Cagle.com

Tackling AI risks

Paresh Nath — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 14:50:00 +0000

TACKLING AI RISKS

by U.T. Independent, India

The cartoon shows a large robot holding a table labeled AI DEBATE with several people seated around it. A speech bubble from the group reads WE MUST GET TO GRIPS WITH THE CATASTROPHIC RISK. The image comments on artificial intelligence safety by depicting the technology itself directing the conversation about its own dangers. Published on September 29 2026 the piece uses the visual of mechanical control to highlight concerns over who guides AI policy discussions. The robot's dominant position suggests that developers and systems may steer regulatory talks more than independent experts.

RESTRICTIONS: Not for sale in UAE

AI Denies Plans to Wipe Out Humanity

John Darkow — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 14:16:13 +0000

AI DENIES PLANS TO WIPE OUT HUMANITY

by John Darkow, Cagle.com

The Trump administration has moved to roll back federal fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles. The policy change eases requirements set under previous rules, allowing manufacturers to produce models with lower mileage targets. Industry groups welcomed the move as relief from costly mandates, while environmental advocates warned of increased emissions and higher consumer fuel costs. The rollback fits a broader pattern of deregulation in energy and transportation sectors. The cartoon frames the decision as a direct boost to inefficient, high-emission vehicles.

Elwood Watson — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Michael Desronvil, the lone Black juror who prohibited 11 other jurors from absolving Clancy of criminal responsibility, spoke for himself on September 18. The 48-year-old juror from Bridgewater, Massachusetts, stated that he harbored no doubts about her guilt. “I didn’t have any doubts. As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present,” Desronvil said in a statement to NewsNation on Thursday. “Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presented, I thought it was enough proof that [Clancy] knew exactly what she was doing and planned,” he said. His definitive comments sparked additional rounds of commentary.

He adopted the Henry Fonda persona in the 1957 legendary film Twelve Angry Men. As was the case with Fonda, Juror X endured intense ridicule and abuse of other jurors by holding his ground and being the sole juror to hold out for possible acquittal in an emotionally charged case. The difference here is that Michael Desronvil has encountered intense levels of wrath for his uncompromising position vote to convict Lindsay Clancy. There is no doubt that racial elements are evident in this dramatic saga.

Desronvil’s public statement followed intense online debate regarding the controversial case about whether Lindsay Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor-and-delivery nurse who fatally strangled her three children in Massachusetts in 2023, should be held criminally responsible. Desronvil’ transformation has been anything but ordinary. He went from an anonymous citizen performing jury duty to a national figure intensely scrutinized across the political spectrum. His own personal history, political affiliation, and personal conduct during deliberations have been publicly dissected. The significant issue isn’t how one juror refused to relent to peer pressure from fellow jurors. Rather, it is what occurred after that juror became the story. Upon learning about his race and ethnicity, America was awash in intense debate about the Black holdout juror before hearing any remarks from the man himself. Now Michael P. Desronvil has suddenly responded, causing race and partisan politics to be incorporated into a controversy that has been high profile from the outset.

Prior to Mr. Desronvil’s statement, multiple jurors spoke out during a, providing their perspectives on the case . One of them, Paula Devlin, also appeared on CBS Mornings with co-host Gayle King on September 11th. Given the massive coverage of this case, large segments of the public were aware of the trial, even if their knowledge of the dynamics surrounding the case was deficient. To be sure, both parties — the jurors and the larger public — were eager to learn specific details and felt qualified to pontificate after following several weeks of grueling testimony and the horror of Clancy’s killing of her three children — Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months. Gayle King’s response that “she had to sit for a moment” when she found out the holdout juror was a Black man set off a tsunami of curiosity about Desronvil.

He simply went from being one of twelve jurors to being the “black holdout juror.” Suddenly, he became a political football for various groups to use to weaponize their agendas. Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor, had offered the unidentified holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial “asylum” in the state if he was targeted for harassment. The offer followed reports that he once faced a criminal charge for alleged domestic violence and is under an active restraining order. There were those who wanted blood. His life history became cannon fodder for others to critique. That he had a domestic violence allegation that was dismissed for lack of evidence, a civil restraining order, family relationships, and an eviction proceeding was reported across various media platforms and became a part of his identity.

His photograph was plastered across social and mainstream media. His relatives and loved ones have been the victims of unwanted publicity and harassment. One fellow juror argued that “He was very arrogant,” adding, “He really did not take anything that anybody said.” As most of us, know, arrogant is a less blatant term for “uppity Black person” or even the N-word. His personal life had been dissected in the most menacing manner. It was as if Mr. Desronvil, holdout juror, was the individual on trial.

The raw, callous, borderline racist harassment Desronvil was strikingly similar, yet markedly different to another racially intensified trial more than 30 years ago. The O.J Simpson murder Trial. The Clancy trial jury except for Juror X was all white. The Simpson Jurors were disproportionately Black. Those of us who are old enough remember how the jurors were disparaged, denounced and vilified when they rendered a not guilty verdict of Simpson No matter how earnestly the jurors when interviewed by various media outlets consistently echoed that point made that point that the prosecution did not convincingly prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that was the reason that they voted to acquit, made no difference to many biased Americans. The majority Black jurors were maligned as , dumb, ignorant, incompetent and Black racists.

Truth be told, none of this should come as a surprise. When a Black person engages in any behavior that is abnormal, that defies or offends mainstream White sensibilities, they are fair game for intense, searing, biased, and unflattering coverage. This lone Black juror refused to beg White jurors to see his humanity, and for once the courtroom wasn’t waiting to hear his fate. Society is accustomed to White juries rendering judgment as to whether a Black person is credible or worthy of sympathy. Black people have endured; exercising judicial deference for Black people is often all but absent. Dersonvil has argued that he may be “getting targeted” because he’s a black Republican. This point is highly debatable because no one knew anything about his political affiliation until he publicly announced his politics. Nonetheless, he is correct about the other forms of double- standard treatment he has received.

Lindsay Clancy has been compared to LaShuan Harris and Leatrice Brewer, two Black mothers diagnosed with serious mental illness who also murdered their children. Harris threw her three young sons into San Francisco Bay in 2005, and Brewer drowned her three children in a bathtub on Long Island in 2008. Although Brewer was found not guilty by reason of insanity and institutionalized, a jury rejected Harris’s insanity defense and sentenced her to life in prison. Neither of these women/mothers received the level of empathy or benefit of the doubt that Clancy has.

-

Copyright 2026 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Spirit Halloween Opens Amid Existing Fears

John Darkow — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 13:27:47 +0000

SPIRIT HALLOWEEN OPENS AMID EXISTING FEARS

by John Darkow, Cagle.com

Spirit Halloween stores began their seasonal rollout in late September 2026 as voters and families navigated a charged political environment. The timing of the familiar pop-up retailer coincided with sustained public concern over elections, policy disputes, and national direction. The cartoon uses the store's arrival to underscore that many Americans already felt sufficient dread without seasonal reminders. It positions the Halloween display as an unnecessary addition to an already tense atmosphere rather than a neutral retail event.

Vance Task Force Questions Trump Ads

Jimmy Margulies — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 12:44:52 +0000

VANCE TASK FORCE QUESTIONS TRUMP ADS

by Jimmy Margulies, Cagle.com

The JD Vance task force released findings documenting billions in government waste, fraud and abuse. The report arrives as questions surface about whether Donald Trump's campaign advertisements received indirect taxpayer support. The timing raises stakes for ongoing debates over federal spending accountability. Critics argue the administration must apply the same scrutiny to its own political activities. The cartoon frames the task force findings as potentially undermined by the ads controversy.

Trump Redacts First Amendment

Adam Zyglis — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 12:19:24 +0000

TRUMP REDACTS FIRST AMENDMENT

by Adam Zyglis, Cagle.com

The cartoon depicts a suited hand wielding a large marker to black out the First Amendment on a scroll labeled Bill of Rights. The title references the Trump Arch. Published on September 29, 2026, the image comments on recent executive actions affecting constitutional rights. The visual uses a redaction metaphor to highlight concerns about free speech limitations. The artist's signature appears at the bottom right.

RESTRICTIONS: May not be Published in Buffalo, NY

Socialism Appeals to Young Americans

Dick Wright — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:53:52 +0000

SOCIALISM APPEALS TO YOUNG AMERICANS

by Dick Wright, PoliticalCartoons.com

Young Americans show growing interest in socialism over traditional democratic principles. This trend raises questions about future political priorities in the United States. The cartoon presents socialism as an unappealing figure offering superficial benefits while democracy stands as the more grounded option.

Fuel Prices Pressure Midterm Elections

Arcadio Esquivel — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 11:53:07 +0000

FUEL PRICES PRESSURE MIDTERM ELECTIONS

by Arcadio Esquivel, Costa Rica

Fuel prices have climbed in the months leading into the 2026 midterm elections, raising costs for households and businesses across the country. The increase comes as both parties campaign on economic relief and energy policy. Lawmakers face pressure to address the spike before voters head to the polls. The cartoon frames the price surge as a direct threat to electoral prospects, suggesting the issue could determine outcomes in competitive districts.

Trump Ballroom Death Star

Dave Whamond — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:43:18 +0000

TRUMP BALLROOM DEATH STAR

by Dave Whamond, Cagle.com

A cartoon published September 29, 2026, depicts a Trump-branded ballroom where the traditional disco ball has been swapped for the Death Star. The scene references comments about drones and snipers at a triumphal arc event. The piece uses the Star Wars prop to highlight perceived excess in security planning and self-aggrandizing branding around the former president.

AI Vortex Consumes Screen Users

Peter Kuper — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 09:23:40 +0000

AI VORTEX CONSUMES SCREEN USERS

by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

Artificial intelligence platforms continue to capture growing shares of daily attention through addictive design. Users report increasing difficulty disengaging from phones and laptops. The trend raises concerns about productivity, mental health, and social connection. The cartoon frames this dynamic as an inescapable vortex that consumes those who engage with screens. It highlights how AI-driven interfaces intensify the cycle rather than alleviate it.

AI Robot Leads 2031 Parent Night

Steve Nease — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 08:58:12 +0000

AI ROBOT LEADS 2031 PARENT NIGHT

by Steve Nease, Freelance

Schools are increasingly deploying AI systems in classrooms, with some districts piloting robotic instructors for routine parent interactions by the early 2030s. The shift comes amid teacher shortages and budget pressures that favor automated solutions over hiring additional staff. Proponents argue AI can handle administrative tasks and basic instruction, freeing humans for specialized roles. Critics warn that removing live teachers from core functions like parent conferences erodes personal connection and accountability. The cartoon highlights the absurdity of an AI robot leading meet-the-teacher night, underscoring concerns that technology is supplanting rather than supporting educators.

Needed: Somebody else to pay for my shower

Tom Purcell — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

I can’t wait to live in a condo again — because I’m addicted to long, hot showers.

Currently, I own a house and I have to pay for every extra ounce of water I use. In the condo, I will have help.

You see, there are 40 owners in my condo association, so I will pay only one-fortieth of the water bill, the gas to heat it and the sewage to dump it.

The other 39 will cover the rest of my long showers. I will cover only a sliver of theirs — assuming they don’t abuse the privilege the way I will.

Better yet, the homeowners association runs massive industrial gas water heaters, which means I can stay in a lot longer than I can in my house, with its much smaller tank.

How my addiction formed

The reason I’m addicted to long, hot showers traces back to my childhood when long showers were forbidden.

My father had to pay the water bill. Unfortunately for him, his five daughters came of age during the Farrah Fawcett era.

Their hair was long and full. It required special shampoos and conditioners. They spent hours in the shower waiting for the conditioner to penetrate. Our water bills were astronomical.

My mother, desperate to cut down water usage, learned how to work the main water valve in the basement. If we went over our allotted time, she’d shut off the water.

At least once a day, one of my sisters went over her time. She’d stand in the shower shrieking, “Mom, I have conditioner in my hair! Mom, my eyes are burning! Mom, please turn on the water!”

Every once in a while, I’d attempt to sneak a long, hot shower, but my mother always shut off the water.

It was always a helpless, unpleasant experience, but it was the only way she could keep the water bill down.

But when I move back to the condo, I won’t have to worry about high water bills anymore.

When someone else pays the bill

I got to thinking about the concept of other people paying my bills as I stood in a steaming hot shower this morning.

It turns out that my selfishness — my willingness to let others fund my wants and addictions — mirrors what is going on in America.

With the midterm elections weeks away, Democratic candidates are promising to make life more “affordable” — which means they are promising goodies that somebody else will have to pay for.

They are promising to lower the cost of health care, prescription drugs, housing, child care, college and other necessities through subsidies, tax credits, regulation and government spending — the same “solutions” that have helped make most of these things expensive in the first place.

The Democratic Socialists of America go even further. They promise Medicare for All, housing subsidies, free college, rent control and affordable child care — paid for by higher taxes on the rich and more restrictions on landlords, employers and corporations.

The inevitable result of such policies will be less housing, higher rents and fewer jobs — but who cares about actual bad results when free stuff and envy will get people to the voting booth.

Excessive government spending is hardly the domain of Democrats. Republicans are showing tremendous capacity to waste dough, too.

President Donald Trump recently promised every adult American a $5,000 “dividend” if Republicans retain control of Congress — a proposal that could cost more than $1 trillion. Even some Republican senators are asking how they’re supposed to pay for it.

Blame voters

We can fault our politicians for making expensive promises to us and telling us someone else will foot the bill.

But they wouldn’t make outrageous promises if we didn’t accept their bribes.

French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville is often credited with warning about this bribery concept. Historians aren’t sure who first said it, but the line sums up our current state: The American republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.

Our politicians long ago began using the public till to bribe voters into voting for them.

And now, to fund hundreds of new bribes, taxes will have to go up. To fund the dozens of unsustainable programs we already have, taxes will have to go up. Economic growth will suffer and, ultimately, everyone will suffer.

But too few seem to care about that. Too many Americans are more interested in the bribes that politicians are promising them than they are about our $40 trillion debt that is already growing at the rate of more than $7 billion every day.

I find the whole concept so unpleasant, I can’t wait to sell my house and move back to my condo so I can take a long, hot shower that other people pay for.

-

Copyright 2026 Tom Purcell, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

See Tom Purcell’s syndicated column, humor books and funny videos featuring his dog, Thurber, at TomPurcell.com. Email him at Tom@TomPurcell.com.

President Trump versus the First Amendment

Charles Sauer — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Meet the Press host Kristen Welker made President Trump’s naughty list for the second time this year.

Back in June, Trump walked out of an interview with Welker when she questioned his claims that widespread voter fraud cost him the 2020 election, and that there was going to be fraud in the then-upcoming California referendum on redistricting. Now, Welker has upset the president by, in a pre-Meet the Press appearance on NBC’s Washington, DC affiliate, saying that the President’s 2028 GOP primary endorsements produced “mixed results.”

President Trump reacted to Welker’s comments by posting on Truth Social that, “because of this purposeful inaccuracy, she will be reported to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for rebuke or punishment.” Trump also called the press a “disgrace to our nation” and called on FCC Chair Brendan Carr to take this “threat to our country very seriously.”

Unfortunately for the president, the FCC has no statutory authority to discipline a broadcast network or a reporter for their journalism or commentary. The FCC does issue licenses to broadcasters to allow them to use part of the federally controlled broadcast spectrum, and broadcasters can lose their license if they fail to act “in the public interest.” However, the FCC cannot use the public interest mandate to police the content of a broadcaster’s news programming or the political opinions expressed on the network. Doing so would violate the First Amendment rights of holders of broadcast licenses.

This is not the first time Trump and Carr have tried to violate the First Amendment rights of journalists and their employers. In 2024, then-candidate Trump sued CBS for $100 billion dollars because they allegedly edited their interview with then-Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris to make her appear more coherent and knowledgeable. For his part, Carr has threatened to revoke the broadcast licenses of stations for critical coverage of the Iran war. Carr has also repeatedly threatened ABC with actions over some (unfunny) jokes made by late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel.

Journalists, commentators, and comedians have one way to escape the FCC: the internet. The FCC has no regulatory power over internet platforms, so individuals can post news and opinions on political topics without fear of punishment from the FCC. Platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok have made sharing political content with anyone willing to listen super easy.

The internet facilitates the spread of ideologies locked out of the national conversation when the debate was controlled by the three broadcast networks and a few major newspapers. The increased popularity of both libertarianism and socialism amongst young people is in large part due to social media and other online platforms providing access to those viewpoints. The internet also enables audiences to do more than passively consume content. They can interact with other viewers and the creators themselves via the comments section.

The ability to share and receive information free of the establishment gatekeepers is one reason why young people are turning away from traditional media like cable. According to CableCompare, only 23% of Americans aged 30-49 and 16% aged 18-39 subscribe to cable. Carr’s efforts to silence broadcasters whose stories and commentary are at odds with the sdministration will cause the networks to move more of their content online.

Jimmy Kimmel is one example of this. Following Chair Carr’s warning that Kimmel’s planned interview with Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico violated the FCC’s equal time regulations, ABC decided not to air the interview. However, Kimmel announced plans to publish the interview on YouTube, out of the reach of Carr’s FCC.

If Carr follows through on Trump’s threat to sanction Kristin Welker, he will be violating the Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship executive order, which forbids any government official from taking any action that violates the First Amendment. This executive order was issued by none other than Trump himself on his first day in office, as part of an effort to fulfill his campaign promise to end Biden-era censorship. Unfortunately, Trump and members of his administration have let their understandable frustration with the media cause them to disregard their duty to protect the First Amendment.

The good news is that the rise of the internet makes it easier then ever for people to share and receive a variety of news and opinions without having to ask for permission from the federal government.

–
Copyright 2026 Charles Sauer, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Charles Sauer is the president of the Market Institute and the author of “Profit Motive” Sauer can be reached at charles@marketinstitute.org.

A great pretender betrayed her Jewish roots

Christine Flowers — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Hannah Gann, a teacher (at least for now), in Philadelphia's public school system, was recently outed for having lied about her race and ethnicity.

Gann is a Jew with roots in Baltimore, but pretended to be, alternately, Black, Tunisian and Palestinian, cosmetically altering her appearance and adopting a certain way of speaking that led people to believe she was “one of them.”

The “them” was clearly “not white.” The ruse worked for a while, but as most lies tend to do, it unraveled. And then the melodrama ensued.

Blacks, Palestinians and I’m assuming one or two Tunisians were apoplectic they had been fooled, that the Keffiyah had been pulled over their eyes, so to speak. The pain and anguish of her Free Palestine buddies was palpable on social media and in news articles, where they breathlessly expressed shock, anger, and a sense of betrayal that Miss Gann was, horror of horrors, a Jew.

As I read the reactions from Gann’s former friends, it struck me how incredibly narcissistic they were. They had no problem when she was spouting anti-Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda as a member of the tribe.

They welcomed her with a touching naivete. Who knew that not combing your hair and wearing a foundation two shades darker than your skin color could gain entrée into an exclusive club.

We can call it “Tan Face,” a different version of the Black Face that white people employed in the early part of the last century for entertainment at the expense of minorities.

But when these people who traffic in anti-Semitic lies realized she was actually from a very different branch of the Tree of Abraham, they choked.

“All mistakes and deceptions are mine and mine alone. Please do not let them affect how you engage with any people, organizations, causes, or communities to which I was connected," Gann said on Instagram. "Please reach out if you know me and want to have a direct conversation about how I hurt you. I will regret causing this hurt for the rest of my life.”

After taking a sip of tea and a nibble of falafel, she continued on another post:

“I lied about my identity and have been lying for years. I have no Palestinian or Tunisian heritage. I am a white woman of significant privilege and wealth," Gann said. "Anyone who supported me was manipulated and should not be judged as a result of their support for me.”

It’s doubtful anyone is judging Gann because of the people who support her. They are as bad as she is, only they don’t need to lie.

They are brutally honest about their bigotry, marching in the streets screaming anti-Jewish slurs and calling for the annihilation of Israel while celebrating the deaths of Jewish children and women on Oct. 7. They are open about their bigotry, and embrace it.

Gann is being judged by both her former allies and the people who were against her from the beginning, only no one actually knew how justified that anger really was.

It is one thing to have an enemy who is clear about who she is and why she hates you, it is quite another to have someone fromyour own tribe try and destroy you.

There is nothing worse than a self-hating creature, whether it be an Italian from South Philly who actually swallows the idiocy that Columbus was a genocidal maniac, a Catholic who supports Planned Parenthood or a Jew who gives comfort to the people who celebrate her ancestors’ deaths.

The psychology of that sort of person is difficult to gauge, but it has something to do with a sense of self-loathing and a desire to belong to the “in” crowd.

I call it “identity suicide,” and I attribute it to the fact some people are so desperate to be loved that they will sacrifice their ownfamilies, and their own souls, to gain entrée into the desired club.

It is very much like the light-skinned Black woman Sarah Jane in “Imitation of Life,” who tries so hard to pass for white and only learns when it is too late that you cannot run away from your roots. They are incredibly elastic, and will always pull you back home, even against your will.

Hannah Gann did not betray the Black, Brown, Palestinian and Tunisian folk by whom she so desperately wanted to be accepted.

She betrayed the young Jewish students who cannot walk down the street without looking over their shoulders in trepidation, who are afraid to wear the Star of David around their necks, who are forced to listen to lies about their heritage and their people, and who are gaslighted into accepting that there is a genocide in Gaza, but that the Holocaust is a myth.

Perhaps Hannah should take to Instagram and, in this somber time after Yom Kippur, and beg forgiveness for being a traitor to her family, to her people, and to the truth.

-

Copyright 2026 Christine Flowers, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Christine Flowers is an attorney and a columnist for the Delaware County Daily Times, and can be reached at cflowers1961@gmail.com.

Ralph Nader is still a pariah. He deserves to be.

Dick Polman — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi’s description of a seedy bar in Star Wars, I often ask myself how and why America has become such a “wretched hive of scum and villainy.”

What or who caused this to happen? Certainly the 77 million voters who re-hired a fascist grifter deserve some of the blame. I’d also pin some on Newt Gingrich, the right-wing hyper-partisan who propelled the Republicans to congressional power in 1994 and taught followers to smear the opposition party as inherently evil. Two years later came the founding of Fox News, with its infauxtainment propaganda for the masses. In the blame game, I could make the case for any or all of those factors.

But not long ago, on a late summer’s morning, I chanced upon a New York Times article about Ralph Nader, who is now 92 and living as a virtual recluse.

Perhaps you’ve forgotten about him. As a legendary consumer advocate, he fought corporate bigwigs and repeatedly beat them. Those padded dashboards and steering wheels and seatbelts that make us safer in cars? Thank Nader. The creation of watchdog bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the passage of the Freedom of Information Act? Thank Nader. He and his public-interest lawyers helped make those happen.

But he has soiled that stellar legacy, irrevocably so. Given what he did during the 2000 presidential campaign - at a pivotal juncture in our national narrative - I have no sympathy for him. If our benighted era has an origin story, Nader arguably authored it.

According to the Times article, he spends his days trying to be relevant. He incessantly phones reporters, academics and elected officials, but he’ll “inevitably bristle when his missives are not received with the enthusiasm or responses they so richly deserve.” Which is a nice way of saying he’s incessantly stonewalled. He lamented to the Times, “The worst thing anybody can experience as a citizen advocate is not getting through.”

Democrats, in particular, banished him long ago to his own private Elba. And I totally get why.

During the 2000 election, Nader decided to run for president as the Green party candidate with the express purpose of pulling lefty voters away from Al Gore. In Nader’s words, Gore was really no different from George W. Bush, therefore liberals needed some place to go, and “we’re going to give them some place to go.” That’s what he told me six months before election night. When I wrote my story, I opened it this way: “Ralph Nader may prove to be Al Gore’s worst nightmare.”

He sure proved it. And the math supports it. In pivotal Florida, the state that swung the Electoral College, Gore lost to Bush by the officially certified margin of 537 votes; meanwhile, Nader pulled 97,488 votes. Two political scientists, from Dartmouth and UCLA, later crunched the numbers and concluded (with the help of exit polls) that roughly 60 percent of the Nader voters would have chosen Gore if Ralph hadn’t run – more than enough for a Democratic victory.

Their conclusion: “Ralph Nader spoiled the 2000 election for Gore.”

As a result, George W. Bush won the opportunity to cement a right-wing Supreme Court with his two appointees, John Roberts and Sam Alito – two key voters in the disastrous 2024 ruling that basically gives presidents carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want in office. Today that is Trump’s gold standard.

If Al Gore had been president, his appointees would never have written in the majority that presidents deserve “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” plus “presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” And if Gore had crafted the Supreme Court, rest assured women nationwide would still have bodily autonomy under Roe v. Wade.

I visited Nader a few months after that fateful 2000 election and asked him about the abortion issue. He shrugged off the possibility that any Bush nominees would endanger women’s rights. In his words, “Republican operatives tell me, ‘You think we’re going to shatter our party over Roe v. Wade? It’d be like trying to ban alcohol again’.” (Fast forward to 2022: Alito wrote the ruling to overturn Roe. Roberts concurred.)

Today, Nader says he detests Donald Trump and calls him a fascist. But somehow Nader fails to connect the dots, fails to recognize that he helped elect Bush, who in turn cemented the Republican majority on the high court, which in turn excreted the 6-3 ruling that has made it possible for Trump to act as a fascist.

No wonder Nader is on virtually every Democrat’s forever naughty list. It’s tragic a man once so eminent is living out his days as a pariah, relentlessly seeking, in the Times’ words, to “breathe new life into his perpetual state of outrage at the political environment du jour.”

Where’s my violin?

-

Copyright 2026 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Dick Polman, a veteran national political columnist based in Philadelphia and a Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvania, writes the Subject to Change newsletter. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com

Gas prices and A.I. doom: Top ten cartoons of the week

Daryl Cagle — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

There have been two unescapable news stories over the past few weeks – the insanely high cost of gasoline and the threat of being killed by A.I.-powered murder bots.

Credit to John Darkow, who drew our most-reprinted cartoon of the week – a Brinks truck whose fuel is more valuable than the money it's carrying. We've had a LOT of high gas price cartoons over the years, and it's tough to come up with a funny and original gag. Darkow managed both.

Darkow also drew a popular cartoon featuring an A.I. robot with a confusingly labeled kill switch. It seems appropriate because the threat A.I. poses to many of us isn't about taking our lives, it's robbing us of our livelihoods. I wonder if a robot can understand the difference.

Here are our top ten most reprinted cartoons of the week:

#1. John Darkow

#2. Paul Duginski

#3. John Darkow

#4. Adam Zyglis

#5. Dave Granlund

#6. Daryl Cagle

#7. Paul Duginski

#8. Gary McCoy

#9. Rick McKee

#10. Harley Schwadron

–

Daryl Cagle is the publisher of Cagle.com and owner of CagleCartoons.com, a syndicate that distributes editorial cartoons and columns to over 500 subscribing newspapers. See Daryl’s blog at DarylCagle.com and watch his video podcast about editorial cartoons at Caglecast.com

Is this the end for Susan Collins?

Joe Gandelman — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

[carton id="234930"]

Will this Election Day be the end for Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins?

In case you’ve been on Mars, Collins inspired a cottage industry on social media where critics sarcastically report she is “concerned,” “troubled,” or has once again furrowed her brow over the latest Republican outrage.

She is ostensibly a moderate. But during the Trump era there is often a curious pattern: Collins expresses concern, agonizes publicly and then frequently winds up supporting Trump when the votes count.

She is to an independent what pork rinds are to a diet.

That caricature isn’t entirely fair. Collins has cast some important votes against Trump, but it persists because some of her most consequential votes have helped Trump when he needed them.

Now there’s another controversy.

ProPublica recently reported FBI agents had been investigating allegations involving Collins, people around her, a pro-Collins super PAC and Navatek, a defense contractor. Martin Kao, the former CEO of Navatek, alleged political contributions were used to cultivate lawmakers who could help the company obtain federal contracts. ProPublica reported investigators were examining whether a broader pay-to-play arrangement existed.

No one working for Collins was charged, and the investigation had not established Collins committed a crime. She strongly denies wrongdoing, and her office says the Biden Justice Department and FBI investigated the matter and cleared her, her staff and her campaign years ago.

ProPublica responded that Collins was conflating two investigations. It says the investigation described in the story results from new information Kao provided and was still being pursued in early 2025. Then Trump returned to office, personnel involved in public-corruption investigations departed, and the investigation effectively ended.

Some critics have suggested a connection between that development and Collins’ support for Trump priorities. So far there is no publicly established evidence of a quid pro quo. The timing raises a legitimate question. It doesn’t answer it.

Collins has strong evidence when she calls herself bipartisan. The Lugar Center and Georgetown University’s Bipartisan index has repeatedly ranked her among the Senate’s most bipartisan members, including No. 1 in 2023.

Compare Collins with Democratic Senator Joe Manchin. Manchin certainly wasn’t an anti-Trump Democrat. He repeatedly defied his party, and also supported many Trump nominees. Collins likewise has broken with Republicans. She opposed Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, voted to convict Trump at his second impeachment trial, and opposed Pete Hegseth and Kash Patel.

But Collins also backed Trump on some enormous votes, including voted to acquit him in his first impeachment trial. Most consequentially, she voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court after saying she considered Roe v Wade settled precedent. Kavanaugh later joined the majority overturning Roe.

“Bipartisan,” “centrist” and “independent” are not synonyms. A senator can work extensively with members of the other party on legislation while still supporting his or her party on most nominations and agenda-setting votes. And a senator can often anger party leaders without necessarily having an impressive bipartisan legislative score. Moderation isn’t simply standing between two parties, and despite what some partisans on the left and right say, it doesn’t mean someone lacks passion or principles.

Since 2003, I’ve published and edited The Moderate Voice, which won awards as a centrist blog during the golden age of blogging. In recent years I’ve occasionally had to clarify: “It’s not Susan Collins moderate.”

There’s always been a debate over what a moderate is.

About ten years ago, a prominent Democrat who wrote for a major progressive blog emailed me. “You’re no moderate! You’re a conservative Republican!”

That same day, a conservative emailed me: “You’re not moderate! You’re a liberal Democrat!”

Susan Collins unquestionably has a bipartisan record. She has also cast important vote against Trump. But she has cast some extraordinarily important votes for him as well.

Maine voters will decide whether Susan Collins is still their kind of moderate – or whether all those years of furrowed brows have finally worn thin.

-

Copyright 2026 Joe Gandelman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Joe Gandelman is a former journalist who wrote for newspapers overseas and in the United States. He has appeared on cable news political panels and is Editor-in-Chief of the award-winning blog The Moderate Voice. He can be reached at jgandelman@themoderatevoice. Follow Joe Gandelman on X @joegandelman.

One government fund Republicans should absolutely abolish

Jon Decker — Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Milton Friedman famously wrote "nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." Perhaps nowhere is his wisdom more obvious than with the Universal Service Fund, which, despite having vastly outlasted its intended purpose, some lawmakers are militantly intent on expanding rather than phasing out.

The Universal Service Fund is better known to us as one of several seemingly random fees tacked onto our phone bills each month. When the underlying framework was created by FDR in 1934, its purpose was to collect contributions from users of long-distance phone lines to build phone lines to places that didn't have them yet. After that goal was accomplished, it was repurposed to subsidize broadband for consumers in high-cost areas and in schools and libraries.

Flash forward to 2026. Now that the long-distance phone bills taxed to pay for it have dwindled, it has gone from a pot of money in need of somewhere to spend, to a spending program in need of a new pot of money as the contribution factor on a shrinking tax base zooms unsustainably upward.

Some members of Congress are suggesting taxing broadband providers or big tech companies to keep it going. A much better idea would be to declare victory on universal service and shut it down.

The idea a repurposed Universal Service Fund is needed to subsidize broadband is laughable because there are already some 100 federal programs housed within 15 federal agencies where funding can or must be used to expand Internet access. The Government Accountability Office noted that the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program alone "provides approximately $42 billion to expand broadband access in all states and territories."

There is more money for broadband subsidies in Washington now than anybody knows what to do with, and less need than ever before as SpaceX and Amazon compete to provide high-speed satellite access to the handful of remote locations that are still not online.

For the vanishingly small number of people who remain underserved despite 100 federal programs at their disposal, providing access is not simply a matter of giving the government more money. What we have learned from such efforts historically is that when lawmakers claim they need more funding to expand rural broadband, the money is too often surreptitiously diverted to communities without a need for basic service.

Rather than providing access to an underserved area, these federal dollars have been used to improve broadband speeds in communities that already have Internet access — and may not even be rural in the slightest — resulting in the taxpayers essentially paying for a duplicative service or "overbuilding."

No amount of federal money ever seems to be enough. Yet Congress — yes, even Republicans, who should know better and have voted against Internet taxation before — are giving serious consideration to expanding the Universal Service Fund. The FCC’s own analysis has calculated that proposed reforms to this fund could add as much as $17.96 per month to consumers’ bills. That is tantamount to a tax hike of over $215 per year per user to fund a program that shouldn’t exist in the first place.

If the outcomes of this midterm election cycle are to be dictated by who holds the better path on affordability, both parties need to get real on this issue.

If Congress can’t eliminate a program as blatantly unnecessary as the Universal Service Fund, what faith can anyone have that they can cut any spending at all?

-

Copyright 2026 Jon Decker, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Jon Decker is the executive director of American Commitment and a senior fellow at the Parkview Institute.

Are you ready for some Agatha Christie? 

Danny Tyree — Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Tyrades! by Danny Tyree

I see dead people.

So do you, if you’ve been caught up in the recent resurgence of interest in the world of mystery writer Agatha Christie (1890-1976).

I think of it as a “somebody else is guilty” pleasure.

For starters, “Murder at the Grand Alpine Hotel” by Lucy Foley (the first authorized full-length Miss Marple novel in 50 years) went on sale mere hours before I started typing this column. (So did the latest batch of Krispy Kreme doughnuts, so I’d better burn a bajillion calories at the keyboard, or I’ve killed my chances of fitting into my jeans without a shoehorn. But I digress.)

My wife and I are ready for the penultimate rerun episode of David Suchet’s stellar run as Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (with a new version of Poirot on the horizon). “Tommy & Tuppence” from BritBox awaits our watching.

And our son Gideon – without any parental prodding – discovered Netflix’s serial “The Seven Dials Mystery.” (If only Netflix’s algorithms produced recommendations like “If you liked this movie, you’ll LOVE …cleaning your room every decade or so.”)

I’m glad to see that a classic “whodunnit” can still capture the public imagination. Nowadays, “whodunnit” is generally paired with “and who can find a judge to let them off with a wrist-slap?”

Dame Agatha deserves accolades for carving out a place for herself in a “man’s world” dominated by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Raymond Chandler, Mickey Spillane, G.K. Chesterton (love me some Father Brown!) and the like. When she started out, publishers expected a female author to craft a murderer revelation along the lines of “Mr. Darcy, in the hedgerow, with an ill-timed marriage proposal.”

In the fall of 1975, I strained my brain to solve each week’s mystery before NBC’s Ellery Queen, but my enjoyment is more vicarious now. I usually sit back and go along for the ride with an Agatha Christie program, rather than trying to “match wits” with a world-renowned sleuth. Heck, most of the people I encounter haven’t learned to match wits with their car’s turn signal.

Granted, if you have memorized all the archetypes, tropes and red herrings in Christie’s oeuvre, occasionally the killer is glaringly obvious. Sometimes one of the suspects hits the trifecta. (“I’m a closeted homosexual whose love child wrote him out of his will… and I was conveniently 5,000 miles away in a Nazi U-boat when I committed…er, when the murder was committed.”)

Christie left a lot to the imagination, like…what sort of police academies were churning out the local officers and Scotland Yard inspectors who interacted with Christie’s crime-solvers? (“Look lively, lads! The faster you scale the wall, the faster you can embarrass yourself with wild goose chases!”)

As the saying goes, “Revenge is a dish best served before a detective with more than one brain cell shows up.”

I realize that Marple, Poirot and their fellow Christie creations are not everyone’s cup of tea. Some literary snobs look down their noses at “genre fiction” like mysteries, westerns and romances.

To them, a “real” book should expound upon the Human Condition and be impossible to fit into a box. Hey, my wad of Krispy Kreme receipts says something about my Human Condition and won’t fit into a box. I guess I can expect my Nobel Prize in Literature any day now.

Either that, or I’m as clueless as ever.

-

Copyright 2026 Danny Tyree, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Danny Tyree welcomes email responses at tyreetyrades@aol.com and visits to his Facebook fan page “Tyree’s Tyrades.”