Monthly Archives: July 2012

I thought this bit of writing from Andrew Sullivan was worth grabbing and putting up here. I suspect he's implying that he belongs in this list and he probably does…

One of the less observed features of the last few years has, in fact, been the intellectual honesty of conservatives like Posner or Greenspan or Bartlett or Frum. Each one of them, unlike so many who pass for conservative intellectuals these days, has his own view of the world, formed by independent thinking and study – often in the face of institutional liberal disdain. And they have shrewdly concluded that the last few years have shown that unregulated capitalism can be a serious problem, that markets do not automatically govern themselves, that the ideology of three decades ago might need revisiting in the face of the catastrophe of the Bush-Cheney years, which all but exploded the logic of neoconservatism and its domestic partner-in-crime, supply side economics. One was voodoo foreign policy, the other voodoo economics. Reality – simple empirical reality – exposed their glaring flaws.

An actual conservative will learn from this and adjust. The raving loons in the GOP base – precisely because they have no serious thinking behind them – will double-down on their fantasies, empowered by partisan hatred. And that's why the GOP needs to be defeated this fall. For the sake of an honest conservatism.

The original Los Angeles Playboy Club was opened on New Year's Eve of 1964 at 8560 Sunset Boulevard, where the parent company had its L.A. offices.  At times, a large bunny logo was projected on the side of the building.  That logo was a fixture of The Strip and it also made a statement about the changing times or the new sexual freedom of Hollywood…or something like that.  I never set foot in the place but I always heard it was filled with middle-aged men who came to ogle the Bunnies and to act out the fantasy that being a member made you as hip as Hef.  I also heard that the parking was abominable.

In 1972, when the ABC Entertainment Center opened in Century City, the Playboy Club was relocated to a lovely room nestled under the Shubert Theater.  I was given a free membership in 1981 (courtesy of Hef himself) and I couldn't resist going a few times, partly to see the Bunnies, partly to see what the Playboy Club experience was all about…and partly to see some of the oddest dinner show entertainment in town.  I dunno who booked the room or what was on their minds but the shows all evoked what I call the Springtime for Hitler look.  At times, it was like they were searching for people who actually did the kind of thing Bill Murray had parodied on Saturday Night Live.

The oddest was a lady…and given her act, it's ironic that I don't recall her name.  But I'd never heard of her before and I'm pretty sure I've never heard of her since.  Her act was all what I call "Ego Songs."  Every one was about her: "I've Got the Music In Me," "I've Gotta Be Me," "This is My Life," "My Way," "I'll Make My Own World," etc.  It was a variation on what the eminent philosopher Daffy Duck once called "pronoun trouble."  Between the songs, she talked about — surprise, surprise — herself and her career, as if any of that was of vital interest to us.  Then for her closer, she pulled out all stops and performed what still stands as the single greatest example of Excessive Ego I have ever seen on a stage.

The great singer-songwriter Peter Allen once wrote a tune called, "Quiet Please, There's a Lady on Stage."  It was about Judy Garland, who was recently deceased when he wrote it.  She was also his mother-in-law.  It's a nice little tribute tune that quietly asks that people remember Ms. Garland (even though she is not named in the song) and to understand that despite her occasional public shortcomings, she was a great person.  A very touching number.

Well, the woman at The Playboy Club closed with that song.  Only she changed some lyrics and the emphasis of others and made it about herself.  There's a line that goes, "Stand for the ovation," and she kept singing it over and over, commanding us to give her a standing ovation.  People finally did, just so she'd shut up and end the show.  If we hadn't, we'd all still be there listening to her screaming out, "Stand for the ovation."  Then she took a tearful, humble bow, left the stage and came around to each table for praise, to offer autographs and to pass out business cards that told us where we could order her new album.  Even the Bunnies in the room were muttering, "How can she parade around like that?"

The entertainment at The Playboy Club wasn't all dreadful.  I remember one peppy dance revue that included ten or fifteen minutes of great stand-up comedy by a young Hispanic guy I'd never heard of before.  First time I ever saw Paul Rodriguez.

Food at The Playboy Club was a mixed blessing…edible but not worth the price.  The best thing was the steak and it came with a lavishly-produced baked potato.  Your Serving Bunny would roll a cart to your table loaded down with toppings — butter, sour cream, bacon bits, chives, salsa, etc.  A very big deal was made out of having your baker dressed precisely the way you liked it.  My Serving Bunnies were always disheartened that I just wanted a little butter and I sometimes let them add bacon bits not because I like them on a potato but because I couldn't stand to disappoint a beautiful woman.  The service was pretty decent except that Bunnies always had to keep dashing off to other tables to join in a chorus of "Happy birthday" and the presentation of a little bunny cake with a candle in it.  Some nights, it seemed every single table there was someone's birthday outing.

What I think killed The Playboy Clubs — or at least, that one — was that anybody could go to them…and did. There was nothing special about the clientele.  You didn't look around and see a younger, hipper throng.  You saw a crowd that apart from the absence of children, could have been at the Sizzler.  I once asked a Bunny I knew there how often Hef came around. She said, "About once a year for some special press conference or event." Then, letting me in on a secret that could have cost her her tail, she told me, "He usually doesn't stay for dinner but when he has to, he has his own chef come in and prepare his meal special."

I started to really feel like an exploited tourist when I went there.  The name, prices and "club" premise promised something more than a mediocre restaurant with bad entertainment and good-looking waitresses in what looked like uncomfortable costumes…but that's all you got.  My research failed to turn up the date when the Century City club closed and I think I know why that information is so elusive.  It's because when it happened, nobody cared.

DNSChanger is a piece of malware (i.e., virus) that's supposed to be infecting millions of computers at the moment. If you have it on your computer, it will stop connecting to the Internet on Monday.

To find out if your computer is infected, go to this page. It will probably give you, as it gave me, a clean bill o' health. But if it doesn't and/or you want to learn more, go to this page.

[NOTE: This is a revised post. I got the story wrong, then received a flood of messages telling me I got it wrong. It is now right.]

Every time we have a blizzard in this country, I always see some yahoo on TV saying something like, "Well, so much for that stupid theory about Global Warming." Every single scientific piece about Global Warming always explained that its impact would be colder colds and hotter hots and wetter wets and drier dries. So a record-setting snowstorm would not be proof that Global Warming was a hoax. If anything, it would be an indicator (though not definitive proof) of the opposite.

Now we have parts of this country sweltering under record heat spells. How come none of the folks who thought record cold disproved Global Warming are out there saying, "Hmm…maybe there is something to this Global Warming stuff"? Why aren't they out there saying that?

I'm not sure why it is but I'll take a wild guess. Could it be that it's because they're idiots?

Our buddy Pete Barbutti and his struggles with the Chicago Mass Transit System…

Kevin Drum discusses how, as most of us well know, a lot of people oppose "Obamacare" because the misinformation campaign has made them misinformed.

I think a lot of them are operating on the same mentality as the N.R.A. types who are convinced Obama intends to take away everyone's guns. When it's pointed out that he hasn't made the slightest move in that direction, they not only don't change their minds about his intentions, they seize on that as proof he's determined to do it. A few weeks ago, a right-wing friend was telling me he opposes the Affordable Care Act because it allows the government to assign him a doctor and he'll have to leave the one he likes and go with that one. I told him the A.C.A. explicitly says it can't do that. He just shrugged and said, "But once they have their structure in place, you know that's what they'll do."

It's a great way to oppose any legislation. You don't have to not like what's in it. You don't even have to know what's in it. You can just oppose it because of what "they" might pass next even though there's no indication that "they" want to. Me, I'm against banning plastic grocery bags because you just know the obvious next step is to ban all groceries.

P.S. I forgot to mention two things in my foreword…which for some reason is in the middle of the book. One is that I did the design of photos on the Table of Contents page. Not that that's a big deal but I was identifying who did what and omitted that.

Also, people often ask me why DC printed it in dark blue ink. It wasn't Jack's idea.  The first he knew of it was when he received the "make-ready," which is what they called a printer's proof that was sent to you for your "approval" after it was too late to change anything. He called up DC and asked why they'd printed it in blue ink and at first, he couldn't find anyone who'd own up to the decision; not even folks who'd had to okay such a thing. Finally, one person told him it had been decided in a production meeting. Jack had been arguing that the book should be printed in color, not in black-and-white. The cost differential wasn't that huge but DC had no confidence in the project and had decided to save the modest amount.

In the meeting (we were told), someone said, "You know, Jack keeps telling us this book should be in color." So someone else said, "Okay, to shut him up, let's print it in a colored ink" and that's why it was dark-blue-and-white instead of black-and-white. It was — need I add? — not what Mr. Kirby had in mind. I think one of us said, "Well, at least they didn't pick yellow!"

I just received my copy of Spirit World, a slim new hardcover from DC Comics reprinting the material prepared by Jack Kirby (with a smidgen of aid from Steve Sherman and myself) for an aborted magazine experiment back in 1971. You can read how it all came about and what happened in my introduction in the book or you can read this account by my buddy Bob Greenberger. Better still, read both.

I always thought this was great material…and I say that as someone who deserves zero credit for any greatness. It would have been even better if Jack had been allowed to do the project the way he wanted and if we hadn't had to throw the first issue together in, as I recall, about three weeks. But it's still nice work on Jack's part and it pained me at the time that the whole thing crashed and burned even before it had ever reached any of the few newsstands on which it appeared. DC has done a fine job reproducing it and it's all a very nice package, one that made me happy to receive. I suppose it's a testimony to Jack's enduring popularity and talents that even something that was at one time regarded as (arguably) his biggest flop is now deemed worthy of issuance as a deluxe hardcover.

Take a look at it and consider buying one. I don't make a nickel more no matter how well it sells but it tickles me that people are purchasing it now…and if my mail is any indication, enjoying the heck out of it.

The forecast for San Diego calls for highs around 80 and lows around 64 the entire time. Since the convention center is on the wharf, it should be a few degrees cooler than that but not much. At the moment, the chance of any precipitation looks to be zero and the humidity should be mild except around Stan Lee.

Let me remind all attendees: If the noise and the recycled air in the room begin to get to you, it's possible to go outside the hall without encountering security guards or mobs of people outside smoking. Take any escalator to an upper floor of the convention center and go out back. There are some lovely terraces out there with fresh air, places to sit in the sun or shade and a great, peaceful view of the harbor. I've been known to duck out there for five minutes between back-to-back panels because the change of atmosphere is refreshing. You are not a prisoner of the convention. Don't act like one.

The lovely Shelly Goldstein, whose recent birthday I managed to forget, sent me this link. It's Groucho Marx presenting awards at the 1968 Tony ceremony and no, I don't get some of the references either…

William Saletan tracks Mitt Romney's "evolving" (i.e., changing with the winds) stance on whether a mandate is a tax or a tax is a mandate or if either is bad or whatever.

Seems to me the flip-flop since the SCOTUS decision worked like this: The Supremes said 5-4 that the mandate of "Obamacare" was really a tax. Romney's forces decided they had to argue against that because then people would say, "Oh, then when Romney championed that mandate in Massachusetts, he was raising taxes." And "raising taxes" is an obscenity with Romney's base. It's fine with them to spend money on things like wars and oil subsidies and plunge us into further debt that could/should be paid for with a tax hike. And it's bad but not that horrible to impose a mandate that some must pay, just so long as it's not imposed by a Democrat. But "raising taxes," regardless of the amount or purpose, is evil. So the Romney camp felt they had to argue that the fees that a small group of people (mostly rich ones) must pay under the Affordable Care Act were not "taxes."

And then some Republican strategists decided that it would serve them better if those fees were considered "taxes." Then they could argue that Obama had broken his promise not to raise taxes on the Middle and Lower Class. With these folks, the only thing worse than raising taxes is breaking your promise not to raise taxes because then you're not only a tax-hiker, you're a liar and we can't believe anything you say about anything. So Romney had to come out and say it was a tax and in order to do that, he had to develop a silly explanation that no one believes (but many will try and sell) that what he did in Massachusetts was still a mandate.

What I think Obama oughta do is take a quote out of this article I just linked to. When asked about raising taxes, he oughta point out that few will be paying the amounts and then add…

I can't really explain this any better than Mitt Romney did when they asked him about the tax penalties he instituted in Massachusetts to pay for its very effective health care plan. He said, and I quote, "We said, 'Look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way. Don't be free riders and pass on the cost to your health care to everybody else.'"

And it's starting to look like the G.O.P. strategy will be to try and convince everyone that they'll lose their homes paying for this TAX that goes to pay for health care for illegal aliens. Oh, and about those Death Panels…

Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark is still playing on Broadway, doing much better box office than its makers probably expected at some points. There's apparently even a plan afoot to break out a touring company or open the show in another city or something…and no, I still haven't seen it. I was going to say, "I'm still waiting for one friend who has seen it to tell me they liked it" and that would be true…but I also haven't been anywhere near New York lately.

The production probably set some record for budget overruns but as Playbill notes, it's also set a record for the most lawsuits connected with any Broadway show. Here's a timeline.

About once a month, I'm contacted by someone — usually a reporter — who wants my aid in arranging for them to interview Steve Ditko, the co-creator of Spider-Man. I always tell them I doubt anyone can arrange that but if someone can, it sure isn't me. I corresponded with Mr. Ditko for a while and spent parts of two days with him in 1970 but had a falling-out with him in the early eighties and that was that.

He's adopted a policy of not allowing photos or interviews…and depending on his mood, he may or may not talk or correspond on an informal basis with those who call or write him. Usually the answer to even that is some polite version of "Leave me alone." Most of those who've had contact with him in the last decade or so seem to have concluded it's all a matter of quirky eccentricities disguised as claimed principles.

In the meantime, reporters who contact me are often convinced that their fierce determination and professionalism will trump whatever it is; that they will be the person to whom Ditko "opens up" and tells all. Hasn't happened, doubt it ever will. But the less the reporter knows about comics, the more determined he or she always seems to be that they will break through to him and succeed where others have failed.

Reed Tucker knows a lot about comics — though I believe his factual recital of the creation of Spider-Man (the part where he tells the parts he believes to be undisputed) is wrong. But he did make a good try to chat with Ditko and all he got out of it was a story about how you can't chat with Ditko.

In a way, it's a shame. The man has every right, of course, to refuse publicity and interviews but it's one of the reasons so many people think Stan Lee created Spider-Man all by himself. From Ditko's occasional letters in print, it's obvious this bothers him greatly…and it would bother anyone. But Lee is a great interview and Ditko is a non-interview and if you don't wave to the search party, there's a real good chance they're going to overlook you. I don't expect this to ever change. And nowadays when I talk about the many injustices in how the comic book industry has shorted major talents on money and/or credit, I've moved Ditko way down the list.