...as the Beatles would say. I'm going to try to stay offline as much as possible this week, but before I go, I'd like to say: to all of you who've bought a book of mine this year, thanks for making my holiday especially bright. And to all of you who got something I wrote as a gift, I really, truly hope it pleased you! Thanks again to everybody--happy holidays!

Read this article…

...the Village Voice is continuing its series on "Generation Debt," detailing the financial pickle that more and more Americans under 35 are facing. School loans, easy credit, lack of benefits, unpaid internships to start your career...What a mess. The latest entries discuss the specific pressures on men; pressures on women (which includes this cheery thought: "motherhood is the single best predictor of poverty in women"), and how it looks to the older generation.



In happier news, Michael Moore's making a new movie (about the pharmaceutical industry)!



Now, back to making these jazz mix CDs for my brother-in-law...

Read this article…

According to this article, the director for the upcoming His Dark Materials movie is trying to remove the anti-religious material in the trilogy.



Are you KIDDING me?



According to the director's agent, "You have to recognise that it is a challenge in the climate of Bush's America." Yes, and that's precisely why Pullman's books have been a huge worldwide hit; a lot of people are very skeptical of what's been happening in the name of religion, and Pullman's books are a expertly written great story that doesn't pander to conventional Christianity. If they want another "Holes"--if all New Line thought it was buying was another YA book-to-movie franchise--well, then, that's exactly what they'll get. On the other hand, the fundamentalists attacked Harry Potter, and that series has done pretty well. Perhaps you've heard of it.



Bush's America doesn't only mean that there are a lot of evangelicals around. It means that everybody else is being welded together by what THEY believe, too. And they will support things that they like, just as fiercely as the evangelicals do. If Harry Potter doesn't ring a bell, perhaps New Line has heard of a little movie called "Fahrenheit 9/11"?



Anyway, it's not like they have a choice, not really. If anybody at New Line thinks for ONE SECOND that they can win over hard-line American evangelicals they are mistaken. Do you think somebody who thinks Lutherans are going to Hell is going to watch the Pullman movies? People that threatened by swipes at organized religion (not God, but God's self-appointed representatives on Earth) are morons, and no worthwhile artistic expression ever begins with, "Okay, first, let's make sure the morons like it."



I'm not simply plucking "moron" out of the air, I've considered it. My dictionary defines it as a "person with an intelligence quotient between 50 and 70." (Average is 100.) In other words, adults with severely impaired critical and intellectual faculties--which is what you'd have to have to not recognize that organized religion has been a very mixed bag. It has done many good things, but also been one of the most destructive forces in human history. This is an historical fact. I wish it weren't so, it gives me no pleasure to say so, but the fact that George Bush is President of the US doesn't change that reality. Organized religion allows us to re-make God in our own flawed image, and so we all--ESPECIALLY those of us involved in organized religions which, full-disclosure, I am not--must be very skeptical of groups of people claiming the authority of the Creator.



Getting back to Pullman: what we "have to recognise" is "that it is a challenge" to do worthwhile art of any sort "in the climate of Bush's America", as it is becoming increasingly anti-intellectual, anti-experimentation, anti-questioning, anti-creative thought. While this sucks for individual artists, it's an opportunity for the Pullman movies to be not just filmic translations of great fantasy, but a powerful statement that desperately needs to be heard. I give Pullman an immense amount of credit for writing the books he has, and specifically for the tough-minded, rationalist, pro-individual, pro-human aspects of that world. I cannot believe that he would then allow those aspects to be tampered with without a fight. If it was important enough to say to readers, it's even more important to show to viewers, being as there are more of the latter. I suspect that there's a fight going on behind-the-scenes, with a lot of anguish and yelling and examining of contracts. I hope to gosh there is, otherwise this is starting to smell like a Lord Valumart production, and Pullman's books--and fans--deserve better.

Read this article…

...is here. It's a bit jargon-y, but still worth it. And the comments beneath it are particularly good and insightful.



I myself have no clear idea what's next for publishing, but I can't help but think that the current system--dominated by expensive middlemen and reliant on the blockbuster model--can't continue indefinitely. There are limits to consolidation. I don't think e-books will ever be able to overcome the totemistic attraction of bound material, at least in the next couple of decades--until pedagogy shifts decisively into other technologies. If I had to put money down on something, I think that insta-book kiosks printing books with a photocopy-like technology and drawing on a massive internal library, will be the next winner. It simply makes too much sense to cut the costs of hauling all that paper around. But I predict the industry will make a big mistake with this, by not passing the full savings on to the consumer; they will try to keep the majority of that for themselves, instead of using the savings to fix the pricing problem.



Anyway, it's interesting. The first thing I'd tell a young writer to do is get a blog, and attach it to a website holding bigger projects. The first stage of one's career used to be about attracting the attention of someone in the book industry (and all that entailed, like moving to NYC, toiling at magazines and/or freelancing, getting invited to the right parties). Now, it's about attracting and keeping a demonstrable audience, then selling that to a publisher. The change is good for humorous writing, I think--humorists are not generally great networkers, but humorous writing does attract audiences. It's exciting times!

Read this article…

...has more on Gary Webb. You ought to check it out regardless; I've always found it the cream of the literary blogs--not as encyclopedic as Maud or Bookslut, but with something as solipsistic as the world of publishing, more isn't always better.

Read this article…

...Red State Son. Thoughtful, funny, frequently updated, you're going to like it.



And the fact that he mentions Jon and I has nothing to do with it. (Gosh, I can't believe you would think I would be so craven. Without being paid.)

Read this article…

The New York Times discusses a new book by historian and sex researcher C.A. Tripp which lays out the oft-murmured theory that Abraham Lincoln was homosexual. (Or, as Michael O'Donoghue put it, "...was a HOMO!")



I don't know how convincing Tripp's arguments are, but the article does trot out several other historians to refute them. (Of course, these historians have just as powerful careerist/monetary urges for Tripp to be wrong, as Tripp has to be right.) Uncovering the sexuality of an historical figure is, of course, an exercise in pure speculation--what is more interesting is that we're asking the question at all.



Like the one about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, the question of Lincoln's sexuality is an attempt to push a current hot button, to change what we think of him now. Both sides are convinced of this, the one side wanting to "keep" Lincoln, the other wanting to "claim" Lincoln.



Fact is, historical figures belong to all of us. Claiming one, especially to prove the wisdom of a current policy or belief, is a rhetorical tactic--even if the speaker really, truly believes it. I don't care who he had sex with, how often and why--Abraham Lincoln belongs to all of us. So does Hitler, though we're less willing to claim him. That is the truest lesson of history.



I'm not saying historians shouldn't debate whether Lincoln was homosexual or not, but there is nothing more tied to a specific time and place than sexual customs, and applying our current definition to their remote time almost inevitably produces a false result. There's no harm in it, but it's nothing but comfort.



What all this really illuminates is our country's continuing fascination with such stuff, which I consider to be immature to the point of pathology. Whether Lincoln was gay, bi, or transgendered can't be proven, nor would it illuminate the man so very much, at least not in the way we want it to. Perhaps--and this is a longshot--if our greatest President were conclusively found to have been gay, American politics would get an infintesimal nudge away from gay-baiting. But I doubt it--queer-fear works for the right-wing, as it did for the Nazis. (Paging Ernst Rohm...Herr Rohm, you have a telephone call...)



BTW, Jon over at A Tiny Revolution informed me that Gary Webb's nears and dears are convinced there was no foul play involved. That's a small mercy. Jon says he's writing a post about the real tragedy of the event, which I will leave for you to discover.

Read this article…

All is well...or well-ish. Xmas is coming and we are awash in soy nog, farting as we sew little holiday-themed outfits for the cats. (They particularly hate the elf hats.)



To be filed under the heading, "Mike's Raging Paranoia": here's a nice appreciation of Gary Webb, the reporter who broke the whole CIA-Contra-crack connection story (via This Modern World.



Webb was found dead Monday. Of--and this made the hairs on the back of my neck stick up--a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Of course, suicide's logical after you've been hounded out of your career, but anybody who's read all the CIA dirt that came to light in the 70s--Philip Agee and John Marks and the Church Committee--well, it makes you wonder. Victim of wetwork or not, Webb will be missed. I'm beginning to believe in reincarnation, simply out of love for the underdog!



Philip Agee, in case you've never heard of him, is an interesting character. He was a CIA officer in Latin America from 1957-69, then resigned to publish an expose of the organization called "Inside the Company." Predictably the Agency started giving him trouble--"Blond Ghost" Ted Shackley among them--and he was driven from pillar to post for most of the 70s and 80s. Agee now runs a travel agency in Cuba.



The whole thing reminds me of something I think a lot these days: knowing things is not for the faint of heart. I used to wonder how, with all the libraries, so many Americans manage to keep so few facts in their heads. I'm beginning to think that many people in this country stay dumb on purpose, either through purposely not learning, or filling up on fantasy. They realize that having facts in your head often leads to uncomfortable juxtapositions. They're not wrong; sometimes I have to retreat into a world of my own creation. But I guess I can't stop myself. I am a fact-addict.



By the way, I noted with some pleasure last night that the Bill Hicks concert film I was watching ("One Night Stand," part of a new DVD collection of his live act) took place less than a mile from my house! There was another fact-addict. I remember the first time I heard his usual show-ending remark, the one about "if we took all the money we spent on armaments, we could feed and clothe every person on Earth many times over, and explore Space in peace and brotherhood." I've had that thought, and I'm sure you have, too, but I'm glad Hicks said it. Perhaps by repeating it we can make it a reality. On the one hand there is paranoia and wetwork and the evil that humans do; on the other, there is peace and plenty. The choice is real; don't ever let somebody tell you it's not. A better way to live DOES exist--and we CAN find it!

Read this article…

Jon Schwarz is said to tear The New Yorker a new one in this post. But constructively, always constructively, and with great love.



Matt Taibbi's column in the New York Press this week pinpoints EXACTLY what's wrong with the Democratic Party (via This Modern World, which also has a nice post here).

Read this article…

...in today's column about the need for an Apollo Program-type initiative to find an alternative to oil. He writes, "If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, he would dry up revenue for terrorism; force Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take the path of reform - which they will never do with $45-a-barrel oil - strengthen the dollar; and improve his own standing in Europe, by doing something huge to reduce global warming. He would also create a magnet to inspire young people to contribute to the war on terrorism and America's future by becoming scientists, engineers and mathematicians. "This is not just a win-win," said the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum. "This is a win-win-win-win-win."



Exactly. This is so obvious that the thought is actually starting to hurt my brain. Given Bush's undying fealty to

1) the oil industry, and

2) anti-science religious nuts

Friedman's idea is the longest of long-shots. But--GODDAMN it!--maybe saying it over and over is a tiny way to make it happen. Thoughts do create new realities; in fact, they are the only way new realities happen.



Speaking of, if you're the type of person who can stare at your own hand and freak yourself out (without the aid of any chemicals whatsoever), you should definitely see "What the Bleep Do We Know?" Great movie.



It's a paradox of our time--perhaps THE paradox of our time--that as we accrue more scientific knowledge that any other civilization in the history of the planet, more and more people are turning away from Science. As I said to my Dad once, "Knowing things in not for the faint of heart." Will we have the courage to keep seeking knowledge, or will we retreat, and in so doing create a world much worse than we can imagine?

Read this article…

I went to college at Yale and, let's be honest, have never really gotten over it. With Bush '68 flinging mayhem from the White House like some kind of fundamentalist toddler, and so many of the biggest pustules of neo-conservatism having a New Haven stop in their careers, it's damn hard to be proud of Yale these days. Scratch anything particularly horrible, and you tend to find Yalies--too often providing the rationale for why it may SEEM despicable and greedy and short-sighted and utterly immoral, but it's really okay.



But THIS I am deeply proud of. It was performed at this year's Harvard/Yale football game. Forget US News rankings; the measure of any college is the quality of its pranks.



Does Harvard suck? Probably no more than any other fantastically wealthy and complacent institution. But it's excellent that some Yalies care enough to pose the question. We'll see if they move on to the bigger issues. If Harvard sucks, then...? Pretty soon, you're living in a commune in Costa Rica, happily hand-weaving hats out of sisal and selling them to tourists, and not even reading the Class Notes section of the Alumni Magazine.



Actually, that sounds pretty good.

Read this article…