Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The crazed search for a silver lining



You just might be looking at my next home.

The media have been telling us relentlessly, for months now, that the outcome of next week's presidential election is a done deal. Inevitable. Preordained.

Of course they said that about Hillary Clinton too, didn't they?

But the message coming from the Washington Post and the New York Times is pretty clear: unless you're planning to vote for Barack Obama, you might as well stay home.

As we used to say when I was in high shool, "They wish."

No, I'm going to go out and cast my vote for John McCain, as should anyone who doesn't especially relish the idea of living in the USSA -- United Socialist States of America.

I saw a bumper sticker years ago that I loved. "Like Your Mail Service? You'll LOVE National Health Insurance."

Get ready for it, and don't come crying to me when you feel a twinge that might be appendicitis and are told that you can see the doctor next November.

But I don't want to get started on that. I've already outlined my personal strategy for surviving four years of President Obama and his cadre of crypto-Marxists led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid: total disengagement. Unlike Alec Baldwin and Susan Sarandon, both of whom have threatened to leave the country if there's a Republican victory and neither of whom has actually put their money where their big mouths are, I'm not going to leave the country when Obama and his politboro take over. Don't get me wrong: if I could afford it I'd move to the Orkney Islands. But I can't. (Unlike Baldwin and Sarandon, so what are their excuses?)

Yes, the above-depicted manhole cover just might be my new front door. I'm going to batten down the hatches, cancel my newspaper subscription, quit listening to the radio, give my TV to the nearest needy cretin and change my home page to, oh, I don't know, SorenKierkegaard.com? Some place where I am absolutely assured that I won't see or hear anything remotely resembling news. I just don't want to know what Obama and his gang are up to out there. But if I peek out from under that manhole cover and see that all the trash cans in the neighborhood have "PROPERTY OF U.S. GOVERNMENT stamped on them, I'll have a pretty good idea: someone decided that "spreading the wealth around" also applied to trash, and the Democrats rolled it through their one-party Congress without a rhetorical shot being fired. (Can you imagine garbage collectors as federal employees? In no time the whole country would look like New York City in the 1970s, when the garbage collectors were going on strike every forty-five minutes.)

I have to prepare for the worst. Even Rich Lowry and Byron York, writers for National Review, the country's premier conservative magazine, are already assessing what McCain did wrong. That sounds like fatalism to me, and those guys are more in the know than I am. Come November 5 we're probably going to be looking at the apotheosis of Jimmy Carter II. God help us all.

So I'm trying to think of something, anything good that might come out of this. Yes, of course, there's the feely-good factor that America elected itself a black president. I don't have a problem with that. I've been telling people all summer and fall that if Shelby Steele or Thomas Sowell were running for president, I wouldn't be able to get my sneakers laced up fast enough to run out and vote for either of them. For me the feely-good factor just doesn't outweigh the fact that the country is about to take a sharp swing to the left, and no good is going to come of it except the feely-good factor. Get ready for a LONG recession, everybody. Because it's government's endless tampering with the economy that makes recessions run long, and Obama and his crowd are going to tamper with the economy until its nipples are raw. (Had FDR and his cigarette-puffing "brain trust" kept their mitts off the economy, the Depression might have been called just that, not the GREAT Depression.)

Racking my brain, however, I have been able to come up with two -- no, maybe three --good things coming out of an Obama presidency.

Clearly, the feely-good thing is one. No longer will anyone be able to get away with calling America a horrible racist country. Not if we have a black president. Of course we've known that all along, haven't we?

Actually, my number-one positive thing is an offshoot of that. You see, I came to the realization long ago that if Obama is inaugurated on Jan. 9, 2009 or whenever it is, on January 10, 2009 Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are both going to be out of a job.

And Jackson, for one, has never had a real job in his life. "He's a REVEREND," my friend Jim insisted.

Like I said, he's never had a real job in his life.

Think about it for a minute. Jackson and Sharpton. What are those two guys, basically? Grievance peddlers, that's what. They traffic in grievance, and their little Johnny One-Note message, which gets screamed from the nearest soapbox every time Don Imus opens his mouth or some lying bimbo hired as a stripper gets the whole Duke University lacrosse team crucified in the biggest kangaroo court the media ever whooped up, is "We're VICTIMS! And as VICTIMS, we demand, demand, demand!" Well, with Barack Hussein Obama paring his fingernails in the Oval Office while he waits for Pelosi and Reid to arrive so the three of them can decide what they're going to nationalize next, (and should they check with Hugo Chavez for his advice first?) Jackson and Sharpton's message is all of a sudden going to sound pretty hollow, isn't it?

And wouldn't that be just too bad?

I can see Jackson now, opening a hot dog stand for the tourists on Constitution Avenue (within view of the White House! YESSS!) and counting on his name to build the clientele: "Jesse's Snacks For Snivelers! Best In The City! Get 'Em While They're Hot!"

As for Sharpton, there's no question in my mind as to the best post-Obama career choice for him. That guy has "pimp" written all over him. Right down to the hair.

Now watch him try to sue me. Sorry, Sharpton, I read up on libel. You're a public figure and that makes you fair game.

Now, as for the other salubrious effect I see coming out of an Obama presidency, well, it's the same something that my very best friend, die-hard liberal Jim Provenza used to try and get me to vote for John Kerry in 2004. "If you vote for Kerry," Jim explained, "Hillary will be out of the picture until 2012. Because the party in power always renominates the incumbent." You know, that was actually a good argument. I didn't vote for Kerry, but if I had, that would have been my reason. I couldn't think of another, that's all.

Now here comes that argument again. Same principle, four years later. If Obama wins, we're rid of the Clintons until 2016. Whether Obama gets re-elected in 2012 or not is a moot point. If he's president, the Democrats will renominate him. It's a given. In 2016 Hillary Clinton will be almost 70. Not quite as old as McCain, but getting up there. Someone is sure to bring up her age as a factor, not to mention the fact that she lost the 2008 nomination to Obama.

My point is, if Obama becomes president, we stand a very good chance of not seeing the Clintons again for another eight years. I have no illusions; they're going to keep coming back until someone drives a wooden stake through both their hearts. But eight years without either of them around sure would be nice.

Oh, what am I saying? I won't know whether they're there or not. I'll be in my room with the door locked, reading Tolstoy.

Don't bother me unless it's important. You know, like telling me it's time for my annual checkup. And that I should be there on time. Next November.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

What, Me Worry?


I’ve had nearly two years to think about this, since the current presidential campaign, set to mercifully end in two weeks, began approximately two years ago.

Really, it did, didn’t it? Halfway through the second Bush administration, those who control what we see and hear on TV and in the newspapers became as restive as children on Christmas morning who can’t wait for it to be morning. You remember getting up at 4 a.m. to poke around in the dark under the tree and see what you got? Then your dad thought there might be burglars in the house, came out with a baseball bat and chased you back to bed?

That’s what the media did around mid-2006. They couldn’t wait for it to be Christmas morning, e.g. January, 2009. So they started hawking up Hillary, Barack and the rest of the gang even before the 2006 World Series was over. (For those who have forgotten, the St. Louis Cardinals beat the Detroit Tigers that time, revenge for 1968, when it went the other way.)

This has been the longest presidential campaign anyone has ever seen. And I’m sure I’m not the only one who will be glad to see it over and done with. It feels to me as if Barack Obama has been running for president since I was in college, and I was in college when Jimmy Carter was running for president. You know, back around the time Barack Obama was born.

So I’ve had plenty of time to think about how I’m going to deal with what the media are relentlessly, joyfully, orgasmically telling us is “inevitable:” “President Obama.” Ooh, all I have to do is say the name and I can hear the squeals of joy coming from 1150 15th St. NW. (For those of you who don’t live in Washington, D.C., that’s the address of the Washington Post, which even my friend Holly Inder, a Democrat, admits is so biased that it deserves to be called the official newsletter of the Democratic Party.)

I’m not voting for Obama. And anyone who suggests that it’s because of the color of his skin can wait for me to take my morning dump and then dine heartily on it. Were it not for the fact that he’s a crypto-Marxist whose political dues, if you want to call them that, were paid in the corrupt Chicago wardheeling machine, and who moreover has no problem rubbing elbows with ‘60s bomb-throwers and crazed hatemongering preachers, I probably would vote for him. I’m not voting for Barack Obama because I don’t like his politics. Period. I wish I did. But I don’t.

Furthermore, I expect an Obama presidency to yield little good for America outside of giving bubble-brained white liberals another opportunity to feel good about themselves. And frankly, I don’t care if the Lexus-driving crowd out there in Fairfax County that hasn’t gotten around to scraping the John Kerry stickers off its bumpers feels good about itself or not. I’m concerned about the well-being of the republic as a whole, and I don’t think a reincarnation of Jimmy Carter, the worst president of the 20th century, is what the republic needs, now or ever. And that’s exactly what I see Obama shaping up to be: another Carter. Another dithering feely-goody who smiles and makes speeches while America’s enemies overseas are building nuclear arsenals and sneering defiantly at what they see as the easily-exploitable weaknesses of the Great Satan. Obama thinks he can deal with people like Ahmadinejad by making nice with them? We’ll see what comes of that. I only hope that it isn’t a dirty bomb wiping out downtown Raleigh, NC, followed by the sound of snickering laughter from the shadows. But that’s what I more than half-expect once President Obama has made good on his promise to bring back September 10th and act like the next day never happened, then proceed to approach those whose wettest wet dream is to kill as many Americans as possible by offering them tea and cookies. Good luck.

I spent the afternoon and evening of September 11, 2001 riveted to my TV set with horror, as did millions of others. But when the next September 11 comes around, and Raleigh NC is in ruins, or Des Moines IA or wherever they decide to strike next, I don't want to hear about it. When President Obama has renamed Homeland Security The Peace Department in the name of making us more popular overseas, and made terrorism once again a game in we respond to bombs with subpoenas, don't ring my phone.

I’m serious. I live in Washington. More than likely they will strike again here, not in Raleigh or Des Moines. And when they do, President Obama will be busy signing legislation to raise taxes, not for defending our country from global terrorism, but for more federal giveaway programs and an expanded bureaucracy. It’s going to be 1965 again, which is what all those aging former hippies out there who now teach Comparative Literature and Gender Studies in America’s universities are secretly whispering to themselves. They’ll be young again; it’ll be the summer of love again. Maybe the word “groovy” will come back.

But when President Obama and I both go up in smoke, (I live about four miles from the White House) let my last thinks all be thanks, as W.H. Auden wrote. I don’t want to know. He’ll be busy building socialism while the house burns; I’ll be reading William Blake. On the day Obama is inaugurated, I’m canceling my subscription to the newspaper and all my magazines except Gramophone and IndyCar. I already don’t watch television, so I don’t have to worry about that, but I’m going to change my home page to poetry.com or perhaps catfancier.com. People like Alec Baldwin and Susan Sarandon are always threatening to leave the country if the Republicans win (and you’ll notice they never do.) I can’t afford to leave the country, and furthermore I live right in the cross-hairs, not in Hollywood where it’s nice and safe.

But for the four years which, I hope, is all it will take for America to get over the idea that life is just one big Oprah Winfrey Show and that if you hear a big kaboom somewhere, all you have to do is hit the “play again?” button and go back to your video screen, I’ll be ensconced with Yeats, Thomas Hardy and perhaps the Venerable Bede, who was writing when the dust of the Roman empire had not yet cleared and it wasn’t safe to go outside.

In one of his earliest songs, written when he was obviously quite young, Paul Simon wrote, “I have my books and my poetry to protect me.” He was thinking of frustrated love, I’m sure. I’m thinking of something much more ominous. I am a rock, I am an island. Knock before you enter. I’ll have the music turned up loud. I always said I wanted Mozart to be the last thing I hear before I depart this earth.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Rabbit Gets Old


I'm in California at the moment, preparing to leave for a family reunion in Reno, NV this weekend. I flew in from Washington, D.C. on Tuesday so I could spend a couple of days with my old pal Jim Provenza and his wife Donna. They're "empty nesters" now, which I guess is the comfortable euphemism we Baby Boomers have finally managed to come up with for "senior citizen."

For reading on the plane and in those quiet pre-dawn moments that east-to-west jet lag always gives me, I have brought along, and am re-reading John Updike's Rabbit Is Rich, the third installment in his 40-year tetralogy project chronicling the fate of Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom which began with Rabbit, Run in 1960, continued through three more full-length novels published between 1971 and 1990, and then rounded off with a fifth installment, the epiloque-ish Rabbit Remembered (2000).

I've read the entire Rabbit series, some of them more than once. But I have an especially personal relationship with this third installment, published in 1981. I was enjoying a brief tenure in the fall of that year as Sunday book reviewer for the Vacaville Reporter, a newspaper in Solano County, California on which I was a staff writer in those days, covering education mostly. Book reviewing was a side thing I did primarily for kicks. But the Sunday features editor was a good friend and she was glad to have my contributions. I reviewed Rabbit Is Rich
when it was first published. I also turned 26 that fall, the exact same age as Harry Angstrom in the first installment of the series, Rabbit, Run.

That review no longer exists. I lost almost all of my book review clippings in the many moves I've made since then. But it doesn't matter; at 26 I remember being most impressed with Updike's chops, as most of his readers are. He was one of the most dazzlingly gifted writers of his generation. But I had a few critical things to say about this novel even when I was 26, and now that the novel is a year older than I was when I first read it, I have a few more. By the way, at the time I reviewed Rabbit Is Rich for the Reporter I was sinking into a clinical depression, one strand of which was that very fact that I had just turned 26. As Truman Capote once said, "Here I am 26, and I wanted always to be 25." Suddenly turning 26 gave me a nauseating sensation of no longer being in my early twenties. I felt encroaching old age rapping on the door, or at least lurking over the next hill. Now I'm re-reading the novel, and I'm exactly twice the age I was when I read it for the first time.

I like to think that I'm aging well, (I recently took up oil painting with a vengeance) but I have to say that this novel has not. It has some features that seem built-in to sabotage any eventual status as a classic, although who knows? Perhaps the tetralogy as a whole will gain "classic" status among the 4,500 people in America who will still be reading novels in 2060 as a cultural artifact of the century before. But I suspect that Rabbit Is Rich will not stand on its own for very many years.

For one thing, Updike was a member of that generation of American writers who suddenly found themselves liberated in the early 1960s by such events as the lifting of the ban on Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer to write just as frankly and candidly about sex as they wanted, using any and all words they wanted. "Fuck" no longer had to be rendered as F***. Understandably, they swam like dolphins in this new freedom, and the watchword of the 1960s in the literary game was sexual freedom. No holds were barred.

By the time Erica Jong published Fear of Flying in 1974, it had been a full five years since Philip Roth had created what might be called bookchat's last sexual scandal when he published the riotous Portnoy's Complaint, an ode to sexual neurosis with a steady ground bass of masturbation. By then sex had just about shot its wad as far as the potential to shock anybody. Fear of Flying's novelty lay in being the first Tropic of Cancer clone written by a woman. When I was paring down the manuscript of my own novel Tower-102 in 1994, assisted by Al Lefcowiz of the Writer's Center in Bethesda, MD, he was particularly insistent that I carve out nearly all descriptions of characters having sex. "We needed this in 1960," Al said. "We don't really need it anymore."

In 1981 that memo had apparently not reached Updike's desk. Harry Angstrom in the novel, who carries the nickname "Rabbit" from his days as a high school basketball star, is by the time this story opens a 48 year-old man, a Toyota dealer with a troubled past, a drunken wife and a more-than-a-little annoying, whiny, nearly grown-up son. But Harry at 48 is as wildly obsessed with sex as any American teenager. This betrays his origins as a 1960s character. By 1981 he seems somehow out of his time. I failed to note that in my 1981 review; we were still too close in time to the novel's origins (the story takes place in 1979) and I didn't quite have the perspective to notice that, although I do remember writing that the author seemed fixated upon the world's genitalia, a quality which, as I pointed out, Updike shared with his contemporary Norman Mailer. The wife-swapping episode in the Caribbean near the end of the novel is so pre-AIDS as to be quaint beyond quaint in 2008.

But the sex-rich sauce that's ladled over Angstrom's tale is only one of the book's flaws. From the long view, it seems to me a little too obvious that by the time Updike wrote Rabbit Is Rich, he was rich enough himself to be able to afford a team of researchers to do his legwork for him. And it shows like a too-loud necktie. The novel wears its research on its sleeve: the snappy to-and-fro between Harry and his employee Charlie Stavros, who handles the used cars while Harry sells the new ones, is just a bit too facile, as if Updike were showing off his recently-gained insider's knowledge of how a Toyota dealership is run.

Also, in each entry of the Rabbit series, Updike becomes increasingly hellbent upon creating a realistic stage for his story and giving the novel contemporary verisimilitude. By the third volume he's throwing around cultural trivia like Jackson Pollock throwing paint. Does anyone really care anymore, outside of Rams and Steelers fans, who won the 1980 Super Bowl game? And his characters spend endless amounts of restaurant and dinner-table chitchat pontificating about what's wrong with the world in 1979. It's like you're constantly being preached at, and the theme of the sermon comes from today's headlines. Only they're not today's headlines, they're the headlines of the late Carter Administration. If Updike had used a conventional first-or-third person narrative in the past tense, this might have been a formula for a period classic as surefire as The Great Gatsby. But this novel, and in fact the entire Rabbit series, is written entirely in the present tense. That's a fine device for making the reader feel that he or she is right in the middle of an unfolding story -- it really keeps the action moving along. The problem arises when Updike's characters begin talking in the present tense about things like Jimmy Carter, standing in gas lines, Three Mile Island and how the Japanese automakers are kicking Detroit's butt. 1979 was a long time ago, and while all of this gave the novel a bracingly "now" feel in 1981, today it gives it the look of a postcard turning yellow.

Imagine if Scott Fitzgerald had written The Great Gatsby in the present tense. I wince to think of it: "Gatsby gets up from his chair and walks across the yard near the pool. He's thinking that this Prohibition business really brings out the contours in the American soul. But what the hell, he decides. It's making him rich, and as for the contours in the American soul, well, someone's always doing something to bring those out, aren't they? Like this new dance everyone's doing, the Charleston. Gatsby actually thinks people dancing the Charleston look fairly idiotic, but then reminds himself that the country is living through times that might be thought idiotic by the same standards with which he's judging the Charleston, what with the flagpole-sitting and raccoon coats and all that. The world is always ending, but new people keep showing up too dumb to know it and thinking that the fun's just getting started."

I doubt whether Gatsby would have become a classic written like that. Rather, it would have become an instant relic-of-an-era, noteworthy today only as a distant mirror on the 1920s. The kind of a book that writers like Updike would be re-assessing 60 years later in think pieces written for The New Yorker and deciding that that it was better than they originally thought when they read it in college for History 432, a survey of the American cultural and social scene between the two world wars.

If I'm still around in another 10 years, I'll be back to see how the next volume, Rabbit At Rest, is holding up. I'm not real optimistic, though. From my last re-reading I remember that he mentions things like Garry Larson's Far Side cartoons and the reruns on the Nickelodeon network, and both of those things seem awfully "'90s" even now.

Monday, September 22, 2008

The Boys of (Indian) Summer



CONTENT WARNING: THIS BLOG POSTING WILL BE OF INTEREST ONLY TO MY FELLOW BASEBALL FANS. IF YOU'RE THE SORT WHO JUST DOESN'T CARE THAT THIS YEAR THE CHICAGO CUBS MIGHT BE IN THEIR FIRST WORLD SERIES SINCE 1945, OR THAT YANKEE STADIUM JUST CLOSED AFTER 85 YEARS, OR THAT C.C. SABATHIA JUST MIGHT BE THE HOTTEST THING SINCE BOB FELLER, YOU'RE EXCUSED.

Well, here we are again. Today is September 22. Autumn officially begins at 11:44 this morning.

And not a moment too soon, if you ask me. My wife Valerie and I were out at Nationals Park here in Washington, D.C. yesterday watching two-thirds of the Three Stooges of baseball whack each other with custard pies. The hometown Washington Nationals and my hometown San Diego Padres were duking it out to see which team would be the first to board the bus for Palookaville.

The Padres won the game 6-2, actually sweeping the Nationals in a three-game series of Slapstick September Fun. Decision: the Friars get to hold the bus door while the Nats get settled in for the ride. But as soon as they've stowed their gear, they'll be next. Then it's off to Seattle to pick up the even-more pathetic Mariners, and Larry, Moe and Curly are off into the sunset for this year.

How yucko has it been? At the beginning of the game, the two teams had nearly identical win-loss records for the season: 58-97 for the Nats, 60-95 for the Padres. That's baseball's equivalent of driving past an open sewer. As of this bright, cool Monday morning when the hint of fall is just beginning to insinuate itself, the Nationals are 30 games out in the National League eastern division, in dead last place. The Padres are 20 games out in the National League western division, likewise in dead-last place.

This was like watching a war between Burkina Faso and Gabon, two countries that would probably have to float a loan to buy bullets.

The Nats and Padres will both be spending the winter trying to buy bullets, bet on it. But they'll be trying to get them cheap, which has been both teams' problem in recent seasons. The Padres need one thing more than any other: a reliable power hitter. They went shopping for one last winter, but decided all the power hitters were too expensive and acquired more pitching instead, which, with Jake Peavy, Chris Young and company, they already had plenty of. (Picture me pointing my index finger at my temple, a German gesture meaning "MORON(S).")

The result of such parsimony has been on display all season, and nowhere more than at Nationals Park yesterday. The Padres struck out no less than 15 times during the game, mostly against the excellent pitching of Washington's Odalis Perez, whom I was fortunate enough to see last week pitching seven innings of shutout ball against the New York Mets. I had two buddies from out of town, Doug Parker and Jay Arnold, visiting me last week, and we went to the ballpark to see that game. Doug, Jay and I, like all right-thinking people, hate all New York sports teams, and we cheered, if less than lustily, the Nats' 1-0 victory over the Mets. (The best part of watching either the Mets or the Yankees lose is not so much what you get to see as what you get to hear: their obnoxious, loudmouth-gorilla fans growing quieter and quieter as each inning goes by, until there's nothing left but slack jaws and blank, sheepish stares. You gotta love that.)

Yesterday's game put one in mind of two prizefighters trying to slug it out with the lights in the arena shut off. Kevin Kouzmanoff hit a two-run double in the first, then there was no offensive action on either side until Adrian Gonzales' solo homer in the sixth. Ryan Zimmerman, the only National with anything close to a dependable bat, replied with a solo shot of his own in the bottom of the sixth. The Padres scored three more runs in the eighth when Zimmerman committed an error, then Adrian Gonzales walked on a full count, sending Edgar Gonzales to second. There followed a flurry of hits that brought in both Gonzaleses and Kouzmanoff. Zimmerman struck again in the eighth with a single that scored Ryan Langerhans.

There was some grumbling among Nationals fans in our section when umpire Paul Emmel clearly blew a call, ruling Edgar Gonzales safe at first on a play when it was clear, even from where we were sitting along left field, that Aaron Boone had applied the tag before Gonzales stepped on first. But if you ask me, that's a little bit like the crew of the Titanic complaining that they weren't getting paid overtime. One blown call does not a game make, and in this case, on the 21st of September, with your team 30 games out of first place, well, let's just say that it doesn't make much difference whether you drown in 80 feet of water or 90 feet of water. Either way you've drowned. I was astonished two weeks ago to read that one of the Padres' players, I forget who, had told a sportswriter that he was a little disappointed now that the team had been numerically eliminated from postseason contention.

Excuse me. Did I miss something here? I thought this team was out of contention back in May.

But I'm a fan. We fans regard the role of sore loser as an entitlement, and we tend to be bitter.

Anabasis -- Greek for "not quite at the bottom" and the title of Xenophon's inspiring story of the march of the lost patrol of 10,000 Greeks who had to get back to their own territory after an engagement with the Persians. Washington's Anabasis moment this offseason could be getting the No. 1 pick in next summer's draft, an honor baseball awards each season's stinkiest team as a consolation prize. But lo and behold, the Seattle Mariners, over in the other league, who are at this moment playing .368 ball to the Nat's .372 and are 39 games out in their division, just might beat out Washington even for the title of Miss Congeniality.

But there is poetry even in misfortune. Word is that if the Nationals DO get the first draft pick next summer, they might select Stephen Strasburg, a right-handed pitcher from my own alma mater: San Diego State. So the Padres managed to play just rotten enough ball this season to avoid getting to select a hot young prospect from their own backyard. Geeze.

Oh, well. As I said before, it's power hitting the Padres really need, not more pitching. That goes double when they're playing at home, since Petco Park in San Diego has an outfield roughly the size of Wyoming. So I'll be holding my breath during the days of the hot stove league this winter to see if someone manages to persuade Padre ownership to get out a crowbar and pry open its coin purse and try to acquire just one reliable bat.

How many more seasons in Zimmerman's contract, by the way?

It's times like this I wish I liked football.

Friday, September 05, 2008

The Stumbling Gourmet Returns



With all the bloggers in America screaming about Sarah Palin vs. Joe Biden, I have the following sage observation to add to all of this political flamethrowing:

I have just discovered that Tropicana Blueberry/Pomegranate juice makes a great mix with white rum. Next I'm going to try their Peach/Mango juice with a little Bacardi and see how that tastes.

Two weeks ago I learned through doing that you can actually make excellent lasagna in a slow cooker. That's correct. You can make good lasagna in your good old crockpot. And it's not that hard, either.

The recipe calls of course for spaghetti sauce, but I'm proud to say that in the lasagna I made, the sauce was made from tomatoes picked from my own garden. This summer just past I decided to follow in my Dad's footsteps and plant a summer crop of tomatoes, as he used to do every year. And I've gotten a bumper crop: since early August they've been coming in faster than I can eat them. I've already got a batch of spaghetti sauce in the freezer, and I've been passing out tomatoes to my friends and neighbors, as my father and I used to do during those glorious California summers of watching baseball in the living room and tending tomatoes out by the back fence. Truth to tell, the tomatoes have been a godsend this summer; they've helped keep my mind off the stinko year that my San Diego Padres have been having: dead-last place, 17 games out, playing .387 ball.

I have tickets to the Sept. 21 Padres-Nationals game here in Washington, D.C. It ought to be a real Perils-of-Pauline cliffhanger: the Friars and the Nats will be duking it out to see who gets to share the worst record in baseball with the Seattle Mariners over in the other league.

To rub salt in my wounds, every time I turn on MLB Extra Innings, I see ex-Padres all over the tube. Good players that San Diego brain-farted itself out of: Mark Kotsay is with the Boston Red Sox now; Mike Cameron and Ramon Hernandez are both playing for the Milwaukee Brewers; Mark Loretta plays in Houston and Xavier Nady just signed with the New York Yankees. I watched Nady hit the first grand slam of his career against Atlanta three seasons ago. Now he's in pinstripes and the Padres are in the toilet.

Pardon me while I program February 15, the beginning of spring training, into my Microsoft Office alerts, and prepare to hibernate for the winter.

End of digression. You want to know how to make excellent lasagna in your slow cooker, right?

Here's what you do. Get:

A jar of spaghetti sauce (28 oz.)

half-a-dozen or so uncooked lasagna noodles

2 cups mozzarella cheese

15 oz. ricotta cheese

1/4 grated parmesan

1 lb. ground beef (optional)

Spread some of the sauce over the bottom of your crockpot. Bust up the lasagna noodles into 1-2 inch chunks and spread a layer over the sauce. Mix the three kinds of cheese up in a bowl. Sprinkle the cheese over the noodles, then cover with sauce, lay down another layer of busted-up noodles and do the same. If you want meat in your lasagna, brown the ground beef, season with salt, pepper and oregano and lay down a layer of beef between your second or third layer of sauce, noodles and cheese.
Cover your top layer with the last of your sauce and sprinkle with the last of your mozzarella. Cook on low 3-4 hours until cheese melts. When you're getting ready to serve, sprinkle parmesan over the top and cook for another 30 minutes.

I don't know where we all got the idea that Labor Day is the end of the grilling season, even here on the east coast. I walked into my local Safeway over in Hyattsville, MD on Monday, which was Labor Day, and all the charcoal was gone. The check-out cashier asked me, "Are you grilling today?" "I guess not." Labor Day does NOT signal the end of summer, I don't care what any kid moping around in anticipation of the first day of school says. Last year I had a contract job in a government office that required male employees to wear neckties. However they were given a break for the summer: as of Memorial Day you could take your necktie off, but you had to put it back on come Labor Day.

We guys discussed the absurdity of this. Here in Washington, when Labor Day comes around, you're still looking at three or four more weeks of 90-degree heat. We all agreed that Oct. 1 would be a more reasonable date for back-to-noose.

And so it was that last night, Sept. 4, I decided to grill outside. Safeway had replenished its charcoal supply by then. Back-to-School or no, it was 92 Fahrenheit, 33 Celsius here in Washington yesterday and I didn't feel like turning on the oven.

My neighbor Verna Williams, who when it comes to gardening makes me look like Oliver Douglas on Green Acres, gave me two big, beautiful red bell peppers from her garden. Trying to decide how to appropriately honor such a bounty, I decided to try my hand at a simple grilling treat I'd never made before. My Russian friends call it shashlik. We Americans tend to call it shish kebab.

Now, most shish kebab recipes call for beef sirloin tip. That's okay, but I'm kind of a traditionalist: Russian shashlik is made with lamb, not beef. Ideally, I would have found a 2-lb. lamb roast, but all Safeway had were lamb chops, so I bought four of them, trimmed the meat away from the bones and gave my doggies a lamb-bone treat, then diced up the lamb chops.

Another good thing to have handy when you're making shashlik is a box of Band-Aids for when you poke your fingers with those sharp little sticks on which you skewer your meat and vegetables.

But before you even get that far, you should marinate the meat of course. Here's the marinade I used. I can recommend it:

3/4 cup water
5 tbsp. soy sauce
3 tbsp. cooking oil
3 tbsp. vinegar
1 tsp. dry mustard
1 tsp. ginger
1/2 tsp. garlic powder
2 tbsp. brown sugar

Mix it all up in a bowl and toss in the meat for an hour or so.

The rest (after the meat):

Red bell pepper
Green bell pepper
sliced onion
Sliced large mushrooms


After that I skewered, alternately ("as great Malherbes alternates male and female rhymes,") lamb chunk, red bell pepper, onion, green bell pepper, big fat mushroom. Repeat until everything's gone. You ought to have about six shish kebabs when you're done, and two bandaged fingers. Season to taste with seasoned salt and pepper. Grill, turning regularly, about 20 minutes. Serve on a bed of rice.

Now...For those who missed my, and my friend Chris McDonald's, trip to Kansas City last June to attend the 13th semi-annual Ernest Hemingway conference, here once again is the recipe for Hemingway's famous daquiri known as a "Papa Doble" ("Made a run of 16 in here one night," Hemingway is said to have boasted to an interlocutor at the Floridita Bar in Havana):

2 jiggers (3 oz.) white rum
The juice of two limes
The juice of half a grapefruit
Six drops Grenadine (or cherry brandy)

Fill blender 1/4 with crushed ice. Pour the mixture over the ice and blend until it becomes pink and frothy. Serve in a margarita glass.

Made correctly, these have a fruity taste and are quite delicious. If you find that the grapefruit juice makes the drink a little too tart, you can add more grenadine to make it sweeter. My wife Valerie is a real alcohol wimp, so when I make one of these for her, I cut the rum portion in half. You might want to consider a similar mitigating factor for the alcohol wimps in your life.

I leave you with one of my favorite quotations from Francis Albert Sinatra (1915-1998):

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day."

Ring-a-ding-ding.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Growing Up With A Funny Name


















"Lunch is gonna taste awful!"




I had my first name legally changed in 1999. According to the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Social security Administration, my name is Alexander Kelley Dupuis.

But it wasn’t always.

I’ve been blogging for four years, but actually, I was blogging before there were any such things as blogs. I’ve kept a journal all my life.

There were no blogs in 1988. There was no Internet in 1988. But I wrote the following essay in Brasilia, Brazil in the late summer of that year.



I’m going to let you in on a little secret here. Actually, it’s not a secret at all, but a matter of public record. My whole family knows it; anyone who’s known me since I was a child knows it, the State of California knows it and I’m sure the federal government probably knows it, although I have made every effort to expunge all evidence of it from my personal records ever since I entered on duty with the government.

It’s simply this: “Kelley” isn’t my first name. It’s my middle name. I tell people it’s my first name and when they ask me what my middle name is, I tell them I don’t have one. If I’m pressed for my full legal name on an official form, I fill it in surreptitiously, covering the page with one arm so the guy standing next to me won’t see what I’m writing in that space marked “First,” right after “Last” and just before “Middle Initial.”

One time a highway patrolman pulled me over to give me a speeding ticket on Interstate 5 between Sacramento and Red Bluff, California. He wanted to be friendly, and after looking at my driver’s license he addressed me by my legal first name. “Please, be a nice guy and call me ‘Kelley,’” I said.

That’s right: you can take my license, you can run my plates, you can slander my name all over the states, (as long as it’s “Kelley.”) You can write me for going 70 instead of 55, but please, please don’t ever call me “Wirt.”

That syllable makes my neck flush. Every time I hear it (which is seldom anymore, thank God) suddenly I know how Hester Prynne felt. The very sound of it opens a floodgate of bad memories. I had it hung around my neck at birth and there it stayed until I was 15 and finally decided that I was tired of being made to feel like a visitor from another planet every time roll was called in home room. I exerted my adolescent will and forced everyone to the still relatively-unusual but at least not extraterrestrial sound of my middle name.

The transition was actually made quite smoothly. I think I had a lot of sympathizers. My father certainly sympathized; in fact he went so far as to tell me that he had wanted “Kelley” to be my first name to begin with. It comes from one of my dad’s old Border Patrol cronies, Rex Kelley.

My first move to make the change official came when I put in for my Social Security number. I filled out the form as “Kelley Dupuis,” and as far as the SSA is concerned, that’s my name until me and my SSN go up the chimney.

Now, I’ve told you how I came to be called “Kelley,” so I’ll tell you how I came to be called…that other thing. It seems my father just deferred to my mother on the subject. I was the second of three children and he had chosen my older sister’s name, so I guess he figured it was my mother’s turn to choose. She chose badly. She proceeded to stick me with the surname of a Protestant minister she admired, Dr. Williston Wirt. I doubt she had any idea that “Wirt” is the German word for “Tavern-keeper,” and that yoking a name like that to so thoroughly French a surname as “Dupuis” was perfectly idiotic. My mother is innocent of any foreign language, such that I remember one night over dinner she asked my father, who speaks both French and Spanish, the meaning of this word “merde” she kept coming across in novels. My mother wouldn’t say “merde” if she had a mouthful of it, and at the answer she blushed furiously. No, she couldn’t have known she was naming me Barkeep, but she wanted to give a warm fuzzy to the minister who had held her hand through a divorce in an era when women seldom divorced.

It should surprise no one that as soon as I became old enough, I became Catholic. And when I was baptised and they told me I could take a new name, I did. Later I just made it legal, taking my ecclesiastical name as my actual name.

The question I never got around to asking my mother was this: if she was so bound and determined to give Dr. Williston Wirt a warm fuzzy by sticking me with his absurd name, why “Wirt?’ Why not “Williston?” At least that way the kids on the playground would probably have called me “Will” or “Willis,” neither of which is the greatest name in the world, but either of them beats the hell out of “Wirt.” They are at least names used by other people who live on this planet. I’m sure either one would have saved me innumerable taunts, scuffles and fistfights.

I read in a Sunday supplement a few years ago that someone had conducted a study and found that children who are given oddball names at birth have a greater likelihood of growing up to be criminals than those who aren’t. Or if not criminals, at least social outcasts of various kinds. Dweezil Zappa, Cher’s daughter Chastity and Grace Slick’s son God were all spared this because, as the children of celebrities they’ve had to be accustomed all their lives to being set apart. Besides, as old Frank Zappa himself once pointed out, in the San Fernando Valley a name like “Dweezil” or “Moon Unit” isn’t going to get you a second glance anyway.

But if you’re just an average kid, and don’t have a parent who regularly turns up in People magazine, having a strange name hung on you at birth is almost like being born with an eye where your ear is supposed to be. From your very first day of kindergarten you have it drilled into your head every morning that you are strange, fundamentally different from all the other kids.

I can still hear my kindergarten teacher, a red-haired beauty named Cydne Roberts (she’d be in her sixties now) calling roll. Seaside Elementary School, Torrance, California. Autumn, 1960. “Jimmy Anderson?” “Sally Burnett?” “Tommy Condit?” “Wirt Dupuis?”

Pardon me while I have a hot flash. Well, at least Miss Roberts knew how to pronounce my last name. It was bad enough being called “Wirt,” but as often as not on the first day of school I would also have to listen to my American teachers mangling my French last name: “Doo-pwah,” “Doo-pew,” “Doo-pewis,” “Doopis,” “Duppis.” These mispronunciations invariably prompted a chorus of giggles and head-turnings in my direction, which in turn would make me wish I were “on some Australian mountain range,” as Bob Dylan put it.

I spent a lot of time during my young years wishing I were on some Australian mountain range or the equivalent.

My teachers thought I had an attitude problem. Jesus, wouldn’t you? They were forever complaining to my parents about what a sullen little smart-aleck I was. Well, yeah. I mean, what the hell did they know about it? Their names were all Donna and William and Robert and Larry and Betty and Diane. They had never been cornered on the playground by little thugs named Frank and Billy and taunted with cries of “Ha-ha, Wirt the squirt.”

Were they kidding with that “bad attitude” stuff? They’re lucky I didn’t grow up and become the neighborhood chainsaw slayer. Children get spanked, as well they should, when they make fun of handicapped people. But I never saw a kid get spanked for making fun of another kid's name, and if you ask me, having a goofy name is just a subtler form of being disabled. Forgive my strong feelings about this, but I think the little bastards should be boiled in oil, especially if their names are Frank or Billy.

I’m not trying to say that my name lay at the root of all the problems I had when I was growing up, but there were a few areas where being thus set apart from my peers made me feel that I was at an authentic disadvantage from the start and hence, my confidence wasn’t what it might have been.

And you know what I’m talking about now. Yes. Girls. Until I was in my twenties I could never get anywhere with girls. I think in high school I went out on one date. I skipped my senior prom, stayed home and watched The Tonight Show. Of course, by the time I was a high school senior I had already made the transition to “Kelley,” but the damage had been done long before. Imagine what it’s like to be in the sixth grade and in the throes of the first great crush of your life, and when you finally manage to muster the courage to walk up to the object of your adoration and so thoroughly take the ultimate fate of the universe into your hands as to utter a syllable to her, say, “Hello” for instance: “Hello, Patty.” “Hi, Wirt.” The exchange might as well have been “Hello, Earthling,” “Hi, Martian.”

It set the tone for the entire next decade. Until my second year of college all my relationships with girls were one-sided. I thought unrequited love was just going to be the way it was for me. My first name wasn’t solely to blame for this, but it was the little ur-embarrassment at the bottom of it all. Even after I became “Kelley,” “Wirt” remained my nerdy little Doppelgaenger, shadowing me everywhere, ready to jump out from behind a bush at any moment and whisper in my ear, “Who do you think you are, talking to girls, freak?”

The other boys interested in Patty had names like Bobby and Wesley. Wesley was the one she really liked. His father was the coach of the Ream Field Navy boxing team, and Wesley talked and acted just like his father. A little tough guy. He was always warning me to stay away from Patty. You’re damn right I was afraid of him, the little asshole. He needn’t have bothered with the threats, though. Patty had no interest in anything so exotic as a boy named Wirt. She had health oozing out of every pore, in fact it had spilled over and created a second one of her—she and her sister Penny were identical twins. I never could decide which of them I was crazier about. But Patty was in my class, so I saw her more often. Incidentally if you want to know the meaning of true suffering, and I mean suffering right up there in the big leagues with Van Gogh and Dostoevsky, try having a horrific crush on twin sisters, neither of whom will give you the time of day.

I used to watch Wesley and Patty walk off the playground together at the end of the day. To this day I wonder what they talked about; Wesley just barely had the power of speech. But there they were: Hans Hansen and Ingeborg Holm, if you know that story. Well, yeah, Thomas Mann’s Tonio Kroeger also had a “name problem;” I suppose being named “Tonio” in northern Germany 130 years ago was as bad as being named “Wirt” in California during the 1960s. But if you had given me the choice, there would have been no contest. As “Tonio” I would have been called “Tony” on the playground, and I had a friend named Tony who was quite popular.

If you’ve read this far, you’re probably rolling your eyeballs by now. ‘He’s too sensitive,” you’re saying. “He’s too thin-skinned.” “He’s making a big deal out of nothing.” Well, let me put it this way: if I had been a champion debater or a hellacious quarterback or president of the student council, perhaps I might not be writing this now. Indeed, perhaps I might not have switched to my middle name in the middle of the 10th grade. I wouldn’t have found it necessary. But I was a kid who was average or below average in almost every way. I got B’s and C’s in most subjects at school, and F’s in math. The only subject in which I ever got an “A” was English. I was a substandard athlete and, in the pecking order of elementary, junior high and high school, I ranked somewhere down there with stewed prunes. I’m not saying I would have been a big man on the campus if my parents had named me James or Robert, but if you don’t have any particularly outstanding abilities to begin with, being stuck with a wacky name on top of everything else certainly doesn’t help any.

So what do you do? Some people compensate for their liabilities by becoming overachievers. I have wondered, for example, how much taunting millionaire Armand Hammer had to put up with as a child. I like to think that amassing his tremendous fortune was one way of getting back at the little schoolyard scumbags who no doubt danced around him in a circle chanting, “Baking Soda! Baking Soda! You’re a loada Baking Soda!” Now he could buy any one of them ten times over and sign the check “Armand Hammer” with a flourish (and a $1,000 Montblanc pen.)

A lot of people try to overcome a handicap by excelling at something. I read somewhere that Somerset Maugham took up writing novels because he had a speech impediment. But some people allow it to beat them, allow their “otherness” to snowball and bring them to grief. As my high school psychology teacher used to say, “It isn’t what happens to you that’s important,” it’s how you react to it.” Boy, would I like to meet the optimist who cooked up that line of baloney! The same guy, no doubt, who came up with the cliché “When life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.” I go with Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes on this one: when life deals me a lemon, I chuck it back and add a few of my own.

I wonder how many people actually succeed at turning their liabilities into assets? Stephen Hawking didn’t become a great physicist because he had Lou Gehrig’s disease, but in spite of it. But something like Lou Gehrig’s disease, or being born with no arms, or Somerset Maugham’s speech impediment for that matter, is an act of nature and there isn’t much you can do about it except carry on as best as you can. And I suppose the same can be said of being named “Marlwark.” But the difference, and what a difference it is, is that physical disabilities are acts of nature. Wacky first names are not.

Which leads me to my main point: WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH PARENTS? Don’t they realize what they’re doing to a child when they name it Dorcas or Cadwalladr? Sometimes I think it’s just sadism, pure and simple, and I find it disturbing that anyone could be rotten enough to give a newborn baby the appelatory equivalent of a hot-foot. But I’ve seen some cases that definitely smack of the seltzer bottle in the delivery room, such as the man named Dover whose parents named him Ben, and who moreover had a sister named Eileen. My mother had a friend who was unfortunate enough to have the surname Pigg, and her parents named her Ima. Who could hate a baby that much? Admittedly, babies are noisy and expensive and few people get a bang out of yellow poo-poo, but the kid didn’t ask to be born, and I think if you treat him/her like the rubber chicken in a vaudeville sketch, you’re not just a bad parent, but a sick s.o.b.

Yes, Jolly Joker parents are exceptions. Most people regard the birth of an heir as something simultaneously more solemn and more joyous than an occasion for some great gags. I think much more often parents just don’t think, or their good intentions are misdirected. Who among us, on first viewing that adorable little bundle who looks like Yoda the Jedi Master for the first few days, is consciously thinking about what day-to-day life is going to be like for the little tyke when he’s in the seventh grade? Not very many, I’ll bet. Surely not my mother, who was thinking of Dr. Wirt and not of me. I think usually parents are thinking along the lines of A. What name would sound good with Smith, Jones or Garcia, or B. Are we going to name this child after Great Uncle Willard so he’ll put him in his will?

My sympathies, for understandable reason, lie more with aesthetic consideration. But that, too, has its pitfalls, as in this particularly ridiculous case in point, which, as Dave Barry used to say, I am not making up. A girl with whom I went to high school got married three years after graduation. Her husband’s name was Steve Bourgeois. Now, there’s nothing wrong with being named “Bourgeois” unless you’re planning to go after Mikhail Gorbachev’s job. But when her first child came along, this young woman decided that, having acquired a French name through marriage, she would give the situation a good, solid underscoring in the naming of her new daughter. She decided to give the poor little girl a name as French as a plateful of escargot swimming in butter. Unfortunately, in choosing the name, she displayed all the taste of someone who buys a portrait of Elvis painted on black velvet.

“Desiree.”

Can you imagine? “Desiree Bourgeois.” Remember that scene in Woody Allen's Radio Days when Julie Kavner, eight months pregnant, tells her husband she’s mulling the name “Lola” for their daughter?

“Lola? What do you, want her to be a stripper?” he replies.

Eek. In 1988, the year this essay was originally written, that little girl would have been 12 years old (Desiree, not the kid in the movie) and it’s my fervent hope that she had a happy childhood, but I’ll bet you a personalized license plate that that name didn’t help any. Not only did it sound like one-third of a Las Vegas lounge act, but you can imagine what those dumbbell teachers did with it on the first day of school each year from kindergarten to senior year. I can just hear the roll call now: “Jennifer Adams, Jennifer Anderson, Jennifer Ashworth, Jennifer Bentwell, and so on down through the Jennifers and Ashleys until they got to “De-sire Bor-jiss!” And I can picture the poor little girl shrinking to the size of a pack of Gitanes or a Renault Le Car from sheer mortification.

I can’t say what impact that horrible first name had on the early years of my life, probably not very much in truth. Because the truth is that kids in general are little shitheads and if they can’t turn you into an object of ridicule because of your name, they’ll find something else about you to ridicule. But I have made one rather comforting discovery in the past couple of years, and I don’t know why it never occurred to me before.

It’s simple: we are legion, we “midnight masqueraders” who go by our middle names. I am just one of millions who find their legal name so unpalatable that they have substituted something else for it. I have a friend whose legal name is “Elzey,” and if you call him that he just might punch your lights out depending on what sort of mood he’s in. His name, by his own say-so, is “Bob.” And where I work, at the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia, we have a Clarence who goes by “Gene” and a Julius who goes by “Art.” I don’t blame either of them, nor do I blame the foreign service officer I knew in Frankfurt whose driver’s license said “Clyde,” but who signed his name “Buck.” If my name were Clyde, I’d want to be called “Buck” too. And I’m just as sure that if his name were “Wirt,” he’d want to be called “Kelley.”

Then there are those who start out in life with such strikes against them that they might just throw in the towel and head for Superior Court with that petition before they get the diapers off. Remember Ben Dover and Ima Pigg? I can top those. Not long ago my supervisor walked into the office waving a local Brazilian newspaper and called my attention to an article about a spectacular traffic accident. He was laughing, telling us we just weren’t gonna BELIEVE this. He opened the paper, found the article, ran his finger over to the spot and said, “Here! Read that!”
“Arthur, this paper is in Portuguese,” I said. “I can’t read Portuguese.” (Arthur has a Brazilian wife and speaks the local lingo)

“You don’t have to read Portuguese,” he said. “Just look there! Look at the name of that witness they’re quoting!”

I looked. Bracketed in quotation marks was an eyewitness description of the accident’s aftermath by a local resident who saw the whole thing happen. He was identified as “Hitler Mussolini, 46.”

Unless he was hiding from his wife under an assumed name…well, and I thought I had problems.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Papa's Got A Brand-New Bag



Godfrey Blow and Thierry Bisch, look out.

Yeah, I know you've never heard of them. You've never of me either.

They're PAINTERS. You know, people who paint. And I don't mean living rooms and bathrooms. I'm talking about ART. That about which none of us knows anything, but we all know what we like. Right?

Now, these two folks may be obscure, (I never heard of them either) but at least they're alive. One was born in 1948 and the other in '53. Two years before me, in other words. Same year as my wife. Obviously I didn't want to begin a blog posting with the words, "Leonardo da Vinci and Paul Cezanne, look out." Those guys are dead. There ain't nothing for them to look out for. Except maybe the mind-boggling price tags on their canvases when they go up for auction or get stolen from some museum in Switzerland.

That is correct. Old K.D. has taken up painting.

We will now pause for a moment while the art world shakes to its foundations.

Now, I've been dabbling in painting off and on for years. I'm one hell of a dabbler. At first I wanted to dabble in watercolors. That's because some of my favorite writers were watercolor-dabblers. D.H. Lawrence and Henry Miller, to name two. Lawrence was actually a pretty fair draftsman. He could draw. His watercolors are generally figurative and carefully-crafted. Miller, somewhat more to my taste, couldn't draw worth a damn and he didn't care. Some of his watercolors look like they were executed by a kid getting through a bad day at kindergarten. And I think he would be highly flattered to hear me say that. The angel was his watermark, exuberance his hallmark and "Paint as you like and die happy" his trademark. Miller painted for fun, and you can sure tell. He had nothing to say except S'agapo.

That's Greek for "I love you."

I'm with Miller. I just throw paint around. And I'm having a ball.

Down in my basement I have some of my old efforts. One or two aren't bad. There's a watercolor I excecuted in 1986, a still-life of my kitchen in Frankfurt, Germany. There's an oil canvas I did last winter, "Still Life With Radio," on which I toiled for three months. It's not very good.

The problem has been that I've been trying to do more-or-less traditional figurative art, and I'm not much better a draftsman than Miller. I can draw, I just can't draw very well. And it's not for lack of practice, either. Once upon a time I had a sketchbook and used to draw up a storm. But that was a long time ago.

I think the real problem is that drawing is work. If I want to work, I'll go outside and mow the lawn. When I paint I want to have fun.

So I decided to set figurative painting aside, for the moment anyway, and get a little crazy. I've executed two canvases in the past ten days. They appear above. To make up for the fact that I don't draw very well, I've incorporated collage technique into both of them, pulling recognizable images relevant to the theme I have in mind off the Internet, pasting them on the canvas and then painting around, and over them. Artists have been doing this for years. What the hell do I care that the idea didn't originate with me? I'm not looking to become the next Robert Rauchenberg. I'm looking to have myself a good old time on Saturday afternoon.

If you're interested, they do have themes, they do have ideas and they do have titles. I'm basically a writer. I can't tell a story without telling a story. The one predominated by bright reds, oranges and other colors is a tribute to the music of one of my favorite composers, Claudio Monteverdi. I call it "Homage to Claudio Monteverdi." Clever, huh?

The more subdued one, dominated by blues and greens and featuring collage-images of forests, rivers, great blue herons, the moon and stars is entitled "River Elegy." It's in memory of my younger sister Lynn, whose ashes were scattered in the Spokane River in Washington State in 2004.

And I must say that, original or not, I like what I've done so far. What the hell do I care if Art World wouldn't say the same? They can go choke on their pickled sharks and brie.

My sun room, which I use as an office, book depository, smoking room and now painting studio, is a cramped mess. It stinks of turpentine. I've already ruined the counter because I was dumb enough to put paint thinner in a plastic drinking cup and it ate right through the cup.

But clear the way nonetheless, all you gallery-mongers and chardonnay sippers out there trying to decide what the hell the person who stuffed that mayonnaise jar with horse dung and sunflower seeds is trying to say to the world.

My message to the world couldn't be clearer.

Paint as you like and die happy!

See ya.

Friday, August 08, 2008

Circle For A Landing




Boy, you sure can tell it's August, can't you?

Congress is on its five-week paid vacation, the nation's capital is wheezing through the dog days of limpid heat and violent afternoon thunderstorms, and the news media just don't know what to do with themselves.

I have some experience in journalism myself, and I can tell you that reporters go nuts in August for lack of anything to write about. In England August is known as the "silly season," the month when the papers will play up any idiotic story they can find just to fill space.

Just in case anyone has forgotten, (and I'm sure plenty have) the run-up to September 11, 2001 was a real snoozer. Right up until the moment those airplanes slammed into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and that field in Pennsylvania, we consumers of news were being tube-fed one shark attack after another, the vicissitudes of the Dow-Jones Industrial Average (it passed 10,000 for the first time that summer) and Chandra Levy, Chandra Levy, Chandra Levy.

Does anyone remember Chandra Levy now? We had her in 24-hour tape loop for weeks before 9/11. She was the Washington intern who vanished in Rock Creek Park, then turned up dead, and for a while (an endless while) all eyes were on the congressman she worked for, Gary Condit, whose priapic propensities were such that many wags called him "Gary Condom."

Then Al Qaida struck, and we all had something else to worry about.

Happens all the time. In the Soviet Union, coups tended to happen in August. With all the party big shots in Moscow out of town, swatting mosquitoes at their dachas in the countryside, August was the time to strike if you wanted to topple the government. I remember the last time it happened. I was swatting mosquitoes in Warrenton, Virginia, preparing to be transferred to my next Foreign Service post, Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. August 19, 1991. The news cycle was in such a downturn that that week's issue of Newsweek featured a cover story entitled "Busybodies and Crybabies: What's happening To the American Character?"

Then the following morning, when the Washington Post was delivered to the door of my room at the Warrenton Comfort Inn, the blazing headline read that Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev had been deposed in a coup.

That coup collapsed after three days, but things sure were exciting there for a while. Then we all went back to wishing September would hurry up and get here, with its cooler temperatures and the NFL on Sundays.

I think I have identified the "shark attack" of 2008. Or the Chandra Levy, if you prefer.

A couple of weeks ago there was a story in the news about a Quantas jumbo jet having to make an emergency landing in Australia after a mystery explosion blew out a hunk of its fuselage in mid-flight.

Hot damn! Shark attack! Has anyone else noticed that in the days since, we have been virtually inundated with "emergency landing" stories? There was another one just this morning, about a plane having to make a forced landing at an airport in Orange, California after some sort of equipment problem.

Truth to tell, small planes probably have to make emergency landings more often than most non-pilots would guess. Generally such a thing would only make the news if it involved a Qantas jumbo jet. But this is August, and there ain't much else going on. And given the habit reporters have of reflexively (one might say slavishly) imitating each other, I'm going to go out on a limb and make a fearless forecast here: in the weeks between now and the time the autumn winds begin to blow (or something truly newsworthy happens, on the level of a terrorist attack, coup d'etat in Russia, massive earthquake in Pakistan or breast augmentation surgery for Paris Hilton)look to see lots and lots of stories about planes of all shapes and sizes making forced landings at podunk airports you couldn't find on a map.

Oh, and watch for that big interview Ted Koppel is going to have with his dog, Winky.

It's August, folks. Showtime.

Monday, August 04, 2008

The Soul That Barbed Wire Was No Match for



An interesting coincidence: last Sunday the world got the news of the death of Alexander Isaievich Solzhenitsyn at the age of 89.

When the news came about Solzhenitsyn, I was roughly three-fourths of the way through a summer re-read of Tolstoy's War & Peace.

I'd just reached the chapters where Napoleon's army has entered Moscow and the city is burning.

I have a message for all of my friends back in Russia who, on the occasion of Solzhenitsyn's death this week, would deride his memory, downplay his greatness, dismiss him as an eccentric and a scold, or in the worst case, vilify him as a traitor to his country.

I love you all. And you can all shove it up your shuba.

The title of this posting is borrowed from Solzhenitsyn's most significant work, the massive "experiment in literary investigation" which was published in 1973 as The Gulag Archipelago. The late Kenneth Tynan called it "The most devastating attack on a political system to be leveled in modern times." Gulag, published in English in three volumes, traced in minute detail the evolution of the Soviet Union's massive chain of forced labor camps and bore witness to the fates of the millions who were imprisoned in them. Solzhenitsyn himself was what Russians call a "zek," an alumnus of the Gulag Archipelago who spent eight years in the Siberian labor camps, was released, shortly thereafter survived cancer, and went on to generate a body of literary work that would be instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union. The Gulag Archipelago was the centerpiece of that body of work.

Although Solzhenitsyn only dabbled in theater, among his works was a play entitled Candle In The Wind. When I heard that Elton John had borrowed that title for a song about Marilyn Monroe, I was at first utterly disgusted at such a vulgar gesture. Solzhenitsyn's play was concerned with much higher and more serious business than the fate of a blonde movie idol. But the more I thought about it, the more I was inclined to just let it go. I can't say to what extent Marilyn Monroe could be described as a "candle in the wind." Some say she was tougher than she appeared. But I do know this: "candle in the wind" was an appelation that could never be applied to Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn was a tower of granite in the wind.

He drove Leonid Brezhnev and the gerontocracy who ran the Kremlin from 1964 to 1985 absolutely bonkers. For that alone we should be grateful. Ultimately they didn't know what to do with him. They couldn't kill him or throw him back in prison; once he had won the Nobel Prize in 1970, his world fame was too great for that to be an option. Contrary to what some may think, the Soviets were concerned about world opinion, as would be anyone whose political system was based on a revolutionary, if crack-brained, idea that their ideology told them they were to spread to the world. He didn't dare go to Sweden in 1970 to collect his prize; he knew that the ancient thugs running the show in Moscow wouldn't let him come home if he did. He played a game of cat-and-mouse with them, and he was much smarter than they were.

But by 1973 the jig was up. Solzhenitsyn had intended to postpone publication of his enormous broadside against the Soviet security organs and their "archipelago" of prison camps spread over Russia's far east until the right moment. But he learned that the KGB had interrogated his typist and gotten hold of a copy of the manuscript. He had already smuggled copies of it on microfilm out of the USSR, and he gave the green light for it to be published, in Russian, in West Berlin.

Almost immediately he was picked up by the KGB, bundled into an airplane and exiled. His Soviet citizenship was revoked. He lived in Switzerland for a time, was the guest of German novelist Heinrich Boell for a short while, and then ultimately came to the United States and settled in Cavendish, Vermont. There he stayed in relative solitude for most of the next 20 years, emerging now and then to condemn both the totalitarian Soviet Union and what he saw as its probable victim, the morally spineless west, and got on with what he regarded to be his mission in life: chronicling the entire Soviet catastrophe.

That's the historical context, which everyone knows. But blogs are about personal context, and this is mine.

1973, the year in which the Russian-language edition of The Gulag Archipelago appeared in Berlin, was also the year I graduated from high school. It was the year I turned 18. For most of us, our teen years are the time of life when we are most inclined toward hero-worship. In our teens we're defining the sort of people we want ultimately to be, and we put our best models for that purpose on pedestals.

Solzhenitsyn was one of my heroes. In my pantheon of heroes he was right up there with Beethoven and Lord Byron.

I came of age during the cold war, and in my own eyes, no more fierce anti-communist existed in the world than myself. Also, I wanted to be a writer. One day when I was about 17, I was roaming the stacks in the old Chula Vista Public Library when I came across a title that somehow rang a bell: One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich by someone named Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I had never read a word of his, but somewhere, somehow, even at that tender age, I had heard of this book. No surprise there, as I would learn later. The publication of One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich in 1962, in a single issue of the Soviet literary magazine Novy Mir, had been hailed as a major event in the Soviet Union. Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschchev had personally authorized the publication of this searing novella about one day in the life of a prisoner in one of Stalin's forced-labor camps. Kruschchev had several years earlier embarked on a campaign of attacking the memory of the murderous Stalin, and the publication of Solzhenitsyn's first book was part of that campaign. No doubt I'd seen a reference to it in a newspaper somewhere.

In any case, I took it home and read it. As a dedicated anti-communist I was outraged by the narrative, and as a wannabee writer I was stunned by the tour-de-force of it.

As only a high-school senior can, I had a new hero.

Ironic though it may sound to some, I was both an anti-communist and a Russophile. As much as I hated the Soviet regime and everything it stood for, I had been fascinated by Russia and everything Russian since my early teens. When I was in the eighth grade I got some Russian-language phonograph records out of my school library and decided I was going to teach myself Russian. I didn't get very far, but it stood me in good stead a few years later when I enrolled in a Russian-language class in college and didn't have to bother learning the cyrillic alphabet; I already knew it. I read War & Peace (an abridged version) at age 13 and wrote a book report about it for my reading class. In the ninth grade, my friend Mark and I collaborated on a comprehensive report for our social studies class about Russia. We each addressed a series of topics and took turns making our presentations to the class. I remember one of my topics was the Soviet space program, which was a toughie because everything the Russians did in those days, they kept it a secret, and therefore information about the Soviet space program was hard to come by, but I did my best.

So I was a russophile, a commie-hater, and now a fan of Solzhenitsyn. In the months that followed I read everything by Solzhenitsyn I could get my hands on. Cancer Ward. The First Circle. The recently-published August, 1914, the first volume of his huge cycle of novels called The Red Wheel which would trace the history of the Soviet experience through the decades. A new biography of Solzhenitsyn appeared in the library. I greedily snatched and devoured it.

Most of my heroes were dead. This one was still alive and kicking, somewhere in Russia. With all the zeal of a 17-year-old fan, I wrote to Harper & Row, his American publishers, and asked if they had an address where I could send him fan mail. They answered in the negative of course; all of their dealings with him were in the third person.

It goes without saying that I kept an eye on the newspapers for anything having to do with my guy. When, early in 1974, I saw a headline in the old San Diego Union that read, "New Solzhenitsyn Book Accuses Secret Police," I grabbed it right away and read every word. Something big was going on.

Indeed. Just a few weeks later another headline hit the front page of the Union: "Soviet Exiles Solzhenitsyn To West, Ends Citizenship."

I carried that newspaper clipping in my wallet for years.

A few days later a wrenching photograph appeared in the paper, a truly great moment in photojournalism. Solzhenitsyn, eyes lowered in sorrow, faced the cameras, giving a press conference in Zurich. Immediately behind him, with a wrenching look of sadness and pity on his face, was his fellow Nobel Prize laureate and temporary host, German novelist Heinrich Boell, whose own masterpiece, Group Portrait With Lady, I had just recently read. I clipped that, too.

The Kremlin thought it had solved the problem of Solzhenitsyn by removing him and declaring him what George Orwell called an "un-person." Had the KGB assassinated him, the anti-communist cause would have had a martyr and Brezhnev knew it. So they flicked him away as you would a troublesome flea, hoping that he would sink into obscurity somewhere in the west and never be heard of again.

And oh, what an embarrassment he was to my liberal friends, accustomed as they were to glossing over or politely ignoring any criticism of the Soviet Union or of Communism in general. Since the 1950s, anti-communism had been perceived as a "Republican" thing, never mind that one of the most dedicated cold warriors of all time was JFK. To criticize Communism, liberals reflexively feared, would make one sound too much like a Republican. And besides, there was that thing going on in Vietnam. You wouldn't hear a Democrat mention the USSR unless it was in the context of a visit by the Bolshoi Ballet to the U.S. or of Van Cliburn to Moscow. Bring up Stalin and they'd change the subject, or remind you that the U.S. had once embraced him as an ally against Hitler.

But Solzhensitsyn was too big an elephant in the living room even for them to ignore. My former high school civics teacher, Mr. McLean, was a genuine '70s lefty, from the big sideburns to the vote for McGovern in '72. But I went back to visit my old high school that spring, and I showed that newspaper clipping about Solzhenitsyn's exile from Russia to Mr. McLean.

"We may differ on this or that," I said, "but don't you think this is revolting?"

"I think that's revolting," he said candidly.

Gradually, over the years, many of Mr. McLean's fellow lefties on both sides of the Atlantic would ruefully admit that Solzhenitsyn's case against the Soviets was too big to brush away, and sympathy for Communism, particularly in Europe, largely evaporated.

The news media rushed in. Solzhenitsyn gave a one-hour interview through an interpreter which was broadcast all over the non-Communist world. In the spring of 1974 my family formed a circle around the television set to watch it. There was my hero, on camera, talking to the world. I was thrilled. "What a charming man!" my older sister declared when it was over.

A budding poet, I sat down and wrote some verses. A Song For Solzhenitsyn. Lost now, thank God.

Later that spring, word came out that The Gulag Archipelago was soon to be published in English. With all the zeal of an 18 year-old, I called the book department at Walker Scott (no Amazon.com in those days, no Barnes & Noble either) and, unnecessarily, reserved a copy. On June 20, 1974 I drove out to Lemon Grove in my mother's old Chevy and picked up my copy of Gulag. I still have it -- a genuine first edition, so marked. 660 pages in all, in 1974 it cost $12.50 brand-new.

I took it home and plunged into it. I must say it certainly wasn't entertaining reading; the documentation was exhaustive, the case histories told in detail. Entertaining no, but harrowing. I stayed with it all the way through to the end and emerged from the experience an even more fiercely-convinced enemy of Communism than I was when I began.

By the following year Solzhenitsyn had taken up residence in Cavendish, Vermont, 147 miles from St. Albans, where I was born. Word was that he chose Vermont as a place to live because its plenitude of birch trees reminded him of home. (Russians consider the birch tree to be their national symbol.)

As the world knows, the curmudgeonly Solzhenitsyn had no interest in acclimating to life in America. He kept to himself, ventured out only now and then to give a speech like the notorious barn-burner he delivered at Harvard's commencement ceremonies in 1978, declined to become an American citizen, refused even to learn English. Clearly, he didn't see himself as an expatriate, but as a sort of Russian government-in-exile. And of course he became something of an embarrassment to his host government and to western liberals in general, because it turned out that he had no more particular use for bourgeois democracy than he had for Marx and Lenin. Solzhenitsyn saw the west as weak, decadent, morally flabby and no doubt destined to be overrun by the barbarous forces from east of the Iron Curtain if someone didn't do something about it. As far as he was concerned, someone was going to do something about it. He would. If the America of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter didn’t have the balls to stand up to the Soviets, Solzhenitsyn did. “How many divisions has the pope?” Stalin famously joked. Like the pope, Solzhenitsyn commanded no divisions. But he didn’t need them to fight his particular enemy. Solzhenitsyn wasn’t fighting the USSR’s military might. He was fighting the gigantic network of lies, lies and more lies that the entire communist edifice was built on.

Someone once asked Solzhenitsyn what he regarded as the world’s greatest evil. “Falsehood!” he snapped. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are the two political figures most often associated with the west’s victory in the cold war. But Solzhenitsyn was also a key player in that his relentless exposure of Soviet lies, oppression and injustice did much to undermine the moral authority of communism throughout Europe. Eurocommunism, a viable political movement in the 1970s and early ‘80s, gradually dissolved, while in eastern Europe, and even in Russia, democracy movements became bolder and louder until the velvet revolutions of 1989 and the spectacular fall of the Berlin Wall. Then finally the collapse of the USSR itself in 1991 brought about the final triumph of what an obscure mathematics teacher in a little town called Ryazan, 100 miles or so southeast of Moscow, had initiated when Novy Mir published a novella in 1962 based on his own prison experiences.

Like all oversized personalities, he was difficult. He had an almost messianic sense of mission (having applied the word “messianic” to Solzhenitsyn, one almost can’t help but smile hearing it applied to Barack Obama) and was focused on it to the exclusion of almost all else. He alienated friends, took people for granted, and was frequently downright rude. His old friend Lev Kopelev, the model for the character Lev Rubin in The First Circle, broke with him in 1985. He had simply had enough of his old friend’s prickly personality.

In 1990 Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev moved to have Solzhenitsyn’s Soviet citizenship restored. When I saw the announcement on the front page of the Washington Post, I went back into my notebooks and scrapbooks and dug up that other newspaper clipping, the one I had been saving for 16 years, announcing his 1974 exile from the Soviet Union. I scotch-taped the two newspaper clippings next to each other in my journal, the old one in black-and-white, the new one in color, and wrote underneath, “Change is glacial, but change is change.” (Again, I think of Obama and how he’s bandying about the word “change,” and I want to laugh.)

Solzhenitsyn had a contrarian streak in him. He was a Russian nationalist, some say even a monarchist. Russian liberals were disappointed by his approval of Vladimir Putin’s hamfisted rule. I have no doubt that, if Solzhenitsyn had ever stumbled upon H.G. Wells’ time machine, he would have climbed in, set the ol’ Wayback for 1812, and climbed out to go and fight for Tsar Alexander I against Napoleon.

“You were silly like us; your gift survived it all,” W.H. Auden wrote on the passing of William Butler Yeats. Solzhenitsyn, too, could be silly, and in a much more outsized way than “us.” Because he wasn’t “us.” No more than Tolstoy, Pushkin or Beethoven were. His life, personality, times and achievement were as big as theirs. He was called by his contemporaries in the 1960s, “our classic.” And he was the only one. He may have been the last one.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

My Favorite Scene In All The Movies


Today's question is directed at all of my fellow old-movie buffs out there:

Do you have a scene from the movies that you love so much you just wish you could somehow have been in it?

I'm going to take a shot here at guessing what are probably the highest-rated movie scenes of all time. My guess would be that the list begins with something like this:

1. The final scene of Casablanca, when Humphrey Bogart says to Ingrid Bergman, "Here's looking at you, kid," just before she gets on the plane with Paul Henreid and leaves Bogey forever.

2. The scene in When Harry Met Sally where Meg Ryan fakes an orgasm in the middle of a crowded restaurant.

3. The scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid where Paul Newman and Robert Redford are stranded on a cliff about 150 feet above a river, with a posse closing in on them and no way of escape, and they get into an argument about whether or not they should jump into the river. After they go back and forth about it, Redford finally bursts out with "I can't swim!" Whereupon Newman goes into a laughing fit and replies, "What are you, crazy? The FALL'll probably kill you!" And over they go.

Let's analyze each of these.

Casablanca is probably the "date flick" all of all time. Made in 1942, it's one of those movies that finds a perfect "blend," and I don't mean only in the flawless casting. The character Rick Blaine in this movie, played by Humphrey Bogart, is every heterosexual woman's dream man, by which I mean he is 50 percent macho tough guy and 50 percent sensitive, hurt creature who needs healing. Rick anticipates that treacly Alan Alda "sensitive guy" persona by 30 years, but manages not to be so queasily ... sensitive.

For the three people out there who don't know the plot, most of it is back-story. As the film opens, World War II is underway, and Rick is running a cafe in Casablanca, in German-occupied French Morocco. It's the most popular evening spot in a town filled with war-displaced refugees from Europe, trying to get to America. One night Ilse, played by Ingrid Bergman, walks in with her husband Victor Lazslo, played by Paul Henreid.

Bogey then utters my favorite line in all the movies: "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine."

It turns out that Bogey and Bergman had been lovers in Paris, just as the war was starting. But she was harboring a secret, that she was already married to Henreid, a famous resistance-fighter against the Nazis who was reputed to have perished in a concentration camp. Only he hadn't. It turned out that he was alive and had been brought, wounded and sick, back to Paris. Discovering that her husband was not dead after all, Ilse had abandoned Rick without explaining anything, just as they were to leave Paris together. We find out later that she thought she was protecting him, knowing that if he knew the truth, he would refuse to leave and the Germans would surely apprehend him, since he had been active before the war in the anti-fascist cause.

Bogey's character, Rick, has been sitting in Casablanca licking his wounds ever since. Ilse broke Rick's heart, and he's bitter and angry. Then she shows up in his cafe. As the movie spins out, Bogey gradually learns the truth about Ilse and his anger and bitterness turns to deep, intense conflict. He still loves her, and she, as it turns out, still loves him as well. But now he has to decide which is more important, his love for Ilse or Lazslo's need for her in the face of the tremendous anti-Nazi resistance movement of which he's part.

It's the perfect private-desire-versus-public-duty conflict. Rick eventually surprises Ilse (and possibly himself) by deciding to do the unselfish thing and send Ilse away with her husband to America, despite his love for her, to continue fighting the good fight. And everyone knows how the film ends: Bogey and Claude Rains, the corrupt French police official who has been his friend throughout the film, walk off into the fog together as the "Marseillaise" swells on the soundtrack.

Great stuff. No wonder that last scene inspired Woody Allen to write his own tribute to the film in Play it Again, Sam.

When Harry Met Sally, directed by Rob Reiner in 1989, is the ultimate postfeminist romantic comedy, by which I mean its plot revolves around a guy (Billy Crystal) who is very arrogant about his sexual potency, and who gets his comeuppance in the form of Meg Ryan, with whom he develops a prickly friendship over the decades that doesn't turn into romance until the very end of the film. When this film first came out it was, and on DVD still is, what my friend Kathleen Parker would call "a huge bonding agent" for women. In one scene after another Billy Crystal gets that comeuppance that must tickle women so: Meg Ryan puts him down with snappy comebacks, and then his wife dumps him, and there's that scene every woman loves, in which Meg Ryan gives him the humiliation of all time by showing him, in the middle of a crowded restaurant, how easy it is for a woman to fake an orgasm. She does so, loudly, at the table, drawing everyone's attention, giving millions of women out there in movie-land the satisfaction of imagining Billy Crystal's dick shrinking to the size of a bloodworm.

Of course the scene does have a funny punchline, as everyone knows. When Meg is through bucking and moaning and panting in her chair, an old lady in a neighboring booth (who I understand was Rob Reiner's real-life mother) points to her and says, "I'll have what she's having." This is all good old Jewish-American gagwriting of course, but it's a classic, if somewhat mean-spirited moment. And to Marilu Henner, whom I saw chortling over this scene in a TV Land special, and all her feminist pals out there who relish this scene because it humiliates men, I invite you all to go fake orgasms with each other. I'll watch the World Series, thank you.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid (1969) is a classic of another kind, the "buddy" genre. A lot of critics disliked it for the same reason they disliked Bonnie and Clyde two years earlier: it takes a couple of criminals and makes them likable. This was part of that whole 1960s "anti-establishment" thing: Hollywood decided to chuck out the hero-vs.-villain paradigm and pitch "moral relativity," which promptly led to something called an "anti-hero," as exemplified by the character Jack Nicholson played in Five Easy Pieces (1970). What makes the formula entertaining, and the scene on the cliff so unforgettable, is the way Newman and Redford managed to interact in this western as a vaudeville team. Newman got the laughs; Redford was the straight man. He played the Sundance Kid as a macho dimwit who had that one talent going for him: he was a lightning-fast, deadly shot with a gun. Beyond that he's essentially clueless, and one gets the impression that if the character played by Katharine Ross weren't already his girlfriend, he might have trouble with women once they'd gotten past his good looks because there isn't much beyond his good looks except his prowess with a six-shooter. He follows Butch like the dumb cat follows the smart cat in a cartoon. ("When are we gonna catch the mouse, George?") When they get cornered on that cliff, the repartee starts going back and forth machine-gun quick. Butch isn't that much smarter than Sundance, but he's more glib ("You just keep thinkin' Butch, what's what you're good at!" "Man, I got vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals!" -- This after Butch has just hatched a scheme for the two of them to go off and rob banks in Bolivia, a country whose location he isn't even sure about.) Of course the "punchline" of this scene is not so much Butch's ridicule of Sundance's fear of drowning, when they're facing much worse danger on the way down, but Sundance's eloquent response: "Oh, oh, oh, SSHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTT!" As he launches himself off the cliff and into the river below.

But my favorite scene in all of the movies is the "Doc, we gotta make some scotch" scene from Joshua's Logan's Mister Roberts (1955.) Mr. Roberts is just about my favorite film anyway; when my wife Valerie and I were engaged and I came to Washington for a visit, she took me out for a big treat: a revival at the Kennedy Center of Thomas Heggen's 1948 Broadway play on which the movie was based.

This scene is a perfectly wonderful example of mini-ensemble acting. Henry Fonda, William Powell and the very young Jack Lemmon are here, interacting as three officers on a rusty Navy cargo ship doing its dull, boring job in a safe area of the South Pacific during the waning days of World War II. Henry Fonda is Mr. Roberts, an idealistic young man who quit medical school to join the Navy and participate in the great crusade against fascism, only to find himself stuck on a sorry old bucket, The U.S.S. Reluctant, hauling toothpaste and toilet paper around in non-combat areas, and bullied by a tyrannical captain played by James Cagney on top of that. William Powell is the ship's doctor, an older and wiser source of dry wit and wisdom, and Jack Lemmon is Ensign Frank Thurlow Pulver, a shiftless, lazy and above all lecherous young man who's trying to get through the war without leaving his bunk.

In this scene, Henry's Fonda's character has decided he's going to try and get liberty for the crew. "You gotta get these men a liberty, Mr. Roberts! They're goin' asiatic!" cries an exasperated chief played by Ward Bond after breaking up a nasty fight. The problem of course is the captain. The mean old bastard won't let the crew have a liberty because...well, just because he's a mean old bastard.

Roberts decides to do an end-run around the captain. When he learns that the port director of the island where they've been rotting in the sunny harbor for God-knows-how-long used to be a big scotch drinker before the war, Roberts takes a bottle of Johnnie Walker Red Label that he's been hoarding in a shoebox to celebrate the day he gets off that rustbucket of a cargo ship, and gives it to the port director, "compliments of the captain," in order to get the port director to send the Reluctant to Elysium island, which is known as a great liberty port.

Pulver, meanwhile, has learned that a planeload of nurses just arrived the night before at the island's hospital. With that for incentive, he pries himself out of his bunk and goes ashore on an errand to pick up aspirin for Doc as an excuse to check out the chicks. He hits on one of them and lures her out to the ship with the promise of some of Doug Roberts' scotch, only to return and find out that Roberts has already used the bottle of whiskey for another purpose. The following dialogue ensues:

Pulver: You didn't give that shoebox to that
port director?


Roberts: I did, compliments of the Captain.



Doc: You've been hoarding a quart of scotch
in a shoebox?



Roberts: I was gonna break it out
the day l get off this ship. Resurrection day!



Pulver: You wasted that bottle of scotch
On a……on a man?



Roberts: Will you name me another sex
within 5000 miles? What's eating you anyway, Frank?



Doc: Well, look at the fancy pillows! Somebody expecting company?


Roberts: Good Lord! '' Toujours l'amour.'' ''Souvenir of San Diego.''
''Oh, you kid! '' ''Tonight or never.' ''Compliments of
the American Harvester Company.'' ''We plow deep while others sleep.'' Doc, that new hospital hasn't got nurses, has it?



Doc: It didn't have yesterday.



Pulver: It has today.



Roberts: How did you find out that they were there?



Pulver: It just came to me all of a sudden. I was lying on my bunk here
this morning, thinking. And there wasn't a breath of air. All of a sudden a funny thing happened. A little breeze came up. I took a big deep breath and said to myself: ''Pulver boy, there's women on that island!

Roberts: Doc, you know a thing like that could make
a bird dog real self-conscious.


Pulver: They flew in last night. Knockouts! And one big blonde especially. Of course, she went for me right away. Naturally.So I started to turn on the old personality,and I said: ''Will nothing make you come out to the ship with me?'
And she said, ''Yes, there is one thing and one thing only: ''A good stiff drink of scotch! ''


Roberts: I'm sorry, Frank. l'm really sorry. Your first assignment in a year.

Roberts and Doc proceed to try and make amends with Pulver, and aid him in his romantic pursuit, by making a bottle of fake "scotch." Rummaging around for whatever they can find, they come up with clear grain alcohol, to which they add Coca-Cola for color, iodine for flavor and hair tonic for aging. Then they taste it. Pulling a horrible face, Roberts says, "You know, Doc? It does taste a little like scotch."

I won't spoil the ending. Get the DVD. Enjoy.