Sometimes if you leave a blog alone for a little while it'll come up with a whole crop of wonderful goodies, just ah-sittin' there, awaiting your return. I've always enjoyed the Drawn! Illustration and Cartooning blog, but it's not always a sure-fire source of kidlit info. When I happened across it yesterday, however, I found all sorts of goodies available for perusal.
For starters, Mary Blair did commercials, it seems. You may remember her from her Little Golden Book I Can Fly. Well, everything's come full circle, it seems. After all, Patrick McDonnell, sometimes cartoonist/sometimes picture book author, has made commercials of his own as well.
In other news, there's a blog out there called the Etch-a-Sketchist. Pretty much what it sounds like.
And some kind soul has taken the time and energy to collect every Sesame Street short from A to Z.
The greatest of all these?
Five parts of the animated Doonesbury series are up on YouTube. It's very odd. Aired on TV in 1980 and hasn't been seen since. The strip of my youth. Definitely worth watching.
Thanks to Drawn for all the links.
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: Doonesbury, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 2 of 2
By: Betsy Bird,
on 2/6/2007
Blog: A Fuse #8 Production (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags: Mike, Doonesbury, Zonker, B.D., Boopsie, Add a tag
By: Neil Gaiman,
on 1/23/2007
Blog: Neil Gaiman (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags: Doonesbury, Skeptics, The Curse of the Internet, New Scientist, Grand Canyon, Add a tag
I read my copy of New Scientist last week, and was duly outraged that staff at the Grand Canyon are not allowed to talk about the age of the Canyon, and are only allowed to sell a book suggesting that the Canyon was formed during Noah's flood about 4,000 years ago.
This morning I was just as outraged to realise that a) New Scientist just prints press releases without checking them in any way and b) the whole article was bollocks.
The Press Release itself began
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY
Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology
People more outraged than I was phoned or wrote to the National Park Service (which is more than New Scientist did)...Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees.
and were told that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, that no one is being pressured from Bush administration appointees — or by anyone else — to withhold scientific information, and all were referred to a statement by David Barna, Chief of Public Affairs, National Park Service as to the park’s official position. “Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center films, etc. use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon,” the document explains.
If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our rangers use the following answer: ‘The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old. The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.’
While the creationist text on the age of the Grand Canyon is actually on sale in the "inspirational" part of the souvenir shop, beside the books on the Hopi and the Paiute legends of how the canyon was formed.
The Skeptic magazine reports here on how they, too were insufficently, er, skeptical and fell for this rot: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-01-17.html