There's a lot going on in the world and it's tempting to just throw some pies, squirt a little seltzer and take a break from it all, but, then again, we're at a moment when not talking politics is in itself a political gesture.
Still, we can take a moment to watch Mr. Fitz attempt to teach his students emotional intelligence through their studying of "Romeo and Juliet."
Today's episode put me in mind of a production of the play I saw in college in which every possible opening night glitz came forward, including, in the fight between Tybalt and Mercutio, Tybalt's sword snapping off at the hilt, the logical consequences of which would have required a major rewrite of the script.
Fortunately, after a stunned moment, "Tybalt" had the presence of mind to lunge at Mercutio with an empty handful of hilt, triggering the famous death scene.
It was not quite as easy to simply keep things moving ahead when Juliet's balcony broke off, leaving Romeo on his back, covered in chicken wire and not-quite-set industrial foam.
But I do wonder how popular "Romeo and Juliet" would be if it were all about the lovers and didn't feature swordfights.
Mr. Fitz is in the midst of that riddle.
Mike Lester hints at the answer, and, while I suspect him of attempting to distract from the idea of gun control, I have to agree with him, particularly since I'm on record here as decrying the atmosphere of paranoid violence we've manufactured.
Which is to say that, while I think the "Hollywood liberals" are a bit of a paper tiger, given that, for instance, Mel Gibson and Clint Eastwood are at the forefront of those who splatter blood on audiences, it would be interesting to see actors begin turning down roles in violent fear-mongering movies.
And perhaps they already do, or, at least, some of them do. Just as it's hard to know how many school shootings never happened because the cops dropped by someone's house and had a frank talk with the parents, it's hard to know how many Hollywood stars have told their agents not to send them scripts in which there are more explosions than conversations.
Still, it might be interesting this coming weekend to see who does use their 30 seconds of speech-time to decry school shootings and see how it matches with what they did that provided them that forum.
I noted yesterday that cartoonists lept on Trump's absurd comment about his Walter Mitty heroism, and I can't fit all their work here, but there have been some that went beyond simple mockery of a demented blowhard.
I got a laff out of John Branch's take, which melds Cadet Bonespur's fantasy of saving the day with his announced theory of how to accomplish it.
Branch's overall style, their relative postures and his choice of a kindly granny-style teacher, make the gag work better in his hands than it might in someone else's. This is a really solid piece of humorous but biting commentary.
Steve Sack takes a decidedly more furious view of the gap between words and action, mocking without a smile a president who makes such ludicrous, bombastic claims of caring and matches them with a level of inaction that should, in a functioning society, shock the conscience.
Again, style sells the concept: The belligerent expression in both panels emphasizes Trump's lack of empathy as well as the idea that he is less challenged by the crisis itself than by everyone's insistence that it's his problem to solve.
Or is it? Clay Bennett comes down midway between Branch and Sack, capitalizing on a TV commercial for an Internet security company to mock the lack of action in Washington, DC, not just on school shootings but on the overall collapse of democracy in a world of special interests and foreign interference.
The joke being that at least the guy in the commercial acknowledges that there's a bank robbery going on, even if he doesn't take any responsibility for stopping it.
And Chris Britt goes further, pointing out that, while Dear Leader may not take action to protect our kids, he's certainly doing all he can to protect Internet trolls, with defiant tweets that repeat disproven "facts" not simply from Fox and Friends but from Internet conspiracy sites and random trolls.
The whole world is watching, and Marian Kamensky notes the sad plight of First Son-In-Law Jared Kushner, who has finally been required to operate in the way a person with his lack of security clearance is supposed to.
I feel a little sorry for Jared, whose unschooled operations as half of "Jarvanka" have put him in a position where his own family's business is feeling pressure and he himself is getting tangled in the web of Manafort issues and other nasty things.
I suspect he's of interest to both Robert Mueller and some people who might not be nearly as fun to deal with. Mueller may be less inclined to whack you, but I don't think he's got a witness protection program that will keep your wife from finding you.
Better eat the soup, pal. It may be the last warmth you get for awhile.
Finally, perhaps Non Sequitur unintentionally outlines the most chilling thing going on these days, because, outnumbered or not, Trump has been playing the OJ defense and it appears to be working.
It's encouraging that Meuller has returned all those indictments and that he's got all those inner-circle types ready to turn.
But remember how clear it was that Simpson had murdered Nicole and Ron.
And remember that OJ had never boasted that he could murder someone and his fans would stand by him.
And remember how you felt when the jury gave its verdict.
I don't care who turns out to be Jimmy Stewart and who turns out to be John Wayne, but they'd better both turn up soon.
(Here - scratch the earworm)