Project Wonderful Banner

Sunday, July 06, 2008

That damned person

What's Mallard raving about today?

A person, Energy.

I am not sure who this person is, however he is clear crazy because he refers to himself as "we" for reasons which are not clear.

Mallard however, seems to feel he is emblematic of something he wants to complain about. No surprise there.


factinista said...

Maybe the oil companies should start drilling in the places they already leased before we give them more.

And why nuclear power, instead of oh, maybe hydrogen? The most abundant thing there is?

GeoX said...

From now on, I am going to read Mallard Fillmore as a rather loopy postmodern experiment. All the elements are there: a deeply fragmented storyline, if you can even call it that. A narrative style that consists of the author throwing in whatever absurd notions occur to him, regardless of whether they fit any kind of cohesive aesthetic vision. And--of course--the utter collapse of history, replaced by random fragments that are only simulacra of past events. You know what I'm talking about: Reagan was the greatest preznit EVAR. Global cooling ha ha dumb scientists. Dinosaurs and cavemen are libruls. These may not seem to have much in common, but that's kind of the point: the past has been completely flattened, so there's no reason why all of these things SHOULDN'T coexist within the same frame.

Viewed from this angle, MF actually looks kind of clever, weird, and funny. A big improvement over the more commonplace reading.

connection said...

This line of thinking is frickin' insane. Who has it been saying 'no' to all types of alternative energy because it will 'hurt business'? Solar/wind/geothermal/bio/hydrogen etc has been treated like the plague by lobbyist-run Washington.

Oh, now that oils $140/barrel all of a sudden the Republicans are the party of ideas. And those darn tofu and latte brained liberals keep telling them 'no'!

David said...

The "we" is obviously the US. The "we" that should never have gone into Iraq. As for hydrogen, yes, it's very common, most of it tied up in water. It takes more energy to get the hydrogen out of the water than we (there's that pesky "we" again) get back by burning the hydrogen.

Kaitlyn said...

That man's mouth is open, but he's not talking.

There are people behind him of varying heights, hence the we.

Or inside him, like the commercials for the new bound-to-be-rotten Eddie Murphy movie. And he - or rather they - just broke cover.

Don't people give reasons when they say things like this? Like, oh, the lack of longterm benefits?

But hey, if we can have a war without paying it for it as it happens, going insane over a supply of oil that will run out quickly seems par for the course.

I'm movin' to Iceland. Toodles.

12xuser said...

The main point of this comic seems to be that liberals have terrible hair. This guy looks like what my grandfather would have called a bohemian. Dali-esque, even.

Kaitlyn said...

12xuser, did your grandfather do a lot of drugs?

There's no way that squiggle looks like a human being, let alone one that could be accurately labeled as a representative of anything other than Tinz's imagination/delusions.

Erich said...

Tinsley's attitude towards the environment always makes me think of the old Kids in the Hall bit:

"We cannot change. To change would make an effort."

exanonymous said...

Apparently, any idiot knows the ONLY way to obtain energy is through oil.

He should say oil prices this high.

Anyone with a well-insulated house that burns wood and create most of it's energy through solar panels or windmills won't actually notice their energy prices increase. Other things, like plastics and foodstuffs will go up, but isn't it time we paid attention to what kind of monopoly oil companies have on our lives?

That's where I blame them. For putting America in their pocket to point where alternatives are considered unrealistic science fiction and pricey and those such as Mallard cannot even comprehend an alternative.

Anonymous said...

The "we" in BT's quite truthful strip today are the Democrats/Liberals and Environmentalists. Does that clear things up for you DaveyK? The solar/wind/geothermal/bio etc. forms of energy are certainly worth exploring but they are not going to power your cars within the next 20 years. Clinton would not let the oil companies drill for oil and the Democrats/Liberals and Environmentalists still do not want us to drill for the oil we have. Question: Do you expect the "big oil" companies to invest their money in new technology? Quit bitching and pay at the pump. I am sure when your President B. Hussein Obama is in office, he will have a chat with the folks we buy oil from and you will than be paying $2.00 per gallon for petrol, the man is a miracle worker.

One of the favorite games the Democrats in Washington like to play is when they call all the oil executives to Capitol Hill and berate them for making "excessive" profits. Well as you might expect ... more than a dozen of these Democrats in Congress that are critical of the oil industry actually have their own personal investments in the same oil companies they are lambasting.

At least 14 House Democrats and one senator (John Kerry) have holdings in companies such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron or Schlumberger and Hornbeck Offshore Services. And not only do they have holdings, but they have a lot of 'em ... ranging from several thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

GeoX said...

Hey, Tinznonymous is back! This is excellent, because it gives me a chance to tell him to fuck off to his face. Seriously, dude, nobody here is buying your dishonest bullshit in comic form; why should we be taken in any more by it when you present it as drunken comments?

I will concede that the lack of "artwork" makes the comment version a lot less ugly-looking, however.

handintheresunshine said...

I love the smell of Astroturf in the morning.

exanonymous said...

Hmm.. found the article anon is so blindly spewing (almost word for word in some parts, go figure.)

Applying original thought:

14 democrats in congress, 1 senator, right? Sounds scarey!

Let me do some math:

100 senators total. 1/100 = 1%.
14 out of 435 in the House of Reps. That would be ~3%.

Not something to be proud of, but neither 1% nor 3% constitutes enough of a majority to set policy.
Even if you TRIPLE it, there is still not enough voting members there to determine outcomes.

Now... how many republicans hold stock in major oil companies?

12xuser said...

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that some of my Democratic heroes, the ones that I worship, whose political positions have always reflected my own perfectly, would own stocks in an American company responsible for making me pay a couple bucks more per week than I had to pay last year. Impossible!

Next you'll be telling me that some of them go to church!