Tuesday, August 29, 2006

fantasia

gotta love fantasies, though the ironic thing for me is being aware that i've lived out so many of mine. it's, of course, a huge issue for my wife to have to think about the significance of that, but i swear that the only conclusion that can be drawn from having lived a life where you can have literally anything and everything that you dream, is that you have to be much more careful about what you dream. no, that's not saying the answer is repression and denying yourself what you desire--it's saying that people usually don't spend much time thinking about the truth behind the aphorism that "there is no free lunch".

yeah, we'd all want a perfectly positive sexual scenario where...

but, though the imagination isn't contrained by "real" things like gravity, our relationships ARE. breasts and testicles sag, and our lovers aren't always so easily able to vault to our same place where sex and the odd circus trapeze is concerned.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

have you met miss jones

the capstone of the evening was the song suzanne and her lone accompaniment/bassist, mike visceglia, like to play when they prefer a song with a happy ending: rogers and hart's "have you met miss jones". as richard rogers wrote it, "all at once i lost my breath".

reminds me of the similarly simply-voiced norah jones covering hoagy carmichael ("the nearness of you") and how wonderfully alive a beautiful song can remain half a century into its life.

beautiful.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

the mother of the .mp3

suzanne vega is rounding up her summer tour at the music hall in portsmouth new hampshire, and it's a great chance to go to see the mother of the .mp3, so i think i'll give myself an early birthday present and bathe in the beauty of intelligent sound. how many people watching those seemingly endless episodes of re-ran seinfeld have ever stopped to think about how suzanne's tom's "diner" was chosen to represent the ultimate milieu for the world's most popular story (to date) about nothing. such an honest and endearing homage. it always struck me as meaningful, that a man from my black and white movie past (billy wilder's oscar winning stalag 17 star, william holden, even though "he was no one [she] had heard of") would have died his alcohol-soaked death at just the right time so that suzanne could pen one of the world's most sampled and sample-worthy poems, sitting at tom's window back in 1981, while i was contemplating the future of my life beneath the same gray november skies.

fast forward almost 25 years, and ready the applause.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

the seven stages of...

back in '69, elisabeth kubler-ross started a cottage industry with her original five stages of grief. it seems while the rest of the world was enjoying free love, elisabeth was coincidentally charting the consequences of when love might not be so free after all. having rounded out her collection to include shock (oh, yeah, i've seen shock) and bargaining (i think i blinked and missed that part, because she was on to anger in a nanosecond) elisabeth has now passed the torch to us survivors, that, as becker and fagen observed of the caves of altamira, we could write it on the wall for those who come after to understand.

shock, denial, bargaining, guilt, anger, depression, acceptance/hope. well, in the case of the potential death of a relationship, there really seems to be just one big one, yes? can you guess what it is in my case?

well, shock--you can all pretty much imagine the shock part--no sense belaboring that, it is what it is. i think the denial phase was pretty much short circuited by her having uninterupted access to a computer with all the passwords to all the personal things that people say when they're incorrectly convinced that no one else will be listening, so a sleepless night trawling three years worth of web discussion boards with the identity keys to the kingdom of interpersonal hell will just about take care of that. and, yeah, that bargaining part i must have missed, because i was fresh on the scene when it had all turned to ultimatums. (the word "REPUDIATE" can be delivered with quite a dictionary's worth of onomatopoeia when followed by the word "her"). so, though guilt is something you're going to have to ask her about, anger is something for which i'm willing to go out on a limb and confirm myself, fait accomplis. (and how long 'til this depression thing shows up?)

i guess it's hard to blame her, feeling as she does in the dark about so many years worth of stuff that everyone else in the triangle had the benefit to know as it happened. so she's plumbed the internet reservoir of information ("did you know that she had lied about her age?") and pretty much gotten for herself all the details glen close might have needed to cook the family rabbit, if the family situation had been reversed, but it's not, and it's just scary to think what congreve really meant about that "scorned" thing. i've politely suggested such ire would be misplaced (i'm the bad guy here, i don't think anyone is really confused about that) but it's hard to be in love with someone and not want to blame a convenient stranger for your misfortunes. i guess, whichever way it goes, the karma joke will be on me, since you can't have two women in a story like this and not have one or the other being scorned at any particular point in time.

well, i've jumped into one boat with both feet, and thrown away the life preserver so there's nothing to save me from drowning should i get pitched out into the gale and left for the sharks. let's face it, one is supposed to be enough, and the karma bus rides waiting to run down those who don't get the math.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

savor

have you ever wondered on the possible bio-chemical side to love?

i'm inclined to believe from experience that we chemically respond to and relish the taste and smell of our beloveds, and whether this is learned behavior or the source of our affection wouldn't the point. to me, there is simply nothing like the essence of my love filling all of my senses, and floating me upon that singular cloud of euphoria.

upon further reflection, fanny fern's way to a man's heart may very well have nothing to do with the stomach, but rather the accompanying sensory ecstasys of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. for a woman, to feed a man's nostrils and palate, her choices may be culinary, or, if he is responsive and so inclined, of a more personal nature. having devoted much of our reacquaintance to leisurely conversations over fine food, i am struck by how the most memorable taste of the evening is always of her.

Monday, August 21, 2006

sexuality

billy bragg's nuclear submarine sinking off the coast of sweden has always given me a smile. i can't figure out where i might have lost my fear of sexuality, but it's pretty clear by now i've done a somewhat thorough job of it. trouble is, as kid creole (aka august darnell) has wryly observed, "there was a time / when your promiscuity was fine / now it's a crime". he may have been poking fun at an entire era, but he's done a fair job of summing up my new situation quite nicely too.

here's my problem: there's nothing wrong and everything genetic about "casual sex". oh, puh-leeze, spare me the monogamy rants, i'm not talking about casual in terms of choice-of-partner, but casual in the sense that we're sexual beings with a more-than-healthy drive to express ourselves accordingly. so how do so many of us become short-circuited?

i got myself into a fair bit of trouble recently having some of my more adventurous nature shared/revealed out of context. i'll admit to having sinned via my choice of partner for these explorations, but i'm stymied by the potential catch-22 of it. if someone is open to exploration, why do they so often become undesirable as a spelunking partner by those more firmly on shore? didn't lewis and clark do well by the addition of the epically-adventurous sacagawea to their expedition? (pretty bold chick if you ask me, strapping an eight-week-old to a cradleboard and heading up the missouri river to parts unknown). so shouldn't a man with experience be a "welcome find", as in the time august so wistfully recalls?

the good news is that i'm being given some benefit of the doubt, and enjoying being the beneficiary of some newfound adventurousness heretofore suppressed. (is this ironic, or what, and, no, you can't read more of the details here, though there's no telling what you might get back via email ;-). the question, of course, remains about the proverbial other shoe, and what might happen in a few months when the characteristic "anger" phase comes into full swing, but these are all bridges to be crossed when they are come to. for now, like the almost invisible explorer atop the dunes, crossing from light into shadow, and fearlessly caressing the curve of his earth, i set out for parts unknown.

any votes on where i should take her (or be taken by her) first?


once upon a time
love with the proper stranger was divine
like vintage wine
to be tasted, never wasted

there was a time
when your promiscuity was fine
now it's a crime
and the word if you haven't heard is

no more casual sex, man
no casual sex
no more casual sex, man
no casual sex

once upon a time
a man with experience was a welcome find
top of the line
sit back baby just enjoy the ride

now such a guy
can't even get a date on a friday night
you know why
girls are waiting, interrogating

no more casual sex, man
no casual sex
no more casual sex, man
no casual-
no more no more no more no more no more
no more no more no more no more no more

something's happening
somebody's gonna gen
all the innocent
hop-into-the-honey-men
somethings happening
somethings imminent
just for living in
soddom and gomorrah 'gain

no more casual sex, man
no casual sex

once upon a time
every girl was approachable and prime
now there's a sign
hangs on their hearts and their private parts, says

no more casual sex, man
no casual sex
no more casual sex, man
no casual sex

no more casual sex, man
no casual sex
no more casual sex, man
no casual sex

no casual sex
no more no more no more
no casual sex
such a casualty
casual sex
casual sex
casual sex

--august darnell, aka kid creole, "no more casual sex"

Sunday, August 20, 2006

can you believe your eyes?


as readily recognizable as garbo may be as an icon, i wonder how many would have recognized her from the photo i used recently (at the left) without a written cue. with all the things we think we know, including leaps of faith and rationalizations after the fact, i'm guessing there are way more occasions when we have all the evidence we ought to need, right in front of us, and we still don't see it.

hardest of all are the things which challenge our preconceptions. yes, that's garbo's chin above, if you look closely enough, especially with an eye for what you're looking for. and, yes, to the right, that's certainly greta's forehead if you're similarly focused. but you aren't looking at that part of her anatomy, are you...

i found this last nude image of garbo absolutely breathtaking, but not for the reasons you might imagine. (the second one is still my all-time favorite, if you must know). there's a familiarity we grow with the bodies of our lovers that transcends sight, but there's nothing like the familiarity of a curve that calls out to us from the most unexpected of places. when we're reawakened to what we know, we can finally believe our own eyes about what we see.

where was i for so long? what was i seeing? what did i believe?

when i see that photo of greta, i see far more than meets the unfamiliar eye.

a leisurely cruise through the american idiom

a slow boat to not-quite albany turns up many things. perhaps most fascinating among the remarkable history hidden amidst the hills and dales of upstate new york is the number of rich expressions and euphemisms that come to such animated life in their real-life example.

"benedict arnold" proves that there's always more to words (and a man) than meets the jaundiced historical eye. where nicholas herkimer and 800 naive-but-earnest members of the tryon county militia were bled to tragedy along the banks of oriskany creek, (it's a pretty good ambush that butchers 6 out of 10, and a grudging hats off to mohawk commander joseph brandt for knowing just where and how to execute one of the bloodiest slaughters of american troops in the history of our armed services), benedict arnold and naught but a single troop spared from the defense of albany devised the ruse that relieved the siege of fort stanwix. (ok, peter gansevoort sending out marinus willet to pillage the british and indian camps in the rear of the oriskany action was a bit dispiriting to the crown forces too).

turncoat, however, is best exemplified, not by our old friend bennie, but by his adversary johnny johnson's king's royal yorkers. not content with a 3-1 favorable casualty ratio and the utter destruction of the tryon county militia, johnny had his boys turn their green coats inside out for one last try at herkimer's precarious hilltop bastion. "yeah, we're rebel militia come to relieve you from the fort... that's the ticket" could very well have been the words used to make the attempt. lucky for what was left of the tryon boys, captain jacob gardinier recognized one of his loyalist neighbors among the party, and the perfidious bastards were once and for finally put down by what was left of herkimer's boys. it takes a special kind of hatefulness to want to go that far, and i know i'll never think of that word the same way again.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

are you a good witch, or a bad witch?

interstates and cell phones might shrink upstate new york to a unrecognizable shadow of its 1777 wilderness, but make no mistake, this was once the very edge of the civilized world. between montreal to the north, and new york city to the south, only albany nearby the confluence of the mohawk and hudson rivers marked anything of consequence on the western edge of 18th century new england. position the british navy off its shore, and a couple of redcoated armies along it's overland supply routes, and all that nonsense about shots being heard 'round the world would have been like proverbial trees falling in the new england forest.

thinking they were agreed to meet billy howe, hank clinton and several thousand of their bestest friends somewhere near albany, gentleman johnny burgoyne, his best #2 general simon fraser, and johnny's latest boy toy, barry st leger, figured a couple of weeks down the hudson and st lawrence rivers would be just the thing in the summer of '77. (ok, that "boy toy" thing is a bit unfair, but a brevet promotion to brigadier just to show up the loyalist militia commanders is a bit weak, don't you think?) though without verizon to keep in touch, nor I's 90 or 87 to smooth their journey east and south, it's amazing what a few hundred bad-attitude colonial farmers and a peripatetic commander in chief can do to spoil an englishman's whole summer.

first, peter gansevoort had the temerity to rebuild fort stanwix and stuff it full of 800 or so new york and massachusetts party boys. (no lie--before there were yankees and red sox, you could actually work 'em together). then toss five indian armies, ostensible civil war between local rebel and loyalist militias, (don't forget raising the stars and stripes for the first time ever in battle), and mix the whole lot for a month or two, and you get a whole lot of nothing but creeks running red with blood (oriskany is still a haunting place down in that ravine i'm back from my trip to tell you) and an english hankering for oswego tea and a boat trip back to st. catherine's street for barry's first and last shot at running an army.

so now switch channels a bit to the east, and catch up with johnny's being good down the first few hundred miles of the western portion of the northeast kingdom. against fraser's kick-ass field generalship, local boy phil schuyler wasn't appearing to do much of anything right, even finding a way to lose fort ticonderoga without any semblance of a fight, so the continental congress had sent a new man up to albany to run one last line of defense before the whole revolution thing lost its cachet. (in one of my favorite quotes ever, john adams, head of the war committee, is recorded to have said that the continentals would "never hold a post until we shoot a general"). the new yorkers, still loyal to their boy, phil, thought the reasoning a bit harsh, and didn't care much for horatio gates, but they were happy enough to keep felling trees (burgoyne and fraser were down to about a mile's progress a day) and waiting for their moment.

andrzej tadeusz bonawentura kosciuszko, either polish or lithuanian or belarussian depending on how you prefer your historical geography, directed the axes and more than a few shovels to prepare some world-class breastworks overlooking the hudson just south of saratoga, and the stage was set. (it's a beautiful piece of ground to stage a last stand, that's for sure). discovering the presence of this wing of the party boys (new york being joined by both massachusetts and new hampshire this time) from their habit of blowing reveille in the morning, johnny b. had to choose from a short list of some pretty tough choices. looking up at the fortifications, he chose first to send out hist best boy simon to try to outflank the malcontents, but benedict arnold, enoch poor, ebenezer learned and a regiment of virginia sharpshooters under the command of daniel morgan matched fraser kicked-ass for kicked-ass all day, making for another bunker-hill-like case of the english winning the field but body-for-body losing the battle. next, burgie opted for waiting on barry and billy and their many thousand friends to show up and help him out with the tough stuff, but a few weeks of that godot thing convinced him that this was now his party to win or lose alone. lucky to have his army ahead of hank clinton, (still waiting in the wings, and wasn't it a "coincidence" that no army had marched north from new york city to help out), and knowing that retreating in shame from a bunch of hick farmers with picks and shovels would lose him his job just as quick as doing something truly stupid, he tried the "reconnaissance in force" tactic a second time, and found out just how the colonials played his gentleman's game.

this second time unable to hold off fraser's wing of burgoyne's newly remobilized army, benedict arnold exasperatedly observed that "the man on the gray horse is a host unto himself and must be disposed of". general morgan, in passing the order down to his best sharpshooter, timothy murphy, wistfully observed that "the gallant officer is general fraser... i admire him, but it is necessary that he should die. do your duty." so timmy loaded up his double barrelled rifle, climbed a nearby tree, and took fraser off his horse from 300 yards out. (it wasn't a lucky shot--he took down burgoyne's chief aide, sir francis clerke, with his next shot). both armies paused the next day while fraser was buried atop the english fortifications, and gates even had the americans salute him with their cannons, which is pretty rich, seeing how they specifically had him picked off the day before.

anyway, rudderless, the main ship of burgoyne's campaign floundered, and all but sank then and there. the british forces pulled back into their own fortifications, bolstered up by the german mercenary reinforcements who had otherwise spent the day bottled up down by the river getting nowhere against thaddeus' fortifications, but it all still wasn't enough to withstand benedict arnold's final charge over the parapet at breyman's redoubt, and the last hope of autumn in albany for johnny and his incredible shrinking army. now, having lost most of his boats from some additional colonial shenanigans up on lake george, his back was up against the river, and he was penned in from all sides. (johnny stark, fresh from his big win with the green mountain boys at bennington, had arrived from the north to cut off any possible escape). nothing to do but hand over the sword, and grumble something about reinforcements, and you can see just how hopeless the whole thing was from the top of the battle monument, which is well worth the considerable climb.

but, back to the point: most notable among all the stories of burgoyne's ill-fated campaign is the omnipresence of one benedict arnold the fifth. so easily we use his name as the de facto synonym for perfidy and treason, but during the summer of 1777 he was likely all that stood between the rebellious colonies and their quick and rapid re-absorption into the commonwealth from whence they came. running low on ammo and hope at fort stanwix? it was bennie who came up with the plan to release a POW with tales of 1500 men and an ass-kicking attitude. (cue barry and the "brave, brave sir robin" tune from monty python and the holy grail). make the mistake of sending an overweight and overcautious bureaucrat to run the last defense of albany? never fear, bennie will notice the flaw in the fortifications (one last rise of high ground to the west where burgie's cannons would have had a field day) and ride out with danny morgan's sharpshooters to shred some redcoated ass. willing to let johnny be good and gone before closing the noose around his overextended neck? don't worry, bennie will run out of HQ against orders and lead the final charge over the breastworks and take the hill and the battle, and, perhaps the war.

leading a force of british soldiers to capture richmond in december of 1780, benedict arnold is reported to have asked a captured colonial captain what might have become of him should the continentals ever capture their greatest traitor. the answer was to "cut off your right leg [the one wounded upon taking breyman's redoubt during the victory at saratoga] and bury it with full military honors, and then hang the rest of you on a gibbet."

so fine a line between heaven and hell, and our best intentions of ourselves, and our meanest failures. bennie made the mistake of being his best self first. we all should hope to be so fortunate as to save our best for last.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

if the phone don't ring, you know it's me

the best part about this pending hiatus is the absence of any chance for electronic intrusion. (ironic, given my occupation and my predilection for things net, yes i know, but this ain't gonna be no busman's holiday). coworkers have already been warned about my upcoming and complete radio silence, and though i know there will likely be a continuing series of crises, as there have regularly been these past few months, there will neither be any way for them to reach me, nor any way for me to respond anyway, so, hence, no need for me to worry about any of it. (what are they going to do? fire me? ;-)

so the theme for today's final post before the break can be unashamedly stolen from paul barrere (accent grave) and his one-time blues busters: "if the phone don't ring, you know it's me".

it occurs to me that the joy of "incommunicado" can run in two directions, even though we tend to be influenced by country music lyricists, focusing on the emotional inconvenience of unsolicited sonic abandonment. to my mind, "peace" and "quiet" aren't arbitrarily coincidental bedmates. we let ourselves believe we have set our hearts on affirmative attention from others, yet we're just as frequently fanaticising about garbo. (who said, for the record: "i never said 'i want to be alone', i only said 'i want to be left alone.' there is all the difference.") i think she was onto something.

peace.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

sex and the not-so-single guy

we (the editorial we) definitely do NOT want to go into details on this one, though, of course, i imagine that details are exactly what most readers might be thinking they'd prefer. (salacious is always so much more interesting than self-restraint, yes?). let's see if i can tightrope-walk the invisible line...

i recall the anecdote of john lennon's first meeting with yoko ono, involving her piece consisting of a ladder in the center of a room, with an improbably small "yes" scribed on a white panel overhead. (note the magnifying glass, which, to my mind, may have made the whole thing more obvious than it needed to be, but it worked nonetheless). lennon, ever the poet, is reputed to have remarked that it was a good thing it hadn't said "no".

it's always struck me as remarkable that the father of the "nowhere man" met and became inexorably drawn to the mother of "yes". forgetting what you may feel about the infamous cultural icon who is yoko ono, just think about "yes" for a moment. it's an amazingly powerful word.

maybe i can blame yoko for busting up my peaceful existence the same as she did the beatles. (if your satiric irony detector didn't go off on that one, you'll need to have it checked). i think, early on, i got the impact of "yes", and how it didn't have to be a gender-limited concept, even while the females of the species all seemed to have phd's in the concept and all us guys were still in grade school. yes, donald fagan's "tomorrow's girls" wield their power quite liberally, ("lord help the lonely guys / hooked by those hungry eyes"), even if not nearly frequently or fairly enough to suit most guys. (setting aside for a moment those who might prefer to criminally withold the option of "no" in retaliation). let's just say that i've always found the gracious granting of "yes" to be a far more mutually enjoyable pursuit than should otherwise be limited to the option of just one gender.

how does this work, you say? well, take a look at the photo to the right here, and tell me what you see. do you see a pair of very attractive feminine legs? if so, i'd wager you're a guy, and i'd tell you that you're missing the empty chair forest for the sexually seductive trees. women would notice that she's alone, and i wonder if they'd also be thinking about the fact that she can't just make the right body sit down there, not really, no matter how urgently she worked those legs of hers. oh, sure, some guy will sit there soon enough. but did she make him, or did he do that just because it's what guys do? and what of who she is really looking for? somewhere at the end of the line, "yes" becomes an extremely important question. it takes two to put someone in that chair in the picture, not just one, so whose "yes" is the one that really matters?

true confessions time: for years, in my early 20's, i was the default yes. care to offer an empty seat? i'd more than likely already be in it. (don't you love the irony of the english definition of the slang-ish term, "fanny"...) in the process of understanding the transaction of it, i grew to understand that witholding my "yes", even for just a moment, made the terms of sitting there quite different, and often even more enjoyable for all concerned. but i was still going to say yes. ("lord help the lonely guy..")

now i'm not the guy who is always going to. ironically, this makes me all the more attractive to many about the sitting thing, but, really, what's up with that? we don't even have to set aside the seat that i reserved all those years ago that i shouldn't be getting up out of to wander across the deck in the first place, but let's even dare to (hypothetically now, trust me, darling, i'm not going anywhere), imagine it. chairs have strings. the simple act of sitting in someone's creates all sorts of emotional repercussions. the experience will be great, i can guarantee from experience, right up until it's not.

or can people truly experience chairs without emotional consequences? if you could, would you let on? could you be sure the someone sitting in your chair could do the same? if they could, would that make it easier or harder for you?

tell me what you're thinking...

the least you can do

one of my favorite jokes goes something about a pious man who prays every day of his life to win the lottery, so that he could give it all to charity. well, P.O.'d at the pearly gates for never having his prayers answered, god has to tell him that the least he could have done was buy a ticket. (get yours yet?)

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

one-nil

the mls all-stars are undefeated since going to their present format of playing various national and club sides--first the us national team, then mexico's most popular club, cd guadalajara, and now the pride of the english premier league, fulham fc and two-time champions and international powerhouse chelsea fc. to be fair, it was chelsea's first preseason match, and the goal was scored on their backup keeper, but there is a certain international prejudice against the us professional league, and there's no denying that the quality of play is now there for mls to take a legitimate place in the world picture. no, not the premier league, bundesliga, serie a or la liga, but something worth considering when debating the proper source for us national team players. bruce arena can whinge all he wants about "international experience", but he picked his team, and nobody else. who scored the us' lone world cup goal this time around? yep, texas-born and boston-bred clint dempsey, that's who, with not one game of world cup or "international" club experience under his belt. you go, mls.

the other side of this rant is against the peculiarly american penchant for dismissing the classic one or two-nil result. in baseball, that would be a pitcher's duel, and worthy of homage. (besides kirk gibson's gimpy homer, isn't don larsen's perfect game the classic world series achievement?) but, second only to the dreaded draw, 1-0 is the pejorative score that brings that greatest scorn. (as if, were it easier to score, the game would somehow become more dramatic? huh???)

well, my attention span isn't that of "warm cellophane", (thank you, declan), and i can't think of a better way to spend a warm summer evening. hope the revs go one-nil with shalrie joseph picking carribean rival shavar thomas' pocket for the steal that sets up the winning strike.

go revs!

Monday, August 07, 2006

92,560

johnny carson used to do a great bit as "the amazing carnac", where the questions to his answers had been, "as a child of four can plainly see", "hermetically sealed, and kept in a mayonnaise jar on funk and wagnall's porch". (presciently referenced recently in one of my blog posts, tyvm).

sis-boom-bah...

("what do you hear when a sheep explodes?")

don't think that's funny? "may your platform shoes fail you in a camel pasture" ;-)

today's answer is 92,560, and, apologies in advance, but the question isn't going to be nearly as funny as the one to "piggly wiggly". (describe kermit's wedding night). it's the largest crowd ever to watch an mls soccer game (sunday night in los angeles, with the revs providing the opposition) and it's a pretty amazing thing if you ask me.

when i'm paying $3 for a gallon of regular, and cringing at every globally destabilizing thing that comes out of the mouth of "my" chief executive, (i sure as hell didn't vote for him), it's numbers like these that give me hope that, some day, "americans" are going to finally get it, and catch back up to this world in which we live.

go revs :-)

landis, ekimov and doing the right thing


armstrong's challenges to climb to the top of the podium of past tours de france were formidable: beat cancer, rebuild a chemo-ravaged body, and then stay ahead of men who would do anything, including cheat, to win. (tsk, tsk, mssr's basso and ulrich, and now landis)

i originally wrote back in july that i thought armstrong's effort had been eclipsed by what landis accomplished this year. shame on me. clearly, it takes two good hips to stay ahead of the peloton without pharmaceutical assistance. but, all that being said, landis and the '06 peloton's insistance that 40-year-old viatcheslav ekimov be the lead rider up onto the first avenue leading to the arc de triomphe is still a class move, and to floyd's and everyone else's credit, juiced or no.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

the one piece of information you need

life in the internet age tempts aspiring geeks to believe that all information is instantly accessible, if only you knew the exact words to put in that little google search box. need a rental car in utica, or a boat slip in st. johnsville? voila, instant gratification.

http://www.canals.state.ny.us/news/notices/index.html gives you seemingly everything you could ever possibly want to know about the current status of the historic and beautiful new york state canal system, or, as they used to call it before they figured out that it could actually be made to work, clinton's folly. (that's dewitt, not bill, for all you folks who are otherwise tempted to get your culture "live" from fox news, instead of from your local library, but i, as i usually do, digress). so, to catch back up to the present discussion, the trouble is, even a fairly careful and detailed reading of every single one of the dispatches in the list of official emanations would still leave you short of the one vitally important piece of information required to contemplate a leisurely cruise from one end of the ditch to the other this month: can you? and, if not right now, by when?

you see, buried in the pile of waterway trivia both useful and obscure would be this little gem, hidden back among the missives from early july, suggesting some relatively imprecise delay of the reopening of the locks between amsterdam and somewhere just west of schnectady. were you to add their suggested "six weeks" to the date of the notice, you'd even be tempted to think, "no problem! happy cruising starting the 18th of august!" ah, my little i-grasshopper, still so much to learn...

you'd actually have to call some initially cheerful yet quickly condescending kid at the schenectady yacht club for a reservation, and then happen to mention you were travelling east from that rustic little marina in st. johnsville, to receive what it is you've really wanted to know all along, but just weren't clever enough to ask in the right way to the right internet search box. "hey, mistahh... ya cahhn't get theyahh from heeyahhh..." and, after the implied laughter has died down, "why don't you try us back after labor day..."

hey, anybody want to party in st. johnsville, ny, for a couple of weeks?

Friday, August 04, 2006

it's so easy

antipating complaints and/or concerns regarding the calvinist overtones of the prior (now succeeding in reverse blog order) post, i thought i'd interject a little optimism, lest my readers miss my capacity for a sunny disposition amidst the short term cloudbursts. (to further quote the reverend buddy holly: "a-rounding third, he was a-heading for home / it was a brown eyed handsome man")

somebody issued an elvis costello bootleg album back in '94 entitled "buddy holly on acid", and i've always figured i was owed at least a little mention in the liner notes for having thought of the concept all on my own back in the late eighties. (declan's glasses and guitar have always struck me as quite the quiet homage, ce n'est pas?) in those rare moments of rock and roll amidst buddy's polite rockabilly pop (ready, set, go man go) there shone a promise for the future that even the desolation of a february iowa cornfield couldn't extinguish. (oops, veering too close to morosity, better get back on happy track).

the present is such a static place, tied to its past and absent of its future. musing on what our ears might have reveled to hear had buddy moved to ny and experienced the sixties with all his devotees and disciples, there seems such a limitless future that even imagination lacks capacity to envision. wouldn't his glasses and his enlightenment have morphed a la lennon? (oh, to have the opthamalogical contract for those two and roy orbison...) i always like to picture the better future, and put myself in it.

it's hard

not many cultural touchstones coming from snl these days, but will forte, as "dubya" bush, saying "it's ha-r-ard", is becoming one for me. (you know what, will? it IS). tina fey may get one good joke in during "weekend update" every other episode or two, but between darrell hammond's priceless dick cheney, and will forte's increasingly perfect comic foil, i find i'm tuning in (via tivo, anyway) every week just to see if they're going to get at it again.

but that's not what this is about, not really.

i think one of the primary attractions of sport, and other games people play, is the definitive conclusion. think about it: what's the #1 complaint about soccer by americans? (too many draws...) what did the nhl do to amp up their ratings? (shoot-out victories...) can any of us think of any game that doesn't include a conclusion, and an outcome? (test match cricket really does come to a point, honest) but what is the one thing that real life and real relationships really lack?

"happily ever after" is a crock foisted on us by hollywood rewrites. check out the original brothers grimm, and tell me if life is less or more like their original collection of angst, abuse and abanonment. (those germans and their "folktales"...) we fall in love, yes, but then we fall into a world of very, very hard work for which we are very seldom prepared. it's never in the promising, ("i'll love you forever"), but in the living that we most frequently come up short. if only there was a way to put the shot into the goal, and walk off the field victorious.

i'm reminded of the eighteenth century ideal of warfare, where to simply be still standing upon the field was to be judged victorious. where did we get lost? was it among the scarpering colonials, abandoning their expended ammunition pouches atop breeds hill, to cower behind bunker, and leave the bloodied english to claim an empty hillside? is our hard-fought independance simply an object lesson in ultimate emotional loss?

my eyes always well up with tears at the example of mary hartwell, who dressed to follow the teamster and cart bearing eight british dead past her home to a communal grave in the lincoln burying ground on april 19th, 1775. her words in remembrance of that morning are not of battle nor of victory, nor even of death, but of the bereavement of mothers and wives and children, left desolate by a fight that happened to cross her doorstep an ocean away. how many of us possess the character and courage to simply walk in silent respect as part of a story that hasn't an end, but only a many-times sorrowful continuation of a life forever changed and changing.

it's hard.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

qualitative vs quantitative

social scientists are split, endlessly debating the merits of one vs the other: qualitative vs quantitative. having been to business school, my perspective is dominated by the opposition of "quants" and "value investors", but it all boils down to the same question.

does context matter?

rather than become overly concerned with the science of etic vs emic, i can't help but think about sex. we all (i hope) experience our first kiss, and, eventually, if we're lucky, we all discover a fuller understanding of our sexuality. my "deny, deny, deny" friend opined that "there is no such thing as a bad unit", a "unit" being his curious euphemism for sexual encounter. setting aside the freudian question of why someone should apply such a quantitative term to what most regard as a purely qualitative experience, i've frequently been distracted to contemplate the implications of such a philosophy. can sex be defined in units? if so, can units be quantitatively compared? if comparable, what is the scale, and how do we rate them?

before you go off on me for being an engineer about all of this, take a step back and tell me if you've ever separated the sex, in your mind, from one ex-love(r) to another. why did you do that? how did you do that? think about the most outre thing you've ever done. was it your most sexually enjoyable moment? consider the memory of a first kiss. does it resonate in your memory as a distinctly pleasurable moment? why is that? i've got to figure we all believe we are value investors about this, the occasional quant notwithstanding, but we sure have a curious way of preferring to rate things in our mind even so.

i'm facing the eternal question of what constitutes good sex for me. no, this question isn't my idea, i actually have a pretty good idea already. but as hard as it may be to articulate to oneself, try explaining how it works to someone else sometime, and getting them to believe your answer. apparently, as clearly as we understand within ourselves how a kiss is not a kiss is not a kiss, many people seem pathologically unable to believe someone else about that very same subject. (that is, unless they want to...) perhaps it all falls between our inner limbic mammal's emotional need to be uniquely desired, and our inner r-complex reptile's quantitative instinct not to trust anything outside of ourselves.

was it good for you?

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

lying in the internet age

"by and by now we'll get over / the things we've done and the things we've said / but not just now when i can't remember / exactly what it was i thought we had / 'cause i waited so long and i came so far / to find out you're not always who you say you are". -- walter becker

"there's a star / in the book of liars / by your name"

in the old days, my old friend's strategy of "deny, deny, deny" would hold water suprisingly long. "you're mistaken". "it wasn't how it looked". "i swear". honestly, how could anyone know? but in the internet age, there are no end to the corroborations and the refutations that swirl about the ether, to add unintended dimensions to everything we say, and everything we do. how old are you, really? (ussearch.com knows, even if anywho can't find your phone number). where do you go online, and who do you talk to? (don't forget to eat all your cookies before going to bed). "what is it that was really meant when you said..."

the complexity lies in that there's generally always more than one person watching online. if it were only a case of constructing only one carefully prepared facade for our entire electronic lives, our very own personal and unique electronic potemkin village as it were, we would likely do ok, since fantasy worlds come naturally to most people. but just when we think we have all the angles and stories straightened, something and somebody else from the real world will inevitably creep in to knock us off our high honesty horse. (and, let's face it, people rarely have but only one side, in any context...)

so how do we remain reconciled? methinks the internet is providing the impetus for there being only ONE possible love to our lives. it's not a question of emotion anymore, it's a question of the impossibility of being able to maintain any sort of duality without being caught in the yahoo web. sooner or later, the second and subsequent interests in our lives will weigh in, be discovered, or fester until they demand attention. and, let's further face that there's never any room for another in our own darkest heart of hearts-- for all of our own inner reptiles, it's always only ever on about ME--so why should it be different for anybody else?

i love you.

i think it can only ever mean one thing, if we are to be whole.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

clutch

the oed, websters, american heritage and every other english language dictionary in the civilized world can all rip that page out of their current editions, put it in that infamous mayonnaise jar on funk & wagnalls porch, and start on their next version. it's not an alternative adjective, it's the reason they invented the word:

big papi is clutch.

in his career, babe ruth hit a dozen "walkoff" home runs, (foxx, mantle, musial and robinson are the other record-holders matching the feat), and out of 8400 at-bats, the bambino strolled his team to the dugout via the tater in just about one out of every 700 tries. not bad. now, consider david ortiz: in just 3500 at-bats, he already has 8 regular-season walkoff homers, (more than one for every 450 opportunities), and nobody in history has hit more playoff-game-enders (el papi grande has 2) or playoff-series-enders (1) than big dave. figuring those "extras" into papi's totals, you're in rarified air indeed. two more for a share of history, and three more for the title. for my money, here's the greatest clutch hitter in the history of major league baseball.

similar to baseball's walkoff, the nfl's game-winning field goal is a singular moment for a single solitary individual. maybe his team has done all the work to get him into the position, but the kicker has the weight of the world and that of his entire team upon his shoulders. do, or die. no second chances. add a raging snowstorm, a merciless headwind, and perhaps the most improbable odds for a kick ever attempted in nfl playoff history, and you have the stuff of which legends are made. adam vinatieri is arguably the greatest clutch kicker in the history of pro football.


though, for clutch, there's really only one now, isn't there--the most memorable goal in ice hockey history, in overtime, to win the stanley cup--#4, bobby orr.

so why did i bring this up today? (besides papi hitting yet another one in last night's bottom of the ninth and my never missing an opportunity to idolize bobby orr?). dr lizardo, from "the adventures of buckaroo banzai across the 8th dimension", observed that "history is made at night: character is what you are in the dark". an open question running through my current life is which thoughts and choices and actions represent the "real" me. certainly, there is ample argument that things written anonymously (gotta laugh at *this* irony, eh?) might, (their being "in the dark" of anonymity, after all) be taken more literally than those written while aware that somebody else might be watching. we can call this the "lizardo theory" of personality and perfidy.

except the cover of darkness is a sword that cuts two ways. wouldn't the only true measure of a person be what they do "in the clutch"? when the whole world is watching, and it's all on the line? when there is no mistaking the intent (let alone the results) of a proverbial best effort, made with everything to play for, and everything to win or to lose?

give me a crisis, and i'll give you a measuring stick.