Search Results for: trump

My longtime pal Bruce Reznick points out to me an odd convergence of covers this week on Time and Newsweek. Often, they come out with nearly-identical covers and sometimes not about the most obvious current topic. This sometimes prompts folks to speculate that the two magazines consult one another and plan such things…as if there's a reason for two competitors or even conspirators to say, "Hey, let's make it hard to tell our products apart this week." Sometimes though, their covers complement each other and provide an unintentional commentary. This week, we find Time with a cover that asks the musical question, "Are too many jobs going abroad?" I suspect the overwhelming answer to that, even from those who are downsizing employment here and outsourcing to India, is "Sure." The controversy all relates to what, if anything, can or should be done about it.

Meanwhile, Newsweek offers the world according to Donald Trump: "He's back and bigger than ever. Why we love to hear him say 'You're fired!'" As Bruce notes, the "we" in such blurbs never includes him, and it never includes me, either. At a time when even Americans with jobs rarely view them as permanent, do people really love anything about Donald Trump, especially those words? They may watch but, hey, we watched O.J. What these two covers taken together make me think is that we've really come to a day when a "job" is a short-term thing, almost like a sweepstakes, which is what the Trump show really is. If I were a young person entering the job market today, I think I'd read all these articles about low and mid-range positions disappearing and I'd think, "Hmmm…I may have a very short time to earn enough money to last me the rest of my life." We hear a lot about the decline of "traditional values" as they relate to sex. How come we don't hear more about the traditional value that you go to work for a company and try to make such a valuable contribution that you can work there until retirement age, making a good living and establishing a pension?

These are all from the same page in the L.A. Times. This one is about Ed Rosenthal, a man who was convicted of trafficking in marijuana — this, despite the fact that he was asked by state government to supply said marijuana for therapeutic use. Federal officials (i.e., John Ashcroft) have taken the position that Federal law trumps State law and that what Rosenthal did was illegal. This is not how the legal system is supposed to work.

Two men have been found guilty of making off with funds from the brief shining light of Internet businesses known as Stan Lee Media, and face at least four years in prison.  Read all about it.

It's kind of fun watching all the role reversal in the Trent Lott matter: Republicans, who two weeks ago embraced him as a vital mover and shaker of their party, want him gone.  Democrats, who stand for everything he's against (and vice-versa), see him as — in the phrase of Joshua Micah Marshall — "the gift that keeps on giving" and want him to stay.  The thing I find fascinating is based on my belief that most public political figures are basically dishonest and pander to whatever faction they believe will come through with money and support in the immediate future.  I think most of them say plenty of things that are appallingly disingenuous and/or reveal unpleasant aspects of their personal morality.  Certainly, as is now coming out, Lott has been saying such things for decades.  Usually, they pass unnoticed but every so often, the Quote Fairy comes along and arbitrarily decrees that the nation make an issue of one unfortunate remark.  Then, everyone seizes upon it to advance their interests.  Will Lott stay or will he go?  It was probably quite candid of Paul Begala, yesterday on Crossfire, to say that as an American, he thought the man should be out but, as a partisan Democrat, he wanted him there to run against.  That's the kind of moral dilemma that drives American politics, and the choice that will aid your party invariably wins out.  My guess is the Republicans' need to be rid of him will ultimately trump the Democrats' desire to retain him as their Boogeyman.  But that's just a guess…

I've been posting a lot here lately but now must turn my attention to a mess of deadlines.  So, barring those late-breaking news stories, don't expect to see much that's new here for a few days.  But rest assured you'll be in my heart and mind…

Dave Berg, a mainstay of MAD Magazine since 1957, passed away last night following several months of severe illness.  His series, "The Lighter Side of…" debuted in the magazine in 1961 and immediately became popular enough to appear in every issue, as long as Dave's health allowed him to produce it.  That meant every issue, up until just a few years ago.  It made him famous, but it was by no means all he did in comics.  Dave was born in Brooklyn in 1920, the son of a bookbinder who had once studied to become a rabbi.  A smidgen of each area seems have been passed on to young David.  He later "made" (i.e., wrote and drew) books and approached most of his work with a devout, almost Rabbinical sense of morality.  He even took to lecturing — first, his colleagues and then students on college campuses — about the Talmud.

A child prodigy, Berg won art scholarships when just a boy and got into comic books about the time comic books began appearing.  His earliest efforts were for Will Eisner's studio.  Eisner hired him to ink backgrounds and, within weeks, Berg was writing and drawing his own stories.  One — Death Patrol — drew great praise, including a fan letter from a kid named Wally Wood.  Later, when folks were calling Wood one of the great comic artists, he would cite that strip and Berg's work as a major influence.

Working at Eisner's, Berg became friendly with other artists, including young Al Jaffee, who introduced him to a circle that included Harvey Kurtzman, Will Elder and others who (along with Wood) would later form the nucleus of MAD.  Dave worked in other comics, including a long stint on the original Captain Marvel and a mess of Archie knock-offs for Stan Lee's outfit, which would later be known as Marvel.  In 1956, when recession hit the comic field, Berg tried to get work with Kurtzman, who had left MAD to start a new humor magazine called Trump.  Kurtzman told Berg he didn't need his services but suggested that MAD might.  MAD did.

Thereafter, Dave Berg appeared in over 360 issues of MAD and also wrote and drew around a dozen paperback books.  His strips featured "slice of life" jokes, many of them culled from interviewing friends and family, getting their true-life experiences on the current topic.  As a result, his work was filled with caricatures of his friends and family, with Berg himself constantly appearing as a character named Roger Kaputnik.  Some found his work corny; others deemed it filled with clever insight.  Whichever, it was clearly popular with MAD readers for a very long time and we'll miss both Dave Berg and Mr. Kaputnik.

Today's bitch about reporters is one my friends have heard out of me for years: The tendency to speak of elections in the future as if someone has a worthwhile notion of who'll be running, let alone who will win.  The next time we go to the polls to cast ballots for president is 959 days in the future.  No one has a clue who'll be running and how we'll feel about any of them by then.  Someone may die.  Someone else may get caught in a scandal of monumental proportion.  There may be more terrorist attacks or some marked victory over those who committed the last biggie.  The economy may go way, way up or way, way down.  And at least one prominent contender — you can just about bet on this one — will go out and say something so all-fired stupid as to marginalize his candidacy.

Everyone knows it's way too early to project whether Bush will run or win or, if not, who will.  But, as reporter Jack Germond once said, "We aren't paid to say, 'I don't know.'"  So they say things even when they don't know, aided by the Bush fans/detractors who are over-eager to declare that G.W.B. will win in a landslide or be ousted from office.  I especially love the pundits who say, "It's way too early to tell who'll run" and then, in the next breath, tell us not only who'll run but how many states each will carry.

Among reporters these days, one sees a tremendous personal contempt for Al Gore and an eagerness to write him off.  I am no fan of the man and hope not to see his name on my ballot.  Still, he did get more votes for President than the man currently in the White House.  I'm not sure that doesn't trump all the catty remarks about his beard (which he has now shaved-off) or wardrobe choices.  I also suspect that, at some point, the pendulum will swing back and we'll be reading of Al Gore's remarkable comeback…not that that means he'll be the Democratic nominee.

Here's one example of how things can change.  One year before the '92 election, Saturday Night Live did a sketch in which various theoretical Democratic presidential contenders debated.  The premise was that none of them wanted to be the guy who lost to Bush, and each argued that he should not be the candidate.  That's how unbeatable the previous President Bush looked then…only 365 days before Election Day.  Somehow, Bush lost that election.

Here are some more links to articles I've found on the Internet that I thought said something about the 9/11 tragedies that needed to be said.  I don't agree with every word of them but I respect the thought processes and the attempt to do something constructive.

• Don't Go Overboard by Joe Conason, Salon
• An Afghan-American Speaks by Tamim Ansary, Salon
• Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban by Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times (Note the date on this: 5/22/2001)
• Paying the Price by Paul Krugman, New York Times
• How Terror Could Break Through by Gilbert M. Gaul, James V. Grimaldi, and Joby Warrick, Washington Post
• A Wake-Up Call for the Media Oligarchy? by Arianna Huffington, Los Angeles Times Syndicate

I would also recommend keeping an eye on Slate, which has had some truly brilliant articles, and Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points.  In his latest outing, he makes a point that no one else reporting bin Laden's denials is noting…mainly, that the man is not saying he had nothing to do with the attacks; he's merely saying he didn't plan them.

In the meantime, I have some additional thoughts, which I offer here for whatever they may be worth…

• There's something strangely comforting about Jerry Falwell saying something really stupid and hate-filled.  It reminds us that, even in times of tragedy, some things never change.
• I understand why everyone from Ed Koch to Donald Trump is saying that the World Trade Center must be rebuilt.  And as long as it's important to the American spirit to not admit weakness, they will and should continue to say it.  But here, on a website where it doesn't matter, let's admit that it probably won't be.  Would you lease a suite in such a place?  More to the point, if you were the head of a large company, would you assume the responsibility of moving all your employees into such a place?  Could you get any kind of insurance?  The trend towards home officing — folks working at home and sending it in via e-mail — already promised to make structures like the W.T.C. obsolete to some extent and this will probably hasten the trend.  I think folks should go on saying that the complex will rise again and perhaps something with the name "World Trade Center" will.  But I doubt we'll see Mr. Trump put any of his own money into an attempt to build anything as large and expensive as what was there before Tuesday morn.
• Inasmuch as I have had great reservations about the experience, integrity and legitimacy of George W. Bush, I am not thrilled to find him even technically in command at this time.  Nevertheless, I think we have to pray for his success and not spread negatives over silly things like bad public syntax and the route he took back to Washington.  On the other hand, I think that to question the patriotism of those who do criticize our leaders is even worse.  We are all "real Americans" and it is an act of hatred to try and say that another American is not one, just because you don't like the opinions being expressed.
• I have long had mixed feelings about New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.  I think he's done some wonderful things to make Manhattan safer and saner, while also infringing on civil liberties and waging childish wars against his critics.  However, in this disaster, he has written the book about how a public official should act in time of crisis.  And I don't say that, as some do, just to imply that Mr. Bush has not.
• A prediction: The first three TV-movies about the disasters will be — not necessarily in this order — the tale of the passengers of Flight 93, the story of some person who led the evacuations of one tower of the World Trade Center, and a portrait (with John Wayne-style sensibilities) of the fire fighters or rescue crews.  I also predict that within two weeks, one or more of the tabloids will find some ex-C.I.A. yahoo who will swear that our government knew in advance, every detail of the attacks on the World Trade Center, though probably not those on Washington.  And within a month, someone will find some stupid-ass way to connect the disasters to O.J. Simpson and/or The Kennedy Assassination.

I have absolutely nothing to report or recommend in the worlds of comic books, animation, TV, any of that.  When I do, you'll see it here.  I can hardly wait.