Life increasingly resembles The Onion

You know life is getting increasingly surreal when you start reading stories in the Times that make you remember stories you read 7 or 8 years ago -- in The Onion.

Specifically, I'm thinking of this story in the Times about the strain sinking housing prices are having over divorces.

I couldn't help but think of the classic Onion headline, "Lack of Second Car Preserves Marriage."

And as long as we're talking of the surreal, anybody notice this story from Friday's Washington Post? It has got to be the funniest article ever written to come from the war on terror.

My reputation precedes me...

Things you could have lost at the Jewcy holiday party this week.

Greatest. Interview. Ever.

My friend Dave Bienenstock gives one of the funniest interviews I've ever seen on Fox to promote his new book, The Official High Times Pot Smoker's Handbook.

For the record: Dave is certainly correct, I've seen the High Times softball team (the Bonghitters) play and they are, indeed, awesome.

Calculating the odds

An editor of mine and I were discussing the possibility of a New Yorker apology for the terrorist-fist-bump cover.

"I've been talking to a bunch of friends about this," he said. "They were all so sure that the New Yorker would issue an apology. I said, 'I'll give you three-to-one odds that they won't issue an apology... but you'll have to bet me like $5,000.'"

I tend to agree. An apology is extremely unlikely. There might (as my editor pointed out) be some quiet apologies to advertisers. Maybe even an off-the-record phone call to David Axlerod. (Or even the candidate himself.) But a public apology? I don't think so. (Especially since the Obama campaign isn't really calling for one.)

But it any one has five grand that they'd like to bet with, email maxgrosstheauthor@gmail.com, and I'll help broker this bet.

PS - Cover aside (which I didn't particularly care for) it's a pretty good issue. Ryan Lizza has an interesting piece on how Obama learned to be a political street fighter in Chicago. (I always knew, messianic fantasies aside, the man was incredibly shrewd. You don't take on -- and beat! -- the most calculating political machine in the Democratic party -- the Clintons -- without political street smarts.) And my old college pal, Ben Wallace-Wells, has a great theory-of-everything science piece. (Which I don't see online.)

That cover....

When the new New Yorker came out today I greeted all this controversy swirling around it with a shrug.

It's really not such a big deal. (Of course, one person I spoke to today said, "I'm canceling my New Yorker subscription.") It's pretty obviously a joke. It wouldn't be that over-the-top if it wasn't anything but a joke. All the rest is commentary. (And, besides, The New Yorker is free to do whatever it likes.)

However, I will say one thing in defense of those who were outraged: It wasn't a particularly funny joke. (And that's sort of key to any joke.) What was the point? I suppose you could say that the point was, "Look how ridiculous it is to think that the Obama family is some fist-bumping-terrorist-worshipping-Angela-Davis-emulating-bunch-of-terrorists."

Well, I knew that was ridiculous before I saw The New Yorker...