Enjoy GoComics?

A Recent Favorite:

Uh Oh, Nothing Here Yet

Why don't you go browse some Comics or Editorials and pick a few to favorite?

Recent Comments

  1. ceylondiver commented on Doonesbury 5 months ago

    Yes. His draftsmanship came a long way in 15 years.

  2. ceylondiver commented on Big Nate over 1 year ago

    I hope the bobblehead kid knows karate.

    Hate Nate.

    (Ooh, how I hate him)

  3. ceylondiver commented on Peanuts over 1 year ago

    bore (n) : one who deprives you of solitude without providing you with company.

  4. ceylondiver commented on Doonesbury over 1 year ago

    I’m guessing Duke “tripped” and fell into a lifeboat…

  5. ceylondiver commented on Tom the Dancing Bug over 1 year ago

    I still prefer Mark Newgarden’s parodies of those generic 50s-era gag strips. (And he did it first):



  6. ceylondiver commented on Peanuts over 1 year ago

    With the combo of Charlie Brown’s pitching and Lucy’s libido, I hope Schroeder has adequate groin protection.

  7. ceylondiver commented on Tom the Dancing Bug almost 2 years ago

    I remember this one from the National Lampoon magazine way back.

  8. ceylondiver commented on Doonesbury almost 2 years ago

    “backed away from condemning a LIAR who chose to libel another person and institution.”

    Haven’t you been following the story? She didn’t accuse any individual of rape. Her “date” and his friends did not exist. Yes, she is a liar and possibly mentally ill. But what’s the point of condemning a random nutcase—as opposed to the so-called journalist who listened to her and published her OTT fantasies as fact?

    In this world there will always be nuts and liars and occasionally they say false things about people and institutions. Sensible people ignore them, because their stories make no sense and fall apart at the slightest pressure (as this one did). The difference here is that a foolish “reporter” was looking for an outrageous lead-in to her story about institutional cover-ups of rape. She believed the nut’s story because it was just what she was looking for, and didn’t verify anything. In turn, her publication (Rolling Stone) stupidly gave her carte blanche. And notice how quickly the story was discredited.

    Again: the “liar” did not provide false testimony against anyone or anything in a court of law. She just babbled a bunch of nonsense long after the fact to a credulous fool. If you’re trying to attach some great meaning to this, I wish you’d say what it is.

    Please don’t claim that it all points to an epidemic of fake accusations of rape by evil women (like Offisuh Pup above seems to think). Every study (and common sense) indicates that if anything, rape is grossly under-reported, for reasons too obvious to list here.

  9. ceylondiver commented on Doonesbury almost 2 years ago

    OK, but the flack surrounding the Rolling Stone article does not really have much to do with the “victim” or with rape. It’s about journalistic ethics. As in, the author of the article had none. Or she cared so passionately about her cause that she temporarily mislaid her ethics. As a result, her story was picked apart and she ended up trivializing a very serious problem and hurting her own cause.

  10. ceylondiver commented on Doonesbury almost 2 years ago

    The Washington Post has run several stories on how the Rolling Stone article came about, and some of it is disturbing reading. The unnamed friends of the alleged victim that RS didn’t bother to contact were interviewed by the WP and they claim that “Jackie” seemed “upset” on the night in question but not the slightest bit injured. (Given that she told RS that she was thrown through a glass table and beaten and raped repeatedly for three hours on top of jagged fragments of glass, and then penetrated by a beer bottle, it does seem to call her credibility into question.) They also say that the story she gave them that night was completely different: definitely (oral) rape, but no beating, no glass table, no beer bottle. They said a few more things about “Jackie” that I won’t repeat here (see the articles for further ref) but none of it answers the question of why in the world Sabrina Rubin Erdely felt she had such an unimpeachable witness in this anonymous woman that she did no other interviews or research. Whatever the truth of Jackie’s story, the journalistic standards in the RS article seem to have been abysmal. And as many have pointed out: Now rapists and their lawyers can point to this article as “evidence” that women lie. Now future rape victims may hesitate to come forward, out of fear of not being believed.