by Ethan Johnson
June 25, 2006

I was reading a wacky web forum thread about the comic strip Mallard Fillmore, and someone asked if there was a "left-wing" equivalent to the self-proclaimed Libertarian (though generally conservative) strip. The answer: Minimum Security.

This strip doesn't seem to be my personal cup of tea either, but one featured strip caught my eye. It concerns objections to the use of ethanol.

The strip responds to the question, "aren't you environmentalists ever happy?" The reply: "Yes, we'll be happy to see nobody hungry, and you walking."

This is refreshing. An actual position and goal! However, while noble, I think the author of the strip (and like-minded people) are in for a tough sell. As the old saw goes, a mind that has been expanded to accept a new idea never contracts. We'll burn oil until we can't, or a new, better (read: cheaper) fuel source is developed. We'll drive cars until we can't. Heck, when I drove through the Badlands in under 30 minutes, I had to pull over and imagine what it must have been like on horseback. Then it was back in the truck and on my way, in air-conditioned comfort.

Flipping through the archives, I found another strip that defines both sides of the activism coin beautifully.

The up side: We all make choices every day, and it is well that we make informed, compassionate choices.

The down side: Shrill protests about literally everything, and a holier-than-thou attitude.

It may be cheap to call the rhetorical flair of either Mallard Fillmore or Minimum Security "shrill", but in truth, it is. Where Fillmore claims that the US is being overrun with soft-on-crime touchy-feely liberal pinkos, Minimum Security claims that the global "apocalypse" is at hand. There is a belief that two extremely unfocused photos of the same thing, when overlaid, produce a sharply focused image. I suppose that's a fancy way of saying that the truth lies more in the center.

On either side of these viewpoints, personal reality is defined by these beliefs and ideals, and noticeably a great source of unhappiness for both. There is no joy in either extreme, except to cynically applaud the demise of an enemy.

In the course of reading the discussion at the web forum about these strips, I stumbled upon a third, and a new favorite: Ozy and Millie. Ozy and Millie are two young foxes (male and female) who make observations about the world around them in a way that is reminiscent of, without trying to be, Calvin and Hobbes.

A strip from 1998 nails (in 4 panels) the tension between idealism and pragmatism in business, for example.

I appreciate Ozy and Millie in that the author gets that we live in a complex, interconnected world, filled with complex, difficult choices, and sometimes the best choice is to simply enjoy life and let the rest fall into place. What really has been gnawing at me about Minimum Security since its discovery is the sense of unabsolvable, irredeemable sin: Recycling newspapers is good, but not OK, because newspapers shouldn't exist in the first place. A straw-man character buys a gold ring and is condemned for being "personally responsible for creating 20 tons of mining waste." (WTF?!) Even "alternative" energy is bad, because somewhere in the process "bad" energy sources were used. I threw my hands up in the air and had to say "excuse me for living!"

I am far removed from the days of the Constant Crusade. This is usually fertile ground for the teenage mind, as it meshes together nicely with the mood swings and the need for rebellion. The problem with crusades is that if you ever get your way, there is no plan beyond the conquest. Obliterating A does not necessarily mean the widespread adoption of B. I could write volumes on this, and given enough time, I will.

In the meantime, my thanks to DC Simpson for the great comics and refreshing perspective. <EM>