Sideways Glances

Various items.

Firstly, I think this photo provides all the reasons why I  would vote for this man:


Although I can’t quite put my finger on exactly what it is.

Secondly, I keep reading stuff like this:

It goes without saying that Trump is a sociopathic con artist obsessed with personal enrichment: the opposite of a genuine warrior for the downtrodden. That’s too obvious to debate. But, just as Obama did so powerfully in 2008, he could credibly run as an enemy of the D.C. and Wall Street system that has steamrolled over so many people, while Hillary Clinton is its loyal guardian, its consummate beneficiary.

I don’t see Trump that way at all. I don’t think he’s a racist, sexist, homophobic Nazi either. Nor do I think he’s a re-incarnation of Hitler. I just think he’s a blue collar billionaire who retains the values he grew up with in 1950s Brooklyn and Queens. And that means that he has next to no time for Political Correctness of any sort whatsoever, because it simply didn’t exist back then in Brooklyn and Queens, and probably still doesn’t. And it’s always been Trump’s political incorrectness that I’ve found most admirable. Which is maybe also why so many Americans voted him to be their president.

I listen to Michael Savage quite a lot these days, and he said a day or two back that the Trump era was going to be Back To The Fifties. After all Michael Savage grew up in the same Brooklyn and Queens as Trump, and likely has the same kind of values as Trump. And the fifties for Savage was an era with lots of re-assuring generals squaring up to The Thing that had just landed from outer space. He liked the way Trump’s new administration was filling up with muscular generals, just like in the Eisenhower era of the fifties.

I can remember that time too. But not in Brooklyn or Queens. I remember it on the streets of Rio de Janeiro, buying American DC and Marvel comics from the one shop in Rio’s business quarter that sold them in huge piles. Superman, Batman, Spiderman, the Incredible Hulk, and the Silver Surfer. They were unobtainable in England. And only one shop in Rio sold them.

There used to be a full page ad on the back of some of them, that showed a genial old artist with a little white beard, standing at an easel with brushes and paints, working on a picture, and saying that if you could draw a picture of the face of Lois Lane, or Lana Lang, or Lady Luck like he could, you just might be considered as a contributing artist in the cartoon industry. Which is what, aged eight, I wanted to be. And so I practised for hours and hours, days and days, until I managed to get a little cartoon of Lois Lane just about right. And I could imagine myself showing up at the offices of DC comics, probably in the mythical New York district known as the Bronx, and finding the very same artist working away at his easel, and greeting me cordially, and looking through the little sheaf of drawings I’d brought with me, and saying: “Nah, kid. You still haven’t got it right. Look, that’s too much of a ski-jump nose you’ve stuck on her here. And the lips are a little too full there. And the jaw is too pronounced on this one. Heck, Superman would have run a mile from a girl like her. Go back home and practise some more.” And I’d trudge back to New York’s docks, and catch the boat back to England.

Anyway, there’s nothing terrifying to me about going Back To The Fifties. And if that’s what Trump wants to do, it’s fine by me. Maybe this time, the old artist will welcome me into his studio, and say, “Yup! You’ve got it at last. You start on Monday at one dollar an hour. No lunch breaks round here, so bring your own lunch.”


Modern life is killing children with the number of youngsters diagnosed with cancer rising 40 per cent in the past 16 years because of air pollution, pesticides, poor diets and radiation, scientists have warned.

New analysis of government statistics by researchers at the charity Children with Cancer UK found that there are now 1,300 more cancer cases a year compared with 1998, the first time all data sets were published.

The rise is most apparent in teenagers and young adults aged between 15 and 24, where the incident rate has risen from around 10 cases in 100,000 to nearly 16.

Researchers say that although some of the rise can be explained by improvements in cancer diagnoses and more screening, the majority is probably caused by environmental factors…

I don’t think they have the first clue what causes cancer. They simply don’t know. But none of them will admit it. And so they just blame anything and everything. Cigarettes, Alcohol. Chocolate. Meat. Cars. Somewhere out there there’s a serial killer, and they don’t know who or what it is. Everything is suspect. The finger of suspicion first points one way, and then another.

Maybe they should think outside the box a bit. It’s always some thing that they try to pin the blame on. But what if it isn’t a thing.

Like: what if music causes cancer? What if you hear Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody more than 400 times, you get ear cancer which gradually spreads to your lungs? I’ve always suspected that might be the case. I never liked that piece of music. And I’ve heard it about 397 times.

Or what if sideways glances cause cancer?

Unthinkable? Sure. But they don’t seem to be getting anywhere right now, so they should start looking for something else. My favourite theory of cancer is my own evolutionary model of cancer. Which was that as cells die off inside somebody’s body, they leave vacancies or clearings in which new cells can multiply. And these new cells are faster-growing ones than most slow-growing ones around them. They’re like fast-growing weeds growing in forest clearings, surrounded by slow-growing trees. When there are enough clearings, these fast-multiplying weeds can spread like wildfire through the forest. And if you want to stop it happening, you need to fill the vacancies with something like gelatin or silicone. So take gelatin or silicone tablets. Or something along those lines.

Well, how the heck should I know?


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Sideways Glances

  1. Roobeedoo2 says:

    Personally, I think the ‘War on Cancer’ cacophony is to blame for any rise in the rise the number of cancers in children. If it’s a ‘War’ there will be casualties and death, and, as we know, it is all ‘for the children’.

    Anti-Cancer generals shout “Charge!”, cue activities and participation solely ‘to spread awareness’ and raise money to assist the Anti-Cancer generals in the ‘War’ effort.

  2. Tony says:
    “In past generations, oral cancer was mostly linked to smoking, alcohol use or a combination of the two. But even as smoking rates have fallen, oral cancer rates have remained about the same, and researchers have documented in recent studies that this may be caused by HPV.”[my bold]

    They don’t give the actual figures but their headline claims that there has been a startling increase in the rate (and not just the insurance claims). Perhaps they weren’t allowed to refer to rising cancer in the same sentence as falling smoking rates.

    Interesting that it appears to affect men much more than women. So what do men do that women don’t? They smoke tobacco of course and according to Fritz Lickint that was the clicher, forming the basis of his groundbreaking book of 1929.

    But that claim doesn’t work anymore.

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      Cunninglingus! Pardon but that’s the HPV pathway

    • Ana says:

      The rate of oral cancer has always been inconvenient to anti-smokers, as it remained steady during the time when lung cancer rates rose together with smoking rates. If I’m not mistaken, even Richard Doll said that this was one of the weakest points of smoking causes lung cancer theory.

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        HPV it’s been shown to be responsible for 93% of oral and LC

        • jaxthefirst says:

          I can understand that, Harley, but has there honestly been a sharp rise in that particular sexual practice over the period? I’d imagine not – I expect it was just as common in “the ol’ days” as it is now – probably even more so back in the days before reliable contraception was available and moral values about pre-marital sex were much stricter. Ah, but of course, lots more people were smoking then, weren’t they? Which, of course, raises the uncomfortable (for the antis) possibility that [whisper it quietly] back then many people were actually protected from oral cancers by all that virus-eliminating nicotine …..

        • Joe L. says:

          Michael Douglas once stated that his doctor believed his oral cancer was caused by HPV, not smoking.

    • narbanor says:

      It even looks like oral cavity and oesophagal cancer mortality was declining when smoking was peaking (1950-65), and started picking up again by the time smokers began to get scared into quitting (late sixties).

      Since any hypothesis that does not point in the direction of big evil tobacco is anathema to the capnophobic zealots, their embarrassement would be understandable. But does the WHO sound embarrassed when they imply that the Relative Risk is even bigger there than in the case of smoking and lung cancer, and coolly pontificate that: “For oral cancers, men who smoke have a 27-times higher rate of oral cancer than men who do not smoke.”?

  3. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Fear mongering for profit in non profits is the game cancer is but one of the emotional based tools employed!

    Look at the ACS the richest of all NPOrginizations!

    In the end how much per dollar actually gets to real research for the tool used to invoke giving!

    The professional beggars running the scare campaigns i.e.

    Phone bank folks and advert people make billions off the public collecting for the npo’s

    Then the npo use those funds to further haunt with more fear mongering

    Other subject tools!

    They don’t want cures it’d end the gravy train

  4. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Btw I got a 7 day ban on FB by their gestapo for of all things saying JAPS in reference to a story about FDR locking them all up in ww2. Then stating the vetting then is like now you can’t tell friend from foe!

    That was all and bam 7 day ban, but I ain’t the only one several of my friends have been banned for even less than that just by calling Hillary hitlery

  5. waltc says:

    Michael Savage should be careful with his “back to the fifties” which can easily backfire, esp in the hands of the media but also in the hands of historians. The fifties here was dubbed The Age of Conformity (its own kind of stifling PC), the era of The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, the time of Mc Carthyism; of racial segregation (it took Ike to desegregate schools and Rosa Parks and MLK and ultimately the courts to undo the rest); and of the actual, exclusionary kind of sexism that launched womens lib; of banned abortions and criminalized homosexuality; of literary censorship–the banning of books. In the pendulum of history, the fifties launched the sixties, snd not for no reason.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I vaguely wondered about all the things you mention (which are all perfectly true). But I very much doubt that Michael Savage really wants to go back to the fifties in such a complete sense. If nothing else, he said recently that he was a sexual libertarian – and such people more or less didn’t exist in the fifties. So I think his idea of the fifties would be one in which the “new” fifties had been adjusted and updated for some changes in values that have taken place over the past 60 years. Personally, I’d want to exclude antismoking and climate change from the accepted changes in values. After all, back in the original fifties, antismoking and climate zealotry didn’t exist. And Michael Savage isn’t an antismoker. He occasionally says, shortly after he’s got into the stride of his monologue, that “now that we’ve reached cruising altitude, you can smoke if you want to,” (although he himself doesn’t smoke).

      He’s been one of my major discoveries in recent months. I find him fascinating. And I can listen to him for hours.

      • waltc says:

        Interestingly, there’s a sociological theory (not w/o merit) that many tenets of the fifties mindset were the upshot of our old friend social engineering–a propaganda blitz, blasted simultaneously by all the media –print, tv, film. Its point was to put the thousands of returning GIs back to work–in jobs that, in wartime, had been taken by women. Therefore, the surge to put Rosie the Riveter back in the kitchen, to “denormalize” the independent working woman and to replace what might have been her sexual liberation with the cult of the virgin: Doris Day, in the movies, always saying No to so much as kiss goodnight. (Marshal McLuhan said a lot about that in “The Mechanical Bride.”) Then, too, the ex soldiers themselves had to be tamed. Combat had given them independence and taught them violence–virtues not acceptable in the newly-corporate world–but vices it was feared would be unleashed on society if they were left unemployed. But meanwhile, the Sergeant who took the hill at St. Lo was suddenly depicted on nightly tv as the bumbling idiot who couldn’t get the sink clean. Look at the papers and mags of the time, the editorials and the ads; the movies (except for the war movies) and especially the sitcoms. They all imposed the same untenable message about what should be seen as Normal Life. And (so the theory goes) it wasn’t just an accidental coincidence.

        • Frank Davis says:

          there’s a sociological theory (not w/o merit) that many tenets of the fifties mindset were the upshot of our old friend social engineering–a propaganda blitz,

          Actually, I think that’s highly plausible. Back then propaganda blitzes were easy, once the propagandists had control of the newspapers and radio stations – the megaphone media. And very often there was only one newspaper and one radio station, so it was pretty easy, particularly in wartime. And that remained, very roughly, the state of affairs until the arrival of the internet which allowed everybody a voice. It’s an era that Obama was hankering after recently, when he spoke of a time when there were just two or three TV stations.

          It’s also plausible because it would explain the Sixties as a revolt against social engineering. It might tie in with the emergence of what was to become Tobacco Control (Doll and Hill, Wynder and Graham, etc) in the fifties.

          the cult of the virgin: Doris Day

          Not sure about that. Doris Day’s sultry Move Over Darling was banned at my school.

  6. Zaphod says:

    Radio 4 (BBC!), their magnificent “More or Less” program ripped up that “kids’ cancer” story.
    I’m surprised that they were allowed to!

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.