Something You Don't See Every Day, Dept.

Yellowstone National Park wranglers, on horseback, haze a herd of bison off of private land Thursday about seven miles north of Gardiner, Montana. Bison can carry brucellosis, a disease that can cause cows to abort, and as they venture out of Yellowstone, there is a fear the bison will spread the disease to cattle in the area.

My friends and family on the East Coast love this stuff...

Man Walks Into A Talent Agent's Office...

The DVD of the Aristocrats came out this week and I rented it yesterday. It does have its moments, though I found it a bit uneven (some folks, like Pat Cooper, Carlin and Gilbert were knock-down funny, some, like Sarah Silverman, just had me scratching my head). It's certainly worth a watch, if you've got the stomach for it...

Bob Grant: An Appreciation

We don't have that many really good communicators on the radio these days. We now have one fewer.

Bob Grant is the classic example of "controversial" radio done right.

Grant (who retired recently) is a guy who has never forgotten that his job is to entertain and get a rise out of people. Despite his arch-conservatism, you never got the impression that he was towing the party line (unlike some hosts we could mention).

Instead, you got the sense of a guy who was truly speaking his mind.

I've been told that the real Grant is nothing like his on-air persona. Well, duh. It's an act, folks...and a brilliant one at that.

It's not really about politics. Grant understood better than anyone since Joe Pyne that it's about giving a voice to all the primal, gut-level reactions that we don't discuss in polite company. A lot of hosts have tried to do the same thing over the years. Few have come anywhere near as close to pulling it off as Grant (Howard came the closest, but that was during his glory years which was some time ago).

It's schtick...designed to elicit a specific response. Grant and his listeners get it. I think everybody does, really, except for certain other talk hosts and a few clueless hard-line lefties who insist on lumping Grant in with genuine hatemongers like Father Coughlin.

Bob Grant is an entertainer. Coughlin meant it. There is a difference.

If you want to learn how to entertain on the radio, you could do worse than to study a guy like Bob Grant.

It was truly a blast, Bob. Ciao and gratzi...

How To Be A Successful Radio Talk Host (in under a half dozen or so easy steps)

1) Go here.

2) Memorize a few of the key points.

3) When you’re on the air, regurgitate said key points (if this is too mentally challenging for you, just read from the site).

4) Repeating the same point over and over is not permitted – it’s mandatory!

5) Send out your audition tape and watch the offers roll in…

If you think I’m kidding and this won’t work, then explain the success of this person…

…and this one…

…and this one…

…and this one…

…and this one…

…and this one…

…and this one…

…and this one…

…and this one…

…and this one…

…and this one…

…and this one…

...and this one...

…and especially this schmuck…

...and those are just some of the syndicated ones. You also have the local guys like this one...

...and this one...

...and this one...

...and this one...

...and this one...

...and this loser...

Not a dime's worth of difference in any of them.

Not that I'm obsessive or anything...

The Wicked Pickett Remembered

R.I.P. the "Wicked" Wilson Pickett.
Check out just how wicked he really was, on- and off-stage, in the Pennebaker/Hegedus documentary Only the Strong Survive.

And crank that sucker up to the threshold of pain...

The Ultimate Oxymoron: "Civil" War

Adam Kirsch, in the online New York Sun, has a review about a new book on the Civil War:

[Author Harry Stout] approaches the subject from a valuably different perspective. He is primarily interested in both sides' conduct of hostilities, as judged by traditional notions of just war, and in the failure of the country's moral authorities - the clergy and the press - to concern themselves with that conduct. The Civil War was fought in a just cause, Mr. Stout argues, but it is by no means clear that it was a just war. "It is possible, and, I believe, reasonable," he writes, "to conclude that the right side won in spite of itself.

The key insight of Mr. Stout's innovative study is that the very cost of such battles, far from provoking civilian scrutiny of military strategy, only increased both sides' reliance on thoughtless religious and patriotic rhetoric. As befits a religious historian, Mr. Stout is especially interested, and especially disappointed, in the way the clergy fell into lockstep with the government and the military.

As the French say, plus ca change...

Vatican Gets "Intellegent"

The New York Times reports that the Vatican has weighed in on the "intellegent design" question, and got it right:

The official Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as "correct" the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote, calling intelligent design unscientific. "It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious."

The article was not presented as an official church position. But in the subtle and purposely ambiguous world of the Vatican, the comments seemed notable, given their strength on a delicate question much debated under the new pope, Benedict XVI.

Advocates for teaching evolution hailed the article. "He is emphasizing that there is no need to see a contradiction between Catholic teachings and evolution," said Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, professor of biology at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Dominican priest. "Good for him."

While the statement is not ex cathedra, it does appear in the "official" Vatican newspaper. The creationist Discovery Institute has nonetheless dismissed the article, saying that it's just "trying to put words in the Vatican's mouth." (In the immoral words of that great theologan Popeye the Sailor: "What th-?")

Can't wait to hear what the rest of the "Answers In Genesis" crowd has to say on this subject.

Actually, I know what they're gonna say: they're gonna say the same old thing they've been saying over and over for years (generally it boils down to the same four or five basic misconceptions). Doesn't matter that they've been debunked repeatedly; they just re-word everything slightly and toss it out again to see if it sticks.

It sticks all right. Smells too.

Another Reason Jim Won't Get A Syndicated Talk Show

Now here's something that's truly rare: a sensible take on the immigration issue. It's rational, logical, and addresses the complexities of the issues...which is precisely why you won't hear this side of the argument on your local squawk radio station (or for that matter, out of the piehole of certain office-holding demagogues from places like Colorado)...

Big Ol' Book Sale

Loompanics, the most "out there" bookstore ever, is sadly, going out of business.

The good news is if you've ever wanted your own copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook, The Poor Man's James Bond, or Nuclear War Survival Skills, you should be able to get it for a song (while supplies last, of course).

And while we're at it, here's another cool bookseller you should support with your hard-earned bucks...

Blowin' Smoke

(For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been a cigarette smoker)

Anti-smoking busybody Stanton Glantz now claims there was a 13% drop in heart attacks in the Big Apple following the smoking ban:

The fact that there was a 13% drop in heard attacks in New York City also provides more evidence for a large immediate effect of eliminating exposure to (second hand smoke).

Michael Siegel, also an anti-smoking “activist,” but one who insists on not playing fast and loose with science and statistics, has some serious problems with the Glantz report:

First of all, I don't see how a 13% drop in heart attacks in New York City (assuming that it were due to the smoking ban) supports the plausibility of a 40% drop in heart attacks due to the smoking ban in Helena...

…there was clearly not a 13% drop in heart attacks in New York City attributable to the smoking ban. The only data upon which this claim is made is apparently the observation that the number of heart attack deaths in New York City in 2004 (3,680) was 13.9% lower than in 2003 (4,275).

Comparing these two numbers to estimate the effect of the New York City smoking ban is not, in my view, science. It is just playing with numbers.

And there's more, lots more. None of which really matters, you know: the anti-smoking crowd (particularly those self-righteous assholes who make those godawful TV PSAs) will ignore the cirticism and quote the Glantz figures as if it were the Sermon On The Mount.

But hey: never let the facts get in the way of "The Truth"...

NyQuil and Spaghetti-O's

Don't expect much bloggin' in the next few days - I have a cold. At least I think it's a cold. I'm not stuffy but my throat is shot and I have zero energy.

What do I do? NyQuil and (Uh-Oh) Spaghetti-O's. That's my regimen when I get the bug. Spaghetti-O's because they're hot, creamy and salty. NyQuil because it's...NyQuil...

Pray that they never figure out how to make crystal meth out of this stuff. Sudafed I can live without; take away my NyQuil and Spaghetti-O's and you're walking on my fightin' side...