Category Archives: Well Worth Reading

Why I Oppose Chicago 2016

But based on the existing evidence I think a little skepticism is warranted: if there are cost overruns, or if no developer steps forward with $1 billion to pour into a speculative housing deal in the middle of the greatest housing crash since the Great Depression, then guess what, Chicago? You’ll be covering the balance. Money that could go to schools, parks, police, and firefighters will be diverted to the Olympic effort—including the $10.5 million the bid says will spent coming up with a mascot. Plus, Daley is expecting residents to give up something at least as precious as public money: public space. Only he’s not being up front about it—he’s pretending that we don’t have to be inconvenienced at all.

-Ben Joravsky, The $10.5 Million Mascot, Chicago Reader

The arguments for stating the 2016 Olympics in Chicago are similar to when a big-league team begs for money for their new stadium. “Net gain!” they say. “It’ll create jobs. Bring in tourists.”

Well, profit doesn’t always materialize, even in good times, much less an economic meltdown. And Chicago hasn’t shown itself to be capable of managing costs or timelines for big projects.

The Olympics sound exciting, but I’d rather spend the money on our schools, streets, parks, public transit and other projects that will benefit residents more than Mayor Daley’s ego.

Some Sanity on Michael Phelp’s Bong Hits

The oft-crazy columnist Kathleen Parker offers a sane response to photographs of Michael Phelps hitting a bong, taking on at the same time the senselessness of our marijuana laws.

Understandably, parents worry that their kids will emulate their idol, but the problem isn’t Phelps, who is, in fact, an adult. The problem is our laws — and our lies.

Obviously, children shouldn’t smoke anything, legal or otherwise. Nor should they drink alcoholic beverages, even though their parents might.

There are good reasons for substance restrictions for children that need not apply to adults.

That’s the real drug message that should inform our children and our laws, rather than the nonsense that currently passes for drug information.

Today’s anti-drug campaigns are slightly wonkier than yesterday’s “Reefer Madness,” but equally likely to become party hits rather than drug deterrents. One recent ad produced by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy says: “Hey, not trying to be your mom, but there aren’t many jobs out there for potheads.” Whoa, dude, except maybe, like, president of the United States.

Taibbi Takes Down Friedman (Again)

Writer Matt Taibbi provides another hilarious takedown of a Tom Friedman book, this time skewering the mustachioed moron’s latest effort, “Hot, Flat and Crowded.” Friedman’s hypocrisy and obtuseness are given ample space, but the best lines engage the billionaire New York Times columnist’s raging malapropisms.

 

(Taibbi summed up Friedman as follows while eviscerating his previous book, “The World Is Flat”:

[Friedman] has an anti-ear, and it’s absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that’s guaranteed, every single time. He never misses.)

This time, it’s even easier for Taibbi:

My initial answer to that is that Friedman’s language choices over the years have been highly revealing: When a man who thinks you need to break a vase to get the water out of it starts arguing that you need to invade a country in order to change the minds of its people, you might want to start paying attention to how his approach to the vase problem worked out. Thomas Friedman is not a president, a pope, a general on the field of battle or any other kind of man of action. He doesn’t actually do anything apart from talk about shit in a newspaper. So in my mind it’s highly relevant if his manner of speaking is fucked.

Virtual Fold-Ins

I wrote back in April about the New York Times profile of renowned Mad magazine fold-in artist Al Jaffee, but I just noticed that they digitized a number of his fold-ins (you can even drag them into proper position using your mouse…ohhh, interactivity!)

Not all of the subject matter holds up; I prefer the earlier, anti-Vietnam stuff (and what’s up with the New York Times’ statement that “The Whitewater scandal haunted the Clinton White House for years”? Shouldn’t that be “scandal”?).

Still, it’s a fun selection from an incredible career.

Zadie Smith Loves Monty Python

From the New Yorker, “Dead Man Laughing” is a personal essay by author Zadie Smith exploring her family’s fondness for British comedy. Her father, a lifelong “comedy nerd,” memorizes sitcom tapes and sketch LPs with the avidity of a collector. The darkness and resignation of British humor gives him a context to engage his own disappointments, all the way to the end.

“Genealogically speaking, Harvey had his finger on the pulse of British comedy, for Hancock begot Basil Fawlty, and Fawlty begot Alan Partridge, and Partridge begot the immortal David Brent. And Hancock and his descendants served as a constant source of conversation between my father and me, a vital link between us when, class-wise, and in every other wise, each year placed us farther apart. As in many British families, it was university wot dunnit. When I returned home from my first term at Cambridge, we couldn’t discuss the things I’d learned, about Anna Karenina, or G. E. Moore, or Gawain and his staggeringly boring Green Knight, because Harvey had never learned them—but we could always speak of Basil.”

After her father’s passing, Smith shifts the second half of the article to her brother’s attempts to become a stand-up comedian. In chronicling his efforts, she examines the framework of stand-up comedy, exploring how comedians create their material and often, finally, desert their craft in anger and sadness.

“Audiences love death-defiers like [Russell] Kane. It’s what they pay their money for, after all: laughs per minute. They tend to be less fond of those comedians who have themselves tired of the non-stop laughter and pine for a little silence. I want to call it “comedy nausea.” Comedy nausea is the extreme incarnation of what my father felt: not only is joke-telling a cheap art; the whole business of standup is, in some sense, a shameful cheat. For a comedian of this kind, I imagine it feels like a love affair gone wrong. You start out wanting people to laugh in exactly the places you mean them to laugh, then they always laugh where you want them to laugh—then you start to hate them for it. Sometimes the feeling is temporary. The comedian returns to standup and finds new joy in, and respect for, the art of death-defying. Sometimes, as with Peter Cook (voted, by his fellow-comedians, in a British poll, the greatest comedian of all time), comedy nausea turns terminal, and only the most difficult laugh in the world will satisfy. Toward the end of his life, when his professional comedy output was practically nil, Cook made a series of phone calls to a radio call-in show, using the pseudonym Sven from Swiss Cottage (an area of northwest London), during which he discussed melancholy Norwegian matters in a thick Norwegian accent, arguably the funniest and bleakest “work” he ever did.”