With the rise of e-reading, how has the nature of authorship changed? Andrea Buchanan, the author of the new multimedia young adult novel, "Gift"—and the co-author of the bestselling "The Daring Book For Girls"—joins Ben and Joel to talk about the challenges of writing for a digital format.

Questions considered in this podcast:

• Why would a traditional author move into creating "multimedia" books?

• Are elements like music, games, and videos an integral part of today's reading experience? Or are they just bells and whistles?

• How is writing a book different in a digital format? Is it more like a movie project, with a series of specialists helping create a single work? Or is the author still the author?

• Will writers continue to eke out a living this way?

• Is there a stigma against digital publication among authors and publishers?

• What happens when the post-apocalyptic America with no electricity arrives? Are e-books too ephemeral? Is Jonathan Franzen right that they endanger democracy?

• What's the best way to bring kids along as readers? Print or digital devices?

• Is the death of print greatly exaggerated?

Music heard in this podcast: Selections from the multimedia novel "Gift."

Like The Ben and Joel Podcast? Subscribe in iTunes.

Ben and Joel are joined by Lex Friedman, author of "The Snuggie Sutra" and the forthcoming "The Kid in the Crib," for a talk about TV comedy.

Questions considered in this podcast:

• Is this a golden age for sitcoms?
• What does the Internet have to do with that?
• Which show is better: "Community" or "Louie"?
• "NewsRadio" or "WKRP in Cincinnati"?
• "The Larry Sanders Show" or "Arrested Development"?

Music heard in this podcast: Theme songs from some of your favorite sitcoms ever.

Hollywood! Hooray?

You would never know it from the total news blackout and absence of hype, but the 84th Annual Academy Awards are this Sunday, February 26. Joining Ben and Joel for this edition of the podcast are returning guests Christian Toto (Big Hollywood) and Matt Prigge (Philadelphia Weekly).

Among the questions we discuss:
• Can you care about movies and not care about the Oscars?
• Who and what got robbed?
• Which of the nine Best Picture nominees will win? Which one deserves to?
• What about the actors?
• What about the actresses?
• What about the animated films? (Related: Why didn't Pixar release a movie last year? No, Cars 2 doesn't count!)
• Which of these nominees will embarrass and befuddle us in 25 years?
• Which of these nominees embarrasses us right now?
• And much, much more! (Billy Crystal is mentioned only in passing.)

Music heard in this podcast:
• "Hooray for Hollywood," Nancy Sinatra
• "A Real Hero (featuring Electric Youth)," College (from the "Drive" Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)
• "Seeding, And Horse Vs. Car," John Williams (from the "War Horse" Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, nominated for Best Original Score)
• "The Artist Ouverture," Ludovic Bource (from "The Artist" Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, nominated for Best Original Score)
• "George Smiley," Alberto Iglesias (from the "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, nominated for Best Original Score)
• "The Thief," Howard Shore (from the "Hugo" Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, nominated for Best Original Score)
• "The Adventure Continues," John Williams (from "The Adventures of Tintin" Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, nominated for Best Original Score)

Programming note: This episode of "The Ben and Joel Podcast" is Vol. 5, No. 2. We're hoping to go from a monthly schedule to more of a bi-weekly routine in the next month. Stay tuned!

Please visit and "like" the new Ben and Joel page on Facebook for updates about the podcast and our weekly syndicated column with ScrippsHoward News Service.

Ben and Joel are joined by a stellar panel to discuss the books they would give as gifts this Christmas. Guests in this episode include Rick Henderson, editor of the John Locke Foundation's Carolina Journal; Pia Lopez, editorial writer for the Sacramento Bee (and Ben's weekly sparring partner in the Bee's "Head to Head" column, where they discussed books on Dec. 8); and Sam Karnick, editor of The American Culture and director of research at The Heartland Institute.

Music heard in this podcast:

• "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," Joseph Spence
• "Gabriel's Message," Sting
• "Little Drummer Boy," Los Straitjackets
• "O Little Town of Bethlehem," Shawn Lee's Ping Pong Orchestra
• "Must Be Santa," Bob Dylan
• "A Holly Jolly Christmas," Burl Ives

Books discussed in this podcast:

(Domo)

Cow steak!

Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis discuss the end of "Lost" with Macworld editor Jason Snell, who was kind enough to join us again for a wrap-up. We would have posted this a little sooner, but paying work seemed to get in the way. We recorded on Saturday, May 29, while there was still a warm glow about the series finale and the resolution. Well, Joel wasn't especially warm, as you will hear...

Among the questions we discuss:

• Did it work?
• Was Ben Linus's fate satisfactory?
• Was the "Lost" finale on par with the end of "Battlestar Galactica"?
• What can "faithless infidels" take from shows like "Lost"?
• Is long-form, episodic TV with a multi-season story arc even possible anymore? Was it ever?
• And much more!

Music heard in this podcast:

More of Michael Giacchino, naturally -- all from season one.

(Oh, and be sure to listen through to the very end.)

Via Jon Favreau's Twitter Feed comes the most adorable, geek movie parody I have ever seen...

Deborah L. Rhode, a Stanford University law professor and author of "The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law," reminds us what's old -- really, really old -- is new again:

Appearance-related bias... exacerbates disadvantages based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation and class. Prevailing beauty standards penalize people who lack the time and money to invest in their appearance. And weight discrimination, in particular, imposes special costs on people who live in communities with shortages of healthy food options and exercise facilities.

So why not simply ban discrimination based on appearance?

Yes, why not? A beautiful idea. What could possibly go wrong?

(Via John Miller at The Corner.)

Sarah Pulliam Bailey echoes and amplifies the point I made in our podcast with Jason Snell, except she did it for the readers of the Wall Street Journal (of which there are considerably more than the, er,...select audience listening to Joel and me):

The show's writers have hooked an invested group of about 11 million viewers, and these devotees want to believe some larger purpose exists in the storytelling, something meaningful that makes six seasons of watching worthwhile. Each week, however, every answer seems to lead to more questions, leaving enthusiasts with grave angst.

Yet this is how all of life unfolds. In the end, we may find only an approximation of the truth. The viewers' search for meaning in "Lost" exemplifies a microcosm of that experience. If we give the writers a little grace and extend some patience, the suspense leading up to the finale of this television show could teach us something about faith in general.

"I wish you had believed me," Parallel-Universe Locke says as he lies in the hospital. Later, Jack says the same thing to Locke. I've come around to the view that "Lost" won't answer every single question when it ends Sunday night. It might even leave open some big ones. That's okay with me. We don't call them "mysteries" for nothing. Not all mysteries can be solved.

As ABC's "Lost" hurdles toward its thrilling Sunday night series finale, Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis discuss the show and its meaning with Macworld's Jason Snell. The podcast was recorded over the weekend, before Tuesday's episode, "What They Died For."

Among the questions we explore:

• Where does "Lost" rank in the science fiction pantheon?
• Are showrunners Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof giving their fans the finger?
• What do creators owe to their fans, anyway?
• What do "Lost" and "Battlestar Galactica" have in common?
• What do "Lost" and "Twin Peaks" have in common?
• Is the music in "Lost" like another character in the show?
• How should "The End" end?

Music heard in this podcast:

• Selections from Michael Giacchino's scores to "Lost," seasons 2 through 5.

As ABC's "Lost" hurdles toward its thrilling Sunday night series finale, Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis discuss the show and its meaning. But...something is missing. It's almost as if this podcast was recorded in a parallel timeline. (Or maybe Jason Snell forgot what time we were scheduled to record...) The podcast was recorded over the weekend, before Tuesday's episode, "What They Died For."

Among the questions we explore:

• Are the Others really the good guys?
• What do "Lost" and "Battlestar Galactica" have in common?
• Are showrunners Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof giving their fans the finger?
• Is Ben Linus a metaphor for George W. Bush?
• Is the music in "Lost" like another character in the show?
• How should "The End" end?

Music heard in this podcast:

• Selections from Michael Giacchino's scores to "Lost," seasons 2 through 5.

My pal Doc has an interesting and unusually candid interview with Brian Doherty, senior editor at Reason magazine and author of This is Burning Man and Radicals for Capitalism.

I think Seth Leibsohn has this absolutely wrong:

If the press had unified, as they do on so many other political and policy issues, and stood up to the ever-growing radical Islamist speech veto in the West, we could be well on our way toward a cultural victory in the war. Instead, we continue to cave. The last place I thought I'd see such caving was at Comedy Central — a channel dedicated to the iconoclasm of almost everything religious and everyone political. Now, even chief iconoclast Jon Stewart is defending the veto, or censorship, on his network.

Interestingly, Leibsohn links to this New York Times blog post titled: "Jon Stewart Takes On Comedy Central’s Censorship of ‘South Park’." That doesn't sound like a defense.

And here's the video the NYT post is about:

To me, it's clear that Stewart's not too happy with the censorship -- though he acknowledges that Comedy Central has the right to do so. But certainly somebody who was afraid of incurring militant Muslim wrath wouldn't bring their commentary to a culmination with a rousing gospel rendition of "Go F**k Yourself" aimed at the group in question. Would they?

Apparently, this has been around for awhile. But I hadn't seen it until a moment ago -- I haven't seen Rush live in probably 15 years, come to think of it -- and I think it's the bee's knees...

(Hat tip: Mick Shrimpton on Twitter.)

I was going to make a Netflix Queue post out of this, but: After just five episodes of "Mad Men," I'm giving up. Good lord, that's a boring show.

Let me pitch it to you: "We watch people go to work every day! In the SIXTIES!"

Don Draper isn't seductive and beguiling. He's just boring. Why is this show so beloved?

How to respond to Jonathan Safran Foer's latest book, Eating Animals? Let us examine the choices:

* BOREDOM: This might be your initial response. After all, the last decade has seen the rise of a new -- or maybe renewed -- literary subgenre concerned with the ethics and sustainability of how we eat. Eric Schlosser got the ball rolling with 2001's Fast Food Nation; the intervening decade has brought us Matthew Scully's Dominion and David Foster Wallace's Consider the Lobster, among other contributions. Mark Bittman once advised us How To Cook Everything, but more recently has decided that Food Matters -- and that maybe we shouldn't be eating so much meat.

The masterpiece of this movement, of course, is Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, which took its readers on a tour of 21st century "factory farming," with steps along the way for moral contemplation of meat eating, hunting and Whole Foods shopping. Pollan's tome -- and a couple of spinoff books -- was a smash hit, finding its way to the bottom of thousands of reusable cloth bags toted by enviro-foodies to farmers markets across the land.

So what's new for Foer to say? Not much, honestly. His reportage here covers much of the same ground already trod by Pollan. Factory farming -- we're told again -- is a dirty, cruel process that is awful to behold is probably making us sick. If you've read Pollan, you're likely to find yourself in the grip of a second possible reaction:

* IRRITATION: What Foer does offer is attitude and sanctimony. Where Pollan is professorial, using narrative to nudge his reader toward a conclusion, Foer comes across a smart, profane, angry undergrad -- one you might try to avoid on the quad when he starts hectoring passerby to stop and watch his Meet Your Meat video. He might be in command of the facts, but damn he's annoying.

It wouldn't be fair to compare Foer to Pollan so much, except that Pollan is one of the targets here. In Omnivore, Pollan concludes he's not willing to give up meat -- but he decides to seek it from alternative sources (local ranchers, hunters) who use sustainable practices and keep animal cruelty at a minimum. This draws Foer's moral ire, declaring that Pollan is among those who "never, absolutely never, emphasize that virtually all of the time one's choice is between cruelty and ecological destruction, and ceasing to eat animals."

There's only one problem with this critique: Foer ends the book as a committed vegetarian -- as he has to, really, once he decides he cannot justify any amount of animal suffering in the name of a good meal. Despite this decision, however, he vows that he can support efforts to create sustainable, minimally cruel family farms.

"The meat industry has tried to paint people who take this two-fold stance as absolutist vegetarians hiding a radicalized agenda," Foer writes. "But ranchers can be vegetarians, vegans can build slaughterhouses, and I can be a vegetarian who supports the best of animal agriculture."

We never really understand why Foer -- who finds any level of animal suffering to be unacceptable -- decides this approach is appropriate. But bizarrely, this conclusion is not that far from Pollan's own. The distinction, I suppose, is that Foer is really sensitive and tortured about the process. This is moral preening, and that is all it is.

This sanctimony -- replete with references to Martin Luther King Jr. and the Holocaust -- would make Eating Animals worth tossing in the trash bin at your nearest barbecue joint ... were it not for the third possible reaction to this book:

* GRUDGING ACCEPTANCE THAT FOER IS KINDA MAYBE RIGHT: Damnit, factory farming is gross. It fills our rivers and waterways with shit; it fills our air with climate-changing gases; it delivers meat filled with contaminants and antibiotics. And it is, by any rational standard, cruel: chickens have their beaks cut off; pigs live in their own waste; cattle are dismembered while alive and conscious. These are facts that should give one pause -- if not for the sake of the animals, then for the sake of our own health.

Foer, of course, wants more than a pause. He wants a halt. The environmental factors are important to his case, but it's clear he considers the moral argument most persuasive.

"Think about it," he asks. "Do you eat chicken because you are familiar with the scientific literature on them and have decided their suffering doesn't matter, or do you do it because it tastes good?"

My first, glib answer: A little bit of both.

Less glibly, what I mean to say is that I do not grant (say) chickens the same moral weight that I do a human being. Foer presents science here that chickens -- among other animals -- share human capacities for pain, fear, reason and other cognitive processes. I don't doubt that he's right. But still: I do not grant a chicken the same moral weight as a human. I just know there's a difference between us and them. (If chickens one day rule the earth, I may regret these words.)

Until then, though, I find the example of nature too compelling. Animals eat other animals. All the time.

Foer doesn't buy this argument. "The entirety of human society and moral progress represents an explicit transcendence of what's 'natural,'" he says. And he's right. But what is interesting to me about this is that environmentalists -- and, let's face it, there's a signficant overlap between them and the vegetarian community -- make this argument in no other context. Dams are unpardonable usurpations of Mother Nature's work; so are power plants. Environmentalists usually call on us to disturb nature as little as possible, to acclimate our processes to the earth's natural rhythms. Then dinner time comes.

So where does this leave us? Probably -- if you've ever given thought to your meals -- at the same place you started.

My family already buys our meat from a halal butcher who, in turn, buys his cattle and chickens directly from nearby Amish farmers. We already have escaped the factory farm system, putting our money toward something as sustainable and minimally cruel as we can achieve while still eating meat.

But we probably don't need to eat meat as often as we do. Tonight I prepared a vegetarian stew from the Sundays At Moosewood cookbook. It was delicious, stuffed full of veggies and spices, and any concerns I had about missing meat were quickly overcome by the fact that it was super tasty.

This, of course, is what Foer misses. In his quest for moral perfection, he forgets that a good meal -- even a simple meal, even a vegetarian meal -- can bring you pleasure. Pollan never forgets that. I know whose manifesto I find more appealing.

... at least on Fox come May after the conclusion of it's eighth "day," otherwise known as a season. From The Hollywood Reporter:

Tick, tick, tick … and done.

After eight seasons, Fox’s “24” is coming to an end.

The groundbreaking action drama will air its final real-time episode in May, the victim of a confluence of circumstances: a swelling budget, declining ratings and creative fatigue.

BOOOOO!!!!! Apparently, due to the fact that salaries spiral upward dramatically the longer a show is on television (especially after the fifth season), Fox was paying an incredible $5 million an episode for this year's installments. Let's see ... 5 million times 24 episode equals .... A LOT!

But Jack Bauer himself, as he's proven countless times on "24" is hard to kill:

Yet for fans of Jack Bauer, there remains hope. Studio 20th TV is developing a theatrical film that takes Bauer to Europe, and showrunner and executive producer Howard Gordon says other possibilities are being explored as well.

“There are other possible iterations of Jack Bauer and his world,” Gordon said.

The producers of "24" have long begged off shifting Jack Bauer to the big screen because it would screw up the narrative of the show. Makes sense. It would be hard to slip an entire new adventure into the timeline of each "off season" of "24" and not (1) take away from the show and (2) easily integrate the spent movie plot into the show's historical timeline. But I welcome the idea of seeing Jack Bauer in the movies. We could use an American James Bond.

And, no, Jason Bourne does not count. Jack Bauer would kick Bourne's whiny, metrosexual, conflicted-about-what's-right-and-wrong behind. After easily subduing Bourne with a chop to the throat — then sitting Bourn down in a chair to make it easier to get a clean shot when shooting him in the knee — Jack would lecture him on what real sacrifice for one's nation is about.

"Oh. Your girlfriend got killed? Boo hoo, you traitor! My wife was killed!!! I saw her die in my place of work!!! But I kept coming back, DAMMIT!!!! To protect my country. To do my duty. To do what was right." (Those last lines are not adorned with accumulating exclamation points because Sutherland would deliver them in his trademark Whisper of Intensity.)

So this May will mark the end of Jack Bauer's exploits on TV — and one of the most innovative dramas in the history of television, not the least from a production/presentation stand point. Remember that "24" insisted (once it was a legitimate hit) that all its episodes be run for 24 consecutive weeks so as not to lose its "one-day-in-real-time" grip presented one hour at a time. And Fox acquiesced. That was unheard of in modern television, but served the show well. The "24" producers even cancelled the entire season last year over the Hollywood writers' strike, because it was not willing to produce half a season, then come back and finish up later. I think what resulted — essentially a one-year hiatus — contributed greatly to the show's sagging, but still solid, ratings.

The Hollywood Reporter notes that "24" pioneered a network television innovation — "a returning hit that airs in midseason without repeats." "24," as much as the advent of summer-scheduled reality shows like "Survivor," blew up the tradition that the "television season" starts in the fall, takes a repeat-heavy break, and starts up again in the spring. Indeed, "24" executive producer Howard Gordon knows that his show has established itself in television history:

“I’d like it to be remembered as a revolutionary concept,” Gordon said. “I hope the second thing is that we loved this show so much and never did anything less than our best and I hope we delivered to our fans like we feel we did to ourselves.”

You did, Howard, by giving America a real American hero — who time and again put country before self and family. Bravo! And may Jack Bauer make a splash in movie history as well. I smell franchise!

"King of the World" director James Cameron is holding a grudge over Glenn Beck making a joke about him when Beck had a show over on the unwatched CNN Headline News network three years ago. Beck said the man who foisted "Titanic" on the world — especially Celine Dion's awful "My Heart Will Go On" upon the culture — must be at least in the running for election to become the Anti-Christ.

It was a joke. Did I mention it was three years ago?

But, apparently, a mantle full of Oscars and a few billion dollars worth of box office receipts can't heal the wounds Beck inflicted — in jest. Cameron unleashed a profanity-laced tirade Tuesday against Beck, and even The Hollywood Reporter is too dense, biased, or lazy to correctly place the easily discerned reason for Beck's "offensive" quote. Hint: It has nothing to do with Cameron's 2007 documentary, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," which (1) no one has heard of, (2) didn't air until March of 2007, and (3) aired after Beck's comments of February 26, 2007.

We'll let the rest of the story be filled in by Beck's reaction to the flap on his show Wednesday night:

Why is James Cameron so certain he'd come out on top in a gunfight against a "global warming denier?" I think maybe he has been seen too many movies and thinks of himself as Gary Cooper.

...you'll likely enjoy this Academy Award winning movie trailer. It's the feel-good hit of the season!

(Hat tip: Steve Hayward)

It's Academy Awards Weekend. Ben and Joel are joined once again by Christian Toto of What Would Toto Watch? and Matt Prigge of Philadelphia Weekly to talk about the 2009 nominees in the run up to Sunday's awards. (And if you are listening to this after the show, check out just how wrong -- or how right! -- we were.)

Among the questions we explore:

• Are 10 Best Picture nominations better than five?
• Or is expanding the nomination pool just a gimmick?
• Never mind what the Academy says: What movie really deserved the Best Picture Oscar?
• Is "Avatar" art -- or an embarrassment?
• What set "The Hurt Locker" apart from other recent war movies?
• Is it time for a gender-neutral “Best Actor” Oscar?
• Which movie released in 2009 should have been on the Best Picture list?
• Could there be a better Nazi zombie movie than "Dead Snow"?

Music heard in this podcast:

• "Hooray for Hollywood," Geoff Muldaur
• "I See You (Theme from 'Avatar')," some cheap knockoff cover, not the Leona Lewis version from the "Avatar" OST
• "Slaughter," Billy Preston (from the "Inglourious Basterds" OST)
• "Julia's Theme," Alexander Desplat (from the "Julie and Julia" OST)
• "Up With End Credits," Michael Giacchino (from the "Up" OST)

I have to believe this book, brought to you by the same guy who wrote Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, will be terrible. (These mash-up books featuring classic characters or historical figures battling supernatural creatures are sort of annoying, aren't they?) But the book's "trailer" looks fun. I will probably skip the novel and wait for the feature film. Incidentally, movie version of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, which stars Natalie Portman, is in production now and is scheduled for release in 2011.

(Hat tip: Gamma Squad)

Sean Penn was on Larry King Live the other night talking about Haiti. And Penn certainly knows more about what's going on over there than me because he showed up to help after the earthquake hit. Penn warrants praise for lending his celebrity to the cause and physically helping the always poor and now horribly devastated people of Haiti. (There's video evidence on Fox News, of all places). We should all tip our hats to him for that.

But King, to his credit, challenged Penn on what appeared to the host to be a newfound appreciation for the United States military — which, predictably, proves to be Johnny-On-The-Spot when a natural disaster hits while the United Nations is still debating on whether to put on its shoes.

PENN: We work in strong collaboration with the 82nd Airborne, who have been extraordinary. To see the United States military with all its skill and discipline and most importantly the quality of human beings that there are doing this when it's a human aid effort is unparalleled.

KING: You were so praiseworthy of the military, and normally you're not a big fan of military.

PENN: That's not true. If anyone looks back at the things I've written, I've always been a supporter of the troops. I think that we have a responsibility to only deploy our troops constitutionally and responsibly.

In this case, there's no question. I think this is the most noble mission likely that the United States military has been involved in since World War II, but I support the military in right wars or unright wars.

The problem is the use of the military and the misuse of it at times. In this instance, this is the most efficient force in the country. And I would plead to our president that he keeps the United States military there for longer than I understand is currently planned.

Stop the presses! I agree with Sean Penn. Our forces should remain deployed there for longer than currently planned. (The people of Haiti would be better off today if we long ago invaded the country or won it as a prize in a war with France ... but let's put that aside.) As long as our troops can help, and our efforts there do not negatively affect our ability to respond to the war on terror, I'm all for it. But it's time to call bullshit — of which Penn's comments have tons.

As Tim Graham at NewsBusters notes, it was just last year that Penn won the Best Actor Oscar — and used his moment in the international spotlight to rip the kinds of people who join the military. And Penn was even less charitable toward those people in a 2006 HuffPost screed. So it's pretty rich for Penn to pretend he's "always been a supporter of the troops" in "right wars or unright wars." That's a joke.

Penn is among those liberals (especially among the Hollywood set) who only really love our men and women in uniform when they don't shoot anyone — when they act as an International Red Cross response team in fatigues. Of course, this is not the purpose of any nation's military. It would be nice if the "global community" that people like Penn so admire could dedicate itself to creating a rapid-response force with the "skill and discipline and most importantly the quality of human beings" found in the U.S. military. Alas, we are stuck with the incompetent, yet expensive, blue helmets of the United Nations — who occasionally rape the subjects of their humanitarian care.

I'm also intrigued by Penn's view that he's OK with military deployments when it's done "constitutionally." Funny. I don't remember a Congressional authorization for the U.S. military's deployment to Haiti. But I remember one for Iraq. Guess Penn's memory is sketchier than mine.

There's a by now old saw that liberals support military deployments when they are not in the national interest, but are all for them when they are for some sense of the "global interest." I recall Hollywood Hero Bill Clinton deploying troops to depose Slobodan Milosovic in the Balkans. Some conservatives growled, but nothing like the left did toward Bush. Personally, I supported it — but not enthusiastically, because I didn't see the vital U.S. interest in the endeavor. But it's a good thing that Milosovic is gone (dead, even). I'd like to hear Penn and his like-minded liberals say it's a good thing that Saddam is gone (dead, even) — without qualification. Still waiting.

Haiti is a military deployment that is justified for humanitarian reasons. No doubt. The "global community," and even Sean Penn, smiles upon our efforts. Which is nice. (Though, it should be noted, that Penn's good friend Hugo Chavez, calls America's humanitarian effort in Haiti a nefarious occupation. If Penn has weighed in publicly to correct his friend, I've missed it.) And it would be great to accept those well-wishes at face value.

But the left's historic hatred of the proper use of American military might on the global stage (Penn and his like-minded Hollywood friends opposed Reagan's stance in the Cold War, too) make Sean Penn's newfound appreciation for the troops — not to mention who sends them and how they are deployed — a little hard to stomach.

So this musician John Mayer gave an interview to Playboy in which he discussed sexual intercourse with Jessica Simpson without using a negro dialect. Or something. I really don't know much about what he said or much about the man's body of work, for that matter.

(Oh, "Your Body is a Wonderland"? That guy? Jeeeeee-ZUS.)

I mention it only because the hullaballoo, as captured in this blog item at the top of Yahoo's annoying new home page, caught my eye:

John Mayer's Nashville fans were treated to more than just a rock concert last night. They also got a lengthy, tearful apology, delivered mid-song, and the promise -- or threat, depending on how one feels about the musician -- that he'd be quitting what he referred to as "the media game."

There's more, including a video. Because this is 2010, Mayer apologized first on Twitter before blubbering on stage. It's a brave new world, brothers and sisters.

Now, this may sound a bit odd, contradictory or perhaps even hypocritical coming from somebody who pays the mortgage "doing journalism" -- though certainly not celebrity journalism -- but I think anyone who deals with the press should always keep these two maxims at the very front of his or her mind:

First, journalists are untrustworthy bastards. They're quote hunters -- the juicier and more embarrassing the better. Even I've been burned by reporters before.

Second -- and this one is really important -- never say nothing to nobody about nothing. Ever.

There are caveats and exceptions to both rules, of course. (Obviously, don't think twice about talking to me.) I don't understand why a guy like Mayer, who is evidently a gossip and tabloid magnet, didn't learn to keep his yap shut years ago. Could be it's all an act; he's really just generating controversy for the sake of publicity; and this latest stunt got out of hand. "It was arrogant of me to think I could intellectualize using it," Mayer tweeted, "because I realize that there's no intellectualizing a word that is so emotionally charged." An understatement if ever there was one.

Or maybe Mayer thought people were only kidding when they say they just read Playboy for the articles.

I still think the Super Bowl ad was more fundamentally serious than irreverent (and Zaius agrees), but I can't help but nod approvingly at Goldberg's take:

It will be interesting to see whether the ad actually sells cars. The premise only works if you take it as a given that this Gorewellian nightmare is inevitable. The commercials arrive at precisely the moment when that inevitability is unraveling like an old pair of hemp sock.

Read the rest; but, yeah, that's about right.

Tangina Barrons has joined Carol Anne in the light.

Or, rather, the actress who immortalized the character in three Poltergeist films has gone to her reward. Zelda Rubenstein was 76.

The diminutive Rubenstein did cartoon voice work before making her debut in the atrocious Chevy Chase-Billy Barty vehicle, Under the Rainbow. She went on to roles on television, including most memorably as the sheriff's radio dispatcher in Picket Fences.

But this will be how millions of fans will remember her:

(More Rubenstein clips here.)

At 47, Rubinstein -- a Pittsburgh native, Zaius will be happy to know -- abruptly decided to end her career as a medical technician. She told an interviewer:

“I had no idea what I would do next, but I knew it would involve advocacy for those people who were in danger of being disenfranchised,” she said. “I wanted a platform to be visible as a person who is different, as a representative of several varieties of differences. This is the most effective way for me to carry a message saying, ‘Yes you can.’ I took a look at these shoulders in the mirror and they’re pretty big. They can carry a lot of Sturm und Drang on them.”

Rest in peace, madame.

Every mid-winter in the Shetland Islands, the residents celebrate their Nordic heritage (the islands changed hands between the Scots and Vikings for centuries early in the fist half of the last millennium) with a fire festival, commonly called "Up Helly Aa" by the locals. It's celebrated in just about every Shetland town, including Scalloway, where my wife's mother was born and her uncle now lives.

The festival — which was first held after the Napoleonic wars — celebrates the end of the "yule season," and has evolved to include a procession of torch-bearers wearing festive garb. Some wear Viking outfits. Some just wear special T-shirts. And some even dress like a Vegas-era Elvis). A good time is had by all — and good times are valuable in such a harsh climate in winter. At the end of the procession, a painstakingly built replica viking galley in the harbor is set ablaze in a spectacular display.

Why am I writing about this? Patience ...

Every Up Helly Aa festival has a leader, the Guiser Jarl (pronounced "geyser yawr-el"), who is something like a grand master in an American parade. The Guiser Jarl selects his court, what's called the Jarl Squad. It is a great honor to be picked for the Jarl Squad. And in Scalloway, one must at a minimum be a resident of the town for at least five years before being picked. Then the Guiser Jarl must like you and award you the honor — at which point you start growing your beard, to the consternation of many a Jarl Squad wife. There are some exceptions, though. And my wife's brother, Buzz, was one of the exceptions.

My wife and her brother spent many a summer of their youth in Scalloway, and continued to visit Shetland often in their adulthood. Buzz, who lives in Alaska, is a long-time friend of this year's Guiser Jarl in Scalloway, Michael Pottinger. So he is one of a great minority of Americans tapped to be a member of Scalloway's Jarl Squad. It was so exceptional, Buzz was featured in a news story about this year's Up Helly Aa on a Scotland TV station.

(NOTE: The Up Helly Aa in Scalloway was special this year because last year's was cancelled. Michael Pottinger's then-one-year-old son took seriously ill and had to be flown to Edinburgh on mainland Scotland for treatment. And the town decided it would be better to not have the festival in 2009 than to pass over Michael's time as Guiser Jarl).

My brother-in-law, Buzz, comes in on the news-clip video at about the 1:30 mark.

I post this here for posterity, and because I think it's cool. And because it makes my home-town Tournament of Roses parade seem downright ... well ... gay. Oh, and that "lucky wee fellow" the Scot news reader mentions at the end of the clip? He's not referring to Buzz ... but to Michael Pottinger's now-healthy son.

Techland calls these "masterpieces." For certain, they are interesting films. And I'm glad one of my all-time favorites, "Serenity," made the list.