In 1943, a chemist rode a bicycle in Switzerland and wound up changing a small chunk of the universe. That bicyclist who, having accidentally ingested through his fingertips a tiny amount of a new chemical he’d developed, was Dr. Albert Hofmann, who died today at age 102, just over 55 years after that fateful April 16th when the first LSD trip took place.

As mentioned in his Wired obituary, Hoffman often referred to lysergic acid as his “problem child” and, indeed, its effects on individual humans ranged from the apparent beneficial influence on the mental state of psychiatric patient Cary Grant on the one hand to the apparent disastrous impact on, among many others, a self-medicating Syd Barrett of Pink Floyd, perhaps the most obvious and saddest known “acid casualty” in popular culture. Other prominent users, like John Lennon and Paul McCartney, had few apparent ill effects. (Lennon, fellow Beatle Ringo Starr, and mutual friend Harry Nilson certainly had far worse problems with far more addictive drugs like heroin, pills, and alcohol.) Lots of others, like Brian Wilson, fell somewhere in between. Mental explorers are, on the whole, probably better off meditating.

Whatever unwitting blame Hofmann shares for the problems with LSD, he also gets unwitting credit for making our mental landscape a little more interesting and fun. Below is a highly idiosyncratic selection of some great musical moments which I think were in some way influenced — one or two possibly indirectly, but no less powerfully — by Dr. Hoffman’s discovery. One great thing about psychedelia is that you can be influenced by it without ever taking a single drug.

Please enjoy these videos responsibly. As the somewhat less responsible Dr. Leary suggested, “set and setting.”

I’ve never even seen Les Miz, but you gotta love these kind of scenes so ably played tribute to above by Neil Patrick Harris (dubbed NPH by the fan base, I’ve noted) and Jason Segal. I certainly would’ve enjoyed the final Wright-Obama contretemps resolution a lot more if it had been conducted in song.

Oh, and just so I can ease back into the film blogging thing here at FtY, I saw Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanomo Bay last night. Not nearly as good as the first one — and I’d once hoped it might actually be better — but still watchable. John Cho and Kal Penn can act…considering that it did pretty well, it looks like they might get the opportunity, and let’s hope some of the time it’s in roles that don’t hinge on their ethnicity, for a change. And, I need to add in light of certain cinematic events, a hearty “NPH lives!”….

…Particularly in light of his upcoming Internet musical starring role. EW’s Popwatch has a very funny and slightly informative video interview. H/t Whedonesque.

…about the election.

Also, catch my possibly correct b.o. prognostication and general wankery bloviation over at Premium Hollywood.

For some reason I keep thinking of this…..

Watch at your own peril.

Regular blogging to return soonish.

Newt Gingrinch?

Liberals “kind of admire” American terrorists? Which American terrorists is he referring to? Timothy McVeigh? Eric Rudolph? the KKK perhaps? And those are just some of the rightwing terrorists, can any one name one mainstream American liberal to endorse, say, the SLA or the vicious, but not quite deadly Weather Underground? And we “don’t mind” that Louis Farrakhan is antisemitic? Does that include Jewish liberals like me, because we love it when people are antisemitic. Gives us something to talk about.

So, how soon will it be before Senator McCain will be asked to reject and denounce the statements of his fellow conservative Republican and congressional colleague? Anyone out there expecting this question to come up when George Stephanopoulos interviews him tomorrow morning? Of course not.

Well, anyway, if you’re of a mind, do what I did and give Newt’s people a piece of your mind here. It’s fun!

Oh, and Newt thinks that Barack Obama is some way comparable to both George McGovern and Walter Mondale. I hope Republicans are that stupid. George McGovern is a good guy who was too mild-mannered and allowed himself to get pegged as an extremist; Mondale was not a terrible person but was a walking worst case scenario of a candidate, embodying all that was dull and out of touch about his generation of Dems. And, by the way, the country in those days had yet to be be driven into the toilet by a president with a double-digit IQ and his extreme right sycophants in congress. If after Iraq, Katrina, $4.00 gas, and everything else, Republicans really think this will be a repeat of 1972 or 1984 (both years with relatively popular incumbent presidents), boy do they have another thing coming.

H/t Huffpo

Oh, that’s what ABC/Disney thinks of us. Got it.

Go out and prove them wrong. You know what to do.

(No links on this post. You really do know what to do.)

UPDATE: I guess I was being a bit obnoxious just now. Taking out my anger at the media and it’s determination to prove The Daily Show depiction of them as mendacious tabloid panderers right at every turn on you nice folks. So here are a couple of links.

The Blogometer has an outstanding, link filled, rundown of blog reaction to the debate, titled, of course, “Worst. Debate. Ever?,” which was pretty much the reaction (minus the question mark, of course) in most places … that weren’t hard right. Rightwingers were, of course, delighted to have their “issues” raised. Yep, this is all they’ve got this year.

And a Former ABC News Employee gives you plenty of email addresses to vent at. Check it out.

Also, Kos, the man, not the blog, has nicely encapsulated his entire career into one post. This question STILL isn’t asked nearly enough: “Why are the “serious” Beltway blowhards always so wrong?” He’ll be on Real Time this week. Should be interesting — he’s one of the few people out there who’s got a mouth to rival Bill Maher’s.

Another Update: Another debate reaction.

h/t mspicata.

Yet One More Update: George Stephanopoulos responds:

“Everything we brought up in that front section had not come up since the last debate. And they all focused on the same theme — which candidate would be a stronger Democratic candidate in Novembber.” (sic)

“This is the core question for the campaigns, and a lot of Democratic voters right now. That’s why we decided to lead with it.”

In other words, it was a prolong “electability” debate. 45 minutes+ focused mainly on one particular candidate that seem clearly intended to harm said “electability.”

Whether or not George — who may, in fact, be a nice guy in real life and is one of the smarter members of the punditocracy for certain — knows this, what he’s really doing here is trying to get everyone in America on the same deeply sick, deeply distorted wavelength that the D.C. crowd is on. No concern for who’ll do the best job, only concerned with winning for its own sake and who cares how the nation is actually governed once your debased candidate actually gets into office. And, isn’t it funny how the assumption is always that the most “electable” candidate is the one who panders the most to the worst instincts of voters, rather than the one who tries to actually talk to us as if we have a brain in our head?

Seems to me, that’s basically the argument the Clinton campaign is making now: “Vote for us. The public is too stupid to vote for a good candidate!”

Tired of the lunatic silly-season behavior, Democrats, liberals, and moderates? Tired of a plain statement of fact becoming a “gate.” As Mayhill Flower says:

….Senator Obama– and also Senators Clinton and McCain– must see us and talk about us in such a way that sets the bar high. A leader will hold us to that standard. “Californians and Pennsylvanians,” our next president must say, “find your best selves in one another.”

Yes, but right now there’s only one campaign even trying to do that, and you can help it here. Your money and/or your dulcet tones on the phone (it’s not hard!) are badly needed to stop this thing in the Keystone, Hoosier, and Tar Heel states so we can start the real conversation for peace and true prosperity. The best solution to bitterness is action.

UPDATE: So, when I did my morning check of DailyKos and saw Hunter’s rant, I was very confused. Then a google and I saw this. Apparently, and I’m not kidding, Chris Matthews saw Obama’s turning down coffee and asking for orange juice for coffee as a sign that he was somehow unable to conduct himself in a diner and therefore, of course, perhaps not Joe SixPack enough to be President.

It’s obvious from watching his show that Chris gets plenty of caffeine, but he has got a problem with vitamin C? Is citrus now frou-frouy girlyman nutrition like…I’m not sure I should even mention it…arugula? Of does he think it’s rude to turn down coffee even if you don’t feel like drinking any? What, “real men never turn down coffee”??? Is this a reason to therefore vote for John McCain (we know Chris doesn’t much care for Hillary) because, while he might start a war in Iran, he’ll never turn down coffee, though he also might totally lose control of his anger over a perceived error by the waitress and use a very unpleasant noun to describe? Frankly, I don’t even understand what universe this comes from.

I don’t think this, er, story is going to get any traction but it is an example of why some of these pundits really do need to rethink they’re place in the universe. Chris Matthews can actually be intelligent and fun to watch at times, when he’s not being, as in this case, what can only politely be described as an assclown. However, as he Jon Stewart pointed out in discussing his new book awhile back (about treating your whole life as a political campaign) on The Daily Show, it’s really just a “recipe for sadness.”

If there were any justice, this would be a Joseph Welch moment: At long last, Mr. Matthews, have you no brain?

Another Update: The whole inane “bitter” mess summarized and diagnosed by Pennsylvania native, UC Economics prof. and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, who I didn’t even know had a blog. So simple, yet so elusive to most in power. And one of his commenters mentions an apposite quote by H.L. Mencken:

The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.

There are moments when it seems you’re not allowed on television if you don’t fit this definition. I seriously hope Reich posts this essay elsewhere. Screaming it from the rooftops also works for me.

H/t MissLaura.

Although I’ve loved some of his performances, particularly in Richard Lester’s Three Musketeers films, The Big Country, Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet, and even — or is that “especially” — his controversial work in Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil, Charlton Heston has never been one of my favorite actors….He’s never even been one of my favorite outspoken conservative actors nor even my favorite white actor who was involved with civil rights — which provides him with some truly tough competition pretty much across the spectrum.

Still, there was something about him that made him perfect for a certain kind of Hollywood kitsch, especially later on his career, and respect must be paid. Basically, though I just don’t know what to say. [UPDATE: Plagiarism Alert! I unconsciously stole the use of the quote in this next sentence from one of the blogs I linked to below…Genuine Stan Lee No Prizes are available for whomever correctly identifies my victim. Also, please don’t tell Hillary’s people…..] As Ms. Dietrich says in that last film I mentioned, “He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?” Besides, I realize I miss him more than I thought I would, just like in the movie.

Fortunately, other fine bloggers are saying stuff, including my usual suspects for this sort of thing: Brian D. Dennis C. (whose right on about his shabby treatment in Bowling for Columbine) and, of course, Campuspe. (They rhyme if you say them right.) Also as usual, Greencine has more, lots more, in the way of blogs and obits. And, finally, a less reverent take with some great video is available from one of my online compadres at my new twice-a-week moviebiz blogging home, Premium Hollywood’s Will Harris.

Ah, the colloquy of geniuses. Glenn “Pleasey reassure me you’re not an Al-Quaida Spy, Rep. Ellison” Beck and global warming denier James Inhofe discuss why the world needs less polar bears. Newsflash… they eat people!

H/t Dkos science blogger Darksyde and ThinkProgress, which has a shorter version up.

How in the world did I miss hearing about the Harvey Weinstein boycott until just now?

Long story short, Weinstein, who once upon a time helped bankroll some of the best and most important films of the of the last two decades but who has lately been successfully making a series of increasingly idiotic film spoofs (okay, I haven’t personally seen more than five minutes of any of them…but five minutes is more than enough) aimed at less than discerning teens, has apparently lost all respect for his audience. Having picked up the comedy Fanboys, about some Star Wars fans who break into Skywalker Ranch to see The Phantom Menace so their cancer-afflicted friend can see the film before he dies, he’s decided the movie will play better to teenage fans without….the motivation. I.e., no depressing cancer. Teens can’t relate to pain or death, apparently. So, he hired other filmmakers of no particular known skill to recut the film and reshoot some scenes.

I haven’t seen Fanboys, which apparently received an absolutely rapturous reception in a rough cut screening at a Star Wars fan convention, so I can’t quite compare this case to RKO’s destruction of The Magnificent Ambersons, but the removal of a crucial plot point which apparently provides the entire motivation for the film’s story based on the deeply cynical belief that young people are as stupid and shallow as most Hollywood product makes me blow a gasket. Thanks to pressure, the “real” Fanboys will be made available at least on DVD, so at least the film has something resembling a fair shot at life. Good for these guys. May the movie gods smile on them. [UPDATE: Star Wars fanatic Cybergosh at UGO who was at the screening doesn’t care for the movie, but as I think both he and I agree, that’s not really the point. It’s not just about “artistic integrity,” it’s about common sense and respecting your audience, at least a little bit.]

As it happens, this morning I attended a protest on behalf of Nick Columbo, a 17 year-old cancer victim who had been denied a potentially lifesaving treatment by Pacificare. (The good news is that Pacificare caved on the case, which attracted considerable attention from local television.) I’m not sure what the connection is and I wouldn’t really compare the situations, but there were plenty of Columbo’s teen friends there, and they seemed more than mature enough to deal with the concept of cancer.

In any case, I implore you, do not go see Superhero Movie this Friday. Not because of the boycott. Just don’t see it.