...is here.
Read this article…
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Randall Enos...
Randall Enos is a really great illustrator, who used to do a cartoon in the old National Lampoon called "Chicken Gutz." Here's his excellent website.
I found this site via another site devoted to the first five years of the old National Lampoon magazine. If you read it and loved it, you'll like the site; if you've never read the old NatLamp, you owe it to yourself to do so.
Read this article…
I found this site via another site devoted to the first five years of the old National Lampoon magazine. If you read it and loved it, you'll like the site; if you've never read the old NatLamp, you owe it to yourself to do so.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Ringo at NORAD...
Apparently every Xmas, some celebrity gets to track "Santa" at NORAD. This year, it's Ringo Starr.
Read this article…
"Because I love you..."
...my wife typed, along with this link featuring fake letters to The New Yorker. Because she probably likes you, or would, I post it here.
Read this article…
Friday, November 21, 2003
Hey Yalies, is this true?
In the middle of writing a comic novel set at college, I read this story about widespread student misery at Harvard with some interest. Yale, of all places, is held up as a model of social life. Yale?!
Boy, has Yale changed since 1991. When I was there, it was just like Harvard sounds in this article. Tell me, young Yalies, is this true? Is Yale suddenly fun?
Read this article…
Boy, has Yale changed since 1991. When I was there, it was just like Harvard sounds in this article. Tell me, young Yalies, is this true? Is Yale suddenly fun?
Why I rant about JFK...
(I put it right there in the subject line, so you can skip this if you want. I may be obsessed, but at least I'm self-aware.)
Watched another program on JFK last night, ABC's "Beyond Conspiracy." This was without question the most serious whitewash of the week; conspiracy theorists were dismissed as Oliver Stone fans, Kennedy sentimentalists to be indulged and pitied. I found this personally offensive, and I'm gonna tell you why. Settle in.
One can debate the single bullet theory and the Zapruder film and the acoustic evidence all one wants. My scientists are smarter than your scientists, my CAD model of Dealey Plaza is more accurate than yours is. It's a useless fight. But here are a few indisputable facts:
1) The protection of the President that day was lax.
2) After the President had been killed, none of the protocol standard to murder cases was followed. The President's body--the most significant piece of evidence in the case--was moved to Washington within hours. The rest of the evidence was sent to the FBI.
3) The autopsy was performed by people without the proper skills, and is inconclusive as a result.
4) The accused assassin was killed, in police custody, before he had time to shed any light on what happened.
5) The group created to investigate the crime--the Warren Commission--was working under political pressure to come to a certain conclusion, and did not receive the full cooperation of the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service. They only received some documents, not all, and those that they did were heavily censored.
Adding all this up, any reasonable person comes to one of two conclusions: either there was a conspiracy, or our government was/is full of incompentent morons. If, like Peter Jennings, you reject the former, then you must accept the latter. And yet NO ONE got fired as a result of November 22, 1963. Maybe there wasn't a conspiracy. But if there wasn't, there should be an accounting, no matter how partial or after-the-fact. This wasn't a victimless crime. And it was preventable--hell, the FBI/Secret Service prevent it EVERY DAY. Why is J. Edgar Hoover's name on the FBI building? The freakin' President was killed, in the middle of an American city, on his watch! In the real world, you can get fired for stealing office supplies.
If it were up to ABC News, the whole matter would've been closed as of 1964. Citizens won't let it rest; that's the only reason we're talking about the JFK assassination today. Why has it fallen to housewives and hobbyists to investigate the President's murder? Because our much-touted Fourth Estate didn't wish to. The American media's record on the JFK Assassination has been incredibly bad. Time/Life actually helped suppress the Zapruder film, buying it immediately and locking it away until 1975.
The professional newsgatherers have been unabashed, uncritical supporters of the "lone nut" theory since the day Oswald was shot. Why? At first it was patriotism, perhaps, or "respect for the family" (though I can think of nothing more disrespectful to the memory of the President than refusing to properly investigate who killed him).
Eventually, though, the question changes. If there was a conspiracy to murder the President, it was surely the most important story of the 20th Century. If the mainstream media had undisputedably missed it, the question would've been asked, "Then what the hell good are you?" The mainstream media, just like the dopes in Washington, had, have, and will always have, a strong vested interest in the "Oswald did it alone" theory. And sorry, ABC, that's all it is: a theory, just like "the Masons did it, aided by elements of the Third Venusian International." If that makes you mad--if you think I'm being unreasonable--don't blame me; blame the people who were in position to find out for sure, and chose not to. Now too much time has passed and we never will know.
Here's why I'm taking the time to type all this: we're in the middle of another Warren Commission, this time about 9/11. And the evidence is mounting that the government is doing the same thing again--screening the Commissioners, playing politics, protecting their asses. (Check out Salon's interview with 9/11 Commissioner Max Clelland and see if you don't agree. Here's a quote from former Senator Clelland:
"This is the most serious independent investigation since the Warren Commission. And after watching History Channel shows on the Warren Commission last night, the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious. "
Yep, it's serious. And that's why shows like the one last night are so awful. Not because Oswald didn't do it--maybe he did--but because they excuse the myriad decisions that people in power made in 1963 and after, to protect their asses instead of getting at the truth. THAT's why we'll never truly know what happened when Kennedy was shot--not because it was unknowable, but because government officials didn't want to know, and the media didn't push them. It didn't matter to them.
Well, it matters to me, and it should matter to you. It's one thing to botch the investigation of a President's murder--I'll never be President, so who cares? But I will fly on airplanes, and will be in office buildings, and not getting to the bottom of 9/11 means that we will never truly know how to prevent it from happening again. And that is unacceptable. If 9/11 is what the Bush Administration says it is, we're all in the crosshairs. If that's worth bombing Iraq for, it should be worth investigating properly--and fearlessly.
Read this article…
Watched another program on JFK last night, ABC's "Beyond Conspiracy." This was without question the most serious whitewash of the week; conspiracy theorists were dismissed as Oliver Stone fans, Kennedy sentimentalists to be indulged and pitied. I found this personally offensive, and I'm gonna tell you why. Settle in.
One can debate the single bullet theory and the Zapruder film and the acoustic evidence all one wants. My scientists are smarter than your scientists, my CAD model of Dealey Plaza is more accurate than yours is. It's a useless fight. But here are a few indisputable facts:
1) The protection of the President that day was lax.
2) After the President had been killed, none of the protocol standard to murder cases was followed. The President's body--the most significant piece of evidence in the case--was moved to Washington within hours. The rest of the evidence was sent to the FBI.
3) The autopsy was performed by people without the proper skills, and is inconclusive as a result.
4) The accused assassin was killed, in police custody, before he had time to shed any light on what happened.
5) The group created to investigate the crime--the Warren Commission--was working under political pressure to come to a certain conclusion, and did not receive the full cooperation of the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service. They only received some documents, not all, and those that they did were heavily censored.
Adding all this up, any reasonable person comes to one of two conclusions: either there was a conspiracy, or our government was/is full of incompentent morons. If, like Peter Jennings, you reject the former, then you must accept the latter. And yet NO ONE got fired as a result of November 22, 1963. Maybe there wasn't a conspiracy. But if there wasn't, there should be an accounting, no matter how partial or after-the-fact. This wasn't a victimless crime. And it was preventable--hell, the FBI/Secret Service prevent it EVERY DAY. Why is J. Edgar Hoover's name on the FBI building? The freakin' President was killed, in the middle of an American city, on his watch! In the real world, you can get fired for stealing office supplies.
If it were up to ABC News, the whole matter would've been closed as of 1964. Citizens won't let it rest; that's the only reason we're talking about the JFK assassination today. Why has it fallen to housewives and hobbyists to investigate the President's murder? Because our much-touted Fourth Estate didn't wish to. The American media's record on the JFK Assassination has been incredibly bad. Time/Life actually helped suppress the Zapruder film, buying it immediately and locking it away until 1975.
The professional newsgatherers have been unabashed, uncritical supporters of the "lone nut" theory since the day Oswald was shot. Why? At first it was patriotism, perhaps, or "respect for the family" (though I can think of nothing more disrespectful to the memory of the President than refusing to properly investigate who killed him).
Eventually, though, the question changes. If there was a conspiracy to murder the President, it was surely the most important story of the 20th Century. If the mainstream media had undisputedably missed it, the question would've been asked, "Then what the hell good are you?" The mainstream media, just like the dopes in Washington, had, have, and will always have, a strong vested interest in the "Oswald did it alone" theory. And sorry, ABC, that's all it is: a theory, just like "the Masons did it, aided by elements of the Third Venusian International." If that makes you mad--if you think I'm being unreasonable--don't blame me; blame the people who were in position to find out for sure, and chose not to. Now too much time has passed and we never will know.
Here's why I'm taking the time to type all this: we're in the middle of another Warren Commission, this time about 9/11. And the evidence is mounting that the government is doing the same thing again--screening the Commissioners, playing politics, protecting their asses. (Check out Salon's interview with 9/11 Commissioner Max Clelland and see if you don't agree. Here's a quote from former Senator Clelland:
"This is the most serious independent investigation since the Warren Commission. And after watching History Channel shows on the Warren Commission last night, the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious. "
Yep, it's serious. And that's why shows like the one last night are so awful. Not because Oswald didn't do it--maybe he did--but because they excuse the myriad decisions that people in power made in 1963 and after, to protect their asses instead of getting at the truth. THAT's why we'll never truly know what happened when Kennedy was shot--not because it was unknowable, but because government officials didn't want to know, and the media didn't push them. It didn't matter to them.
Well, it matters to me, and it should matter to you. It's one thing to botch the investigation of a President's murder--I'll never be President, so who cares? But I will fly on airplanes, and will be in office buildings, and not getting to the bottom of 9/11 means that we will never truly know how to prevent it from happening again. And that is unacceptable. If 9/11 is what the Bush Administration says it is, we're all in the crosshairs. If that's worth bombing Iraq for, it should be worth investigating properly--and fearlessly.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
British SF writer...
...Ken McLeod has some interesting things to say about conspiracy theories on his blog. I strongly disagree that Lee Harvey Oswald benefitted from the JFK assassination--if he wanted credit, why did he consistently deny doing it?--but that's a quibble.
Here's a nice snip: "Hierarchy was invented to regulate human relations with imaginary beings, and it still performs that function quite admirably. In the shadow of that pyramid, conspiracy theories are little grassy knolls."
Read this article…
Here's a nice snip: "Hierarchy was invented to regulate human relations with imaginary beings, and it still performs that function quite admirably. In the shadow of that pyramid, conspiracy theories are little grassy knolls."
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
When I want to know something about real estate...
...I ask my dad. Now, Crain's Chicago Business does, too. Right on, Pops--could a centerfold be next?
The building in question looks like a big, beige Stratego piece.
Read this article…
The building in question looks like a big, beige Stratego piece.
Monday, November 17, 2003
My annual trip back into the thick historical gruel...
...of the JFK assassination has begun, courtesy of The History Channel's latest installment of the British documentary series, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." I only caught the last two of the three--the ones that could be boiled down to:
1) Don't date Lee Harvey Oswald; and
2) Don't fuck around with LBJ.
Did anyone see the first one? I need that rule to live by, as well.
I've been told that I can be tiresome on this topic, so I'll keep it (somewhat) brief. At this point, what one believes happened on 11/22/63 is much more indicative of one's own worldview than anything else. There is enough evidence to buttress any reality. The Kennedy assassination inhabits the shared space between historical inquiry and a cootiecatcher-style personality test.
Being interested in Roman history, nor sold on the idea that Americans are any more virtuous than any other group of humans, I think that a conspiracy was fairly likely. And, as I have pointed out many times to horrified friends of my parents, that's the current stance of the US Government, as well. (The last official investigation of the JFK Assassination, undertaken by the House Select Committee in 1978/9, concluded that there was a high degree of probabillity that more than one person was shooting at the motorcade that day. Thus, conspiracy.) Now if the US government doesn't care enough about the sanctity of the democratic process to get to the bottom of what happened, that's another issue, and one that I think strikes at the very heart of our continued national fascination with the JFK assassination. It is a fissure in our democracy, a point where the shared dream of popular rule falls away to reveal the much more limited reality.
Given what we know about the behavior of people in power--for example, the arrogance, risk-taking, and disregard for morality that people assign to JFK's sexual escapades with such relish--can we really say that political skullduggery doesn't exist in the U.S.? In the case of the Kennedy assassination(s), the physical evidence points in that direction rather relentlessly. When you couple that with the tendencies of power to corrupt, conspiracy strikes me as the only sensible conclusion.
A recent poll says that most Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. This belief has been so persistent, from the 1960s on, that I think it's the apologists for the Warren Commission who are the wild-eyed crazies at this point. There is a desperation to their belief--a willingness to say "how preposterous" and leave it at that--that one has to question. Certainly President Kennedy could've been killed by a lone nut, but many, many things suggest that he wasn't. Certainly Oswald could've been a mixed-up drifter, but once again, many, many things suggest that he wasn't. Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but I'm not convinced that this willful naivete (much more common in the Establishment, at places like The New York Times, than in people at large) doesn't constitute a real danger to America and, by extension, the world.
Mature countries understand that power corrupts and take steps to lessen its impact. In the Venetian Republic, for example, they randomized the selection of the Doge (top leader) as much as possible. As we consider switching to computerized voting, we would do well to keep in mind that current-day Americans are no more virtuous than ancient Romans, or medieval Venetians, or 1960s mobsters/oilmen/spooks. There are no monsters under the bed; but there are people who will kill for money, and fame, and power. Anybody who denies that is, well, a crackpot. So there!
Read this article…
1) Don't date Lee Harvey Oswald; and
2) Don't fuck around with LBJ.
Did anyone see the first one? I need that rule to live by, as well.
I've been told that I can be tiresome on this topic, so I'll keep it (somewhat) brief. At this point, what one believes happened on 11/22/63 is much more indicative of one's own worldview than anything else. There is enough evidence to buttress any reality. The Kennedy assassination inhabits the shared space between historical inquiry and a cootiecatcher-style personality test.
Being interested in Roman history, nor sold on the idea that Americans are any more virtuous than any other group of humans, I think that a conspiracy was fairly likely. And, as I have pointed out many times to horrified friends of my parents, that's the current stance of the US Government, as well. (The last official investigation of the JFK Assassination, undertaken by the House Select Committee in 1978/9, concluded that there was a high degree of probabillity that more than one person was shooting at the motorcade that day. Thus, conspiracy.) Now if the US government doesn't care enough about the sanctity of the democratic process to get to the bottom of what happened, that's another issue, and one that I think strikes at the very heart of our continued national fascination with the JFK assassination. It is a fissure in our democracy, a point where the shared dream of popular rule falls away to reveal the much more limited reality.
Given what we know about the behavior of people in power--for example, the arrogance, risk-taking, and disregard for morality that people assign to JFK's sexual escapades with such relish--can we really say that political skullduggery doesn't exist in the U.S.? In the case of the Kennedy assassination(s), the physical evidence points in that direction rather relentlessly. When you couple that with the tendencies of power to corrupt, conspiracy strikes me as the only sensible conclusion.
A recent poll says that most Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. This belief has been so persistent, from the 1960s on, that I think it's the apologists for the Warren Commission who are the wild-eyed crazies at this point. There is a desperation to their belief--a willingness to say "how preposterous" and leave it at that--that one has to question. Certainly President Kennedy could've been killed by a lone nut, but many, many things suggest that he wasn't. Certainly Oswald could've been a mixed-up drifter, but once again, many, many things suggest that he wasn't. Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but I'm not convinced that this willful naivete (much more common in the Establishment, at places like The New York Times, than in people at large) doesn't constitute a real danger to America and, by extension, the world.
Mature countries understand that power corrupts and take steps to lessen its impact. In the Venetian Republic, for example, they randomized the selection of the Doge (top leader) as much as possible. As we consider switching to computerized voting, we would do well to keep in mind that current-day Americans are no more virtuous than ancient Romans, or medieval Venetians, or 1960s mobsters/oilmen/spooks. There are no monsters under the bed; but there are people who will kill for money, and fame, and power. Anybody who denies that is, well, a crackpot. So there!
Was Chaucer murdered?
Asks ex-Python and medievalist Terry Jones in a new book, interestingly reviewed here. Stop for a second and think of this: can you imagine somebody from Mr. Show or SNL or Kids in the Hall writing a book like this? Or even doing the sort of enlightened and enlightening tourism that Michael Palin undertakes?
It's a HUGE flaw in American comedy that the people who rise in it are so completely one-dimensional. The reason American comedy so often has nothing to say is that the people doing it know about nothing except (shudder) show-biz. How arid. How depressing. Until Simpsons writers start publishing monographs about Abelard, I'll reserve the upper reaches of respect for people like Jones.
By the way, as some you may know, there was a little blurb about Barry Trotter in the November issue of Details. And, the month before, my brother Keith Schwab was listed at #42 in the magazine's "Fifty Most Powerful People Under 35." Keith's a quantum physicist working at the University of Maryland. So if you ever need somebody to reserve your space down in the post-apocalypse mineshaft, call Keith.
Read this article…
It's a HUGE flaw in American comedy that the people who rise in it are so completely one-dimensional. The reason American comedy so often has nothing to say is that the people doing it know about nothing except (shudder) show-biz. How arid. How depressing. Until Simpsons writers start publishing monographs about Abelard, I'll reserve the upper reaches of respect for people like Jones.
By the way, as some you may know, there was a little blurb about Barry Trotter in the November issue of Details. And, the month before, my brother Keith Schwab was listed at #42 in the magazine's "Fifty Most Powerful People Under 35." Keith's a quantum physicist working at the University of Maryland. So if you ever need somebody to reserve your space down in the post-apocalypse mineshaft, call Keith.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Monday, November 10, 2003
Yet more from Ed and the Internet
If you're like me--that is, utterly unable to stop accessing new forms of information about The Beatles--you'll enjoy/be forced to listen to this 1996 interview with George Martin.
Read this article…
Sunday, November 9, 2003
Landis on Animal House
Thanks to friend Ed, Here's a great interview with director John Landis, talking about the movie "Animal House."
Read this article…
Saturday, November 8, 2003
Young Mollie breaks into...
...the Village Voice with this essay on Madonna's latest offering for children.
Ah, I remember when Madonna was just another pinup with hairy armpits...How the fallen have become mighty...
Read this article…
Ah, I remember when Madonna was just another pinup with hairy armpits...How the fallen have become mighty...
Friday, November 7, 2003
Roundup...
Longtime readers of this blog will know that the Kennedy and King assassinations are touchstones for me. (That means I think about them from time to time.) My interest has matured from an initial X-Files-of-American-History ghoulishness to a sober appraisal of who probably did what and why. Finally, these days, I find it all inexpressibly tragic and depressing, an example of how the worst elements of our country so often trump the best ones. Anyway, the fortieth anniversary of the JFK murder is coming up, and Here's an examination of several of the television specials and such that are planned.
In much happier news, it appears that Kurt Vonnegut is working on a new novel. Here's some excerpts, taken from a recent talk at the University of Wisconsin.
Read this article…
In much happier news, it appears that Kurt Vonnegut is working on a new novel. Here's some excerpts, taken from a recent talk at the University of Wisconsin.
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
In your face, David Blaine!
Tenacious D staged a hunger strike over Times Square yesterday, vowing to stay in a glass box without food until their new CD sold 1,000,000 copies. Here's the story.
Read this article…
Monday, November 3, 2003
GREAT Strong Bad!
It's been a while since I posted something from the Homestar Runner site, but this roundup of Halloween costumes, with Strong Bad's commentary, is priceless.
Read this article…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Twitter Updates
0 comments | Edit this Post