CSotD: The Rain of Folly

Drew Sheneman celebrates a bit of folly with some bite: The GOP is unwilling to admit that we’re unnecessarily slaughtering children because guns are not an issue of public safety but of political loyalty.

As he notes, they are shielded by simply insisting that it’s bad policy to enact gun regulation in the wake of a shooting, because we’re always in the wake of a shooting. The other night, Joy Reid was talking about Uvalde on her show and mentioned that, even as she spoke, there was a shooting at a hospital.

So I jumped on Google to check it out, and, sure enough, there it was. Only I had it wrong, because I came up with a shooting at a hospital in Ohio and she was talking about the one in Tulsa.

It’s come to that.


Juxtaposition of the Day

(Steve Kelley – Creators)


(Clay Jones)

Next up, we have two cartoonists normally opposed to each other but who agree that they know more than a jury.

I’m prejudiced in both cases, the first because I don’t think there was “overwhelming evidence” unless you count hours of rightwing bloviation, and the second because I don’t like people who parade around with dead birds on their heads.

Now, I watched a lot of the OJ Simpson trial and I still think the decision there was a case of jury nullification, not a response to the evidence. I also understand that jury nullification was a feature, not a bug, of race-tinged trials in the Jim Crow South.

However, having sat on a jury, I know how different the process is from anything you see on TV including gavel-to-gavel coverage of actual trials.

To begin with, I didn’t watch every minute of OJs trial and neither did you, even if you had your set on the entire time. You went to the bathroom, you answered the phone, you got a cup of coffee, you let the dog out.

And, if you’re like I was in those days, you switched off and went to work and picked it up again when you got home.

Sitting in the jury box requires a great deal more focus, and it also means that the bits of evidence being passed around land right in your hand. There are moments when you are sure of your verdict one direction, and then moments when you sway 180 degrees in the other direction, but, by the end, if the panel comes up with a decision in six hours, there wasn’t a whole lot of sway.

Ditto with a complex civil action that the jury resolves in 13 hours despite all the claims and counterclaims involved.

Like Jones, I’m concerned that abused women may be discouraged from coming forward, but I hope the greater lesson in both cases is that it’s easier to grandstand for the media than it is to actually make your case in court.


Chip Bok (Creators) doubles down, joining the rightwing chorus protesting the fact that the jury’s verdict was in line with the award-winning journalism that had earlier outlined the case.

Trump, who proclaimed his ass-whippings in Georgia to be evidence of fraud, is also threatening the Pulitzer board with a lawsuit for its 2018 prize for coverage of his campaign’s (alleged) ties to Russia.

So, yes, Dear Ex-Leader has lost his marbles, but the lunatic fringe has become the lunatic mainstream, and let’s not forget that rightwing insanity is what drew one of their own to that pizzeria in Washington with a gun, nor should we forget how many mass shootings can be traced to the Great Replacement Theory.

Aside from the distastefulness of laughing at the lunatics, when all unwanted outcomes are declared to be traitorous conspiracies, we are inspiring lunatics with guns.

Which is not laughable.


Assuming we’ll continue to hold elections anyway, I agree with Gary Varvel (Creators) that forgiving student loans will alienate the working class, particularly if it is not tied to some significant element of need and of reform.

Making community colleges and voc techs tuition-free, however, could be a winner, because plenty of blue collar workers are getting training and associate degrees, and likely wouldn’t mind a little help.


The partnership between Southern Maine Community College and Bath Iron Works is commendable, and we could readily extend it to other career areas and more employers.

In the meantime, however, I have an uncomfortable feeling that yielding to those who demand full repayment of student loans is not unlike yielding to those who demand no regulation of firearms: A case of playing to the fringes and losing the middle.


Thank god for someone else’s folly

Just in time for those celebrity-watchers wondering what to do now that the Depp/Heard miniseries is over, England begins celebration of Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee, and, as Peter Brookes suggests, it’s just in time for the monarchy as well.

The Royal Family has shed members before, and, granted, it’s no longer as drastic as this one or that one.

Still, Fergie and Diana were only in-laws and more readily disposed of than independent-minded Harry and completely bothersome Andrew.


(This isn’t a cartoon, but it was forwarded by Jonesy, who is a cartoonist, so it’s useable.)

Not everyone is buying the diagnosis, but getting Randy Andy off that balcony was a matter of national interest, and they’re lucky it wasn’t gonorrhea.

I’ve nothing against Liz, who seems a nice enough person and one helluva tourist attraction.

I’m not joking about that: I’m sure the crowds who come to see the Changing of the Guard and so forth more than repay the cost of having the Windsor crew hanging around.


Which, in the opinion of Dave Brown and perhaps a few other people, is more than can be said for maintaining Boris Johnson.

Anyway, I heard some monarchist groupie prattling away about how wonderful it all was, and he praised the Queen for being so successful, which made me wonder WTF she was successful at? Waving?

When I felt a great disturbance from the Antipodes, as if millions of First Dogs on the Moon suddenly cried out in mockery:


Perhaps it was only one, but it made me laugh.

Hey, it’s a small world after all, innit?


3 thoughts on “CSotD: The Rain of Folly

  1. I spent 5 days on the jury of a child molester. It was one of the hardest things I’ve done in my life.

  2. Steve Kelley says that “promoting a hoax to discredit your opponent” is a crime. If it is, he should end up sharing a cell with Kellyanne Conway. (Although that might be cruel and unusual punishment.)

  3. “promoting a hoax to discredit your opponent”

    Ironically, that’s exactly what the jury found the prosecution had done, hence, their finding of not guilty. Unfortunately, it wasn’t Durham who was on trial.

Comments are closed.