I think of it as The Fool's Journey. I've been asked who the "fool" is. It's me, but in the classical sense of the court jester. Only the fool was allowed to tell the king of his follies. All cartoons are available as prints or originals, framed or unframed, through my website or e-mail. For mugs, t-shirts, and other products visit my gift shop at www.zazzle.com/jcrowtherart* (be sure to include the *).
A notorious bigot was attempting to show how broadminded he was by talking about his daily habits. "Every day," he told a black woman, "I walk through your neighborhood and tip my hat to the people I see. I even try to smile. Why, I regularly pass right by your house." "Thanks," she replied, "for not stopping in."
posted by John M Crowther @ 7:23 AM
I think of it as The Fool's Journey. I've been asked who the "fool" is. It's me, but in the classical sense of the court jester. Only the fool was allowed to tell the king of his follies. All cartoons are available as prints or originals, framed or unframed, through my website or e-mail. For mugs, t-shirts, and other products visit my gift shop at www.zazzle.com/jcrowtherart* (be sure to include the *).
Artist, writer, filmmaker, actor. Wrote "The Evil That Men Do" starring Charles Bronson. "Missing in Action" starring Chuck Norris. Performed one-man play "Einstein" off-Broadway and in Europe. Tours US with "Meet Mr. Wright," his one-man play about Frank Lloyd Wright. Art exhibitions in Italy and U.S. His work as a cartoonist has been seen in MAD magazine. Illustrated the children's books "How the Waif Bunny Saved the Boy" and "The Man In the Red Bandana" about his nephew Welles Crowther, a hero of 9/11, written by his niece, Honor Crowther Fagin, Welles's sister. Author of novel "Firebase," published in UK by Constable and US by St. Martins Press. For many years an avid student and reader of Tarot. Performs weddings as a Los Angeles County Deputy Commissioner of Civil Marriage.
4 Comments:
Friends of mine, particularly in California, found Tuesday to be a bittersweet day. Here in Connecticut we just legalized-or to be more accurate un-illegalized--gay marriage. A colleague and friend was incensed by this and thought I would be too. "Now they're going to let gay people get married just like you and me." Which is just fine by me. I don't understand how this threatens my marriage, or anyone elses.
I also find it sadly ironic that the many of the same groups that opposed interracial marriage now oppose gay marriage, with a reversal of arguement-instead of saying people should stay with their own kind, now it's people should not!
Different strokes for different folks I guess :-)
Love this cartoon, John C. I am sorry that I missed your two year celebration.
The big problem, I think, with Prop 8 was that it was badly written and frightened people into believing that even religions that oppose gay marriage would be forced to perform gay marriages or lose their non-profit stasis. If I had believed that, I would have voted yes as no religion should be forced to do something against it's doctrine. State and Church are supposed to be separated, remember?, so no one has the right to impose their belief on another religion who is opposed to it. It does not matter that the religion is a twit and narrow minded, it is nevertheless their belief which they have a right to practice under the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution says that everyone must believe in the same manner, just the opposite in fact. If this had been made clearer so it could not opened up an avenue for adverse ads, I think it would have passed as everyone that I talked with agreed that gr the civil rights of gays should be granted. It was, also, not too clever of whomever wrote that stupid ad showing the Mormons as Gestapo. While I have my own opinions about the Mormon religion, it did the exact opposite of what the ad want to accomplish in my opinion. I wished that the gay and lesbian groups had made it clearer that they would not have tried to push the religions that do not recognize them into performing ceremonies. People tend to get defensive of their religions and politics. (grin)
The state does have an interest in marriage primarily for the inheritance and property transfers. Perhaps the answer is something like the French system where a government official records the merging of two people and the leaves the religious ceremony up to them, Which reminds of a placque I once saw on a yacht. " Marriages performed by the Captain of this vessel are valid for the duration of the voyage only" roger
Post a Comment
<< Home