Executions are Discussed Along With a College Football Game and an Announcement is Snuck in, Yes its a Potpourri

View from my seat Saturday

I have a few things on my mind and that’s a dangerous place for them to be. The bad news is that I’m going to share those thoughts, so brace yourself.

If you’re with me here in the United States we live in a country that still executes people. I mean the government does. And it can’t even do that properly. See the notorious case of Christa Pike whose execution was botched last week. She’s still alive. So essentially instead of killing her the state tortured the woman. She spent a year counting down to the day when she would die and instead woke up in a hospital. 

Not only do we still kill people we are not going to livestream an execution. It sounds like something that I’m making up and truly I wish I was but I’m not. How do you even fathom the mindset of people who would conceive to do such a thing not to mention those who will watch?

I’m changing the subject from state-sanctioned murder….

To a repressive regime. In this here country. Federal Agents today searched the home of congresswoman Ilhan Omar. "The search is part of a yearslong criminal investigation by Homeland Security Investigations, the U.S. attorney in Minneapolis and the Department of Justice. The probe, which involves whistleblowers, documents and witness testimony, deals partly with immigration and fraud, but goes beyond those things, the source said." Welcome to the tyranny. Here's her statement: "I’m ok. Make no mistake: this is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement. For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation in his campaign of political intimidation. I will not be silenced."

Now to the lighter side.

You’ve heard this one on TV and in movies: if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. So I’m wondering if anyone has made that statement to, let’s say, a group planning a bank robbery. Imagine if you will one of the conspirators saying: “My schedule is clear for the next five-to-ten so I’m good to go”. Then another person says: “Hold on, I’ve got my nephew’s bar mitzvah next month and it’s getting to be the busy season at so I’ve got to back out.” I’m just thinking out loud here.

Let’s get back to governments killing people. Yesterday I watched Paths of Glory (1957) Kubrick. It’s a film based on a novel of the same name which itself is loosely based on real events during World War I. These events include the French army executing three soldiers after a failed attack. The generals believed that a regiment showed cowardice because they retreated under heavy fire. During the attack a general even ordered the artillery to fire on their own men to motivate/punish them. The order was not carried out. The three men were supposed to be selected by lots but two were hand chosen by their commanding officers — but not for any act of cowardice. Paths of Glory is one of the great anti-war films of all time. Director Stanley Kubrick had made a name for himself with his previous film, The Killing but this is the picture that — for many —cemented him as a great director. Kubrick is currently the subject of a podcast series by TCM that I’m  enjoying. I highly recommend it.

Saturday I went to beautiful Memorial Stadium on the University of California campus to see the Golden Bears take on Virginia Tech. The Bears were ten-point underdogs and hopes for the team were…well, not great. But it proved to be the kind of day and game that keeps me coming back. The plucky Bears came from behind twice in the fourth quarter going ahead for good with eighteen seconds remaining. The Bears then had to withstand a final pass into the end zone to claim victory. What great fun cheering the lads on with friends. It was lovely football weather too, a crisp autumn afternoon. The rooting section, the band the mascot (my hero, Oski) were all in fine form. Unexpected wins are often the best kinds.

The biggest news for me is that on Saturday I became a grandfather for the first time. Sadly I haven’t been able to visit the young man owing to having a sore throat (me, not him). Probably a viral infection as there are no other symptoms. Extremely frustrating but I should be okay tomorrow or the next day. A full post on our first meeting forthcoming.

Speaking of this sore throat…it hasn’t kept me from writing but fighting it off has been most tiring so I’m cutting this short. (Yes! There could have been more.) Actually, I don’t want to feel like I’ve short-changed you so here are two hilarious jokes: How can you tell the difference between an alligator and a crocodile? One you’ll see later and the other in awhile. Bad news, I forgot the other joke. (Maybe that's good news.)

The Might as Well Have Called it The Contestant's Game

You never know what’s going to turn up when you pay You Tube a visit. Last night it was a full episode of this game show. It was a forerunner to the wildly popular and long-running Hollywood Squares. I confess that I did not do all of my homework for this post, having watched just over half the episode (I’m a busy man) but I certainly saw enough.

Game shows were different back in the Fifties and early Sixties. For one thing celebrities dressed up. On some women wore evening gowns and men tuxes. They played it sophisticated and urbane. There were shows like What’s My Line and I’ve Got a Secret that were right there on prime time when prime time was a big deal. 

There were a lot of people who seemed to be professional game show celebs. They were regularly on a show or appeared on several of them. Watching these shows as a kid I had no idea that people like Bennet Cerf, Arlene Francis or Kitty Carlisle ever did anything in their lives but appear on game shows (although if I’d thought of it I’d have imagined that they went to fancy dinner parties and the theater). As for Ms. Carlisle, she had the distinction of having appeared with the Marx Brothers in A Night at the Opera. Cerf was a titan of publishing.

The banter on those game shows went with the suits. The celebs came off as airy and intelligent but not showy about it. They projected intelligence, sophistication and good manners. You knew they read novels and the Sunday Times but eschewed Winchell.

Games shows started to change along with seemingly everything else in the culture in the Sixties. Soon you had shows like Let’s Make a Deal and the Gong Show. The emphasis was more on the contestants and they could wear damn near anything and had carte blanche to act like goofballs. That’s what makes this clip so interesting, it was like a bridge. One of the keys to that transition is the appearance of Paul Lynde. He was the poster boy for the new era game shows with his flamboyance and jokes riddled with double entendres. He was ubiquitous on game shows for decades — though most notably on Hollywood Squares. 

But let’s get to the elephant in the room. The name of the show: The Celebrity Game. Talk about a lack of imagination! They could have just as well called it The Contestant’s Game. What network exec green lit the use of The Celebrity Game? Was he comatose? The change to Hollywood Squares must have earned some suit a huge bonus.

What also strikes me about The Celebrity Game is some of the panelists. Barry Sullivan, Howard Duff and Ida Lupino (the latter two were married). These were serious Hollywood actors, Lupino was also a director. They were hardly the glitterati of Tinsel Town. What the hell were they doing on a game show? Lynde, of course, Gypsy Rose Lee, Jackie Leonard and Gisèle MacKenzie make more since. Ms. MacKenzie was just the type of “personality” suited for game shows. She was a popular singer, did some acting, was pretty bot not gorgeous, and when all was said and done was a B level celebrity. She’s not remembered today, indeed I probably hadn’t thought of her in decades before watching The Celebrity Game. Anyway she was your classic game show celeb.

Fabian also seems a bit of an odd choice. He’d been a teen idol in the late fifties as a singer but his star was already fading by the time of the show. Actually, that makes him perfectly suited for a game show. It was often where performers went to keep their names alive before a hoped-for second act to their careers.

Carl Reiner remains one of our comic greats so I’m not sure what he was doing slumming hosting a game show. I imagine the money was good.

The episode itself is not worth recounting. It’s not terribly interesting. It’s an opportunity for banter — the blood, bone and sinew of games shows of that era — but the questions and answers were a massive yawn.

I love these glimpses into our culture’s past. Sometimes they make you long for the “good ole days” and other times they make you thankful for progress. I suppose this one did a little bit of both for me. Thanks, You Tube, I owe ya one.

The Ups the Downs and the Sideways of Having Co-Workers

Typical workplace gathering at one of my many workplaces

Retirement means no more workplace. I exchange good mornings with the missus but that’s it. In a workplace you can have over a dozen good mornings to get through before the workday starts in earnest. Some of those include how-are-yous. Monday’s there are how-was-your-weekends. Friday’s there’s always some idiot who says: “Hey, it’s Friday.” (Thanks for the calendar update!). On Wednesdays someone might refer to the fact that it’s hump day. I had one co-worker who referred to Thursday as “junior Friday.” Somehow that never bothered me like me it should have. No one, ever, never said anything about Tuesday other than a vice-principal who pointed out that “Tuesday is a day with no personality.” At her memorial service I mentioned that to someone who said, “I don’t know about that.” To which I thought: “oh do fuck off.” I hate when people try to argue with you when you share what someone else said. The messenger is not to be killed.

I got along perfectly well with most of my co-workers. Some became friends as tends to happen. I mentioned something to this effect in class once not terribly long ago and a few students were aghast. I believe it was a student from China an another from France who said that should never happen, friendships with workmates are strictly verboten. I meant to explore the topic at greater length. It might have been their lines of work, I don’t know that it was necessarily a French or Chinese thing. But they were adamant. 

My goodness, imagine how many co-workers I had over the years. We’re talking about fifty years worth. Some passed through and were literally gone in a day or two, there were two people I worked with for over twenty year (poor sods) others close to that long. You can really get to know a person, then again you can really not. Some people keep to themselves and are private about their home lives. Sometimes you find out things about a person that are stunning. Usually not. Most people aren’t all that interesting. Oh sure, they have unique thoughts on some topics and are expert in others and have many fine qualities but no one would write a biography about them.

I had one colleague for half a day. Turned out she was a bit of a nutter. Came in her first day and commenced complaining to her higher-ups about a variety of topics. It was the day of a large student intake which meant orientation — everyone was too busy to listen to her. So she called the company’s bigwigs. Evidently they were not amused. She was fired at lunch time. Who needs that kind of nonsense.

In my younger days I had romances with co-workers. When you’re in your early twenties (alternative newspaper in a college town) that’s not at all uncommon. Could it get awkward? I should say so. Regrets? Nah, I was basically a randy kid, what did you expect? I’ll tell what could be a bigger problem, asking out or hitting on a co-worker and getting rejected. Ouch.

There were a few co-workers over the year who I disliked. Not many. Even a few — again, not many — who I detested. Part of it was that I was a volatile personality with an out-sized ego. Part of it was that some people are — at least at particular places in particular times of their lives — awful. One might argue that I was.

I’m thinking of the last few co-workers who I had a strong distaste for and console myself in the fact that others disliked them too. One was a hot-headed, misogynist. People HATED him. He was fired. 

I recently worked with some chap who took over from someone who I quite liked. That’s tough. He was very different. That’s tougher. But he was also strange. Never ended class on time. Not even close. I was always careful about that to such a degree that I ended class at 11:44 (it went until 11:45). The other thing is that this guy was a flake. Taking personal days, vacations and constantly sick. He was also late a few times. Here’s the capper. After a few weeks on the job he called me by the wrong name. At this point the school had six employees. He had to learn six motherfucking names and couldn’t pull it off. Thankfully he left after a few months. In his last week this asshole called me by the wrong name again. To top if off he referred to another teacher by the wrong name. Talk about something that isn’t rocket science.

Some co-workers are aloof. Some are painfully shy. Some — and this is a far greater sin — are chatterboxes. I remember working with one woman who could’t shut up to save her life (ask her students). I learned early on never to ask how her weekend was or I’d have to brace myself for an endless detailing of every movement over the preceding forty-eight hours. The problem is that some co-workers vastly overrate how interested you are in the minutia of their daily lives. 

Some co-workers you feel like you know after a few days. Others you spend years with and they’re a total mystery.

What’s also weird is that for some people their entire circle of friends consists of co-workers. What, you can’t make friends outside of work?

I had male co-workers who were fans of rival teams, a few of them were jerks about it. That’s a male thing. Men can be jerks about all sorts of things and don’t hesitate to constantly tease one another, often cruelly. I hated that. Women co-workers are nicer. That nurturing instinct.

You’ve got to draw boundaries with people at work. You’ve got to let people know what topics are off limits, how much you’ll share about your family, your psychosis, your personal history, your religious beliefs or lack thereof, your politics. Early in sobriety I confided in the wrong person that I was in a twelve-step program. He broadcast to the rest of the school and worse weaponized it against me later. I was, he asserted, more fun when I was drinking. Just what a recovering alcoholic needs to hear.

Of course I haven’t even gotten into one particular form of co-worker — the boss. That’s a huge topic worthy of it’s own post. I’ve a lot to say on the topic and if you’re good boys and girls you’ll hear it one day.

Before I go I’ve got one vignette. I worked with a woman who was big in the union. A real leader among teachers who reveled in her successes. She once told a few of us how important it was to treat the staff, secretaries, custodians etc. as equals. My reaction: you really think you need to say that to us? And aren’t you suggesting that they AREN’T equals, just that they need to be treated “as if” they were.” Whatta….(I won’t use that word in this blog).

I’ll add another note to that. My best friend was a member of the staff (a student safety officer) and another friend was a custodian. I got along swimmingly with the secretaries and everyone else on the staff. You never had to tell them we were all equal. They were the type of people who knew. Bless ‘em. 

Recently there was a memorial service for someone I worked with for close to the twenty years I mentioned earlier. I mentioned earlier. He became a vice-principal and was a popular supervisor, even I liked him. It was a great occasion to honor his life but for a lot of us it was a chance to see people we'd been through the wars with. People we'd worked with, fought with, laughed with, argued with, shared stories with. Any animosity that had existed among us was gone. I hadn't seen some of the people in decades. We had a bond, the kind you develop with co-workers. 

Anyway I don’t have co-workers to share space with anymore (unless the wife lets me hire a secretary). I already miss them, for all the aggravation they can cause. After all they’re all people (that may start changing) and getting to know other people is one of life’s great joys.

Exactly One Year Later Part Two of: A Look at Ten of My Favorite Directors, Why I Revere Them and A Film that Sums them Up

Charlie Chaplin

It has taken exactly one year but part two has arrived at last. On this day in 2025, I enthralled readers all over the world with a post titled: “A Look at Ten of My Favorite Directors, Why I Revere Them and A Film that Sums them Up.” At the end of said post I suggested that there might be a part two forthcoming. Well it has indeed forth come — so to speak. Here are ten more directors I greatly admire, a brief summary of their work and mention of one film that, to me, best sums up their oeuvre.

Howard Hawks. In sports they’ll often say of a player: he can do it all. Hawks could “do it all.’ Gangster film? Scarface. Noir? The Big Sleep. Screwball comedy? Bringing up Baby. Western? Red River. He was a jack of all trades and master of all of them. He made over a dozen great American films. He knew how to pick a script and how to cast a film. He lovingly shot some of the big stars of Hollywood: Bogie, Bacall, Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, Carole Lombard, Montgomery Clift, Barbara Stanwyck. Hawks made my favorite picture of all time, His Girl Friday. It was a masterclass of directing. Everything from perfect pacing to exact framing.

Luis Buñuel. He did some strange stuff but it mostly all worked. He was our great mainstream surrealistic director whose favorite target was the bourgeoise. The best example of how Buñuel turned cinema on its head was Exterminating Angel which is “about” a group of people who can’t seem to leave a dinner party. Forget can’t seem to, they bloody well can’t. Then there’s the The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie which concerns a group of French bourgeoisie and a fictional South American—despite continual interruptions—to dine together. That Obscure Object of Desire follows an aging, wealthy man whose obsessive pursuit of a beautiful young woman becomes a cycle of seduction, rejection and humiliation. My favorite of his work is Viridiana in which an idealistic young novice tries to live according to Christian principles after inheriting her wealthy uncle’s estate, including turning the house into a refuge for beggars. Her efforts end disastrously and for her and viewers, lessons are learned. Nothing ordinary came out of Buñuel film.

Charlie Chaplin He started when silent films were becoming culturally significant and continued well into the sound era finally, reluctantly making talkies. He made movies full of heart and compassion and love. The word pathos is often ascribed to his movies — quite aptly I made add. Of course most were played for laughs too. Gold Rush and Circus are particularly funny as are his earlier shorts. The Kid is funny and moving. Woman of Paris is strictly a drama and an excellent one. He’s perhaps best known for his first films after sound intruded: Modern Times, The Great Dictator (both hilarious AND message films) but to me the ultimate Chaplin is City Lights. It is a brilliantly constructed film, one that can illicit both laughs and tears.

Alfred Hitchcock. One of the greatest bodies of work in cinematic history — if not the greatest. From silent classics like The Lodger through his last film Family Plot from 1976. He earned the moniker, master of suspense, but also made an excellent screwball comedy, Mr. And Mrs. Smith. His visual sense is practically unmatched among directors with so many memorable shots. See the umbrellas in Foreign Correspondent, Kim Novak transforming in Vertigo and of course the iconic shower scene in Psycho. For me his work is epitomized by Shadow of a Doubt. The menace, the tension, the touches of humor, the evil entering an ordinary setting.

Akira Kurosawa. Two words: visual style. Kurosawa films can be watched without sound just to appreciate what you’re seeing. Go ahead and enjoy his movies on your computer but if ever a director was made for the big screen, this is your man. Kagemusha, Seven Samurai and Ran on huge IMAX screens. Throne of Blood, Hidden Fortress, Yokjimbo deserve Dolby Cinema. He also made more intimate films like the brilliant Rashomon and Drunken Angel. My favorite of his films is Ikiru, essentially the story of a dying bureaucrat. It shows the breadth and depth of Kurosawa’s talent.

Stanley Kubrick. Yeah he was a bit different wasn’t he? He made some extraordinary films. A classic horror film, The Shining. A classic war picture, Paths of Glory. An absolutely luscious period piece, Barry Lyndon. One of the greatest sci-fi film, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Like many great directors he was meticulous and demanding. For me his masterpiece is his adaptation of A Clockwork Orange. It’s a stunning movie to look at with visual power that doesn’t let go. Kubrick films didn’t often ask a lot out of actors but he got what he needed and never more so than from Malcolm McDowell here. But it’s still the verve, the viscerally striking scenes that make this a cinematic classic.

Wong Kar Wai. You see one of Wai’s film and you know one thing for sure: this is a person who loves making movies and has fun doing it. The raw energy of Chungking Express is proof enough that his talent matches his ambition. Other films of his like As Tears Go By, Fallen Angels, Happy Together and 2046, reveal a director who has mastered the human, the visual, the aural and the imagination that makes a filmmaker special. But nothing matches his masterpiece, In the Mood for Love, one of cinema’s most beautiful works. An unforgettable story of love and heartache that fully reveals a director’s desire and ability to explore the human condition.

Michelangelo Antonioni. He’s not for everyone but the people he’s for he’s really for. The man who made movies about ennui entertaining. La Notte, L’Avventura, L’Eclisse and Red Desert was a remarkable four-film run of vaguely related films in the early sixties. They were sandwiched in between two other terrific films, Il Grido and the English language Blow-Up. Antonioni would test audience’s patience but passing the test meant enjoying sumptuous stories. Monica Vitti often starred, another plus. But it was a later English language film, The Passenger, that sticks out for me. I’m going to cheat and let Vincent Canby of the New York Times sum it up: “a suspense melodrama, a story so basically conventional that it isn't until you're at least half‐way through it you realize it's a magnificent nightmare, and that you are on the inside looking out."

Hal Ashby (L) directing The Last Detail

Hal Ashby. Ashby had a brief but oh-so-spectacular run in the Seventies from The Landlord in 1970 through Being There in 1979. He told unconventional stories, such as Harold and Maude about not-so-much a May-December romance as a March very late December romance, with the woman being the older party. If I held a film festival of movies that explain the Sixties I’d most definitely include The Landlord the story of a privileged white man who takes ownership of an inner city tenement. Ashby, who started as an editor, directed ten actors to Oscar-nominated performances. For me Ashby’s best film is The Last Detail (1973) starring Jack Nicholson. It is brimming with humanity, humor and realism. 

Roberto Rossellini. One of the early — and perhaps the best — practitioner of Neo realism. More than almost all other directors he told deeply human stories. Films such as Stromboli, The Flowers of St. Francis and Viaggo di Italia were powerful explorations of character. There was a simplicity to his films but concurrent richness and power. For me the ultimate Rossellini film is Open City (1945) the Neo realist war film made in Rome just after the events described. Open City feels so real that it’s hard to believe you’re not watching actual footage from the war.

What’s next? Will their be a part three one year from today? Or will it come sooner? Stay tuned to find out.

Are You a Racist? I Start Off Writing About Words But Segue to Posing Questions to Trumpy

This is one of those deals where I feel like I should write a blog post but don’t have anything to write about. Should I have written “anything in particular” to write about? What’s the deal with “particular”? You might here someone say that “this particular case is interesting.” What exactly is the word “particularly” doing? I’ll go ahead and answer that: nothing. It’s similar to something else I’ve complained about. Some. Get out of here with that word. At Cal football games we’re asked to “make some noise.” Some? It’s like: I’m going to get some lunch. Some? Or. Do you want some coffee. Some?

I hate extra words. Clutter. Sure, just like everyone else I can be guilty of using them. I’m so imperfect you wouldn’t believe it.

There’s a Trumpyism. “Like you wouldn’t believe.” He uses that and “they’ve never seen anything like it.” He loves adjectives too. Say that reminds me, I have some questions for Trumpy. I’ll put him here and hope that he comes across them.

Tumpy: You recently said the following while speaking at a law-and-order event at the David S. Mack Center for Training and Intelligence in New York: "These young, these gorgeous, beautiful girls... they come, 'Mr. President, may I speak to you? Yes.' 'Thank you, sir. Thank you.' I said, 'Why are you thanking me?' 'Because a year and a half ago, I was afraid to leave—I was afraid to open the door of my apartment. And now I walk to the White House every morning and I have absolutely no fear, thank you sir.'" My question is: who are these women? Do they work in the White House? In what positions? Are all the women who come up to thank you “gorgeous, beautiful girls”? Do any ordinary or even homely girls thank you? Why do they call you “sir” and not “Mr. President”? Is this something you made up? Sure sound like it.

Are you going to continue to call former President Joe Biden, “Sleepy Joe” when you’re constantly seen dozing off in the oval office and at public functions. Isn’t it hypocritical of you?

I understand that you plan to build a 250-foot arch in Washington DC at Memorial Circle. I further understand that the structure would house large numbers of drones, rooftop snipers, and sniper ammunition storage. Is this because you’re expecting foreign armies to invade the nation’s capital? Should we expect invading armies? Or will the weapons be used against peaceful domestic demonstrators? Please tell us exactly why we need to weaponize (literally) the Memorial Plaza.

Why do you directly contradict empirically verifiable facts? You claim that climate change is a hoax when very close to one hundred per cent of climate scientists say that is quite real and the result of human activity. You even go so far as to mock people who understand that it’s real. (Which is most of the rest of the world.) Do you think mocking people is a good strategy?

Speaking of mocking people….Why do you continue to lash out at journalists for the sin of asking you tough questions? Can’t you handle tough questions? What purpose does it serve to call them things like stupid? Indeed what’s the benefit of calling political rivals stupid or “low IQ” people? Does that serve political discourse or does it make you sound like a schoolyard bully?

How are the American people benefiting from your vendettas against people like Jack Smith, James Coney and Letitia James? Instead of desperately trying to pin something on your enemies (of which there are legions) why not use that energy to serve the needs of the American people?

Why do you cozy up to authoritarian leaders like North Korea’s Kim Jung-un while criticizing democratically-elected allies like Canada’s Prime Minister, Mark Carney? Is it because you wish that you had the same sort of power that dictators had? Is it because you both don’t understand and don’t really believe in the U.S. Constitution?

Why does it seem like you never read books, watch movies or TV shows or have a good hearty laugh? You don’t have any pets. You don’t seem especially close to your wife or children. You don’t seem to have normal relationships. Is every relationship transactional to you? You don’t seem like a normal person. Are you? How much damage do you reckon your father did to you?

Why don’t you want the full unexpurgated Epstein Files released? Is it because we’d get a fuller look at your own sex crimes? Is it true that you raped and beat underage girls? Do you have the slightest bit of shame? Are you a total narcissist who has not a scintilla of empathy for other human beings?

Have you taken an honest look at recent polls that show how deeply unpopular you are? Are you too divorced from reality to accept the fact that the vast majority of Americans don’t like either you or your policies? Is reality a foreigner to you? (And we know how you feel about foreigners.)

You’ve personally made billions of dollars while president yet brag about not accepting your salary. Don’t you realize what a bad look that is? Don’t you understand ethics? Why not take your salary but stop personally profiting from being president?

How hard is it for you to hide your dislike of people of color? Ever tempted to come out of the closet as the full-fledged racist that you in reality are?

You don’t really understand tariffs, do you?

Why have you totally failed to fulfill your campaign promises? For example inflation is worse now than it was under Biden. It should have been easy to keep us out of foreign wars but you got the country into a totally senseless one that for awhile you kept saying we’d won and was about to be over. Is it hard to keep your stories straight?

Why do you insist on changing names of things like lakes and gulfs and forms of intelligence? Why do you want to put your own goddamned name on everything you can? How far is this going to go? Will the White House be renamed the Trump House? Will it be Trump D.C.? The United States of Trump? Jesus, I haven’t given you any ideas, have I?