Cagle World

Ring. Ring.

“Hello, this is Tom.”

“We know who you are, Tom.”

“Who is this? How’d you get my smartphone number?”

“Your personal details are everywhere, Tom — public records, websites and apps you’ve downloaded.”

“I didn’t give you permission!”

“Sure you did, Tom. You shared your phone number, address and Social Security number every time you opened a credit card, made an online purchase or filed taxes.”

“This is outrageous.”

“What’s outrageous, Tom, is that your Social Security number is used for more than 60 Congressionally approved purposes — everything from passports to Medicare.”

“It is?”

“Absolutely, Tom. Every bank account, credit card, tax record, loan, hospital visit and insurance claim is tied to that number. Data brokers use it to build a fat file on you they can sell to marketers, insurance companies and even thieves.”

“Thieves?”

“Identity theft, Tom. Hackers open credit cards, file fake tax returns or refinance your house in your name — destroying your credit for years. Don’t get me started about all the new gadgets in your home.”

“What gadgets?”

“Your Ring doorbell shows when you’re home or away — a treasure trove for burglars who can potentially hack Ring’s data.”

“Really?”

“Be wary of Alexa, Tom. For the right price, she might tell Domino’s how vulnerable you are to meat-lovers pizza after 9 p.m.”

“Alexa would never!”

“Never, Tom? There have been multiple lawsuits against Amazon alleging Alexa privacy violations. Amazon even paid $25 million to the FTC for violating children’s privacy by storing their voice recordings. You have to admit, marketers would love to know your in-home habits and desires.”

“That’s creepy.”

“Here’s what’s really creepy, Tom. Facebook automatically accesses your photos, contacts, posts and location history unless you deactivate those features.”

“Why?”

“One reason is to keep you on its app 24/7, Tom. You didn’t think it was odd to get a friend suggestion from your IRS auditor?”

“I thought she liked me.”

“Tom, your phone pings towers, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth everywhere you go. Facebook knows everywhere you’ve been.”
“It does?”

“And Google keeps your search history forever, Tom, unless you set it to auto-delete, which few people do.”
“No!”

“I got a kick out of one of your favorite search terms, Tom: ‘Madonna, bikini, before she turned 50.’”
“Surely, TikTok is safe now?”

“Good one, Tom. Trump’s $14 billion deal would spin off TikTok’s U.S. business into a new venture with Oracle, which stores the data in America and submits to audits to block China’s access. But TikTok will still mine your info to sell you junk — just like Facebook and Google.”

“Is anything safe?”

“Not in the digital world, Tom. Hackers using AI are cranking out scam emails and deepfake phone calls so realistic, you’ll swear they’re really from your mom. And avatars are so lifelike they’re already tricking employees in Zoom meetings into wiring millions to fraudsters.”

“These technologies are invading my privacy!”

“Privacy, Tom? The Constitution doesn’t guarantee an explicit right to data privacy. Congress is tossing around bills, such as the American Data Privacy and Protection Act, which has stalled. Some states have enacted a patchwork of laws. But data privacy remains a big challenge in the U.S.”

“Look, I’ve had enough of you. Who are you?”

“Sorry, Tom. That information is private.”

–

Copyright 2025 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 [email protected].

In our hopelessly polarized world, surely we can agree on this: Bill Belichick needs an intervention.

If you haven’t yet heard, Bill, 73, is engaged to 24-year-old former cheerleader, beauty queen and philosophy major, Jordon Hudson.

They met four years ago on a plane when Bill began chatting with her.

She was reading a book called “Deductive Logic” and — quickly deducing he had lots of money — she chatted back.

They exchanged contact info and kept in touch, which laid the groundwork for their May-December romance — or, to be precise, their May 1-Dec. 31 romance.

At the time, Bill was still dating his longtime 60-year-old girlfriend.

When she and Bill split (privately in 2022, publicly in 2023), he wrongly concluded his next romance should be with a woman born the same year he started worrying about prostate health.

Nobody knows the details of their early relationship — because there is a loving God.

They were first seen together a few years ago walking around New Orleans — the city where jazz was born just a few months before Bill was.

Some may accuse Jordon of having daddy issues, but that’s not so — if she has any issues, they are great-granddaddy issues.

Some of her actions are concerning.

On “CBS Sunday Morning,” when the interviewer asked Bill how he and Jordon first met, she cut him off and said, “We’re not talking about this!”

Bill is now the head football coach at North Carolina.

She shows up at his games in outfits so flashy — white knee-high boots, snake-print miniskirts, midriff-baring tops — “The Real Wives of Possum Hollow” wouldn’t wear them.

She filed a trademark application for the phrase “Gold Digger” to brand her coming line of retail products — her way of poking fun at people criticizing her relationship with a man so old his first NFL playbook was engraved on a stone tablet.

I know we live in a time when we’re supposed to live and let live — we’re supposed to encourage people to “just do you.”

But we’ve got to get Bill out of this situation for our own well-being.

Look, women have always been smarter than men. They’ve been running circles around us since Adam thought the apple was his idea.

My own mother ran everything in a manner so cleverly that my father never realized he never once made his own decision.

Bill’s romance is a continuous, painful reminder that we men aren’t nearly as smart, agile or competent as our male hubris wants us to believe we are.

He may have won six Super Bowls, but she’s outfoxing the hapless fool at every turn — with more cunning than his defensive schemes ever had.

It’s not only that Jordon is so much younger. She’s clearly an A-personality type: driven, controlling and relentless.

She — the most offensive coordinator he’s ever had — scolds him in public.

I bet she orders his food in restaurants: “Hey, Flo, light on the salt, heavy on the roughage!”

Look, all of us — left, right, liberal, conservative — finally have a national challenge we can agree on.

But we must act fast.

Rumors are circulating that the lovebirds are starting — God help us! — to smooch on the sidelines.

Just as importantly, we must free Bill from this entanglement before he blows out a knee on “Dancing with the Stars.”

–

Copyright 2025 Tom Purcell, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Find Tom Purcell’s syndicated column, humor books and funny videos of his dog, Thurber, at TomPurcell.com. Email him at [email protected].

Too many modern universities — for centuries hallowed halls that encouraged passionate debate — have lost their way.

The first universities, Plato’s Academy (387 B.C.) and Aristotle’s Lyceum (335 B.C.), were built on Socrates’ conviction that truth emerges from passionate, open debate.

For centuries, universities were places in which sharp minds shredded weak ideas to give life to the most enduring truths — about science, politics, philosophy and human nature.

The Romans incorporated the Greek devotion to reason and rhetoric into their forums and courts.

Cicero (106-43 B.C.) argued that a republic could only survive if citizens were trained to reason together.

In the Middle Ages, when Aristotle’s works were rediscovered through Arabic and Latin translations, disputation — the formal practice of debating both sides of a question — became the lifeblood of Europe’s universities.

Truth was expected to emerge from the collision of conflicting ideas — not through lazy conformity to the conventional wisdom or groupthink of the times.

Centuries later, as universities matured through the Enlightenment, great minds such as Voltaire, John Locke, Immanuel Kant and René Descartes championed reason, liberty and debate.

When Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) founded the University of Virginia in 1820, he said:

“This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind… to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”

So, after centuries of free thinking and open debate, how are we doing?

Some universities are upholding these traditions well, according to the 2025 Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) College Free Speech Rankings.

Jefferson’s vision lives on at UVA — his university is ranked No. 1 for free speech in the nation.

But far too many universities are falling short — with Ivy League schools among the worst free-speech offenders.

Which brings us to growing campus violence.

FIRE finds that 34 percent of college students think violence is sometimes justified to silence ideas they do not like.

At Middlebury College in 2017, conservative author Charles Murray was shouted off the stage. Professor Allison Stanger, who tried to moderate, was left with a concussion.

At the University of California, Berkeley in 2017, rioters smashed windows, set fires and hurled fireworks at police to successfully prevent right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking.

Riley Gaines, an advocate against biological males competing in women’s athletics, was swarmed by an angry mob at San Francisco State in 2023 and forced to barricade herself for hours until police could escort her out.

And now — assassination.

As Charlie Kirk’s influence grew, his opponents increasingly portrayed him as a homophobe, racist, misogynist and hater — twisting his lengthy discussions out of context to portray him as a closed-minded bigot.

Hours of nuanced debate were truncated to make him look like a cartoon villain.

Some accepted Kirk’s caricature wholesale — rather than explore how and why his Christian faith and extensive dialogue with others informed his thinking.

Like or dislike Charlie Kirk’s views, his method was in full accord with our most cherished university principles.

He came to Utah to speak freely, debate openly and embrace the clash of conflicting ideas with passion.

He left in a body bag.

Good God, what has happened to our universities?

–

Copyright 2025 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 [email protected].

Flooring the accelerator of Donny Krieger’s ’69 SS Chevelle was one of the great thrills of my life.

I was only 15 when I slammed the Chevelle’s four-speed Hurst shifter into second and stomped on the gas. Its monster 396 V-8 let out a nasty growl as the nose of the car jumped up and the tires screeched.

Big V-8s are in the news again.

The Trump administration recently eliminated large financial penalties on automakers for failure to meet Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Passed in 1975 after the Arab oil embargo, CAFE standards were designed to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil by demanding better fuel economy.

But the unintended consequences of government meddling increased fuel consumption.

You see, cars had to hit tough miles-per-gallon targets, but light trucks — then a small category of pickups and work vans — faced looser standards.

Crafty automakers simply replaced wood-paneled station wagons with comfy SUVs and trucks that delivered significantly worse mileage.

CAFE rules also forced automakers to focus so closely on avoiding financial penalties that innovations in safety, new designs and performance took the back seat.

In the past few years, CAFE pressure accelerated the decline of V-8 engines that were among the most durable machines ever built.

That’s because the Obama administration set stringent mpg standards for 2025 that have made it almost impossible to keep naturally aspirated V-8s in production.

Toyota retired its legendary V-8 in favor of a twin-turbo V-6 in 2022, but recalls and reports of turbocharger issues show how even Toyota — the gold standard for reliability — has struggled to meet the Obama-era standards.

The elimination of CAFE penalties — which essentially makes CAFE standards moot — gives automakers some breathing room to bring V-8 reliability back.

Some critics warn that America is “going backward” on fuel economy.

Other critics argue that CAFE regulations helped Elon Musk get Tesla off the ground, because the company made $11 billion selling regulatory credits to automakers who couldn’t meet CAFE standards.

But don’t they prove that government created a bizarre, lucrative loophole that made credit trading more profitable than genuine innovation?

Tesla’s breakthroughs came from consumer demand, incredible risk-taking and technology — not government meddling and fines.

The government needs to stop impeding automobile innovation, which is just shifting into high gear.

Hybrid and EV sales are growing worldwide as costs plunge and ranges extend.

AI is designing vehicles for speed, safety, efficiency and durability at levels human engineers can’t match.

Quantum computers are solving chemistry problems that could unlock ultra-light automotive materials and solid-state batteries.

Both AI and increased computing power will give birth to technologies we can’t even imagine yet, from advanced hydrogen fuel cells to synthetic fuels and other clean power sources that could one day power cars far more cleanly and cheaply than today.

We are in the most exciting era of cars yet — in which anyone can choose to buy a bulletproof gas-powered V-8 or a compact hybrid that gets 50 mpg.

Choice and innovation are the keys to increased fuel economy, safety and environmental gains.

Cancer took my old friend Donny Krieger a decade ago.

Were he still here, I’d rent a Tesla Model S Plaid and take him for a ride.

That modern muscle machine goes 0 to 60 mph in under two seconds.

–

Copyright 2025 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 [email protected].

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was roundly criticized for predicting the violent, hopeless future millions of children from broken families now face.

Moynihan — a sociologist, diplomat and four-term Democratic senator from New York — was serving in President Lyndon Johnson’s Labor Department when he wrote his report on family and poverty.

With Johnson’s War on Poverty in full swing, Moynihan’s office was studying employment and poverty trends among Black Americans.

As he analyzed the data, he discovered an alarming shift: Black families were experiencing a significant rise in single-parent households.

The cause? Well-meaning federal welfare programs that penalized marriage and rewarded father absence. Such policies were weakening Black families — and if left unchecked, he warned, they would eventually erode families of every race.

Critics accused Moynihan of blaming the victim. They said the real problem was racism, redlining and job discrimination, which made life especially hard for Black families.

But he argued that the issue was not about race, but about the government’s destructive effect on family structure.

He could not have been more right.

In 1965, just 8 percent of children were born outside marriage — about 3 percent for white children and 24 percent for Black children. Hispanic children weren’t counted separately until the 1970 census.

Today, the figure has soared to 40 percent overall — nearly 30 percent for white children, about 50 percent for Hispanic children and more than 70 percent for Black children.

Today, roughly 24 percent of white children, 42 percent of Hispanic children and 64 percent of Black children live with only their mother.

Though mothers do heroic work, they cannot do the work of fathers alone. Children need both parents.

Strong, loving fathers are essential to daughters. A dad is often a girl’s first example of how a man should treat her. If she grows up with a caring, protective father, she’s less likely to seek approval from the wrong people later on.

Boys are in desperate need of guidance and discipline from a strong father figure — the only creature on earth capable of helping them properly channel their testosterone-fueled energy.

The absence of fathers is why the worst crimes — carjackings, armed robberies and murders — are mostly committed by males under 25, and why research shows children without dads are far more likely to drop out of school, abuse drugs or end up in prison.

The violent street crime that has sent the National Guard into Washington, D.C., is being driven by young men from fatherless homes.

Politicians and talking heads are furious about Guard troops patrolling the nation’s capital — but not so much about the crime itself.

Seasoned journalist Bill Steigerwald asks: Why aren’t they equally furious that, since 1995, roughly 150,000 Black males under 35 in America have been killed by other Black males? (See Steigerwald’s column at https://clips.substack.com.)

Why aren’t D.C. leaders furious that in the same span about 6,200 Black Washingtonians have been killed by other Blacks — and that in 2024 alone, nearly 200 were slain the same way?

If our so-called leaders truly wanted to end the carnage, they’d focus their grandstanding on solutions that get at the root cause of the problem.

The one that Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned us about 60 years ago.

–

Copyright 2025 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 [email protected].

I attended a meeting with the Deputy Director of Gobbledygook — and his interpreter — to learn why government rules, regulations and guidance documents are so hard to read and understand.

“When President Obama signed the Plain Writing Act of 2010,” I said, “federal agencies were required to use ‘clear government communication that the public can understand and use.’ Why are we still drowning in incomprehensible language?”

“Your query presents a multifaceted conundrum,” said the bureaucrat, “that highlights the broader paradox of procedural continuity.”

“Huh?” I said to his interpreter.

“He said bureaucrats love confusion,” said the interpreter.

“But this is causing big problems,” I said. “A 2024 Regulatory Review study found that IRS tax code complexity is causing millions of errors on returns. And Medicare brochures are so convoluted that seniors are spending billions on consultants just to figure out which plan won’t bankrupt them.”

“Though we comprehend and find favor with those considerations, we nonetheless recognize the inevitable dilemma that a lack of transparency creates,” said the bureaucrat.

“Huh?” I said.

“He said confusion protects jobs,” said the interpreter. “Lawyers, accountants and consultants all make a fortune translating gibberish.”

“President Trump just signed an executive order making English the official language of the United States,” I said. “Won’t that help some?”

“Prospective unilingual mandates may streamline duplicative dissemination, though substantive clarity remains unattainable,” said the bureaucrat.

“He said producing communications in English, rather than six languages, will help some, but the English is still so incomprehensible it won’t matter,” said the interpreter.

“Well, surely artificial intelligence can help us understand the gobbledygook,” I said. “AI can pass the bar exam, read X-rays and even map the human genome. Surely, it can translate your regulations into plain English.”

“Neural computational modalities encounter systemic insufficiencies when tasked with deconstructing bureaucratese within the broader paradox of administrative perpetuity,” said the bureaucrat.

“Huh?” I said.

“He said AI may be able to do brain surgery and decode DNA, but even it is no match for government gobbledygook,” said the interpreter.

“Unbelievable,” I said. “If citizens can’t understand what their government is writing — let alone what agencies are spending our money on — they can’t question it. Maybe THAT is the whole point?”

“Such communicative obfuscations, while ostensibly regrettable, nonetheless function as an indispensable safeguard of administrative continuity,” said the bureaucrat.

“Huh?” I said.

“He said, ‘BINGO,’” said the interpreter.

“So if the Plain Writing Act of 2010 didn’t fix this problem, how can we fix it?” I said.

“Prospective remedies could be cautiously calibrated to reduce destabilizing redundancies,” said the bureaucrat.
“Huh?” I said.

“He said Congress must put teeth into the law,” said the interpreter. “He said every regulation and form should be tested and approved by ordinary citizens. He said government leaders must demand consequences if communications are not written clearly.”

“That sounds good to me,” I said. “So why aren’t we doing this?”

“Pursuant to intersecting redundancies, notwithstanding comprehension deficits, our procedural continuities will likely persist in perpetuity,” said the Deputy Director of Gobbledygook.

“Huh?” I said.

“Well,” said the interpreter, “he said that incomprehensible language may be bad for our republic, but it’s great for his $210,000 salary — and he’ll do everything he can to keep the gravy train rolling!”

–

Copyright 2025 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 [email protected].

When the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate went into effect in 2012, the Obama people wanted the vast majority of companies and private institutions to comply.

Even if you were an independent Christian hospital, orphanage, homeless shelter or another religious organization, you were not exempt from the rule that your employee health insurance plan had to cover the cost of contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.

Even the Little Sisters of the Poor were denied an exemption.

Founded in France in 1839, the Little Sisters of the Poor is a Catholic order of nuns that runs retirement and nursing homes for the elderly poor in more than 30 countries — with 27 residences in the United States.

The Sisters rely on private charity, not government funding.

They ask for nothing from the government but the freedom to celebrate their vows of poverty and service as they bathe the weak, clothe the forgotten and provide loving hospice care and prayer as their elderly residents draw their final breath.

The Sisters believe in the dignity of all life, including the unborn, and cannot in good conscience provide health insurance for their employees that covers contraceptives.

The Obama people told the Sisters not to worry — that they could avoid the plan’s crushing fines by signing an opt-out form.

The form relieved the Sisters of covering the cost of contraceptives for employees.

However, once signed, the form still required the Sisters’ insurer to provide contraception — with the insurer or the government covering the cost.

In the Sisters’ view, signing that form would be no different from authorizing contraception.

It would be like telling a nurse who believes euthanasia is a sin that she doesn’t have to give the injection — just fill the syringe with cyanide and hand it to the doctor.

In 2013, the Sisters sued.

It was David vs. Goliath — humble nuns vs. big government forcing them to violate their faith.

The Obama people acknowledged that religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution.

But they also treated access to contraception as a right that trumped the Sisters’ right to be excused from their Obamacare mandate.

The Sisters hunkered down for a long court battle.

In 2016, with the help of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, their case (Zubik v. Burwell) reached the Supreme Court, but it was sent back without a final decision.

But in 2020, the Sisters won a 7-2 Supreme Court decision that affirmed their right to an exemption.

That ruling also upheld the Trump administration’s broader regulations, which had codified a permanent exemption for religious nonprofits like the Sisters.

That should have ended the matter. But big government rarely takes no for an answer.

Last week, a hairsplitting Obama-appointed federal judge ruled that the Trump-era religious exemption was “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore invalid.

The judge insisted her decision wasn’t about religious liberty at all — that her gripe was not with the substance of the Trump regulations, but with how they were drafted.

If you believe that, I have an Obamacare policy I’ll sell you that will save you thousands — and let you keep your doctor, too.

Up against endless government meddling, the Sisters fight on — not just for their freedom, but for ours.

God bless the Little Sisters of the Poor.

–

Copyright 2025 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 [email protected].

My friend and his wife, longtime residents of Washington, D.C., helped me understand one of the root causes of crime in the nation’s capital — truancy.

“It starts there,” said my friend. “During COVID-19, kids got used to skipping online classes without consequences. When schools reopened, many kept skipping. The Washington Post reports that middle school truancy tripled from 10 percent to more than 30 percent over the last decade. In some high schools, it’s 56 percent.”

“And truant kids get into trouble?” I said.

“For sure,” said my friend’s wife. “The Post says idle kids are more likely to end up in carjackings, robberies and shootings — and that truancy is driving the biggest youth crime surge in a generation.”

“Maybe they need more truancy officers?” I said.

“D.C. already has truancy officers and police patrols pulling kids off street corners and taking them back to class,” said my friend. “But kids leave school as soon as the officers leave.”

“That’s unfortunate,” I said.

“It’s no wonder the city’s graduation rate is only 76 percent, compared with the national average of 87 percent,” said my friend’s wife.
“Where are the parents?” I said.

“Mostly not in the home,” said my friend. “Eighty-three percent of D.C. teens grow up without both parents, usually in fatherless homes.”
“It’s well known that boys without fathers in the home often have bad outcomes,” I said.

“Sad, but true,” said my friend’s wife. “Last year, boys under 18 were responsible for about 21 percent of D.C. shootings and nearly half of all carjackings — some arrested were as young as 12.”

“That is a heartbreaker,” I said. “So, D.C. crime is worse than ever?”

“Actually, crime in D.C. has dropped in the past two years, but it’s still higher than it was before the pandemic,” said my friend. “However, youth crime is a growing problem.”

“Why do so many kids repeat these crimes?” I said.

“Most kids under 18 are tried in juvenile court where penalties are light,” said my friend’s wife. “Many are back on the streets within days. Some have been arrested for multiple carjackings in the same month.”

“So, what’s the fix?” I said.

“President Trump announced a sweeping federal intervention in D.C.,” said my friend. “He’s deploying the National Guard and about 500 federal agents — FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE and U.S. Marshals — and placing the D.C. police under federal control. He invoked Section 740 of the Home Rule Act to justify it.”

“That’s aggressive,” I said. “But how does that fit with the juvenile crime issue we’ve been talking about?”

“Trump wants kids as young as 14 — at least for serious crimes — to face adult court,” said my friend’s wife. “That’s controversial, but it could deter repeat offenders. However, because Congress granted D.C. ‘home rule’ in the 1970s, the city still manages its own schools and courts — which limits what a president can do. That brings us back to the root cause of the youth crime problem.”

“The breakdown of the family?” I said.

“That’s right,” said my friend. “Until we restore family stability and give our kids schools that properly educate them, too many teens are going to continue going down the wrong path in Washington, D.C.”

–

Copyright 2025 Tom Purcell, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Find Tom Purcell’s syndicated column, humor books and funny videos of his dog, Thurber, at TomPurcell.com. Email him at [email protected].

I’ve learned the hard way that Mother Nature is anything but weak and feeble.

I bought a house in the country a little over 30 years ago — a total fixer-upper. An old couple had lived there — hoarders — and the place was a mess.

But that didn’t trouble me. I was full of energy. I had big improvement plans. Then I learned how ruthless Mother Nature really is.

I first discovered this when I tore off an old porch enclosure. When I began peeling the siding off, I was attacked by hornets and wasps — I eventually uncovered 80 nests! — which sent me swatting, jumping and cussing throughout my yard.

When the first summer arrived, I decided to build a planter in front of my house. I tore out some old shrubs and jagger bushes and came across a nest of ground bees. Ground bees become very angry when they are disturbed.

The nasty little buggers stung me a half-dozen times.

Following advice from a neighbor, I poured gasoline into the nest. I set the canister on the ground, four feet away. I lit a match, but before I could throw it into the nest, I heard Wooooooooooof!

You see, “woof” is the sound gasoline makes when it ignites. It ignites because gasoline gives off fumes, and fumes — I tend to learn things the hard way — are flammable!

Suddenly, an 8-foot flame shot out of the bee’s nest — right up the side of my newly painted house! To my right, I noticed the gas can — filled with 2½ gallons of premium — was on fire.

Thinking quickly, I picked up the canister and ran down my driveway, cussing. I launched the Molotov cocktail into the air. It exploded into a fireball. I raced for the hose and barely managed to douse both fires before I burned down the neighborhood.

I moved to Washington, D.C. in 1998 and rented out my house for many years before moving back to finish off all renovation projects.

Last week I was putting my tractor away in the shed after dark when I got stung a dozen times by hornets I didn’t see, who, I now know, live in a large nest.

Thanks to my forever war with stinging insects, I chuckle when I hear environmentalists describe Mother Nature as feeble and weak.

As author Michael Crichton once said, the idea that nature is “fragile” is profoundly wrong. Earth has survived asteroid strikes, supervolcanoes, magnetic pole reversals and mass extinctions. Long after we’re gone, Crichton said, the planet will still be here — doing just fine.

Scientist Bjorn Lomborg agrees. He doesn’t deny the environmental challenges we face, but says we need perspective. While problems like climate change and pollution are real, he argues they’re often exaggerated in ways that lead to panic instead of practical solutions.

He says that nature is remarkably resilient — forests regrow after wildfires, wildlife returned to Chernobyl and coral reefs have shown signs of recovery. Lomborg believes innovation, adaptation and economic growth are better paths forward than fear and alarmism.

We absolutely must be good stewards of Mother Nature’s beauty and preserve her resources.

Just know that Mother Nature will flood your basement, infest your walls, sting your backside and burn down your house — then go on about her day like nothing happened.

If that sounds fragile to you, I’ve got a hornet’s nest the size of an Airbnb you can borrow.

–

Copyright 2025 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 [email protected].

I wonder what Johnny Carson would say about the demise of late-night television.

Carson was genuine and funny — at his funniest when his monologues bombed.

On Bill Maher’s podcast, Jay Leno explained why he was so much better than today’s late-night comics:

“Carson had class. He was gracious. You never saw him angry. He never talked down to the audience. He was never mean — and that’s a form of humility.”

Carson told “60 Minutes” he avoided political and moral commentary that could divide his audience:

“Don’t they understand that’s not what I’m there for?” he said.

He believed he was there to serve and entertain us — to give us a respite from the miseries of daily life.

We rewarded him for his warm-hearted humor.

According to Medium, he drew up to 15 million viewers a night — the equivalent of 25 million today, when adjusted for the current U.S. population of 335 million.

Which brings us to the shriveled state of late-night television.

Stephen Colbert averages just 2 million viewers a night — enough to be the late-night No. 1 “leader.”

How did a left-leaning, lecturing moralist become No. 1?

It goes back to 2016.

At the time, Jimmy Fallon held the top spot with nearly 4 million viewers a night. Colbert was stuck in last place — No. 3 — with roughly half that audience.

Colbert was trying to be like Carson — likable, funny, a fantastic interviewer — but he came across as wooden, uneasy and out of place.

Then Donald Trump changed Colbert’s fortunes.

While a guest on “The Tonight Show” in September 2016, Trump allowed Fallon to tousle his hair.

Trump haters accused Fallon of “humanizing” Trump. The press and social media shredded him, causing his ratings to collapse.

Within a year, he fell from No. 1 to No. 4 — even behind Seth Meyers’ “Late Night” show.

Colbert clawed his way to No. 1 by going hard left — happily trading broad appeal for a narrow audience of mostly white, aging, urban elites who can’t get enough of his smug sarcasm.

Meanwhile, as viewers abandon late-night comics for podcasts, social media and streaming television, late-night ad revenue is tanking — from about $440 million in 2018 to $220 million in 2024.

Colbert brought in $120 million in 2018, but only $70 million last year.

Why?

A key reason, according to The Wall Street Journal, is that major brands want safe, broad-audience shows that don’t alienate half their customer base — you know, like Johnny Carson’s show.

Combine declining revenue with Colbert’s high production costs of more than $100 million, including his salary estimated at $15 million to $20 million, and you see why his show is losing $30 to $50 million a year.

He should consider himself lucky CBS didn’t cancel him sooner. After all, CBS axed James Corden in 2023 even though his “Late Late Show” was only losing $20 million a year.

I wonder what Johnny Carson — in his full Carnac the Magnificent regalia — might say about the sorry state of late-night television:

(Carnac holds a sealed envelope to his head.)

Carnac: “Genuinely funny jokes… a nightly escape from life’s troubles… and humble comedians who appeal to our common humanity.”
(Carnac rips open the envelope and reads the question inside.)

Carnac: “Name three things that no longer exist on late-night TV.”

–

Copyright 2025 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 [email protected].