http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo161.html
Another chilling article about the modern college campus, where administrators and professors practice a "double standard by combining effusive praise for free speech with an eagerness to suppress unwelcome views."
Where political correctness runs amok, where young minds are not challenged but indoctrinated, the "learning" experience is useless.
Is it any wonder that young men especially are deciding not to go to college?
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Tune in: Carbolic's own Chad Hermann on the radio today at 4 p.m.
Today at 4 p.m., the great Chad Hermann will be a guest on 1360 am, WMNY.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
A tale of two vacant senate seats
Illinois has a vacant Senate seat and New York is about to have one.
The Governor of Illinois apparently attempted to sell that state's vacant seat for money. The Governor of New York apparently is considering awarding that state's vacant seat to Caroline Kennedy.
Offering a senate seat to the highest bidder is wrong, by any measure.
Offering a senate seat to someone whose principal qualification is that she was the daughter of a beloved slain president, many people seem to feel, is to be applauded.
The principal difference between the two scenarios is that in the Illinois scenario, two people would benefit from the appointment -- the governor and the appointee; in the New York scenario, only one would benefit -- the appointee.
The appointment in the Illinois scenario would be justified by lies. The appointment in the New York scenario would be justified by lies.
Both scenarios are wrong, by any measure.
Only dewey-eyed ideologues, longing for the return of "Camelot" (fittingly named after a third-rate musical about a kingdom that never existed), would think the New York scenario is acceptable.
The Governor of Illinois apparently attempted to sell that state's vacant seat for money. The Governor of New York apparently is considering awarding that state's vacant seat to Caroline Kennedy.
Offering a senate seat to the highest bidder is wrong, by any measure.
Offering a senate seat to someone whose principal qualification is that she was the daughter of a beloved slain president, many people seem to feel, is to be applauded.
The principal difference between the two scenarios is that in the Illinois scenario, two people would benefit from the appointment -- the governor and the appointee; in the New York scenario, only one would benefit -- the appointee.
The appointment in the Illinois scenario would be justified by lies. The appointment in the New York scenario would be justified by lies.
Both scenarios are wrong, by any measure.
Only dewey-eyed ideologues, longing for the return of "Camelot" (fittingly named after a third-rate musical about a kingdom that never existed), would think the New York scenario is acceptable.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
American print media looks to remove Obama's Teflon
Remember when Ronald Reagan was referred to as the Teflon President, usually in a derisive manner by journalists hoping something negative would stick to him so that they'd have something juicy to write about? Well, it looks like the Fourth Estate is up to its old tricks already with Obama, this time hiding behind segments of liberal interest groups -- Obama's most loyal core supporters -- to make it seem that the left is "unhappy" with something or other he or Biden are up to.
Gay leaders are said to be furious with Obama over his choice of a prominent evangelical minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration because of the minister's support for the California constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Never mind that Obama himself does not support gay marriage. Never mind that barring this preacher from participating in the inauguration would mean that any traditional Catholic priest -- a faith shared by 23% percent of Americans -- not to mention any traditional minister from the huge Evangelical community, would be similarly barred. Let's be perfectly candid: the gay community as a whole realizes that it has the best friend coming to the White House that it has ever had. Yet the news reports make it sound as if Obama has turned his back on the gay community. The fact is, Obama is a smart guy and he understands that a president is president of all Americans, not just a portion of his political base. By having an Evangelical participate in his inauguration, Obama is reaching out to a vast percentage of Americans who would not appreciate being excluded -- and on this issue, the minister in question is closer to the political mainstream than are the gay leaders supposedly furious with Obama.
In addition, some feminist writers are picking a fight with Obama over his proposed stimulus package. Understand that the recession has hurt male workers much worse than female workers: "The nature of the recession and the long-term shift in the American economy has caused more men to lose than jobs than women. According to the Labor Department, 1.1 million males lost their jobs the past 12 months while 12,000 women found employment during the same period." Did you get that? Men are being tossed out of jobs in record numbers while more women are actually finding work. But that doesn't stop some feminists from bellyaching that Obama's stimulus package is ignoring women. Giving money to stimulate construction is akin to giving money to men, they insist with a straight face: "A just economic stimulus plan must include jobs in fields like social work and teaching, where large numbers of women work. "
Hmm. Must be nice to insist on looking at complex issues of critical importance to our nation through a simplistic, unnuanced gender lens that admits of no grays and where every act is either a subjugation or an empowerment of women.
It is unfathomable that most women share the inane view of that op-ed piece. Infusing money into construction will jump-start the economy, not to mention employ more people who've lost jobs, far better than tossing money into, for example, schools, where teaching jobs are rarely ever in danger and where infused money has far less ripple effect on the economy. More men than women are the primary support of families, and when an out-of-work father gets a good construction gig, his wife and daughters are more likely to say, "Thank you President Obama" than "President Obama, your policies are misogynistic." So to the feminist writers who like to stir up gender divisiveness in op-ed columns, leave the man alone -- it's going to be difficult enough to jump-start this moribund economy without whiny catcalls from the bleachers of ideological politics.
Some environmentalists are supposedly unhappy with Obama's choice of Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior because Salazar has worked to allow more offshore oil exploration.
And PETA is unhappy with Joe Biden because his new dog isn't a pound puppy.
I could go on and on, but here is the reality: American print journalism is in trouble. Newspapers can't figure out how to make a profit from publishing on-line, and readership and ad revenues for the print editions of America's leading dailies have plummeted. To generate readership, journalists need to generate sparks, so they latch onto anything with even a whiff of a conflict. The problem is, by highlighting, by underscoring, and by over-emphasizing conflict -- by injecting a New York Post mentality into their publications -- the print media is creating a false impression that there is more conflict than there really is.
The really scary part is that some in the print news media have already declared the honeymoon over even before it has begun.
Gay leaders are said to be furious with Obama over his choice of a prominent evangelical minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration because of the minister's support for the California constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Never mind that Obama himself does not support gay marriage. Never mind that barring this preacher from participating in the inauguration would mean that any traditional Catholic priest -- a faith shared by 23% percent of Americans -- not to mention any traditional minister from the huge Evangelical community, would be similarly barred. Let's be perfectly candid: the gay community as a whole realizes that it has the best friend coming to the White House that it has ever had. Yet the news reports make it sound as if Obama has turned his back on the gay community. The fact is, Obama is a smart guy and he understands that a president is president of all Americans, not just a portion of his political base. By having an Evangelical participate in his inauguration, Obama is reaching out to a vast percentage of Americans who would not appreciate being excluded -- and on this issue, the minister in question is closer to the political mainstream than are the gay leaders supposedly furious with Obama.
In addition, some feminist writers are picking a fight with Obama over his proposed stimulus package. Understand that the recession has hurt male workers much worse than female workers: "The nature of the recession and the long-term shift in the American economy has caused more men to lose than jobs than women. According to the Labor Department, 1.1 million males lost their jobs the past 12 months while 12,000 women found employment during the same period." Did you get that? Men are being tossed out of jobs in record numbers while more women are actually finding work. But that doesn't stop some feminists from bellyaching that Obama's stimulus package is ignoring women. Giving money to stimulate construction is akin to giving money to men, they insist with a straight face: "A just economic stimulus plan must include jobs in fields like social work and teaching, where large numbers of women work. "
Hmm. Must be nice to insist on looking at complex issues of critical importance to our nation through a simplistic, unnuanced gender lens that admits of no grays and where every act is either a subjugation or an empowerment of women.
It is unfathomable that most women share the inane view of that op-ed piece. Infusing money into construction will jump-start the economy, not to mention employ more people who've lost jobs, far better than tossing money into, for example, schools, where teaching jobs are rarely ever in danger and where infused money has far less ripple effect on the economy. More men than women are the primary support of families, and when an out-of-work father gets a good construction gig, his wife and daughters are more likely to say, "Thank you President Obama" than "President Obama, your policies are misogynistic." So to the feminist writers who like to stir up gender divisiveness in op-ed columns, leave the man alone -- it's going to be difficult enough to jump-start this moribund economy without whiny catcalls from the bleachers of ideological politics.
Some environmentalists are supposedly unhappy with Obama's choice of Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior because Salazar has worked to allow more offshore oil exploration.
And PETA is unhappy with Joe Biden because his new dog isn't a pound puppy.
I could go on and on, but here is the reality: American print journalism is in trouble. Newspapers can't figure out how to make a profit from publishing on-line, and readership and ad revenues for the print editions of America's leading dailies have plummeted. To generate readership, journalists need to generate sparks, so they latch onto anything with even a whiff of a conflict. The problem is, by highlighting, by underscoring, and by over-emphasizing conflict -- by injecting a New York Post mentality into their publications -- the print media is creating a false impression that there is more conflict than there really is.
The really scary part is that some in the print news media have already declared the honeymoon over even before it has begun.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Thursday night: Carbolic Smoke Ball will be at DVE's Christmas Party at Diesel (South Side) selling 'Zombies Ate My Headlines'
Carbolic crew performing at a past DVE Christmas party
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
What are those women looking at?
Naked members of the Alpha Phi Omega fraternity offer red roses to students as they weave through a crowd during the fraternity's annual naked run dubbed 'The Oblation Run' at the University of the Philippines, the country's premier university, Tuesday Dec. 16, 2008 at Manila's Quezon city. Thirty nine fraternity students joined in the annual naked run Tuesday which turned out to be a protest against recent moves by Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's allies in Congress to effect charter change which they claim will extend Arroyo's term beyond 2010.(AP Photo/Bullit Marquez)
Monday, December 15, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Uncle Billy was a bastard
I've always supposed the bumbling, inept Uncle Billy character in "It's a Wonderful Life" was intended to be endearing and lovable.
Personally, I'd like to punch the bastard in the mouth. You know, draw some blood, break some teeth. And for good reason.
I won't chronicle every instance of Uncle Billy's manifested inanity because the film is so well-known but, among other things, he forgets to attend the wedding of his own nephew (and boss), George, and later he absent-mindedly leaves $8,000 laying around so that old man Potter, the richest and meanest -- and presumably most dishonest -- man in the county can steal it.
Uncle Billy, of course, was supposed to deposit the $8,000 in the bank for his employer, the Bailey Brothers Building and Loan. The loss of that money will cause criminal charges to be brought because a heartless bank examiner has conveniently shown up at the Building and Loan on the very day the money is lost (which also just happens to be Christmas Eve). The loss of this money causes George Bailey, the president of the Building and Loan, to contemplate suicide. George doesn't go through with it, of course, because an angel named Clarence, also intended to be endearing and lovable, appears and shows George what the world would be like if he had never been born, and it isn't pretty. The angel's revelation causes George to understand that, yes, it is a wonderful life, so he returns home to face life, including the heartless bank examiner.
It's at this point that Uncle Billy does something so contemptible, so shameful that he deserves to be punched in the mouth. It starts when he excitedly runs into the Bailey house and, acting as if he were completely innocent of losing the money and causing the problem in the first place, ushers in half the townsfolk, who proceed to happily shower George with money, money and more money. Even the heartless bank examiner is overwhelmed by the spirit of giving, and he and the others burst into song.
But wait, you ain't seen nothing yet. Listen to what Uncle Billy says, in what may be the happiest, most ecstatic voice in the history of American film: "Mary [George's wife] did it, George! Mary did it! She told a few people you were in trouble and they scattered all over town collecting money. They didn't ask any questions –– just said, 'If George is in trouble –– count on me.' You never saw anything like it." (Emphasis supplied.)
Did you get that? George is the one "in trouble." Now, exactly why would George be going to jail instead of Uncle Billy? Why didn't Uncle Billy insist on taking the blame, since he was the one who lost the money? And did you hear this -- everyone wanted to help without asking any questions, suggesting that Uncle Billy did not bother to disclose to the townsfolk the little inconvenient truth as to why George was in trouble. You know -- don't ask, don't tell.
Good old Uncle Billy was content to act as if he had nothing to do with whatever it was that got George "in trouble." The son-of-a-bitch let George take the blame for something he fouled up. And that is why I'd punch him in the mouth if I could. In the true spirit of the season, of course.
Personally, I'd like to punch the bastard in the mouth. You know, draw some blood, break some teeth. And for good reason.
I won't chronicle every instance of Uncle Billy's manifested inanity because the film is so well-known but, among other things, he forgets to attend the wedding of his own nephew (and boss), George, and later he absent-mindedly leaves $8,000 laying around so that old man Potter, the richest and meanest -- and presumably most dishonest -- man in the county can steal it.
Uncle Billy, of course, was supposed to deposit the $8,000 in the bank for his employer, the Bailey Brothers Building and Loan. The loss of that money will cause criminal charges to be brought because a heartless bank examiner has conveniently shown up at the Building and Loan on the very day the money is lost (which also just happens to be Christmas Eve). The loss of this money causes George Bailey, the president of the Building and Loan, to contemplate suicide. George doesn't go through with it, of course, because an angel named Clarence, also intended to be endearing and lovable, appears and shows George what the world would be like if he had never been born, and it isn't pretty. The angel's revelation causes George to understand that, yes, it is a wonderful life, so he returns home to face life, including the heartless bank examiner.
It's at this point that Uncle Billy does something so contemptible, so shameful that he deserves to be punched in the mouth. It starts when he excitedly runs into the Bailey house and, acting as if he were completely innocent of losing the money and causing the problem in the first place, ushers in half the townsfolk, who proceed to happily shower George with money, money and more money. Even the heartless bank examiner is overwhelmed by the spirit of giving, and he and the others burst into song.
But wait, you ain't seen nothing yet. Listen to what Uncle Billy says, in what may be the happiest, most ecstatic voice in the history of American film: "Mary [George's wife] did it, George! Mary did it! She told a few people you were in trouble and they scattered all over town collecting money. They didn't ask any questions –– just said, 'If George is in trouble –– count on me.' You never saw anything like it." (Emphasis supplied.)
Did you get that? George is the one "in trouble." Now, exactly why would George be going to jail instead of Uncle Billy? Why didn't Uncle Billy insist on taking the blame, since he was the one who lost the money? And did you hear this -- everyone wanted to help without asking any questions, suggesting that Uncle Billy did not bother to disclose to the townsfolk the little inconvenient truth as to why George was in trouble. You know -- don't ask, don't tell.
Good old Uncle Billy was content to act as if he had nothing to do with whatever it was that got George "in trouble." The son-of-a-bitch let George take the blame for something he fouled up. And that is why I'd punch him in the mouth if I could. In the true spirit of the season, of course.
Hmm...
From the pages of Carbolic Smoke Ball, Tuesday, November 18th:
Supreme Court Overturns 2000 Election, Declares Al Gore President
From the pages of The Onion, Tuesday, December 9th:
Draw your own conclusions.
Let me make this perfectly clear: 'Zombies Ate My Headlines' is the funniest book of the year
See a sample here
Order here
Check out Regis Behe’s feature on the book in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Read Chris Young’s article in the Pittsburgh City Paper
Listen to Jim Krenn & Randy Baumann rave about the book on the DVE Morning Show
PRAISE FOR ZOMBIES ATE MY HEADLINES:
“So funny… such a great book… major league. These guys are just brilliant… a tremendous book.” – Jim Krenn, WDVE
“Last week, I got my copy of ‘Zombies Ate My Headlines’ by those funny guys at Carbolic Smoke Ball, the local fake news Web site that has gone national with its ambitions. Honestly, I haven’t stopped laughing since. This stuff is better than The Onion.” – Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
“It is as well done as anything out there. Can’t vouch enough for the funniness of this one.” — Randy Baumann, WDVE
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Why was Duquesne University's law school dean fired?
Duquesne University fired Dean Donald Guter yesterday, saying he failed to meet expectations. University spokeswoman Bridget Fare said "we need to improve the level of scholarship within the law school."
The news report does not explain what Ms. Fare meant by this. It could not mean the bar pass rate since it rose from 68% to 97% under Dean Guter in just three years.
The ex-Dean himself said he was fired due to President Charles Dougherty's personal animus toward him. Guter wrote to Dougherty yesterday: "You rebuffed my attempts [seek reconciliation last Easter season] in an most un-Catholic manner . . . ."
Someone has even speculated that Guter was fired because he supported Obama.
Will this incident blow into another "Father Nesti" situation -- you remember, when the school almost imploded in1987 due to then-President Donald Nesti's perceived dictatorial style? The donors ran for the hills, and the school was much closer to insolvency than most people realized. Then, aside from the basketball program, the school did a 180 under the next president, John Murray, to the point that WQED and Pittsburgh Magazine named Dr. Murray one of the top 100 Pittsburghers of the 20th Century and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette called his stint as president an “extraordinary tenure” that set “a standard of excellence and achievement that is truly remarkable and may prove hard to equal.” (Post-Gazette, August 18, 2001.) The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review wrote that some call the turnaround of Duquesne University under Dr. Murray's regime "the ‘miracle on the Bluff.’” (Tribune-Review, February 20, 2005.)
The interim dean named is Ken Gormley, a great guy with a tough job ahead. Hopefully he will bring peace to a school torn apart by this firing.
If I were the Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Duquesne University, I would tell President Dougherty, "Get this the hell out of the news before you tear down all the goodwill built up over the past twenty years."
Of course doing that might be kind of like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube at this point.
Does anyone know if Dr. Murray would be willing to step back in to clean up this mess?
The news report does not explain what Ms. Fare meant by this. It could not mean the bar pass rate since it rose from 68% to 97% under Dean Guter in just three years.
The ex-Dean himself said he was fired due to President Charles Dougherty's personal animus toward him. Guter wrote to Dougherty yesterday: "You rebuffed my attempts [seek reconciliation last Easter season] in an most un-Catholic manner . . . ."
Someone has even speculated that Guter was fired because he supported Obama.
Will this incident blow into another "Father Nesti" situation -- you remember, when the school almost imploded in1987 due to then-President Donald Nesti's perceived dictatorial style? The donors ran for the hills, and the school was much closer to insolvency than most people realized. Then, aside from the basketball program, the school did a 180 under the next president, John Murray, to the point that WQED and Pittsburgh Magazine named Dr. Murray one of the top 100 Pittsburghers of the 20th Century and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette called his stint as president an “extraordinary tenure” that set “a standard of excellence and achievement that is truly remarkable and may prove hard to equal.” (Post-Gazette, August 18, 2001.) The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review wrote that some call the turnaround of Duquesne University under Dr. Murray's regime "the ‘miracle on the Bluff.’” (Tribune-Review, February 20, 2005.)
The interim dean named is Ken Gormley, a great guy with a tough job ahead. Hopefully he will bring peace to a school torn apart by this firing.
If I were the Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Duquesne University, I would tell President Dougherty, "Get this the hell out of the news before you tear down all the goodwill built up over the past twenty years."
Of course doing that might be kind of like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube at this point.
Does anyone know if Dr. Murray would be willing to step back in to clean up this mess?
A more significant problem than global warming?
Yikes! Maleness is being destroyed by chemicals, says a new study reported here.
How serious is the problem? Let's be honest: we don't know because we have no idea if we're to take this study as the final word. The fact is, the news media constantly reports on a host of sensational scientific studies (I suppose they don't bother reporting on the non-sensational studies) that turn out to be -- well, not entirely true. Or at least overstated.
But let's just put it this way: if the study is to be believed, it raises the spectre of a severe shortage of males in the future. The news story ends with this astonishing fact: sperm counts "have dropped from 150 million per millilitre of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years." I can't help but believe that if this assertion were widely accepted as true, it would be garnering far more panic.
Here are highlights from the news report:
". . . a host of common chemicals is feminizing males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals, including people.
". . . . baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminized genitals.
"Many have been identified as "endocrine disrupters" - or gender-benders - because they interfere with hormones. These include phthalates, used in food wrapping, cosmetics and baby powders among other applications; flame retardants in furniture and electrical goods; PCBs, a now banned group of substances still widespread in food and the environment; and many pesticides.
. . . .
"Even more ominously for humanity, mammals have also been found to be widely affected. Two-thirds of male Sitka black-tailed deer in Alaska have been found to have undescended testes and deformed antler growth, and roughly the same proportion of white-tailed deer in Montana were discovered to have genital abnormalities.
"Most alarming for humans, new research at the University of Rochester in New York state shows that boys born to mothers with raised levels of phthalates were more likely to have smaller penises and undescended testicles. They also had a shorter distance between their anus and genitalia, a classic sign of feminization.
"Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia and Italy have given birth to twice as many girls than boys, which may offer a clue to the reason for a mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, but the ratio is slipping. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the U.S. and Japan alone.
"And sperm counts are dropping precipitously. Studies in more than 20 countries have shown that they have dropped from 150 million per millilitre of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years."
How serious is the problem? Let's be honest: we don't know because we have no idea if we're to take this study as the final word. The fact is, the news media constantly reports on a host of sensational scientific studies (I suppose they don't bother reporting on the non-sensational studies) that turn out to be -- well, not entirely true. Or at least overstated.
But let's just put it this way: if the study is to be believed, it raises the spectre of a severe shortage of males in the future. The news story ends with this astonishing fact: sperm counts "have dropped from 150 million per millilitre of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years." I can't help but believe that if this assertion were widely accepted as true, it would be garnering far more panic.
Here are highlights from the news report:
". . . a host of common chemicals is feminizing males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals, including people.
". . . . baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminized genitals.
"Many have been identified as "endocrine disrupters" - or gender-benders - because they interfere with hormones. These include phthalates, used in food wrapping, cosmetics and baby powders among other applications; flame retardants in furniture and electrical goods; PCBs, a now banned group of substances still widespread in food and the environment; and many pesticides.
. . . .
"Even more ominously for humanity, mammals have also been found to be widely affected. Two-thirds of male Sitka black-tailed deer in Alaska have been found to have undescended testes and deformed antler growth, and roughly the same proportion of white-tailed deer in Montana were discovered to have genital abnormalities.
"Most alarming for humans, new research at the University of Rochester in New York state shows that boys born to mothers with raised levels of phthalates were more likely to have smaller penises and undescended testicles. They also had a shorter distance between their anus and genitalia, a classic sign of feminization.
"Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia and Italy have given birth to twice as many girls than boys, which may offer a clue to the reason for a mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, but the ratio is slipping. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the U.S. and Japan alone.
"And sperm counts are dropping precipitously. Studies in more than 20 countries have shown that they have dropped from 150 million per millilitre of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years."
Great night at Joseph-Beth Books
The Carbolic book signing last night at Joseph-Beth Books in South Side was a great success. We sold a bunch of books and got to hobnob with, among many others, Pittsburgh's most beloved television personality Rick Sebak, who wrote the introduction for our book, and with Pittsburgh's king of blogging, Mike Woycheck. We appreciate all of our friends who showed up, and of course, all the people who bought our book.The amazing thing is that both Messrs. Sebak and Woycheck still speak with us, after we Carbolicized them. Rick got it here, and Mike got it here.
Another book signing is scheduled for Borders at Pittsburgh Mills on January 3, and we're working on a few other dates at other stores as well. Stay tuned for details.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Wednesday, December 10th, 7:00pm
The whole Carbolic Team proudly joins a host of other hand-picked, “favorite local authors” at Joseph-Beth’s Home for the Holidays Event.
We’ll proudly join PBS icon Rick Sebak (who wrote the Introduction to Zombies), Anne Faigen, Gina Mazza-Hillier, Jim Wexell, and the authors of Where We Like to Eat n’At and Pittsburgh Born, Pittsburgh Bred for a “sit-and-sign” (and chat) at Pittsburgh’s biggest independent bookstore. We hope to see you there.
Joseph-Beth Booksellers, 2705 E. Carson St at South Side Works
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Carbolic Event: Signing/Discussion TODAY at Borders Eastside
Members of the Carbolic Smoke Ball creative team will appear this afternoon at Borders Eastside (5986 Penn Circle South, in the complex next to Whole Foods) for a signing and discussion at 2:00pm.
Stop by and chat, check out the Zombies, and pick up a signed copy of a really great (and really funny) holiday present.
Tell 'em the Judge sent you.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Thanks to Mike Woycheck
The great Mike Woycheck, an all-around great guy, paid tribute to Carbolic Smoke Ball with this great piece.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The Tribune-Review has a feature on our new book
Carbolic Smoke Ball takes satiric look with 'Zombies Ate My Headlines
By Regis Behe
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Nothing is sacred for the guys who run Carbolic Smoke Ball. Nothing.
In "Zombies Ate My Headlines," (Carbolic Smoke Books, $14.95, 182 pages) a compendium of the site's best work, there are items on Mother Teresa, the Lincoln Memorial, Vice President Dick Cheney, John McCain and the late Tim Russert. But they are most proud of taking a hands-on approach to the new president-elect.
"I would argue we're the only comedy outlet in the country that has yet taken full advantage of Barack Obama," says Chad Hermann, editorial director and writer. "Whether it's a skittishness, or a certain liberal bias, I don't know. And I don't use that term lightly, because I am a liberal and I am a registered Democrat. But I have no problem making fun of my own candidate or my own party."
Launched in 2005, the Web site is in the same vein as The Onion, "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report" and other satiric outlets. But its roots date back more than 30 years, when founder and editor-in-chief Tim Murray and writer and co-creator Bob Haas had a show on a cable access channel in Homestead.
"We were doing a fake news program then," Murray says.
The Carbolic Smoke Ball site has received media boosts from the New York Times, the Trib P.M. (which runs a feature on Mondays) and the WDVE Morning Show, where they make weekly appearances on Fridays. The book is an effort to expand the Carbolic Smoke Ball brand, but because the Web site is so topical -- everyone works between two and three hours a day doing updates in addition to maintaining full-time jobs -- some of the best material couldn't be included.
"This is the best-of (material) that is more timeless," Murray says.
There are subjects that are ready-made for satire, notably the Pittsburgh Pirates and Sarah Palin. But the trio takes pride in satirizing the less obvious -- U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix being summoned to search for matter in the universe, or a guy who is upset that vernal equinox celebrations have lost their luster.
"That's part of the challenge, and part of the reward when we pull one off," says Hermann, who started contributing to Carbolic Smoke Ball about a year-and-a-half ago. "For the same reason that we have grown tired of the Luke (Ravenstahl) jokes -- we could crank them out in our sleep, we could crank them out in a coma -- but there comes a point where you can only have so much low-hanging fruit, and you want to aim a little higher. "
Link: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/living/s_600927.html
By Regis Behe
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Nothing is sacred for the guys who run Carbolic Smoke Ball. Nothing.
In "Zombies Ate My Headlines," (Carbolic Smoke Books, $14.95, 182 pages) a compendium of the site's best work, there are items on Mother Teresa, the Lincoln Memorial, Vice President Dick Cheney, John McCain and the late Tim Russert. But they are most proud of taking a hands-on approach to the new president-elect.
"I would argue we're the only comedy outlet in the country that has yet taken full advantage of Barack Obama," says Chad Hermann, editorial director and writer. "Whether it's a skittishness, or a certain liberal bias, I don't know. And I don't use that term lightly, because I am a liberal and I am a registered Democrat. But I have no problem making fun of my own candidate or my own party."
Launched in 2005, the Web site is in the same vein as The Onion, "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report" and other satiric outlets. But its roots date back more than 30 years, when founder and editor-in-chief Tim Murray and writer and co-creator Bob Haas had a show on a cable access channel in Homestead.
"We were doing a fake news program then," Murray says.
The Carbolic Smoke Ball site has received media boosts from the New York Times, the Trib P.M. (which runs a feature on Mondays) and the WDVE Morning Show, where they make weekly appearances on Fridays. The book is an effort to expand the Carbolic Smoke Ball brand, but because the Web site is so topical -- everyone works between two and three hours a day doing updates in addition to maintaining full-time jobs -- some of the best material couldn't be included.
"This is the best-of (material) that is more timeless," Murray says.
There are subjects that are ready-made for satire, notably the Pittsburgh Pirates and Sarah Palin. But the trio takes pride in satirizing the less obvious -- U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix being summoned to search for matter in the universe, or a guy who is upset that vernal equinox celebrations have lost their luster.
"That's part of the challenge, and part of the reward when we pull one off," says Hermann, who started contributing to Carbolic Smoke Ball about a year-and-a-half ago. "For the same reason that we have grown tired of the Luke (Ravenstahl) jokes -- we could crank them out in our sleep, we could crank them out in a coma -- but there comes a point where you can only have so much low-hanging fruit, and you want to aim a little higher. "
Link: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/living/s_600927.html
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sales of the new the Carbolic Smoke Ball book much better than even we expected
The Eastside Borders is getting ready for its reading of Carbolic Smoke Ball's first book, "Zombies Ate My Headlines" this Saturday at 2:00 p.m. I hope they have enough books -- sales are much better than even we expected. Thanks to everyone who's purchased one.Speaking of our new book, listen to what Jim Krenn and Randy Baumann said about it. We also very much appreciate their glowing remarks.
And here's what Tony Norman of the Post-Gazette said about it: “Last week, I got my copy of ‘Zombies Ate My Headlines’ by those funny guys at Carbolic Smoke Ball… Honestly, I haven’t stopped laughing since. This stuff is better than The Onion.”
And The City Paper had this fine article about the book.
We think it's as funny as anything going. Actually, we know it's that good. Get your copy from us, from Amazon, or from Renaissance.
Bill's deal with Barack clears way for Hillary to be Secretary of State
Before Hillary Clinton could become Secretary of State, her husband was forced to agree to disclose publicly the names of 208,000 donors to his foundation as part of an accord with President-elect Barack Obama. Mr. Clinton decided to publish the list to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest with Mrs. Clinton’s duties as the nation’s top diplomat. Mr. Clinton also agreed to submit his future personal speeches and business activities for review by State Department ethics officials and, if necessary, by the White House counsel’s office.Sounds like a good idea.
Note, however, that if Hillary Clinton had been elected President, her husband would not have been required to disclose anything. There are no limitations on what a President's spouse can do, conflicts of interest be damned. Rather sobering, don't you think? One thing's for certain: it would have been a lot more interesting if Hillary had been elected.
The omniscient mobsters of Coppola's 'Godfather': The smartest guys anywhere
It is fair to say that for more than 35 years, "The Godfather" has occupied a prominent place not just in the cinematic constellation but in our shared cultural milieu. It is perhaps the most re-watched, most quoted and most beloved film of all time. More than any American epic ever produced, it doesn't just draw the viewer in, it sucks him like a vacuum and transports him to a seemingly realistic and thorougly engrossing other-world of power and perverse glamour.
Now, to suggest that watching this epic requires massive doses of the willing suspension of disbelief might strike some as peculiar if not sacrilegious. But the fact is, a recurring phenomenon strewn throughout the film strains credulity to the point that any viewer who happens to pick up on it may thereafter have a difficult time treating the film with the solemnity that Coppola's gravely earnest direction, not to mention Nino Rota's iconic score, insist on.
The point is best explained by illustrating it. Let's start with what is arguably the pivotal scene in the film from a plot standpoint. About 35 minutes into the flick, mobster Virgil Sollozzo, "The Turk," presents Don Corleone with a business proposition in the Don's olive oil importing offices. Sollozzo, described by the Don's adopted son and consigliere Tom Hagen as "a top narcotics man," wants the Corleones to invest $1 million in cash and to provide political influence and legal protection for Sollozzo's drug trafficking business. It was 1945 and drugs were the wave of the underworld future. The Don, accompanied by sons Sonny and Fredo, Tom Hagen and mob lieutenants Clemenza and Tessio, politely declines Sollozzo's proposal because he believes his politician friends would regard drug dealing as a "dirty" business. But Sollozzo makes one more try: "If you're worried about security for your million, the Tattaglias'll guarantee it," referencing a rival crime family. Before Don Corleone can say a word, Sonny, the Don's oldest son and heir-apparent blurts out: "Are you telling me that the Tattaglias guarantee our invest--."
The next several seconds are remarkable. The camera cuts to closeups of the faces of Clemenza, Hagen and Sollozzo. Their looks unmistakeably signal a realization that Sonny has just made a tremendous, perhaps fatal, mobster faux pas. Don Corleone arguably makes matters worse by drawing attention to Sonny's error. He angrily silences his son and proceeds to tell Sollozzo that he's "spoiled" his children by allowing them to "talk when they should listen." The Don makes it clear that his "no is final," cordially wishes Sollozzo well, and shows him out. The Don holds Sonny back to reprimand him some more: "Never tell anybody outside the Family what you're thinking again."
Of course, it's too late. Sonny's faux pas sets up everything that follows, in this film and in two sequels. Sollozzo tries to kill Don Corleone because he knows that his heir is predisposed to do business with him while the Don is not. The attempt on Don Corleone's life leads to Michael killing Sollozzo, not to mention an all-out gang war that claims Sonny's life and eventually leads to the elimination of all the Corleone family rivals and betrayers in the film's celebrated blood-bath finale.
The fact that a few words off the top of Sonny's head led to all that is not the remarkable thing about the scene. The remarkable thing is that the mobsters in the room (except for Sonny) somehow -- dare I say incredibly? -- realized the import of Sonny's goof the moment it occurred. It is fair to say that most people watching don't bother to ask themselves why the mobsters should have had such omniscience, and in fact, by any reasonable measure, there's no reason that they should have. No one, after all, is that perceptive. Perhaps Coppola made the mobsters react as they did to herald the upcoming conflict for us, the audience?
Maybe. But as fans of the film should know but probably don't because Coppola has them so thoroughly diverted, these mobsters possess an almost infinite awareness about all sorts of conveniently useful information, from human nature to Almanac facts -- knowledge that extends far beyond what ordinary men of their background -- hell, far beyond what men, or women, of any background -- possess. Aside from Tom Hagen and Michael, it is difficult to imagine any of these men graduating from high school let alone attending college, yet they know everything. It is safe to say that this is the most astute, most omniscient collection of human beings ever assembled anywhere in the world.
Take another, less subtle, example. After the Don is gunned down, Sollozzo wants a one-on-one meeting with Michael to patch things up. The Corleones decide this would be the perfect occasion for Michael to kill Sollozzo, so they decide to plant a gun at the site of the meeting ahead of time. They find out the secret location for the meeting is Louis' Restaurant in the Bronx. Well, mirabile dictu, Tessio knows all about the place, down to the toilet in the restroom. No kidding. Tessio explains that it's "a small family place, good food. Everyone minds his own business. . . . they got an old-fashion toilet. You know, the box-and-the-chain thing. We might be able to tape a gun behind it." Tessio sounds less like a thug than a restaurant critic with a toilet fetish. But of course he's dead-on about the toilet -- the Corleone gang is able to plant the gun there perfectly -- and about the food, as even Sollozzo tells Michael to "try to veal. It's the best in the city."
And let's not forget the most incredible example of this omniscience in this film or, arguably, any film not directed by Cecil B. DeMille. After Don Corleone makes the peace with the heads of the Five Families, he knows that when he dies and Michael takes over the family business, the other families will try to kill Michael. He even knows how it will happen. He tells Michael: "Barzini will move against you first. He'll set up a meeting with someone that you absolutely trust, guaranteeing your safety. And at that meeting, you'll be assassinated."
Whoa! Which book of the Old Testament did that come from? If Nostradamus had predicted the future with such clarity and specificity, belief in his psychic abilities would not be confined to the sorts of people convinced that Lyndon Johnson was in on the Kennedy assassination. Of course, the Don's prediction turned out to be on the mark. Shortly after the Don dies, Tessio betrays Michael in precisely the manner the Don predicted. But Michael outfoxes him and Barzini and the other Corleone Family rivals because of his father's warning.
In point of fact, the film is replete with instances of this sort of omniscience. E.g., when Michael sees there is no one guarding his father at the hospital, Michael knows for a fact that "men are coming to kill" the Don. He was right, of course. Later Michael knows for a fact that his Italian wife is about to be blown up in her car. He was right about that, too. And Tom Hagen knows without question that "nobody has ever gunned down a New York police captain. Never." We don't even question that assertion or how Tom knows it. And Sonny knows that after Michael kills Sollozzo, he'll need to be exiled to Italy for "at least a year." He, too, was right. And Don Corleone figures out, based on who-knows-what, that Barzini and not Tattaglia was behind the gang war that led to Sonny's death.
Based on their track records, one can only conclude that these mobsters are bona fide geniuses and that their talents would be far better utilized running the country instead of New York's gangland.
All the while, most viewers are sitting there chomping away on their popcorn, completely sucked in by the story and the glamour of the mob and the high-octane acting and masterful direction, never once thinking, "This is rather silly, isn't it?"
And I hope I didn't ruin it for you.
Now, to suggest that watching this epic requires massive doses of the willing suspension of disbelief might strike some as peculiar if not sacrilegious. But the fact is, a recurring phenomenon strewn throughout the film strains credulity to the point that any viewer who happens to pick up on it may thereafter have a difficult time treating the film with the solemnity that Coppola's gravely earnest direction, not to mention Nino Rota's iconic score, insist on.
The point is best explained by illustrating it. Let's start with what is arguably the pivotal scene in the film from a plot standpoint. About 35 minutes into the flick, mobster Virgil Sollozzo, "The Turk," presents Don Corleone with a business proposition in the Don's olive oil importing offices. Sollozzo, described by the Don's adopted son and consigliere Tom Hagen as "a top narcotics man," wants the Corleones to invest $1 million in cash and to provide political influence and legal protection for Sollozzo's drug trafficking business. It was 1945 and drugs were the wave of the underworld future. The Don, accompanied by sons Sonny and Fredo, Tom Hagen and mob lieutenants Clemenza and Tessio, politely declines Sollozzo's proposal because he believes his politician friends would regard drug dealing as a "dirty" business. But Sollozzo makes one more try: "If you're worried about security for your million, the Tattaglias'll guarantee it," referencing a rival crime family. Before Don Corleone can say a word, Sonny, the Don's oldest son and heir-apparent blurts out: "Are you telling me that the Tattaglias guarantee our invest--."
The next several seconds are remarkable. The camera cuts to closeups of the faces of Clemenza, Hagen and Sollozzo. Their looks unmistakeably signal a realization that Sonny has just made a tremendous, perhaps fatal, mobster faux pas. Don Corleone arguably makes matters worse by drawing attention to Sonny's error. He angrily silences his son and proceeds to tell Sollozzo that he's "spoiled" his children by allowing them to "talk when they should listen." The Don makes it clear that his "no is final," cordially wishes Sollozzo well, and shows him out. The Don holds Sonny back to reprimand him some more: "Never tell anybody outside the Family what you're thinking again."
Of course, it's too late. Sonny's faux pas sets up everything that follows, in this film and in two sequels. Sollozzo tries to kill Don Corleone because he knows that his heir is predisposed to do business with him while the Don is not. The attempt on Don Corleone's life leads to Michael killing Sollozzo, not to mention an all-out gang war that claims Sonny's life and eventually leads to the elimination of all the Corleone family rivals and betrayers in the film's celebrated blood-bath finale.
The fact that a few words off the top of Sonny's head led to all that is not the remarkable thing about the scene. The remarkable thing is that the mobsters in the room (except for Sonny) somehow -- dare I say incredibly? -- realized the import of Sonny's goof the moment it occurred. It is fair to say that most people watching don't bother to ask themselves why the mobsters should have had such omniscience, and in fact, by any reasonable measure, there's no reason that they should have. No one, after all, is that perceptive. Perhaps Coppola made the mobsters react as they did to herald the upcoming conflict for us, the audience?
Maybe. But as fans of the film should know but probably don't because Coppola has them so thoroughly diverted, these mobsters possess an almost infinite awareness about all sorts of conveniently useful information, from human nature to Almanac facts -- knowledge that extends far beyond what ordinary men of their background -- hell, far beyond what men, or women, of any background -- possess. Aside from Tom Hagen and Michael, it is difficult to imagine any of these men graduating from high school let alone attending college, yet they know everything. It is safe to say that this is the most astute, most omniscient collection of human beings ever assembled anywhere in the world.
Take another, less subtle, example. After the Don is gunned down, Sollozzo wants a one-on-one meeting with Michael to patch things up. The Corleones decide this would be the perfect occasion for Michael to kill Sollozzo, so they decide to plant a gun at the site of the meeting ahead of time. They find out the secret location for the meeting is Louis' Restaurant in the Bronx. Well, mirabile dictu, Tessio knows all about the place, down to the toilet in the restroom. No kidding. Tessio explains that it's "a small family place, good food. Everyone minds his own business. . . . they got an old-fashion toilet. You know, the box-and-the-chain thing. We might be able to tape a gun behind it." Tessio sounds less like a thug than a restaurant critic with a toilet fetish. But of course he's dead-on about the toilet -- the Corleone gang is able to plant the gun there perfectly -- and about the food, as even Sollozzo tells Michael to "try to veal. It's the best in the city."
And let's not forget the most incredible example of this omniscience in this film or, arguably, any film not directed by Cecil B. DeMille. After Don Corleone makes the peace with the heads of the Five Families, he knows that when he dies and Michael takes over the family business, the other families will try to kill Michael. He even knows how it will happen. He tells Michael: "Barzini will move against you first. He'll set up a meeting with someone that you absolutely trust, guaranteeing your safety. And at that meeting, you'll be assassinated."
Whoa! Which book of the Old Testament did that come from? If Nostradamus had predicted the future with such clarity and specificity, belief in his psychic abilities would not be confined to the sorts of people convinced that Lyndon Johnson was in on the Kennedy assassination. Of course, the Don's prediction turned out to be on the mark. Shortly after the Don dies, Tessio betrays Michael in precisely the manner the Don predicted. But Michael outfoxes him and Barzini and the other Corleone Family rivals because of his father's warning.
In point of fact, the film is replete with instances of this sort of omniscience. E.g., when Michael sees there is no one guarding his father at the hospital, Michael knows for a fact that "men are coming to kill" the Don. He was right, of course. Later Michael knows for a fact that his Italian wife is about to be blown up in her car. He was right about that, too. And Tom Hagen knows without question that "nobody has ever gunned down a New York police captain. Never." We don't even question that assertion or how Tom knows it. And Sonny knows that after Michael kills Sollozzo, he'll need to be exiled to Italy for "at least a year." He, too, was right. And Don Corleone figures out, based on who-knows-what, that Barzini and not Tattaglia was behind the gang war that led to Sonny's death.
Based on their track records, one can only conclude that these mobsters are bona fide geniuses and that their talents would be far better utilized running the country instead of New York's gangland.
All the while, most viewers are sitting there chomping away on their popcorn, completely sucked in by the story and the glamour of the mob and the high-octane acting and masterful direction, never once thinking, "This is rather silly, isn't it?"
And I hope I didn't ruin it for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
