Captain Planet is a lame superhero

Introducing a new character! And by “new,” this time I really mean new. Libby was made in the past year or so as a vehicle for liberal ideas I wanted to lampoon, and this is the first time she has been published, including on the blog. I had actually considered for a time making Chuck my leftist foil, but I felt it compromised the integrity of the cartoon to change the politics of an established character just for the sake of making political cartoons. Also, keeping both Ralph and Chuck conservative lets me poke fun at statism and liberalism in different ways. Things that bother Ralph wouldn’t necessarily bother Chuck, and vice versa. I plan to introduce Libby a bit more in the next cartoon.

The planet is going to be fine. There is very little we can do that will have any effect on the planet beyond a short-term period at the local level. On this subject, I recommend everyone listen to George Carlin (warning: foul language).

I had a lot of fun drawing this one. Visual gags are the most satisfying to pull off, because it’s something that writing cannot do (although technically the “save the planet” sign is writing, I know). While all of my jokes could be written in some way, including this cartoon, it wouldn’t have the same emotional effect as that last panel of Chuck laughing his head off.

Do you think the planet needs to be saved? What do you think of the cartoon? Let me know in the comments!


5 thoughts on “Captain Planet is a lame superhero

  1. “The planet… the planet… the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!”
    That’s kind of the idea. Any environmentalist causes people take on aren’t (or shouldn’t be) for the sake of the planet itself, because the planet has been through freakin’ snowball earth, asteroid impacts, you name it… what we do is to continue OUR survival.
    Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn’t.

    • That’s not the rhetoric that I hear coming from the environmentalists. I DO believe in pragmatic, HUMAN-BASED environmentalism. But when I’m told that I have to support policy that severely limits human production based on an unsubstantiated extrapolation for the sake of Mother Gaia and the polar bears, I get annoyed.

      • “Unsubstantiated extrapolation”, oh come on, seriously.

        I know that you don’t like global warming as an issue, but calling it “unsubstantiated extrapolation” is ludicrous. Scientists have been picking at this issue for the past FOURTY YEARS. Real scientists at major universities, not hippies in their parents’ basements, REAL scientists, analyzing REAL data and REAL scientific theories. Calling their findings ‘unsubstantiated’ makes me see your position on the subject as shamelessly dogmatic.

      • And there are REAL scientists, analyzing REAL data and REAL scientific theories that DON’T think humans are causing global warming! There’s plenty of opposition, enough to make me a skeptic, especially considering the “global cooling” scare in the 1970’s (promoted by REAL scientists, too) and the recent University of East Anglia scandal. As “unsubstantiated” means “unproved or unverified,” I stand by my use of the phrase “unsubstantiated extrapolation.” That’s what it is.

        You misspelled “forty,” by the way.

  2. Though I don’t completely agree with Carlin’s sentiment… we do have a pretty big impact– it’s the environmentalists are saying “just leave it the (expletive) alone ok”. If you see maps of forested land from, say, 1600 to 2000, we’ve made RADICAL changes to the ecosystems of the world, especially in Europe and the Americas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s