I Need a Vacation, by Michael Davis – Straight No Chaser #168
May 20, 2010 Michael Davis 0 Comments
I don’t like to travel.
I don’t like to fly.
I like to stay home.
I like to stay home and work.
I love my job.
I make up stories. I paint pretty pictures. I work on or create TV shows. I create publishing imprints. I write books. I get paid to speak. Sometimes (and this is SO bad ass) I get paid to listen to someone who wants to pay more money to involve me in a project. Come on, love me or hate me that shit is cool. I actually get paid for my time regardless if I do the project or not. Come on! Admit it, that shit is badass.
I do a lot.
Sometimes I’m so wired on coffee I can’t fall asleep even if I’ve been up for days. Denys Cowan and I have a ritual, when we are in our studios working late we get on the phone and just talk to each other while we work. Once, I was up for around three days straight drinking coffee and popping no-doze tablets while talking to Denys on the phone.
I was on the 40th floor of the apartment I was living in at the time; my studio overlooked the Hudson River. My drafting table faced a floor to ceiling window and on this day it was about 4am in the morning…
Me: Dude, I’m looking at Axel Rose right now!
Denys: Cool, what channel?
Me: No, he’s right outside my window.
Denys: You funny dude.
Me: Funny? No, I’m serious Axel Rose is riding a peninsula and he’s right outside my window.
Denys: You’re on the 40th floor…
Me: I guess that’s why Guns & Roses are not with him.
Denys: MICHAEL!! GET SOME SLEEP!!!!
I swear that happened.
No-doze + coffee + no sleep = VERY bad idea.
Denys and I have been talking on the phone while we work for 20 plus years. Jean, I started working professionally when I was around 5. Denys started when he was 40 or so. To THIS day those calls still feel like we are kids staying up late and playing.
Man!! That’s still so cool. Right now it’s Thursday around 10:30pm and I’ve slept maybe 4 hours last night. I don’t see getting into bed to at least 2 or 3 in the morning. I have a 10 am conference call with Don Levine (NAME DROP! Yeah THAT Don Levine) so that means I have to be in my office no later than 9am so I can be fresh and clever when I’m talking to D O N L E V I N E !!
Yeah, I love my job and yeah, I work a lot. I work around 17 or 18 hours a day and I now realize I need a vacation.
I hate taking vacations. I’ve taken some in my life but NEVER was it my idea.
Never.
Someone, usually a woman, would guilt me into taking a vacation. When I was on my honeymoon I would wait until my wife went to sleep then I would stay up and work. I know, know I have issues but I’m just not one for vacations. The only time I ever wanted to take a vacation was when I was a kid.
I now realize I need a vacation.
Not because I’m working 17 or 18 hours a day.
Not because I’m doing a lot.
Not because I’m burned out.
Note because I’ll lose my frequent flyer miles.
Not because I won a contest.
Not for any reason, which would make sense to any normal human, being.
Not because I’m being guilted into going. No, for the first time in my adult life this vacation is my idea.
Why do I need a vacation?
Arizona.
Like I commented on Mike Gold’s brilliant piece yesterday, I need a vacation so I can bury my head in the sand somewhere and try with all my might and imagination to travel back to the year 2010. I’m convinced that somehow, someway we as a nation have traveled back in time and we are living in 1950 and the entire country has turned into Mississippi. Mississippi in 1950. FUCK THAT.
I’m a black man, the last thing I need is to be black in Mississippi in 1950, or Latino in Arizona in 2010. Now that I think about it, if its a problem being Latino in Arizona in 2010 when will it be a problem to be black, gay or Jewish somewhere else in the country?
I REALLY need a vacation.
MOTU
May 21, 2010 - 1:15 am
Correction:
The product is called No doz, not No doze. My bad.
Mike Gold
May 21, 2010 - 2:20 am
John Goodman said he could drive from New York to Los Angeles on three cans of Red Bull. That’s about a thousand miles to the can. Your mileage may vary.
It’s 5:18 AM EDT and I’m thinking of taking a nap. You’re right — this lifestyle sucks. My curse is that 5 Hour shit. Cheaper than meth and it tastes better than Red Bull.
Martha Thomases
May 21, 2010 - 6:18 am
The Euro is really cheap now. Let’s meet up in Barcelona!
Tony Isabella
May 21, 2010 - 7:00 am
I am an extremely angry Italian right now, so I’m posting this in several places.
It’s a response to someone who posted on my own message board. You can read the whole exchange here:
http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/tony/?frames=n;read=219953
Here’s my response:
I keep trying to come up with a more diplomatic way to respond and this is the best I can manage…
So…
You’re okay with racism, but chose to not personally practice racism. How white of you.
The “as a Christian” line doesn’t wash with me, either. Because tolerating racism is not even remotely WHAT JESUS WOULD DO.
This is the great fallacy of the modern conservative/libertarian/Tea Party movement, beyond that it has corrupted all those terms beyond rational recognition.
It makes excuses for condoning outrageously immoral behavior under the guises of liberty or patriotism or national security or even the so-called free market.
It’s mean-spirited and mendacious to its very core.
I can never figure out if those who espouse these views are deluding themselves as to their true natures or trying to con the rest of us into thinking those views are valid in a nation and a society that aspires to liberty and justice for all.
James
May 21, 2010 - 9:09 am
I remember being ten years old, and reading that the law keeping Caucasians from legally marrying Asian-born citizens (in California) was repealed in 1956, only a few years before my dad was born. I remember thinking, “Man, good thing we’ve come so far since then, or else I’d have never existed.”
Ugh.
Mike Gold
May 21, 2010 - 9:28 am
I’ve pointed this out before, but the Supreme Court didn’t overturn anti-miscegenation laws until 1967; 16 states still had them on the books at that time. Even then, several states kept them on the books — the final two were repealed in 1998 (South Carolina) and 2000 (Alabama).
Yep. That means inter-racial sex was still illegal somewhere here in the United States until ten years ago. The good old days weren’t that long ago.
Various states defined miscegenation differently, but overall the laws always applied to blacks and usually to Asians, but quite often to Hispanics and Indians as well. Several states banned whites mingling with Filipinos, and the good white folks of Oregon were barred from nookie with native Hawaiians. Why Oregon? damned if I know, but there’s some stuff about that in my Brainiac On Banjo this Monday.
Mike Gold
May 21, 2010 - 9:41 am
MOTU asked “Now that I think about it, if its a problem being Latino in Arizona in 2010 when will it be a problem to be black, gay or Jewish somewhere else in the country?”
Well, come to think on it some, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that while the NATION could not dictate a national religion, in his opinion the STATES most certainly could dictate an official state religion. In effect, they already do: we call them blue laws. If you are Muslim (which is pretty well banned unofficially; again, see my Brainiac On Banjo this Monday) or Jewish and you do not feel it appropriate to lead a Christian lifestyle — like going to a shopping mall Paramus New Jersey on a Sunday, or buying a car in Illinois on Sunday — you’re screwed.
As for being black, well, we’ve got a lot of de facto situations that put sanctions on that, such as DWB. As for being gay, we’ve still got a lot of laws about that as well.
Sammy Davis Jr, a black Hispanic Jew, married Mae Britt in 1960. At that time interracial marriage was banned in 31 of the 50 states. Rumor has it the Kennedys asked Sinatra to tell Davis not to get married to a white woman until after the election. That may or may not be true, but the marriage happened on November 13, five days after the election.
Reg
May 21, 2010 - 10:05 am
And now we have Rand Paul to consider. I beg to differ with you Michael/Mike…. “The good old days” for waaaay too many are….’Today’.
Mike Gold
May 21, 2010 - 11:32 am
Reg, they ALWAYS are.
Rand Paul took the fastest dive in political history: his star started its descent within 24 hours of the election. Rachel’s good, real good (and a comics fan so I owe her) but Rand simply couldn’t handle the questioning. And now daddy’s defense isn’t helping.
Doesn’t mean he won’t win, but he won’t be bringing much clout to his office and it won’t aid daddy’s 2012 campaign.
Despite how much I despise about two-thirds of the Tea Baggers’ agenda (I’m with ’em on the other third), if they evolve into a bona fide, competitive third party they will have done our nation a great service. Even if they wind up taking over the Republican party, and the oldliners who didn’t go down on them become that third party.
Bull… Moose? Bull something…
R. Maheras
May 21, 2010 - 3:27 pm
I just don’t think there will ever be more than two parties in the United States. The “Big 2” stack the deck against all other comers.
Then again, Image came along and messed up the stranglehold Marvel and DC had on the comics biz for so long. Of course, in retrospect, we’re yet again pretty much back to the two-party system in the comics biz.
So politically, I guess folks like me will continue to be party-less.
Oh well…
By the way, Tony, I bristle every time a staunch Democrat claims the moral high ground on the race issue over the Republicans (or now, Libertarians and Tea Party members). Why? The reason is simple: I grew up in Chicago, which has been hard-core Democratic for 75 years, and all the racists I ever knew (white AND black) were Democrats.
Oh, yeah. Despite Mike’s observation about the race-related laws that were still on the books in the deep South not all that long ago, the Democratic bastion of Chicago up North is still a very segregated city, and the murder rate in mostly minority neighborhoods is still a national disgrace.
The other day I was talking to a filmmaker who is making a documentary about youth violence in Chicago, and he related to me a recent instance he witnessed where two large groups of youths in a black neighborhood squared off against each other and the cops on the scene just left. That’s right… when the gang-related situation seemed to reach a breaking point, they didn’t call for backup, they just LEFT. How would you like living in a neighborhood like that? A perpetually crime-ridden, segregated neighborhood where people get killed just standing around in front of their homes, minding their own business. Yet, remarkably, a neighborhood where no doubt everyone is still chugging the decades-old Kool-Aid that the Democratic Party will look out for them. Really? When? After 100 years of Democratic rule?
Mike Gold
May 21, 2010 - 4:35 pm
Chicago’s murder rate is astonishing when you realize that a huge chunk of it is confined to two large neighborhoods. Outside of those areas, the city’s comparatively safe. White people, Asians, many Latinos and tourists have damn little to worry about.
So why are these neighborhoods in such horrific shape? It has absolutely nothing to do with party politics: the black vote has overwhelmingly gone to the Democrats since Anton Cermak was elected in 1931, starting the still uninterrupted run of Democratic mayors. But his predecessor, William Hale Thompson, the last Republican mayor of the city and easily the most corrupt mayor of any large American city ever (and I mean EVER), also received massive support among the black voters. The black vote has been the swing vote in Chicago since Capone arrived in 1920; now, I think the Latino vote probably controls close elections. We’ll see, if the present Mayor Daley ever retires.
The Chicago Democratic Party is unlike the national. It elects a former Black Panther Party leader, Bobby Rush, to Congress (a good guy, by the way; I knew him in the day). It is relatively conservative and very pro-business, compared to the national organization.
No, these neighborhoods are so deadly because the city never figured out how to disperse and export the drug trade. Even more than in the 1930s, these areas are controlled by gangs — but without the organizational skills and the discipline of Johnny Torrio and Al Capone. Gang warfare is rampant on an unprecedented scale, but instead of mobsters in their 20s getting gunned down, we have kids in their teens and younger on the firing line. That’s sad, but it’s an informed choice these kids are making.
Not certain what the police can do about it. They’ve got cameras, patrols, community presence and assistance from the public… but they’re out-numbered and out-gunned and easily crushed by the law of supply and demand. A lot of innocents are caught in the crossfire; it is not uncommon for people to get killed in their own homes by stray bullets coming in through the window.
Coincidentally, one of the most dangerous of these areas is the Englewood neighborhood, roughly within a two mile radius of Halsted and 63rd streets. That’s where, back in 1893, H.H. Holmes (a.k.a. the Torture Doctor) had his “castle of doom,” where he slaughtered untold numbers of World’s Fair visitors and workers. One of the most methodical and most notorious serial killers of all time. So, if you believe in curses…
Marc "Married to Zatanna, Suck it" Fishman
May 21, 2010 - 5:57 pm
Not to name drop myself here, but I uncovered 10 new laws Arizona is about to pass, and wrote on it over at comicmix.
http://www.comicmix.com/news/2010/05/21/ten-new-laws-on-the-books-in-arizona/
That aside… I feel like I came to the party a little late, but that’s all good. I personally crack out on Diet Coke and Frozen Heath Bars. Only on good studio nights. I live in the far south suburbs of Chicago, and it’s plenty of safe. I live in a predominantly black building, and I assure you… it’s the NICEST building I’ve ever lived in. Everyone says “Hello” to one another, and is always helpful if it looks like you need a hand. And I’ve only been mugged 12 times. Just kidding. I’ve been mugged twice. Just kidding. I’ve never been mugged. But I DO wear a “I know the MOTU and he said my wife is HOT” Tee-Shirt when I’m in the building.
Arizona is ten kinds of f’ed up right now, but it’s just all continued backlash for a country paying for the idiocracy of that last people in power. And that’s all I have to say aout that.
R. Maheras
May 21, 2010 - 9:54 pm
Mike wrote: “No, these neighborhoods are so deadly because the city never figured out how to disperse and export the drug trade.”
It wasn’t “the city” that never figured out how to solve the problem, it was the Democratic politicians who RAN the city. It’s rationalization like yours — and the free pass Democrats keep giving to their failed leadership — that is why such problems never get fixed.
What happened in Chicago in the past, and what is still is the case today, is that the crime-ridden neighborhoods were contained — cordoned off in many cases by rivers, expressways, raised railroad tracks, or Lake Michigan — and any crime that happened to spill out was dealt with as it occurred.
Would Republican or Independent leadership have fixed the problem? Who knows? But geez, from the perspective of a law-abiding black citizen living in Englewood or Austin, it sure couldn’t have been any worse.
Martha Thomases
May 22, 2010 - 7:41 am
The reason we have criminal gangs is because we are a nation of Puritans, who can’t stand the idea of pleasure for its own sake. By outlawing drugs (or booze, or sex between/among consenting adults), we create an underground economy.
Legalize it, tax it, limit it (no driving while under the influence, extra punishment for committing crimes under the influence) and you’ll take the profit out. Then you won’t have the gang problems.
It’s that whole “Amnesty, Acid, Abortion” thing the Republicans have been railing against since 1968.
R. Maheras
May 22, 2010 - 11:23 am
Legalizing various vices didn’t eliminate crime in the Netherlands; why would it do so here?
As a matter of fact, according to stats from Nationmaster.com, the crime rate of the U.S. and the Netherlands, per capita, is practically the same: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
Of course, there is much more violent crime in the U.S., but the stats are still quite telling, in my opinion.
MOTU
May 22, 2010 - 11:59 am
I’m NEVER coming back.
Mike Gold
May 23, 2010 - 3:57 pm
Jeez, the Netherlands is one fucking depressing place. Most violence there is self-directed.
There are a lot of reasons to legalize “vices” — crime prevention isn’t a great one, although lessening violent crime is. Taking the profit incentive away from the Taliban will allow us to more appropriately allocate our military resources, and tossing the good ol’ free market at marijuana trafficking will make things a lot easier on our southern borders. And the whole thing will lower our taxes, if we didn’t reallocate those invisible revenues to other useless endeavors, which would be a first. But those are not the best reasons.
The best reason is because it ain’t the governments’ (state and federal) damn business.
Pass me the tea.
Reg
May 25, 2010 - 7:23 pm
Mike – Just to play advocate here… Let’s see what may happen if drugs are legalized…
Because we all know that when under the influence one doesn’t tend to use the best judgment.. isn’t it likely that with more available drugs, more impaired people will do stupid things to themselves that result in:
1. Hospitalization
2. Jail
Also impaired people also have a higher probability of doing stupid things that result in bad things for…oh yeah..Joe Citizen..See more:
1. Hospitalization/Insurance costs
2.Police/Court/Jail…etc
All of which impacts and increases demands upon governmental resources…which should make it the gubmint’s bizness.
Est ce vrai?
Reg
May 25, 2010 - 8:32 pm
P.S. I meant to add to my earlier post that I happen to agree with a lot of your arguments in regards to the potential benefits that could result from legalizing marijuana and the effect that would have south of the border. There’s some very bad mojo being perpetrated by the Mexican cartels.
Mike Gold
May 26, 2010 - 8:04 am
Reg, I don’t care if people who make the informed decision to cause harm to themselves. We all do it in one form or another; if you want to take a needle and shove poison into your bloodstream, well I say fuckin’ sayonara, loser. Someday, all that barbecue I’ve eaten will start eating me back and you won’t hear me whining. It’s an informed decision, and quite frankly, as a guy who spent years in the drug abuse information racket, I can’t believe there’s a sentient human being who isn’t aware of the dangers. But I’ll allow for shoving more resources into education. The way things are going, I might have to return to that business.
Same thing with jail. To quote the immoral Mighty Mojo Nixon,
“It’s not the government’s job to tell you what to do
Decide for yourself what’s right for you
If you go too far and you get out of hand
Then you take a trip down to prison land”
When it comes to costs on society, let’s do some emotional triage here. We spend a fortune on the spectacular train wreck called the War on Drugs. Thus far this year — and it’s May 26th, in case your “Week At A Glance” is on the blink — we’ve spent $20.6 billion on the War on Drugs. We’ve arrested three-quarters of a million people, half of them for weed. (Source: DrugSense.org). How much would we be spending if we restricted ourselves simply to those who “go too far and get out of hand?” Do you think it’s anywhere near the $50,000,000,000 we spend each year right now?
Let’s take it to the next step. Because I know you’re a sensible guy, I’ll pose this as a rhetorical question: who deserves your sympathy more: the junkie who made his or her own choice, or the little old lady who gets bashed over the head for her pension check?
Were drugs to be legalized, I’m sure there will be a few people who would “experiment” (I love that phrasing) with the stuff. Maybe nine or ten people who didn’t because it was illegal. Maybe eleven. And they’ll get bored and stop.
Now, compare that to all those kids who do it because it’s an outlaw activity, a sign of teenage rebellion. When marijuana sponsors “Dancing With The Stars,” it ceases to be cool.
Now, let’s take the completely separate issue of DUI. First, there is absolutely no difference between a Boy Scout who was killed by a drunk motorist and a Boy Scout who was killed by a stoned motorist. Driving Under The Influence should apply to ALL voluntary behavior: alcohol, marijuana, anti-histamines, turkey sandwiches… everything. If you voluntarily take a substance that reduces your capacity to drive and you cause damage, you are guilty of DUI. Period.
Our DUI laws are a disgrace. Even when we take a person’s license away, we let him or her drive to work if that’s the only way they can get there. Three months or six months later, they’re back on the road full-time. Screw that.
First offense, you lose your license for a year and you’ve got to triple your liability insurance. Second offense, you lose your license for three years and you do three months in jail. Third offense is a felony and you spend at least a year in jail and you lose your license forever. Move to a city with decent public transportation; probably the one where your half-way house is anyway.
Let’s put the sanctions on the part of the behavior that actually harms society, and let individuals who know how to control themselves be.
Reg
May 26, 2010 - 2:40 pm
Mike –
Great rebuttal.
MOTU
May 26, 2010 - 3:46 pm
Mr. Gold
With respect to your DUI suggestions on punishment I’d like to offer mine:
First offense, you are shipped off to Arizona and your name is legally changed to ‘Lopez.”