Drillchronicity
Cidu Bill on Apr 14th 2010
Mitchell Marks: It’s not surprising that a topical event would stimulate multiple editorial cartoons in response. But these two are so thoroughly similar, from the over-wordy setup to the mild or disguised cursing.
Filed in Barack Obama, Bill Bickel, humor, political cartoons, synchronicity | 28 responses so far
DonBoy Apr 14th 2010 at 12:24 pm 1
The first two of those three are really synchronous.
DonBoy Apr 14th 2010 at 12:35 pm 2
Also, it’s more surprisingly synchronous because as far I can see the premise isn’t true. A (really terrible) Google search suggests that the opposition to drilling comes from the same Democrats and/or environmentalists who were against it before.
Its Justme Apr 14th 2010 at 02:59 pm 3
Shhhh, DonBoy! You’ll spoil the illusion.
Ted in Fort Lauderdale Apr 14th 2010 at 03:18 pm 4
DonBoy - The opposition on the right is of the “I’m not getting absolutely everything I want, so I’m against it” sort. It isn’t the _same_ opposition, but it’s opposition…
Pete Apr 14th 2010 at 06:00 pm 5
Why show the first one twice?
David N Apr 14th 2010 at 07:36 pm 6
And who knew that W and Obama cursed with exactly the same characters? It’s like a synchronicity within a synchronicity! The things I learn here …
Lola Apr 14th 2010 at 09:43 pm 7
And so do their VPs!
furrykef Apr 15th 2010 at 02:14 am 8
“Overly wordy setup”? “There’s a lot of opposition to off-shore drilling” isn’t much more wordy than “A lot of people are against off-shore drilling” or the myriad other ways the idea could be expressed. I’ll still grant that it’s remarkably similar wording between the two.
I wonder if the two cartoonists got together to pull a prank by seeing if anybody notices the similarities.
One thing that’s important to note, though, is that the Birthday Paradox applies here. The Birthday Paradox is this: the chance that another person that shares your birthday is about 1/365, right? (I’m ignoring leap years and seasonal variations in birth rates, but they’re not important.) In a room of 25 or so other people, it’s 25x as likely — still not a huge chance. But in that room, there’s over a 50% chance that at least one person shares a birthday with someone else.
The point of this is, it seems astonishing when you look at the ’small picture’ that two comics will have almost exactly the same joke, but when you consider the vast number of comics out there, even just the editorial cartoons, it becomes considerably more likely. That’s why we see synchronicity so often. It’s still surprising that two cartoons have extremely similar comics on the same day, but it doesn’t seem statistically impossible that it would eventually happen.
- Kef
Cidu Bill Apr 15th 2010 at 02:26 am 9
This is another one of those cases where a long-winded, math-heavy explanation of a “paradox” can be better explained by simply re-phrasing the premise, since the “paradox” is a fallacy: What we’re really looking at is the probability that very single person in the classroom will have a different birthday. It really isn’t counter-intuitive to suppose this isn’t likely to be the case.
furrykef Apr 15th 2010 at 04:20 am 10
Yep. But the point of the Birthday Paradox is exactly that sort of perspective shift: most people would look at it wrong and go, “Wow, what are the chances?”
A related idea is winning the lottery. Sure, most of us will never win even if we buy a ticket every day of our lives. Yet there’s a lottery winner somewhere in the world every day. “Rare” events actually happen all the time; they’re only rare at the local level.
mkilby Apr 15th 2010 at 06:05 am 11
I just listened to a report on BBC radio about a nurse who was convicted and sentenced (erroneously, as it now turns out) primarily on the basis of an analysis that attested “1 in 38 million odds” against it being “random” chance that the accused would be on duty when each of a number of patients died. The case has become a hot topic in statistics, and a number of papers have demonstrated the illegitimacy of the derivation (one intuitive approach being: given the vast number of nurses and schedules, it is no longer unlikely to find one person who matches any particular set of randomly chosen criteria, such as “patient deaths”, or “meatloaf served in the cafeteria on their anniversary”, etc.)
I’d just like to know who is going to get sued for the six years of wrongful imprisonment: the government, the prosecutor, or the statistical “expert” who dreamed up the numbers.
Tom T. Apr 15th 2010 at 06:11 am 12
It looks like the cartoonist of the bottom strip at least tried to draw Rove and Axelrod as the advisors.
Powers Apr 15th 2010 at 06:46 am 13
The premise of these comics is all wrong anyway; Republicans in general are not opposed to offshore drilling at all. They may be opposed to Obama’s specific *plan* for offshore drilling, but that’s not what either comic says.
Judge Mental Apr 15th 2010 at 08:34 am 14
In the first comic, the advisor for Bush was able to remain on staff when Obama came into office, presumably after getting a nose job.
GP Apr 15th 2010 at 08:48 am 15
Obama is only about 2 inches taller than Bush. Why is Bush shown as child-sized in the first one?
Cidu Bill Apr 15th 2010 at 11:16 am 16
Mkilby, I would blame the defense attorney (or in this case, I guess, the defence attorney).
Matthew Apr 15th 2010 at 11:46 am 17
GP, the first comic was also making a joke about the different presidents’ intellectual standing, equating height with, let us say, mental abilities. Alternatively, we could say that, since G.W. Bush’s staff, headed by Dick Cheney, really ran things while it seems apparent that, in President Obama’s White House, Obama IS in charge, the cartoonist could be implying that Bush was treated as a child.
I appreciate the Mike Smith’s attempts with Rove & Axelrod, too, but note also his insecurity by giving us the desk name plate. Did he really think that we might not get who those caricatures were, and would a president really need a name plate? It reminds me of Bette Midler’s speculation about why the Queen of England carries a purse: “Is she carrying a card inide that says ‘I am the QUEEN!’”
padraig Apr 15th 2010 at 03:40 pm 18
There have been Republicans critical of the drilling plan because Obama still kept some areas off-limits instead of following the “drill baby drill” policy.
Like any reasonable compromise, it got nailed from both fringes.
Dyfsunctional Apr 15th 2010 at 04:53 pm 19
GP (#15): I was wondering the same thing. As I recall, both of them are above average in height.
Elyrest Apr 15th 2010 at 05:11 pm 20
“Why is Bush shown as child-sized in the first one”
GP and Dyfsunctional - Bush was often shown as being very short and often dwarf-like. It went along with him being called Shrub and being considered too small for the office by many.
Mark in Boston Apr 15th 2010 at 08:12 pm 21
What are the chances that the first 10 replies will be by, in this exact order: DonBoy, DonBoy, Its Justme, Ted in Fort Lauderdale, Pete, David N, Lola, furrykef, Cidu Bill and furrykef?
Prosfilaes Apr 15th 2010 at 09:18 pm 22
The first one strikes me as a pretty lousy caricature; the “Bush” reminds more of Nixon.
mitch4 Apr 16th 2010 at 04:34 am 23
Kef, you’re right at #8 that “overly wordy” isn’t a spot-on description. What I had in mind is that they are equally direct, flatfooted, newscasterish. The point was just the similarity, which I’m glad to see you agree in.
Caricature has always been a feature of political cartooning, and has always seemed unfair to the targets. But it allows the first one to get by without the namelates gimmick. (Though the Presidents are recognizable enough thru their caricatures in the second one as well that the nameplates seem otiose.) On the other side of the comparison, it’s odd that the first one lets the advisors look identical.
Bringing in the birthday paradox is a good move for explaining why the coincidence would seem more unlikely (hence striking) than it would really be if you carried out some calculations. [Though we don’t have the inputs as clearly specified as when posing the puzzle.]
Powers Apr 16th 2010 at 07:01 am 24
padraig, yes but these comics say that the Republicans are opposed to offshore drilling (in one) and to the expansion of offshore drilling (in the other), neither of which are remotely true.
Mike Apr 16th 2010 at 02:31 pm 25
Just be clear:
Obama is allowing new oil exploration in order to drive the cost of speculation on oil futures down. That’s why you’re now paying $3 a gallon.
Bush wanted to allow exploration because his buddies in the oil business wanted to make more money.
Simple as that.
Mark in Boston Apr 17th 2010 at 12:24 pm 26
Actually in both cases the staff member says that there’s opposition but he doesn’t say by whom. Maybe the joke is that the President is giving a knee-jerk reaction by blaming it on the other party.
If this is the case then we do have a lot of concidences: 1. Joke: President blames any opposition on the other party. 2. Two-panel format. 3. Each panel is advisor + President. 4. Topic could be anything to make the joke work but in both cases is offshore oil drilling. 5. President’s reply is always .
Mark in Boston Apr 17th 2010 at 12:25 pm 27
President’s reply is always {expletive} {party name}.
RHJunior Apr 18th 2010 at 05:12 pm 28
Submitted that Obama isn’t expanding offshore drilling. He’s noisily opening up a handful of areas while quietly closing off still more. Not to mention closing off more INLAND drilling as well…. it’s a net loss.