Saturday, May 19, 2007

Borders Crossing

I did something this evening I haven't done in a long time. I went to a bookstore.

There was a time when I rarely went three days without being in one of those places but since the advent of Amazon, that doesn't happen so often. I hear or read about a book I want and instead of making a mental note to pick it up next time I'm in a bookstore, I do a couple of immediate clicks and order it...and then I don't go to the bookstore because I already have all the new books I want. (I'm also buying fewer books then I once did owing to a lack of space and the fact that I'm on a lot of Review Copy lists so I get 'em free.)

A couple of brief observations from tonight's expedition...

• I breezed by the "political" section. It wasn't called that but that's pretty much what it was. I think it would speed the buying process if instead of shelving them alphabetically, they had one section called "Books That Demonize Bush and/or Cheney" and another called "Books That Demonize Clinton (Bill and/or Hillary)." It's hard to look at some of those covers and not think that there's a sizeable audience waiting, cash in hand, to read the worst — true or not — about the people they already dislike.
• I wanted to buy a copy of Vincent Bugliosi's new book on the Kennedy Assassination but the store only had one copy and it looked well-thumbed and a little soiled. It also looked too heavy to carry since I was walking home. Two more reasons to order from Amazon.
• A very short woman was unable to reach a very large book off a very high shelf and there was no store employee around to assist her...so I got it down for her. She thanked me and said, "I'll be around for a while if you need anything off the bottom shelves."
• When I do go to bookstores, I always see some customer doing a little rearranging of some shelf. And I always assume its an author jockeying for position.
• Lastly: Please, if you work the checkout counter at a bookstore, just ring up my purchases, run my Amex card and stick the books in a bag. It's not necessary to page through my selections, making little comments on why I'm reading what I'm reading. On the other hand, if I had that job, it would be hard to resist the temptation every time someone bought a mystery novel to open it up, spot a proper name and announce, "Oh, I read this one! Harry Murphy [or whatever the name was] was the killer!" I'd hate myself but I'd probably do it.

• Posted at 10:52 PM · LINK

Today's Political Thought

At the 1972 Democratic Convention, there were a number of heartbreaking moments — in every sense that the heart can break — but one that I recall especially was a big, phony salute to Hubert Humphrey. It was not phony in that the people saluting him didn't like or admire the guy. What was phony were the words used and the evasion of what everyone knew it was all about. Ostensibly, it was just a salute to Hubert H. and a thanks for all he'd done for his country and party, not necessarily in that order. But everyone knew what it was about. George McGovern was getting the nomination, Humphrey wasn't, and Hubert would be too old to run next time.

Actually, Humphrey wasn't that old. He was 61 in 1972 so if he'd run in '76, he would have been 65. That was the same age as James Buchanan when he was elected but he was one of our worst presidents ever...and anyway, that was in quite another era. Humphrey, due in whole or part to illness, was an old 61. He died in early '78. A few years later, Ronald Reagan was elected to the presidency at the age of 69 but he didn't seem that old...at least, not until near the end. I suspect even some people who loved Reagan in that job would now say he was too old, at least for two terms.

The '72 salute to Humphrey had as its unspoken message that he always seemed to his fans as a man who was destined to be president, like he'd almost earned the job/honor in every way save for being elected — and even then, he came darn close to that in '68. The whole tribute to him had the air of a consolation prize; like the party was saying, "Thanks for all your hard work, Hubert. We all agree you should have been president but somehow it just didn't work out that way."

I bring this up now for a reason...

I don't think John McCain is going to get the Republican nomination. Granted, it's not impossible but it sure doesn't look to be going his way.

McCain is 71. If he won, he'd be the oldest president we've ever had. I don't think that disqualifies him from the job but it almost certainly means that if he doesn't get it this time, he ain't never going to get it. To a lot of people, including many who won't vote for him, he looks like a guy who's earned the job the way Humphrey had earned it. Think what you will of the guy (and I'm sure disappointed by him in many ways), McCain has worked his ass off in public life and probably foregone much more lucrative opportunities in the private sector. That's above and beyond being a war hero and a man who, at various points, was widely respected even by his opponents. Unlike Humphrey though, he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to bow out gracefully and vanish into obscurity.

This is not so much a prediction as a vague feeling. Looking at those ten G.O.P. hopefuls in the debate the other night, I couldn't help thinking that one of these things is not like the others. Four or five of those guys have about as much chance at the nomination this year as I do and can't seriously be thinking they have a real shot at it. All but one of them have to be thinking that at worst, they're laying groundwork for a run in 2012, which might even be a much better year to be a Republican candidate for President. For the one — McCain — it's now or never.

You have to wonder if he'll support someone else as the Republican nominee or even go quietly into the night. Lately, there have been news stories (like this one) of the fabled McCain temper flaring up. It's not hard to imagine him blasting the G.O.P. establishment and/or maybe mounting a third-party effort. He sure doesn't strike me as a guy who's happy with some of the things he's had to say lately, kissing the butt of the right-wing base to try and get their support. And the worst part of that is that it doesn't even seem to be working.

Like I said, this isn't a prediction. It's just kind of a subtext I'm watching. If and when the nomination is out of McCain's grasp, will he explode? If not, what's to stop him? Is he going to support a nominee who advocates "enhanced interrogation techniques" and other fancy euphemisms for torture? Is there a role the Republicans can find for him that will keep him and his supporters in the fold? McCain's whole stature in politics for some time has been based on the fact that he was perceived as a highly-possible occupant of the Oval Office. Once that's taken away from him, he becomes highly irrelevant and I somehow don't see him accepting that; not without a fight. Do you?

• Posted at 3:06 PM · LINK

Today's Video Link

What shall I link to today? What shall I link to? Hey, I have an idea! How about this commercial for Kellogg's Apple Jacks, a cereal that I used to like even if I could never connect its flavor in any way to that of an apple? Yeah, that'll work.

That's Paul Frees doing the voice of the guy with the apple for a head, and I think Paul is also one of the bullies. The other bully voices sound like Mel Blanc, which I don't understand. Why hire Mel Blanc for two lines when Paul could have done them? Anyway, here's the commercial...

• Posted at 1:48 AM · LINK

Rumor Mill

Not long ago here, we had a discussion about newspaper strips that are passed on from their creator to the creator's child or children. Could it be that one of the world's most popular strips is about to undergo a change of management, going from its second generation to its third?

• Posted at 1:38 AM · LINK

Film Fan Fest

I spent yesterday afternoon at a luncheon held by the Pacific Pioneer Broadcasters, a club for folks who've been in broadcasting for at least twenty years. Among its other activities, it holds these events to honor people who've made important contributions to TV and radio, and today's celebration was all about my pal, Leonard Maltin. There was an impressive turnout of people who cared about Leonard to eat the rotten food that's served at the Sportsmen's Lodge in Studio City.

The dais of speakers was quite impressive. It included Norman Corwin, Bea Wain, June Foray, Margaret O'Brien, Hal Kanter, Stan Freberg, Art Gilmore, A.C. Lyles, Tom Hatten and Daryl Hickman. All spoke of Leonard's vast knowledge of movies, his diligence in researching and documenting history, and his unsquelchable enthusiasm for film. A few razzed him because they felt insufficiently mentioned in some book of his but all praised his fairness as a reviewer and there was a lot of mutual affection up there on the stage.

I don't have much else to report. Did I mention how terrible the food is at the Sportsmen's Lodge? Yeah, I did. The Sportsmen's Lodge is a hotel/restaurant in the Valley that has a wide array of banquet rooms and also outdoor "party" sites. On any given day, it's a veritable strip mall of weddings, luncheons, banquets, Bar Mitzvah receptions, memorial services, business conventions, etc. I keep attending functions there...and it does have a comfy, friendly atmosphere to the grounds. But the food is dreadful and overpriced...and I don't mean it's dreadful and overpriced the way banquet food is always a little dreadful and overpriced. I understand that the logistics and costs involved in such events prevent great cuisine and great value. It's just that the Sportsmen's Lodge goes the extra distance of making you feel personally abused and this doesn't really having anything to do with Leonard, does it? Sorry.

I've known Leonard since shortly before he joined Entertainment Tonight, around a quarter-century ago. The show keeps changing on-screen personnel but he remains since, after all, they need someone there with his expertise. The first time I visited the office, I was waiting for Leonard and someone asked someone else about researching some facts for a story. I heard the line, "We don't need a reference library here. We have Leonard." That's the least of his value to that operation.

Anyway, it was a good luncheon. I'd give it three stars. If I hadn't eaten the salmon, it would be four. Sorry, Leonard.

• Posted at 1:19 AM · LINK