Tuesday, May 18, 2004

Busy, Busy, Busy...

I've been helping the publisher get my new book, Superheroes in My Pants, off to press so I've fallen way behind in answering e-mail and doing other things in my life. Please forgive me. You can order a copy of this wonderful book here. Just remember that your purchase will entitle you to ignore all the plugging and badgering that will appear on this page in the coming months.

• Posted at 2:21 PM · LINK

Today's Political Rant

Back in the sixties as I approached the age of eighteen, a much-discussed topic in this country was The Draft. I don't mean to suggest anyone was talking about it because of me...but with the war in Vietnam killing so many American soldiers, and with so many questions about whether the battle was worth it, the topic was inevitable. My recollection is that the debate generally (there were exceptions) broke down as follows: You had your right-wing, conservative, mostly-Republican faction arguing that The Draft was a good thing; that any young man should be proud and delighted to go off and fight wherever his nation's military advisers wanted him to fight. Some, including the father of one of my closest friends, suggested that there was something wrong — in a moral and character sense — with anyone who had the slightest hesitation about military service. Against this viewpoint, you had your left-wing, liberal, mostly-Democratic faction suggesting, often cautiously, that The Draft was immoral and perhaps unconstitutional, and that simply as a practical matter, we would be better off with an all-volunteer army. It would be composed of folks who actually wanted to fight and perhaps make a long-range career in the military instead of resenting how it was disrupting their lives.

I followed the debates with obvious self-interest. As I recall, many in the first (right-wing) group reacted to the notion of a Volunteer Army as if liberals had suggested unconditional surrender to the Commies. During the '68 election, Hubert Humphrey was asked about ending The Draft and he gave an evasive, non-response along the lines of, "Well, as president, I'll look into the practicality of that." He was immediately bludgeoned by the opposition — Spiro Agnew, mainly — arguing that to even raise that possibility was an act of treason that proved Humphrey was unfit for office. Later on, of course, the Nixon-Agnew administration presided over the dismantling of The Draft, thereby taking pride in what they had previously dismissed as an abomination. I thought at the time that if a President Humphrey had done that, Nixon and his mob would have called for impeachment and for everyone responsible to be shot at sunrise. But it was okay when they did it and it seemed to work fine. It has taken until now for there to be any serious talk in this country about reinstating The Draft.

One of the big arguments in the sixties against a Volunteer Army was its cost. Some suggested it was distasteful and unwise to try and pay soldiers enough to make the military an attractive career alternative. I remember a guest on the old Lou Gordon talk show actually arguing that a good soldier was there out of patriotism, not avarice, and that as pay scales went up, the character of the American Soldier would go down. Gordon asked him how he felt about draftees who didn't want to be there at all, and the guy fumbled out some double-talk about how no one really didn't want to go to Vietnam...that was a lie of the liberal press. When reality fails you, blame the media.

The thing that really struck me as odd at the time was that the same folks arguing that it was wrong to throw money at soldiers were the ones admonishing us to "support our troops" by not opposing the war. They were also the same folks who attacked politicians as "weak on defense" if they didn't throw enough money at Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas, DuPont and other makers of military hardware. There was this idea that soldiers should accept low pay out of patriotism...but we shouldn't expect American Business to not make as much profit as possible off the war. We should not skimp on buying the most sophisticated, expensive planes in the world but we should not waste government money on the folks who fly them. Even today, politicians are attacked for opposing certain weapons systems...but it doesn't seem to be a sin for them to cut military pay or veterans' benefits.

I am no longer worried about The Draft destroying my life but I would hate to see it destroy anyone's. Our government is spending a ton of money on the war in Iraq (see here) and I don't think anyone doubts that a lot of it is either being spent foolishly or is just going into the pockets of suppliers and outside contractors. Before we bring involuntary conscription back to this country, I'd like to see us try to steer some of those Halliburton profits into the pockets of our fighting men and women. I think we should drop the hokey patriotic rhetoric that serving your country should be sufficient reward...and actually pay the military what it takes to have a first-rate, eager-to-serve army of sufficient size and morale. And I refuse to listen to any more admonitions to "support our military" from people who, when it comes to spending money, aren't willing to support our military.

• Posted at 12:41 PM · LINK

Tony Randall

When The Odd Couple first went on TV, I had a friend who had a connection to get us in to watch rehearsals. We'd go over to Paramount and sit in the bleachers and watch Tony Randall and Jack Klugman rehearse. What struck me about them was the thoroughness of two smart men who were both very committed to their craft. Actors who work on a sitcom know that the more days there are until the filming or taping, the more likely the script they're doing is going to be revised, often completely. On one show I worked on, none of the performers ever took the pages seriously until the day before...sometimes even the morning before the live audience arrived.

Not Tony and Jack. Even four days prior to filming, they took the script at face value, performing it as if that was the material they had to make work. It was fascinating to watch, especially when they'd pause and discuss each line and in an utterly selfless manner. I'm sure one of the things that made that show work — that made almost everything either man did work — was that they put the material ahead of their own stardom. Tony would suggest things to Jack and vice-versa and both would ask pointed questions: What did this line mean? What was the character's motivation for doing whatever he did? How could that information be conveyed via a different attitude or physical reaction? It was the first time — and one of the few times — I got to see dedicated, thinking actors think out loud and function as an ensemble. There is no doubt in my mind that each of them improved the other's performance.

Another key reason for that show's success was its fine crew of producers, writers and directors. One of them was my pal Frank Buxton and I awoke this morning to find this note from Frank in my e-mailbox...

I just wanted to make a huge acknowledgment of Tony Randall's life. His total dedication to our production of The Odd Couple was inspiring. He would work with us writers and directors all day and late into the night trying, as we all were, to make it the best we could possibly do. He was like a terrier. He'd grab hold of Felix Unger and shake him and bark at him and never let go until he was exactly right. He could be a pain in the ass, sure, but a great and productive pain in the ass as you can see from the results. I cherish my years on the show and having been a part of Tony's success.

It's often hard to say why someone has the career they have. But Tony Randall's was as long and successful as it was, in part because of that dedication. The obits I've read so far this morning all do a decent job of summarizing how expansive that career was, but fail to convey how many eras of show business and changing trends it spanned. He was always there and now he's not there...and I already miss him.

• Posted at 10:30 AM · LINK