Monthly Archives: March 2016

How are socks made? And where can I buy one of those vacuum devices that turns the socks inside-out?

Writing about Al Jaffee reminded me of a question that keeps popping up in my writing — a question of proper punctuation and style…

As we all know, it is customary to underline or italicize the name of a book or magazine or a newspaper. Most authoritative guides will tell you that when typing out the name of a publication, you don't italicize or underline a "The" even if one is part of the name.  For instance, you're supposed to write the New York Times and not The New York Times…or the Saturday Evening Post, not The Saturday Evening Post.  This is one of those cases where I usually will sometimes purposely defy the rule and I'll capitalize and underline the "The" just because it looks righter to me. And yes, I know "righter" isn't a word. Neither is "wanna" or "dunno" a lot of other warpings of English that I employ.

Okay. So there's this magazine called MAD. For some reason, it has become very common to capitalize its name and type it as MAD. I dunno who started this but I wanna figure something else out. Almost always, people refer to it as "MAD" followed by the word "magazine" but the "magazine" part is not really part of its name. So assuming we buy into the capitalization of the first part,  tell me the correct way to type it in a sentence such as this: "Al Jaffee is still drawing for _______."

1. MAD magazine
2. MAD Magazine
3. MAD magazine
4. MAD Magazine

I looked up examples on the web for MAD and also for Time and Life and other publications which are usually referred to with the word "magazine" appended.  It seems to be handled all of these ways but most often #2.  But I've never seen any style manual that would dictate that form.  So what does anyone think?

Senator Orrin Hatch thinks Merrick Garland would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice but not if appointed by Barack Obama. Recently, he explained his position on the New York Times editorial page. And recently, historian Mark S. Byrnes explained why Hatch is wrong in just about everything he asserts.

In the meantime, as many as 16 Republican senators seem willing to at least meet with Garland to discuss his suitability…which means some of them are worried that Republican intransigence in this matter is going to hurt them at the ballot box. I didn't think Obama was going to win this one but now I'm not so sure.

Last night, DC Entertainment threw a big birthday party in New York for Al Jaffee, who is 95 years old. Of course, if you fold-in that number, he's only 14…or about the mental age you need to be a successful cartoonist. Al — who still creates his Fold-In page each month for MAD and does other things as well — is a successful cartoonist and has been for a long time.

How long? Well, a highlight of last night's celebration was this announcement: The folks who compile the Guinness Book of World Records have now certified Al as the record holder for the longest career as a professional comics artist. It's 73 years and 3 months…and it grows greater with each passing day.

This certification was the result of extensive research into Al's long time at the drawing table, plus statements of support from prominent experts in the field, myself included. I wish I could have been there last night but I am annoyingly proud to have helped make that recognition possible.

The room at Sardi's was packed with Al's friends and co-workers, plus New York City Major Bill de Blasio was there to officially declare March 30th, 2016 as Al Jaffee Day in New York. I hope they had the decency to close the banks and have a big parade with everyone yelling out Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions. You can see photos of the event over at Tom Richmond's site.

Here at newsfromme.com, we believe that you can't watch the presidential election without watching the electoral college. When someone tells me that So-and-So "has momentum" or is a "breakthrough candidate" or anything like that, my question is "Which states will they carry?" Because rightly or wrongly, that's how we pick our presidents.

There are several sites that track the electoral college and one of the most-watched is Larry J. Sabato's. He has just posted what I believe is his first attempt to map how things are shaking out for 2016 and he's saying that if it's Hillary v Donald, it's an electoral landslide for Hillary.

Now, obviously, a lot can and will change…but some things almost surely will not. It's just about impossible that a Republican would win California and New York just as it's almost impossible that a Democrat would win Texas and certain states in the Deep South. Either party could nominate a walrus and probably keep its "safe" states. Sabato (and others who do this) keep a careful eye on seven key "swing" states — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia. Pennsylvania used to be on that list and in the last few elections, Republicans confidently predicted victory there but fell far short.

The seven collectively represent 85 electoral votes and at the moment, Sabato and his crew think they'd all fall for Hillary. Trump would have to sweep almost all of them to win. If he did, he'd have 276. He could afford to lose New Hampshire's four votes or the six from either Iowa or Nevada but not two of the three.

Is a Trump win possible? Absolutely. There's enough wiggle room in those seven states and maybe a few others to considerably change the picture…and a map like this can even help change that picture. Those in the G.O.P. who want to dump Donald are going to be waving copies of projections like this as the best possible reason to deny Trump the nomination. Why run a guy who doesn't seem to have a credible path to victory in November?

Read this. The Donald was asked a pretty simple softball question — "In your opinion, what are the top three functions of the United States government?" — and he couldn't come up with an answer acceptable to anyone.

That's a cluelessness that deserves the rating of Full Palin. If Hillary Clinton gave an answer like that, Trump supporters would call her an idiot. But they'll ignore ignorance coming out of Donald because, you know, he talks real tough. He doesn't know what he's talking about but he talks real tough.

Speaking as I was a few items ago about great places to eat meat: If you forced me at gunpoint to name the best meal I've ever had that is still available — which exclude things my mother made — I know what I'd say. It would be the Porterhouse Steak at Peter Luger's Steakhouse in Brooklyn, especially if it was accompanied by their German Fried Potatoes. A reasonable facsimile of this masterpiece can be obtained at Wolfgang's Steakhouse in Beverly Hills and, I suppose, at the twelve other Wolfgang's around the world. Here is what this wonderful plate of cooked cow looks like…

On the other hand, Nate Silver is pretty pessimistic about Bernie Sanders' chances of winning in most of the remaining states — and winning by large enough margins to amass the necessary delegates. Silver's numbers seem to add up. So that battle could be over before June…maybe as soon as April 19 when New York votes.

I still don't have a big preference in that race. At the moment, I kinda feel Bernie would make a slightly better president but Hillary would make a slightly better candidate…but ask me tomorrow and I may think the opposite. What I really want is for one to have a clean victory — no room for the loser to claim cheating or rigging — and for the loser to congratulate and support the winner in a way that binds the party. Maybe I'm hoping for the impossible.

If you're sick of this presidential primary and just want to see the nominees get selected, you'll cringe to see Ed Kilgore explain that this probably won't happen until June 7 — which means we aren't quite halfway through this game of Candy Crush. Assuming no one (except maybe John Kasich) drops out of the race, it's going to take until then for someone to amass enough delegates to have a lock on their party's nomination — and even then, it might not happen for Donald Trump. And don't get pissed at me. I want this to be over as much as you do.

Eric Idle has written a novel about the television industry and is serializing chapters of it on the web. Here's a link to Part One, here's a link to Part Two and here's a link to Part Three. I have no idea how many chapters there will be or if they'll all be posted so don't blame me if you get hooked on it with adverse results.

A controversy that seemed unanswerable may have an answer: Which of two restaurants that claim to have invented the French Dip sandwich invented the French Dip sandwich? I'll link you to it but first, here's an encore of a message I posted here a few years back that will tell you what we're talking about…

There's a restaurant I like downtown near the train station in Los Angeles. It's called Philippe the Original and you go there for the French Dip sandwiches. They have other things on the menu but you go there for the French Dip sandwiches. They have various flavors and while the turkey and lamb are quite wonderful, the beef is the key play.

Philippe's, as most folks call it, claims to be where the French Dip sandwich was invented, more than a century ago. Another downtown L.A. restaurant called Cole's Pacific Electric Buffet also makes the same claim and I do not take sides on this most vital issue. What I do know is that I prefer the sandwiches at Philippe's, and the ambiance and accoutrements at Cole's, and that the parking at Philippe's is so much easier there, that that's where I go. (One other distinction: If you like hot mustard — and I don't — Philippe's has a homemade one that will cauterize your nose hairs.)

Philippe's is part of a grand American tradition: Restaurants that claim to have invented something iconic. If you watch the Food Network, you see such stories all the time and they all seem to have the same two components…

1. The great, legendary food item must have been invented by accident. In this case, no one sat down one day and said, "Hey, you know the best part of a beef sandwich is the juice that oozes out of the meat. What if we dipped the bread in that juice?" That kind of thing never happens. The French Dip had to be invented because someone accidentally dropped the bread into the pan of juices.
2. Then you have to have the customer who happens to be there at the time who says, "Hey, I'll eat that!" He loves it and comes back the next day to ask that the accident be repeated. Then he returns with a bunch of friends and they all like it so much that each of them returns with a bunch of friends and it grows exponentially.

That's how all these stories seem to go. Someone accidentally spilled sauteed garlic on a roll and garlic bread was invented. Someone accidentally dropped dough into boiling oil and doughnuts were invented. Someone accidentally mixed old wood shavings, confetti, lawn cuttings and rancid mayonnaise…and cole slaw was invented. Actually, I have a hard time believing any customer ever looked at cole slaw and said, "Hey, I'll eat that!" but I've actually seen people do it.  Go figure.

In this article on Philippe's, they tell the tale of the accidental dropping of the bread into the pan of juices…and incorporate the theory that the name "French Dip" came about because the customer who said, "Hey, I'll eat that!" was named French. But they also allude to a new theory which is probably closer to reality: The alleged inventor was "…looking for a way to soften day-old French bread because customers found it too hard to chew." Isn't that a more credible explanation? I think so.

Anyway, read the piece if you want to know how to make a really good French Dip Sandwich. Or better still, if you're anywhere near Union Station downtown, pop over to Philippe the Original and let some skilled, experienced hands make one for you. Just watch out for the mustard.

Okay, I'm back. That's what I ran here a few years ago. Now, here's a link to an article by investigative reporter Jackson Landers who looked into the matter. He researched the claims of the Phillipe's people and weighed them against the claims of the Cole's people. His verdict? That Philippe the Original was probably the original. And the explanation that the bread was dipped because the bread was stale seems to not be a factor.

I suppose we should be grateful to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice if only for giving us something to argue about instead of Trump v Clinton: End of Mankind. I've received a number of messages from folks telling me that the movie is wonderful and/or terrible and that anyone who says the opposite doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

And I suppose there's also something to be said for any movie that can whip up that diversity of opinion and passion. I once heard a filmmaker say, when asked what he wanted his films to not be, "Inconsequential." Since I didn't recognize the guy's name then and cannot recall it now, I guess his films were just that…but it's not a bad goal to shoot for.

Anyway, people: You don't need to write and try to convince me not to listen to those who say it's the greatest/worst thing since sprocket holes were invented. I don't see this as an issue about which I must have an opinion…and if I did, I'd go see it myself. For what it's worth, there have been lots of versions of these characters — in comics, movies, TV, everywhere — that friends of mine loved but which left me, at best, indifferent.

I'm not a particular fan of characters so much as I'm a fan of characters as done by certain creators. I like some interpretations of Superman and not others, some interpretations of Batman and not others. A point I should have made in yesterday's essay was that there's a fundamental difference between characters or properties that are controlled by their creator(s) and those that are owned by a company. When they're owned by a company, they're controlled by whoever's in charge of the company that week — who may or may not understand the property or may feel that you maximize profits by saturation-bombing, marketing various versions by various creative subcontrollers.

Some of those versions may be wonderful, some certainly will not be. Some may even lose what was great about the property in the first place. I'm not among those who believe that a character is or was always handled best by its creator(s). Other versions can be very good and can even be more popular than the original. But once a character becomes a community project, its nature changes. It becomes more hit-and-miss. It becomes something that goes from hand to hand, rather than the singular creation of one creator or one team of two or three creators.

A lot of us loved Calvin and Hobbes because of the clear, consistent vision of its sole maker, Bill Watterson. If Mr. Watterson passed away and his heirs sold his property to a big corporation, they might do some neat things with the material but they'd surely do a lot that made us cringe or feel that something we loved had been despoiled.

It helps me, as an appreciator of good work, to differentiate…to not expect all the different team-produced versions of Superman to match or be as consistently good as the best comic book versions created by tiny groups of collaborators. It also helps to remember the story of the author whose novel was made into a very bad movie.

You've probably heard this tale. Someone went to the author and said, "Oh, how could they have destroyed your wonderful novel like that?" And the author showed no anger, no despair. He just pointed to a shelf and said, "They didn't destroy my novel. My novel is sitting right on that shelf, just the way I wrote it!"

The FBI has found a way to hack into the iPhone 5C that belonged to (alleged?) terrorist Syed Farook. They probably did this by trying "1234" as a passcode. Or "SYED."

This ends a controversial lawsuit but Fred Kaplan tells us what was really going on in this dispute and why it ain't over 'til it's over.

Cookie Monster bakes — with some help from Siri…

I recommended the PBS airing of the documentary, An Honest Liar, which will tell you all about The Great Debunker, James Randi. My pal of many years Marc Wielage suggests I tell you that it's airing on the series Independent Lens. So if you search your program guide for it, you have to search for Independent Lens. Thanks, Marc.