Pharyngula: Pick a cartoon

Search this blog

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

(Complete listing)

Of course, it is very important to be sober when you take an exam. Many worthwhile careers in the street-cleansing, fruit-picking and subway-guitar-playing industries have been founded on a lack of understanding of this simple fact.

(Terry Pratchett, Moving Pictures)

A Taste of Pharyngula

(Complete listing)

Polar lobes and trefoil embryos in the Precambrian

Dinosaur Lungs

A simple story gets complicated

Clausen, Keck, Hiesey

Upstream plasticity and downstream robustness in evolution of molecular networks

How to make a tadpole

Pleistocene horses

Squid nuptial dances

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

« The futility of being Cheri Yecke | Main | There's something fishy about the June Molly »

Pick a cartoon

Category: Humor • Politics
Posted on: June 26, 2007 5:16 PM, by PZ Myers

The Union of Concerned Scientists has a poll right now — pick your favorite cartoon about the politicization of science. You've got 12 to choose from.

TrackBacks

(TrackBack URL for this entry: )

Comments

I like #2. I assume the govt. guy is shoveling crap..........

Posted by: RAM | June 26, 2007 5:31 PM

Noonine Singh cryptically posted:

ATHEISM=EATSHIT

You do realise that those aren't anagrams, right?

Posted by: H. Humbert | June 26, 2007 5:42 PM

Sorry, I didn't like any of them. I don't know why, they just didn't seem to be very good.

Posted by: Mena | June 26, 2007 5:47 PM

#2 is my favourite, since it is sufficiently generic.

Posted by: Keith Douglas | June 26, 2007 5:51 PM

I sided with #2 as well. It resonates with pretty much every stance the Bush admin has taken in the last 7 years.

Posted by: Warren | June 26, 2007 5:52 PM

"Atheist Eats Hit"

Huh. Sounds like Variety's comment on a new successful cooking show. Cool!

Posted by: Warren | June 26, 2007 5:55 PM

ATHEISM does, however, equal MEATISH. Ha! Where's your God now, Noonien Singh?

Posted by: fatsparcheesi | June 26, 2007 5:59 PM

#2 got my vote; simple, clear and to the point.

Posted by: Bob L | June 26, 2007 6:03 PM

I'm still bitter none of mine were picked:

Diebold

Ancestors

Posted by: dhonig | June 26, 2007 6:05 PM

#10

I went for number 1- the rest weren't very subtle- do i have a different sense of humour because i'm a Brit? theothers felt like they were knocking you over the head with an obvious fact.

Posted by: psychodiva | June 26, 2007 6:24 PM

#11

I initially went for 1 (I'm also a Brit, and liked the humorous touch), but in the end voted for 2.

Posted by: Ray M | June 26, 2007 6:27 PM

#12

Don't vote for #1, they stole the punchline from The Far Side.

Posted by: Rey Fox | June 26, 2007 6:42 PM

#13

ATHEISM=HE IS MAT

There you have it. Mat, the god of atheists.

Posted by: Dahan | June 26, 2007 6:57 PM

#14

Far too many of the cartoons labeled the bad guy as "government" or "politicians". Government wasn't the problem when Clinton was in office, and many politicians are great friends to science.

The cartoons need to be a bit more specific, and less afraid offending the people they need to offend.

Posted by: MikeJ | June 26, 2007 6:58 PM

#15

Very strange!

Also British (Scottish to be exact) I agree with Psychodiva & Ray M... #1 is definitely the best of the bunch, although #2 was pretty close... (& too Rey Fox -- I think MOST good punchlines have probably been used in the far side at one time or another)

In general, though, they were all really lame! Is this the best examples of 'science-based cartoons' to be found?

I worry!
... but not too much... they're still better than Xian Cartoons!

Posted by: tony | June 26, 2007 7:10 PM

#16

Just read Matt's comment and I agree wholeheartedly. Most of the cartoons would have much more bite if they savaged a specific politician or commentator... (and not necessarily just Dubya)

Maybe that's why we 'brits' thought them to be generally lame. We have a history of savage humour (spitting image, and the like).

Posted by: tony | June 26, 2007 7:13 PM

#17

I think the problem is that when you try to dictate the subject for humor, there's a war between topicality and actually being funny...and in this case, the judges presumably picked the ones that most bluntly favored their point of view, and bugger the whole business of making anyone laugh.

Posted by: PZ Myers | June 26, 2007 7:14 PM

#18

Frankly, they were all awful.

Posted by: Donalbain | June 26, 2007 7:22 PM

#19

I like #2 and #10, voted for #2. I think you could have changed out the Government dude and replaced him with IDots or creationists with no problems. Good all round cartoon.

Posted by: jufulu, FCD | June 26, 2007 7:41 PM

#20

#6, in part for the artwork (but I liked #1 as well, & am British).

Posted by: N.Wells | June 26, 2007 7:52 PM

#21

Indeed, they were all terrible, and amateurish as well. This one by Tony Auth is much better than any of them.

Posted by: theophylact | June 26, 2007 7:52 PM

#22

Wow, Union of Concerned Political Scientists is more like it. Talk about a load of Ad Hominem attacks. #6 is the most appropriate, especially for Al Gore.

Posted by: Jeff | June 26, 2007 8:20 PM

#23

Ad Hominem? What the fuck are you talking about Jeff? I think you're getting your rhetorical devices confused. I didn't see any name calling.

Posted by: ac patriot | June 26, 2007 9:01 PM

#24

Nobody liked #8? Well, besides me?

Posted by: Stogoe | June 26, 2007 9:28 PM

#25

Yes, I too had problems with using the generic "government" as the enemy of science. My beef is with particular policies advocated by particular individuals. While neither party qualifies as virgins in this area (see Proxmire, William) one party and its leader strikes me as being particularly virulent towards multiple areas of scientific investigation. So I went with #1. And I'm not even a Brit! (As a matter of fact I live just down the road a piece (3 hrs 10 min according to Google Maps) from ol' Doc Myers.) I feel proud to be included in such company.

Posted by: justawriter | June 26, 2007 9:42 PM

#26

Ad Hominem? What the fuck are you talking about Jeff? I think you're getting your rhetorical devices confused. I didn't see any name calling.

You didn't see any specific name-calling in #9, such as "inept cronies", "Scion of gas-powered toy car empire". And pretty much anything relating to the gov't in these is ad hominem, attacking the "man" and not the issue.

Posted by: Jeff | June 26, 2007 10:42 PM

#27

I liked #4 and #10 - they were the only ones I found genuinely funny (egads - I'm British and I didn't like #1. No punch to it).

Mind you, I agree with theophylact (@21)- the Tony Auth cartoon is much better.

Bob

Posted by: Bob O'H | June 27, 2007 12:53 AM

#28

They were all crap.
Quite frankly I'd be embarrassed to have any of those used as an example of scientific humor.

Posted by: MartinC | June 27, 2007 1:55 AM

#29

Although it's blatant "me too", I'm inclined to agree with (non-Jeff) criticism of the pieces. If one would rather make a clear point than be humorous, there are many tales that could be told in prose. At least the quality would have to fall several more notches to approach fundy humour, including the classic creationist punchline "Millions of years!"

(In case you're wondering, no, I haven't seen them come up with a setup that somehow makes that phrase funny.)

Posted by: wrg | June 27, 2007 2:21 AM

#30

#3.

It was straight forward and very clear. Only science that gives the approved and expected answers will be listened to regardless of what the true answer might be.

Posted by: woozy | June 27, 2007 2:54 AM

#31

Oh... and

ATHEISM = EAT SHIM

(I gues its ATHEIST = EAT SHIT. Except when on earth are permutations supposed to be equal?)

Posted by: woozy | June 27, 2007 2:56 AM

#32

I picked #4, probably because I've spent far too much time talking to drug reps lately, though I kind of liked #1 as well. Most of the rest suffered from being too obvious or too preachy.

Posted by: Dianne | June 27, 2007 5:18 AM

#33

Number 9, Number 9...

Well, actually none of them were very good.

In response to the criticism that these are attacking the "man", and not the issue - The issue, in this case, is the "man", and his manipulation of science to support his political agenda. I'm probably thinking of a different man than Jeff is, however.

Posted by: AaronInSanDiego | June 27, 2007 5:57 AM

#34

Doesn't "ad hominem" personal attacks require an actual person being attacked. And doesn't it require attacking personally on grounds not pertaining to the validity of their reasoning. Claiming the "scions of gas corporations" and "inept cronies" are ad hominem attacks when they aren't specific people and when the argument is that "inept cronies" and "scions" will be in charge of policies, "inept cronies" and "scions" don't evading the argument; they *are* the argument.

Now if you had said "broad generalizations" and "simple cliches" or "knee-jerk assumptions without thought" you'd have a case.

I however feel if the shoe fits...

Posted by: woozy(no. 3! no. 3! no... okay none were *terrific* but .... | June 27, 2007 6:09 AM

#35

I agree with all the others who are puzzled that nothing better could be found. (Did anybody look through Doonesbury?)

Of those on offer, I would go for #4, as black humour appeals to me. It is probably too subtle for most of the American public to understand though.

Posted by: reason | June 27, 2007 8:25 AM

#36

I chose #2, although I agree with those who found the collection less than stellar. #2 would be improved if "Fed. Govt." were replaced by "Bush Admin." It's not like the federal government is automatically against the truth (at least, not to the astonishing degree with see today).

Posted by: Zeno | June 27, 2007 10:04 AM

#37

"with see today"

Oops! I meant "we see today".

My incompetence approaches Bushian levels.

Remember,the answer is 42, not 43.

Posted by: Zeno | June 27, 2007 12:13 PM

#38

Number 9, 11, and 12 are not bad (the last panel in no. 9, and the fact that the presenter in it looks like Raygun, though that clearly wasn't intended).

The "science expelled" cartoon is better, though.

The "Ancestors" cartoon, however, is close to incomprehensible.

Posted by: David Marjanović | June 27, 2007 2:09 PM

#39

well, if you read the parameters of the contest, you'd see that it's not as if the union of concerned scientists went out and searched for cartoons and then asked you to vote on the ones they found.

no, people volunteered their own work to this contest. ergo, trudeau and auth obviously aren't included because they didn't submit. in fact, trudeau was one of the judges that chose the final cartoons from the preliminary submissions.

and, i must guess, and probably quite reasonably, too, that scientists who draw cartoons are probably not so good at one or the other...

that being said, #11 made me laugh out loud. true, some of them were clumsy in their lack of subtlety, but i've certainly seen worse political cartooning (eg, day by day).

if you read

Posted by: skippy | June 27, 2007 2:35 PM

#40

Woozy

I seem to recall that permutations are indeed equal in number theory, but only under specific conditions... But I'm likely wrong -- it took me a couple of tries to get through 'numb'er theory (despite being a computer scientist -- I couldn't cope with multiple pages of axioms!)

I'm sure a pure mathemetician will set us right!

Posted by: tony | June 27, 2007 3:28 PM

#41

Why is science always portrayed as a little mousey female? It's a bit disturbing to me for some reason. Anyway, last panel of #9.

Posted by: Suze | June 27, 2007 5:37 PM

#42

There are lots of systems for which AB = BA; just think ordinary multiplication. There are also lots where it isn't, like, say, multiplication of matrices.

Posted by: Keith Douglas | June 30, 2007 9:09 AM