My Aviary Addiction.

Fellow members, my name is Mark Rothman, and I am an addict.
Not to any drug.
Or anything alcoholic.
Or an abusive lifestyle.
Well, perhaps it contains elements of all three.
It is a game.
And there is no athletic benefit to it as there is to Wii Boxing.
Just a game.
A very simple game.
Called Angry Birds.
I while away far too many idle moments of my life playing Angry Birds.
Making those moments even more idle.

Angry Birds is a game that has been embraced by the youth of America.
And as far as I know, the world.
This makes it one of the few things I have in common with the youth of America.
And as far as I know, the world.

Angry Birds is compelling.
I play it on my IPhone.
For the uninformed, what you do is you hurl birds of various sizes and degrees of dexterity with a slingshot towards stationary pigs of various sizes and no dexterity.
When the Angry Bird lands on the pig, or on the piece of construction that lands on the pig firmly enough, the pig is destroyed.
When all of the pigs are destroyed in the same round, you proceed to the next level.
The birds all make very angry sounds, and the pigs all make laughing grunts.
I really don't want to hear the very angry sounds, or the laughing grunts.
This is because it is annoying, and it tips my wife off to the fact that I'm wasting my time playing Angry Birds.
So I turn off the sound.
As the birds are on my side, I never get angry at the birds.
Only the pigs.

You're playing this game in the hope that you get to see pigs die.
Growing up in a semi-kosher home, this is virtually a natural rooting interest.
Each level is a sort of clever geometric puzzle, where you try to figure out how to obliterate all of the pigs with the few birds you have.

The frustration is when you try and try and can't obliterate the pigs.
The fun is when you do, and go on to the next challenge.
You always want to get to the next challenge.
Many times it is easy.
Some times it seems near impossible.

When I had my Blackberry, my addiction was Brickbreaker.
That was a pretty good game.
The main order of business there was to try to beat your personal high score.
But it wasn't really all that creative.
Nor did it make all those angry noises and laughing grunts.

Technology has improved since then.

A free app was offered on my IPhone for Angry Birds, and I downloaded it.
After a length of time during which I became thoroughly addicted, and went through all the levels, I was offered the pay version.

See? That's how they get you.
Just like a Coke dealer.
I had to shell out 99 cents for the upgrade.
I bit the bullet and shelled it out.
I went through all of those levels.

Then I was offered "Angry Birds Rio".
Another 99 cents.

I see more on the horizon.

Eventually, it's going to break me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Wii Are Now Amused.

Okay.
So I tried the Wii Sports in my basement.
Golf.
Baseball.
Tennis.
Bowling.
Feh.
They all sucked.
My only hope for salvation was the Boxing.
It looked promising.
For one thing, you actually had to move around.
You actually had to throw punches, just like a boxer.
Exercise was beginning to take place.
Your opponents threw punches back at you, and here's the beauty part, if a punch landed on you, it didn't hurt.
That was always my fear in participating in REAL boxing.
That you could get hurt.
Here, you could get knocked down, you could get knocked out.
And it didn't hurt.
Actually, after a while, it DID start to hurt.
In my knees.
In my ankles.
Places where I've had surgery.
Or arthritis.

And this was caused by all the moving around.
I was almost ready to give it all up when my wife, a person much smarter than me, suggested that maybe I should wear an Ace Bandage on the sore parts.
Whattya know? I did that, and it stopped hurting.
Is it a matter of her being a genius, or me being an idiot?

I started by fighting easy opponents.
There are no options about how you start.
These opponents virtually never throw a punch at you if you are at all aggressive.
I felt like Joe Louis and his "Bum-of-the Month Club"
If you keep winning during the early stages, the opponents get tougher and tougher, to the point where it really gets competitive, and you can just as easily lose and get knocked out as win and knock out your opponent.

A word about the opponents: The graphics are not very sophisticated.
Even though the atmosphere and sound effects are great, the opponents tend to look like kewpie dolls.
They could do a better job there.
You choose a character for yourself.
Male or female.
And you take on all comers.
This presents a minor moral dilemma:
You occasionally face kewpie dolls who are women.
Even though they are kewpie dolls,I was raised to never hit a woman.

However, it also allowed me to act out some fantasies.
There are several women in my past whom I would have liked to have beaten up, but my sense of decorum wouldn't have allowed it.
But it's a great way to let out past aggressions.

You also take on opponents who are wearing eyeglasses.
I don't know what schmendrick thought of this, but it also flies in the face of my upbringing.
You never hit a man wearing glasses.
At least they haven't provided an opponent who is a woman and wears glasses.
That would be a double-whammy.

In any case, I invariably build up a major sweat when I participate in the Boxing.
It is great competition, and great exercise.
I particpate in Wii Boxing all the time.
And has made the purchase of Wii Sports well worth it.

Wii, Wii, Monsieur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Wii Are (For The Most Part) Not Amused.

My wife has continually been on me to get more exercise.
She is an exponent of this.
Even as I am writing now, she is downstairs in the basement, walking her daily mile on the treadmill.
To no avail, she has been encouraging me to do the same.
Or to at least take an occasional walk around the block.
My attitude about this is the same as it has always been-------
How do you keep score?
How do you win?
It's not that I'm so competitive.
It's just that I need something to make it not boring.
I admit to being one of the most sedentary people I know, but I'm not against the concept of exercise if it can only be made to be INTERESTING.

My wife recently attempted to rise to the challenge.
She purchased, and brought home, something called Wii Sports.
What it is, is simulated sports that you play with remote control devices that you hold in your hands while the sporting events appear magically on your TV screen, once you've hooked up the equipment.
I guess that eliminates some of the magic.

Apparently, this is something that is very popular with kids.
You'd think they would be more likely to engage in the real sports outdoors, or at least outside of their homes.
Because they are young enough to actually do well at these sports in real life.

So I opened the Wii Sports box, tried hooking up the equipment, and after several hours of it confounding me, was able to install it correctly.
I was actually eager for Wii Sports to actually provide me with some interesting exercise.
I was hoping for the best.
Because I consider myself too old to actually participate in most of the sports provided for real.
And I was never that good an athlete to begin with.

I looked at the menu of sports offered by Wii.
They consisted of Tennis, Golf, Baseball, Bowling, and Boxing.
I tried them one at a time.

1) Tennis---I figured that this would be a good one because Tennis always involved a lot of movement to cover the court.
I always used to build up a pretty good sweat playing tennis. It was a game that I used to actually be competitive with good players.
But this was doubles.
You weren't required to move much around the court.
And you weren't required to do much with your arm except make little baby swings.
It was very disappointing to say the least.

2) Golf---I was never very good at golf. But in this version, no matter how bad you were in real life, it was very difficult,if not impossible to hit a bad shot.
I've never hit a 240 yard drive in my life.
I never played a round of golf where I didn't top the ball at least half the time.
I never played a round of golf where my putts always went into the hole once they hit the green.
Here all those things happened consistently.
It was surreal golf, and of course, provided me with very little exercise.

3) Baseball----You only had control of the pitcher and the batter, which meant there was no strategy, very little arm movement and virtually no interest in continuing.

4) Bowling----There might have been some skill involved here, but there is not much exercise involved in REAL bowling.
A game that can be played while you are eating pizza.
It also involved very little exercise.

So that's four out of four disappointments.

My only hope left, before we were going to return the entire unit back to Best Buy, was if the Boxing was spectacular.
It certainly had a lot to live up to.
I was not optimistic.

What happened with the Boxing will be discussed next time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Half-Pink House.

For much of the time that I worked at Paramount Studios, I had an office that overlooked Gower Street.
Gower Street was usually featured in stock footage of the entrance of RKO Studios in the thirties and forties,with cars to match.
RKO went out of business, and my office, which used to be part of RKO, was now part of Paramount.
I don't know what you'd have seen if the cameras were turned around and you'd have seen the other side of Gower Street in the thirties and forties.
But if you'd looked out of my window in the seventies, what you'd have seen was a very seedy, slum-like neighborhood, populated primarily by Mexicans.
I'm not attempting to be racist here.
I'm just reporting the facts.
You didn't want my office because of the view.
It was a nice, roomy office, but the view was not one of the selling features.
I always tried to avoid driving down Gower Street to go to work.
I usually took Vine Street directly to Melrose Avenue, which at the time was also pretty seedy, but didn't seem as inherently dangerous as
Gower Street.
I did this because I was deathly afraid of finding myself stranded on Gower Steet trying to fix a flat tire.
This was NOT a safe neighborhood.
Even though it was right next to a major movie studio.
I tried very hard to ignore my exterior surroundings as much as possible.
Many days, you'd find me with the window shades pulled down.

But one day, something rather extraordinary happened.
I pulled up the window shades, and noticed that one half, (the left half, from my point of view) of a two-family house was painted bright pink.
I don't mean just pink.
Shocking pink.
The kind of pink you might associate with Pink Elephants.
Or the Pink Panther.
Or Pepto Bismol, but much more intensely bright.
The other half was gray.

This caused interesting things to enter my imagination:
The first, of course, being "Why is anyone doing this?"
The second being, "Why only half the house?"

You'd think that discussions between the two owners would have led to some negotiations and perhaps arguments as to whether this was a good idea.
And some settlement would have been reached to avoid this eyesore.
But maybe the two parties hated each other.
To quote the late, great Fats Waller, "One never knows, do one."

Now, I've never considered myself any kind of architechtural aesthete, but even I knew that this was an atrocity.

Literally two months went by.
I'd look out my window and see a half-pink two family house.
The other half remained gray.
And the owner of the gray half had to have been worried about the loss of property value of his home, being planted directly next to the pink half.
Not that the house could have been worth that much to begin with.

I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Would the owner of the pink half revert back to gray?
Or would the owner of the gray half bite the bullet and go pink?

A month after this, I opened the window shade to my office one morning, and the matter was resolved.
The two-family house was now entirely pink, in the exact same shade as the other half.
The concession was made.
Or perhaps the owner of the gray half found the pink starting to grow on him.
We'll never know.

In any case, it was Peace in Our Time, but the house now looked twice as atrocious.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Nanny Needs Her Louis.

Alas.
That's really all I can say.
Somebody decided to give Fran Drescher another TV series.
It's called "Happily Divorced" and it's on TV Land right after
"Hot In Cleveland", which I watch regularly.
Which doesn't help matters.
I can't stand Fran Drescher. So sue me.
It's not that she can't act. She can.
It's not that she doesn't have really good comedy chops. She does.
It's simply that voice.
And that laugh.
I can't get past either of them.
It's chalk on a blackboard.
It always has been.

I really thought that if anyone was going to be typecast after "The Nanny", it would be her.
Once it had left the airwaves, I had often thought "What the hell is she going to do with the rest of her life?"
I never figured "Another TV series".

And I was actually torn about watching it, at least once.
Rita Moreno was cast as a regular, playing her mother.
I love Rita Moreno.
I did a pilot with her once.
It was a joyous experience.
Mainly because of her. What a pro!

So I was, as Jimmy Durante would put it, "on the horns of a dilemmia".
One the one hand, Rita Moreno. On the other, Fran Drescher.
I Tivoed the first episode.
I started watching it.
Rita Moreno wasn't in the first five minutes.
Fran Drescher was.
So I never got to see Rita Moreno.
Five minutes was all I could take.

And I never went back.
And unfortunately, during "Hot In Cleveland", they do incessant promos for "Happily Divorced".
So I have to make sure that I Tivo "Hot In Cleveland" and only watch it that way and make sure that I'm quick on the fast forward trigger-finger.

Maybe she's a lovely person. I don't know.
I've never met her.
Maybe this is a harsh way to judge a stranger, but it's the only way at my disposal.

When "The Nanny" was in production, my friend Rick, whom I met when he enrolled in one of my writing classes, and has since become an outstanding writer, worked as a mechanic at LAX, working on the Lear Jets usually inhabited by celebrities.
Fran Drescher boarded one of his aircraft, about to fly off to somewhere.
One of Rick's other responsibilities was to help load the luggage into the baggage compartment.
Just as the plane was fully loaded, Fran Drescher's male assistant, described by Rick as overtly gay (he was probably a little more disparaging than that), went over to Rick and announced "The Nanny needs her Louis".
The assistant was referring to her Louis Vuitton travel bag.

Rick knew that this bag was one of the first things that was loaded on to the plane.
He sized up the situation, looked the assistant in the eye, and said
"Go tell the Nanny what she can do with her Louis!"

Imagining the look on her face when her assistant told her whatever he told her is my only pleasant memory of Fran Drescher.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you in the Tri-State Area, I'm doing a reading and signing of my book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", on Tuesday, August 2nd, at the
Huntington Book Revue, Huntington Long Island, at 7pm.
I look forward to seeing anyone who wants to see me.

******

The Weiner Comps. 7.

The two finalists come from the world of sports.
And neither of them are Tiger Woods.
Tiger Woods finishes third, in my estimation.

Without further ado, the two finalists are Bret Favre and Marv Albert, in how they compare to Anthony Weiner.
As they've both been anointed the semi-finalists, most of the grading here is how the two relate to each other.
How they relate to Weiner is secondary.

And it's neck and neck to the finish line.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--

Favre, although doing almost precisely what Weiner did, seems to have gotten you should pardon the expression a "pass" from the media.
His story has been relatively low profile.
However serious Marv's transgressions were, the media jumped all over him.
Favre, B+. Marv, A.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--

Favre--Not a great deal.

Marv, a humongous amount.
Favre, C. Marv, A.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--

Favre--none.

Marv--pled guilty to a misdemeanor.

Favre, A. Marv, C-.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--

Favre--no. He's still playing.

Marv--Originally, yes, but he's since made a full comeback.

Favre, D. Marv, B+.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
Favre--Precisely the same as Weiner's. It just didn't seem as creepy.

Marv--Although in a different category than Weiner's, at least as creepy, with the biting of the woman's back, and the wearing of women's clothes. Particularly with that bad toupee.
That's an image that sticks in my mind overwhelmingly for creepiness.

Favre, A+. Marv, A+.

This is the kind of thing that makes them both finalists.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:

Favre. It's not what I recall significantly.
Marv--did some pretty good lying until the truth came out.

Favre, C-. Marv, B+

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
They both have totally recovered.

That these are the closest comps bode well for Weiner's future by my scientific calculations..

My very subjective Overall Grades comparing them to Weiner:

Marv, A+. Favre, A.

Marv wins. A close call, but I'm giving it to Marv.

Yes!!!!! And it counts!!!!!

It's been a long journey, but now it's over..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you in the Tri-State Area, I'm doing a reading and signing of my book, "Mark Rothman's Essays" at the Westport Connecticut Library on
Monday, August 1st, at 7:30pm.
Also,on Tuesday, August 2nd, at the Huntington Book Revue,
Huntington Long Island, at 7pm.
I look forward to seeing anyone who wants to see me.

******

The Weiner Comps. 6.

I'm going to attempt to accelerate the process by taking on four candidates today.
And they've all been candidates, politically, at one time or another, as has Anthony Weiner:
President Bill Clinton, Governor Mark Sanford, governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Senator John Edwards.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--

Clinton--Really just infidelity, blown way out of proportion by the impeachment trial.
Sanford--Also just infidelity, blown out of proportion by the hike on the Appalachian Trail in Argentina.
Schwarzenegger--Just infidelity, complicated by nothing, except maybe a complicated divorce.
Edwards--Just infidelity, complicated by a wife who's dying, but whom a lot of people didn't like too much.
D's for all.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--

Clinton--Considerable, particularly to his family.
Sanford--Unknown, really.
Schwarzenegger--None to him, plenty to Maria and probably all the Kennedys, whom you'd think would be embarrassment-proof by now.
Edwards--Loads of embarrassment all around.
Clinton, B+, Sanford, C-, Schwarzenegger, B-, Edwards, A.
Those grades are based on Weiner's level of embarrassment being the highest.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--

Clinton--Found guilty of perjury.
Sanford--No crime.
Schwarzenegger--No crime, unless you count "Jingle All The Way".
Edwards--The jury is literally out.
Clinton, D. Sanford, A. Schwarzenegger, A-, Edwards, C.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--

Clinton--No.
Sanford--No, although he was almost forced to.
Schwarzenegger--Was already a former Governor when the scandal hit. Now back to making moom pitchas.
Edwards--Was virtually unemployed at the time.
D's for all.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--

Clinton--Paula Jones.
Sanford--Is it really creepy that it was apparently more than just sex?
Schwarzenegger--The potential menagerie of illegitimate children he has strewn upon the landscape.
Edwards--Rielle Hunter.
D's for all.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:

Clinton--Staggering.
Sanford--Considerable.
Schwarzenegger--Not really overt.
Edwards--Major.
Clinton, A+, Sanford, B+, Schwarzenegger, C-, Edwards, A.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:

Clinton--It's already been total.
Sanford--None.
Schwarzenegger--Depends on how the next few movies do.
Edwards--Less than none
Weiner, too soon to tell.
So, no grades.

Overall Grades comparing them to Weiner:

Clinton, C-, Sanford, C-, Schwarzenegger C+, Edwards, B.

We can do better than these.

Next time, the two finalists.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you in the Tri-State Area, I'm doing a reading and signing of my book, "Mark Rothman's Essays" at the Westport Connecticut Library on
Monday, August 1st, at 7:30pm.
Also,on Tuesday, August 2nd, at the Huntington Book Revue,
Huntington Long Island, at 7pm.
I look forward to seeing anyone who wants to see me.

******

The Weiner Comps. 5.

A couple of people who, prior to today, were probably never mentioned in the same sentence:
Michael Jackson, and Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagoyovich.
Two more different scandals could not possibly be imagined.
Let's see how it relates to Anthony Weiner.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--
Jacko---major questioning of his sexuality,his criminality, his pedophilia, and his eagerness to settle heavyweight lawsuits.
Blago---Similar type nicknames, but otherwise only questioning of his honesty and intelligence.
Nothing relating to his sexuality.
Jacko,B+. Blago, D.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--
Jacko--Perversion, proven or not, naturally leads to embarrassment.
Blago--Corruption in Illinois seems to be a license to not be embarrassed.
Jacko, A. Blago, D.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
Jacko--The jury is technically out, but in all reality, it's technically in.
You don't have fourteen children "Sleeping with you" and then settle all those enormous lawsuits.
You don't settle ANY.
The law must have been broken.
Blago---Was just convicted on most counts.
Neither of these really relate to Weiner.
He committed no crime that we know of.
Jacko, D. Blago, D.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
Jacko---persevered, somewhat successfully, until his death.
Blago--Didn't get to resign. Was essentially thrown under the jail.
Jacko, D. Blago, B-.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
Jacko---About as creepy as you can get.
Blogo---Creepiness not really an element.
Jacko, A. Blogo D.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:

Jacko--It's hard to know what Jacko really believed about himself.
Blago---Lying is in his DNA.
Jacko, C-. Blago, A.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
Jacko. He's dead, so none.
Blago. He's figuratively dead, so none
Weiner's odds have to be at least somewhat better than this
Jacko, D. Blago, D.

Overall Rating--Jacko, C. Blago, D.

Except for the creepiness factor for Jacko, there is no real comp factor in existence here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Weiner Comps. 4.

This one's virtually an entry:

Former Governor Jim McGreevey of New Jersey, and former Senator Larry Craig of Idaho.

The common threads: They're both gay, although Craig won't admit it.
And they're both politicians, like Weiner.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--
All there was with McGreevey was being gay.
He never portrayed himself as anti-gay.
He just was what he was.
Craig was the toe-tapper in the Minneapolis airport men's room.
However serious, it was an enormous brouhaha.
McGreevey, D. Craig, B+.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--
McGreevey did shlep his wive uponstage for the apology, but then sort of faded into oblivion.
Craig couldn't have been more embarrassing if he tried.
As was Weiner.
McGreevey, D. Craig, B+.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
McGreeevey--It's no crime to be gay, although many states would like it to be.
Craig pleaded to a misdemeanor.
No crime for Weiner.
McGreevey, A-. Craig, D+.
.
4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
McGreevey resigned.
Craig went down swinging, did not resign, but could not win re-election.
Weiner bailed.
McGreevey, A. Craig, C.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--

McGreevey----Nothing necessarily creepy about being gay.
Craig---Toe tapping in the public men's room? Pretty creepy.
McGreevey, D. Craig, A+.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:

I don't recall McGreevey lying.
I don't recall Craig NOT lying.
Nor Weiner. Until he got caught.
McGreevey, D. Craig, A-.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:

McGreevey and Craig are both gone. Probably.for good.
Who knows with Weiner?
That's what we're trying to determine.

Overall Grades: McGreevey, D+. Craig, B+.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Weiner Comps. 3.

Two members of the World of Sports today-----
Tiger Woods and Michael Vick.

1) Seriousness of the scandal--
With Vick, I guess it's a matter of how you feel about dogs, and dogs biting each other until one of them is dead.
With Tiger, it's how you feel about serial adultery.
There was a serial nature to both of these scandals, as there is with Weiner.
With Weiner, it's about how you feel about sending out pictures of your privates.
I am a dog lover, and am rather indifferent to adultery in principle.
So I give Vick a D, and Tiger an A.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--
With Vick, there was probably a macho element that appealead to his base.
Not much embarrassment there.
With Tiger, a mixture of embarrassment about how stupid he was to get caught so easily and how much it will end up costing,
and a certain swagger about being someone none of us ever pictured ever having sex or even thinking about it.
Vick gets a D. Tiger gets an A.

Tiger could end up being a finalist.
Far closer to Weiner than I had originally imagined.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
Vick went to the slammer for what was in fact his crime.
Tiger did not commit a crime.
It's starting to look like Vick doesn't even belong in this discussion.
And Tiger is looking better and better.
Vick, D. Tiger, A.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
They both took "time off" from their careers.
Vick in the slammer, Tiger in seclusion.
And Weiner resigned.
A for both Vick and Tiger.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
No sexual indiscetion for vick with the dogs (as far as we know), so it's not an issue.
With Tiger, it's not so much creepiness as silliness,
As I stated previously, what Weiner has admitted to seems pretty perverse, and he's practically a newlywed.
D for both.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:
Weiner was the only one carrying on about his innocence.
D for both.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
Vick's already back in the NFL. Away from dogs.
Tiger still seems to be struggling on the golf course.
Too early to tell.

Overall Grade: D+ for Vick. A- for Tiger.

Tiger has a genuine shot at this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Weiner Comps. 2.

Starting today, I'm going to attempt to take on two challengers at a time.
In this instance, two candidates who bring very similar traits to the table:
Former Democratic Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer, and current Republican Senator from Louisiana, David Vitter.
How do they compare to each other and to Weiner?

1) Seriousness of the scandal--They were virtually the same as each other.
Both involved cheating on their wives with hookers.
Spitzer seemed a little more culpable, because he had built a reputation for prosecuting hookers.
Vitter just did general moral railing against the idea of them.
Weiner, as far as we know, had nothing to do with hookers, or perhaps touching any women of any kind.
D.

2) Degree of embarrassment they caused to themselves and others--
Both seem to have survived their marriages
They both had their wives standing next to them when they made their public apologies.
And again, it was just hookers. How embarrassing can it be?
Both far less creepy than sending pictures of your privates out over the Internet.
Weiner has survived his marriage as well, so there's a limit to how low a grade I can give.
C.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
Soliciting prositutes is in fact a crime.
Weiner didn't do that, and as far as we know, didn't commit any other crime.
D.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
In Spitzer's case, yes.
In Vitter's case, no.
Weiner resigned.
It seems to be the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Spitzer, A.
Vitter, D.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
There's nothing perverse about the need for hookers in a marriage that has gone on for quite a while.
What Weiner has admitted to seems pretty perverse, and he's practically a newlywed.
D.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:
They all lied, but Weiner's lying has been a lot louder and more prolonged before he caved.
B-.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
Vitter's still in the Senate. Even got re-elected.
Spitzer had his own series on CNN, and there are already rumors about him jumping back into politics
With Weiner, too early to tell.

Overall Grade: C.

That they're all politicians indicate that I can't give it a lower grade than a C.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Just A Brief Note.

I watched "Curb Your Enthusiasm" tonight, and in a scene in a restaurant with Larry David, Richard Lewis, and Jeff Garlin, Larry tossed a
throwaway line: "Colonel, I had no idea that Marilyn MONroe was on the base".
A "Sergeant Bilko" reference that I have attempted to maintain the level of popularity of on this blog.
He did the full accentuation on the "MON".
Could he be one of my readers?
Or are he and I simply exactly on the same wavelength?
In any case, I'm pleased.

More Weiner Comps on Tuesday.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Finally, The Weiner Comps Begin.

Enough time has gone by that I feel that I have to restate the criteria for the Weiner Comps.
This will be based on several criteria:

1) Seriousness of the scandal.

2) Degree of embarrassment he caused to himself and others.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job.

5) Nature of the sexual indiscretion.

6) The extent to which lying was involved.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal.

See? That last one is what makes this a scientific endeavor.
The closest comp will be the best indicator of what will become of
Anthony Weiner.
So I'm not just frittering away my time and yours.
Along the way, we will visit the usual suspects.
And maybe some we've all forgotten about.
Grades will be handed out.
Much like report card grades.
Grades of comparability.
The one with the highest grade is the closest match to Anthony Weiner.

The one thing I can't quite recall clearly about all of these instances is which ones of these, for lack of a better word, scoundrels, actually had their wives up on stage next to them as they were apologizing to America as a whole.
Weiner didn't.
But I don't think that this is a major factor.
I think it's more of a reflection on their spouses than on the apologists.
If I do remember specifically about certain cases, I will certainly make note of it.
Again, as with other lists of this type, I pretty much have an idea of where I'm heading with this.
But in many cases, I will be flying by the seat of my pants in making the judgements.
And they will not be in any particular order, because I really for the most part don't know what the order is.

Let's begin with David Letterman:

1) Seriousness of the scandal---not nearly as serious as Weiner's.
Dave was able to make jokes about it as soon as the smoke was just starting to clear.
C-.

2) Degree of embarrassment he caused to himself and others--
The guy who was blackmailing him caused the embarrassment.
All Letterman did was have the affairs.
Lots of men have affairs.
Very few send pictures of their privates on the Internet.
Dave isn't a politician, nor has he set himself up as a paragon of virtue.
It's almost the opposite.
D.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed--
There was, but not by Dave. Nor was there one committed by Weiner.
B+.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job--
For Dave, no. He handled the whole thing with aplomb.
For Weiner, yes. He really botched the whole thing, P.R. wise.
D-.

5) Nature of the creepiness of the sexual indiscretion--
One was overtly sexual, the other was apparently just creepy.
Actually, considering how young Letterman's internes were, that was pretty creepy too.
C.

6) The extent to which lying was involved:
We didn't even know about Dave's situation until he openly made a clean breast of things. With Weiner, it was deny, deny, deny, until he was pinned to the wall.
D-.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal:
Dave recovered from Day 1.
We have no idea at this point with Weiner.
C+.

The only other thing they both have in common is that I've never seen either of their wives.

Overall Grade: C-.

I think we'll be able to do much better than this.

Well, this is your first taste of the Weiner Comps.
Hope you're looking forward to more.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Anthony Weiner Will Just Have To Wait.

I promise you I'll get to the Weiner Comps, but Anthony will most likely be around for a long time.
Sherwood Schwartz won't.
He just died at the age of 95.

Sherwood Schwartz was a television icon.
He was certainly the most influential person working in television regarding a specific generation.
Sherwood Schwartz was the creator and Executive Producer of "Gilligan's Island" and "The Brady Bunch".
These two shows had enormous appeal to the generation immediately succeeding mine.
I found this rather unfathomable at the time.
I've still never understood it.
I thought these were two of the worst shows ever to come down the pike.
The fact that the immediately succeeding generation embraced them as they did gave me the distorted impression that I was part of the last generation that had a genuine sense of humor.
And that I'll never be threatened by a future generation of comedy writers, because there won't be any.
But that kind of skipped a generation.
And a wave, a sunami, if you will, of new young really funny comedy writers took things over.
I wonder how much regard Tina Fey has for "Gilligan's Island" and "The Brady Bunch".
In my mind, these shows were never funny.
I even got the impression that they weren't even TRYING to be funny.
Except maybe when "Gilligan's Island" brought in the Harlem Globetrotters.
And then I thought it was just as a goof.
I mentioned in a previous article that some shows just strive to be FUN, as opposed to FUNNY.
I believe that these shows fell into this category.
And I suppose they succeeded in that regard.
To the point where people growing up with them can quote episodes chapter and verse.
I knew that Sherwood Schwartz was certainly capable of being very funny.
He was Red Skelton's head writer for quite a few years.
He used to write for Bob Hope.
These were very demanding men, and certainly no slouches when it came to funny.
So Sherwood must have been capable of playing hardball with the best of them.
But left to his own devices, he seemed to prefer softball.

There was one way that I did find "Gilligan's Island" funny.
If you watched it with the sound off.
You'd stare at the screen and continually be dumbfounded as to how the characters got from one location or scene to another.
But that was about it.

A couple of interesting things about "Gilligan's Island":
It only ran three seasons.
People think it must have run at least twelve.
No. Only three.
Also, it is fairly common knowledge that the actors did not receive much in residuals, and they ran out rather quickly.
So none of them got rich off of it.
Sherwood Schwartz made a fortune.
That's how it goes.
I've known several of the actors from it.
None of them begrudged Sherwood for this.
They all seemed to love him personally.
One of the great ironies is that there were others who profited quite nicely from it:
Phil Silvers' daughters.

Phil Silvers had a deal with CBS to do "The New Phil Silvers Show" in the early 1960's.
The show was not worth anyone's attention.
Certainly not anyone who had seen the Old Phil Silvers show, where he played Sergeant Bilko.
As part of the deal, Phil was offered profit participation in one of three sitcoms to appear on CBS's fall lineup that year.
One of them was "Gilligan's Island".
Another was "The Baileys of Balboa", which starred his old Colonel, Paul Ford.
I forget what the third one was.
Phil, for what must have seemed a mystifying reason to some, chose "Gilligan's Island".
And his daughters have been living high off the hog ever since.
That's why, if you notice in the "Gilligan's Island" credits, it says that it is a "Gladasya" production.
"Gladasya" was Phil Silvers' eternal catchphrase.
I consider this all ironic because one of the worst sitcoms ever done provided wealth for the family of one of the purveyors of the best sitcom ever done.

I had an opportunity to meet Sherwood Schwartz about twelve years ago.
He attended one of my plays in Los Angeles.
He attended because Dawn Wells, who played Mary Ann on "Gilligan" was the female lead.
Sherwood Schwartz was a class act.
At least that night.
Whenever industry people attend plays in L.A., particularly important ones like Sherwood, they expected to be comped into the theatre.
Sometimes they'd be adamant about it.
Sherwood Schwartz arrived at the theatre.
I recognized him immediately.
I assumed Dawn had left tickets for him, as comps.
No.
Sherwood reached into his wallet, pulled out cash, and paid full price for his tickets.
I was impressed.

Afterwards, Dawn introduced me to Sherwood.
He couldn't have been more complimentary about the play and my work on it.
He did a complete analysis on it that I, of course, thought was dead on.

As a result of that evening, Sherwood Schwartz could do no wrong.
And I'm very sad to learn of his passing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Weiner Comps.

Maybe you've noticed.
Maybe you haven't.
But I have not written one word about the Anthony Weiner scandal.
Until now.
And now, I'm probably the last person with a blog to bring up the subject.
"Why?", you might ask.
Because while it was on the front page of every newspaper, I simply didn't think I had anything to add to the discussion.
It has taken me all this time to realize that I do.
So even though I'm late to the party, I'm now going to jump in.

Over at least the next couple of sessions, I'm going to try to determine the closest comparable celebrity scandal to Anthony Weiner's.
Much like I did when trying to come up with the closest comparable singer to Eddie Fisher the week that he died.
And just recently, by determining that Walter Matthau was the closest comparable actor to Peter Falk.

This will be based on several criteria:

1) Seriousness of the scandal.

2) Degree of embarrassment he caused to himself and others.

3) Whether or not an actual crime was committed.

4) Whether or not the scandal caused him to resign from his job.

5) Nature of the sexual indiscretion.

6) The extent to which lying was involved.

7) The likelihood of his recovering from the effects of the scandal.

See? That last one is what makes this a scientific endeavor.

The closest comp will be the best indicator of what will become of
Anthony Weiner.

So I'm not just frittering away my time and yours.

Along the way, we will visit the usual suspects.
And maybe some we've all forgotten about.
Grades will be handed out.
Much like report card grades.
Grades of comparability.
The one with the highest grade is the closest match to Anthony Weiner.

The one thing I can't quite recall clearly about all of these instances is which ones of these, for lack of a better word, scoundrels, actually had their wives up on stage next to them as they were apologizing to America as a whole.
Weiner didn't.
But I don't think that this is a major factor.
I think it's more of a reflection on their spouses than on the apologists.
If I do remember specifically about certain cases, I will certainly make note of it.

So, see ya next time, as we dig in to "The Weiner Comps".

Let the fun begin!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Know Your Audience. 2.

Harkening back to last time, when you are in a position of power over people who are trying to force spec scripts upon you, what factors are usually applied that determine whether or not you actually open the envelope containing said spec script, leaving you open to possible litigation and probable embarrassment if you are trapped into having to offer an opinion about what you have read?

In one instance early on in my career, when I was head writing on "The Odd Couple", when I was still somewhat of a softy, I insisted that
another letter be sent along absolving me from any charges of plagiarism.
I only made this insistence after outright pleading and begging over the phone by the prospective spec script submitter, before we had the screening process down to an exact science.
Many promises were made by the submitter.
About how this was easily the best spec script I was ever going to receive.
About how he knew "The Odd Couple" inside and out.
About how everyone he had shown the script to had told him that it was the best "Odd Couple script they had ever read.
This begs the question "How many "Odd Couple" scripts could everyone he had shown his script to have read?"
I was dubious at the prospect, but I had been systematically worn down.

So I received the letter of absolvement, and opened the envelope.
At least it was the right length, unlike the page-and-a-half full of "Howyoudo's" submitted by my relatives, which was never actually in an envelope to be returned unopened.
But that's the best that could be said about it.
In most respects, it was far worse than the page-and-a-half full of "Howyoudos".

The word most accurately describing it was "belabored"
It contained this massive, pointless scene about how Murray the Cop was eating a hamburger, and the thrust of the alleged comedy was how his breath was making Felix and Oscar nauseous because it smelled from onions.
Fifteen minutes of dialogue about onions and Felix and Oscar being nauseous about it.

It also had the added bonus of consistently having the word "onions", whether in dialogue, or description, spelled "Oinions".
And the payoff to the scene, which involved Murray having not the slightest clue why Felix and Oscar were acting less than positive towards him, was Felix saying to him "Murray, it's because you're eating OINIONS!"
(His caps, not mine)
We went into full "avoiding ever taking this spec script submitter's calls in the future" mode.
But some people are just too persevering.
These were the days before Caller I.D, and it was too easy for any caller to get through if he happened to pick the right time.
So I found myself confronted once again by this man, who tried to pin me down about the script.
At first, I told him there was nothing wrong with it.
I was met with "So when are you going to shoot it?"
I then had to inform him that we weren't going to shoot it.
I was then met with "I don't understand. Why wouldn't you shoot it? All my friends think it's great!"
I had to explain that all of his friends don't work on this show.
He pinned me down to the point that I had to break down and tell him that not only wasn't it going to be shot, but it was immediately going to be thrown into the trashcan.
It was easily the worst spec script we had ever read.
"What was wrong with it?" he inquired.
"What wasn't?. You gave more dialogue to Murray the Cop than to Oscar and Felix. You did a fifteen minute scene on making people nauseous, which would likely make the audience nauseous too. And you consistently misspelled "onions", turning it into "oinions".
He responded "Well that was just a typo."
I said "It's a typo if you do it once. After ten times, it's a lifestyle".

It soon became clear to him that we were not going to do his script.
I'm sure he had lovely things to say about me to his friends who adored the script.

To this day, in my house, and in my sister's house (My sister used to work for me at the time), the word "onions" doesn't exist.

It has been replaced, now and forever by "oinions".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Know Your Audience.

When you are in a position of power in the world of television or film writing, you have to exercise much caution about accepting spec scripts.
For various reasons.
One is that you always run the risk of being sued if there is the trace of a notion in something you've written that shows up on the screen that even slightly resembles a piece of spec material you've received.
Spec material is usually quite awful, so having to steal from a spec script makes you a particularly low brand of lowlife.
Good spec material is so much more the exception than the rule.
It's how I got my start, so early on in my career, I suppose I was a little more sympathetic than most.
But I usually wouldn't read any of it.
It was usually returned unopened, sparing me from any conceivable litigation.
But occasionally, I was forced, yea confronted, with spec material that was already opened, and was forced to read and comment upon.

I mentioned that when I was recently in Arizona, and a ten year old child and I were discussing Black and White TV, that she was also a writing student.
And that she asked me some questions about writing.
And that my answers satisfied her.
This was one of the stories I told her--------

A couple of close family members were invited to my house during my one-season wonder days in the late 70's.
Blood relatives.
People I couldn't throw out of my house.
There was information that they had withheld from me about their appearance that evening.
They had collaborated on a script for my current series.
They had high hopes for this collaborative effort.
This was going to skyrocket them into a show business success at least equal to their relative.
Meaning me.
I wasn't at all concerned in the least about getting sued.
But I was going to have to read it.
In front of them.
And I, being the worst poker player in the world, could not possibly bullshit my way into convincing them that I loved it if in fact I didn't.
Nor could I conceal my rage at being imposed upon like this.
So I guess I was praying that it would in fact be great, and be the answer to their show business prayers.
My prayers were not answered.
One of the main problems was that most scripts for half-hour sitcoms were between 40 and 50 pages.
This script was a page-and-a-half.
Noticing this, I thought to myself "This had better be the best page-and-a-half ever written, or it's going to be a Red Alert."
It wasn't the best page-and-a-half ever written.
It was an atrocity.
At this point, it's brevity was an asset.
Aside from it's poor punctuation and grammar, it contained a Cardinal Sin.
My friends and I, some writers, some just friends, had an expression that we used with each other.
To make each other laugh.
It was derived from Buddy Hackett's Chinese Waiter routine.
In it, he would greet each customer by saying, in an Oriental accent, "Howyoudo???!!!"
So my friends and I would always find ways to pepper our conversations with "Howyoudo????!!!".
It usually made us laugh quite consistently.

I swear to you, in that page-and-a-half, there were at least eight "Howyoudo???!!!!'s".
I said to my relatives, what's with all the "Howyoudo's"?
They responded with "Well you and your friends are always saying it.
We thought you'd think it was funny".

I had to say to them, "You know, I've been involved in an awful lot of half-hour sitcoms.
You've come to an awful lot of filmings of them.
Have you ever, once, in your whole lives, ever hear one of our characters ever say "Howyoudo"?
They replied that they hadn't.
I pressed ahead.
"Has it ever occurred to you WHY you've never heard any of our characters say "Howyoudo"?
They admitted that it never had occurred to them.
I continued. "Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the audience wouldn't have the slightest idea why they WOULD say "Howyoudo"?
That maybe it was just an inside joke among friends?
That it was not meant for America's ears?
And if it was, it would require a lot of explanation?
Which isn't provided in your page-and-a-half?"

Seeing that their hopes were dashed, they gave up.

I wished they had seen it before they put me through my ordeal, and I put them through theirs.

So my lesson to that little girl in Arizona was "If you want to write sitcoms know who you are writing for.
You're not writing for your own amusement.
You're not writing for your friends.
You're writing for millions of people whom you don't know personally.
If you can bring your own voice to it, that's great.
But first and foremost, you're writing for America.
And if you get really lucky, you're writing for the world".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

Renovations.

I mentioned yesterday that my essay schedule will be altered somewhat, now that the Game is gone.
I will still attempt an average of three essays a week, but they most likely will not be on three consecutive days.
They will be spread out throughout the week.
With no particular pattern to it.
My work plate is starting to fill up more than I thought it would, and I'm afraid that if I am faced with the usual deadlines that I've usually imposed on myself on the blog, I will be dealing with unnecessary pressure.
I'd like to keep whatever standards have been established in your eyes around here on the same level.
I think I can.
But in order to do that, I need to give myself a little breathing room.
Check in on me as often as you usually do, and you most-likely won't be missing anything.

So, farewell to Tuesday Weld, Wednesday Addams, and Floyd Thursby as we have come to know them.

And I'm definitely taking tomorrow off.

After that, kien sabe?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

You Can't Take Me Anywhere. Chapter 26.

I've reached a certain age where I don't take any shit from anybody anymore, and I don't give a shit what I say to anybody anymore.
Actually, I reached this certain age about twenty years ago, but it's just now becoming fashionable.
In any case, this can be a deadly combination.
Particularly if you're my wife, and you otherwise enjoy going out in public with me.
This past week, we went out to our local Sushi place.
A rather upscale establishment.
We love the Soosh, and go just about every week.
On this particular occasion, we found ourself seated next to a group of thirtyish, articulate women.
We could tell that they were articulate, because they wouldn't stop talking .
Articulately.
A problem developed.
Also at their table was a little girl.
I don't know how old she was.
Could have been anywhere from three to six.
I really can't tell these things.
Anyway, it was apparent that one of these articulate women was this little girl's mother.
I couldn't be positive which one, but I had my suspicions.
And this very cute little girl began banging out a pretty good rhythm with her chopsticks.
I was impressed.
Except for the fact that it was on our table.
A fact that went unnoticed by any of those articulate women, who continued on being articulate with each other, ignoring the fact that one of their children was knocking out a pretty good Gene Krupa impression with her chopsticks on our table.
Now, I had nothing against the little girl.
I mean, she was anywhere from three to six.
What did she know about restaurant etiquette?
But I started fuming at the little girl's mother, having a pretty good idea as to which one she was.
I stared down this woman, and asked, out loud, "Is this MY kid?"
She replied "Excuse me?"
I replied "You know. This one here. The one doing Gene Krupa on my table."
"Gene who?"
Obviously the wrong reference.
How could I expect anyone in their thirties, even someone articulate, to be any kind of aware of Gene Krupa?
I simplified things.
"She's bangin' away with her chopsticks on my table!"
She responded with "It's not your table. It's the restaurant's table".
This gave me pause.
The kind of pause in which I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
I said "So that makes it all right?"
Miss Articulate says "That's no reason to be rude" about it."
I said "There's EVERY reason to be rude about it!
You're out in public with your kid, you're responsible for her.
You started the rudeness.
I'm just indulging in rude counterpunching.
How'd you like it if I leaned into your table and began using your table as a drumset?
Or would it still be just the restaurant's table?!"

I left her very little wiggle room, except for "My child is not a kid.
A kid is a Billy Goat".

I laughed in her face---"Billy Goat? Is that the best you've got?"

As she and her crew hadn't ordered yet they all followed her lead, and decided to dine elsewhere.

As they were leaving the restaurant, I leaned back and shouted to them "Gene Krupa was a great drummer. Played with Benny Goodman.
You probably never heard of him either!
I'm here every week! Come back any time!

They were gone.
During all this, I hadn't once looked at my wife to see what her reaction was to all of this.
I can never be quite sure where she stood after any of my occasional outbursts.
But it turned out that she was as put off by this woman as I was.
And wasn't too thrilled with the kid, excuse me, Billy Goat, either.

So I was that all too seldom a thing in her eyes: A hero.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

The Mystery Of The Gaylords.

I had this show, "That's Amore!---Italian American Favorites", sitting on my Tivo for the longest time.
Never getting around to watching it.
It was on my local PBS station, and consumed two and a half hours of Tivo time, which meant it was probably about ninety minutes including pledge breaks.
It took me all that time to get around to watch it because it was hosted by Danny Aiello.
Never my idea of a good time.
Danny Aiello tends to go over the top in just about everything he does.
Maybe this is somebody's idea of a good time.
But not mine.
This show contained clips of just about everybody who had anything to do with singing Italian songs.
I liked all of those singers.
So I knew that at some point, the day of reckoning would come, and I'd sit down and watch this show, which would most-likely have wonderful clips, and most likely have Danny Aiello's over-the top effusiveness.
Or, to be more specific, Danny Aiello's nauseatingly over-the top effusiveness.
And a ton of pledge breaks that I would have to skip through.
But eventually, I braved the elements.
The clips were for the most part, great.
Great Italian singers like Perry Como, Julius La Rosa, Bobby Darin, Doninico Modugno ("Volare"), Vic Damone, Connie Francis, mostly in old black-and white archival footage.
The rest in fairly recent concert footage.
There, we got to see 93 year old Frankie Laine, literally at death's door, singing "That's My Desire".
And 94 year old Jew Tony Martin, singing "There's No Tomorrow".
In his case, it seemed fitting.
Although he's still around.
And other singers who weren't Italian, but made some of their bones by singing Italian songs.
That famous Italian singer Eddie Fisher, that famous Italian singer Rosemary Clooney, who was Irish and came from Kentucky.....
Okay. She did sing "Come on-a My House", which was actually Armenian, but there WAS "Mambo Italiano", which was featured prominently.
So I guess it fit.
What never fit was Danny Aiello's nauseating effusiveness.
It made me start praying for pledge breaks.
Then, about two thirds into the show, something startling happened.
At least to me.
Danny Aiello nauseatingly effusively introducing a singing group called "The Gaylords".
I wasn't expecting any surprises.
I didn't expect to see anyone I wasn't thoroughly familiar with.
But this trio comes on, in what was obviously fairly recent conert footage, singing a song called "From the Vine Came The Grape".
And it was terrific.
The lead singer had one of the worst toupees you could imagine.
But it was the kind of thing you could overlook.
That's how good they were.
My immediate thought was "Why have I, who knows everything about show business, particularly from that era, the pre rock and roll era,
never heard of the Gaylords?"
I was baffled.
I looked them up on Wikipedia, where I learned that they had the only record that made the charts on the extremely successful "Isle Of Capri".
How could I not know that?
Was I losing it?
I feared for my mental capacity.
My next thought was to go to Amazon, and see what I could find on The Gaylords.
They had one 2 CD set, that I immediately ordered.
I put it in my CD player in my car. It's terrific.

I'm traveling with my wife in the car. I have the Gaylords CD on.
My wife has always had a rather spotty history in terms of what celebrities she knows and what ones she doesn't.
Expecting nothing but ignorance on her part, I asked "Do you happen to know who's singing?"
Without missing a beat, she responds "Sounds like the Gaylords".
I was floored.
It's one thing for her to have a spotty history about celebrities.
But I DON'T have a spotty history.
I know everybody.
Or at least I thought I did.
But for HER to have knowledge that I didn't have?
Unfathomable.
About a week later, I'm driving in my car with my brother-in-law.
Someone with absolutely no show-business background.
He fixes windows for a living.
Our conversations are usually dominated by talk about sports.
We're listening to the Gaylords.
I just casually ask him if he knows who's singing.
He immediately shoots back "The Gaylords".
I was now officially in the Twilight Zone.
This does not compute.
Shortly thereafter, I sit my wife and my brother in a room and say "Okay. Are you Gaslighting me?
How come the Gaylords come trippingly off your tongues, and I never heard of them before a few weeks ago?"
One of them offers up "Well, we used to hear them on the radio all the time when we were growing up here in Detroit.
It turns out that the Gaylords were from Detroit. It was their base of operations.
They were much bigger in Detroit than anywhere else.
That's why my wife and my brother-in-law knew of them, and I didn't.

What it boiled down to was location, location, location.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


******

How To Watch MSNBC. 3.

Coming down the homestretch, some words about Ed Schultz, who hosts "The Ed Show" at 10pm on MSNBC.
You'd think there'd be room for his entire name.
Seems rather too informal, don't you think?
Actually not.
Ed is not a particularly formal guy.
Being from the Midwest. he is rather homespun and folksy.
It is reflected in his sense of humor.
But Will Rogers, he's not.
He is very outgoing.
The kind of guy you'd meet at a party and expect him to slap you on the back.
He is definitely the kind of guy who pats himself on the back.
Constantly.
But I like Ed, and I like his show.
Despite the excesses.
His heart is definitely in the right place, and he is perhaps more of an overt crusader than anyone else they have.
He'll mix it up with the folks on location much more than the others.
More backs to slap.
And more people to slap his.
He does a lot of ranting in the first few minutes of his show.
Get the point of the rant, then hit the fast forward on the Tivo until the first guest.
He is less effective with a guest who agrees with him.
It becomes a bit of a love fest.
When that happens, move on.
He's much better when there is one-on-one conflict.

One really annoying and stupid thing he does:
He rallies his audience nightly to get out their cell phones to respond to a poll question.
Whatever the issue is, the question is always along the lines of "Who's right? The Democrats, or the Republicans?
And he wants people to spend their good money to text their responses.
And the results are always the same.
They always overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats.
Since the demographic for his show and everything else on MSNBC Primetime is overwhelmingly Left Wing, what does this prove?
This is an utterly pointless exercise.
But we go through it every show.

Ed seems to find the real dregs of Conservative spokespeople to get into shouting matches with his Liberal opponents.
He has this one woman, Heidi Harris, who is just oh so slightly to the left of Ann Coulter in her politics and her ability to frighten children.

But he has the good taste to usually devote the last five or six minutes to a professional Left Wing comedienne, such as Lizz Winstead or
Stephanie Miller.
And they are usually pretty funny.
So Ed does defer to the pros here and there, and doesn't try to compete with them.
As I said, I like Ed and his show.
It would be nicer if he wasn't such a cornball.

Okay, some overall things to be aware of as you navigate through an evening of MSNBC:

Any time that they come back from a commercial and you hear rhythmic music, they are just about to head into another commercial.
So keep moving.
If there is no music, they are in fact beginning another extended segment.

Any time there is a young substitute wonky-looking, glasses wearing host, such as Chris Hayes, go right on to the next show.

Any time that there is a clip of President Obama, and you've already seen a clip of him that day, it will be the same clip.
So keep moving.

Any time there is a clip of John McCain, whether you've seen it or not, keep moving.

Any time there is an announcement that they will be interviewing victims, whether of 9/11, Katrina, flooding, racism, or just about anything designed to evoke your sympathy, keep moving.

Another approach is to always be multi-tasking when you have MSNBC on.

Keith Olbermann will be back in about a month or so, on the Current Network.
I can't wait.
It sounds like he'll have the opportunity to hire anyone else he wants for the other shows on it.

Comcast has purchased MSNBC.
I don't know how this will effect the political stance that MSNBC will continue to have.

If all these people are let go, we might have the opportunity to see how Keith really feels about them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

*****

How To Watch MSNBC. 2.

To continue from yesterday,

MSNBC filled Olbermann's vacated 8pm slot with Lawrence O'Donnell.
This was probably the best thing they could do.
Lawrence O'Donnell is a class act.
Easily the classiest act they have.
If you have to watch only one hour a night of MSNBC, it should be his.
Lawrence O'Donnell does not delude himself that he is funny.
Many politicians, particularly Republicans, have that particular delusion.
Remember John McCain and "Bomb. bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?
Many Democrat politicians are genuinely funny.
Barney Frank, Anthony Weiner...JFK was pretty funny.
President Obama is pretty deft with the jokes.
I think it has something to do with an overall humanity that Republicans lack.
O'Donnell, clearly a Democrat, is also clearly not funny, and seems to know it, and makes no attempt at it.
He is, however, quite ironic, and displays that admirably.
He is also quite passionate about the issues he covers.
Seemingly more genuinely passionate than all the others at MSNBC.
Certainly more genuine than Chris Mathews.
He is a more compelling personality than the others, and has much more gravitas.
The only Tivoing I do there is if he's covering a non-political topic, such as Libya.

As long as I'm on Libya, let me say a few words about a great reporter, Richard Engel.
Richard Engel is a genuine war correspondent.
Always out there where the action is.
Until yesterday, when he was reporting on a very clear feed from Pakistan, I was under the assumption that he had a speech impediment.
It turns out that it was simply the lousy feeds they were getting from Libya that seemed to give him a sibilant "S".
Just like Pinky Lee's.
But yesterday, with a good feed, he sounded fine.
They should look into that.

Okay. Onward. As Mort Sahl used to say.

Rachel Maddow.
Her heart is definitely in the right place.
Most of the time.
But she really thinks she's a hoot.
And she will belabor a point into the ground.

One of her ongoing themes is to call out people who won't appear on her show, or even return her phone calls or e-mails.
I know someone who attempted to get her to read a movie script so she could appear as herself in a Cameo role.
That someone would be me.
One of her staff people agreed to receive the script.
It was sent.
Months went by.
No response.
I e-mailed to find out why.
It had gotten lost somewhere and was never read.
Would I send it again?
I would and did.
That was many months ago.
And it was a part that could have been done by anyone.
No response.
Pots and Kettles.

With Rachel, hear her out for the subject matter, give her no more than a minute, then move on.
And stop whenever there is a good guest.
That's it.

I'll wrap this up tomorrow, with Ed Schultz, and some general rules that I haven't yet covered.

Mañana (It's good enough for me.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

*****

How To Watch MSNBC.

Okay. Yesterday didn't count.
How can you count a day when you have the biggest story in the
LAST TEN YEARS?
All you really needed to do yesterday was ignore MSNBC completely.
Yesterday, it was no different than any other Cable News outlet.
Except for a few moments when Lawrence O'Donnell called out George W. for announcing in 2005 that going after Bin Laden was no longer his top priority.
Then he showed a campaign clip of Obama saying how it's still his.

I ordinarily regard MSNBC as being as valuable as Radio Free Europe was to the Soviet satellite nations.
Sometimes, it is the only bastion of sanity.
But ever since Keith Olbermann left, it has been far more difficult to make an entire evening of viewing out of watching MSNBC.
And that's what it used to be.

So I will offer up instructions on how to get the most out of MSNBC's evening programming.:

First, you absolutely have to have Tivo, and watch it on at least an hour's delay.
Second, you must understand that when he was there, and since, Keith Olbermann was and is their only on-the-air personality to have a legitimate sense of humor.
Virtually all of the others, with the glaring and applaudable exception of Lawrence O'Donnell, THINK they have a sense of humor.
Some, in fact, think that they are hilarious.
None, in fact, are.
So there is much slogging and Tivoing to be done to navigate your way through an evening of MSNBC.

Let's begin with Chris Mathews.
Extremely confrontational with people he disagrees with, and with people he agrees with.
A lot of it seems to be for show.
A general rule is that after about a minute of him talking to the camera, you get it, and can Tivo on to his first segment with guests.
If he has two guests, they usually both are on the same side of an issue, so after the initial points are made, you can Tivo on to the next
topic and guests.
If he has guests with opposing views, like a Democratic strategist and a Republican strategist, Mathews will generally agree with the Democrat, and it generally becomes a shouting fest very quickly.
When that happens, move on.
A couple of things bother me about him:
He goes out of his way to constantly remind you that Dick Cheney's name is pronounced "Cheeny".
Although I've never heard anyone pronounce it that way.
I hit the Tivo when he does that just out of annoyance.
You might want to do the same.

The other thing is that he lumps the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories in with all the other extreme lunatic fringe conspiracies.
It has been clearly established by many mainstream people that the Warren Commission Report is full of holes.
Congressional Hearings have backed this up.
The Single Bullet Theory hasn't gained any more credence than it had originally.
So his attitude is rather an affront to many Americans who are reasonably using their minds.
Also, Chris Mathews repeats himself constantly.

Okay, one more before we continue this tomorrow:
A fellow named Cenk Uygur hosts the 6pm slot.
No, I don't have any idea how to pronounce it either.
Cenk thinks he's a riot.
He's not. In a rather smarmy way.
The best way to deal with Cenk, is to hit the Tivo when he talks to the camera, and keep moving until we land on a good guest.
Stay with it until the guest is done. Then keep moving.
One thing about MSNBC.
The good guests will appear on just about any of their shows.
So if there is one that turns up with Cenk, it's usually worth stopping for.

My idea of a good guest who shows up regularly there would include Barney Frank, Anthony Weiner, Bernie Sanders, E.J. Dionne, Michael Moore, Howard Feinman, Richard Wolfe, Ed Rendel, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson, and Katrina Van Den Heuvel, who unlike the others, is very easy on the eyes.
My idea of one who isn't a good guest is Al Sharpton, whom they shlep on whenever there is a race issue for him to decry.

Let me again make this clear. I like MSNBC. I find it necessary.
But it's getting so that you really have to pick your spots.

More tomorrow.

Manana (It's good enough for me).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

*****

Someone Else Who Didn't Want Paul Reiser.

That would be me.
In 1988.
Paul Reiser was currently co-starring in a sitcom called "My Two Dads".
This was a show I didn't watch.
But he was already well known as a stand-up comedian.
I thought he was a wonderful standup comedian.
He was also very good in the movie "Diner".

I was organizing a staged reading of my new play in Los Angeles.
Essentially, it was a backer's audition.
Larry Miller was going to do the male lead.
He offered up the idea of Paul Reiser participating in the reading as the second male lead.
This sounded like a swell idea.
Pretty much as a favor to Larry, Reiser agreed to do it sight unseen.
A few days before the reading took place, I met with Larry, Paul, and another actor who was going to participate at one of our places of residence.
Reiser didn't seem too keen at having to be there.
He didn't seem too keen at having to go over his scenes, of which he had two extended ones.
One in the first act, the other in the second act.
We began reading his two scenes.
That's when he really didn't seem too keen.
Nor did I.
He misread the material to the point that it was frighteningly unfunny.
It wasn't supposed to be.
It was supposed to be unfrighteningly funny.
It, in fact, was.

Everyone is different about how they rehearse.
It is legendary that Lee J. Cobb spent the first three weeks of rehearsal of "Death of a Salesman" just grunting.
But I didn't have three weeks.
I knew I had a good play, and I knew I was going to have to give Reiser line readings for it to seem that way, no matter how he would react to them.
I plunged into it.
He bristled, and said, "Oh, THAT'S how it's going to be".
But it wasn't.
After I gave him the line readings, he did it exactly as he had done it the first time.

"Oh, THAT'S how it's going to be".
That's also what Ellen Degeneres said to me when she auditioned for me a few weeks earlier for the same play and I had the same problem.
But there wasn't the same urgency.
I didn't feel obligated to cast her, and she certainly didn't feel obligated to want to do it.
She couldn't wait to get out of there.

Now, these are two people who later starred in their own very successful sitcoms.
And were very good in them.
They got people who knew how to write for them.
I could have written for them.
But in this instance, I hadn't.
The material already existed.
And they couldn't and/or wouldn't adapt.
The problem was mine, not theirs.
My material is very fragile.
If it isn't done a certain way, it stinks.
I'm sure that Reiser, after he read the scenes the first time, thought the material stunk.
And he was just hanging around to do this as a favor.
And he certainly wasn't going to accept line readings from a writer whose material he thought was shit.
So what was I supposed to do?
The reading was set for Sunday afternoon.
Reiser thought he was doing me a favor.
Larry thought he was doing me a favor.
I thought maybe there was a 20% chance Reiser would turn out to be
Lee J. Cobb.
Reiser has a lot of charm. Maybe he'll charm his way through it.
And I thought his name value would be worth something.
So I bit the bullet, crossed my fingers, and said, "Okay, see you Sunday".

Sunday arrived.
The first two scenes played very well.
Reiser was in the third scene, with the lead actress.
It went okay.
But it was a hard scene to louse up.
It was almost actor-proof.
But it wasn't as well received as the first two scenes.

It was the scene in the second act that I was worried about.
I knew THAT one wasn't actor-proof.
It was delicate.
Timing and likeability were everything.
We get to that scene.

It was exactly as he had done it in that one rehearsal.
There was no timing, wrong attitudes, and no likeability emanating
from Reiser.
We were in the crapper.

A close friend of mine, who had not read the play, whispered to me
"This scene isn't up to the other ones".
I whispered back "This is the best scene in the play.
It's not the scene. It's him."

We had two producers going into the afternoon.
After the reading, we only had one.
Pretty much because of that scene.
We were now like a Twin-Engine Cessna with only one engine.
But the other producer hung in there, and we got it on.
And we got an actor for the second male lead who listened to me, and was great.
And that same friend from the whispering at the reading, when that second scene was over on opening night,whispered to me "You're right.
It IS the best scene. It WAS him."

I'm just sayin'...........

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

*****

I'm Just Sayin'......

I came back from New York last week, expecting to find an episode of Leno on my Tivo where Paul Reiser was guesting.
I knew he was guesting because I did a search for Reiser when I heard he was going to have a new series.
And I set my Tivo for the series.
And it showed me he was going to be on Leno while I was gone.
But when I checked, the two episodes of the series were there, but no Leno.
As of last night, I hadn't seen any of it.
Then, late last night, I checked the Tivo, and there was the Leno episode.
A week late.
It was that night's Leno.
This Tivo thing is a genius.
Because I set the episode by way of a search, it was going to record Leno whenever Reiser was on it.
Which turned out to be this past Monday night.
I put it on, and go right past "Headlines" and the first guest, to get to Reiser, who I always thought was a great standup comic,and very good on "Mad About You", a show I enjoyed very much.
Which is why I was looking forward to his new series.

Reiser, certainly looking older, grayer, and puffier than I remember, immediately starts trading banter, hilarious banter, about how his
show was cancelled by NBC after two episodes.
This was news to me.
And apparently pretty fresh news to him.
This pretty much begged the question "Why was he bothering to appear on Leno at all?".
When you give it any thought, the answer is pretty simple.
It was to bellyache, albeit in an hilarious fashion, about being dumped after only two episodes by a network for which he had provided an
enormous hit series for many years.
It was couched in how he really didn't want to do another series to begin with.
How he was coaxed, cajoled, if you will, out of retirement, to do this new show.
And the network just gave him the hook after two outings.

He made light of the situation.
But you could see the pain oozing out of him.
How could it not?
So what if you once singlehandedly made a huge network hit?
So what if you are so comfortably retired that you never had to work again?
Talk about "Fuck You" money!

But he was coaxed.
And he's a pro.
And when you're a pro, and you put on the uniform, you swing for the fences.
And when you are thoroughly rejected by the critics, the network, and the audience, who turned out in drove (the singular of droves),
how can you help but be anything but devastated?
This was definitely a wounded man.

I then watched the two episodes that I had Tivoed.
They seemed to be attempting to aspire to Larry David's style with
"Curb Your Enthusiasm".
The first episode even had Larry David in a couple of scenes.
Those two scenes were very funny.
The others, as Reiser would put it, not so much.

The scenes with Larry David appeared to be improvised.
And the camera seemed static, as was required.

The other scenes all seemed heavily scripted, with all the characters talking in Reiser's rhythms.
Very quickly. As does Reiser.
This works for Reiser, who plays himself. A comedian.
A man who talks naturally in professional fast comedy rhythms.
His own.
It doesn't work for any of the other characters.
They are not comedians.
This removes a layer of reality that is needed. Desperately.
I'm just sayin'.......
And in all of those scenes, the camera jumps around all over the place.
And there are editing tricks that call way too much attention to themselves.

The second episode was more of the same, but more domestic, about his family, and with no Larry David.
This compounded the felony.

So the overall effect is that of a show that is occasionally very funny, outweighed by it's constant freneticism and artificiality.

I doubt that I would have lasted another week with it.
I've certainly seen worse shows than this, but the network was basically right to not want him anymore.

Tomorrow: The time I was in on the ground floor of "not wanting Paul Reiser".

Manana (It's good enough for me.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.

*****

Report Card---"The Motherf**ker With The Hat".

I was in New York last week, and saw "The Motherf**ker With The Hat".
Chris Rock was in it.
That's why I saw it.
That's probably why everybody saw it.
There was a largely black audience.
Certainly larger than any show I've ever attended.
Since Chris Rock was the only black member of the cast, it probably accounts for the demographic breakdown.

It is about the drug culture, friendship, lying, cheating, and self-discovery.
It is very funny, and very dramatic.
It is a really good play.
It would probably be a really good play without Chris Rock.
But not as good.

On to the scoring:

Is it interesting?

It is relentlessly interesting.
A+.

Compelling, even?

Quite.
A+.

Is it controversial? Do you think about it after you've seen it?

Yes, and quite often.
A+.

Is it funny?

Asked and answered.
A+.

Is it a story worth telling?

It is quite thought-provoking, and quite dynamically told.
A+

Is it good storytelling?

For the most part. It doesn't end as well as it begins, which is always a bit of a letdown, but it moves like a bullet.
B+.

Is it good writing?

Extremely good dialogue.
A+

Is it worth laying out 75 bucks for?

Very much so.
A+.

Is it well cast? Well played?, Well staged?

Here's where it gets interesting. Chris Rock is the third lead. But he has the star part.
The other actors are all great. But a certain amount of charisma is needed for Rock's part.
An understudy would be quite a comedown, and quite a disappointment.
You need someone who can take over the stage, and he does that.
I have a play which is usually very difficult to cast, because there is a ten o'clock character in it who only has one scene.
And he has to own the stage.
It's hard to find an actor who is that good who is willing to only appear in one scene, unless he is very lazy.
Many times, I successfully pressed myself into service as an actor when I wasn't able to find that one-scene actor.
And I certainly am that lazy.
But Chris Rock's role is far more prominent.
And he more than holds his own.
It was very smart to cast him, and very smart of him to take it on.
I've heard him being interviewed about how his biggest concern about the play is remembering his lines.
Unusual, because he has far less to do here than in one of his concerts, where (don't let him fool you) he is letter perfect.
The staging is fine, but the set design is a bit confusing.
Two of the sets are quite similar, and the first time you go from one to the other, you think it's the same set, but the character redecorated it.
This is even more confusing because there is a small table in the first scene, upon which the hat that belongs to the Motherf**ker sits.
And that table sits there regardless of which set we are in.
Is this artsy-fartsy symbolism? Or just sloppiness?
It doesn't work for me, regardless.
But this is a relatively small quibble.
B+.

Is it too long? Too short?

At an hour-forty, it seemed about right.
But you really didn't want it to end so soon, or so abruptly.
B.

Is it believeable? Do you care about the characters?

Totally, and totally.
A+.

Is it predictable? Does it surprise you?

It's a little predictable early on, if you work at it, but there are quite a few surprises along the way.
A-.

Overall rating:
A.

Judging by the movies he's done, it may be the best acting Chris Rock will ever do.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book, "Mark Rothman's Essays", ones that were culled from the blog and are no longer there, along with a surprise bonus, is available for purchase.
Please e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com for more info.


*****

A Commercial Jingle And Pitch For "Mark Rothman's Essays" by James Durante.

"When I look back 'tru life I find
Lots of memories remain
Certain days stay in my mind
And keep runnin' 'tru my brain
I remember the day that Ederle swam the Channel, what a splash!
I remember the Wall Street Crash
Or when Winchell first shouted 'Flash'
But there's one day that I recall though it was years ago
All ma' life I will remember it I know........

I'll never forget the day I read a book.
It was contagious,
Seventy pages.
There were pictures here and there
So it wasn't hard to bear
The day----I read a book.

It's a shame I can't recall the name of the book
It wasn't a History
Because it didn't have no plot
It wasn't a Mystery
Because nobody there got shot
The day I read a book
I can't remember when
But one of these days I'm gonna do it again, yes sir.......
One of these days I'm gonna do it again!

Ahhh litt'rature!!!
There's nothin' like sittin' at home nights at the fireplace
With a pipe, a dog, and a good book at your feet.......
But if ya walk into my house, you'll see LOADS of books.
And believe me, they're not there just for appearance.
I press an awful lot of butterflies!!

My literary appetite is stupendious.
They don't write 'em quick enough for me.
The Book of the Month didn't come out fast enough for me,
So I read the Book of the Week.
The Book of the Week didn't come out fast enough for me,
So I read the Book of the Day.
THE Book of the Hour,
THE Book of the Minute,
But THAT wasn't even fast enough.
So far this week, I've read six books that haven't even been written yet!!

But I'm not confined to home readin'.
I once spent two weeks in the liberry.
I would've been outta there sooner, but I'd buried ma' nose in a book, and forgot which book I buried it in!
A dilemmia......

Why, on the first page of this book, they printed the author's name.
And right underneath it was his private phone number---
Copywright one nine three nine.
But I'm gonna send it back.
I've been dialing that number for four months, and nobody's answered!

Nevertheless,
While cruisin' thru the liberry,
I found the classic I was lookin' for.
It wasn't the Encyclopedia Britannia,
It wasn't "Forever Umbriago"
It was a book that was three thousand eight hundred and fifty seven pages thick.
And I'm glad I took it.
It fits perfectly under the short leg of my pool table!

It wasn't a History
Because it didn't have no plot
It wasn't a Mystery
Because nobody there got shot
The day I read a book
I can't remember when
But one of these days I'm gonna do it again, yes sir.......
One of these days I'm gonna do it again! "

-------------------------------------------------------------

If you care to hear Jimmy's rendition, go to YouTube, type in "Jimmy Durante, the day I read a book".
It was recorded in 1947, the year of my birth.
How prescient of him.
Although my book isn't 70 pages or 3857 pages either, for that matter.
It's about 250 pages.
Just right to fit under the leg of a kid's pool table.
And there are no pictures here and there, so it might be a little harder to bear.

Even so, if this doesn't interest you in "Mark Rothman's Essays", nothing will.
If it does, e-mail me at macchus999@aol.com


*****