Mark Evanier's Blog, page 238

Today's Video Link

Someone named Laura assembled this nice little montage of clips from my favorite TV show. All I know about her is that she used Adobe Premiere to do it…

17 Years and 6 Days Ago

I missed an interesting anniversary last Friday. It was seventeen years to the day from when I had a Gastric Bypass operation. It reduced the size of my stomach therefore reducing the size of me. Depending on now you figure it, I lost somewhere between 100 and 135 pounds. Some of it eventually came back and some of what came back was lost again, this time through more organic means. Nothing I say in this piece should be taken as a recommendation or encouragement for you to rush out and get this done. I'm just telling you how well it worked for me. In those seventeen years, there has not been one second in which I regretted having it done.

Except maybe for this: My physician warned me about this at the time and he was very wise but somehow, I didn't think this would actually happen to me. He warned me that there would people who, though purportedly friends of mine, would feel the urge to tell me some possibly-bogus story about some possibly-non-existent person they knew who had the surgery, felt fine for a while, then dropped dead. Gosh, that was helpful information.

And here's something I realized the other day and wanted to share with you or someone: I recall three different people in my life doing that to me. One was a fellow comic book writer. One was a not-too-famous stand-up comedian. And the third was a guy…I don't really know what he did but I kept running into him at comic book conventions. All three of them tried to plant in my mind that I had perhaps made a fatal mistake by having the surgery…

…and all three of them have since dropped dead. I, at last report, was still around.

A Not-Really-Political Political Thought

This post is not about the guilt or innocence of Donald Trump in the Classified Documents matter. Not really. It's about all the messages and articles and conversations and such I see about how solid or not solid the case against him is.

It was revealed today that — well, you probably heard this already if you care about this case but here it is. This is a CNN exclusive…

Federal prosecutors have obtained an audio recording of a summer 2021 meeting in which former President Donald Trump acknowledges he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran, multiple sources told CNN, undercutting his argument that he declassified everything.

Most of the articles say that Special Counsel Jack Smith — the man heading up the Justice Department investigation into Trump — has had this tape for a while. And most of the articles also quote some legal authority like this…

In a reaction to the news of this further damning evidence against Trump, Los Angeles Times Sr Legal Affairs Columnist, Harry Litman, tweeted, "Trump saying that he's limited in his ability to show classified documents is game, set and match as far as intent and guilty knowledge go. Blows the various 'I am entitled' claims out of the water."

All those discussions folks were having before today…all the articles about how Trump was or wasn't toast…were written before the discussers and commentators knew about this supposed tape. We all have a tendency to make up our minds about these things on the presumption that we know all the facts, we know all the evidence. But clearly we don't. We didn't know about this tape and that should remind us that Special Counsel Smith may have a lot more damning evidence. Or he may have or know of evidence that is in some way exculpatory. Or more evidence may still be found.

Some of us might like to believe Smith has an airtight case against The Donald…and he might. But newspaper accounts have been wrong, judges and juries sometimes surprise us…and bombshells are called that for a reason. They tend to explode without advance notice.

Click above to see the whole drawing by Jack Davis.

That's kinda what happened with the Watergate Scandal. All these folks, pro-Nixon and anti-Nixon, were absolutely sure how it would turn out. But the "pros" and the "antis" didn't agree and a lot of what they insisted was rendered inoperative or at least moot when the tape of June 23, 1972 came to light. (Click here if you don't know what it was and how it changed everything.)

I'm not saying this new Trump tape is in any way comparable to that tape; just that they both came out of nowhere as far as we spectators were concerned. Today, I see all these commentators, many of the esteemed legal experts, saying that Trump is certain to lose. But most of them seem to be overlooking something that was in the original CNN report I quoted way above, the one that started "Federal prosecutors have obtained…" In the article, it also said this…

CNN has not listened to the recording, but multiple sources described it. One source said the relevant portion on the Iran document is about two minutes long, and another source said the discussion is a small part of a much longer meeting.

So the reporters didn't hear it and it was a small part of a much longer meeting. They're quoting sources and it doesn't even say, "According to sources who actually heard the tape." Maybe it's being accurately described, maybe not. I just think we oughta withhold absolute certainty until we have a better idea of what the evidence is…and whether we have all of it. "Presumed innocent until proven guilty" is still the law of this land…and it will continue to be unless Trump gets a second term or Ron DeSantis gets his first.

This Just In…

Former Vice-President Mike Pence is about to announce that he is a candidate for the office of President of the United States. No matter who you are or no matter what you've done — and even if you do not campaign in the slightest — you will either tie him in electoral votes or receive more.

This Just In…

Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is about to announce that he is a candidate for the office of President of the United States. No matter who you are or no matter what you've done — and even if you do not campaign in the slightest — you will either tie him in electoral votes or receive more.

Today's Video Link

Here's restored/colorized/enhanced video footage of Los Angeles in the early fifties. Most of this was shot on Wilshire Boulevard…which for some reason turns up a lot in old footage. The first part is of the section of Wilshire that was known as the "Miracle Mile" — some promoter's idea to spotlight a section that was full of clothing stores. My father used to shop at many of these places, all of which are long gone…

me being interviewed

I was recently asked 'n' honored to be a guest on Michael Brodie's fine podcast, Cinema Splash Page. We talked for 61 minutes about some of the weird things I've done and you can listen in either here or here. And check out the list of more impressive people he's had on.

All-Day Suckers

I've been telling you here how businesses in Las Vegas who cater to tourists have discovered something: That raising prices on food and shows or adjusting the odds on games to favor The House more are not keeping people away. The buffet charging $40 per person finds out that upping the price to $50 doesn't dissuade customers so why not raise it to $60? Or even higher?

It's the same with gaming. Here's The Wall Street Journal explaining how subtle changes in the rules of Blackjack, Roulette and other games have enabled The House to take more dough away from bettors. And it doesn't seem to scare off any bettors. (I gave up the only game I ever really played, which was Blackjack, before the rules were altered. I've never thought of diving back into it again but if I did, this would keep me away.)

Today's Video Link

The Angel City Choir — which is based of course in Los Angeles — favors us with a medley of memorable TV theme songs…

Go Read It!

Shirin Ali has an interesting take on why Donald Trump has the fans he has. I think there's some truth to it but I suspect the explanation for some of Trump's odder behavior is that he's just doing things that have worked for him in the past. The trouble (for him) is that he's now in different situations and what worked for him in a real estate deal may not work in an indictment for sedition or mishandling classified documents.