by Ethan Johnson
August 21, 2007

It has been a long time since I clicked over to read the latest exploits of the extremely left-wing web comic called Minimum Security. Extreme politics aren't my bag, man, but for the purposes of leaving a snarky blog comment I hopped over there figuring extreme views on recycling and attempts at "living green" would be nary a stone's throw away. I was correct. Upon further review, I simply must exercise my Fair Use rights and share a few thoughts.

Since the comic has been moved to a rotating 30-day platform, it is necessary for me to reprint a few of the strips for the purposes of criticism and review.

As I wrote back in 2006:

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!"

One year later, little seems to have changed but the URL for the strips. For example:

When I tried to have a conversation with my mother about this strip the last time around, she squelched the entire topic by suggesting that perhaps the author of the strip is mentally ill, and no amount of hand-wringing or arguing is going to accomplish anything constructive. I hesitated to make such a leap in 2006, at least not publicly, but I will say now that I am left wondering what the ideal for this person might be, and whether it is a tenable position or something so extreme that it doesn't take the pesky concept of "reality" into account.

Cheekily, I will suggest mental illness as an acceptable plea in light of the assertion that the "era of pizza is ending." Are we measuring eras by foodstuffs now? Did I miss that memo? And as for "hating America", well, for sure New York and Chicago.

Due to the 30-day rotation of the comics.com site, the series of strips where the lead character (ostensibly the mouthpiece that most closely represents the author's point of view) decides to live outdoors and eschew all modern conveniences has been paved over for the most part. There was a strip where the lead character justifies her practice of going potty outdoors, calling city sewer systems "evil". The following strip more or less touches on the larger issues in play:

I leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

I will again harken back to something I wrote in 2006, concerning progressive and regressive schools of thought:

If the speaker is envisioning a world that has yet to come to pass, this is progressive. If the speaker wants the world to go back to how it was in 1958, that is regressive, even if this idealized world were to come about in the future. This is excellent advice and I have put it to good use. It is interesting to evaluate political rhetoric in this manner and notice how regressive many ideals are. Often these ideals are marked with regressive language, like "let's go back to the time when," or "we need to return to..." Not that regressive language and ideals are all bad. Sometimes it is best to return to the fundamentals and build up from there, especially if circumstances are spiralling out of control otherwise. I will note here that rhetoric concerning the Ten Commandments as the ideal are equally matched by longing for "what the Framers (of the US Constitution) intended." Strictly in semantic terms, both ideals are regressive.

Speaking of regressive, here's what came to mind as I perused the latest slate of Minimum Security cartoons: The lead character might be compared favorably or unfavorably to someone like Jesus, in that a solitary figure has All of the Answers and the Philistines either accept it part and parcel, or shove off and learn the hard way. The key distinction, not that I expect the author of the strip or the fictional characters depicted within to remotely emulate the life and works of Jesus, is that Jesus didn't engage in flaming hypocrisy while preaching his gospel. Regardless of one's agreement with the content or belief in the divinity of the Bible, I think it is fair to say that Jesus completely walks the walk, without opining as to the validity of those actions. For example, Jesus didn't preach against adultery while keeping a harem, or talked up freedom while owning slaves. Yet he was one man, and literally couldn't "save" everyone, or personally right every wrong. Normally it would be Not Fair of me to make such a lofty comparison, but considering the sheer weight of absolutist thought on display in these strips it is one that is, in my estimation, unavoidable.

To wit:

Show me the passage where Jesus said that a given tenet was good only for "some people." Show me the passage where Jesus wishes death on his opponents. I'm no theologian, but as I recall his slant was much more centered on people who engaged in, shall we say, wrong action having to live with the consequences of their actions. It was possible to stop sinning and put things right, but it was essentially up to the sinner to consciously make that decision.

The lead character in the strip enagages in fundamental hypocrisy, one minute lamenting the "impending death of the planet" due to the carelessness of, well, everyone else, and the next minute using paper products, wearing plastic pigtail rings, and wearing - gasp - manufactured clothing. Heck, even the strip author herself uses the - wait for it - internet to publish her views. You know, the complex computer network that if rife with the opposite of "green" energy or manufacturing? And she has at least one book available for sale - which has to be shipped to you using evil fossil fuels. And that packing material is going to get tossed somewhere, right? Things are spiralling downward quickly.

I really am at a loss for what the author's ideal future might look like. I get the impression it is some sort of feral hunter-gatherer situation, where if it ain't natural, completely, it doesn't exist. No glasses, no fillings, no modern medicine, nothing. Which, in a word, is regressive. Not to mention untenable, in a world of 6 billion people. That's the thing about regressive attitudes: Who shall step forward and play God with all of the lives that don't fit neatly into the parameters of the ideal? We can't all get our food from the same apple orchard. Who shall starve?

I'm also led to believe that it's not an unfair assumption to believe that ultimately, the author is something of a misanthrope, if the grand pronouncements about the evils of mankind and remedies for same are indeed representative of the author's personal views.

I'll close as I did in 2006:

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.

In any case, as always I appreciate the opportunity to weigh a given idea or school of thought on its merits, and I am partial to the practice of reasoning things out openly rather than shouting down opposing viewpoints. These are my opinions about the strip; formulate your own at your leisure. <EM>