by Scott Cox
posted Nov 20 2013 5:39PM
Remember those X-ray specs we all wanted to order from old comic books as kids but never did? Well i've spent the last several days with Google Glass, which is way more advanced than anything out of any comic book. They let you take pictures, shoot video, surf the web, make calls- pretty much anything your cellphone does, but in a much more immediate way. I don't know if these things will replace cellphones, but i'm betting a lot of people will opt for them. Think about driving down the road, getting your directions pumped directly into your head, or posting pictures to social media just by looking at stuff. This is either scary-cool, or just scary. Just remember that as this new technology gets smaller and cheaper (the current price is $1500), more and more people will be wearing them. You'll never know who if someone is looking in your direction, or recording your every move. This aises some serious and immediate privacy issues. Between computer glasses, drones, sattelite cameras and govenrment phone monitoring, we're living the golden age for the paranoid. Let's hope that these glasses are used for good and not for evil. Hey- we can hope.
by Ralph Bailey
posted Nov 4 2013 3:00PM
So for so bad goes my reading of “Johnny Carson” the book being hawked by Carson-attorney Henry Bushkin.
First, Bushkin portrays Carson as a sullen, loner. He depicts Carson as a mark, not only to shifty Hollywood moguls but to mere friends and trusted confidantes who lined their pockets on scams using Carson’s talent while, surprisingly, Johnny wasn’t making the mega dollars he would garner late in his career.
Secondly, the story is told from Bushkin’s perspective.
Who is Henry Bushkin, you ask?
My point exactly!
I don’t give a good doggone about what Bushkin thought of Johnny or Bushkin’s interpretation of Johnny’s peaks and valleys. The stories are compelling but the rehashed conversations, for the most part, are mere idle gossip that seems as traitorous as some of the snake in the grass financial moves made against John.
For example, Bushkin is the compassionate ear for Johnny one drunken night in New York early in their relationship. The next day Carson calls and asks, ”What did I say?” Buskin allays his fears insisting he’s Johnny’s attorney now and anything said can’t be repeated while he’s alive.
I’m sorry but I doubt very seriously if he added that part about, “…while you’re still alive.” Now, it gives Bushkin cover for all the retelling of confidential stories and happenings that for my money ain’t right, even after the subject’s death.
However, as I stated the stories are compelling. I would just like to remember Mr. Carson as the classic, wit. The Bon vivant, man about town who kept us entertained and laughing late night. To miss Johnny Carson in the 1970s was not to be in the “in” crowd. One had to be able to recreate Johnny’s monologue or you might as well go and “sit on it!” If you missed “Carnak the Magnificent” may an elephant with gas invade your bath tub.
That’s how I want to remember John. Not as the lonely, drunken Iowa boy who could never make his parents proud, as Bushkin describes, all in an effort to sell books. SMH!!!