Classic Rant #716 (April 13, 2012): Guilty of What?

I have held my tongue (or my typing fingers) long enough on this one, and although I have written extensively on this on Facebook, I haven't done it here yet.

Until now.

Just exactly what is George Zimmerman guilty of?

Yesterday, Zimmerman was in the courtroom for his shooting of Trayvon Martin, the teenager who Zimmerman followed and killed several weeks ago.

After much debate, the state of Florida filed second-degree murder charges against him.

Zimmerman has claimed from the outset that Martin attacked him as he turned away and was headed back to his vehicle. He claims he acted in self defense.

Zimmerman sits in jail now, awaiting future trial. His lawyer has not asked for bail, probably because at this point in time, the safest place for his client is in jail, away from the public as well as being secluded away from other prisoners.

The brouhaha that this incident has caused has been something incredible, fanned by the media's desires to propel this story to front pages around the country, as well as other opportunity seekers' needs to see their names featured prominently in those stories.

Zimmerman is public enemy No. 1 to some people, but quite frankly, I want to know exactly what he is guilty of--and we will find that out when his trial takes place, a few months down the line.

I believe he was at least guilty of one thing: as part of the neighborhood watch of his community, he saw Martin in a gated community, and didn't believe he belonged there. He called the police, as is procedure, and the police told him not to pursue the teenager, that they would take care of it.

He did so anyway, and that he is guilty of, that is obvious.

Beyond that, everything is pretty fuzzy, even though to some people, it is pretty clear.

What happened between Zimmerman and Martin is where the crux of this case stands, and Zimmerman will have his day in court to explain everything that happened, at least from his standpoint.

Did Martin attack Zimmerman? Did Zimmerman feel threatened? Did Zimmerman attack Martin? Was this all a dreadful accident?

That is what we will all find out somewhere down the line.

However, there is a lot of racism in this country, and I am not just talk about the "traditional" type.

I am talking about behavior that is anti-social, anti-human, and really anti-everything this country stands for.

Race mongers--yes, people profiting off of such a virulent act as this one--have already convicted Zimmerman of this crime. They would even lynch him if they could, and they have basically done that with their words over the past few weeks.

People like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson (yes, I have removed the Reverend from their names, because they are more "men of the sloth" then men of the cloth) and Spike Lee have become their own judge and jury in this case, and the scary thing is that so many people have backed these fools in their quests for attention.

Sharpton and Jackson are long-time rabble rousers who know an opportunity when they see one, and they have clearly seen one here.

They point fingers without knowing any facts, and their rants and raves (yes, in lower case) are racism and bigotry at their worst.

Where were they when a mob murdered Yankel Rosenbaum in Crown Heights some years ago? I guess Rosenbaum wasn't the proper "persuasion" for Sharpton and Jackson to get involved.

And let's not forget Sharpton's Tawana Brawley fabrication and Jackson's "Hymietown" comment.

These guys are out for themselves, and let's not forget that.

And Lee is the worst of the bunch. He actually had the gall to be giving out Zimmerman's supposed home address on Twitter so that people could visit Zimmerman, and he didn't give it out so visitors could have tea with the man and his family.

The problem is that it wasn't Zimmerman's address; it was the address of an elderly couple who had nothing to do with this incident.

Lee should have been jailed for his actions, but a lot of hush money kept the elderly couple away from the courts.

I want to hear what Zimmerman has to say. Sure, it will be his story, and not Martin's story, and not Sharpton's or Jackson's or Lee's story.

But let's hear what he has to say before we rush to judgment.

I thought that in this country, you were innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, personally, I think that Zimmerman will get the book thrown at him for some guilt in this incident. He went against what the police told him to do, so to a certain extent, he created the situation that ensued.

But what happened after Zimmerman decided to pursue the teenager is extremely important, and there is no way anyone can convict this man to the fullest extent of the charges until what happened comes out at the trial.

And those looking to lynch Zimmerman prior to hearing his side of the story are no better than those who lynched others, simply because of the color of their skin, throughout our country's history.

Hate is hate, no matter what hue it takes on.

Rant #2,063: Pride (In the Name of Love)

Today, January 15, 2018 is the 15th day of the year.

It is also Martin Luther King Day in this country.

Most people have the day off today.

I do not.

I have never had Martin Luther King Day off,  never in my entire working life.

New York State adopted the holiday earlier than most other states, but I have never worked for an employer who acknowledged the holiday; the belief was that if you needed to take the day off, you took the day off.

I never needed to take the day off in my memory, although I might have taken the day off maybe once when my son was a baby or a young child, because whoever was tending to him--possibly in nursery school--took the day off, so I did too.

I honestly don't remember, but I do know that if I did take the day off, it was not a "free" day, and counted against my sick and personal days off that were given to me by my respective employer.

So today, which is supposed to be a day of service anyway, is a day I toil at work.

Thus, I won't be able to participate in one of the first sales days on the yearly calendar.

And if anyone denies that this is what Martin Luther King Day has become, well, they are being delusional.

It is no different than President's Day, the Fourth of July, and pretty much any other holiday on the calendar.

It is interesting that some companies give the day off, while others do not.

Case in point is my wife's place of work.

She works in a bank, which I will not name, but she has today off.

However, her bank is open on President's Day next month.

If you can explain that, well, then you must be pretty smart.

I think it is all a political thing, so PC to be off on Martin Luther King Day and so chic to have to work on President's Day ... yes, a further knock on who occupies the Oval Office, but heck, what do I know?

Anyway, have a great day of service off while you shop 'til you drop.

And there is no nice way to segueway into the next topic of today's Rant, but I have to acknowledge the passing of legendary broadcaster Keith Jackson, a jack of all trades in sports broadcasting, and a master of all of them.

He was, of course, best known as the voice of college football for about 40 years, but even if you weren't into that game, you knew him from everything else that he did.

He did the NBA. He did MLB. He did the Olympics ... you really could go on and on with him.

He was the consummate professional network broadcaster, and one of the many MLB games that he did for ABC was one I was at, and never heard until decades later.

He did the 1976 American League Championship Series between the New York Yankees and the Kansas City Royals, one of the most thrilling playoff series in baseball history.

He manned the booth with Howard Cosell and Reggie Jackson, and somehow, he kept the booth in order with those two in attendance.

And when Chris Chambliss hit the game-winning, playoff-clinching home run in the final game of that series, it was Jackson at the mike.

I was there, and I never heard the actual broadcast until years later on the Yankees' own network, YES.

It was a real kick to hear it years later, and I must say, Jackson kept a certain level of decorum in the booth, even as the raucous proceedings were taking place on the field.

This southern boy also called a number of other major New York "moments," including the Knicks 1973 NBA championship--the final one in their history to this point in time--and the game the Yankees played after Thurman Munson died in a plane crash.

Yes, he was certainly best known for college football, but to me, Jackson will be remembered for the whole kit and kaboodle of his illustrious career.

Again, have a nice day off, and I will speak to you again tomorrow.

Classic Rant #715 (April 12, 2012): A 62-Year-Old Partridge In a Pear Tree

If you need a reality check on how much older we have all gotten, let me give it to you right now.

David Cassidy is 62 years old today.

That's right, the lead Partridge Family member, or at least the one of two (along with stepmom Shirley Jones) who sang on the Partridge Family records, turns a year older today.

The early 1970s were prime time for Cassidy. The son of actor Jack Cassidy was primed and ready for stardom in the late 1960s, but show business didn't know what to do with him.

He appeared in a couple of smaller roles in TV shows, but once the concept for "The Partridge Family" TV show came about--supposedly based on the real-life Cowsills, who had a number of hits but weren't thought to be photogenic enough--Cassidy was a lock for the lead role.

And he handled it pretty well.

"I Think I Love You," "I Woke Up in Love This Morning," and several other hits followed during the run of the show, but Cassidy actually became much bigger than the show, basically picking up the mantle from Davy Jones as the No. 1 teen idol in the land, besting Bobby Sherman by inches.

Wherever he went, there was mass hysteria.

Regrettably, during one concert, a fan died, and Cassidy had to take a long, hard look at his career from that point on.

His dual careers--actually three careers, as an actor, singer of Partridge Family records, and singer on his own, solo records--began to peter out by the mid 1970s. He still recorded and acted--and acted very successfully in a couple of stage productions--but his teenybopper fame really only lasted a few years.

He has been in and out of the spotlight since that time, recording and acting sporadically.

He was supposed to go on tour with Davy Jones this summer, but Jones' death put the kibosh on that.

Whether Cassidy is 62, 72, or 102, he will always be remembered by his fans as that fresh-faced kid with that beautiful long hair on The Partridge Family.

Along with Jones and Sherman, he must be looked upon as one of the all-time teen idols, loved by million of pre-pubescent girls, many of whom are now mothers and even grandmothers.

My sister absolutely adored him. She posted his pictures from Tiger Beat all over her room, she listened to his records, and she watched his show. And yes, she is the mother of three now, so she fits the profile perfectly.

Good luck to Cassidy.

A 62-year-old Partridge?

You bet!

Rant #2,062: Good Clean Fun

I am sick of talking about and reading about some of the trendiest subjects bouncing around the news and the Web, including our President's supposed latest faux pas (at least in some people's eyes), and the latest witch hunt for the next "victim" of the scourge of supposed sexual harassment (even if the behavior was consensual, it was sexual harassment anyway, as some say), so I figured that today, I would keep this column as light as possible, making it a good segueway into a nice, three-day weekend (for some of us, at least).

What could I talk about that would make this column as light as air today?

Let me see ...

Everybody is beginning to talk about Dr. Martin Luther King, since his celebration is on Monday, but you know what? Fifty years after his death, he is still a very controversial figure.

I would rather leave that for Monday (yes, you figured it out, I have to work that day).

And again, I am sick of hearing about and talking about the nonsense that permeates the supposed serious, hard news today.

How about talking about the Monkees?

The Monkees, you say, why am I talking about the Monkees?

Simple. For a band that had its peak more than 50 years ago, they continue to be a very, very hot commodity in the marketplace, with several new releases.

Let's start off with this one.

I received it when I purchased the latest "Super Deluxe Edition" of one of the best-selling albums of all-time, "More of the Monkees" by the Pre-Fab Four.

Rhino Records has been giving a second and third and fourth look to the Monkees' recordings ever since they came into possession of their entire catalog some years ago, and hence, they have been releasing three-CD boxed sets of their albums for the past few years.

The "More of the Monkees" release, which contains both mono and stereo versions of the original album and a host of extras, came out just a few days ago, and as is the norm with these releases, Rhino includes a new 45 with each of them, which contains even more bonus tracks.

This 45--"I'm a Believer" (2017 remix) backed with "(I'm Not Your) Steppin' Stone" (vocals only) is a nice record, a little different from the original release, and the B-side, in all honesty, is much more interesting than the A side this time around, because it gives the listener more of an aural peak into the process that went into creating this tune, featuring only the vocals from the hit song.

Here is the original picture sleeve of this monumental record, a former No. 1 record for the Monkees which was so popular, that its B side also charted, at No. 20.

Heck, this is a busy time for the release of Monkees stuff, more than 50 years after the fact.

And if you are into comic books, well, the Monkees are featured as guest stars in a new comic book that is on the stands now.

As I reported a number of Rants ago, the Archies welcome the Monkees to their comic book this month, and for collectors, there are several different covers of the comic book to collect.

Here is one of them.

Now, of course, the Monkees had their own comic book in the 1960s, as part of the Dell Comics stable of comic books based on popular shows of the time, everything from "Star Trek" to "Dark Shadows."

And in real life 2018, both Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork continue to tour, separately now, and Mike Nesmith has geared up his other classic band, the First National Band, for a series of concerts out west, at least for now only.

Why are the Monkees continuing to be so popular in 2018, more than 50 years after their heyday?

It is really hard to say, to be honest with you.

They were a combination TV show/rock act, which makes them unique in the history of rock and roll, and gave them extra visibility which evidently lasts to this day.

The reruns continue to be around, permanently etching their 20-year-old selves on us ... like Jerry Mathers, no matter how old he really is, will aways be that little kid on "Leave It To Beaver."

The Monkees are old school, and they keep current by releasing a new album every few years, like 2016's "Good Times1" which was rated one of the best albums of that year by seemingly every music publication on earth.

My take on this is that they harken back to a different time, in particular for the younger generation of Baby Boomers who were 10 years old or less in 1966.

We weren't babies anymore, but we were still young enough not to fully understand the intricacies of life yet, and the Monkees simply represent(ed) "us" at the time.

They burst onto the scene when we were still little kids, and faded off the scene when we were becoming young teenagers.

Davy Jones passed away a few years ago--bringing our own mortality into focus--but the other three members move on, seemingly ageless, even though they are all well into their 70s.

And maybe most importantly, the music is absolutely timeless.

So, on a day where I didn't want to talk about anything too controversial, I chose the Monkees to spotlight.

Now, I might get some angry people saying that the Beatles are the "true kings of rock," and I would certainly agree with that 1,000 percent.

But you know what? The Monkees aren't half bad, either, and you can't go wrong with the spree of new releases centering around them that are currently out right now.

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

Classic Rant #714 (April 11, 2012): A Classic Day In New York Baseball History

Today, April 11, is a prominent day in New York baseball history.

Both the Mets and Yankees share in this historical day, although the days were actually separated by decades.

In 1962, the Mets made their debut on this day, playing a road game in St. Louis and losing to the host St. Louis Cardinals 11-4.

The Mets would go on to lose 120 games that year, and their 40-120 record has stood for 50 years as the worst record in major league baseball history.

But for an area that was without National League baseball for the previous four seasons, the Mets were a revelation.

After the Dodgers and Giants left for California in 1958, the only team in town was the Yankees. National League fans had to wait for another team to come along, and not only was another team coming along, but it was going to be the centerpiece of a brand new league.

Branch Rickey, long gone from the Dodgers, dreamed up the new Continental Baseball League as an entity that would try to garner loyalty for a set of teams, including a New York team.

The Continental Baseball League looked like a lock, but then the National League thwarted their opportunity by launching the New York Metropolitans as an expansion franchise, the successor to the Giants and Dodgers. With that launch, the Continental Baseball League died a quick death.

And although the team was inept at the start, and continued to be inept until 1969, New York fans loved the "Amazin' Mets," especially when they moved from the Polo Grounds to their own digs in Queens at Shea Stadium.

And when they improbably won the World Series in 1969, the hysteria was incredible. As a Yankees fan I remember it well. Everyone seemed to love the Mets at that time. Even Ed Sullivan's Topo Gigio wore a Mets uniform.

Now turning 50, the Mets franchise has been more inept than solid through the years, and they really have never risen in popularity above the Yankees, but as the second team in New York, they remain one of the most popular teams in professional sports.

Now looking back even further to the most popular and successful team in professional sports, the Yankees also celebrate an anniversary today, albeit a less auspicious one than the one celebrated by their crosstown rivals.

Facing the Boston Red Sox as the Highlanders in 1912, the soon-to-be-named Yankees lost to the Boston Red Sox, the team the would be their main rival through the decades.

The Highlanders would go on to lose more than 100 games that season, the last time the Highlanders/Yankees would lose that many games in a season.

More importantly, today is the 100th anniversary of the Yankees sporting pinstripes on their uniforms.

They weren't the first to do so--the Cubs did it a few seasons earlier--but the Yankee pinstripes stand as the most iconic fashion statement in professional sports.

It is what makes their uniform so special.

Those pinstripes were black, but they eventually morphed into blue pinstripes, and the uniform is prized by many with such a fashion statement.

And although there was a brief hiatus with the pinstripes a few years later, they eventually came back strong, and have never left, and the pinstripes have been with the team for every pennant and World Series since the late teens and early 1920s.

Congratulations on these anniversaries for the two New York baseball teams. Each team has a rich history, and who knows what lurks for these teams over the next 50 and 100 years.

Play ball!

Rant #2,061: When Smoke Gets In Your Eyes

Today is January 11, 2018, the 11th day of the year.

This day is also a historic anniversary, one that has impacted us all in this country.

Fifty-four years ago today, in 1964, the Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Luther Terry, published the landmark report that exposed smoking for what it was, a habit that could lead to not only sickness, but death.

The report, "Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the United States," stated that smoking may be hazardous to one's health, and when it came out, it was labeled as pretty controversial for its time.

This was a different time in our country, when smoking was as ubiquitous as eating a hamburger was.

It seemed that a rite of adulthood was to light up a cigarette, and few thought twice about doing so.

Even doctors were lighting up, and promoting smoking through television commercials and newspaper and magazine ads.

But the report brought up that such a habit could lead to various maladies, and none of them good or life sustaining.

The report signaled the first move away from this practice, looking at smoking at what it was: a habit that could kill.

But it was a long and difficult road to get the public to buy into this belief, but it was one step in the right direction.

For instance, it took a full seven years after the report was issued for television smoking ads to be banned from the airwaves.

Some of the most memorable commercials were those pushing one cigarette after another, and heck, even The Flinstones pushed smoking in the ads on the cartoon show.

But this report was the first step to changing the public's perception of smoking--cigarettes, cigars and pipes--from that of pleasure to one of prohibition.

Remember, in those days, you could smoke just about anywhere if you were of age--in a restaurant, in a movie theater, in an arena or stadium--really, anywhere.

It was simply accepted.

So this report was truly a game changer, because it pointed out that while some might have believed that smoking was pleasurable, it was killing smokers while they were having their pleasure.

I saw my grandfather literally smoke himself into the ground, by going from cigarette to cigar to pipe, seemingly in one fell swoop.

As a young child, I once asked him why he smoked, and if he could stop.

His reply to me was, "I can't."

Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs on the planet. It has a pull that snatches you and doesn't let go.

My father was a smoker at one time--he has not smoked since before I was born, giving it up cold turkey--and he has said numerous times that even though he has not smoked for more than 60 years, yes, he does yearn for a cigarette from time to time.

We all know how addictive nicotine is today, but back then, it was almost like penny candy--it was there, it was cheap, it was available, so why not partake in it?

Smoking a cigarette, in particular, was portrayed as sexy if you were a female, and smoking a cigar and pipe was thought to be such a manly gesture back then.

But the report changed all that; what it did was that it forced the public to look at smoking seriously, and when that was done, one could see how potentially dangerous the habit could be.

Now, several states are legislating recreational marijuana use, and I just have to think that they are opening up a can of worms that this more than 50 year old report warned us about.

No, the report did not get into pot smoking, but it did bring up that smoking was a dangerous habit.

I can't believe that smoking--whether nicotine or marijuana--can be a smart, safe thing to do.

Quite frankly, the smoking of anything can't be a good addition to a healthy lifestyle, but with more states jumping on the pot bandwagon, only time will tell if another similar report is needed to warn us of the dangers of smoking marijuana.

Nicotine or marijuana--neither smells too good to me.

Classic Rant #713 (April 10, 2012): Two Anniversaries

Today, April 10, marks the date of two famous anniversaries in 20th century history.

Each has left an indelible mark on our civilization, but in very different ways.

On this date in 1912, the soon-to-be-ill-fated RMS Titanic set sail from Southampton, England, on its maiden voyage.

It stopped first at Cherbourg, France, and then at Queenstown, Ireland, to pick up passengers before heading out on its voyage on the open sea.

Of course, you know what happened after that.

Filled to the gills with very wealthy passengers, like John Jacob Astor, but mainly with poor people seeking safe passage, the ship hit an iceberg, thousands died, and it was the first modern cruise ship disaster.

Heck, we can even see it play out in 3D in the "Titanic" film in our local theater.

Also on this date, in 1947, the Brooklyn Dodgers purchased the contract of Jackie Robinson from its minor league affiliate, the Montreal Royals.

When Robinson played his first game, he broke the color barrier in baseball.

Now, all players, regardless of color, could play major league baseball. And Robinson showed just how talented he was, helping to change the game forever.

Two incredible instances happening on the very same day, 35 years removed from one another.

To this day, I think the Titanic disaster has been somewhat overplayed by the media.

Yes, it truly was a horrible thing to have happened.

It just proved that no matter how rich you are, your money isn't good when such a disaster strikes.

Everyone is, literally, in the same boat when this happens, no matter if you are a millionaire, billionaire, or just normal folk.

And James Cameron's "Titanic" movie, no matter how good it was, kind of amplified the fact that we have had a fascination with this disaster for years, now reaching 100 years. And we just can't let go.

Heck, there is an even a cruise ship which headed out to sea the other day, which will be following the same exact route the Titanic took when disaster struck.

How morbid!

The Jackie Robinson story hasn't been overplayed at all. I don't think anyone from the succeeding generations, mine included, can realize the power of this move that the Dodgers made, and its reverberations throughout so many facets of our lives, way beyond just sports.

Sports is the field where two sets of teams or players meet, and major league baseball supposedly showcases the best baseball players in the world.

But without black players, baseball only showcased the best white players, so you weren't getting the best of the best, until Jackie Robinson came into the game.

Much more importantly, this move was really the first step toward acceptance of blacks as equals in our country. I really believe that Jackie Robinson had as much to do with the civil rights movement as Martin Luther King did, but Robinson did it on the baseball diamond.

So, two interesting anniversaries on the same day ... one having a far-reaching impact on our lives, the other one, merely a point of fascination that will never go away.

April 10 is a very interesting date in history, isn't it?