Having lived in southern Nevada for a while now, I would guess that a lot of people I know/knew in Pennsylvania don't really get what desert driving is like, especially on a long drive. It does take planning. Unlike Pennsylvania (and I guess California to a good extent), where you can gas up and get food every few miles, Nevada is a different story.
There was a movement about 20 years ago to boost tourism in Nevada, labeling U.S. 50 as the "Loneliest Road in America", and it was for good reason. U.S. 50 is not heavily traveled, since it does not connect any major cities in the majority of its trek across the barren desert. It does hit Carson City and southern Lake Tahoe, but those areas also have nearby connections to bigger roads like U.S. 395 and Interstate 80 (which IS heavily traveled). 50's last major town heading east is Fallon (not far from 80) before it goes into the barren landscape of valleys and mountain summits in Nevada and Utah. Well, U.S. 95 is similar, although it does provide the ONLY direct route between Las Vegas and Reno.
My wife and I like cooler temperatures in the fall and winter. It's how we grew up, and a cold winter, in my opinion, wakes up the soul a bit. Other people in Las Vegas do not feel that way. People who were born in Vegas cannot imagine living anywhere else (we can all dig that home spirit, can't we?) and people who moved here to escape any real winter ( like my mother-in-law) avoid any scrapes with winter unless Vegas is hit with it once in a blue moon. Well, not too long ago, Vickie and I took a road trip to Reno. One reason was a couple's getaway and the other was for a short foray into cooler climes.
Like I said, planning is essential, so we got road food and a gas fill-up in NW Vegas before escaping into the desert. It doesn't take long. After the turnoff for Mt. Charleston (many Vegasans' will go there for 15 minutes of real winter), U.S. 95 goes into the empty desert. A mileage sign after the mountain turnoff says it all: "Indian Springs: 26, Beatty: 99, Tonopah: 193". This is how desert driving is: you plan for a hundred miles at a time, then reassess your needs. Indian Springs isn't a real stop for anything but a quick snack if you didn't eat before...and the gas prices are atrocious there!
OK, back to the wilderness, not that Indian Springs was a respite. About 20 miles later, we enter the LARGEST county by land size in Nevada:Nye. Nye County is not only huge, but it plays into the national legend of Las Vegas and legalized prostitution. For the record, nowhere in Clark County (where Vegas is located) is prostitution legal. One must venture into Nye or another rural county to find that luxury. Spread out in Nye are a collection of brothels where one may shell out $200+ for a cheap thrill. Having never the eagerness or spare money for it, I'll leave it at that.
U.S. 95 turns into a 2-lane road shortly after entering Nye County, and will stay that way for most of our voyage. We pass by a junction for NV 160 which heads to Pahrump (brothel center), then 17 miles down the road is the Amargosa Valley oasis, providing a link to Death Valley, and good for gas at a decent rate, a diner, convenience store and the Bunny Ranch (all owned by the same guy). We don't stop yet, and continue to Beatty, which provides another junction to Death Valley. Beatty is also one of many 25mph speed traps on 95 (the first was Indian Springs). Moving along, we see more desert, encounter another access to Death Valley, and then enter Esmeralda County. It's nothing special, just another desert county. However, its county seat, which we pass through, is Goldfield (where we hit some snow flurries)...a fascinating collection of old buildings with a small population. We figure if someone wanted to truly restore this town to prior glory, tourism may build. However, since 95 is in the middle of nowhere at this point, it's an iffy proposition. Thirty miles later, we hit Tonopah (speed trap), 94 miles from Beatty, where we re-enter Nye County briefly. Here, we do our first pit stop, grab some snack food, then move on. Tonopah is like Goldfield, but with more business to support it, since 95 and U.S. 6 meet up here for a 41-mile fling.
Once Tonopah is past, we re-enter Esmeralda County where 6 and 95 are a series of long straightaways. The sunset is beautiful on this stretch with a small bit of sunlight hitting the many clouds with a kaleidoscope of pinks, purples, and reds. 95 turns north later and after a bit, enters Mineral County, even though we didn't feel quite fortified. Nighttime truly hits us here, and far down the road is Hawthorne (speed trap), roughly 100 miles from Tonopah. Here, we need to touch up on gas, and it comes at a cost. The cheapest was $3.93/gallon, and the most expensive was a Shell at $4.37/gallon. No major junctions here, that's why, just an Army depot. Moving on, we traverse Walker Lake, invisible to us in the dark.
After the lake-hugging is done, we hit a major junction for U.S. 95 Alt(ernate), which heads west to Yerington, then north to meet I-80 in Fernley. This is actually considered a link to Reno and Carson City, albeit a longer one, since it also provides access to U.S. 395 WAY down the road in the Sierras via other highways. We continue on 95 for 39 miles more, hitting Lyon County briefly, then Churchill County where we reach Fallon (about 70 miles from Hawthorne) and U.S. 50. We hit more snow flurries approaching Fallon, which in the dark makes it look like you're in hyperdrive in space (pretty cool if you think of it that way)! We take 50 west to Alt 50, taking us to Fernley and I-80, which we take for the last 33 miles to Reno, hitting industrial and older-looking Sparks on the way.
Let's review: we drove almost 450 miles hitting just a few towns: Beatty, Tonopah, Hawthorne, Fallon, Fernley, Sparks, Reno). If you live in the East, 450 miles could mean several states passing MANY towns. Even a turnpike would provide gas and food on an average of every 20-30 miles there. The desert is a land of planning to survive or get stranded a long ways from any people.
Coming back, we stopped at Jerry's cafe in Fallon for breakfast, a true locals' diner NOT IN A CASINO with decent food, something Vegas lacks. I decided I could live in a town like that...if I really want the desert, I can just go east a few miles. If I want to see the Sierras, they're a mere hour away, as is Lake Tahoe (superior in every way to Lake Mead). Also coming back, we saw Walker Lake, which is pretty in its remote setting. We stopped in Hawthorne again for gas, Tonopah for bathroom and coffee, and then in Amargosa Valley for a bite to eat at that diner next to a brothel.
The places we see and stop at have never ceased to amaze me. We're not a Denny's family if we can help it, we want to see the living and the beautiful...and sometimes they come together but not often. If you come to Nevada and really want to see the state, leave Vegas for a bit and head north. Otherwise, stay, spend your money, wear your goofy touristy t-shirt and oversized drink and go home. As for me, I'll take true desert life for a bit. I've lived in Vegas for over 10 years and it's easy to weary of the fakeness here. A slice of desert ala mode with coffee, please!
Monday, November 12, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
The dark side...or a hemmerhoidal werewolf?
Again we enter the climax of another election season. And, yet again, I stay entirely apolitical about it. I have to. There's no way I can take sides in it...partially because I have no belief in either of them and partially because, well, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY STAND FOR!
Let's think back to 1984...the last election I vividly remember (well, I vaguely remember 1980, but all I remember is Reagan delivering a beating most men couldn't withstand, and Carter withstood nothing). No, 1984 was easy: Reagan stood for Republican American commie-fighting goodness while Mondale stood for evil taxation...and Reagan delivered another solid beating.
1988: Reagan's quiet veep vs. a tank-riding weenie. I think we all foresaw 4 great years of Saturday Night Live with Dana Carvey as Bush...nuff said.
1992: Bush vs. Clinton vs (at times) Perot. Frankly, I was prepared to vote for Perot until he dropped out unexpectedly. Carvey was leaving SNL soon, and by 1992 the comedy was long over.
1996: Clinton vs. well, a major Republican jackhole. Clinton was doing well, it was a solid decision.
2000: I'm still troubled by this one. I feel that we'd be in a different place if Gore (who I voted for) had been declared winner. It'd be nice to imagine no 9/11, but that's no certainty It'd be nice to imagine the economic prosperity would have continued a bit longer. OK...I'll move on before sounding too much like John Lennon.
2004: OK, I'll admit it, I voted for Kerry, and that may have been a mistake. I just knew I didn't want 4 more years of Cliff Barnes in office, but that's what we got anyway. I thinik this is when I felt things were murky: evil or a lesser evil. I thought I chose a lesser evil and I'm not sure that was the case (and we never will)
2008: Murkier now: in many ways a repeat of 1988, but now it was a choice of a continuation of politics we didn't like or the tank-driving weenie. For some reason I chose the guy in the tank (Otis the Drunk from Andy Griffith would have been the better tank guy choice, though).
And now we come to 2012 and I don't know what to think. Today I went to get the mail and we were bombarded with political ads, and they often canceled each other out. Example: we have Shelley Berekely running for dog catcher...that or Senator from Nevada, there's not much difference. One ad shows her in a positive, take-charge stance and the anti-Berkeley ad makes her look like a werewolf with hemmerhoids! It's the bad marketing that clouds what these people are REALLY about.
I mean, I could see myself running for office, say, Galactic Overlord in charge of Velcro distribution. All of the positive ads would have me standing proud, looking straight at the camera with a smile and Burger King Whopper juice dripping down my chin to show my patriotism, and the negative ad would be some shot of me that my daughter Natalie took of me while I was sitting on the crapper, making me out to be an agent of the Dark Side...with hemmerhoids! I could have shown the universe that Velcro is the glue that binds us and the galaxy together, but the shot of me "concentrating" would cloud my whole campaign.
So, tomorrow (or today which is the most likely), when you vote, try to look past all the ads, marketing and other gimmicks that cloud the issues...and get me and Berkeley some Preparation H if you're at the store!
Let's think back to 1984...the last election I vividly remember (well, I vaguely remember 1980, but all I remember is Reagan delivering a beating most men couldn't withstand, and Carter withstood nothing). No, 1984 was easy: Reagan stood for Republican American commie-fighting goodness while Mondale stood for evil taxation...and Reagan delivered another solid beating.
1988: Reagan's quiet veep vs. a tank-riding weenie. I think we all foresaw 4 great years of Saturday Night Live with Dana Carvey as Bush...nuff said.
1992: Bush vs. Clinton vs (at times) Perot. Frankly, I was prepared to vote for Perot until he dropped out unexpectedly. Carvey was leaving SNL soon, and by 1992 the comedy was long over.
1996: Clinton vs. well, a major Republican jackhole. Clinton was doing well, it was a solid decision.
2000: I'm still troubled by this one. I feel that we'd be in a different place if Gore (who I voted for) had been declared winner. It'd be nice to imagine no 9/11, but that's no certainty It'd be nice to imagine the economic prosperity would have continued a bit longer. OK...I'll move on before sounding too much like John Lennon.
2004: OK, I'll admit it, I voted for Kerry, and that may have been a mistake. I just knew I didn't want 4 more years of Cliff Barnes in office, but that's what we got anyway. I thinik this is when I felt things were murky: evil or a lesser evil. I thought I chose a lesser evil and I'm not sure that was the case (and we never will)
2008: Murkier now: in many ways a repeat of 1988, but now it was a choice of a continuation of politics we didn't like or the tank-driving weenie. For some reason I chose the guy in the tank (Otis the Drunk from Andy Griffith would have been the better tank guy choice, though).
And now we come to 2012 and I don't know what to think. Today I went to get the mail and we were bombarded with political ads, and they often canceled each other out. Example: we have Shelley Berekely running for dog catcher...that or Senator from Nevada, there's not much difference. One ad shows her in a positive, take-charge stance and the anti-Berkeley ad makes her look like a werewolf with hemmerhoids! It's the bad marketing that clouds what these people are REALLY about.
I mean, I could see myself running for office, say, Galactic Overlord in charge of Velcro distribution. All of the positive ads would have me standing proud, looking straight at the camera with a smile and Burger King Whopper juice dripping down my chin to show my patriotism, and the negative ad would be some shot of me that my daughter Natalie took of me while I was sitting on the crapper, making me out to be an agent of the Dark Side...with hemmerhoids! I could have shown the universe that Velcro is the glue that binds us and the galaxy together, but the shot of me "concentrating" would cloud my whole campaign.
So, tomorrow (or today which is the most likely), when you vote, try to look past all the ads, marketing and other gimmicks that cloud the issues...and get me and Berkeley some Preparation H if you're at the store!
Friday, August 10, 2012
Music Does Rescue
Thinking of the past...the DEEP past, recently. Not obsessively, of course, like my dream for old Hollywood Squares shows or EDGE OF NIGHT episodes to come on DVD. Someitmes I just lay in bed in the morning at peace and I think of the "good old days", whatever that means. For me, the good old days mean something completely different....they mean a time when I was relatively at peace with myself, liking me for me without giving a damn about anyone else's opinions. OK, fine, there was never REALLY a time like that, but of late I've been going through a change and with any change there's a thinking back period. The time: 1995, a year of true change for me. While there was a lot of unpleasantness then, the one thing that kept me going was...music!
Luckily for me, the music I refer to was not 90s crap. I don't think ANY of it was inspring, calming, or even angering for reaction sake. No, back then I was really into older material, generally 60s and 70s pop and rock. I made an audio tape long ago chronicling that peculiar year, and I don't know what happened to it to this day.
Early in the year, during the holiday break between semesters, I'd bought a tape of pop songs released between 1970-74. My favorite song on it was "Diamond Girl"...it made me look forward to coming back to school to see a certain someone again. Life at home was pretty tense between my parents and I couldn't wait to escape. That tape was played twice on my drive back to school in late January. Of course, there were other good songs on the tape: Mr. Bojangles, Midnight Train to Georgia, Venus, and You're So Vain, among others.
Two months later, I got the call that really changed my life...the call from my mom that she was divorcing my dad. I was torn apart by this, of course. As time went on, I was forced to as well. I continued to listen to oldies and classic rock. One night, Oscar night, in fact, I was working on a paper and had "American Graffiti" playing in the background. I'd never seen it before and was just loving the doo wop music that apparently George Lucas grew up on. That summer, I bought the soundtrack, along with some Rascals CD. I was also listening a lot to The Doors album "Waiting for the Sun", newly acquired the previous Christmas and first listened to on the drive back home for the summer...home, what did that mean anymore? Nothing. It was a concept split between a bed slept on for almost 20 years and a futon bed my mom got just for me when I visited. No, home was no longer San Diego. It wasn't really PA anymore, either. Although I was still entrenched in dorm life, I loved northern California more than anything else at this point, and was already growing anxious to return. The girl I liked that semester, well, I still liked, but there was tension there and there was someone else from my classes that I'd found interest in (ah, college!)
Well, an oldies/classic rock summer got me through what silence would have devastated: edge of sanity. Living with a newly divorced dad who felt guilty about dating, along with a pregnant sister and her toddler firstborn, and spending part-time with a newly-free and happy for the first time I could remember mom, was bizarre and quite troubling. Having a job helped, but hell was hell.
Coming back to school in August, I'd found a new interest in old Doobie Brothers music, particularly "Black Water". I felt free at first...then I met the 4th roommate that was to complete the roommate situation at school with Rob, Scott and myself...a guy named Ed. A new hell was emerging, but it wasn't really mine, it was his! Rob and Scott were good guys (and still are) and I didn't like subjecting them to my new anger at the state of my life. Yes, once I left the 2 nests, I felt ok to be angry about it all. Unfortunately, the stranger named Ed was the target of my anger and, later, some cruel pranks at his expense. Incidentally I feel bad about what I did now, but I feel no guilt about my feelings then. Around this time, The Beatles and The Yardbirds were finding my ears. Also, more Doors with "Soft Parade" and "Morrison Hotel". I listened to those albums coming home for Christmas in late 1995.
Early 1996 was much of the same, but the music discovery was dying down a bit. Emerson Lake and Palmer and America were ringing in my ears as well, but I had all the music I wanted for a while...also, Scott was subscribing to Time Life's Guitar Rock, so I was in music heaven while personal hell was just under the surface...and I mean just.
Now, 17 year later, I guess I've grown somewhat bored with the old music...I find myself skipping those songs on the iPod often. They don't hold the relevancy they once did, or maybe I just don't want to delve into that past much. Who would? 22 was a hellish year for me...and now I'm seeing 40 in 3 months. Only Paul Lynde holds the answers now, LOL!
Luckily for me, the music I refer to was not 90s crap. I don't think ANY of it was inspring, calming, or even angering for reaction sake. No, back then I was really into older material, generally 60s and 70s pop and rock. I made an audio tape long ago chronicling that peculiar year, and I don't know what happened to it to this day.
Early in the year, during the holiday break between semesters, I'd bought a tape of pop songs released between 1970-74. My favorite song on it was "Diamond Girl"...it made me look forward to coming back to school to see a certain someone again. Life at home was pretty tense between my parents and I couldn't wait to escape. That tape was played twice on my drive back to school in late January. Of course, there were other good songs on the tape: Mr. Bojangles, Midnight Train to Georgia, Venus, and You're So Vain, among others.
Two months later, I got the call that really changed my life...the call from my mom that she was divorcing my dad. I was torn apart by this, of course. As time went on, I was forced to as well. I continued to listen to oldies and classic rock. One night, Oscar night, in fact, I was working on a paper and had "American Graffiti" playing in the background. I'd never seen it before and was just loving the doo wop music that apparently George Lucas grew up on. That summer, I bought the soundtrack, along with some Rascals CD. I was also listening a lot to The Doors album "Waiting for the Sun", newly acquired the previous Christmas and first listened to on the drive back home for the summer...home, what did that mean anymore? Nothing. It was a concept split between a bed slept on for almost 20 years and a futon bed my mom got just for me when I visited. No, home was no longer San Diego. It wasn't really PA anymore, either. Although I was still entrenched in dorm life, I loved northern California more than anything else at this point, and was already growing anxious to return. The girl I liked that semester, well, I still liked, but there was tension there and there was someone else from my classes that I'd found interest in (ah, college!)
Well, an oldies/classic rock summer got me through what silence would have devastated: edge of sanity. Living with a newly divorced dad who felt guilty about dating, along with a pregnant sister and her toddler firstborn, and spending part-time with a newly-free and happy for the first time I could remember mom, was bizarre and quite troubling. Having a job helped, but hell was hell.
Coming back to school in August, I'd found a new interest in old Doobie Brothers music, particularly "Black Water". I felt free at first...then I met the 4th roommate that was to complete the roommate situation at school with Rob, Scott and myself...a guy named Ed. A new hell was emerging, but it wasn't really mine, it was his! Rob and Scott were good guys (and still are) and I didn't like subjecting them to my new anger at the state of my life. Yes, once I left the 2 nests, I felt ok to be angry about it all. Unfortunately, the stranger named Ed was the target of my anger and, later, some cruel pranks at his expense. Incidentally I feel bad about what I did now, but I feel no guilt about my feelings then. Around this time, The Beatles and The Yardbirds were finding my ears. Also, more Doors with "Soft Parade" and "Morrison Hotel". I listened to those albums coming home for Christmas in late 1995.
Early 1996 was much of the same, but the music discovery was dying down a bit. Emerson Lake and Palmer and America were ringing in my ears as well, but I had all the music I wanted for a while...also, Scott was subscribing to Time Life's Guitar Rock, so I was in music heaven while personal hell was just under the surface...and I mean just.
Now, 17 year later, I guess I've grown somewhat bored with the old music...I find myself skipping those songs on the iPod often. They don't hold the relevancy they once did, or maybe I just don't want to delve into that past much. Who would? 22 was a hellish year for me...and now I'm seeing 40 in 3 months. Only Paul Lynde holds the answers now, LOL!
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Whose birthday is it anyway???
An easy question to answer: if there is a birthday party for my daughter, who is the center of attention? Well, apparently it's my sister-in-law and her uninvited guest. Well, at least that was the case at my daughter's 3rd birthday party.
Let me step back a moment...rather, let me step back 35 years. The earliest birthday I can remember anymore is my 5th. We had our neighbors and friends the Kirkners over for dinner and birthday cake. I opened presents, and the focus was definitely on me. I don't mean to sound egotistical about this, like I was trying to steal the show, but the purpose was always clear that they were there to celebrate my day.
A year later, I had a much bigger party. The Kirkner kids were there, along with other kids on the street. I also had kids from my kindergarten class there. We had lunch, opened presents, and played games. It was fun! At least it looked fun from the pictures and home movies. The adults provided food, entertainment...and were supervising. It sounds strange to say that last part, but I'll get to that in a bit.
My next major party was my 9th. Once again it was kids in the 'hood and classmates. We went bowling and had hot dogs at the alley party room. Two years later it was Chuck-E-Cheese, a short-lived experiment at the Berkshire Mall. Same thing: we opened presents, then went to eat and have fun! My next (and last) party as a kid was when I turned 15. I had some guys over for a sleepover. We had pizza, cake, watched some movies (including one porn, I am not ashamed to say from a teen's point of view).
The running theme throughout all of these parties was that they were kid-oriented although adults were clearly in charge and supervising (but not hovering). It was the same when my sister had a birthday party. The only difference was that she wasn't trying to crash my parties...I just crashed hers like an annoying little brother was supposed to do.
Over the years, I know parties have changed. Sometimes there are themes (like a superhero or princess), sometimes a clown, balloon artist, or face painter is hired. There are sometimes also rented bouncers. I get that. The level of entertainment has increased somewhat with a lot of people. However, there are two things that should not go away: the kid-centered aspect and the parental supervision.
Since meeting my wife (actually, we met BEFORE getting married, a rarity in Vegas, I know), I have been exposed, many times, to a different sort of party. In this type of party, a very select group of adults are invited and they bring their kids if they have any. The men go to the garage, the women sit and text and talk about whom they have texted with (often a person sitting two feet away), and the kids are off riding bikes, playing video games, or sitting zoned off in front of the TV. Occasionally an adult will scream at their kid to ask what they are doing, just to practice parenting. The focus is not on the child, but rather on adults. At some point, gifts are opened and cake is eaten, but those are the only two times everyone is together, and it is less than 5 minutes of unity in total.
I'm not comfy with these parties. I generally don't hang around with the guys because all they talk about is what they did to make their car look cooler (not move better, strangely) and drink beer. I dig the beer aspect, but I'm a geek and could give a rat's ass about the cosmetic surgery.I don't want to hang around the women because I have an ancient form of practiced communication: I find common ground and TALK about that common ground. These women are all mostly tattooed, pierced, generally devoid of wordly usefulness. So, often my wife and I sit ignored. Why were invited (oh yeah, we're family) is beyond me. If we're not included, don't invite, we'll send a card later.
Then we come to my daughter's recent party. Granted, there were more adults because living in an apartment complex makes it hard to find kids Natalie's age. I sat with some of the invited guests to share recent life experiences and ask how they are doing with genuine interest. Then, some family arrives like expected and provide pizza. Then, more family arrives...with add-ons! Natalie plays with the kids as well as she can keep up. However, one family member and her friend gab on and progressively force everyone to hear them through sheer volume. A lot of times, the talk is not kid-friendly. At the end, we are left with two invited guests for Natalie to impress until she is wiped out then us adults continue talking pleasantly. I liked this part of the evening.
Am I old-fashioned? Maybe so, but I know the basics of a proper party for kids and lately I haven't seen one. Probably the last one was our goddaughter's party at a roller rink before she moved away. To conclude, keep it kid-centered, friendly, and together.
Let me step back a moment...rather, let me step back 35 years. The earliest birthday I can remember anymore is my 5th. We had our neighbors and friends the Kirkners over for dinner and birthday cake. I opened presents, and the focus was definitely on me. I don't mean to sound egotistical about this, like I was trying to steal the show, but the purpose was always clear that they were there to celebrate my day.
A year later, I had a much bigger party. The Kirkner kids were there, along with other kids on the street. I also had kids from my kindergarten class there. We had lunch, opened presents, and played games. It was fun! At least it looked fun from the pictures and home movies. The adults provided food, entertainment...and were supervising. It sounds strange to say that last part, but I'll get to that in a bit.
My next major party was my 9th. Once again it was kids in the 'hood and classmates. We went bowling and had hot dogs at the alley party room. Two years later it was Chuck-E-Cheese, a short-lived experiment at the Berkshire Mall. Same thing: we opened presents, then went to eat and have fun! My next (and last) party as a kid was when I turned 15. I had some guys over for a sleepover. We had pizza, cake, watched some movies (including one porn, I am not ashamed to say from a teen's point of view).
The running theme throughout all of these parties was that they were kid-oriented although adults were clearly in charge and supervising (but not hovering). It was the same when my sister had a birthday party. The only difference was that she wasn't trying to crash my parties...I just crashed hers like an annoying little brother was supposed to do.
Over the years, I know parties have changed. Sometimes there are themes (like a superhero or princess), sometimes a clown, balloon artist, or face painter is hired. There are sometimes also rented bouncers. I get that. The level of entertainment has increased somewhat with a lot of people. However, there are two things that should not go away: the kid-centered aspect and the parental supervision.
Since meeting my wife (actually, we met BEFORE getting married, a rarity in Vegas, I know), I have been exposed, many times, to a different sort of party. In this type of party, a very select group of adults are invited and they bring their kids if they have any. The men go to the garage, the women sit and text and talk about whom they have texted with (often a person sitting two feet away), and the kids are off riding bikes, playing video games, or sitting zoned off in front of the TV. Occasionally an adult will scream at their kid to ask what they are doing, just to practice parenting. The focus is not on the child, but rather on adults. At some point, gifts are opened and cake is eaten, but those are the only two times everyone is together, and it is less than 5 minutes of unity in total.
I'm not comfy with these parties. I generally don't hang around with the guys because all they talk about is what they did to make their car look cooler (not move better, strangely) and drink beer. I dig the beer aspect, but I'm a geek and could give a rat's ass about the cosmetic surgery.I don't want to hang around the women because I have an ancient form of practiced communication: I find common ground and TALK about that common ground. These women are all mostly tattooed, pierced, generally devoid of wordly usefulness. So, often my wife and I sit ignored. Why were invited (oh yeah, we're family) is beyond me. If we're not included, don't invite, we'll send a card later.
Then we come to my daughter's recent party. Granted, there were more adults because living in an apartment complex makes it hard to find kids Natalie's age. I sat with some of the invited guests to share recent life experiences and ask how they are doing with genuine interest. Then, some family arrives like expected and provide pizza. Then, more family arrives...with add-ons! Natalie plays with the kids as well as she can keep up. However, one family member and her friend gab on and progressively force everyone to hear them through sheer volume. A lot of times, the talk is not kid-friendly. At the end, we are left with two invited guests for Natalie to impress until she is wiped out then us adults continue talking pleasantly. I liked this part of the evening.
Am I old-fashioned? Maybe so, but I know the basics of a proper party for kids and lately I haven't seen one. Probably the last one was our goddaughter's party at a roller rink before she moved away. To conclude, keep it kid-centered, friendly, and together.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Batman's Temp
We've all been in that situation . You know, when you get an official court document that says you've been selected for jury duty. Yes, it's an opportunity to mix with other alien races, kind of like at the DMV, Social Security office, or the outlet center. These places should have the "Cantina Band" song from Star Wars playing over and over again. In fact, I think I've SEEN the actual alien band playing at the outlets near the carousel.
So, you're employed and need to let your boss know. Your boss is obviously happy to let you go for a day...NOT! Your boss needs you...not that the reverse is also true. However, your boss is a person short for a day and needs to deal with it...unless you're a teacher like me. In that case, I need to call a temporary worker, or, in the land of educational hell, this is known as a substitute. I used to be one, so I know. In fact, I spent 5 years after graduating college both as a temp for an agency and as a substitute teacher.
As in life, those 5 years had mixed results. There were some temp jobs that were easy money and fairly fun. The best one I can remember was filling orders for a scrip company. I got to meet some nice people to talk to during the work day and there was a decent cafeteria nearby. The rest were, well, jobs. One of them required a 40 mile round trip drive, and after a full day on my feet, I was tired. Then came the years of substitute teaching that were intermixed with the temp jobs. This was in Sonoma County, California where there were several school districts that needed subs. I had successful relationships with some districts and as a result I got regular work once I was established. However, there were the "hell" classrooms that seemed to lure me from time to time and there were some teachers that did not like my style (meaning I didn't read between the lines of their lesson plans or I did...some were impossible to please). As a teacher who has needed to call for a sub many times over, especially during my wife's pregnancy, I've learned to be pretty understanding...meaning I have literally scripted my sub plans for each minute, because we all know how nice kids are for subs, right? (loud chants of BS emanate!)
Emergency Alert! Alfred the butler is summoned to jury duty. Now, millionaire Bruce Wayne can obviously use his influence to get him off, right? NO! His alter ego Batman believes in civic duty. However, there is a problem: who is to tend to the Batcomputer and dust off all of the machinery if Alfred is not there? Yes, Batman calls up Gotham Day Workers. Shortly after Alfred leaves, there is a call from Stu, a 25-year old recent graduate from Gotham Community College with an associate's degree in music appreciation. He can just come to the Batcave, right? No! The location is a secret, so Batman has ROBIN dust while he drives to pick up Stu in the Batmobile, gives him a whiff of the Batgas (source of which is rumored to be the effects of Batcookies and Batmilk from Batman's visit with the Scooby gang), then brings him to the Batcave. Batman must then give Stu the required orientation (meaning, he gives Stu the dustmop and Pledge). Stu starts work while Batman and Robin go back up the Batpole, assumably in the Batshaft.
Stu minds his own business, right, like any good temp does? NO! Like any common temp worker, he sniffs around the place trying to familiarize himself with his surroundings, hoping to land a permanent position. He also has larger priorities on his mind, such as his break and lunch times. He constantly gets on the phone to Commissioner Gordon (since it's the only phone in the cave he can see) asking several questions. Gordon calls to complain to Batman only to get Stu, so a communication gap has occurred. Finally Stu locates the other phone and wonders why there's a line to Wayne Manor, where he temped as a bartender last month. Luckily, Stu is an average temp who never knew how to add clues, or numbers for that matter, which is why the associate's degree was a major award for him!
After about two hours, the red phone goes off, and Stu answers.
"Hello?"
"Look Stu, is Batman or Robin there?"
"Uh, no. They said something about fishing."
"Dear God! The Riddler just escaped from jail."
"I like riddles."
(Bruce picks up the other extension) "Hang up, Stu!"
"Please would be nice."
"Get off NOW!"
"I'm calling the agency. I don't need this-" Stu is knocked out by the Bat-a-rang, taken home on the way to police headquarters. Luckily, Alfted's knowledge of all criminal matters made him ineligible for any jury in Gotham City, so his service was done quickly and permanently.
Now, this was an extreme example, and most superheroes are not millionaires with butlers. However, I can gladly say that my temp days are behind me...for now (who knows what the older years will bring for me). If anyone needs a scrip order filled, I hear Stu is available.
So, you're employed and need to let your boss know. Your boss is obviously happy to let you go for a day...NOT! Your boss needs you...not that the reverse is also true. However, your boss is a person short for a day and needs to deal with it...unless you're a teacher like me. In that case, I need to call a temporary worker, or, in the land of educational hell, this is known as a substitute. I used to be one, so I know. In fact, I spent 5 years after graduating college both as a temp for an agency and as a substitute teacher.
As in life, those 5 years had mixed results. There were some temp jobs that were easy money and fairly fun. The best one I can remember was filling orders for a scrip company. I got to meet some nice people to talk to during the work day and there was a decent cafeteria nearby. The rest were, well, jobs. One of them required a 40 mile round trip drive, and after a full day on my feet, I was tired. Then came the years of substitute teaching that were intermixed with the temp jobs. This was in Sonoma County, California where there were several school districts that needed subs. I had successful relationships with some districts and as a result I got regular work once I was established. However, there were the "hell" classrooms that seemed to lure me from time to time and there were some teachers that did not like my style (meaning I didn't read between the lines of their lesson plans or I did...some were impossible to please). As a teacher who has needed to call for a sub many times over, especially during my wife's pregnancy, I've learned to be pretty understanding...meaning I have literally scripted my sub plans for each minute, because we all know how nice kids are for subs, right? (loud chants of BS emanate!)
Emergency Alert! Alfred the butler is summoned to jury duty. Now, millionaire Bruce Wayne can obviously use his influence to get him off, right? NO! His alter ego Batman believes in civic duty. However, there is a problem: who is to tend to the Batcomputer and dust off all of the machinery if Alfred is not there? Yes, Batman calls up Gotham Day Workers. Shortly after Alfred leaves, there is a call from Stu, a 25-year old recent graduate from Gotham Community College with an associate's degree in music appreciation. He can just come to the Batcave, right? No! The location is a secret, so Batman has ROBIN dust while he drives to pick up Stu in the Batmobile, gives him a whiff of the Batgas (source of which is rumored to be the effects of Batcookies and Batmilk from Batman's visit with the Scooby gang), then brings him to the Batcave. Batman must then give Stu the required orientation (meaning, he gives Stu the dustmop and Pledge). Stu starts work while Batman and Robin go back up the Batpole, assumably in the Batshaft.
Stu minds his own business, right, like any good temp does? NO! Like any common temp worker, he sniffs around the place trying to familiarize himself with his surroundings, hoping to land a permanent position. He also has larger priorities on his mind, such as his break and lunch times. He constantly gets on the phone to Commissioner Gordon (since it's the only phone in the cave he can see) asking several questions. Gordon calls to complain to Batman only to get Stu, so a communication gap has occurred. Finally Stu locates the other phone and wonders why there's a line to Wayne Manor, where he temped as a bartender last month. Luckily, Stu is an average temp who never knew how to add clues, or numbers for that matter, which is why the associate's degree was a major award for him!
After about two hours, the red phone goes off, and Stu answers.
"Hello?"
"Look Stu, is Batman or Robin there?"
"Uh, no. They said something about fishing."
"Dear God! The Riddler just escaped from jail."
"I like riddles."
(Bruce picks up the other extension) "Hang up, Stu!"
"Please would be nice."
"Get off NOW!"
"I'm calling the agency. I don't need this-" Stu is knocked out by the Bat-a-rang, taken home on the way to police headquarters. Luckily, Alfted's knowledge of all criminal matters made him ineligible for any jury in Gotham City, so his service was done quickly and permanently.
Now, this was an extreme example, and most superheroes are not millionaires with butlers. However, I can gladly say that my temp days are behind me...for now (who knows what the older years will bring for me). If anyone needs a scrip order filled, I hear Stu is available.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
A Possibly Treasonous, Yet Reasonable, Proposal
Imagine being a manager at McDonald's. You have the unfortunate task of seeing which illiterate applicant will cause the least damage behind the counter either money or fire-on-the-grill-wise. You interview several people, none of whom seem to be able to tell the difference between fries and a cherry pie. Also, a few of these people applied so they could work with their friends who somehow managed to get a job there. Finally, you come to the last applicant and have a wonderful surprise: she can read, has had previous customer service experience, and comes recommended from a previous employer. This is the person you hire.
Note the procedure: the manager goes through SEVERAL people before finding the right person for the job. He didn't select someone based on an employee's recommendation("Yeah, he's cool!" "I promise you she'll be in on time." "Oh yeah, she can talk with the two tongue studs.") In other words, there was no "party system" here.
All right, let's move down the road, say, four months. The manager is now reviewing each employee's performance. There are three employees that have been consistently late, rude to customers, been short on the register, and/or damaging the french fry fryer numerous times. There are other applicants ready to interview. Do you give them a second try and apply some re-training or do you decide to interview new people and cut your losses? This is a tough one. If it is their first negative review, some help would be the best way to go, since they may show some promise with assistance (take it from me, positive support is effective!). However, with a 2nd or 3rd negative review, it is time for new blood, right?
OK, now let's move from the McWorld of slightly-above minimum wage employment and into the realm of the Amercan Presidency. In our history, we've gone through over 50% of them without really checking their backgrounds, and DEFINITELY have not applied regular review with possible consequences for regular negativity.
This year, we are going to decide whether we have 4 more years of certain stress or 4 years of uncertain stress. Instead of dealing with debates and a lot of wishy-washy hemming around important issues, let's set some goals for these people (and i don't mean just the 2 we're usually forced to decide between, let's make it an open forum for ANYONE WHO CAN DO THE JOB!). Here are a few to start with.
1. A solid plan to make every public school student literate (and reaonable for teachers to implement)
2. A solid plan to balance the budget.
3. A solid plan to make America a quality-product producing nation (therefore economically strong and job-rich).
4. A solid plan to bring peace to the world (just kidding, I do not expect the impossible)
5 Most importantly: a solid plan to BRING GAS BELOW $2 A GALLON permanently!
All right, these 2 candidates present these plans to the American people. We're on solid footing already. There is no "secret plan" to be unleashed only upon election. That's like the McDonald's applicant saying they may or may not be able to work when scheduled if hired. Nobody without those plans is able to run for office. These 4 plans will be made available during the primaries. The next few months will be made open for plan analysis, background checks, waiting for the Fall TV season, etc.
Next, the election occurs. The candidate is inaugurated THE DAY AFTER HE/SHE IS ELECTED! There is no 2 months of lame duck, felon-pardoning crap. The winner moves in immediately...well, ok, let's give it a week. What fun is there if the previous tenant can't trash the place before moving out?
Let's move three months into the future. The candidate has had time to meet his/her next goal: meeting with advisors to begin implementing ONE plan, any of them. If they were successful and did not spend those months hiring high school or college buddies famous for making fake IDs, they get a positive review. If not, they are put on probation for the next few months. If the goal is STILL not met, a new election is in order, or the candidate with the 2nd-highest number of votes from November should given a chance.
Who does these reviews? Hint: it rhymes with FEEPLE, not MONGRESS, the BENNETT, or the KUPREME SORT. That's right, no politicians here. We want regular people with regular jobs and problems reviewing the President (the average McDonald's manager is a good example). The best question to start with is: what are you doing for us?
OK, that is my proposal for the overhaul of the election process. Yes, I understand this is possibly treasonous to the American way of life. But, hey, the system isn't working, people are scared as it is...and I can't understand the cashier with the 2 tongue studs!
Note the procedure: the manager goes through SEVERAL people before finding the right person for the job. He didn't select someone based on an employee's recommendation("Yeah, he's cool!" "I promise you she'll be in on time." "Oh yeah, she can talk with the two tongue studs.") In other words, there was no "party system" here.
All right, let's move down the road, say, four months. The manager is now reviewing each employee's performance. There are three employees that have been consistently late, rude to customers, been short on the register, and/or damaging the french fry fryer numerous times. There are other applicants ready to interview. Do you give them a second try and apply some re-training or do you decide to interview new people and cut your losses? This is a tough one. If it is their first negative review, some help would be the best way to go, since they may show some promise with assistance (take it from me, positive support is effective!). However, with a 2nd or 3rd negative review, it is time for new blood, right?
OK, now let's move from the McWorld of slightly-above minimum wage employment and into the realm of the Amercan Presidency. In our history, we've gone through over 50% of them without really checking their backgrounds, and DEFINITELY have not applied regular review with possible consequences for regular negativity.
This year, we are going to decide whether we have 4 more years of certain stress or 4 years of uncertain stress. Instead of dealing with debates and a lot of wishy-washy hemming around important issues, let's set some goals for these people (and i don't mean just the 2 we're usually forced to decide between, let's make it an open forum for ANYONE WHO CAN DO THE JOB!). Here are a few to start with.
1. A solid plan to make every public school student literate (and reaonable for teachers to implement)
2. A solid plan to balance the budget.
3. A solid plan to make America a quality-product producing nation (therefore economically strong and job-rich).
4. A solid plan to bring peace to the world (just kidding, I do not expect the impossible)
5 Most importantly: a solid plan to BRING GAS BELOW $2 A GALLON permanently!
All right, these 2 candidates present these plans to the American people. We're on solid footing already. There is no "secret plan" to be unleashed only upon election. That's like the McDonald's applicant saying they may or may not be able to work when scheduled if hired. Nobody without those plans is able to run for office. These 4 plans will be made available during the primaries. The next few months will be made open for plan analysis, background checks, waiting for the Fall TV season, etc.
Next, the election occurs. The candidate is inaugurated THE DAY AFTER HE/SHE IS ELECTED! There is no 2 months of lame duck, felon-pardoning crap. The winner moves in immediately...well, ok, let's give it a week. What fun is there if the previous tenant can't trash the place before moving out?
Let's move three months into the future. The candidate has had time to meet his/her next goal: meeting with advisors to begin implementing ONE plan, any of them. If they were successful and did not spend those months hiring high school or college buddies famous for making fake IDs, they get a positive review. If not, they are put on probation for the next few months. If the goal is STILL not met, a new election is in order, or the candidate with the 2nd-highest number of votes from November should given a chance.
Who does these reviews? Hint: it rhymes with FEEPLE, not MONGRESS, the BENNETT, or the KUPREME SORT. That's right, no politicians here. We want regular people with regular jobs and problems reviewing the President (the average McDonald's manager is a good example). The best question to start with is: what are you doing for us?
OK, that is my proposal for the overhaul of the election process. Yes, I understand this is possibly treasonous to the American way of life. But, hey, the system isn't working, people are scared as it is...and I can't understand the cashier with the 2 tongue studs!
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
A rare literary critique from Mr. Moore
In the past year, I've had the pleasure of watching the classic miniseries and the novel "Rich Man Poor Man". It's strange how I came upon it at all. My wife and I were watching "Any Which Way You Can", you know, a movie many consider to be in Clint Eastwood's low period (Clint and an ape sharing screen time is good evidence of that opinion!) However, his male co-star in the film, William Smith, did a good job playing Clint's fight opponent and eventual ally. I looked up Smith on Youtube and found some clips of him from this miniseries in 1976 playing a very menacing bad guy. In 2010 the miniseries came to DVD and soon after Netflix picked it up. We watched it over the course of several months, along with its lesser-quality sequel "Rich Man poor Man Book II", of which William Smith as evil Falconetti was the best thing about it. I bought the book "RMPM" and had a pretty good time over the Christmas holidays reading it. So, being the occasional literary critic, I decided to do a brief compare/contrast piece on characters.
In fact, the differences are MAINLY in characters.
1. Julie Prescott/Gretchen Jordache: In the book, there was no Julie Prescott. There WAS a Julie that Rudolph(Rudy) liked, but his young disinterest in love and romance prevented a future with her. Later, Rudolph met and married Jean Prescott when his business success was booming. She, like Julie in the miniseries , became an alcoholic coping with Rudy’s business and political successes. Jean, like Julie in the miniseries, does factor in to Tom’s murder.
Gretchen Jordache did not appear in the miniseries. She is the oldest of the Jordache children. She is the character that loses her virginity to Teddy Boylan, marries Willie Abbott, and has a child with Abbott named Billy. Subsequently, she divorces Willie, marries a screenwriter who later dies in a car accident, and then gets involved with another show-biz type. Being a Jordache, she endures a difficult adulthood as a result of being disowned by her mother Mary (father Axel Jordache for the most part disregards her presence). She is often cold, mean, yet vulnerable at all times. Brother Rudy bears her scorn and yet finds himself helping her when asked. He does so dutifully but without much love.
2. Falconetti: In the miniseries, Falconetti (no first name given) was a sadistic and tough sailor who intimidated almost all on the ship’s crew. Tom Jordache beat him in a fight and took his eye out. Falconetti was taken off the ship for medical attention. Later in the miniseries, he came back and, for some unexplained reason, targeted Julie Jordache for sexual assault (one could assume he did it to lure Tom in for the kill, though this cannot be proven). Tom, acting on a lead from a friend, finds Julie being molested by Falconetti and suffers some damage from a hammer before beating Falconetti. Tom decides not to kill the man, which turns out to be his undoing because after he is released from the doctor, he is blindsided by two thugs who stab him to death as Falconetti watches from the pier. In the novel, Falconetti is indeed the ship’s bully, and indeed Tom beats him up. However, his eye is not taken out. Tom proceeds to mildly humiliate him for a short time. Finally, Falconetti can take no more and he commits suicide by jumping into the sea. Tom is suspected of murdering him, but no charges are ever filed. In the end of the novel, a Yugoslav named Danovic plays the same role as Falconetti at the show’s end episode, right up to Tom’s death by hired thugs ( a theory of mine is that they changed Falconetti’s fate to cast him in the 2nd miniseries).
3. Teddy Boylan: Not much of a change occurs with this character, except that he sleeps with Gretchen in the book and not Julie. He is also more of a pervert in the book, as he takes Gretchen to a brothel for a session of voyeurism, which disgusts and arouses Gretchen at the same time. In the novel he also spends a lot of time with Rudy. He does this at first because he sees Rudy as a conduit to Gretchen, but later the time spent is altruistic (personally, I detected a hint of bisexuality in Teddy in the novel, but it was never acted on besides throwing a punch at a homosexual in a bar, perhaps to cover up). In the novel Teddy does not refer Rudy to Duncan Calderwood
4. Duncan Calderwood: Much the same in both medias, except that he plays more of a background role in the novel. It is stated that Rudy works for him at first for summer work while in the miniseries, Teddy Boylan referred Rudy to Calderwood.
5. Brad Knight: In the miniseries, he is Rudy’s friend and business partner. In the novel, his is more or less Rudy’s friend who turns out to be a poor businessman and crook that Rudy personally vilifies.
6. Willie Abbot: In the miniseries, he pursues Julie Prescott and marries her. They eventually divorce as a result of his drinking and adultery, and Rudy for all intents and purposes throws him out of town in exchange for money. Willie crashes his car in suicide. In the novel, he is married to Gretchen and they divorce, but the adultery is on both sides. He does not commit suicide, but disappears, assumably a drunken wreck.
7. Axel Jordache: the only real difference between the medias is that in the novel he defends Rudy from his French teacher while in the miniseries he defends Tom from the same teacher…a strange scene because in Axel’s other miniseries scenes, he is cruel and brutal toward Tom.
8. Professor Denton: In the miniseries, he is a professor that Rudy admires, but Rudy decides to protect his own interests instead of engaging in controversial political activities and testifying for Denton when he is accused of communism. The miniseries depicts Denton walking angrily away from Rudy after his rejection of help, hinting of possible suicide like other “red” targets. In the book, however, Denton moves to Europe to escape being targeted, but comes back with Rudy’s influence and support.
9. Rudy Jordache: the character development is basically the same. In the novel, he half-pursues a frustrated Julie who just wants him to finally bed her, loses his virginity to a lonely, vicious friend of Gretchen and Willie, then later pursues Jean Prescott and marries her. He becomes a successful businessman, and later mayor of Whitby and the father of two children with Jean. In the miniseries, he is obsessed with Julie Prescott and keeps pursuing her, but once they marry, he all but ignores her in his senatorial race. In both media, he is a shrewd businessman.
10. Tom Jordache: once again, mostly the same in both media in terms of character growth. In the book, he is kicked out of town for the cross at Teddy Boylan’s place and lives with his uncle. However, he does not meet Teresa there. Their meeting isn’t really explained, just that he married her at some point and had Wesley. His contempt for Rudy in the book is larger than that for Gretchen, and he doesn’t fully make peace with his brother until toward the end of the book. Also, his downfall in the boxing world in the novel is due to him being drawn to the good life in Europe, and therefore losing a fight he could have won easily. In the miniseries he threw it all away to find his son Wesley.
Overall, the producers of the miniseries had to make adjustments to the story, just like any adaptation. After being exposed to the story both ways, I prefer the presentation of the miniseries, simply because the story flows better, and there is more of a balance between Rudy’s and Tom’s stories. The book made Tom’s life a bit confusing as to why he ended up in the places he did. In the end, both media present a good story, and a classic dysfunctional family if I ever saw one!
Perhaps one day I'll consider doing a piece on "Fletch".....no, that'd be insulting the books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)