My Mind Over Matters

Skin Deep with John Ritter

2013-08-18T10:22:00.001-07:00

The all-knowing "they" say it's wrong to speak ill of the dead, but what about simply speaking the truth? If the truth (which is often stranger than fiction) happens to reveal illicit and unflattering information, should it be suppressed simply because the offender is deceased?

It is in that spirit I recount the following sordid encounter with John Ritter, not for its salacious aspects, but as a seeker and speaker of truth. I relay these facts with no disrespect intended, based solely on my recollection and perspective.

Prior to marrying Amy Yasbeck, when John was married to Nancy Morgan (his first wife), it was well-known in certain circles that this beloved family man was a womanizing lech. This statement is not based on rumor, but through personal experience. Hey, why do you think his performance in "Skin Deep" was so good?

It was the mid-1990s, and I was out for a drink at Stanley's (a now defunct bar in Sherman Oaks). John had brought his brother Tom in for an impromptu mini-bachelor party, since Tom was getting married that weekend. John started to flirt with me and invited me to sit at their table. At one point, he leaned in as if to whisper something in my ear. I leaned in to hear what he had to say... and the creep stuck his tongue in my ear and started licking.

I was disgusted and mortified, I didn't know how to handle that moment. I mean, what do you do? Slap John Ritter? Throw a drink on him? I just pulled away uncomfortably and pretended it didn't happen. As the night wore on, he became more drunk, and more lecherous... groping me. Believe me, I was not flattered. It shattered my illusion that he was the "nice guy" as painted in the media. Here was this married man, father of three kids, who was drunk in a bar sticking his tongue in a young woman's ear.

The party wore down. We all went outside and said goodnight. I drove home to my apartment. About 10 minutes later, my buzzer rang and it was John! He had followed me home. How awkward... I told him that, while I was flattered, I would never compromise my morals to be with a married man, famous or not. He was impressed that I turned him down, and we sat and talked until he sobered up enough to drive. John scribbled his name and phone number for "Hearts Afire" on a memo pad, and offered to get me a job on the show. (I never did take him up on that.)

As he was leaving, I mentioned that Tom had invited me to the weekend's dinner at the Bombay Bicycle Club in Burbank, and said that if John felt awkward, I wouldn't attend. He insisted that I should go, and I did. It was rather brazen of me at the time to sit with a group of people that included John and his wife Nancy. Three was definitely a crowd that evening.

Ah well, I can add the experience to the list of strange celebrity encounters I've had through the years while living in Los Angeles. Yes, there were others, and perhaps I'll get around to writing a book or blogging about them as well. Should I have shtupped John Ritter? Nah.

Pro-Choice is not Anti-Life

2013-08-18T10:20:00.001-07:00

I'm going to venture onto a limb and delve into a topic that is always divisive and controversial, yet a dialogue must be had. ABORTION. There, I wrote it. In all caps so you can't ignore it. A word that many people consider even worse than vagina or uterus. And with the word - Abortion - also comes the always-in-danger-of-being-revoked "Right to Choose."

Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State.

Edward Abbey
Having choices is part of being human, free will, and all that. And with a woman's right of choice related to her own body, there are consequences, but they are individual consequences, not collective consequences that affect society. Therefore, society should not have the right to impose manmade morality on the individual.

Now this particular post was motivated by a comment made by a woman named Kristen on a Facebook wall. There's a group called Lady Liberals, and they were brave enough to put this poster on their wall yesterday which, of course, incited conversation and debate, not all of it respectful. It varied from the logical to the irrational, emotional responses of those whose opinions are colored by what they claim are religious beliefs.

I am always amazed by these religious people who are ready to cast stones and cite biblical references to support their position, but their use of the bible is selective. They pick and choose a concept that suits their purpose. In this case, a woman wrote an inflammatory comment that people who have abortions will go to hell and abortion is murder.

This same woman forgets that her book of choice says, "Judge not lest ye be judged." Even when you've walked in a cheaper version of someone else's shoes, you never really know what they're going through, and it's wrong to assume that women who have abortions are gleeful about it.

There's a lot of self-recrimination, regret, and wondering how one's life may have turned out another way were it not for that choice made out of necessity or desperation or fear or self-preservation or whatever.

There is this myth that women who have abortions somehow got pregnant by being irresponsible with birth control. While this may be true in some instances, it it not always true. In addition to women who got pregnant as a result of rape or incest, there are many women who are on birth control but fate steps in and they become a statistic.

Did you know that the pill is not 100% effective? Sure you claim to know that, but how good are you at math and statistics? Do you really understand what that means?

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

"The pill is 91–99% effective at preventing pregnancy."

Absorb that sentence please. That means out of 100 women, at least 1 will get pregnant, even on the pill. And up to 9 out of 100 could get pregnant.

"Male condoms are 82–98% effective at preventing pregnancy." Of course, condoms will help prevent STDs, but they're not foolproof either.

Combining the pill and a condom may improve the odds against you, but it still won't give you a 100% guarantee that you won't get pregnant. Only abstinence will guarantee that. So every woman, even the ones who are responsible with birth control, run the risk of getting pregnant when they have sex. I'll say it again. Every woman runs the risk of getting pregnant when they have sex, even when they use birth control responsibly.

Think an unwanted pregnancy can't happen to you? Think again.

"No woman has an abortion for fun."
Elizabeth Joan Smith

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

In the (Robin) Thicke of It

2013-08-18T10:18:00.000-07:00

Will someone please explain to me the success and appeal of Robin Thicke? We all know the only reason he has a career was due to nepotism. If his father hadn't been Alan Thicke ("Growing Pains") and his mom hadn't been Gloria Loring (soap star), Robin would be just another no-talented wannabe Justin Timberlake. And believe me, his talent isn't even one-tenth that of Justin Timberlake.

First off, his voice is grating and annoying with a high-pitched thin falsetto, and he sounds like a Bee Gees reject. His sex appeal is zilch and his songs are banal... especially his latest release which is essentially a song justifying rape, saying that women "want it."

At one point it was rumored he'd be a coach on "The Voice." For that reason I alone, I passed on auditioning. I could just imagine he'd be the one to turn his chair around and then I'd have to say, um, no thanks dude!

Seriously, what has happened to the music industry? I'm starting to sound like my parents, lamenting the crap that's on the radio these days. Whatever happened to melodies that had emotion, lyrics that had meaning, and singers who actually had good timbre, pitch and phrasing... who didn't oversing like Mariah Carey and Celine Dion and Christina Aguilera, and all of their knockoffs? Singers need to go back and listen to Rosemary Clooney, Karen Carpenter, Janis Ian, John Denver, and other pure voices.

On the most recent season of the rapidly declining "American Idol," Harry Connick, Jr. was a guest coach one week. The barely articulate Randy Jackson sank to new lows of stupidity when he denigrated Harry's feedback that the singers needed to stop trying to show off with so many notes and simply SING and understand what they were singing.

Sometimes there really is such a thing as too many notes, Mozart. Letting a phrase breathe... embracing the space between the notes... letting the melody AS WRITTEN do its job... these concepts are lost on younger singers. As much as I'm not a fan of Susan Boyle, her simplicity serves the music well.

I beg you, music industry, STOP giving careers to hacks like Robin Thicke.

Sibilant Rivalry

2012-09-20T12:36:00.001-07:00

Speak now or forever hold your peath. The Media seems to be overrun with people who have noticeable and distracting speech impediments. Just read their lisps.

Ex-football player Michael Strahan has replaced Regis Philbin, and is now Kelly Ripa's co-host on ABC's newly-monikered "LIVE! with Kelly and Michael" (not exactly an inspired title, by the way).

In the case of Strahan, there is a glaring gap in his two front teeth, wide enough to drive Mitt Romney's ego through. Surely Strahan can afford a cosmetic improvement. Not only is the gap a visual distraction, but it creates an aural annoyance as well, as the anomaly causes him to lisp every "S," thereby sounding unintelligently Tysonesque.

Ellen Pompeo is another sibilant star, also on an ABC show ("Grey's Anatomy"). Do the casting directors at ABC have an affinity for lispers? Her voice is already childlike in delivery and pitch; the verbal defect makes her sound even more like a little girl. Tell me, would you hire a doctor who speaks like Cindy Brady?

Other A-lispers include Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer, Drew Barrymore, Michele Obama and Keira Knightley, some of whom have terrible overbites or underbites. While it's a fact that we all have our flaws, myself included, I don't want to hear a celeb sound like a cartoon character, because that drives me

Sylvester the Cat

Will the Real Boobs Please Stand Up?

2012-09-12T16:42:00.001-07:00

When the rest of America observed a moment of silence to honor those who died on 9/11, and most networks covered that moment of silence, what did NBC do?

They broadcast an interview with Kris Jenner-Kardashian about her breast implants. Yep, her hooters. Tits. Boobs. Knockers. Yayas.

I kid you not.

Isn't this going too far? It's bad enough that the Media and the moronic public continue to give attention to the ridiculously garish, wasteful and excessive lives of celebrities, as well as these narcissistic attention whores. But to have placed this story (and why is it a story?) above respecting that moment of silence? Unforgivable.

I don't know who's the bigger boob, NBC or Kris Kardashian. For some reason, these talentless, clueless idiots have carved out careers. Of course, I'm talking about the network executives.

The Media needs to be held to a higher standard of responsibility and accountability. For some reason, people are like baby birds with their mouths wide open happily accepting worms, like the story about Kardashian's implants.

This wasn't a breaking news story, mind you, or even a relevant human interest piece. For example, if the story had been about a cancer survivor... a woman who had gotten breast cancer from inhaling the smoke of 9/11, had to have a mastectomy, and then had reconstructive surgery... that would have been better than a puff piece about a person who's achieved fame and celebrity without having any talent or contributing anything of value to the world.

Society has become too engrossed with celebrity and trivial matters, rather than taking an interest in relevant issues. So I say shame on NBC for disrespecting those who died on 9/11, which will forever be a day of sadness for our nation.

To give NBC credit,
they did give us
one minute of dead air...
albeit with a Kardashian.

Join the boycott.

Click below:

A Day of Silence for the Real Boobs... NBC

Kicking the Bucket List

2012-08-30T22:39:00.000-07:00

Mark Twain once said, "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." Although Mark Twain is dead, Bill Cosby is not.
A hoax circulated the Internet this week, reporting that comedian Bill Cosby had died. According to Huffington Post, Jonathan Gorman had even set up a bogus Facebook page (already deleted), intentionally fabricating Cosby's death for kicks, to see how fast it would go viral, and to show how many people were gullible and naive enough to believe the story. After Cosby tweeted that he was very much alive with:

“About Bill Cosby being dead. Stop it! Stop it!” billcosby.com/2012/08/cloud-… — Bill Cosby (@BillCosby) August 29, 2012

on Twitter, and embedding the snippet on BillCosby.com, Gorman came clean, admitting he did it just to remind me people that you can't trust what you read on the Internet, and to not rely on social media as a source of verified news. Now, I know people who have personally experienced this phenomenon, not with stories of their deaths, but with fabricated stories about them. The lynch mob morons glom onto a blog, a post, a rumor, and immediately find safety in numbers, as they verbally assault a person online, thereby destroying a reputation and potentially a life. Those verbal assailants are bullies and stalkers, and do not base their comments on facts, but rather, on misinformation, twisted half-truths, assumptions, inferences, and just plain bullshit. Congress must step up and regulate the Internet better. Online bullies must be held accountable for their anonymous cowardice. Freedom of speech should not and cannot extend to people creating fake identities, posting behind screen names, fake Facebook accounts, Facebook pages dedicated to stalking others, and worse. The lesson is clear. You cannot believe everything you read on the Internet. There are many articles on this subject. Here's just one at PsychologyToday.com.

Peanutgate? It's nuts!

2012-08-29T14:00:00.000-07:00

Nuts throwing nuts at the Republican National Convention! There's a viral story on the Internet that says peanuts were thrown at a Black CNN camerawoman at the RNC. While throwing the peanuts, they allegedly said, "This is how we feed the animals." The assailants were then ejected from the event.

Is the story credible? What's the truth?

So far I've traced the story all the way back to the CNN website. But before you get excited, let me say that I can't yet find it as a verified story. It's reported by a blogger on a CNN subdomain.

Details vary. Despite claims of multiple witnesses, no one has come forward or been identified. New York Magazine reports just one offender. Huffington Post reports two.

If the Media can't get something that basic correct, and reporters don't know the difference between one and two, it's no wonder innocent people go to prison after being falsely accused and convicted due to inaccurate witness identification. (David Lee Wiggins was just exonerated after 24 years behind bars.)

The peanut projectile method is described in a variety of ways, including tossed, thrown, and some use the word "pelted." I'd say there's a huge difference between having something tossed at you, and being pelted by it. Maybe the peanuts were lobbed, flicked, flung, propelled, or even volleyed. If peanuts were thrown by members of the right, a better word to use is "cast."

This is a perfect example of why you can't trust information on the Internet or from the Media. People run with a story and don't fact-check first. Is the story true? Possibly, and probably. But I still haven't seen it authenticated. Despite some references to the police being involved, TalkingPointsMemo (TPM) says:

"The City of Tampa’s Joint Information Center, which has been in contact with the Secret Service, told TPM on Wednesday there is no record the Tampa Police Department was involved “in any way shape or form.'"

So were they, or weren't they? Let's get our facts straight please. The incident was supposedly first "reported" on Twitter by David Schuster of Take Action News. Have you heard of him or his "news" organization? Nope, neither have I. Since when has Twitter become an accurate news source?

New York Magazine reported that TPM (another site I'd never heard of) allegedly got a note from CNN confirming that "an incident directed at an employee" occurred. So now it's an "incident" that was "directed" at someone. The vague and nonspecific note makes no mention of peanuts and gives no facts, details or names, thus leaving it to every news organization to extrapolate and get creative with their stories.

New York Magazine also said that the Washington Post was told by the Secret Service that all questions should be directed to the RNC. I clicked on that link and it brought me to yet another blog, written by Erik Wemple, who has a "reported opinion blog" on the Washington Post website. His article opens with a sentence that credits the aforementioned Tweet as the source of this whole story. He claims to have spoken with the Secret Service (that's impressive).

Each click gets more convoluted, and no click takes me to a credible news source. Why wouldn't CNN report this themselves? Is this a cover-up? Also, whatever happened to vetting information before reporting it? Where are Will McAvoy and Aaron Sorkin when you need them?

This variation of "facts" reminds me of the children's game of "Telephone." Remember that game? You whispered something into the ear of the first person standing in a line. Each successive person whispered into the ear of the next, and the "message" went down the line. By the time it reached the last person, it bore little resemblance to the initial message.

I happen to believe that's the problem with religion and people fervently believing that certain books accurately document "God's words." What if Moses had bad hearing? He was an old guy after all. How do we know he heard God properly? And how do we know what really happened in that Garden?

When someone finally got around to writing the Bible, humans had inhabited the planet for thousands of years. Are we to believe that the story stayed accurate that long, when a story about peanuts at the RNC morphed into multiple variations within one day?

I am perversely amused by the symbolism of Rightwing Racist Republicans tossing peanuts, since their mascot is an Elephant. Most likely these two (or was it one?) peanutcasters are card-carrying members of the Cuckoo Clucks Clan.

If they did indeed make the reference to feeding animals, one must consider it to have been a metaphorical epithet given the recipient's skin color. It's indicative of the prevalent racism still running rampant in the world, coursing through the veins of so many ignorant people. And let's be clear. Racists are not only Teabaggers and Republicans. I've encountered racists who are Democrats, too.

Has no one considered the danger of nutcasting? Did they not see the movie "Horrible Bosses?" What if the camerawoman had an allergy to nuts? Should those nuts who tossed the nuts be charged with attempted murder?

I think it's apropos that nuts were cast at the Republican Convention. After all, the Republican Convention has cast nuts in leading roles for their campaign.

Let it be known that the 2012 Republican Convention shall hereafter be remembered as Peanutgate.

Bless the Beasts and the Children... of the Southern Wild

2012-08-04T16:00:00.000-07:00

Add me to the growing list of people who are baffled by the hype. I just got home from the 11:30am showing of this mess of a movie, and I agree with the reviewer. For the record, I don't know the filmmaker, and have nothing "personal" against him. I am not a film snob, as I go to action, sci-fi, arthouse, indie and comedy films, to name a few genres. This was 100 pages of the same scene over and over. In good storytelling, first of all, there's a story. Even with fairytales and allegories, story and character development must exist.

The shaky camera was indeed distracting, as was the low-res grainy texture to some scenes and not others. If you're going to have a distinctive visual element, be consistent. This movie was all over the place, as if it didn't know what it wanted to be. The young girl's "performance" was 98% voiceover. There's nothing worse than something that is art for art's sake, and I believe that this is another case of the Emperor's Clothes. I saw previews that had more storytelling than this entire movie.

By the way, as an aside, I scoured the credits for an acknowledgment that the American Humane Society was involved and helped oversee the treatment of animals, to assure that no animals were harmed in making the film. I saw no such credit, which makes me think that the animals were not treated humanely.

And as another observation, a much better film to see... "Bless the Beasts and the Children."

Gun (out of) Control

2012-07-24T12:00:00.000-07:00

I am compelled to dust off my blog writing skills in response to the horrific shooting in Aurora, Colorado, at a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises." It occurs to me that we can no longer worry about political correctness when speaking up about gun regulation.

For some reason, the Republicans, members of the NRA, and the Far Right will have you believe that Democrats and Liberals want to ban guns entirely and take away your right to bear arms.

I am here to tell you that the problem isn't that people have guns. The problem is that crazy people can get guns too easily.

Therefore, I have suggestions and solutions which will help narrow the possibility of the wrong people getting their hands on guns. Don't get me wrong. I don't think we're going to completely eradicate the problem. But doing nothing is unacceptable. Something is better than nothing. Taking some action is better than endless arguing about constitutional rights.

1. Better safeguards before you can buy a gun. A car is considered a deadly weapon, right? How much more so is that true of a gun?

To drive a car, you first have to take a class and pass two tests (written and practical) before you're granted the privilege of having a driver's license and being allowed to drive on public roads where other people's lives are at stake.

Why should you not go through a similar screening process before you can own a gun? The screening process should include safety training on how to use a gun, a written test, and a practical test at a shooting range, along with a background check, a mandatory psychological evaluation, and a reasonable waiting period.

2. Limit where you can buy guns. Make it illegal to buy or sell guns and ammunition on the Internet. Period.

Instead, require all gun/ammo purchases to be done in an authorized store, where you have to present your photo ID, proof of gun license, and have the transaction filmed on a video camera. Your purchase is then entered into a national database, which includes the serial number of the gun.

3. National Database. There should be a database that not only tracks the sale of guns, but also cross-links with violent criminals. If someone has committed a crime using any kind of weapon, be it a knife, their fists, their car, arson, etc., they should never be allowed to buy a gun.

If you object to these safeguards, that would be a red flag to me. Anyone who wants to own a gun for legitimate reasons, should agree to regulating the process more stringently.

It seems that Republiphants and Donkocrats make this an all-or-nothing proposition, and it doesn't have to be. I'm not suggesting that we eliminate your right to have a gun. I'm simply proposing that we tighten the reins before you can get your hands on one. You should absolutely have to jump through hoops before getting a gun.

Again, none of these steps will guarantee a foolproof system. Somehow, somewhere, some wacko will find a way through and cheat the system. But if we even eliminate 50% of these tragedies from occurring, isn't that a start, and isn't that better than nothing?

People need to remember that civil rights and civil liberties relate to the individual only. "Freedom" does not include the right to bring harm to others. When your choices and your rights infringe on my safety, then middle ground must be found.

In my quest for information, I found a website called JustFacts: "a resource for independent thinkers." It has comprehensive information along with staggering statistics on guns.

Click JustFacts and you'll be taken directly to their page on this topic.

Here's another fact. Guns don't kill people... bullets do. So let's stop selling bullets to crazy, irresponsible, dangerous people!

My heart goes out to the families of the victims and the survivors of this tragedy. I hope some good can come out of it, if only to wake up our country to the importance of gun control, motivate people to be more informed, and force lawmakers to step up their game.

Instead of taking combative positions, we need to work together as a nation and as a people to fix our broken country. Violence is out of control.

Can America Change Its Tune?

2007-07-26T00:50:00.002-07:00

As a composer, I often ponder what makes a great song. By my definition, it is composed of a melody that is catchy and easily sung, along with a lyric that tells a story, has relevant meaning, is understandable, and has meter with rhyme.

In the 18th century, a club of amateur musicians, gathered regularly in London to perform concerts. By day, these musicians were barristers, doctors and other professional men. They named their club the Anacreontic Society, after the 6th Century B.C. Greek poet, Anacreon, whose poems celebrated women, wine and entertaining.

Imagine a private club of lawyers and doctors, secretly getting together with their 18th century garage band, and it’s not a stretch that drinking occurred at their meetings, even though the primary purpose of the Society was to promote an interest in music.

The club’s official song earned a reputation as a drinking song, due to the drinking nature of the lyrics. The chorus of the song suggests Bacchanalia: ”And long may the sons of Anacreon entwine the myrtle of Venus with Bacchus’ vine.”

Not only was the song associated with alcohol due to its bawdy and imbibing lyrics. It was commonly used as a sobriety test. If you could sing a stanza of the notoriously difficult melody and stay on key, you were sober enough for another round! Perhaps Lindsay Lohan should have to sing it before she gets behind the wheel again.

Odds are, everyone has sung this British drinking song at least a few times in their lives. It became known as "The Star-Spangled Banner" during the War of 1812, after attorney Francis Scott Key wrote “Defence of Fort McHenry” after the night of September 13, 1814.

Key visited the British fleet in Chesapeake Bay to secure the release of a doctor, who had been captured after the burning of Washington. The British held Key overnight during the shelling of Fort McHenry, a fort defending Baltimore.

As the sun came up after a 25-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry, Key saw an enormous American flag flying proudly through the smoke, and was inspired to pen the words: “Oh say can you see, by the dawn’s early light.” Ironically, Key, who also penned the phrase, “land of the free,” owned slaves.

Key’s brother, on hearing the poem, realized it fit the tune of “The Anacreontic Song.” A century later in 1931, President Herbert Hoover signed a Congressional Bill into law, officially designating “The Star-Spangled Banner” as America’s national anthem.

But what makes a great anthem? The criteria of a great song come to mind: a melody that is catchy and easily sung, with lyrics that reflect the attributes and ideals of a nation. When Congress was considering the favored "Star-Spangled Banner," some were lobbying for "America the Beautiful," and even some wanted, "Yankee Doodle."

Objections to "The Star-Spangled Banner” go to its lyrics that glorify war, as well as its difficult melody, neither catchy nor easily sung. So why doesn’t America change its tune? Our flag has changed. So have our laws. Even our currency has.

Since 1931, there have been efforts to change the national anthem. One that got the most support was the Irving Berlin song – “God Bless America.” But as there are objections to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, “God Bless America” runneth over with religion. And if we’re to enforce separation of Church and State, ignoring for a moment the words – “In God We Trust” on our currency and in our courtrooms – then making sure that God stays out of our National Anthem merits consideration.

Of course, that puts “The Star-Spangled Banner” back into the running, since it has no reference to God. But which would we rather glorify? God or War? Or can we eliminate both from the national anthem?

Some supported the Woody Guthrie song, "This Land is Your Land,” written in 1956. It’s certainly devoid of religious references, and also glorifies our country.

Similarly, the song “America” makes no reference to God and glorifies our nation at its best. “My country,' tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing; land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrims' pride, from every mountainside let freedom ring!”

Unfortunately, the melody is derived from the British anthem, “God Save the Queen.” Interestingly, the song did serve as a de facto national anthem for much of the 19th century… but because its origin was not American, it was cast aside!

Then why not cast aside a national anthem that is based on a British drinking song? If we’re going to have a drinking song’s melody for our anthem, how about this (sung to "99 bottles of beer”): “Proud to be here in America. This is the land of the free. Our country is truly the best in the world, where everyone wants to be in the world.”

I’m an advocate of “America the Beautiful,” written in 1893 by Katharine Lee Bates. “Oh beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain. For purple mountain majesties, above the fruited plain. America, America, God shed his Grace on thee. And crown they good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea.”

That sentiment of brotherhood from sea to shining sea, certainly sits better than a glorification of war. And the melody is much more accessible to the masses.

Now granted, “America the Beautiful” mentions God in its lyric, but as I’ve said, “In God We Trust” is on our currency and in our courtrooms. So perhaps a desire for separation of Church and State is not enough reason to reject “America the Beautiful.” After all, the reference to God is non-denominational.

It's widely believed that Atheists aren’t thrilled with any reference to God. How do Agnostics feel about it? They’re undecided. But if we replaced God with the genderless “Higher Power” or “The Creator,” how much more cumbersome would the lyrics be? “America, America, may the Higher Power shed his or her Grace on thee.”

For that matter, we could adopt a song I heard called “Long Live America.” I believe the chorus aptly reflects our country. “This is my America, a beacon for mankind. Land of opportunity that everyone can find. Welcome to red, white and blue. Long Live America, my friend, it belongs to me and you.”

A national anthem should be melodic, so that any citizen can sing it. The words should represent the highest ideals of the country, and not glorify bombs bursting in the air. “The Star-Spangled Banner” fails on both counts.

While Francis Scott Key watched the relentless bombing of Fort McHenry, a great British General named Robert Ross, was leading British soldiers on land toward Baltimore. An American sniper shot General Ross. It is thought that if Ross had not been killed, he might have captured Baltimore, changing the course of the War of 1812, preventing our flag from being seen in the dawn’s early light…

Were it not for the sniper’s bullet that killed General Ross, America might be singing an entirely different tune at sports events.

Mel Gibson: Copping to it or copping out?

2006-08-03T00:28:00.003-07:00

It's not exactly clear just how far Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism goes. One source says that he had turned down the Michael Douglas role in "Jewel of the Nile" because "Jew" was in the title. He is also quoted as saying that he thought Hebrew was something a guy does to make coffee. Gibson also thought that Juddhaism was a worship of all things Judy Garland, because he is anti-gay.

Regardless, there is no more denying his true feelings about anyone and anything related to the Jewish religion. How convenient that he is deflecting the truth about his anti-Semitic beliefs onto an excuse of alcoholism! Anyone who's ever been drunk knows that when you're under the influence of alcohol, you're even more likely to say what you really think. All inhibitions disappear, your guard is down, and you reveal your true beliefs. For Gibson to now claim that his anti-Semitic remarks were not what he thinks, is simply put - Mishigas!

This is yet one more opportunity for his team to spin this in his favor. Poor Mel - he's been battling alcohol addiction his whole life. Poor Mel - he's going into rehab.

This coming from the same man who made the clearly anti-Semitic "Passion of the Christ" and turned bad press into millions in his pocket. This coming from the same man who has another film coming out at the end of this year, and needed to get his name in the press.

Wanna bet he'll do Oprah? (I don't mean he'll literally "do" Oprah, because she's not a White Catholic, and who knows what he really thinks of African-Americans?) But wanna bet he'll do the talk show circuit, baring his soul, asking for forgiveness?

So far his "apologies" have been written statements through a publicist. Come on Mel. If you're so ashamed and realize that you just bit the hand that made you famous (since Hollywood has a large Jewish contingent), why aren't you personally appearing LIVE in a televised press conference?

Baconizing Craig Ferguson on the Strip

2006-03-29T18:01:00.002-08:00

No, "baconizing Craig Ferguson" is not a sexual act. Last week I celebrated my birthday by going to Vegas with a friend to see Craig Ferguson at the deteriorating Tropicana. I have thoughts about that show which I'll share at another time, although I will mention that Ferguson spent quite a bit of his act talking about his rather large penis. Hey, I wouldn't know. I'm just telling you what he talked about, over and over and over, kind of like a floundering Vegas comedian who needs to rely on cheap jokes to get laughs from an audience that's been drinking cheap wine in the casino. I think he took performing "on the strip" just a little too literally with the penis jokes.

Anyway, as my friend and I were walking past some slot machines towards the show room, I was observing how my brain had just gone through several steps over dinner getting from point A to completely unrelated point E, and how magnificant the human mind is when it comes to connecting seemingly dissimilar dots.

At that moment, I invented a new word for our lexicon. BACONIZE. A verb. The act of connecting nonsequiturs, seemingly unrelated thought processes, people, events, ideas, situations or items, through a series of six or less shared connections, as in the six degrees of Kevin Bacon. [Also see Baconization - the act or result of baconizing.]

In describing to my friend how I came up with an idea, I took him through the preceding nonsequiturs that brought my brain to that particular thought, and commented that I had "Baconized" the steps. Most people associate baconization with linking actor names together, but really the method works for just about anything.

So what does this have to do with Craig Ferguson? Well as it turns out, I am connected to him by only two degrees of separation. While at the aforementioned Vegas show, my friend and I sat across from two ladies who work at the same emergency animal hospital where I had taken my dog one evening, and they had saved his life. In conversing with the one lady, I mentioned that I would love to meet Ferguson. She then revealed to me that she took care of his dogs and knew his ex-wife Sascha! I couldn't believe my good luck, until... she told me about Ferguson's much younger girlfriend who wasn't particularly bright. I expressed surprise that CF wouldn't want an intelligent woman such as myself.

The veterinarian responded that CF's ego was so big that he'd be threatened by a smart, funny woman. You could hear the thud as my jaw hit the floor. Needless to say, I saw him with a totally new perspective as I watched his act that evening, straining my neck up and twisted sideways from my front row center table seat. As CF rambled on about his fat porker, all I could think of was...

Katie Holmes Held Hostage!

2006-02-26T21:51:00.001-08:00

It's true. The whole TomKat thing is a sham. The whole Oprah couch thing was a ruse. In love? Puh-leez. From day one, this was clearly a marketing machine and more of Scientology's attempts to brainwash the public. Poor Katie, someone found out that as a child she said, "I'm going to marry Tom Cruise when I grow up," and they took advantage of that young girl's fantasy." Let's have a raising of hands? How many of you actually believe that Tom and Katie are for real? Look at Katie's expression in the photo. It's as if she's saying - Please rescue me from this brainwashing mind-controlling cult. She's always a few steps behind him. He's always gripping her hand tightly, pulling her along.

Tom is threatening to sue US magazine for allegedly fabricating this whole "it's over" rumor. Come on, Tom. How are we supposed to take you seriously? It wasn't that long ago that you and the other Cruz were pretending to be head over heels.

And how does Katie explain the baby? She was very vocal in interviews, claiming to be a virgin, and saying she wouldn't have sex until she was married. Now she's given birth to Tom Cruise's baby, and they're not married? What's up with that? They have this baby (named Suri) in the privacy of a house, not in a hospital, with only Scientologists attending. As Alice would say, "Curiouser and curiouser."

Girth Brooks' Body Language Said "I Don't"

2006-02-22T02:54:00.001-08:00

Trisha Yearwood and Garth Brooks did their first TV appearance as a married couple on Oprah the other day. It's his second marriage, and her third.

During the interview, Brooks revealed that he and his daughters have a bedtime confessional ritual called "The Honesty Club." They turn out all the lights, light a candle, and make a vow that "whatever's said in the club, stays in the club.'' I guess it's Nashville's answer to Vegas. Oh wait, that's Branson.

For now, he's allegedly retired from the music business until his youngest reaches the age of 18. Of course, Celine, Cher, Barbra and others have manipulated the gullible public by staging supposed farewell concerts, only to enjoy the hype of comebacks a few years later. So I'm sure Garth is not permanently out to pasture.

Speaking of cows, although I shouldn't criticize out-of-shape people since menopause temporarily supersized me, it does seem that Garth's girth has expanded since being with his zaftig new spouse. Hey Kirstie Alley, when you're done losing those last pounds, give Jenny's number to Garth and Trisha. Maybe they can get a 2-for-1 discount.

Anyway, as an analyst of human behavior, dissector of subtextual between-the-lines interpretation and all things unsaid, I'll tell you what struck me more than anything in this televised celebration of love and marriage on Oprah ... body language.

Garth was far from laid-back, or should I say he was far from Trisha, sitting on the edge of the couch in an awkward sideways position. At one point, Trisha slid her hand towards him on the couch, and instead of taking it, he pulled his further away. The gesture was unmistakable. Whether it was subconscious or not, it spoke volumes.

The entire interview seemed strained. Forced. Awkward. Unnatural. Uncomfortable. Not unlike this paragraph. As if they had something to prove (or disprove). Trisha rarely smiled. Garth kept his distance. For all their efforts to appear as a happy couple, their bodies spoke another language. I'm guessing that when he and Trisha got home from Oprah, there was some honesty goin' on in the club that night.

Garth's apparent lack of enthusiasm about his recent nuptials was quite the antithesis to Tom Cruise's historic couch incident. Oprah wisely asked Garth if his love for Trisha somehow invalidated his marriage to Sandy. She used Tom Cruise as the example, because Tom was once head over heels for Nicole Kidman. And then it was Penelope Cruz (who is now with Matthew McConaughey). And now he's marrying Katie Holmes out of wedlock.

Or you could use the example of Brad Pitt who cheated on gentle Jennifer Aniston for Mia Farrow wannabe Angelina Jolie who once loved her alleged wife-beating husband Billy Bob Thornton so much that she had his name tattooed on a body part.

Or Julia Roberts who cancelled her wedding (three days before it) to Kiefer Sutherland, temporarily ran off to England with Jason Patric, then married Lyle Lovett (huh?), and now has had twins with hubby cameraman Danny Moder.

Or Renee Zellweger who was married for about two seconds to Kenny Chesney, after supposedly being madly in love with Jim Carrey, who had been devastated by his divorce from Lauren Holly.

Here's a strange one. How about Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis swapping partners with couple Renny Harlin and Laura Dern? Jeff next dated Laura, and I believe Geena married Renny for a few years.

Dizzy yet?

Certainly it seems that movie stars and music icons switch partners every year, having their own penguin-like march. When Garth kidded that in two years he might be back on the show eating his words, one wondered if he was only half-joking.

For all the fuss and spin about their "I do's," Garth's body language seemed to say "I don't know." But that's okay. What is love in show business anyway, but a match made in P.R. heaven?

Hey Craig, What's Your Sign?

2006-02-15T01:10:00.002-08:00

Message for the Craigster... read my lips! Sometimes you need to think before you speak. You've been a bit loopy lately.

You know that habit you have of leaning in at every commercial break and pretending to whisper something in the guest's ear? Well sweetums, it just didn't feel genuine tonight. Why, you ask? Well I'll tell you, since you asked. Had you noticed that guy sitting behind you? That sign language interpreter named Jack Jason (whom you called Jack Jordan)?

What exactly did you whisper into the ear of guest Marlee Matlin?

Trial and Error on Boston Legal

2006-02-14T23:13:00.001-08:00

Note to ABC's "Boston Legal," and yes, that means you, David E. Kelley: You are being charged with failure to write plausible storylines and do your due diligence regarding legal procedure.

On the February 14 episode, a teenage rape victim came to the law firm of Crane, Poole & Schmidt, seeking representation. She wanted to sue a Catholic-based hospital for refusing to give her the "morning after" pill in order to prevent her from getting pregnant from the rape.

All reason went out the window when they went to trial within days! That just doesn't happen in the court system. I don't care if you're Denny Crane. You don't get a trial that quickly. First you file a Complaint. Then the defendants have 30 days to file an Answer. Then there are Interrogatories and Pre-Trial Hearings. Then there's the selection of the jury. All of this must occur before a trial commences. The process takes months, or even years. If the defendant is a hospital, trust me, they'll drag out the process for as long as possible.

I'll always cut you some slack simply for giving me my weekly fix of the magnificent and intense James Spader. But as much as I agree with your politics, David, i.e. your liberal agenda on every show, I'd like you to pay a little more attention to details once in a while.

For that matter, while I'm on my soapbox, please stop breaking that fourth wall and being so self-referential. A few weeks ago, Denny Crane (Shatner's comeback character) joined Alan Shore (Spader's role of a lifetime) on the balcony for the tag which has become an enjoyable staple and signature scene. However, I objected to Crane's comment, "I've hardly seen you this episode." That dialogue should've been stricken from the record.

Tell you what, let me get my hands on Spader and his appealing briefs, and I'll settle this in a court of love. I rest my case.

See Dick. Run.

2006-02-13T20:00:00.001-08:00

"Let's shoot all the lawyers..." (Vice President, Dick Cheney)

Okay, you got me. That quote was really Shakespeare. But how great is it that our Lame Duck Administration consists of a Birdbrain President and a Vice President who shoots Quayle, er, I mean, Quail? I guess a Birdbrain in the White House is worth a Lawyer in the Bush.

Here's a question. If Whittington was supposedly coming up behind Cheney, how did he get shot in the face and chest?

I'm personally anti-gun and even moreso, anti-hunting. I don't see the "sport" in killing birds and animals just for fun. Read this: Cheney's Canned Kill, and Other Hunting Excesses of the Bush Administration.

To paraphrase Will Rogers: "There ought to be one day - just one - when there is open season on [senators] politicians."

In the Wake of the Wake

2006-02-09T02:18:00.001-08:00

Proving once again to be a class act, Craig Ferguson, host of The Late, Late Show (the Craigster to you'n'me) thanked his fans for their overwhelming support after he devoted an entire show to his father's passing, as a wake for those still awake.

Robert Ferguson, a retired postal worker for the UK's Royal Mail (and a whistler like my dad), recently succumbed to the ravages of cancer. The family asks that, in lieu of flowers, donations be made in his name to Dr. A.G. Robertson, Beatson Oncology Centre, Western Infirmary, Dumbarton Road, Glasgow G11 6NT, Scotland. You can also click here for the centre's direct donation page.

And yes, that's a younger picture of my future ex-husband. What a hottie, huh?

Would Woods Get a Woody?

2006-02-02T01:18:00.001-08:00

James Woods, accomplished actor, one time aspiring surgeon and yes, MIT dropout (he was steps away from a degree in Political Science when he changed course for acting), appeared on Craig Ferguson's The Late, Late Show, last night. It was a homophobic fest to the point that, if Woods made one more anti-gay comment, I'd swear he's closeted. Really, the man doth protest too much. Why would Woods feel the need to bash gay-themed films? What is he afraid of, getting a woody?

At one point, Craig asked Jimmy if he's a particularly angry man. Although he denied it, I've been to enough industry events to say that he does, in fact, appear to be an unhappy, angry, bitter man. Extremely intelligent and supposedly "well-hung," he is known as a big dick in every sense of the word. (Rumor has it that the combined footage of James Woods, Milton Berle and appropriately named Woody Harrelson would be hard to beat. It's also not surprising that Woods likes the game of poke-her.)

I have seen how condescending and offensive he can be, especially to women. His abusiveness allegedly extends behind closed doors and into the bedroom. While I don't have personal knowledge of his proclivities, a friend of mine had a good friend who was in an intimate relationship with him for awhile, and the stories were as brutal as he allegedly was (is?). Of course, as a disclaimer - my comments are all cloaked as hearsay, unproven rumor, and salacious innuendo.

The kicker to the show was after they showed a lesbian clip from "Imagine Me and You," for the next guest, Piper Perabo. In the clip, Perabo and another actress leaned in for a kiss. Cut to Craig excitedly exclaiming, "Hallo!" Good thing he was behind a desk at that moment. His comment brings me back to the double standard (which I've mentioned in numerous articles already) that grows so tiresome. Craig and Jimmy made countless homophobic cracks regarding gay male storylines, but as a lesbian-themed scene, it was acceptable. What's with that?

Years ago I had a crush on James Woods. I was attracted to his acting talent and tremendous... brain. But after seeing enough of his interviews and his in-person behavior at Hollywood parties, the attraction waned. During tonight's interview, his absence of awareness showed its face when he commented that all gays live in San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. Woods is living proof that you can be highly intellectual, brilliant, articulate and a wealth of information, and yet still be ignorant.

Sure, movies like Star Wars and Austin Powers made more money than Capote, Brokeback Mountain and TransAmerica. So the fuck what? Just because studios make films that appeal to the lowest common denominator and enable the dumbing down of America, doesn't make it right. If Woods doesn't like the system, then he should go back to MIT, finish his PoliSci degree, and get out of the movie business. Tom Hanks did quite well with Philadelphia. Somehow I don't think Woods needs to worry about anyone offering him a gay role. He lacks the necessary sensitivity to be convincing.

Perhaps the gracious talk show host was trying to be professional and non-confrontational when Woods made his offensive remarks. But when Jimmy gave Craig shit about his lack of poker knowledge and suggested that he was stupid, Craig should've retorted that at least he's secure in his masculinity.

I saw The Big Tease, the gay hairdresser movie that Craig co-wrote, and in which he starred. (Whadda ya know... gay people also live in Scotland.) Could Woods have pulled off that role? No way, girlfriend.

The Late, Late Ferguson (Papa Can You Hear Me?)

2006-01-31T01:46:00.001-08:00

First, I would like to offer my deepest condolences to Craig Ferguson, whose father just passed on. The timing couldn't be more ironic for me, or for him...

I also want to apologize for an email I sent to Craig and The Late, Late Show last week, in which I complained about the repeat of shows which recently aired. The last minute repeats were probably covering Craig's unanticipated absence as he flew back to Scotland to be with his dad during his last hours. It proves that one should have all the facts before reaching conclusions... and even then, things are not always as they seem.

On the January 30 show, Craig's poignant monologue was devoted to honoring his father. (Click here to see CBS' online clip.) Watching it has made me love Craig even more. His honest vulnerability and willingness to share his pain reinforced what an outstanding human being he is - and how my first impression of him was more accurate than what I experienced at a taping a few weeks ago.

I missed the homage live, and came to the show just as Amy Yasbeck was welcomed to the stage. Wouldn't you know, this is one show I hope they do repeat. Amy and Craig had a heartfelt discussion of life, death, religion and the afterlife. It was somber and sincere. Amy talked about owning the private grief for the loss of her husband, John Ritter. (I have my own memories of John, fodder for a Shelley Winters-like memoir at some point.)

Anyway, Amy was commenting that Craig's son, Milo, will learn about the grieving process by observing how Craig deals with this loss. The entire segment was a tremendous departure from the typical late night talk show celebrity interview and it renewed my belief in the magic of Craig Ferguson. The segment was also a poignant cap to a 48-hour "message from the universe" which I'm still trying to decipher.

The message began three nights ago when I smelled someone smoking a cigarette right next to me at 2am. I was sitting at my computer and the odor was unmistakable. I had a fleeting thought that perhaps my Dad (who died in 1992) was paying me a visit, but I dismissed the notion quickly, as I have never had any sign of him, despite my desire and search for one.

Sunday night, I was chatting with a client, and we were sharing our sordid dysfunctional childhood memories. The client told me about her mother who just died in December. She recounted a story that led us to "pretend cast" which actors would be good for a movie about her teenage years. I mentioned Debra Winger as a possibility for portraying her mother.

The conversation continued, and I confessed that I wished my Dad would let me know if he was hanging around me. A few minutes later I turned on ABC to catch the last 10 minutes of Desperate Housewives. As fate would have it, the scene was of Eva Longoria's character releasing a balloon, symbolic of the release of her dead baby's spirit. Why was this relevant to me?

Back in 1992, my mother had flown to Los Angeles with my father's ashes, to scatter them on Catalina Island. A friend accompanied me for this event, as I could not be left alone with my mother to protect my sanity (and my mother's life). My mother revealed to me her intention to release a balloon in honor of my father. When I pointed out to her that it needed to be a helium-filled balloon, she dismissed my comment, because she believed I was never right about anything. I insisted again that the balloon would not rise with merely her hot air. She ignored my protestations.

My mother made a little speech, released the balloon... and we all watched as it... abruptly dropped to the ground, bounced a bit and went over the edge into a ravine. I was mortified, but more importantly, a few steps from pushing my mother over that same cliff.

In retrospect, the humor of the moment was something Dad would have appreciated. He was not an emotional man, but he had a tremendous sense of humor and brilliant mind. The last time I spoke to him, three days before he died, was the only time I ever heard Dad cry - and it was the tears of a concerned father, wanting to make sure his only daughter was safe and happy - wanting to tell her that he loved her and was proud of her. I remember releasing Dad in that conversation, letting him know it was okay for him to let go, to die. I lied through my teeth, telling him that my life was wonderful, just so he wouldn't worry about me anymore.

So back to the present - here was this scene of a balloon ceremony. A message from Dad? The next show was Grey's Anatomy, and the storyline centered around the loneliness of Meredith's crazy mother. Another sign? A few hours later the late night movie came on - and it was - Urban Cowboy with Debra Winger! I couldn't believe it. That movie hasn't been on TV in years and there it was, on the same evening where I had just mentioned Winger's name.

What is the universe trying to tell me? Cigarette smoke. A balloon ceremony. A crazy mother. Debra Winger. All validations that somehow I am "tuned in" to something... but what?

And then the kicker. Discovering that Robert Ferguson (Craig's father) has just died. My Dad was also a Robert. Same first name. Even the same last initial.

Perhaps there's more message to come. While I wait, I hope the two Roberts hook up and have a good time - wherever they are. To Craig Ferguson, my soul hugs yours. In time, may your laughter and joie de vivre lessen the pain for you and your family.

Craig Ferguson in Space

2006-01-28T04:56:00.001-08:00

Well, my cheeky little monkeys, I took the plunge - literally, with a low neckline and trusty Wonderbra - and attended a taping at CBS Studios of The Late, Late Show with Craig Ferguson. Yes, I've heard the rumors that he's dating Sharon Stone but, honestly, I think it's more of a fetal attraction because they both have kids. While she was once a card-carrying member of Mensa, I think she's now too high maintenance for him. She is, after all, an actress - and an inside source tells me she's a bit neurotic and controlling. I don't care how great she is in bed, Craig has more self-respect than that. Or at least I hope he does. However, after going to the taping and seeing how little he even interacts with the audience, I could be all wrong about him. Ah well, I'll give him a chance to redeem himself if he ever sees this blog and wants to talk about it.

Before they corralled us up two flights in an industrial stairwell to the frigid studio, the Warmup Guy singled me out with the token free mug just for supposedly checking him out. Now while I was flattered by how thoughtful the gesture was... I mean, who doesn't need another coffee mug? I wanted to trade it in for what was behind door number three: a one-on-one with The Craigster. Ok, I don't know if anyone has called him The Craigster, but it just slipped out as I was typing.

Anyway, I scored a seat that was front row center, sure that I'd catch The Craigster's eye at least a few times, you know, gesture to him with a sideways hang ten symbol next to my ear indicating that he should call me. So Warmup Guy did his warmup bit, but I was already hot... or as The Craigster admitted to his first guest, in heat. But I'll get to that in a moment.

As I was saying, Warmup Guy (what was his name?) made a point of telling us that the success of the show depended on us... that the viewers at home are the real audience, and that we, in the studio, were there to elevate the experience with boisterous laughter (when appropriate). We were encouraged to show The Craigster that we "had his back." Well, honey, I had his front, if you know what I mean.

They got us up on our feet for his grand entrance. I didn't need any prompting to be enthusiastic - I was almost up close and not quite personal with him as he found his monologue mark. He looked fantastic in an olive green suit with black shirt. His perfect features are just as perfect in person. Those eyes are blue and twinkle with mischief. Ok, so I was getting damp. I admit it. He launched into the monologue and it was funnier than usual. Better material, better writing, better delivery, better energy. There was a lot of physical humor interspersed with the jokes. His timing is improving every week, and he knows how to take that "beat," much the way Carson did. In fact, I've always felt that CF is the only late night talk show host who can fill Carson's shoes.

The audience was particularly rowdy, largely composed of Texans celebrating their Rose Bowl victory against USC the night before. Craig called USC the "University of Spoiled Children." Seems I've heard that joke, but he pulled it off. Ok, I'm going on a limb here with this next confession and it will probably piss off a few people, but as Michael Caine would say, then piss off. The Michael Caine, Sean Connery and Prince Charles segments are a bit weary and even the sound effect gimmick has worn out his welcome. I understand that The Craigster is developing skits to become his trademark, but he and the writers need to try something else.

So back to where I was sitting. Wouldn't you know that during the monologue, I was directly behind the monologue camera and was lucky if I could even see Craig's right ear? It turns out they placed an oversized disabled man next to me. The man really needed two seats for himself. I was squashed to the right, teetering with one cheek on my chair and body twisted for the whole taping. I should see a chiropractor, get a massage, and send the show the bill. Or better yet have The Craigster give me the massage himself.

Sigh. There was no chance to even make eye contact with my future ex-husband during the opening monologue. Whenever they transitioned, i.e. stopped taping to simulate commercial breaks and prepare Craig for the next segment, giving him a chance to review questions, they put on blaring disco or Michael Jackson music (what was that about?) to keep the audience's energy up. Warmup Guy... WTF was his name?... had us clap with the beat. I'm sure it was to prevent us from hearing all the technical talk.

Even though it is clear I am a shrinking violet and afraid to express my opinion, I will now venture even further on that aforementioned proverbial limb to say this - I was tremendously disappointed in The Craigster. He kept himself insulated from the audience and did not shake hands or anything. Not a hug or kiss. No, nary any tongue. Years ago I attended a taping of the sitcom, "The Golden Girls." In between scenes, Betty White came out and joked with the audience, making herself available for questions, hugs, kisses, and probably even a little tongue (knowing Betty White). I've gone to other shows and had similar experiences where the cast came out, shook hands, signed autographs, etc. When Janis Ian performed at The Knitting Factory a few years back, she had a receiving table where she shook hands, signed CDs, and posed for photos. Considering the fact that Janis is a music icon with Grammy awards, hit songs, and a long career, she could afford to have an attitude but didn't. The Craigster, on the other hand, came off like a diva by being so standoffish.

Interestingly, there were two gals from Texas sitting to my right, a mother and daughter, both very attractive and seemingly good friends for being a mother and daughter. When I asked the mom if she likes Craig's show, she admitted she had never watched it, and more importantly, didn't even know who he was! I then inquired why they were at the taping. The mom said it was the only thing they could get tickets for, and they wanted to see a TV show taped. I, of course, still enamored with Craig (since it was pre-taping), raved about how great he is - and assured her she'd enjoy the show. Afterwards, she shared my surprise that Craig hadn't interacted with the audience during the breaks or at the end.

You know, the more I think about it, it was hypocritical for Warmup Guy to emphasize how our presence was integral to the success of the show... and then The Craigster didn't show us a similar courtesy. The studio audience only seats 100 bodies. Shaking hands with 100 people wouldn't take him more than 20 minutes. And that's assuming all 100 would want to meet him. What if a fan had flowers or a gift or panties or a teddy bear or wore a teddy or...

Okay, monologue done. The first guest comes out, and it's the legendary Don Rickles - the King of Insults. Rickles is now an old man who seems to find it necessary to announce his Jewishness in as many jokes as possible. Hey, I come from a Jewish background. I can rag on that. His schtick hasn't changed much over the years, but he did have a few moments of spontaneous brilliance. Of course, I was sitting behind the stage manager's control board, and could see the bullet-point list of jokes that Rickles was supposed to hit - thus shattering the illusion of the supposed improvisational element to the show.

There was one moment when Rickles said something clever and off-the-cuff during a break. The Craigster was caught by surprise and laughed. As he glanced at the audience almost self-consciously, it seemed he and I made fleeting eye contact as I burst into laughter as well. I think that he and I were the only ones tuned into Rickles' aside. Most of the audience (being Texans) probably didn't get the humor.

Unlike Conan, Leno and Letterman, who are compelled to show how clever they are, and spend more time interrupting the guest, Craig actually listens. What a concept. In fact, he has this way of lowering his head and bringing it slightly forward, and then fixing an intent gaze on the guest, truly interested in what they have to say. He appears to be more genuine than the others. I also find that he spends more time talking with the guests about who they are, rather than having them hawk their latest movie or book.

After Rickles, the next guest was pseudo-actress Ivana Milicevic. She lost points when she commented that The Craigster's English was very good, considering he hadn't been in our country for his entire life. What language did she think they spoke in Scotland? Sheesh. Actresses. (She was almost as dim as Daryl Hannah, and practically as boring as Mimi Rogers, two other guests in past weeks. Sometimes I think The Craigster wants eye candy and isn't interested in substance. Of course, Don Rickles puts that theory to bed, eh?)

The musical guest was Aimee Mann. I knew the name but had never heard the music. I usually switch channels when the musical guest comes on, because it's rarely anyone with substantive talent. They're usually alternative bands whose lead singers have a minimal grasp of pitch, lyric writing and compelling melodies. With Aimee Mann - this time was no different. Unfortunately, held captive in the studio audience, I couldn't very well change the channel. But at least I could tune out as she droned on with her emotion-less vocal range, barely an octave. The song was something Suzanne Vega could've written with one hand. But sweet, frail, anorexic stringy-haired makeover candidate Aimee did get through in one take - thank goodness - I don't know if I could've tolerated a second run through of the song.

Aimee was done, and so was I. They escorted her and the band out of the studio. Craig gave us a cursory wave and disappeared into the wings, somewhere in the direction of the off-camera cue cards, most likely. You know what I'm talking about... those cue cards that he doesn't really use because everything is extemporaneous? The audience handlers made sure that the group was ushered out en masse like cattle, to prevent an eager calf from straying down the wrong hall and possibly finding the green room. It was all a very calculated, structured taping. Very little warmth or friendliness. Not much appreciation for our contributions to making the show a hit, according to Warmup Guy.

That evening I watched the episode, because we had been promised that we'd be "on camera" several times. I barely caught a glimpse of myself behind the obese disabled man and the multi-camera setup. Not that I was there for onscreen time, but what the heck, we all want our 15 minutes, and I'd say I got 15 milliseconds. Would I attend another taping? Only as a featured guest or as the musical act.

How do I feel about The Craigster now? Well certainly the spell has been broken, and although I still get a wee bit wet when I hear his breezy brogue, I'd rather watch "Just Shoot Me" reruns at 12:30am. Of course, listening to Wendie Malick's sultry voice makes me want to shop at Marshall's the next day. So maybe I should still watch The Craigster once in a while. It will keep me from spending too much money at Marshall's. Yeah, despite everything, I still wouldn't mind having Craig Ferguson in my space.

Fool's Gold at the Globes

2006-01-22T00:56:00.001-08:00

I need to express my disgust, dismay and disbelief at Dennis Quaid's homophobic and ignorant (is that redundant?) interjaculation as a presenter on the 2005 Golden Globes awards show.

Introducing "Brokeback Mountain," clearly a forerunner in the Oscar race and one of the most powerfully poignant movies ever made, Quaid demonstrated his backwoods brain when he said:

“Our last nominated drama tells the story of two young cowboys who met in the summer if 1963 and forge an unexpected, lifelong connection that proves the endurance and power of love. It’s a controversial film. It’s…let’s just say it rhymes with ‘chick flick.’”

Wait. Let me get a cotton swab and clean my ears. Did he just say what I think he said? The camera panned to a panicked and dumbfounded audience. I say dumbfounded, because they found that Quaid was the inspiration for the movie "Dumb and Dumber."

Rather than enlightening viewers, Quaid's tacky comment promoted and perpetuated intolerance. Why is there the need to label this film anyway? I am so tired of the "gay cowboy" moniker rather than just acknowledging it as a film about forbidden love. Certainly it is not the first of its kind, not by a long shot. Many films and TV shows have come before with homosexuality present in the storyline and even main characters.

Philadelphia - Tom Hanks, gay man dying of AIDS
The Children's Hour - Shirley MacLaine & Audrey Hepburn, teachers who suppress desire/attraction for each other
Bound - Jennifer Tilly & Gina Gershon, hot lesbian sex scene
Dog Day Afternoon - Al Pacino, gay man robs bank to pay for lover's sex change
The Crying Game - Stephen Rea falls for Jaye Davidson, transvestite... even Forest Whitaker's character is gay
TransAmerica - Felicity Huffman, transgender man to woman
D'Lovely - Kevin Kline as bisexual Cole Porter
Capote - Philip Seymour Hoffman as openly gay Truman Capote
Breakfast on Pluto - Cillian Murphy as gay transvestite
Soap - Billy Crystal as gay man
Will & Grace - entire sitcom centered around gay characters
In & Out - Kevin Kline & Tom Selleck as gay men who kiss (gasp!)
The Hours - Ed Harris, Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, Allison Janney - all gay characters!
The Birdcage - Robin Williams & Nathan Lane as gay partners
Making Love - Harry Hamlin & Michael Ontkean get it on (1982!)

Hidden/Forbidden Love based on inter-racial or class differences:

West Side Story - White boy and Puerto Rican girl
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner - Sidney Poitier courts Katherine Houghton
Far From Heaven - Julianne Moore loves Dennis Haysbert
Jungle Fever - Wesley Snipes has affair w/Annabella Sciorra

Why is our society more accepting of two women being intimate than two men? Is it because the heterosexual male has fantasies of being with two women? Do straight men fear that they might get aroused watching two men embrace or simulate copulation?

Was Quaid's comment his own, or a script blunder on the teleprompter? Based on the crowd's uncomfortable silence and squirming, methinks it was the former, not the latter. Clearly Quaid's masculinity was threatened by "Brokeback Mountain."

He needs to cop to this and issue a formal on-camera apology. Quaid's agent, manager, attorney and publicist should strongly advise him to do some image repair and damage control. I, for one, will consider boycotting any movie in which he appears, until he removes his foot from his mouth and does a major mea culpa.

Doesn't Quaid realize that people might think he's gay since he seems quite comfortable with his head up his ass?

WAMU sticks it to U.S. up the Wazoo

2006-01-21T02:45:00.001-08:00

Memo to Kerry Killinger, Chairman & CEO
of Washington Mutual Bank:

According to news sources in the last few days, your bank is spearheading more outsourcing of jobs from the U.S. to outside countries, supposedly as a way for your company to cut costs, However, according to your 4th quarter report, WAMU's profit rose nearly 30%, securing your company's position as the largest U.S. savings and loan organization. In fact, you enjoyed a net profit of $865 million in 2005. How then can you explain your need to cut costs and deprive more Americans of jobs?

According to a recent Reuters online article, your "Seattle-based company also announced plans to cut back office costs, an effort it said would involve relocating operations to lower cost cities inside and outside the United States. Washington Mutual said its current overseas workforce of 1,700 full-time employees would more than triple to 6,000 within two years and said it was moving 1,000 jobs from California to Texas."

As a tax-paying American and Californian who is saddened by our rising unemployment and declining economy, the news that WAMU will be eliminating jobs in California, as well as in the U.S., sickens me.

Almost a year ago, Unionvoice.org drafted a petition letter that explored your organization's alleged complicity with Wipro and call center employees in India. They urged you to "reconsider the practice of sending call center services outside the country and laying off U.S.-based employees in this process."

Their thoughtful letter asked "WaMu to become a leader in dealing with the outsourcing/offshoring issue, rather than merely implementing a business "fix" for this particular situation. As a society, the growing practice of outsourcing/offshoring has negative impacts for our communities in the U.S. and for communities and workers everywhere."

It is unfortunate that your response to that request was this week's announcement that you will increase outsourcing and layoff even more American workers over the next two years.

In addition to this latest development, it seems that your bank has been sticking it to accountholders for years. SmartMoney Magazine's article titled "I can't believe they treat people like this" exposed your organization's propensity for mishandling mortgage payments and being non-responsive when questionable practices were revealed. I can personally attest to several account errors I've experienced over the years, and the frustrations I've had to endure to clear up mistakes made by your institution.

I encourage all WAMU account holders to consider taking their business elsewhere, to an institution that believes in supporting our economy. WAMU would do well to look at the business model of Godaddy.com, whose CEO understands the importance of keeping jobs in our country. Perhaps hitting WAMU in the pocketbook will be a language you will understand.

Mr. Killinger - Don't you realize your outsourcing is killing our economy? Since you're giving it to Americans up the wazoo, maybe it's time we give your bottom line an enema.

The Hump that Broke the Mountain's Back

2006-01-06T00:21:00.001-08:00

Heath Ledger, you have established yourself as one of the most diverse and gifted actors of your generation! That's not to diminish the talent of up-and-comer co-star Jake Gyllenhaal (son of director Stephen Gyllenhaal and screenwriter Naomi Foner of "Bee Season" and "Running on Empty" fame, and younger brother of Maggie)...

Beginning with the anachronistic but clever "A Knight's Tale" (with the equally brilliant Paul Bettany), Heath stole this woman's heart. Recently he's been riding at the top of his game with "Brokeback Mountain" and "Casanova," proving he can pursue forbidden love with a poignant dramatic turn as a clenched jaw cowboy, or in an amorous farce as a shameless lover of women who discovers by the climax that the love of one outweighs the orgasmic needs of the many.

Interestingly enough, there appears to be a common thread in all three above-mentioned roles. In each film, Heath has played a man pretending to be something other than who he is... each character possessing a deep, dark secret to which the audience is privy. Heath has demonstrated remarkable range in portraying emotional nuances of these men who struggle with an identity crisis, ever in denial about their true nature. But I digress.

What prompted this examination of "Brokeback Mountain" was a recent discussion with a potential suitor... a man who professed to be a screenwriter, aspiring toward a career in show business, and also seeking my interest. When he declared that he had no intention of seeing this movie because of its subject matter (and thus revealed his homophobic narrow-minded limitations -- what was that about?), not only was I immediately saved from a Starbucks first date... but I found myself wanting to champion this movie beyond the discussion with this idiot who called himself a writer but refused to see "chick flicks" and hadn't even heard of "Sullivan's Travels"! Who lets these guys onto the planet, never mind into the entertainment industry? Watch... he'll write "Beneath the Planet of Porky's" and retire!

Why are so many heterosexual men reluctant to see "Brokeback Mountain"? How sad is it that our society, in the year 2006, still needs to label this as a "gay cowboy movie," rather than the universal love story that is really is? If it had been forbidden love between a man and woman of different colors, set in a time period where interracial dating was discouraged (see "Far From Heaven" with Julianne Moore and Dennis Haysbert), audiences would cluck their tongues and shake their heads that such a chasm ever existed. But with love between two men, mainstream America recoils in fear and disgust.

Remember "Bound" with Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon? That had a steamy lesbian love scene. Where was the uproar over that? Is it because men fantasize about two women, but are so insecure about their own sexuality that they'd be afraid to see two men together on the off chance that they'd get aroused... and then, oh my, how would they ever be able to look in a mirror again? What would that say about them? There we are again with that damned double standard - two women, fantasy; two men, forbidden?

How hypocritical that we applaud Elton John's recent marriage to his same-sex partner, as long as we don't have to "watch" their intimacy? Isn't it sad that England has legalized this, and here stands the United States, a paralyzed paradigm of paranoia, a country supposedly built on forging progress, but actually built on a forgery of freedom... especially with a counterfeit President who thinks that wire-tapping citizens is acceptable and a necessary evil? Goodness, are we returning to another McCarthy era? (By the way, bravo to George Clooney for "Good Night and Good Luck.")

Why are so many threatened by the concept of same-sex unions and same-sex love and same-sex parenting and same-sex rights and same-sex sex? I don't know about you, but I find watching gratuitous sex uncomfortable, even when it's male-female. You can't tell me that you enjoy watching Mickey Rourke or Woody Allen and... anyone?

For that matter, watching violent sex or rape onscreen is extremely unpleasant, such as in "The Accused" with Jodie Foster. And don't get me going on what's in her closet (talk about a missed opportunity to be a role model).

Why are we willing to accept two men kissing under comedic circumstances? For instance, Tom Selleck planted one on Kevin Kline in "In & Out." As a talk show guest, Drew Carey gave lip service to Craig Ferguson on "The Late, Late Show." That smooch fulfilled half of a fantasy... fodder for my next column about that cheeky monkey.

So why can't our so-so society handle two male actors simulating intercourse in a realistic way? I mean, come on, we don't see actual nudity and penetration going on. They're fucking actors! For the uninitiated and those too uptight to see "Brokeback Mountain," let me tell you that there are very few lovemaking scenes of a sexual nature. Most of the dynamic between the two men is innuendo, friendship and desire. The handful of scenes that show the expression of their love in a physical way are done with grace and beauty. It's not as if they climb every mountain.

I admit that "Brokeback Mountain" is horseplay of a different nature and not for the sheepish, but not because of its bareback scenes. This heartbreaking love story has a spirit that can't be broken, and I believe it is a ride worth taking. So Mr. Pasteurized Screenwriter, you'd better see a man about a horse - 'cause you ain't ridin' this filly!

To Mr. Ledger, whose career has found its balance: I predict an Oscar nomination and possibly a statue. But win or lose, I promise you this, Heath Ledger (how apropos that your name has heat and edge) . . .
I will never quit you!

Waxing Po'Etiquette

2005-12-12T21:48:00.002-08:00

I don't mean to pick on the big O (Oprah, not Overstock.com or the all-important Orgasm, to be explored in another column) -- really, I don't -- but once again I found myself shaking my head at one of her shows. Over the weekend there was a late night rerun of a show from last year which talked about Etiquette according to a panel of alleged experts. I say alleged, because their credentials were questionable, in line with their advice.

This panel covered various topics, such as: Should a woman pay for dinner on the first date? I say yes, if she wants to get laid. Or, did you know that thrifty re-gifting is not the gift that keeps on giving? So throw out that thrice around the block fruitcake. Yes, the man in your life.

The show then moved on to more useful and interesting topics such as chewing gum, and no, they weren't discussing the profound relationship between geriatrics and mastication without one's teeth. I have to say, I do agree with Oprah on this issue: gum-chewing is unattractive. I'd even go so far as to assert that it's downright dirty, disgusting and decidedly uncouth.

But I parted paths with Oprah as soon as she told a story about a dinner guest's daughter who had removed a wad of gum from her mouth at the table, and put it on her plate. Oprah admits to being horrified as she waited for the peas to roll and touch the gum. Worse than that, however, it seems she was so traumatized by the very sight of this unsightly gum, that she couldn't consume her meal (hard to believe). And as if that weren’t hard enough to swallow… after the guests left, Oprah (or her staff) actually threw out THAT specific plate because she didn't want to wonder which plate in her china closet had once been graced by a wad of gum, dad gum it! Can you believe the idiosyncratic neurosis of that? And not one expert had the balls to point out that she's turning into Howard Hughes! Chew on that.

Well, the show next headed Down Under. No, not Australia. I’m speaking metaphorically here, as they segued into a segment on the benefits of Brazilian Waxes. Before we go further, I want to go on record to say that I am of eastern European descent, meaning my body hair is dark and there’s no shortage of it.

I started waxing two years ago at a now ex-boyfriend's request. The breakup had nothing to do with the waxing, I swear. Although it is pricey at $100 for both pits and the whole Magilla (that eastern European gorilla thing), it is so worth it. There are variations on the theme including Brazilian, Playboy, Bikini, Playkini, and other forms of follicle torture. The waxpert insisted that a Brazilian leaves a patch of hair in front. However, each spa may define these differently, so be sure to clarify what you want before you're naked on your back being smeared with hot gooey wax.

Back to Oprah. So we’re ready to uncover the naked truth on waxing. What did we get instead? A panel of grown women on television, including Oprah who was once a “journalist,” and not one was comfortable enough in her own skin to say the words vagina, vulva, crotch, pubic area or pubic hair. Nope, no such terminology here. Instead we got a panel member who described the waxing as "removing that stuff down there." I was laughing so hard it brought tears to my eyes... or perhaps it was the pain of tweezing those stray hairs the wax missed?

Ladies - haven't we come far enough in our liberation that we should feel no shame about our body parts? What example was Oprah setting for women across the country when she giggled and blushed like a prepubescent teen during this discussion? When a show is meant to be informational, what a disservice to the viewers when the experts and the host can't even refer to body parts without embarrassment! Journalist, my ass.

Another expert said that on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being a Caesarean section, getting waxed is an 8 1/2. Now I've never had a Caesarean, but as someone with a low threshold for pain, I can tell you that getting waxed on the labia smarts for a few seconds, and the pain is no more than a 4, and that's if you're a wuss.

Here's the basic difference in terms of what is hair today, and gone in seconds. With a Bikini wax, imagine you put on a bikini (not a one-piece or those polyester plus size two-pieces with a skirt to hide cellulitic thighs, because this is a bikini wax, after all), and you don't want stray hairs peeking and poking out the sides. The bikini wax pulls out those rebellious hairs to give a shaped, defined edge or line hidden beneath your panties.

A Playboy wax is when the hair on your mons pubis is waxed down to a small landing strip or triangle, or whatever other shape you want, including the state of Texas in honor of President Bush.

A Playkini wax removes all of the pubic hair, including the hair on the labia. I will say that the first time you see your labia without "foliage" (as one lame expert on Oprah called it), it does take you time to adjust to the appearance. But men swear it makes cunnilingus (oral sex) more enjoyable for them - and hey, if they're having fun, we're having fun. Finally, a Brazilian does all of the above, and also rips out hair around your anus. The result is that your skin is as hairless and smooth as a newborn baby.

Now I won’t kid you. It’s an expensive habit. You have to tolerate the stubble and growth weeks in between waxing, for the hair to grow long enough to get it done again. It’s also humiliating. You’re more naked than at the gynecologist, and this total stranger who’s merely an aesthetician and never went to med school, is getting more up close and personal with your body than you ever will. You might even get a waxer who makes you hold your legs over your head or get on all fours for the butt ripper. If so, grin and bare it.

So if your outback looks like a jungle and you want to monkey around, clear cut the rain forest and go south to Rio. And while you're at it, have some Brazil nuts…and the best and biggest O of your life… and I don’t mean Overstock or Oprah.