Monday, May 5, 2003

Openings and Ads

If you have RealPlayer installed, you might like to visit Retromedia and view a lovely bunch of clips of TV show openings and vintage commercials. Fans of cartoon shows from the sixties and Sid & Marty Krofft will especially enjoy the menu.

• Posted at 9:34 PM · LINK

In the N.Y. Times...

A review of Bill Maher's new one-man show on Broadway. They kinda liked it. And Paul Krugman discusses Bush's photo-op speech aboard the aircraft carrier. He didn't like it.

• Posted at 8:53 PM · LINK

Up Your Alley

Back in the sixties, the comic art fan awards were known as the Alleys, named — for no discernible reason — for Alley Oop. There was actually a little statue made and mass-produced, and I don't think I'd ever actually seen one, in person or in a photo, before this one turned up on eBay. It was presented to the Living Legend, Julius Schwartz, when he won Best Editor in 1967 for his work on DC Comics like Justice League of America and Batman. Julie seems to be clearing out a few items from his collection and apparently decided he had so many accolades he could afford to give this one up.

• Posted at 6:10 PM · LINK

Something Free from Disney

At least, I think it's free. At this site, you can print your own greeting cards, calendars and a few other goodies featuring Mickey, Minnie, Winnie the Pooh and other Disney stars.

• Posted at 5:57 PM · LINK

Rats in the Casino

If you're still interested in the Bill Bennett matter, here's an interesting aspect to it: How did the reporters who broke the story get their hands on all those internal casino documents? Hmm?

• Posted at 5:02 PM · LINK

Gambling with Morality

As we've noted before, one of the wicked joys of observing the American political scene is watching its leaders argue either side of a position, depending on which will serve their immediate needs. There's this kind of shameless repositioning that goes on from all sides. This week, we think putting ketchup on roast beef is an immoral, pernicious action which must be banned, and anyone who disagrees is devoid of sense, soul and integrity. Next week, when we want to put ketchup on Prime Rib, we will move promptly to the opposite viewpoint, deny any possible contradiction and throw our opponents' words back at them as an example of their (not our) hypocrisy. It doesn't bother me that people do this so much as that they all seem to have the gall to pass it off as standing on principle.

Obviously, I'm bringing this up to make a point about the Bill Bennett affair. To those who aren't following this merry square dance — with everyone changing sides and swearing consistency — this article and others drawn from it reveal that our former Drug Czar and self-appointed National Scold seems to have a little addiction problem of his own, namely gambling. Liberals like Michael Kinsley are all over Bennett, chastizing him for hectoring others according to rules he does not apply to himself. Conservatives like Jonah Goldberg are defending him as having not broken any laws. The dynamics of the debate are perhaps inevitable when someone is being fed a taste of their own medicine. The feeder is doing that which he previously decried; the recipient is objecting to that which he previously thought was dandy when he wasn't the ox. Is there a person alive who thinks that if the revelations were about a prominent liberal moralizer — I'm assuming there are some — Kinsley and Goldberg wouldn't have written each others' columns this week?

My take on this may be worthless but, hey, it's my weblog: I think Bill Bennett has always been a pompous, phony presence in the national debate, making loads of cash from peddling an unrealistic, selective concept of "morality" to the masses. He inveighs against kids who are caught with marijuana (or Democrats caught with mistresses) but dodges matters like corporate looting and lying because those who buy his books or pay his lecture fees don't want to confront those sins. And of course, morality that you apply only when it is personally convenient and lucrative is no morality at all.

I'm even less impressed with Bennett as a gambler. Some reports say he's dropped around eight million at the slots and his defenders say that's okay because he can afford it. Of course, he can afford it because he's never tried telling the right-wing demographic anything it didn't want to hear, but let's leave that aside. His tepid claim that "Over 10 years, I'd say I've come out pretty close to even" is the kind of thing every losing gambler says to his friends, and even himself, rather than admit to major losses. Clearly, based on his other statements, he has not come out pretty close to even. If he were, he'd be releasing tax records today to prove it. What's more troubling is that losing eight million (by some estimates) mainly on slot machines is indicative of something quite ugly. Poor and middle-class people play the slots because it affords them the possibility, however remote, of changing their lives with a Big Win. Rich people usually play Blackjack or some other game where there's some sense that you actually triumph for a reason other than dumb luck. When they play slots, it's either because they like being pampered with the royal treatment that casinos give their big slot losers, or because they're chasing some elusive thrill. Since Mr. Bennett is already chauffeured about and treated as a celebrity in his day-to-day life, and since he's not looking to hit a jackpot so he can quit his job and buy a new house, we're left with filling...well, the kind of need that Bill Bennett would condemn you for if you filled it with sex, drugs or rock-and-roll. No wonder he was such a lousy Drug Czar.

• Posted at 1:46 PM · LINK