Dragonfruit. Yes, dragonfruit.
Barry Trotter (Book 1)
The Hogwash School for Wizards was the most famous school in the wizarding world, and Barry Trotter was its most famous student. His mere presence made sure that every year twenty candidates applied for every open spot, no matter how rapacious Hogwash's tuition became. As a result, Barry and the school had come to an unspoken agreement: regardless of his grades, Barry could remain at Hogwash for as long as he wished. He had just begun his eleventh year...Freshman
Sleepy with boredom and gassy from lunch, Hart Fox sat in the hard plastic chair outside his dean's office. A kid walked in the door, pink detention slip in hand, bobbing his head a little so that the purple spikes of his mohawk didn't get bent on the transom. He slumped down next to Hart. Hart nodded--he remembered tis joker from sophomore American History, constantly arguing in favor of anarcho-syndicalism. Was his name Henry?...Sophomore
Arcing lazily through the air, the Frisbee smacked against the window. “Ooo-oo!” a chiseled and shirtless boy teased as it wobbleplummeted to the ground. “Sarah's in troub-le!”The beauty-boy was righter than he knew: Of all the windows on campus to hit, this one was the worst. It belonged to Stutts’ Professor of Clandestine Affairs, Glenbard North, who had destroyed more students than there were blades of grass on the freshly resodded Old Quad below...Coming Soon!
All you really gotta know is, I'm writing new things constantly and the more I write, the better my books get. So if you've read my earlier work--and millions of you have--we should keep in touch. This fall, at least one and maybe two new books will be available: a Dickens parody AND a comic mystery loosely based on The Beatles. Drop me an email at mikesnewbooks[at]gmail[dot]com, and I'll be sure to let you know release dates, special deals, etc.Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Sarah Palin's Secret Diary
My very funny friend Joey Green has a new book out: Sarah Palin's Secret Diary
. He says that he loves it, and it's the funniest book he's ever written. That should make you take notice, because Joey's written 45 (I may be underestimating), and most of the time when a writer finishes a project, he the-opposite-of-loves it. So I'm thinking this book must be pretty excellent.In addition to founding Cornell's humor magazine back in 1978, Joey's a great guy and a great writer, and this book is super stocking-stuffer material for all the Palin opposite-of-lovers on your list. Click here to buy Joey's Palin spoof
at Amazon.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Who thinks the JFK assassination still matters?
The CIA, that's who.
Today's New York Times details Agency stonewalling over 295 documents relating to George Joannides, an agent working with anti-Castro Cubans out of JM/WAVE, their Miami station. Groups under Joannides' direction "publicly clashed with" Lee Harvey Oswald. These clashes were some of the most significant ways that Oswald's personal politics--in other words, his entire motive--were presented to the public.
"The C.I.A. says it is only protecting legitimate secrets," writes Scott Shane. "But because of the agency’s history of stonewalling assassination inquiries, even researchers with no use for conspiracy thinking question its stance."
If things happened the way the Warren Report says they did--if it was one crazy person acting alone with a mail-order rifle--that's where the trail ends, and nothing in CIA's files can change that fact. But CIA has acted guilty from the start, misleading investigations and covering stuff up--and this is in the face of almost total support from the mainstream media. The New York Times is not digging at this story now, any more than it did in 1964. Yet CIA's gameplan has remained the same: stonewall until the information is a curious historical fact. The question is why?
It is completely understandable that CIA would control the flow of information to the Warren Commission, to protect ongoing operations and/or cover its ass in the wake of a huge failure. But this rationale weakens for Mr. Joannides' behavior as CIA liason to the Congressional investigation in 1976-78; and still further for its resistance to the Assassination Records Review Board in the 90s. It's completely ludicrous today.
These documents are nearly 50 years old. Joannides is dead, Castro nearly so. The only reasonable conclusion is that CIA has something to hide regarding the assassination, and it relates to JM/WAVE, Oswald, and anti-Castro Cubans. I don't know what it has to hide, but it has to be damaging enough to justify an organization-wide commitment over 50 years, in the face of sustained public interest and intermittent Congressional pressure. That's the story here, not what scraps of redacted paper eventually emerge.
The Times article trots out a few lone nut theorists--Gerald Posner and Max Holland--who predictably declare there's no "there" there. But CIA's behavior has already answered this question. We already know that when the documents eventually do come out, The New York Times will study them carefully, looking for Allen Dulles' handwritten scrawl, "Get Oswald to shoot Kennedy." Not finding it, the lone nut theory will be "proven" once again, and the rest of us will be treated to some more cognitive dissonance.
CIA has shown itself to be liars on this topic, so sensible people should stop listening to what they say. What they do is much more instructive, and that points a big, fat finger squarely at Langley--for what I don't know, but the enormous amount of other evidence makes that less important. Five decades of imperial government and a lapdog press means that the details will be obscured, but the larger picture is resolving, and it doesn't show Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. Those of us who've known that for decades thank the CIA for helping get the word out.
ADDITION 10/22: Peter Dale Scott on the same NYT article.
Today's New York Times details Agency stonewalling over 295 documents relating to George Joannides, an agent working with anti-Castro Cubans out of JM/WAVE, their Miami station. Groups under Joannides' direction "publicly clashed with" Lee Harvey Oswald. These clashes were some of the most significant ways that Oswald's personal politics--in other words, his entire motive--were presented to the public.
"The C.I.A. says it is only protecting legitimate secrets," writes Scott Shane. "But because of the agency’s history of stonewalling assassination inquiries, even researchers with no use for conspiracy thinking question its stance."
If things happened the way the Warren Report says they did--if it was one crazy person acting alone with a mail-order rifle--that's where the trail ends, and nothing in CIA's files can change that fact. But CIA has acted guilty from the start, misleading investigations and covering stuff up--and this is in the face of almost total support from the mainstream media. The New York Times is not digging at this story now, any more than it did in 1964. Yet CIA's gameplan has remained the same: stonewall until the information is a curious historical fact. The question is why?
It is completely understandable that CIA would control the flow of information to the Warren Commission, to protect ongoing operations and/or cover its ass in the wake of a huge failure. But this rationale weakens for Mr. Joannides' behavior as CIA liason to the Congressional investigation in 1976-78; and still further for its resistance to the Assassination Records Review Board in the 90s. It's completely ludicrous today.
These documents are nearly 50 years old. Joannides is dead, Castro nearly so. The only reasonable conclusion is that CIA has something to hide regarding the assassination, and it relates to JM/WAVE, Oswald, and anti-Castro Cubans. I don't know what it has to hide, but it has to be damaging enough to justify an organization-wide commitment over 50 years, in the face of sustained public interest and intermittent Congressional pressure. That's the story here, not what scraps of redacted paper eventually emerge.
The Times article trots out a few lone nut theorists--Gerald Posner and Max Holland--who predictably declare there's no "there" there. But CIA's behavior has already answered this question. We already know that when the documents eventually do come out, The New York Times will study them carefully, looking for Allen Dulles' handwritten scrawl, "Get Oswald to shoot Kennedy." Not finding it, the lone nut theory will be "proven" once again, and the rest of us will be treated to some more cognitive dissonance.
CIA has shown itself to be liars on this topic, so sensible people should stop listening to what they say. What they do is much more instructive, and that points a big, fat finger squarely at Langley--for what I don't know, but the enormous amount of other evidence makes that less important. Five decades of imperial government and a lapdog press means that the details will be obscured, but the larger picture is resolving, and it doesn't show Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. Those of us who've known that for decades thank the CIA for helping get the word out.
ADDITION 10/22: Peter Dale Scott on the same NYT article.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The "Veritas" about Harvard...and Yale, and Princeton, and....
Thought-provoking article from the Chronicle of Higher Education. I think it's right on the money...in every sense of that phrase.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Bill Hicks is wonderful...
...and there's a new documentary about him. It's premiering in London of course--one of the many nice things about the UK is how much they dug Bill Hicks.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
White sharks in Santa Monica Bay!
I gotta say, this cheered me up no end; it's a photo snapped by a local surfer last weekend. I love me some white sharks, and to know that at least one ten-footer is cruising around (and leaping into the air!) less than a mile from where I am typing this makes me QUITE EXCITED!!!! [cue Jaws music]
You can read the full story here. Oh, and by the way, if there's any other Westsiders who've wondered about those shark photos stuck up on utility boxes all over the place, here's the skinny on them, too. I didn't do it, but wish I had.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
