Monthly Archives: May 2011

Steve Martin tells you all you need to know about the 72 Virgins.

Three more thoughts about the previous item…

I think a lot of folks are trying to read too much into that photo and I hope I'm not one of them. The gent at KTLA in the video came to the conclusion that "Brig. Gen. Marshall B. 'Brad' Webb seems to the running the live feed [since] he is the ONLY one looking down." Well, the only one looking down in this photo. There are clearly other people in the room, including whoever was manning the laptop next to Joe Biden. One of them could have been running the live feed and Webb could have been playing Angry Birds or reading newsfromme.com.

Secondly, it's no surprise they ran this operation on PCs. I mean, a MAC is fine if you want to draw cute little pictures but if you're planning on assassinating any "most wanted" terrorists, you need to be on a PC. With Windows Vista at the least. I wonder if the Hewlett-Packard people are staring at this photo, trying to think of some way to use it in an ad.

Lastly, Hillary Clinton's expression makes you think they're watching someone being shot or something equally jarring. She said this might just have been "one of my early spring allergic coughs." I wish she hadn't felt the need to say that. It may have been true but my guess is she's worried that some day when she runs for President, someone's going to haul that photo out and say, "See? In a time where leadership was needed, she reacted like an onlooker in a bad horror movie." That will be unfair and ridiculous but a lot of people think the President of the United States shouldn't ever be shocked by anything. One assumes she did not select this photo to be among the ones that were released.

Hi, I'm Mark Evanier and this is Just Kinda Wondering…

The other day, I was called by one of those robo-calling pollsters, Survey U.S.A. It was about the offing of Mister Bin Laden and the possible responses from me were like, "Press 1 if you think it will be good for this country that he is dead, Press 2 if you think it will be bad." You've probably gotten one or more of these. Anyway, I gave the answers that readers of this blog can probably guess I gave, then I was asked whether I was a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, etc. I gave the proper answer (Democrat) but before I did, I wondered for a half-second if I shouldn't say "Republican." My thought, I guess, was that I'd like to see more Republicans give Obama proper credit, agree with his actions, etc. It would be nice to see a poll say that they did because that might get some momentum going in that direction.

I answered honestly but it got me to pondering: How many people tell pollsters not the truth but what they think will help their side?

The latest Washington Post poll says that 14% of Republican now think Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. That's down from 31% the previous time that poll asked that question, which was prior to the release of his long-form birth certificate. So I'm wondering how many of those really and truly believe it…

I'm wondering how many of that 14% figure he was probably born in Hawaii but they don't like the guy and don't want to see him elected again and figure, "Well, I'll just give the answer that hurts him the most." That would be "outside the U.S."

And at the same time, I'm looking at that 17% that shifted and mulling how many of them thought, "Oh, I'm pretty sure he was born in Kenya but we'll never convince America and this thing is hurting the party and making us all look like lunatics. Let's give him this one and hammer him on the economy instead."

To be clear, I'm not asking about only Republicans or about any one poll. I'm thinking that a lot of people when asked their opinion on some volatile issue, give the answer that will help their side, regardless of what they really feel. You feel momentarily empowered when a pollster calls you. Your ability to influence the world may still be microscopic but it's bigger than it was before that phone rang. Why waste it with the truth? Why not take this opportunity to send a teensy message? After all, important and influential people read poll results, right?

I'm thinking we could do a survey to find out how many people think people give honest answers in polls. Of course then, we'd be unsure how many people who responded to that poll were saying what they really felt.

Thanks for listening. For Just Kinda Wondering, I'm Mark Evanier.

The fine author Neil Gaiman recently found himself the target of a very silly politician — the kind that discredits his own position via childish behavior. In this case, it involved calling Neil a "pencil-necked little weasel" and a thief. The "pencil-necked" part is kind of odd. I mean, I know Neil and I've seen his neck…and apart from having "Dixon Ticonderoga" imprinted on it and few teeth marks, it didn't look particularly like a pencil to me. His ears, however, do look very much like erasers.

As for the "weasel" part, Neil donated the money he allegedy stole to charity, which doesn't sound like the kind of thing a weasel does. It doesn't even seem like something a thief usually does.

The person who did this name-calling is Minnesota House Majority Leader Matt Dean…and he's apologized for the pencil-necked stuff but he seems to be sticking with his main charge, which is that it was theft for Neil to accept a large speaking fee for a recent appearance. The money was offered to Neil and he accepted it and delivered the speech…and no, I really don't see how that translates to theft. I mean, you might be able to argue that it shouldn't have been offered but if that's your position, take it up with those who did the offering.

Neil, like anyone else who is in demand for speaking engagements, has an established price and they didn't call up and ask him to appear for free or for less. They offered his price or something close to it. (If you read the accounts, it's a little puzzling what the amount is. If I read Neil correctly, he says he usually gets $45,000 and that they offered $40,000 and he actually got $33,600. Nonetheless, Dean is accusing him of stealing $45,000. Someone needs to quote to that man the line in William Goldman's The Princess Bride that goes "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.")

If I were a Minnesotan represented by Matt Dean, I'd be worried that he doesn't understand a simple concept like what "theft" is and also that he can't tell the difference between $45,000 and $33,600. It's very hard to manage a financial crisis, such as every state has, when you think different numbers are equal. And if I were a Republican, which is what Mr. Dean purports to be, I'd be wondering what he has against private individuals being allowed to set the asking prices for their services. Dean reportedly has a number of proposals for controlling health care costs. I wonder if any of them are that pharmaceutical companies should not be paid the full price they set for prescription drugs and they're "stealing" if the state offers that and they accept.

Obviously, I'm utterly on Neil's side on this (you can read his views on it all here) and I'm glad to see he seems to find it all as amusing as he should. He won't lose one admirer over this, which is more than I can say for Matt Dean.

Stooge expert Brent Seguine just sent me some corrections on the history of Kooks Tour and I updated the item to reflect those. Thanks, Brent.

There seems to be a debate going on as to whether the White House should release photos and footage of the death of Osama Bin Laden and maybe his "burial" at sea. It seems to me that in the era of WikiLeaks, that's not the question. The question is whether that stuff's going to get out via an official, Obama-approved release…or whether it's going to mysteriously turn up one day on some untraceable website and quickly go viral with the White House saying, "We didn't do it and we're outraged that someone got hold of it…" These days, you don't have to release something to release it.