Explodology

Brewster Rockit has a pretty good success rate in translating geeky stuff into mainstream humor.

It's an interesting niche, an approach not to be confused with that of strips like xkcd, SMBC or Penny Arcade, which produce geek humor for use within the geek community, on a level that would go over the heads of most people.

And it's also not to be confused with mainstream strips making fun of geeky things without understanding them. This is not "jokes based on what people who aren't into sci-fi think people who are into sci-fi are into."

It reminds me of  "Quark," the TV series starring Richard Benjamin as the captain of an interstellar garbage truck, a TV series so short-lived (nine episodes) and long ago (1977) that it's kind of pointless for me to even use it as a reference. 

(The weird thing about Quark was that it appears, in retrospect, to have been used as a cribsheet by the creators of "The New Adventures of Star Trek" or whateverthehell it was called, except instead of hiring the Barnstable twins -- whom I'd guess were probably available -- to play the two Betty clones, they had a hot android babe and instead of a plant-man named Ficus, they had an android computer guy. But I digress.)

Today's episode falls into that crack between silly and insightful, in that, while the image of math-and-science types is of humorless trogolodytes, it's pretty clear to anyone who pays attention that working on space stuff is, in fact, way cool and that, if there seems to be a long delay between Booyah! moments, it simply makes those moments more fun.

For instance, the landing of the Mars Hummer. They not only didn't attempt to hide the little boy excitement of that all-or-nothing moment, but they played it up and made the whole thing fun, with late-night watch parties at science museums around the country.

Now, the latest thing is Space Hedgehogs, which don't blow up but are pretty damn cool. These are basketball-sized balls covered with retractable spines.

The deal is, the rovers that have done so well on Mars aren't going to work on a less desert-like surface because they can't handle the barriers and canyons.

Also, they won't work well on small bodies, like the Martian moon Phobos or an asteroid, where the gravity is so slight that they wouldn't get traction.

So instead, you pack your sensors into these balls, dump a half dozen or so of them onto your target, and then use the retractable spines to send them bouncing and bounding around wherever you want them to go, kind of like that scary bubble thing in the Prisoner.

The efficiency and effectiveness of these motions, directed and executed by engineers on Earth, will be tracked by giving them letter-designations such as H-O-R-S and E.

I made that last part up.

I also have a proposal to solve the space-trash issue by engineering them so that, when each hedgehog's mission is complete, the controlling engineer would bounce that sucker high up off the surface and blow it to smithereens.

Though, if we were to solve the space-trash issue, that would cancel the mission of the United Galaxy Sanitation Patrol cruisers. 

 

And speaking of ridiculous fantasy:

Okay, this isn't a cartoon, and it isn't interactive, either, despite the label. But it did make me laugh.

And it's a reminder that the emerging argument of "They're not trying to be dishonest. They truly don't get it." applies not only to those working class stiffs who hew wood and carry water for the Grand Plutocrats, but also to the GP's themselves.

Granted, the article that accompanies this graphic is clear that it is about tax increases for those in the roughly $250,000 to $450,000 income range who thought the GOP had saved them from Obama's cunning plan.

And it did appear in the Wall Street Journal, which you shouldn't leave around where the help will see it.

But I know what it's like to be a single parent trying to get by on $260,000. In fact, it took me about a dozen years. The woman in the graphic is going to have to accomplish it in one, poor thing!

When Tom Brokaw opined on "Meet the Press" a few weeks ago that, really, $250,000 a year is what a couple with kids needs to get by, he wasn't being dishonest. He is quite sincerely blind to How the Other Half Lives.

And this whole idea of "paycheck sticker shock" comes out of the same elistist indifference to reality.

As a single guy with no kids, the difference in my weekly pay would be about ten bucks, if I had a straight job.

As a freelancer, I'll take a bigger hit, because I pay my entire FICA load myself. And, okay, I'd rather not pay more, but I understand the situation, it doesn't "shock" me, and I'm not asking for a pity-party.

Though I would be pleased to swap taxes with anybody in that graphic, if we could swap incomes as well.

Meanwhile, go cry on somebody else's shoulder.

And here's something free (I like free):

DailyInk is offering free access to their site for a week. I promise you, it's worth at least nothing. And, if you like it and decide to subscribe, you'll only have to pay for a year what my fair (freelancer's) share of FICA is going to cost me for less than a week.

Such a deal!

Comments

[Sherwood Harrington]

The huge grin I had while reading the first part of this (go spiky space balls!) was replaced by a huger one of an entirely different character brought on by the looks on the faces of that poor, poor, pathetic family of six in their abject misery. Only $180,000 in investment income? They should fire their broker.

[phred]

Yes, but you have to remember that these people really are very, very poor. The single woman with two children (who pays far more in taxes than I make, BTW) might have to sell one of her children just to make ends meet. You can tell she's contemplating her horrible fate--she looks exactly like one of those women Dorothea Lange captured so memorably during the Depression. Even worse, if gas prices go any higher, she might have to use *gasp* public transportation, and risk getting cooties or something. My heart goes out to them all. Just not very much.

[Bill]

Speaking as a retired person, I'd sure as hell like to know where that couple is getting $180K from, if $52K is from investments. Oh, wait, I'm guessing they must be former civil servants, or teachers, or somebody like that living off the public teat. Or maybe old UAW line workers in their 80s and 90s who retired 30 years ago.

And, I don't know, that single mom making $260K? I'll bet most of that's from alimony, right? Or maybe she's a hooker? Or is that un-PC of me?

[The Abbot of Unreason]

Well at least the African American couple didn't get an increase in taxes. That's what I'm supposed to take away from that graphic, right?

[Sherwood Harrington]

Everybody in that graphic looks like they just saw Les Miz.

[Mark Jackson]

Mike, I think that you'll find that the 2% FICA cut that is expiring was only on the employee side. Since you never got a reduction in the other part you pay you're not getting an increase there now. Doesn't that make you feel better?

[Mary in Ohio]

And all this time I thought the WSJ didn't have a comics page!

[d clay]

I looked at the first page of the comments after the Laura Saunders column. Boy were they depressing. Pretty much the same rhetoric that we were treated to during the last election: anger toward Obama and the '47%' and claims that the '1%' got _all_ their money just for working hard for it.

Also, good point by Mark.

[Mike Peterson]

I've seen so much conflicting or non-responsive information that I'm leaving it in the hands of my accountant, Mr. Turbotax. Who does not stand out on the street corner dressed as the Statue of Liberty.

[Lost in A**2]

Hmmm.... On the Street, a 10% return is a good investment. So what does that mean for the folks above? The single mom has $350,000 invested. The retired couple have $520,000. Y'all can do the arithmetic for the rest of them.

And, of course, interests are WAY down. Fantasy, for sure.

[Dann]

Of course, my take-away was a bit different.

Folks that make that type of money typically live in big cities that have a significantly higher cost of living. While a couple such folks might live in my county, the vast majority live somewhere with much higher real estate (and other) costs.

I'd be glad to swap incomes as well, as long as the only increased costs were the taxes.

Don't take any of the above as not appreciating your point, Mike. It certainly is much easier to get by on $250k instead of $30-40k. Just pointing out a mild soft spot in the argument.

[Woodrowfan]

I live in a very expensive city. A single mom making $250,000 is pretty darn well off unless they have a boat-load of medical bills or some such. Same with a married couple make $650,000.

[Sherwood Harrington]

I live near and work in what is probably the most expensive area East of Honolulu and West of Manhattan: Silicon Valley. I don't make anyplace close to what any of the cardboard cutouts in that graphic do, and somehow I manage to live pretty well.

What's your point, Dann? That I'm supposed to feel sorry for somebody who pulls down an order of magnitude more than I do just because he and I have to pay more for stuff than most folks do? Not going to happen.