag ‘conservative politics’ – a bit of nvda

  10. Rick Covert says:

    Yeah, its time to pile on Texas. ;-( We deserve it after all with what the Texas board of Education has removed and put in its place in the text books.

  11. James Kildare says:

    #6: Can we expect to see you in Houston in May, Jeff ?

  12. Jeff Huggins says:

    In Response to James Kildare’s Question (Comment 11):

    Dear James, before I answer your question, I’d like to ask whether you are a real James Kildare or whether you’ve chosen the name from the famous TV doctor? If “James Kildare” is your real name, that’s perfectly fine, of course, and it must be fun in some sense. But, if not, please let us know if it’s just a name that you’ve chosen to use, for anonymity. Thanks. (Sorry: I get picky about these things, when people ask about my whereabouts.)

    That said, I’d enjoy coming to the meeting in Houston, and doing what I can, if someone would pay for my trip and insurance. (If you’d be willing to do that, you can contact me via my website.) Otherwise, and in any case, I’ll try to do what I can do in the period leading up to the meeting. The meeting is for shareholders, and I don’t own any ExxonMobil stock, I’m happy to say. Also, the most warranted gestures (blogging, boycott, etc.) would have their greatest influence leading up to the meeting, not necessarily in Houston on that very day.

    I do think we should address the ExxonMobil issue, and I’d be happy to cooperate with people who are seriously interested in doing that, in warranted ways, with intellectual integrity. And I appreciate your question about Houston. I’ve only asked about your name because it’s a famous TV name, and I can’t always tell why some people, with anonymous names, sometimes ask me certain questions.

    In any case, Cheers,

    Jeff

  13. 密集柜 says:

    honey if not, please let us know if it’s just a name that you’ve chosen to use, for anonymity. Thanks.

  14. jjf says:

    Jeff,

    “I’d enjoy……..doing what I can, if someone would pay for my trip and insurance”

    Help me. You’re good at quotations. Is this one from Mahatma Gandhi ?

  15. Ronald says:

    How much really does a few textbooks for children really matter? I mean a few of the most strident atheists I know came from Catholic schools. Now when they get to high school and college, the reading list would matter a great deal.