How to use this Page

I'm posting some of my older comics here as I catalog and tag them in prep for a print book compilation. You can also find my comics for writers on Tumblr and Pinterest.

Add a Comment

Dan Krall's 3rd book and first author credit, Absolutely Beastly Children (Tricycle Press) hits the shelves. A delightful rhyming ABC book featuring ink and (digital) watercolor illustrations of 26 horrible little brats.

In this book you’ll find 26 children who are almost certainly nothing like you. You always eat your peas and say please. You, unlike Oscar, would never tell lies. And in your wildest dreams you wouldn’t play with your food the way Nancy does. But even the sweetest child can be tempted to behave badly. Thankfully, Dan Krall has put together this collection to remind us just how unpleasant beastly behavior can be. Buy the book...



Dan Krall is an Art Director and Development Artist for Animated Television and Film. Credits include, Coraline, Scooby Doo Mystery Incorporated, Samurai Jack, The PowerPuff Girls and Dexter's Laboratory. See his portfolio and other books on his website at: dankrall.com.

Add a Comment

Dan Agin is Emeritus Associate Professor of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology at the University of Chicago.  His new book, More Than Genes: What Science Can Tell Us About Toxic Chemicals, Development, and the Risk to Our Children, Agin marshals new scientific evidence to argue that the fetal environment can be just as crucial as genetic hard-wiring or even later environment in determining our intelligence and behavior.  In the excerpt below, Agin illustrates his premise.

During the next few decades, Americans and others in the industrialized world will learn that the psychological destinies of their children are often shaped and mangled by man-made environmental effects that begin not with birth but with conception.  This is an idea that has been quietly gaining momentum in science for some years now, occasionally leaking into the popular press.  As it becomes increasingly established, it will challenge the very fundamentals that govern the way we see ourselves and our society.

How will we deal with these effects?  Are they real or mere speculation?  When and how do they happen?

The origins are beyond what most people imagine.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, some 3000 people died in front of our eyes in a crazy scene of airliners crashing into skyscrapers and of those skyscrapers crumbling within minutes.  Anyone downtown in Manhattan that day, or anyone anywhere in front of a television screen who watched the collapse of the twin towers of the World Trade Center, has the memory of it seared into the psyche.  The entire appalling event – from Manhattan to the Pentagon to a small field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania – sent political shockwaves across America and around the world that have not yet subsided.  We now call that day “9/11″ as a signature shorthand for the catastrophe, a logo for an event whose details quickly occupied the mind of nearly everyone on the planet.

But like many catastrophic events, there was more to 9/11 than most people realize.

Not long afterward, a few miles north of “Ground Zero” – the empty ground where the World Trade Center once stood – a pediatrics group at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, together with others there and at the Bronx Veterans Affairs Medical Center, began to ask a simple question: Was it possible the shock of the 9/11 catastrophe had caused effects in the fetuses of pregnant women who lived close to the disaster?

The Mt. Sinai research team went on a hunt for pregnant women who had been in the vicinity of the World Trade Center at 9 a.m. on the 11th of September 2001. They published advertisements in local newspapers.  They distributed flyers in lower Manhattan.  They sent letters to 3000 obstetricians in the greater New York City area.  They found 187 women who had been pregnant and present in any one of five exposure zones around Ground Zero, including 12 women who were in the towers at the time of the attack.  As a comparison group, they used 174 pregnant women who had been nowhere near the World Trade Center on the morning of the catastrophe.

The researchers analyzed every piece of relevant information available about the pregnant women in both groups and about the infants born to them in subsequent weeks or months.  On August 6, 2003, they published a short letter in a medical journal.  The concluding paragraph of the letter had no ambiguities

We found an apparent association between maternal exposure to the World Trade Center disaster and intra-uterine growth retardation, suggestion that this event had a detrimental impact on exposed pregnancies…Possible long-term effects on infant development are unclear and will require continuing follow-up.

Two years later, the Mt. Sinai research group published three papers on their findings in three different medical journals.  To sum up their conclusions: The cause of intrauterine growth retardation in the infants was apparently not dust and smoke inhaled by the pregnant mothers, but maternal psychological stress and cortisol secretion effects, as indicated by measures of below-normal cortisol levels in their infants.

The findings of the Mt. Sinai research group are not isolated.  Since the late 1990s, fetal effects have been found from earthquakes, ice storms, and floods, with varying later outcomes for the children: childhood verbal deficits, depression, schizophrenia, and so on.

Do we know the mechanism for these effects?  There’s more than one possibility, but consider the following: On 9/11, when a pregnant woman was close enough to experience the traumatic World Trade Center event, her adrenal glands secreted the powerful stress hormone cortisol.  Her cortisol entered the placenta.  Not all of her cortisol was broken down by the placenta, and some of it got through to the fetus and increased the fetal blood cortisol level.  Recent studies in fact show a positive correlation between maternal and amniotic fluid cortisol levels.  On 9/11, to compensate for increased local cortisol, the fetal adrenals reduced their own cortisol secretion to keep the total level down.  But since that happened while the fetus itself was developing, the result was fetal production of cortisol that might not have been just transiently reduced, but permanently reduced.  One effect could be retarded intrauterine growth.  Another effect would be low cortisol levels in infancy (as found by the Mt. Sinai group) and later consequences difficult to assess.  In other words, during development the fetus adapted a new environmental condition as if that condition would be permanent.

In modern pediatrics and developmental psychobiology, this adaptation is called “fetal programming” or “prenatal programming.”  It’s a new concept.  The general idea is that during development important physiological parameters can be reset by environmental events – and the resetting can endure into adulthood and even affect the following generation – in this case, producing a transgenerational nongenetic stress disorder.

So what are the consequences?  Researchers have already correlated heart disease and diabetes with prenatal growth and apparent fetal programming.  But “intra-uterine growth” is only what you can see and determine by measuring an infant’s head circumference and body length at the time of birth.  What you can’t see are the subtle effects on various physiological systems, for example, on the developing central nervous system – on the developing brain.  You can measure behavior later on, but it’s not that easy.

What is certainly true is that you don’t need great drama – earthquakes or flood or terrorism – to affect the prenatal environment.  Far subtler events can have an impact on that environment as well.

Add a Comment

Elvin Lim is Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan University and author of The Anti-intellectual Presidency, which draws on interviews with more than 40 presidential speechwriters to investigate this relentless qualitative decline, over the course of 200 years, in our presidents’ ability to communicate with the public. He also blogs at www.elvinlim.com. In the article below he looks at the achievements of Walter Cronkite. See his previous OUPblogs here.

For most of the second half of the twentieth century, Walter Cronkite was always there whenever history moved. Before the word “embedded” came into fashion, he flew on the first bombing raids over Germany in a B-17 Flying Fortress. Before he covered the Kennedy Assassination, Vietnam and Watergate, he was also right there at the Battle of the Bulge. He covered the first nationally televised Democratic and Republican National Conventions - out of which the term “anchor” (and the Swedish term “Kronkiter”) was coined to describe his role. Walter Cronkite was always there; he was the anchor of all anchors.

But while Cronkite was always there, he understood that it was never about him, but about the facts. Today however, his model of reporting is praised by everyone, but emulated by no one. Not by Lou Dobbs, or Keith Olbermann, and not even by his replacement at CBS, Dan Rather, who tried to meddle in politics rather than to report it. CNN has a name for this narcissistic reporting style: “I-report.” I don’t think Walter Cronkite believed that there was an “I” in the news, however much an event lent itself to self-reflection.

So Cronkite’s legacy lives on only in advertising slogans. CNN may be “the most trusted name in news,” and Fox news may be “Fair and Balanced.” But “the most trusted man in America” would tell us that self-praise is no praise and that objectivity should be practiced, not trumpeted.

To be sure, it isn’t that today’s journalists are unrepentant gossips or opinion exhibitionists (though some are). It is that their bosses know that opinion and feisty debate sells. It is because experts in mass communications and social psychology have discovered that listeners and viewers like to hear what they want to hear, especially opinions that cohere with their own. That is why our journalistic umpires venture their opinions, and if they don’t, they pose incendiary questions to get their interviewers to say something about their political opponents that would start a war of words. While Walter Cronkite covered the news, the news establishment today wants to drive it.

Cronkite was a first-rate journalist who understood that it is always about the news, never about the reporter, transmitting the news faithfully while at the scene but never making a scene. He didn’t
engage in story making, he didn’t engage in frivolous banter about the role of the media in order to insinuate the self-congratulatory premise that he is a mover and shaker and master of the universe. Walter Cronkite knew that it was never about Walter Cronkite. It was his principled commitment to reticence that made his exceptional departure in declaring the war in Vietnam unwinnable so compelling. In his self-abnegation lay his considerable credibility.

Walter Cronkite was confident enough in the processes of American democracy, and humble enough to know the difference between newscaster and newsmaker, to desist from meddling from either the meaning or movement of politics. Without touch-screen monitors or a teleprompter, he brought us the news. Plain and simple. He wasn’t cool, he wasn’t a model, and he was even, by his own admission, “dull at times.” Though his career is a period piece in the age of facebook and twitter, we will do well to remain anchored in his journalistic values.

“And that’s the way it is.”

Add a Comment