Monday, May 7, 2007

About Vinnie

Over on his blog, Eddie Campbell defends the much-maligned Vince Colletta, the late comic book artist whose work is so vilified these days by connoisseurs. I guess I'm one of the main vilifiers and I'd be lying if I said I'm ashamed of that. In fact, I don't think I've ever gotten through a major comic convention without someone coming up to me and bestowing thanks for my role in getting Jack Kirby to dump Colletta as his inker around 1971. It could easily be my greatest contribution to the world of comics...not that it has a whole lot of competition for that honor.

I've written a kind of rebuttal to Eddie but it's long and since so many who come to this blog will have zero interest in it, I've posted it over on this page. If you do care about such things, click on over there to read it.

• Posted at 10:43 PM · LINK

Puzzling Prez

A few years ago, I broke the filthy, disgusting habit that is the New York Times crossword puzzle. With the newly-freed time I suddenly gained from this, I began leaving my house and sometimes even earning a living. But I couldn't resist having a go at this one, the clues for which were authored by the famed crossword enthusiast, William Jefferson Clinton. I was especially amused by 116 Down. The clue is "A party I don't attend" and the answer is three letters, starting with "G" and ending with "P." Hmm...GAP? GYP?

• Posted at 10:03 AM · LINK

Today's Video Link

Tonight, the American version of Deal or No Deal airs its 100th episode. I was intrigued by this program when it first went on the air. Many of my friends dismissed it as a mindless game show. "You don't have to know anything," they said...and they were right for the most part. But I still found it intriguing for the situations its presented, and I liked the way Howie Mandel handled the proceedings.

My interest in it came and went, and some time around Show #50, it really plunged. I still have the TiVo set to grab episodes but I rarely watch much more than the first three and last five minutes of any game. When the big numbers are eliminated early, I don't even watch that much. There have been a lot of those games — probably more than the producers like — and I guess that when they keep touting a potential million dollar win, you get spoiled. All the padding and stalling and dramatic music really wear on you when the most the player can win is a measly $25,000. (On an episode last night, a lady opened all the large amounts long before the end. She ultimately won a dollar, setting a new record "low.")

I've also come to find the value system of the show to be occasionally vapid. I have no trouble with what some see as the "greed" aspect of it. I don't view it that way. As in any negotiation or any investment, there's a time to get out and a time to stay in, and success hinges on finding that sweet spot between too early and too late. That's one of the things that's compelling about the show. A friend of mine, commenting on last night's big $1 winner said, "She should have quit while she was ahead." Yeah, but she was "ahead" after the first offer. That's not what the game is about.

What I do find silly is the idea that you pick, say, Case #8...and then it's a sign of courage or something admirable to keep saying, "I'm absolutely certain the million dollars is in my case." Uh, why? It's one thing to have confidence in your new invention or your new screenplay or your new strategy. I'm not sure it's always admirable to have blind faith in something like that but at least it's faith in your skill or talent or cleverness or informed judgment. I don't get the point of having faith in your random choice.

But then I've never believed there's a lot of value in blind optimism. The few times I watched Fear Factor, I was repulsed way before they got to the part where the contestants eat fried mule anus. At the beginning, six contestants are all saying over and over, "I will win, I will win, failure in not an option." Well, it's not only an option...it's the future for five of them. Five of them are going to lose. I'm all for positive thinking but I've never felt there was any value to believing your victory is predestined. I've always found that if you're aware of the possibility of failure and realistic about its probability, you can do more to avoid it.

Deal or No Deal also has an odd admiration for the taking of risks. In fact, they seem to have instructed the "advisors" — the friends who come along to coach the contestant and root them on to financial victory — to keep saying, "Remember...you're a risk-taker!" Contestants are picked to be on the show because they're not wealthy or successful, and winning a hundred grand or more would truly change their lives. So if they're "risk-takers," taking risks hasn't gotten them very far in the past. More to the point, if there's a skill to playing Deal or No Deal, it comes from knowing when not to be a "risk-taker." There are points where picking another case represents very little possible loss so you go on...and then there are points where one wrong selection and you're going home with chump change. So you stop.

In spite of all this, there's still something I find mesmerizing about the game especially when — as the American version hasn't in its first 99 shows — it gets down to a choice between the top prize and a far lower one. (I think the only time any U.S. player had only two cases left and one held a million, the other was $750,000...so there wasn't a whole heap of suspense there.) The show however is produced in local versions all over the world...including a Canadian version hosted by Howie Mandel!

The following clip is from the British version, where the host (or "presenter," as they call him) is a man named Noel Edmonds. The show differs a bit from the American version in that there are no lovely models. They bring in 22 contestants and each selects a case at random. Then one of those people is chosen to play the game and pick the other cases, one by one. It'll all become clear in the clip but the main thing you need to know is that the folks opening the cases in lieu of the models are contestants who weren't selected to play this round. Also, of course, the top prize is in pounds — it's £250,000. Last time I looked, the British pound was worth a hair under two bucks in American money so 250,000 of them is the equivalent of a little under a half million clams U.S. If that seems horribly lower than the usual top prize in this country of a million dollars, remember that on the American show, the top prize is in one out of 26 cases, not 22, so the odds are a little different.

But enough of this. Here's what happened on the British Deal or No Deal in January of this year...

• Posted at 12:45 AM · LINK

Recommended Reading

You think people hated George Tenet before? Wait'll they read the article by Tim Shorrock over at Salon. I'll quote just a little so you can see what the new scandal is...

While the swirl of publicity around his book has focused on his long debated role in allowing flawed intelligence to launch the war in Iraq, nobody is talking about his lucrative connection to that conflict ever since he resigned from the CIA in June 2004. In fact, Tenet has been earning substantial income by working for corporations that provide the U.S. government with technology, equipment and personnel used for the war in Iraq as well as the broader war on terror.

When Tenet hit the talk-show circuit last week to defend his stewardship of the CIA and his role in the run-up to the war, he did not mention that he is a director and advisor to four corporations that earn millions of dollars in revenue from contracts with U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense. Nor is it ever mentioned in his book. But according to public records, Tenet has received at least $2.3 million from those corporations in stock and other compensation.

In the past week, people who ordinarily can't agree what month of the year it is have been united in their distaste for Mr. Tenet. I'm not sure if all of them can get worked up over the issue of war profiteering. It seems to be the kind of issue that should inspire outrage and doesn't. But this sure won't help Tenet's image.

• Posted at 12:44 AM · LINK