Monthly Archives: October 2016

If I was only four inches taller, I could and would hand out cards like this.

Suddenly, our political discourse is all about "locker room talk." I don't profess to be an expert on this, or at least a current expert. I spent some time each schoolday in a locker room back in junior high and high school in the sixties. Later, I dressed and undressed in locker rooms at some commercial gyms.

In the latter, I was among strangers so there was very little talk. Mainly what I recall from those experiences is that there always seemed to be one very old man with a body worse than mine who thought the whole point of being there was to see how long you could be naked in front of other men.

At school though, I was among friends and acquaintances, and what we all heard last week on that Donald Trump tape was similar in that it was a guy trying to impress another guy with how great he had it with women, though I don't recall any of us using quite those words or being quite so insistent that we could have our way with the ladies. Mostly, I remember the opposite: Inane claims that girls couldn't get enough of us. No one suggested grabbing a girl by the pussy because no one wanted to admit that that was necessary; that any young lady on campus wasn't throwing herself at them.

It was, of course, mass lying and everyone pretty much understood that at least 90% of it was just that. In hindsight, I came to believe that it was more like 99%. There were all these articles popping up in magazines suggesting that every teenager was engaging in non-stop sex so it was a little embarrassing to have the other guys know you weren't.

There was a guy named Larry in one of my gym classes who had a lucrative business selling condoms out of his locker. We called them "prophylactics" back then or more often just "Trojans." As I understood it, an older brother bought boxes of them for Larry who'd then sell them individually for fifty cents each, which was quite a mark-up if you did the math as to what they actually cost by the box.

Still, we bought them and not because we'd be using them for their intended purpose. We bought them because we wanted the other guys to think we'd be using them. Aside maybe from someone practicing putting one on, I suspect they all went unopened. Mine did.

Monday morning in the locker room was a lot like that Monty Python sketch where the old guys sit around and lie about how bad they had it as children. We were young guys bragging about how much sex we'd had over the weekend. The master of this was a guy named Doug who would loudly tell how he'd had massive amounts of sex with a girl who, since she's written to tell me she reads this site, gets a name change for the purposes of this story. Cindy, as I'll call her, was quite beautiful and I suspect if Doug hadn't claimed her first for his purposes, everyone else would have used her in their lies.

I'll give Doug this: He told a great story. We all knew it was at least partial bullshit, especially the ending which invariably was something like, "She wanted to do it one more time but I had to tell her, 'Sorry, babe. Eight is my limit.'" Yeah, sure, right. But we all listened and most of us thought he was outrageously exaggerating. We didn't doubt that he'd at least experienced the part of the story where he takes her to Hamburger Hamlet and then to a movie, even if we suspected the X-rated denouement was probably more of a "R." Maybe some of us were gullible.

Or maybe some of us wanted to believe some of that was possible with our female classmates. I also recall once when Time or Newsweek ran one of those articles — this is around 1968 — that said sex was rampant among high school kids, especially in California. My friend Chuck ran around at lunchtime waving that article and yelling, "Where? Where? How do I transfer to that school?"

I also recall watching Doug and Cindy individually walking around the campus, going to or from classes. I'd see them occasionally pass and not even exchange words or smiles. Odd behavior, I'd think, for a couple that allegedly went at it like mating cocker spaniels the previous weekend.

So one day, I struck up a conversation with Cindy. I asked her if she'd seen The Hollywood Palace on TV the previous Saturday evening. She said, "No, my folks and I had to go see my sister's ballet recital that evening and we didn't get home 'til late." That was a far cry from what Doug had said she was doing around 10 PM the previous Saturday.

Next time in the boys' locker room when Doug was nowhere to be seen or heard, I disclosed my findings to some other guys and said, "I have this feeling that if a magic genie gave Doug the chance to actually screw Cindy but no one would ever know about it, or to not screw Cindy but have everyone convinced he had, he'd pick 'b.'" All the guys laughed, agreed and one of them — Carl — said he'd strangle his grandmother for 'a' because he was still a virgin. I then said something like, "I'd strangle Carl's grandmother too for the same reason."

Everyone laughed and we all agreed that, yeah, we still hadn't been intimate with a girl. Some of us hadn't even really tried. I didn't so much as ask one out until, literally, Graduation Day. It seems silly now but back then, I was worried, "What if she says no and then I have to sit next to her in Geometry all semester and be reminded of that?"

Owning up to it as we did that day was oddly liberating and therapeutic. I suspect all of us felt better to realize we weren't freakish exceptions to the norm, no matter what Doug or Newsweek said.

When I heard Trump's taped boasting referred to as "Locker Room Talk," I thought of the L.R.T. I'd experienced and how different it was. I did discuss sex with other guys, not only in the locker room but elsewhere but like I said above, it wasn't like what The Donald said. I don't think that was because it was a different time or we were of a different age. I think some males just plain don't get it about getting some.

I had a friend at University High who was genuinely worried that if and when some lady was interested in being (shall we say?) "intimate" with him, he'd embarrass himself one of about nine different ways. This, he feared, would cause her — whoever she would be — to never to go near him again and to of course alert all other women on the planet to do likewise. I assured him that only happened once in a while. Twenty-something years later, I saw him at our high school reunion. He was happily married with many kids. I guess no woman ever put out an alert on him.

A lot of folks are offended by Trump's use of vulgar terminology. I don't care much about the words. It's the attitude towards women that makes me think the guy's an irredeemable asshole, not that I only came to that conclusion last week.

I could probably rationalize and excuse it if he was seventeen but, Christ, Donald Trump is seventy years old, thrice-married and I suspect that with his fame and money, he's encountered a fair number of attractive women who genuinely want to be with him. Does he really not understand that the best part of a consensual sexual relationship is that it's consensual? And that if it's not consensual, it's rape?

Maybe if that tape causes some men to think, "Jeez, I never want to be like him," it'll do some good. Actually, I'll be satisfied if the only thing that comes of it is that we'll be rid, once and for all, of Billy Bush.

That debate was awful. If it was in some other country and you saw five minutes from it on the news, you'd say, "Thank God that kind of thing doesn't happen in America." I'm sure it gave erections to a lot of folks who've long hated Hillary Clinton and believed every bad accusation against her. Still, I couldn't help but wonder what viewers who aren't already solidly for Trump thought. I would imagine some said, "I don't want to see either of those two people in my government!"

Trump had some better moments than he did in Debate #1 but I think the moments when he looked maniacal probably canceled them out. And of course, the fact-checkers are already busily pointing out statements that are easily disproven, and both sides are claiming that their candidate mopped the floor with his/her opponent.

I may be wrong since I tuned out twice briefly but I think some of the "town hall" questioners actually got to ask questions. Not many but some.

I'm kinda sorry that when Donald promised to appoint a Special Prosecutor to put Hillary behind bars, she didn't say, "Well, Donald. I'll put your mind at ease. If I win, I won't sic any prosecutors on you. I'll let the ones that are already investigating you finish their jobs."

How those who are actually polled (as opposed to flooding bogus online polls) will score this thing, I can only guess. I'd guess Trump will rate higher than last time and might even win a few polls. But he's way behind and he needed more than a small victory tonight. I don't think he got it, especially since he looked childish with that "hate in her heart" line and whining about the moderators. Boy, will I be glad when this thing is over.

Just turned the debate off. I can't watch this kind of thing for very long.

And now for something, etc.: John Cleese will be touring the U.S. next year, hosting screenings of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Tickets are already on sale for events in Rhode Island, Maine and Chicago and you can find out about this over on Kim "Howard" Johnson's blog.

Now isn't that a lot more fun that watching two people — one of whom will be soon be the most powerful person in the world — having a slap fight on television?

Here's another poll aggregator you can follow. It's the Talking Points Memo tracker and currently it has Hillary way over the 270 mark with 341 votes, Trump at 186 and one "too close to call" state — Arizona — with its 11 votes. If Hillary has a shot in Arizona — and she seems to also have a good one in Alaska — this is not a good sign for Donald.

I'm going to watch the debate in an hour…or maybe on a bit of a delay…but I'm not looking forward to it. This one was supposed to be about Foreign Affairs but I have the feeling it's going to be about Affairs, period. For the record, my horror at the prospect of Trump becoming president is based largely on my belief of what he'd do, not only with his direct actions (which I would expect would only benefit Donald Trump and folks in or above his income level) but also because of the empowerment that his election would bring to those among us who hate racial and religious minorities, as well as women and gays. I think America would be a very ugly place under a Trump presidency.

I also think Hillary Clinton is very much qualified for the job and that all or most of the tales of her supposed lying and dishonesty come from the same place as all those claims that there was incontrovertible proof that she had Vince Foster murdered, inarguable evidence that she committed multiple felonies in Whitewater, outraged demands for her jailing over Travelgate, etc. Not saying she'd perfect but accusations against her have a way of not living up to their hysteria. I don't like her more militant approach to Foreign Policy but I don't think I'd trust anyone who has had their name on a primary ballot in this election. (Bernie Sanders might have but he was too vague about everything outside the U.S. of A.)

So naturally, the recently-released tape of Trump and Billy Bush does not make me any more likely to vote against Donald. I think its main impact is that it gives Republicans who were looking for an excuse to abandon the Trump bandwagon a good jumping-off spot. No one can possibly be surprised that that's who he was a decade ago…or think that he's somehow changed since then.

I have two analogies in mind for all this, both from Watergate. There was a period there when we had a slow, steady drip of ugly revelations about Nixon and an awful lot of Republican office holders decided to distance themselves from him. It wasn't so much that they couldn't defend what had come out. It was that they were afraid of what would come out next week. There can't be a lot of current G.O.P. leaders who are confident that there aren't more ugly Trump tapes in our future or more difficult-to-spin tax forms that will emerge.

The other thought is from when the time was coming that Republicans in the House and Senate would have to vote on the Nixon impeachment. The electorate was split. A lot of Republican voters wanted him tossed out on his butt while other Republican voters demanded he be defended to the death. If you were a G.O.P. Congressperson or Senator running soon for another term, you stood to lose half your support (and therefore, the election) if you voted with Nixon and the other half if you voted against him. I think a lot of current reps facing close election battles have the same dilemma now.

Actually, the nice thing about that tape coming out is that the self-identified Evangelicals, who claim to always support the most moral, God-loving candidate who just happens to be a Republican who wants to protect the interests of the rich — you know, the way Jesus did — now have a problem. They've almost been able to pretend that Trump has ever read the Bible or even knows what's in it. What's on that tape will forever be a little harder to spin.

Going to get ready for the debate. I hope they talk about something other than why what someone did in the past makes them a bad person. Maybe, just maybe they can even squeeze in a little something about how to avoid Nuclear War or sending more U.S. troops off to fight pointless battles.

• The main theme of tonight's debate will be "The bad things you did long ago are relevant and the bad things I did long ago are not!"

• It's getting harder and harder to stay friends with people I like despite their belief that Donald Trump is a good man.

This is the opening of ABC's 1978 "Silver Anniversary" special. It has a snazzy/silly opening song by Barry Manilow that lists the ABC stars…including, for some reason, Joe McCarthy. Stay tuned at the end for one of those great commercials that James Garner and Mariette Hartley were then doing for Polaroid…

Dick Cavett suggests some questions that someone might want to put to Donald Trump and David Letterman speaks of what he would ask Trump if he had the chance now.

Actually, I've been thinking that the political discourse in this country might be better off if folks running for public office or their surrogates weren't interviewed by the hosts of talk shows that are primarily configured for comedy. I know it's good for their ratings but that whole format is calculated to make the guest seem witty and charming…and to get them off the stage quickly.

Only rarely in such a format do we get even a brief substantive discussion about anything that matters. It's hard to do that when you're always six or less minutes from a commercial break, a band is playing guests on and off, and there's a studio audience present which expects to laugh at least once every 60 seconds. Not to compare anyone to Hitler but in that format, Hitler could look like a nice guy as he told some delightful, slightly self-deprecating anecdote and then set up the clip he brought of him invading Poland.

Cavett in his piece says he once said to a politician on his show, "Do you think, now, that perhaps you could come up with an answer at least remotely related to the question I asked?" Not even putative journalists do that and if you're on a talk show, it's real easy to filibuster and run out the clock until the next ad for Bud Lite. The host might be able to slip in a zinger — Letterman did on occasion, as did Cavett — but one is about the limit, especially when you've got Don Rickles in your green room waiting to come on and call everyone a hockey puck. As even Letterman admits, he was not all that well-equipped to cross-examine wanna-be leaders.

I'm sorry Jon Stewart's current plans do not include a weekly interview show…but of course, the people I'd most want to see him question probably wouldn't go anywhere near such a program. Why should they when there are plenty of places that will give them television time and only lob a few softballs?

Last night, I bravely attended a performance of my friend Ken Levine's new play, Going, Going, Gone. This is a brave thing to do because even great playwrights sometimes write poor plays and if your friend does that, you have to either lie or tell him you didn't like what he may have spent a year writing. Fortunately, I didn't have to do either. Ken's play is pretty funny and never for a moment dull.

Going, Going, Gone takes place in a viewing box for press at a baseball game. Four people are up there covering the game and they are played by Annie Abrams, David Babich, Troy Metcalf and Dennis Pearson…and I should say here that the cast is uniformly excellent and one of the reasons I enjoyed myself so much. Each of the folks in the press box has their problems. Each of them comes to terms with those problems in some manner during a very long, extra-innings game. (The game runs something like 18 innings over eight hours but don't worry. The play itself is only around ninety minutes.)

They squabble, they conspire, they laugh, they debate what it means to be remembered in this world and whether you really want to be, they bare their fears and hopes. During those ninety minutes, they cover an awful lot of topics and work through an awful lot of emotions. David's character falls in love (or maybe like) with Annie's. Annie's character confronts the way men treat women who invade a primarily-male workplace, and she also deals with issues she has with her offstage boy friend. Dennis's character deals with the declining call for his profession — writing for print newspapers — while Troy's character, who writes for a website, needles him about his future, and everyone insults Troy's character for his overeating and girth.

But that's far from all of it. I was actually impressed with how many things are happening in that press box…and way, way down on the list is covering the game they're there to cover. You don't have to know a thing about baseball to enjoy the story. The direction by Andrew Barnicle, who did Ken's last play, is sharp and you never lose focus even for a moment amidst all the balks and errors that are these folks' lives.

(Hmm…I just took a look at that review I wrote about Ken's last play and I see I said a lot of the same things I just said about this one. Well, why not? Same author, same director.)

The play is running for the next four weekends at the Hudson Guild Theater near the Hollywood section of Los Angeles. Info and tickets are here…though I'll let you in on a secret. You can save some bucks securing your seats through Goldstar. The theater is not large so expect most performances to sell out.

If you live too far away or can't get there while it's running, don't dismay. I have a feeling this play is going to be around for a while in some form and some localities. Maybe there'll be a production near you before long.

Another report on the French Connection screening I attended last night.

By the way: As we were all sitting there waiting for the show to start, the theater was playing music from the soundtrack to The French Connection, which is very odd in that context. It fits the film perfectly but it really didn't fit the setting of getting seated in a swanky theater. Then just before the proceedings commenced, they switched over to an instrumental of the theme from The Night They Raided Minsky's, which was also directed by William Friedkin. Reportedly, Mr. Friedkin disowned the film which was significantly recut and which underwent major revisions after he was done with it. I dunno how he feels about it today.

• The sad part is that on the Trump-Pence ticket, Trump is the one who has treated women better.

For the NBC's 75th Anniversary Special in 2002, Martin Short and a bunch of his friends perform theme songs from NBC shows. Wonder how many people recognized the I Dream of Jeannie instrumental and therefore understood Mr. Short's best line. Watching the audience is probably more fun than listening to the medley…

• John McCain withdraws support for Trump, says "I like men who don't get captured…on tape."

I just started to write, "In times of tragedy, I should remind you about my favorite charity" but I realized: It's always a time of tragedy somewhere. Even when there isn't a hurricane or an earthquake or a tsunami, there are people somewhere on this planet suffering and maybe dying.

Hurricane Matthew just reminds me to mention Operation USA, which does great work wherever human beings are in need. The charity is not political and I know a few of the folks who run it and so know that very little of what you donate there goes to them or fancy offices or anything. They work hard and put most of the money they receive to very good use. Click the banner below to find out more and to send them some dough.