Rant #2,154: Today's the Day

No, today is not Roseanne Barr's birthday, so I cannot wish her many happy returns for the day.

But there are plenty of other famous people who were born today, so after talking about the Barr fiasco yesterday--a fiasco for her, personally, and a fiasco for ABC, which demonstrated that it is a two-face network and has a clear agenda when her show was canceled, but they turned the other way when other network stars shot off their mouths inappropriately in the past--I thought today needed a lighter touch.

So today, May 31, the final day of the month, we will look at who was born today and had reached some level of fame.

These are only very brief snippets of these people's lives; look around, and you will find plenty of more on each of them across the Internet.

Don Ameche, a very famous actor in the 1930s and 1940s who also became something of a TV star in the 1950s, and resurrected his film career in the 1960s and 1970s, was born today in 1908. He died in 1993.

Menahem Golan, the Israeli film director and producer, was born today in 1929. He also owned The Cannon Group, which churned out numerous movies in the 1970s and 1980s. He died in 2014.

Clint Eastwood was born in 1930. Still a major star more than 50 years after he began his career in television, he has scored both in front of and behind the camera. He also is something of a singer, too, and continues to be active on the big screen, both in front of it and behind it.

Jim Hutton was born today in 1934. Although he was somewhat typecast for his boy next door look, he was a fine actor, and he is the father of actor Timothy Hutton. He died in 1979.

Johnny Paycheck was born today in 1938. He was a stereotypical redneck country singer who made his name with the song "Take This Job and Shove It." He died in 2003.

Peter Yarrow was born today in 1938. As one-third of the Peter, Paul and Mary folk singing group, he scored with a number of socially conscious hits, including "Where Have All the Flowers Gone."

Sharon Gless was born in 1943. She was a co-star of the original "Cagney and Lacey" TV show, and has numerous movie and film credits on her resume.

Joe Namath shares a birthday with Gless, Namath quarterbacked the New York Jets to their only Super Bowl title in 1970, and he parlayed that into a brief TV and movie career. He has remained active as a sports personality and broadcaster.

Samantha Juste was born today in 1944. Although better known as a model, singer and TV personality in her native England, Juste gained notoriety for a brief time as Monkee Micky Dolenz's wife. She died in 1944.

Rainer Werner Fassbinder was born in 1945 and was a provocative German director, actor and filmmaker who broke many barriers with his work, He died in 1982.

Tom Berenger was born in 1949. He parlayed his good looks into numerous TV and film roles, and has also produced and written a number of movies and TV shows.

Gregory Harrison was born in 1950. Another good looking guy, he was the younger "Trapper John" on that TV show spinoff of "MASH."

Vickie Sue Robinson was born in 1954. One of the early "Disco Divas," she was best known for her hit "Turn the Beat Around." She died in 2000.

Jim Craig was born in 1957. He was the goalie on the U.S. hockey team that won Olympic gold in what has been called "The Miracle on Ice."

Chris Elliott was born in 1960. The son of Bob Elliott of Bob and Ray fame, the younger Elliott has received his own fame as a comedian and writer, being featured in numerous TV shows and films.

Lea Thompson was born in 1961. The actor, director and producer has starred in numerous TV and movie productions over a relatively long career.

Corey Hart was born in 1962. The Canadian singer and songwriter had numerous hit singles during his career including "Sunglasses At Night."

Daryl McDaniels was born in 1964. He is the "DMC" in Run DMC, and as part of that act, had some of the early hit rap singles and rock/rap blended music on the charts.

Brooke Shields was born in 1965. The model and actress, who reached fame and infamy as a child, continues as a busy show biz personality to this day.

Kenny Lofton was born in 1967. Lofton had a a long and successful baseball career, mainly with the Cleveland Indians, in the 1980s and 1990s.

Dave Roberts was born in 1972. Currently the manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, Roberts had a successful baseball career with a number of teams, including the Boston Red Sox.

Colin Farrell was born in 1976. Irish actor Farrell has had a long career in Hollywood, playing rugged characters on screen.

Jake Peavy was born in 1981. The baseball player, who is currently a free agent, pitched for a number of teams, including the San Diego Padres.

Andrew Bailey was born in 1984. Another pitcher, he played in the major leagues for a number of teams, including the Boston Red Sox.

Nate Robinson was also born in 1984. The diminutive basketball player had an interesting NBA career with a number of teams, including the New York Knicks.

And that really is about it. I am sure I missed a few people who reached some level of fame and who were born today, but I think I did a pretty good job naming those people that I thought would be of most interest to both myself and to you too.

Again, if any of these names tickle your fancy, look them up on the Internet. You are sure to find a treasure trove of information on them.

And if your birthday is today, happy birthday to you!

Classic Rant #807 (September 19, 2012): Pop Star Celebration

During the mod 1960s, anything could happen, or so it seemed.

Newness was everywhere, new ways of doing things were everywhere, too, and the culture of television was taking hold--in color!

Two stars from that era just happen to be celebrating birthdays today on the same day, and during those early days of color TV, they were among the hottest stars on the planet.

Today, David McCallum--Illya Kuryakin on "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." and Adam West, Batman/Bruce Wayne on "Batman," turn 78and 84 years of age, respectively.

During the pop 1960s, these two shows were among the most popular programs on the landscape, showcasing secret agents, comic book heroes, and splashes of color that had really not been seen before.

True, color had been around on TV before--namely on "Bonanza," where color was used to sell TV sets--but color had not been used to the extent that it was on these two programs.

On "U.N.C.L.E.," color was used to highlight the good guys versus the bad guys, namely T.H.R.U.S.H.

McCallum's character--the dashing Russian, and during the Cold War yet--along with Napoleon Solo, played by Robert Vaughn--kept the world safe from the evil-doers. Throw in Leo G. Carroll, and heck, we knew that we would all be safe, at least until the next episode.

On "Batman," the world was truly topsy-turvy. Weird camera angles highlighted the evilness of villains like the Penguin and the Joker, and color was splashed all over the screen as West and his cohort Robin--Burt Ward--battled the bad guys.

Both shows shared one element. They were both done pretty much tongue in cheek, and that stance made McCallum and West teenybopper stars to the extreme.

McCallum, in particular, was highlighted in Tiger Beat and such magazines, often alongside Davy Jones, Peter Noone and---Jonathan Frid, another unlikely pop icon.

But the world moves on, and those shows faded into reruns.

The two continued their careers, to varying degrees of success--McCallum is a cast member of the highly popular NCIS TV show, West has done numerous commercials and voice work--but to the Baby Boomers, McCallum and West will always be two of the top pop icons from that wonderful era.

Happy birthday to both, and if an evil villain enters my midst, I will call on both of you to help me.

Rant #2,153: Too Much Talk

Yup, Roseanne Barr has certainly done it again.

We live in a culture that believes that every action and every thought must be put up on the Internet, whether it is on Facebook, Twitter, or wherever masses of people can see it.

Nothing is sacred anymore, nothing is a thought that should be kept in our minds, filed away, and never spoken or acted out.

Well, Roseanne, like her unlikely comedic counterpart Kathy Griffin did months before, is now learning that you can believe what you want to believe in this country, but some thoughts are better left to the nether reaches of your brain, and that is that.

And now, there is going to be a tremendous backlash, just like there was against Griffin when she held up a bloody head of President Trump, something that she thought was hilarious and that we all wanted to see and laugh at with her.

And like Griffin, Barr has apologized, has apologized to her now out of work cast mates, and has painted herself as some sort of victim, claiming that she used sleep aid Ambien and that she was under the influence of that drug when she made her tweet public to the world.

I guess that ABC had no recourse than to pull her show, even though it had become very popular all over again in its second incarnation.

I guess if they didn't do that, they felt that they were backing what the supposed comedienne said, and they couldn't have that.

Of course, they have let the loose cannons of "The View" go on and on and on and on some more about how terrible President Trump is, but you know, that kind of fits Hollywood's liberal agenda, so it kind of fits into corporate's agenda, too.

But whatever the case, Barr has shot herself firmly in the foot with her tweet, her fake apology, and her subsequent tweets, and like Griffin, she will have to lay low for a while before anyone will embrace her again.

Like Griffin at the height of her ignorance, Barr is now toxic, and few are going to have anything to do with her at this point.

The difference between Barr and Griffin is that while what Griffin did was abhorrent, it fit Hollywood's liberal agenda--gone mad, of course--and when the time was right, Griffin was welcomed back with open arms.

Barr, on the other hand, does not fit that agenda at all, so it might be a while before anyone from that community can welcome her back into the fold.

But we have all learned a very valuable lesson from these messes.

Yes, it is nice to put up birthday greetings on the Internet, or put up some other special occasion where everyone can see it.

Sure, once in a while, you can register an opinion to some mild topic that few outside a definitive circle cares about.

But when you get into certain areas, the best thing to do is simply to shut up, and lock certain thoughts away in some padlock in your brain, only for you to know about.

I do believe that some entertainment people on both sides of the ledger really and truly believe that they speak for the country, and what they say absolutely has to be said and heard and read and seen by everyone in the country and the world.

Well, Griffin and Barr have once and for all proven that some things are simply better left unsaid, even if you have a worldwide audience of followers.

To those women I would say, "Shut up about this nonsense and make me laugh."

At this point, I doubt that they could even make me crack a smile.

Classic Rant #806 (September 18, 2012): Naked Prey

This fascination with the royal couple has got to stop.

But if you publish topless photos of the future queen, I guess even people who could care less about her will take a peak.

For the past two weeks, several European magazines have published topless photos of Kate Middleton, to the delight of some and to the horror of others.

Middleton, who is both pretty and skinny as skinny can be without being sick, was sunbathing at a private resort when these photos were allegedly taken.

Invasion of privacy concerns aside, this type of stuff is titillating (bad choice of words) to so many people, and there appears to be so many photos of this.

She is just there sunbathing, not doing anything lewd or worse.

But again, this is the future queen of England! For shame!

The whole thing reeks of yellow journalism, but more importantly, it shows that some factions of the media simply never learn.

Not that I was enmeshed in the worldwide love affair that so many seemed to have with Princess Diana all those years ago, but the papparzzi simply went head over heels about this woman.

She was followed everywhere, and they clung to her like old gum clings to your sneakers.

And she lost her life while being pursued by these people.

Sure, the British press isn't the ones pushing this latest episode, but shouldn't people know better?

Kate Middleton appears to have her feet on the ground a little more than Prince William's mom did. Diana seemed to be overwhelmed with her status as a royal, but give Middleton credit, she seems to be embracing the challenge.

She and William have sued these trashy magazines for publishing the photos, but I have some words of advice for Middleton, who I know reads this blog on a daily basis (yeah, right).

1) Watch your appearance, no matter where you are. They will find you. It's amazing that you can even go to the bathroom without a camera taking pictures of you.

2) It's probably better to ignore the whole thing, rather than cast another set of eyes on something that will fall by the wayside before you know it.

People in the public eye have done much, much worse than sunbathing topless. You will survive, and the world will survive.

Just watch yourself from hereon in.

And pass that advice on to Prince Harry, too.

Rant #2,152: Once Bitten, Twice Shy

How was your holiday weekend?

Mine was OK ... a couple of barbecues, and a three-day weekend to recharge my batteries.

I really can't complain, although the weather could have been better.

And, of course, we could have used today, because while I am sitting in a hot office wondering about my future, the temperature outside will hit 90 degrees, or so the weather forecasters say.

My family has been fairly busy lately, so just sitting down and doing nothing but watching baseball on TV this weekend felt pretty good.

Of course, baseball was not on 24 hours a day, so I went to Netflix and chose to watch a movie that I figured would literally keep me occupied for 90 or so minutes and then just fade away into my memory as nothing more than a time killer.

So I picked something called "Teeth," and, well, no, this is not a movie that leaves your consciousness that soon.

The 2007 movie, which stars Jess Weixler as the girl with "teeth," and was written by Michael Lichtenstein, who also directed, is a perfect tonic for the current times we live in, where if you look at a woman in what she believes is the wrong way, you are automatically guilty of sexual harrassment.

That the film was made several years before this furor only shows how clever--maybe too clever--the film actually is.

This is the ultimate anti-male, feminist fantasy--written by a man, yet--where the girl in question gets her revenge, and then some.

Weixler--who looks about 13 years old but was in her mid to late 20s when this movie was made--plays Dawn, a sexually uptight high schooler from a blended, dysfunctional family. She heads a school group that preaches abstinence until marriage, a credo which she firmly believes in until she meets the guy of her dreams.

One thing leads to another, and she is having a more difficult time following her abstinence beliefs. One day, she and her beau go swimming, and well, the two get frisky, and although she protests, the guy cannot control himself and attempts to sexually attack her.

Crunch, crunch.

That is all I am going to say about it, but it ain't pretty.

For the remainder of the film, the young lady is filled with remorse about her, well, her chewing talent, and meets up with males who don't know about this talent that she has--actually called "vagina dentata"--and who sexually attack her in one way or the other.

Every male in this movie is after one thing, and one thing only, and Dawn is, well, not the right lady to pick on.

First, we have a gynecologist, who Dawn goes to to see to find out if what she believes is true about her anatomy is correct. The gynecologist sees this young, pretty girl with her legs spread wide open, and decides that he is going to take advantage of her with his hand--and then promptly gets the surprise of his life when he loses the fingers on one hand due to her "talent."

Chomp!

Then we have a guy who kind of likes Dawn, who ends up first successfully having sex with her--when she relaxes, so does the talent she has--and then, when doing it again, reveals he had a bet with some other guy that he could bed her.

Chomp!

And finally, she has sex with her evil half brother, who abused her years earlier when they were kids with his finger--which has a permanent bite mark on it from the experience--and who she hates for a variety of reasons, including letting her mother die while he was making out with some floozy.

Chomp!

Yes, Dawn is guilt stricken, to a certain extent, about her talent, but with her life in shambles, she runs away from home. She gets picked up by some slimy oldster ... and well, with the gleam in her eyes, you just know what is going to happen to this guy.

Chomp!

This is not a porn film. Very little is shown of a sexual nature, although the aftermath of the use of her talent is shown pretty graphically, leaving the impression that each guy she has been with has probably bled to death, making Dawn something of a serial killer.

Yes, this film is as twisted as all heck, but it won several awards when it first came out, including from the revered Sundance Film Festival, where Weixler was also feted as best actor, winning the grand jury prize.

The film did not do well when it was released, and has pretty much existed as a Netfilx entry, where I am sure it is a popular selection, so I guess you can call it a cult film at this point in time.

I kind of liked it, and yes, it kind of repulsed me too. Sure, it is probably the ultimate fantasy of women who hate men, but the film has a comedic edge to it that really makes it better than it really should be.

In my memory, there was a similar movie made in the 1970s called "Chatterbox," starring Z-movie fave Candice Rialson as a woman with a similar talent down there, but I have not seen this movie so I really can't comment on it.

But when I looked, I found it on YouTube, so I might be checking it out soon, if for nothing else than curiosity's sake.

But back to "Teeth" ... I would recommend it if you are looking for a movie that can really make you laugh and repulse you at the same time.

There aren't too many films like this that have ever been made, but "Teeth" certainly fills the bill.

Chomp!

Classic Rant #805 (September 14, 2012): The New Year

Sunday night  is the start of the holiest period during the year for Jews around the world. Rosh Hashanah commences this period, starting at sundown on Sunday, Sept. 16. This holiday continues for the next two days, on Monday, Sept. 17 and ends during the evening of Tuesday, Sept. 18.

On the evening of Tuesday, Sept. 25, Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, commences, and lasts a single day, ending on Wednesday, Sept. 26.

A few years back, I posted a rant about these holidays, and I figured it was high time to rerun part of it, so here it is, in updated form.

"Although I am not a religious Jew by any stretch of the imagination, I do participate in these holidays. They are holidays that ask Jews to examine their strengths, and weaknesses, during the past year and to reflect on how they can improve themselves during the upcoming year. They are holidays of both introspection and group prayer. During Yom Kippur, observant Jews fast, to show their forgiveness to God, and also to show their strength.

It is with this understanding of what the holiday means that I have always had this conundrum with how the rest of the world should look at these holidays. Should the “outside” world recognize this holy time of year or simply ignore it?

Living in New York, where there are a large amount of Jews, has made these holidays pretty well known by the non-Jewish population. In fact, schools are generally closed during Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

I once found out years ago that the reason New York City schools close on these holidays is that since such a large portion of their teachers are Jewish, it was not prudent to open when three-quarters of the teachers would be out.

This year, there are the usual myriad controversies revolving around whether certain events should be held on these holidays or not.

Professional sports leagues will go about their business during these holidays, but this year, at least one team--the Chicago White Sox--has changed the starting time of its game on the day of the beginning of Rosh Hashanah to appease many of its fans who would not be able to attend the game due to their faith.

But on the other hand, I am sure people are asking why their schedules have to be turned upside down to placate a group of fans.

When my son was in Little League, the league would, every year, schedule games on the first two nights of Passover. Although Passover is not one of the holiest occasions on the Jewish calendar, it is a holiday which revolves around the family, and the traditional seder, and garners wide participation even among non-observant Jews.

The league, of course, never had a game on Easter Sunday.

My workplace does not give me off for the Jewish holidays, even though the late owner was Jewish himself. I have to take the day(s) off as personal days.

Is this right? Shouldn’t everyone be given days off to celebrate their most holiest of holidays, whether it be Yom Kippur or Good Friday?

However, should business stop because a major religious holiday is being celebrated?

I don’t have an answer, and it is something that has puzzled me for years. These are religious holidays, and thus, they are more personal than say July 4 or Labor Day are.

The bottom line is this: do we suspend our usual day's activities because a major religion has one of its holiest days to celebrate?"

That's what I wrote a while back, updated to fit 2012.

I still have those questions, and I don't think those questions will ever be answered.

Anyway, have a good holiday. I will take the day off on Monday, so see you Tuesday.

Rant #2,151: Heroes and Villains

How nice that the NFL players now have a tidy settlement related to their "stance" on the National Anthem.

If they would like, teams don't have to come out and stand to our anthem.

Or, if they like, they can come out and do pretty much whatever they want.

Teams will be fined, not individual players, and the teams, like the New York Jets, are more than happy to pay those fines, said their owners, because it is a free speech issue, and they support the players in whatever they do, even bring disgrace to themselves and to the league.

Yes, it is a free speech issue, but since when is the playing field a political football, so to speak?

We love our sports because it takes us away from life's realities for a few hours at a time.

Why politicize our relaxation?

And why pay these players millions and millions of dollars to insult us?

Heck, thank goodness it isn't my money.

The other major sports generally haven't had such a problem, why just football?

Basketball has been on the fringes of this, but has weathered the storm because the NBA has a rule that players stand for the anthem, and if they don't, they are fined.

Period.

I don't know about hockey and baseball, but those two sports have had minimal disruptions caused by negative activities during the National Anthem.

Whatever the case, this is Memorial Day Weekend, where we honor those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country, something the football players have absolutely no clue about, even though they profess that they do.

Let's go back to Rant No. 1,444, May 22, 2015, to explore my feelings about Memorial Day, which applied three years ago, and also do now.

"And so it goes.

I know that many of you have off from work today, or will at least get a partial day off, and others will have to work the entire day, leading to the fruits of a holiday weekend.

I am happy to have the upcoming Monday off, but let's face it, few of us really think about what the holiday really means, we all crave the day off because, well, it is a day off.

Memorial Day is the federal holiday honoring those Americans who have died fighting in wars and conflicts our country has been in.

But does anyone really think about that when they are flipping the burgers on the barbecue?

Memorial Day might be a "memorial" day for these brave Americans, but how many of us really think about that while we are relaxing that day?

But the ultimate sacrifices these men and women made actually allow us to sit on the chaise lounge and take in the sun and the hot dogs.

Our way of life is assured by the actions of our military, who often fight in unpopular battles but do what they have to do to make sure that we are free.

I know that it seems so elementary, but these men and women are our real heroes, the people who do the dirty work so we all can be free.

With our very existence threatened by those people and countries who are jealous of our way of life, and the constant struggles we have in every day life to begin with, a day like Memorial Day should be savored, because a lot goes in to having a life like we have.

Sure, it is not perfect, but is there anywhere else where so many freedoms that we have are enjoyed?

So on this Memorial Day, yes, flip those burgers, enjoy the sun, shop those sales, and enjoy your day off.

But if only for a moment, think about what went into this day, why we celebrate it, and why that is more important than anything else."

That being said, have a wonderful holiday, and I will speak to you again on Tuesday.

Classic Rant #804 (September 13, 2012): Blurring Fantasy and Reality

Something happened on Monday evening that thoroughly blurred the line between fantasy and reality.

Professional wrestling has never been held up as the bastion of reality. Its made up storylines and planned matches have turned as many people off as it has turned people on to this so-called sport, which is actually more of a performance, although athleticism is used as a backdrop for all the nonsense.

Anyway, on the long-running Monday Night Raw series, WWE wrestlers were participating in a tag-team bout when all eyes seemingly turned away from the bout and to the announcers' table.

Using "the show must go on" axiom to the hilt, the match continued, but no one was watching it.

Long-time announcer Jerry "The King" Lawler, a former top-level professional wrestler and now announcer who sometimes laces up the boots for bouts, passed out at the table, and medics rushed to his side.

Minutes earlier, Lawler, 62, had just participated in a match where, among other things, he jumped off the top rope several times against much, much younger opponents.

With the world that the WWE created--where fantasy and reality are ofen so blurred that one runs into another--many in the crowd thought that Lawler's passing out was part of the storyline, just another chapter in the live show that would lead to something else.

But lo and behold, this wasn't fantasy.

Lawler stopped breathing as he was attended to by the medics.

He was rushed out of the arena, and taken to a local hospital in Montreal, Canada, where he is today.

He suffered a heart attack, has had a stent put in, and is in critical condition, the last time I looked.

As for the show, since it is live and beamed to a worldwide audience, the show had to go on.

No announcing was done, although Lawler's broadcast partner, Michael Cole, shined during his finest hour, giving updates on Lawler's condition to the stunned audience.

I wish Lawler the best. I was never a fan of his as a wrestler--you might remember that years ago, he pile-drove comic Andy Kauffman in another incident that blurred fantasy and reality--and I never liked him as an announcer.

But he has been a major personality in pro wrestling for four decades, and he doesn't deserve to go out like this.

Pro wrestling has often been knocked as being the most artificial of ventures, but in this case, real life won out.

I just hope that Jerry Lawler does too.

Rant #2,150: Tighten Up With Mrs. Robinson On a Beautiful Morning

Happy the Thursday-before-Memorial-Day-Weekend.

Yes, I have officially named today, because I cannot wait for this weekend to come already.

Any day that I don't have to go to my workplace is a good one, and I don't have to work on Monday, so what a day that will be, even if it rains and pours and is miserable outside.

And the Saturday and Sunday prior to the actual holiday ... gravy to me.

I'm off, will be busy on Saturday--we are going to my brother-in-law's house for a holiday weekend barbecue--and will take it easy on Sunday.

Baseball, barbecue and a break from routine ... that is what I am really looking forward to.

It reminds me when I was a kid, the coming of Memorial Day meant that summer was right around the bend.

And I don't remember specifically what my family and I did on the holiday 50 years ago, which took place on Thursday, May 30, 1968--but I know that we were off from school and probably preparing for a hot summer on the asphalt of New York City.

And that also meant that we had our transistor radios tuned into WABC and whatever other top 40 station that there was in New York City at the time.

At this point, so many of the top 40 stations had started to go by the wayside ... WABC is the only one that I can remember at this point that still played the music that we enjoyed, but perhaps WMCA was still playing Top 40 too, I simply don't remember.

But whatever the case, music was in the soon-to-be-summer air on May 30, and let's look at the top 10 singles in the country at that point in time, courtesy of Billboard magazine's Hot 100 chart.

For the week of May 25, 1968, the No. 1 song in the country was "Tighten Up" by Archie Bell and the Drells, a song that lasted two weeks in the top spot. One of the great dance songs of the 1960s, if I remember correctly, Bell and perhaps other members of the group were in the military when this song hit it big, and it started a nice chart run for the act, which charted numerous singles through 1973.

The song was such a good one that it probably would have stayed in the top spot if not for Simon and Garfunkel's classic "Mrs. Robinson," featured in the top film "The Graduate," moving quickly up the charts, this week at No. 2. The song would reach the top spot the very next week, and stay there for three weeks.

The Rascals' "A Beautiful Morning" came in at No. 3, one of the great summer songs that didn't even make its chart run in the summer.

One of the all-time great movie themes, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" by Hugo Montenegro came in at No. 4, with one of the most wretched songs ever to make the Hot 100 chart, Bobby Goldsboro's "Honey," rounding out the top five songs on the chart.

Mellow soul came in at No. 6 with the Intruders' "Cowboys to Girls," and at No. 7 was the Irish Rovers with their perennial St. Patricks Day classic, "The Unicorn," a song that reached its heights well after that holiday.

Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell had many hits on the Hot 100 both as single artists and together, and perhaps the best one of them all was at No. 8 this week, "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing."

Another Motown tune came in right behind Gaye and Terrell, with Stevie Wonder's "Shoo-Be-Doo-Be-Doo-Da-Day" coming in at No. 9, with Dionne Warwick's "Do You Know the Way to San Jose" rounding out the Memorial Day week's Top 10.

The week's highest chart debut, at No. 71, was "The Horse" by Cliff Nobles & Co. This song would eventually trot into the upper reaches of the chart at No. 2.

The biggest mover of the week--the single that jumped the most places on the chart from the previous week--was Aretha Franklin's "Think," which ran up the chart from No. 67 to No. 16. The song would eventually reach No. 7, and the single was so popular that many radio programmers also played the B side, "You Send Me," to the point that that side also charted, reaching No. 56.

So that is what we were collectively listening to on our transistor radios during this holiday period 50 years ago.

Lots of great music, lots of great memories, lots of great fun.

I have no idea what is playing in Top 40 now, but I do know that it cannot resonate with the general public like the Top 10 did way back when.

And listing those tunes has given me even a bigger need for the 2018 holiday to be upon us.

I cannot wait for this weekend to come already ... .

Classic Rant #803 (September 12, 2012): Monkee Shines

Today, September 12. might not be a day that you would tend to write down on the calendar as one to remember, but for me and millions of others, it is a day to remember fondly.

I was not quite nine and a half years old, and I was a very impressionable kid.

I loved television; my mother said that as a very young child, I used to jump up and down in the crib when "American Bandstand" was on the air.

Well, by this time I was out of the crib, but my fascination with television and music remained.

I was a huge fan of "Where the Action Is," the daily program showcasing America's hottest recording acts, and I still watched "American Bandstand."

But what came on NBC--Channel 4 in New York--at 7:30 p.m. that Monday 46 years ago may have changed me forever.

NBC premiered its new sitcom, "The Monkees," on this date, and the world of television and music changed forever ... and it certainly changed me forever, too.

Based on the Beatles' concept that was used during "A Hard Day's Night," the half hour show showcased four young long-hairs: Micky Dolenz, Davy Jones, Peter Tork and old woolhat, Michael Nesmith--getting into one fracas after another, all punctuated by music.

It was like a live-action cartoon, with all the cuts, jokes, speeded up sequences, and general nonsense, and the music was interspersed into the segments. Everything fit together perfectly, and the music was really, really good.

"Last Train to Clarksville" was already moving up the charts prior to the show's debut, and its placement on the show drove it to the No. 1 spot on the charts.

Many, many other hits followed, driven by the show--and that was the whole point.

For the first time, TV was selling music, not radio.

Sure, the Chipmunks and Ricky Nelson used their shows to sell their music to a certian extent, but the Monkees' show was really the first 30-minute commercial for rock music.

And radio had no choice but to bite into the pie that was being served on a weekly basis.

During its two-year run, the show was never an overall ratings winner, but it was a top show for the demographic it was pointed at, namely kids like me.

The show won a couple of Emmy Awards, so it wasn't just the music that was high quality, it was the actual sitcom itself.

Sure, there was controversy. The then-emerging rock establishment frowned on the concept, because the boys hadn't put in their dues.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Jones had plied his trade in his native England and on Broadway; Dolenz had been a Hollywood brat, starring in "Circus Boy" and was a guitarist with a band which was ironically named the Missing Links; Tork was a Greenwich Village folkie; and Nesmith had been hanging around for several years, recording several now hard to find singles in the folk, rock and country veins.

And also, it was "discovered" that they didn't play their own instruments on their first two albums, which was a common theme among many groups at the time, although few would acknowledge it. Yes, they later played on their albums and in concert.

Those controversies aside, the Monkees then starred in a movie that was so far off what they did during their sitcom that it really has to be seen to be believed that something like this could ever have been released to theaters.

"Head" showed the demise of the Monkees, right on the large screen. Concocted by Micky, Peter, Mike and Davy with Jack Nicholson, the movie takes the Monkees' story and discombobulates it to the point that the group isn't even the star of its own story--the story is the star.

It might be the greatest rock and roll movie ever made, and although it bombed when originally released, it has become quite the cult favorite over the past 40-plus years.

The Monkees did one TV special right after this, "33 1/3 Revolutions Per Monkee," which has turned into another cult favorite, held on with various levels of un-success, and officially died in 1970.

But wait, the story didn't end there.

Various reunions of some of the band members led to incredible tours, one major hit record, and a continued legion of adoring fans.

Davy Jones passed earlier this year, but the band lives on. Micky, Peter and yes, Mike, will have something of a mini-tour during late fall, and the tour is completely sold out.

Somehow, fans still love the Monkees. And I mean all ages of fans, not just old fuddy duddies like myself.

So here's a salute to the boys. The deserve it.

The Monkees have made me "shine" for the past nearly 50 years.

And I know it isn't just me.

Rant #2,149: These Are a Few of My Favorite Things

Before we get into a Julie Andrews karaoke competition, a few of my favorite things in the world are hamburger chains and their offerings.

Yes, I have loved these round, perfect patties of beef since I first ate at a White Castle in Queens, New York with my father years and years ago.

We would sit in the car and chow down on their square patties of beef, but, of course, in most places, we are talking about round patties.

And we aren't talking about White Castle anymore, although that chain has lived long and prospered.

We are talking about square, round and all shaped patties of beef at a variety of different venues--sit down, casual and fast food, and according to a new survey, one of the newest venues dispensing what may be America's favorite fast food is our favorite such venue when we have a craving for a hamburger ... or two.

For the second year in a row, fast casual chain Five Guys won Harris Polls' 30th "Burger Brand of the Year" award, beating out In-N-Out, which had topped the chart for five straight years.

I ate at Five Guys exactly one time, and I have to say that I was impressed with their burgers, which tasted quite a lot like the ones my mother used to make when I was a kid, in a fry pan. And you could actually taste the beef being used, which with all the fillers that are usually in these things, is an accomplishment in itself.

In-N-Out is basically a West Coast phenomenon, so I have yet to taste their burgers, but I am told that they are top of the line.

Harris surveyed more than 77,000 people to come to its conclusion that Five Guys is our favorite hamburger, determining what they call "brand equity" at 17 different chains, including the usual suspects--McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's--and several other venues--such as Jack-In-The-Box, Hardees, Carl's Jr,, and yes, the aforementioned White Castle--and strong familiarity, quality and future consideration scores won Five Guys this year's prize.

What probably hurt In-N-Out is the fact that it is a regional chain, only operating in 300 locations in six states, the furthest east being Texas.

In contrast, Five Guys--which ironically, was born the year this poll started--is in 1,500 locations across the country, and it is also in several foreign countries.

Personally, like I said, I have only eaten in Five Guys once, but I have eaten in the three major players--McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's--thousands of times.

For me, I like Wendy's hamburgers the best of the trio. They simply have more taste than the other two, although both Mickey Dee's and BK burgers have their merits.

And yes, you can get one of the trio's burgers just about anywhere in this country, and if you travel abroad, you can get their burgers in many countries too.

Look, the best hamburgers are really and truly the ones made at home--I had two last night for dinner and they were way, way above anything you can get on the outside--but if you are on the road, in a hurry, or you just want to take a break from cooking at home, you simply cannot beat the venues that abound around our country that offer burgers of every shape and size and concoction imaginable.

I have often wondered why America's other favorite feel-good food--hot dogs--have never taken off like this in a restaurant setting. Sure, just about all the fast foods at one time or another have offered franks on their menus, but it just doesn't have the spark that hamburgers do.

I think it has to do with the flexibility of burgers versus franks.

You can put just about any topping on a burger to make a meal, but franks, because of their shape, don't take to every topping as easily as a hamburger does.

(And yes, a couple of chains have tried a flat frank, shaped like a hamburger, but it just hasn't worked to capture our fancy.)

And honestly, there is nothing better than a hot dog with mustard and sauerkraut.

Beyond those two toppings, you are on your own.

And since Memorial Day is Monday, many of us will start our barbecue seasons--weather permitting--and there is nothing like a hamburger on the grill.

But again, if you prefer to go out to have your burgers, Five Guys appears to be America's choice.

But I still remember those times with my father, sitting in his car and munching on White Castle hamburgers with their thick shakes.

That experience grabbed me hook, line and sinker, and I just love those slabs of beef, I really do, so yes, they are truly a few of my favorite things, for sure.

Classic Rant #802 (September 11, 2012): Take a Tablet a Day

Toys 'R Us has announced that it will soon release its own tablet computer, geared to kids.

It's called "Tabeo," and it will retail for about $150.

Its debut is geared to the holiday season/

There are other kids' tablet computers out there, namely by LeapFrog. But this is the first time a kids' retailer is releasing its own proprietary tablet computer.

It will be loaded with "kid-friendly" aps, and it will be directed at parents with children probably in the 7-12 year old age group ...

Just what this group needs.

Computers are a wonderful thing, and the Internet is too. I'm not saying that either one is necessarily evil, because, let's face it, if I did, I would be quite the hypocrite.

But kids today are generally anti-social, because they are on the computer way too often.

They don't know how to make relationships away from the computer.

And once they are on the computer, they are open to heaven knows what.

People take advantage of the proximity of the Internet,and they can take advantage of kids who don't know any better either.

I understand the premise behind this latest tablet.

It's like in the "olden" days, when they had kids watches that taught youngsters to tell time.

It's the same thing with these computers, helping children learn about computers and the Internet with a device geared to them.

But computers and the Internet aren't kids watches.

They are serious devices that can lead to education and fun, but can also lead to anti-social behavior.

I, for one, would be very wary in buying my young child a tablet computer.

If he or she wants to use such a device, he can use mom or dad's--under supervision.

With such devices, we are feeding into a "computer plague," so to speak, and I don't think it is necessary for a child to have such a computer at such an early age.

Others will tell me that I don't know what I am talking about, but this rash of giving kids such electronics before they are ready to fully handle their responsibility doesn't look like it's going to end anytime soon.

And I think our society is the worse for it.

Let kids be kids, and not saddle them with the need to have the same electronics mom and dad have.

They simply aren't ready for it.

Rant #2,148: Unforgettable

Let's harken back to all of our childhoods for a few minutes.

Probably one of the first "toys" you received when you moved from the infant stage to the toddler stage was that sticky, gooey concoction known as Play-Doh.

Along with Silly Putty, this "toy" was a favorite of the five and under set, and at the same time, the bane of every parent, because it not only got all over everything, but it had a smell that you could not get out of your dwelling.

And it is that smell that we are going to focus on today.

Even if you haven't smelled a container of Play-Doh in eons, you know that smell. It is sort of a musky, almost vanilla-like aroma that doesn't smell as good as musk and vanilla smell like on their own.

It has that manufactured stink, and stink it does.

Well, since everyone pretty much can remember what eau de Play-Doh smells like, Hasbro, Play-Doh's manufacturer, recently trademarked the concoction's scent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

That's right--the scent.

Hasbro describes the scent as "a combination of sweet, slightly musky, vanilla-like fragrance, with slight overtones of cherry, and the natural smell of a salted, wheat-based dough."

OK, if I didn't read the previous lines that I wrote, I would think they were describing the newest fragrance on the market, but that being said, they could have described the scent in one word:

Wretched.

If you remember, not only did the dough get all over everything in its path, but you could not get the stink out of the house unless you sprayed around or opened a window and hoped for a stiff breeze.

Originally devised by somebody by the name of Noah McVicker (now you have someone to blame) for a soap company known as Kutol Products at the request of Kroger Grocery, which commissioned its creation as something that could be used to remove coal residue from wallpaper (!), the compound made its debut at an educational convention as a creative "toy" for kids in the early 1950s, and the rest is history.

Where does that stink come from?

It comes from its ingredient mix for sure. I suspect this, even though I am no scientist.

For kicks, I looked up what makes up Play-Doh, a concoction that has been around as a "modeling compound" for children since 1956, and yes, it smells like it, too.

Anyway, the concoction that goes into making Play-Doh includes salt, water, starch, some type of lubricant, some type of preservative, and of course, whatever is used to give the mound its color.

And yes, if you were wondering, Hasbro has the patent on the overall "starch-based modeling compound," so now they basically own the entire mound of Play-Doh, from the actual glop to its aroma.

I absolutely remember playing with Play-Doh when I was a kid. It was a new "toy" back when I played with it in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but I do remember not only how it felt as I squeezed it in my hands, but I also remember shoving it through different plastic molds to shape it into different shapes.

And my kids played with it too. Not only did it get all over everything, but try to get Play-Doh off of something when it hardens. Even the strength of Superman could not get that off the carpet, the bed, or wherever else it ended up.

I don't want to be gross, but I think part of the fascination that kids have with this goop is that it is reminiscent of their own bodily goop; it's like playing with it, in a funny sort of way.

Whatever the case, Play-Doh is pretty much part of every little kid's childhood. There have been copies of this concoction, cheap rip-offs that simply don't have the same allure as the original.

But when one says that there is nothing like Play-Doh, not a truer thing has ever been said.

There really isn't anything like Play-Doh, and that is something that I think we can all agree upon.

Classic Rant #801 (September 10, 2012): Tarzan of the Apes

Tarzan of the Apes turns 100 today.

In 1912, the book featuring the character for the first time, "Tarzan of the Apes," by Edgar Rice Burroughs, was released.

The book talked about a young child who was lost in the jungle, and raised by apes.

He wasn't an ape, but he acted like one.

Of course, he was handsome, viral and was as athletic as any person on earth.

The books made their mark, and Hollywood called.

Elmo Lincoln, Johnny Weismuller and a whole slew of other Tarzans filled the role over the years.

And all of the actors fit the part perfectly--young, handsome, and very athletic, especially Weismuller, who was perhaps the best of all the screen Tarzans.

What he possessed that the others didn't was that "rough" look. He really looked like he could have been Tarzan, had the character actually been a real person.

And that yelp--well, no one before or since has duplicated it.

However, the Tarzan that I resonate with the most is Ron Ely.

Yes, there have also been a slew of TV Tarzans, but Ely filled that role in a mid-1960s TV show that was really so far off the mark that it was ridiculous.

Ely played a Tarzan that was socialized, spoke perfect English, and was more a superhero/adventurer than anything else.

Heck, the Supremes (yes, Diana Ross and ... ) actually guest starred on the show as ... nuns!

It was a ridiculous show, but as a young kid, I guess I kind of liked it.

The character has continued on, as strong as ever, in the movies, on TV, in comic books and cartoons and other media, and shows no sign of dying out.

It's that basicness of the character--a human raised by apes--that I think gets people going on this character.

So happy 100th birthday to Burroughs' best creation (sorry, John Carter), and many, many more.

Rant #2,147: Good Thing

First, congratulations to the newlywed royals. I know they read this blog each and every day, and that they would appreciate our blessing of their union.

May they live long and procre ... err, prosper!

Now on to much more important matters.

This was pretty much one of the few dull weekends my family and I have had in recent memory.

We did what we had to do, and then, we got a chance to relax a bit.

Really, the only thing we did of note was go to our son's bowling league to see the 2017-2018 season off.

For whatever reason, this season was about a month shorter than last season, but it was a good season for my son and his team.

They finished in third place this season after a last place finish the year before.

Our son's average went up 12 points, to a 126.

And all the kids had fun, and I know our son--the middle guy in the photo, with his team--certainly did.

This is a pretty unique league, in a pretty unique program.

It is put on by the Nassau County, New York, Police Athletic League's Special Needs Unit for those people, aged from about 15 or 16 up through their 30s, who have mental, physical or emotional handicaps.

A lot of times, these people grow up with big targets on their backs.

They are often looked down upon by their peers, and yes, bullied and made fun of because of who they are.

But in this league--and the variety of other sports leagues and activities that fall under this program--these young men and women are all on an even keel.

They are allowed to be themselves in a non-judgmental way, and also, to be competitive with each other on various sports fields, which makes them pretty much like any other person who strives for sports competitiveness in their own lives.

And don't get me wrong. The people in this league are as sports-competitive as anyone, and there are actually several excellent bowlers in this league, some averaging in the 160s and bowling into the 200s.

Our son is very shy and quiet--he doesn't speak to to many people unless he knows you well--and he is still learning the social graces of the world at age 22.

In his life, he has been the victim of those who have taken advantage of him because of his demeanor. This has happened when he is in school and more recently, outside of school, where some unscrupulous individuals see him as an easy mark.

But in this league, he doesn't have to even think about such things, and, of course, the main thing here is to have fun, which I believe he does.

My wife and I are so proud of our son, and the leaps and bounds he has taken as he become a more mature adult. He still has a long way to go, but he is on the path now, what with a regular job and an increasingly mature attitude about things.

He is still very quiet, and I think that puts off a lot of people, even among his peers.

But he manages to excel, even in the face of adversity, and we know that he will continue to grow.

And this league has helped him do that.

So congratulations to all the participants in the Saturday afternoon bowling league, have a good summer, and we will see you next season.

And to me personally, that is all much more important than just about anything.

Classic Rant #800 (September 7, 2012): The Big 8-0-0

Today, we reach 800 official blog entries on this site.


Over the past few weeks, I may have doubted that we would ever reach this number, but we did reach it, even if I’m limping to the finish line right now.

The number 800 is an interesting number. It is perhaps most well known as the number prefix you dial for toll-free numbers, as in 1-8-0-0-whatever.

Nothing really happened in the year 800 that bears worth mentioning here.

But it’s a number with a lot of circles in it, if nothing else.

Nobody has hit 800 home runs in Major League Baseball, although in Japan, Sadaharu Oh supposedly hit more than 800 dingers—868—during his career over there.

I don't know much else about the number 800, other than we've reached it here.

Thanks for continuing to visit this site, and thanks for giving me enough strength to reach this number.

Here's for another 800--at least.

Rant #2,146: It Doesn't Matter

Today is Friday, May 18.

We are slowly creeping toward Memorial Day and the coming of summer.

My allergies are killing me.

I cannot find a new job.

Blah, blah, blah.

But you know what else is coming ...

Tomorrow, the royal wedding between Prince Harry and commoner American Meaghan Markle, a marriage that is a made in heaven affair for the times.

They are young, good looking, and she is of mixed race, all to satisfy current trends that the media loves to jump on.

But really, what is the fascination with royal nuptials on this side of the Atlantic?

Really, I have no idea, I can just theorize.

We could have had our own royalty, but George Washington, as legend has it, did not want to be called "King."

If that is actually true, good for him.

I guess his action has made many of us yearn for a real American king and queen in a bizarre sort of way.

And when I say "many of us," I really mean the female part of the equation.

They seem to be the only ones of us who are obsessed with what is going on in England right now, they were the only ones obsessed with the goings on of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, and while I won't say that every woman is so obsessed, do you honestly know a single male who cares about this stuff at all?

No, and here we have another reason that men and women are different, and this time, it has nothing to do with anatomy.

From infancy, little girls are generally brought up to believe that their own prince will one day come, whisk them away and they will have a storybook pairing with their own Prince Charming.

Even though the reality does hit them later that nothing is as described in fairy tales, they still retain that ethic, that adoration for what could be.

Boys are not brought up this way at all.

I am not even saying that it is a conscious thing, that parents bring this kids up like this on purpose.

But this sort of "Cinderella Theory" does exist, even if it isn't out in the open.

This gives women a reason to be so interested in the marital affairs of the royals, an event that has absolutely nothing to do with anything over here.

We have had our Presidents who have had marrying age children get hitched while they are in office, but it just isn't the same.

And with today's with-it women, who supposedly want to do it all--career, marriage, motherhood, etc.--what are women so fascinated with when looking at the royals?

Their unions are so old-fashioned, you cannot believe that so many women actually buy into this stuff.

The royals get married, and the new princess--or whatever they are now called--are expected to do one thing while married, and one thing only:

Have babies.

And not only have babies, but have male babies.

If this doesn't go against the current female ethic, the current feminist credo, well, I don't know what does.

Look at Harry's brother, Prince William, and Kate Middleton--she seems to be a baby factory, and every kid she has puts Prince Harry further back in the chain of command. Harry is now sixth in line for the throne, but who knows, before you know it, the way Middleton spews out kids, he could be seventh, eighth and ninth before you can blink an eye.

And that is another reason that I cannot understand this fascination that so many women have with the royals and their weddings.

They are so old fashioned, so retro, so backward in their thinking about why women were put on this earth, that I have to think that so many of the women obsessed with this actually want to harken back to those days, even though most of them wouldn't admit it.

They would be very happy to have babies, stay at home, and run their own households, but the reality of it is that due to economic and other reasons, the can't do it--but their obsession with such goings on allows them to dream.

So there, I have said it, I have said what nobody else would--many of these women are as old fashioned as can be, but because of current mores, they can't voice that opinion ... but they can at least dream about it when they see a royal wedding.

So good luck to Prince Harry and the beautiful Markle--she is a nice looking lady, guys--and I hope they have a long-lasting marriage, and yes, have many, many kids.

Me, I will be watching the New York Yankees this weekend--baseball royalty if you will--and hoping they can get their games in after a rain-splattered week of no baseball.

And who do they play?

The Kansas City Royals, of course!

Have a nice weekend. Speak to you again on Monday.

Classic Rant #799 (September 6, 2012): Lap Dancing As Art?

You walk into your local strip club, with a fistful of dollars in your wallet.

You sit down, watching the slinkily clad women doing their thing.

One comes over to you, leading you to a private area where she tells you that for x amount of dollars, she will perform a lap dance for you.

Is her lap dance art, or trash?

An attorney for an Albany, New York strip club claims it is art, akin to performance art, and claims that lap dances should be freed of state sales taxes under an exemption that applies to dramatic or musical arts performances.

The attorney claims that lap dancing is an art form and the state is not qualifed to make such a determination, which would be a violation of the right to freedom of expression.

A ruling is expected in October, and would impact about 200 such establishments in the state.

I don't know abou you, but lap dancing isn't the Bolshoi Ballet, and it isn't even break dancing.

It is completely, 100 percent sexual. Some guys (and gals) evidently need this "freedom of expression" to get their jollies off, I guess, but to put it up there with other freedoms of expression is kinda out there, isn't it?

I have been to one strip club in my life. It was during a bachelor party many years ago for my then brother in law.

I hated every minute of it. While you are watching the festivities, you get pumped for money for drinks. If you don't drink, even if you have paid your admission, you can't watch.

It's not my thing at all, but I know for others, it is their thing.

But to rate it as art is kind of strange.

It's almost like saying that when people protest, that's art too.

I don't buy it.

Next, there will be some lawyer that claims that prostitution is art too. Freedom of expression ...

I am no prude, but let these establishments survive, and thrive, but art ...

No way.

Rant #2,145: The Long and Winding Road

I didn't even realize it myself, but on May 4, 2018, the Ranting and Raving Blog reached its ninth anniversary.

It came by so fast that it simply passed me by.

I have been a writer for over 30 years, writing for a variety of topics, everything from real estate to security to show business to military resale.

I have also written for pleasure, and honestly, this is what this blog is all about.

I make my living writing about what my employer wants me to write about, which is currently military commissaries (supermarkets) and exchanges (department stores). It is a multi-billion-dollar market that few outside of the military know about, and it is currently going through some major changes as budgets stiffen and people in Washington look to save rather than spend.

Whatever the case, that is what I write about, and it puts bread on the table.

But it also stifles my creativity. And when a writer has his creativity stifled, that writer really is "no good" anymore.

So I started this blog to recharge my engines, allowing me to write about what I want to write about when I want to write about it.

I don't make a cent from this blog, but it goes well beyond the monetary aspect: this blog is just so much fun to do, and it really allows me to stretch myself a bit.

Like yesterday, I wrote about the present situation in the Middle East. Another day, I have written about how I hate to wear a tie. Still another day, I have written about looking back 50 years to a different time and different place in my life--and all of our lives.

I don't have a huge audience here. Unlike some other bloggers, I really don't need to have thousands of people reading what I say. I am quite satisfied with the dozens that I do have. I don't advertise this blog at all, except on Facebook, which has become a necessary evil. I put up what I write there, so it cuts down on how many people actually come to the blog site, but that is fine. I am not looking for numbers. If you want to read what I have to say, fine; if not, that is fine too.

I know I have infuriated people at times by what I have written here, and at other times, I have pleased people, too. I have learned that you can have it both ways, as long as you stay true to what you believe in.

Look, this is all fun. At the end of the day, I know I have given you, my readers, at least a half-way decent column for you to spend a few minutes reading during your busy day.

I don't profess to hit a home run every time out, and I know that I don't.

Heck, people will complain that this very column that I am writing now is grandstanding, patting myself on the back, and is something that they could have lived without.

That is fine. If you know me, you know that I am big on birthdays and anniversaries, so this is what you are going to get today; heck, I am upset with myself that I missed the actual date of the anniversary!

But that being said, let's take a short look back on some other topics I have written about on May 4, the actual anniversary of this blog.

On May 4, 2015, I wrote "All Day Sitting," where I talk about how I sit all day as the days pass me by;

On May 4, 2016, I wrote "Monkeeing Around," about the re-emergence of the Monkees with their then-new album "Good Times!";

On May 4, 2017, I wrote "Here Comes the Judge," about the Yankees' then-rookie phenom, Aaron Judge.

I could have looked back further, and you would have found a pretty good mix of stuff, everything from sports, to movies, to TV, to politics to really, the condition of the human condition, to use a phrase that cuts across a wide swath of topics.

So let me leave you today with an apology, for not acknowledging this anniversary nearly two weeks ago when I should have; and a vow, that I will continue to write this blog, through thick and thin, and try to give you food for thought each and every weekday.

Tally-ho, and away we go!

Classic Rant #798 (September 5, 2012): Physical Therapy and ... Raquel!

Just to keep you up to date on my pinched nerve, my doctor told me yesterday that I would need physical therapy two to three days a week for at least a month to try to get rid of this things I have.

If that doesn't work, an epidural injection might be the way to go.

He can't guarantee that I will be the same that I was before I injured myself, but any lessening of the pain would be a positive.

I hurt so much now that I will take what I can get.

I point to "The Lockhorns" comic strip today.

In the single panel strip, the doctor asks Mr. Lockhorn, "Where doesn't it hurt?"

I am in the same predicament.

I hurt all over.

Well, not all over, but my right arm is absolutely killing me.

And since I'm a righty, it makes things all that much worse.]

I am learning to do things with my left arm, although the doctor did say that going to work was, in fact, making it worse.

But I can't sit home; I don't have enough sick days to do that.

So I trudge along.

And, oh yes, happy birthday Raquel Welch.

I have never been a big fan of hers, but she is what she is--the last real, old fashioned, honest to goodness sex symbol that Hollywood produced.

She made one good movie--"Fantastic Voyage"--where her sexiness was downplayed.

And she made numerous horrid films--including "Kansas City Bojmber"--where her sexiness was completely overplayed.

She was no Marilyn Monroe, not even a Jayne Mansfield.

But in the 1960s and early 1970s, the name "Raquel" almost became a code word for sex.

Heck, even Russ Meyer had a film named "Harry, Cherry and Raquel."

So, her legacy is intact as she celebrates another birthday.

Good for her.

Rant #2,144: Fight Fire With Fire

I purposely held off on commenting on what is happening in the Middle East as the U.S. opened its embassy in Jerusalem and dozens were injured and killed in Gaza protests.

I could have certainly spoken about it on Monday, and on Tuesday, I wanted to honor my daughter on her 30th birthday, so that day was out.

So it's Wednesday, and today is the day to not only talk about what is going on, but also, to address some of my brethren, some of my fellow Jews who somehow have pity on those poor, poor Palestinians.

First of all, let's give credit where credit is due. President Trump did something that no other president could do or would do, even though it has been on the table for years. He recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and then speedily, in time for Israel's 70th anniversary celebration, opened I guess what you can call something of a makeshift embassy there. It will take several years, but another, permanent embassy will be built.

With this move, Trump exposed the Palestinians--and for that matter, their handlers, Hamas--for what they truly are, barbarians, gutter rats, human garbage, call them what you like.

In a perfect world, the Palestinians would have seen that it was in their best interests to settle down, sit at the table with Israel and the U.S., and work out a plan where they would be granted their own state. They could then work arm in arm with their new Israeli friends, and build a country from scratch just like the Israelis did.

Yes, that picture is a nice one, but we live in the real world, and there is no way that this was going to happen.

Instead, the Palestinians simply continued to do what they have been doing for years, attacking Israel in any way it could. The Gaza protests simply continue this pattern, with thrown rocks, tires set on fire, pipe bombs being thrown, and general lawlessness pervasive during these protests.

The Palestinians and Hamas cannot be dealt with on a human level, and Israel will defend itself when attacked, even at the protest level.

What saddens me most is that the world does not acknowledge--refuses to, I think--that the Palestinians do not want peace, they want the annihilation of Israel. They do not want a portion of Jerusalem, they want it all.

If our stance on Jerusalem hasn't shown the world this, then the world is either blind or stupid, or is there something else going on here that no one wants to talk about ... and that is that the anti-Israeli stance taken by the world on Jerusalem really is veiled anti-Semitism.

Yes, the world would love for Israel and the Jewish people to simply go away, or be put away by their enemies.

What also saddens me is that many American Jews, who should know better, take the stance that Jerusalem should not be part of Israel, that the boundaries should go back to pre-1967, and that the Palestinians should be given what has been part of Israel for the past 50-plus years via war gains and be granted their wish for their own state.

Sorry, I simply do not buy this at all.

War gains are just that, and calling certain areas "occupied lands" is in itself repugnant, as these lands were won in war. I don't see the U.S. giving back New Mexico and Texas anytime soon to Mexico, and those lands were also won in war, too, so why should Israel give back land to the enemy who they soundly defeated a generation ago?

And for so many American Jews to have pity on the Palestinians, particularly as Trump's plan unfolded, demonstrates just how ridiculous their thinking really is.

First off, many of my brethren are so anti-Trump that anything he says or does repulses them. Second, they refuse to acknowledge the obvious, which is that the Palestinians don't just want all of Jerusalem; they want all of Israel too. They want annihilation, they don't care how they get it--sacrificing young people and children is OK--and they have a Hamas-fed hatred of Israel that borders on obsession.

If it wasn't for the gratitude of Israel, the Palestinians would have no electric power, no communication, no water system, and many would be without jobs.

What other country opens up its own hospitals to care for those from enemy groups who need such care, as the Israelis do to Palestinians?

And for so many American Jews--some who must have some self-guilt about who they are and how they fit into the fabric of the U.S. assimilation--to pretty much side with the Palestinians and call on the Israelis as the aggressors in this whole mess, well, I just don't get it.

I have seen the virulent nature of these people on Facebook. I have been thrashed by some of my fellow Jews on my stance on Israel, and one fellow lonsmen had the audacity to tell me that I should move to Israel, because apparently, since I am so pro-Israel then, in this person's mind, I would be better off there.

What people like this refuse to see is that Jewishness and Israel go hand in hand. If you do not back Israel--the Jewish state--then there must be a reason, and it is clear anti-Semitism, at least in part, that fuels this idiocy. and on some people's part, it is obvious that it is their own self hate that fuels their fire, the simple fact that they are Jews themselves somehow, they think, makes them different, makes them stand out, makes them something different from the "norm."

You don't have to agree with everything Israel does, but in certain instances, you must back them 100 percent--in particular, in events that have to do with their very existence--and with what is going on today in that region, I believe they must be backed completely.

When there are fissures in the firmament, you are going to have others who believe that now is the time to spew their anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli beliefs. "Heck, if the Jews don't even back Israel, well, that empowers me to voice my hatred too!"

I believe if that anyone--Jew or non-Jew alike--had any pity for the Palestinians, then it should have gone out the window with their recent antics.

But sensibility and reason does not exist when talking about the Palestinians, and I see that so many people and countries are against what the U.S. has done there, that you really have to ask yourself why they are so vehemently against this, and unfortunately, yes, anti-Semitism still exists.

And yes, it pains me to say this, but oftentimes, the most virulent anti-Semites can be my fellow Jews.

In 1948, Israel was given a piece of worthless land to set up a country, Forty years later, this country, built on what was thought to be dead land, is among the technological leaders of the world, is a major center of commerce and industry, and has done all of it with one single long-time friend, the U.S., standing alongside of it through thick and thin.

In recent times, this has not always been the case, but the present administration stood by what it promised.

We should all throw our political beliefs aside, because the current situation in Israel goes beyond politics. We should all back the President and his administration thoroughly on the Jerusalem recognition and embassy move, and show the world's terrorists that we will not be moved by their reprehensible behavior.

You don't have to like our President, but you have to respect what he is trying to do in that part of the world. It benefits the U.S., benefits Israel, benefits the free world, and yes, it also benefits the Palestinians.

One day, perhaps, they will see through the tire smoke and understand the hole that they are digging for themselves.

We, as a country, cannot back down from our stance, one that should have been realized generations ago but is finally coming into place now.

Let's all get together on this one. Let's lead the way. Let's show others that this is the only way to go.

Let me leave you with this quote from Social Activist Jane Addams. I think it says a lot about what is happening right now, and is certainly food for thought.

"What, after all, has maintained the human race on this old globe despite all the calamities of nature and all the tragic failings of mankind, if not faith in new possibilities, and courage to advocate them."