"They're creepy and they're ooky, they're altogether spooky, The Addams Family--snap snap."
That was part of the theme song to one of television's creepiest series, "The Addams Family," starring John Astin.
Astin turns 82 today.
As a kid, I really didn't know what to make of the show. It was ookly, it was creepy, but it didn't wow me as "The Munsters" did.
I think this has to do with the fact that on "The Munsters," the characters were what we would call monsters: the Frankenstein monster, the vampire, etc.
On "The Addams Family," there weren't any "real" monsters, just very, very weird people.
And John Astin led the stellar cast as Gomez Addams, the husband of Morticia and the father of two of the weirdest looking children television has ever seen (actually, Wednesday was pretty cute, so it was really "one of the ... .").
Anyway, Astin was quite a well-known actor prior to this role, having appeared on numerous television shows and also with a minor role in the film classic "West Side Story."
But this show took him to new heights.
His portrayal of Gomez was spot on, sort of a mix of Groucho Marx and J. Paul Getty.
And when he romanced wife Morticia, played by another great actor, the late Carolyn Jones ... well, as a little kid, maybe this turned me off even more to the show; there was romance on "The Munsters," but it was more subtle.
Astin later married Patty Duke, and had several children with her, including Mackenzie Astin. He is the stepfather of Sean Astin.
They aren't married anymore, but their legacy together is solid, having appeared on numerous games shows as husband and wife. Patty Duke even took his last name for years.
I haven't seen Astin do anything for quite a while, so I assume he is retired from acting per se, although I do know he kind of morphed off screen as an acting teacher.
But when I conjur up that Gomez smile and look in my mind, well, I have to smile, too, even though I liked Herman Munster more than I did Gomez Addams. I did like Lurch, however.
"You rang?"
But happy birthday to Astin, an excellent actor who will forever be etched in our memory as the dashing Gomez Addams.
It is really hard to believe that this basketball icon, who is now known to the younger folk as the Knicks TV analyst, has reached the magic 67.
But he has.
He was probably one of the five best basketball players I have ever seen. This guy could do anything on the court, and do it with such an air of nonchalance that not one drop of sweat would seemingly drip off his body.
He could pass, he could shoot, and boy, could he play defense.
And Frazier, who became known as Clyde because of his penchant for wild attire--a penchant which he still has--has been a New York fashion plate for years.
He lived the life, and still does.
And he is a guy that not only lived for the moment, but lived for it afterwards too.
Clyde has told the story many, many times, and it is kind of impressive.
After his playing days were over, a girlfriend of his challenged him to learn new words, to expand his knowledge of the English language.
So he went about doing so, by reading dictionaries and using whatever resources he had possible to expand his use of the language.
And he did, and now, he is well known for using elevated words on the Knicks' broadcasts, or simple-sounding rhymes describing the action. I love it when he says, "posting and toasting."
He is entertaining and always insightful.
Going back to his playing days, during the championship series that eventually led to the Knicks first NBA championship in 1970, he had one of the most memorable games in basketball, or pro sports, history.
With center Willis Reed limping on the court, Frazier took command of the situation entirely. He scored 36 points and had 19 assists, leading the Knicks to the championship.
Back to the current time, Frazier also recently opened a restaurant in Manhattan which has gotten rave reviews, so he has moved seamlessly into another area.
Happy birthday, Clyde. You are the greatest Knick player of all time, and one of the greats overall.
The multi-state Mega Millions lottery jackpot has jumped to $476 million, because no one has picked the correct numbers.
Numbers 9, 19, 34, 44, 51, and Mega Ball 24 were chosen yesterday, but no one chose those numbers, so the jackpot stretches up in anticipation for the next drawing on Friday night.
And with the chances of winning being one in 176 million, your chances of winning are lousy, but for dreamers like me, attainable.
We play the lottery at work, so if we won, we'd have to split the pot about seven or eight ways.
If that was the case, I would have no problem winning about $60 million, and after taxes, taking home $30 million.
No problem at all.
I could use the money.
I consider myself to be the working poor. I make a somewhat decent salary, but with my background and education, I really should be making more.
Today is the 16th anniversary of my first day at my current job, and I have more than doubled my salary here during that time.
But prior to this, I worked for companies that paid cheaply, and just about all of them went out of business, so I wasn't making much money back then, and I'm still not.
That being said, I know there are others who are just as deserving of the money as I am, but I really can't worry about them. I have to think of myself and my family, and yes, I do believe that I should win this lottery.
What would I do with the money?
Well, the first thing is that I would have to hire an advisor, someone who knows how to manage the money so that I get the biggest bang out of it as possible.
Second, I would pay all of my and my wife's bills. And I do mean every penny.
Third, I would help my parents pay off their mortgage. They shouldn't have to worry about such things in their supposed golden years.
Fourth, I would set up some accounts for my kids, so they would have some money waiting for them if they needed it.
Fifth, I would probably have to listen to my advisor, and set up some type of foundation so I could write off some of the money. I don't know what it would be directed at, but all rich people have such things to protect their money, so why shouldn't I?
And the sixth thing, and probably the most important thing, is that I would probably put the rest away in the bank in some type of account. As I am getting older, I see that having something in the bank is incredibly important.
Would I quit my job? I really don't know. I can't answer that now.
So, I have laid out my plan for the money.
I deserve it. I have suffered enough.
Again, I know that others are just as deserving of the money as I am, but I have to think of myself and my family.
I hope I win. I deserve to win.
And that's the bottom line.
Where's the money?
Hopefully in my pocket after the drawing is held on Friday.
"Dark Shadows" was a TV phenomenon in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
What started out as a gothic soap opera that nobody watched to a vampire-laced half hour show that was "must-see TV" before the phrase was even coined ranks in the annals of TV history as something you really have to shake your head about.
With Jonathan Frid as the brooding Barnabas--a character that was not in the original concept of the show but one that made the show what it was--leading a cast of interesting characters including witches, people who came back from the dead, and rich people not knowing what to do with themselves, the show made its name in TV history as probably the first soap opera to go for a non-housewife audience.
Sure, housewives cringed with the rest of us as they watched the show, but as "Dark Shadows" evolved, it was clear that the show was going for the kids audience, an audience that they hooked once the character of Barnabas came on the scene.
The show's characters became icons for kids my age at the time, roughly 10-13 years old.
What made the show fun was all of the inconsistencies and all of the pratfalls the actors made on camera. Production people were mistakenly in the shows' shots, actors stepped on tombstones, things fell down, actors forgot their lines, and there was one episode that showed Jonathan Frid actually carrying off his shoes!
How these things got into the shows added funny turns to supposedly straightly dramatic episodes. Quite frankly, you never knew what you would see when you watched this show, whether it was in the storyline or part of the haphazard nature of the show.
And the show's stars became seemingly famous overnight. You could even pick up a Tiger Beat and while you read about Davy Jones, on the facing page was a story about Jonathan Frid or Quentin (David Selby) or any of the other actors on the show.
But the phenomenon lasted just five seasons, and with Frid refusing to return for another run, the show was cancelled in 1971.
It has lived on on video--it is probably the only soap opera with all of its episodes intact, less one--and in the hearts of anyone who watched the show, with the lights off, of course.
During its run, two theatrical movies were produced, one which pretty much followed the vampire story line with a bit more blood than the TV show, and the other more of a ghost story.
Since the show's demise, there have been constant attempts to revive the Dan Curtis production both on the small and big screens. In fact, there was a nighttime version of the show in the early 1990s that was more graphic but less campy than the original. It didn't last long.
There was a further attempt about 10 years ago to bring the show back to the small screen, but only a pilot episode was shot, and it just didn't work.
Creator Dan Curtis's dream was the bring the show back in one form or another, and he went to his grave not really realizing his dream to the fullest.
But the show never lost its following, even counting somebody by the name of Johnny Depp as one of its most ardent fans.
Depp was a fan of the show as a child, and when he became a successful actor, he vowed one day to not only revive the show as a feature film, but he would play Barnabas!
Finally, his dream has become reality, and the "Dark Shadows" movie debuts later this year.
That is all fine and good, or at least it should be fine and good, shouldn't it?
One problem though.
The movie is not going to be done straight. No, Depp and Tim Burton have developed the "Dark Shadows" film as a comedy, a sendup of the original.
How you can do a sendup of the original campy show is beyond me, and from what I have seen of their work on the movie, I would say that they better deliver the goods, or this will be another TV/movie re-boot that is destined for the trash heap.
TV has started to show an elongated commercial for the film, and I have to say that it will probably offend anyone who watched the original show.
It starts out in 1972, or after the original series aired. I guess that is how they separated this film from the TV show that inspired it.
In the early production shots of the film, Depp looked like a ghoul as Barnabas, with white makeup, white hair, the whole works. In the trailer, though, he looks like a modern version of Peter Lorre, creepy but not as creepy as Jonathan Frid looked naturally.
There are low-ball jokes abounding in this film, the use of disco music is appalling since disco didn't come onto the scene until the mid 1970s (maybe that is an inconsistency they wanted to use like the inconsistencies used in the original show), and well, when a film goes for big breast jokes, you know it is going to the deep end of comedy.
Heck, I like big breasts as much as the next guy, but when your comedy goes that low, well, you aren't getting "Young Frankenstein" here (which also used the "my, those are big knockers" joke, but so, so effectively).
The film is a goof, quite frankly, and why they decided to go this route is beyond me.
With Depp and Burton at the helm, I expected a bit more.
But let's not totally dump the film just yet, although it does look quite bad.
If it has the smartness of, let's say, the original "Brady Bunch" film, which was also a sendup of the original TV show, then maybe it will work.
But if it misses that cleverness--and if the people involved really didn't "get" the original show, then it will--then the film is doomed.
And the original Barnabas character will be spinning in his grave over this one.
Let's hope it's better than I've seen so far, because if it isn't, you can put a stake in its heart.
It's done, and not well done by any means.
(And happy birthday to Jerry Lacy, who played the evil Reverend Trask on the show. He turns 76 today.)
A resume is an essential tool during the interview process, as is a cheery disposition and a desire to be employed by the company you are interviewing with.
But in today's Internet age, companies evidently want to make extra sure that the person they are hiring won't be a complete embarrassment to the company, so they are asking applicants for their Facebook account information, and checking up on them through this popular social website.
People are getting outraged because of this, saying that it is an invasion of privacy.
This story has received incredible coverage by the media, and yesterday, two U.S. senators, one from New York and one from Connecticut, stated that they will ask the Justice Department to investigate whether employers are violating the law by asking applicants for their personal information related to Facebook and other social networking sites.
Democratic Senators Charles Schumer (New York) and Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut) said they will ask the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to examine this practice too.
Facebook itself has said through press releases that this practice by employees is "alarming," and violates their rules to users that they should not give out their personal information related to the site--including passwords--to anyone.
In addition, the senators argued that by requiring applicants to provide login credentials to potential employees, these employees would gain access to information that is not permissible to ask for verbally on a job interview, such as religious affiliation and sexual orientation.
I think the senators have a point here.
Facebook has become the site of choice for many on the Internet, and I think most people use it as sort of a virtual chat area, where they put up everything from light, personal stuff to opinions on various topics.
Others use it for other reasons, and yes, some people abuse Facebook.
When you hear about people putting up nude photos of themselves or attacking others for their beliefs, you know that Facebook has become the current Wild West on the Internet.
Why employers would want to check out a potential applicant's site is beyond me, and it really is nobody's business--except the people you want to view your stuff, your "friends"--what you say or do on the site.
But on the other hand, if a potential applicant did willingly put nude photos up on Facebook, or had opinions that were against the norm that he or she posted, let's say racist rants, I guess I might like to know about them if I were considering hiring someone.
I think the bottom line here is that people should be careful about what they put up for others to see on Facebook, and they should really limit who they choose as "friends."
The laws are so skimpy on what rights anybody has to their own personal information--or, as this situation develops, what rights others have to your information--and to protect yourself, I wouldn't put up anything that will get you in a pickle.
But again, "anything that will get you in a pickle" is open to interpretation. Something that is really tame might be considered nefarious by a potential employer.
For instance, if you are a Yankees fan, have proclaimed it on Facebook, and your potential employer is a die-hard Red Sox fan, would that force your potential employer to re-think your application?
I know that that is a pretty tame example, but it could happen.
So be careful, but "carefulness" is really in the eye of the beholder here, and that is why I back the senators in their plight.
What you might think is nothing with nothing might be considered to be something more by a potential employer. Heck, I've got stuff up on Facebook that I am quite proud of, but honestly, the more I think about it, some people might think some of the stuff is pretty incendiary.
And as for this blog ... well the beauty is really in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
However, I firmly believe that during the interview process, your resume and/or application, and what you say and how you say it during this process, should be the barometer used by potential employers to determine whether you are a good match for their company, not what is on a social networking site that has holes as big as dark holes that users--and these potential employers--can drive through and crash in.
Watch what you put up--you never know who will be lurking.
Going to the prom is a rite of passage for many of us.
We managed to get through four years of high school, so I guess some people think it is important to go to this gathering too.
Me, I didn't go. Didn't know any girls, was too shy ... you name it, I never made it to my prom.
It really wasn't important to me, anyway, and honestly, I don't think I missed out on a thing.
But flash forward nearly 40 years later, and proms have become somewhat difficult.
Whether it be the naming of those considered "non-conformists" as the prom queen or the playing of certain music that is deemed too risque for the student body, proms have become convoluted.
And in the Internet age, they have become even more so, as enterprising teens invite celebrities to be their dates--and the celebrities often accept the invitation.
And just when you thought that you have heard everything, well, you haven't.
A Minnesota high school senior who asked 600 porn stars to his prom on Twitter will not be allowed to bring the one who said yes, his school said.
Mike Stone, 18, tweeted to his prospective dates: "i have dinner hotel and ill give u a massage to."
Evidently Stone, who is a special needs child, was turned down by several girls in his own school. Desperately wanting to go to the prom, he came up with the idea of inviting porn stars to be his date.
One accepted, and well, she isn't going to be allowed to attend the prom at Tartan High School, Oakdale, Minn.
School administrators banned Megan Piper, 19, who is a Los Angeles-based adult entertainer, from attending the prom.
The photo I included with this Rant is about the only one of her that I could find that would keep this a PG site.
Stone's mother had no idea what her son had done. "I was a little upset at first and I feel like I'm on my kids and know what they're up to," Diven Stone reportedly said to news outlets. "But I support him and I don't understand what her profession has to do with anything."
In a statement released to ABC affiliate KSTP, Tartan High School said Piper's attendance "would be prohibited under Tartan's standard prom procedures and would be inconsistent with two school district policies." Those policies prohibit activity that may lead to disruptions.
I guess a porn star that few have heard of can cause a terrible disruption, especially since she would be at the prom with her clothes on like everyone else who is attending.
Piper, who is just a few months older than Stone, was quoted as saying she is disappointed the school banned her from being Stone's prom date, especially since she never attended her own high school prom.
"I can make this kid's dream prom experience come true and get a chance to go to a prom," she told ABCNews.com. "It was a win for both of us."
Stone--who, come to think of it, has the perfect porn name himself--and Piper plan to throw their own "alternative prom" and invite the Tartan High School students to attend it instead.
Well, I ask you, what is this world coming to?
He asks 600 porn stars to attend and just one says yes?
Where is their morality here? Where is their common sense?
Yes, it really is "The End of the World As We Know It," isn't it?
Yesterday, I wrote about fast food chains, and I said that nobody who is on a diet or at least watching their calories should be frequenting these establishments.
Today, the word out of Israel is that a new law passed on Monday prohibits the employment of underweight models, or models whose body weight index does not match their height.
The new law requires models to produce a medical report that is no older than three months old at every shoot that they want to do in the Israeli market. The report has to show that they are healthy and not malnourished, using the standards put forth by the World Health Organization.
The WHO relies on body mass index, which is calculated by weight and height, and using this calculation, a body mass index of 18.5 indicates malnutrition.
Using that standard, a 5 foot eight inch woman should weigh at least 119 pounds.
According to news reports, this new legislation might help even non-models to regulate their weight according to these standards. About 2 percent of Israeli females between the ages of 14 and 18 have severe eating disorders, a rate that is similar to other developed countries, so the legislation might show some girls that if models don't have to be paper thin, neither do they.
Of course, that is simplifying the problem of eating disorders that so many women go through, but it might be a step in the right direction to show girls that paper thin isn't necessarily in.
I never got the model thing. Some of these models are so thin they look like sticks with legs. Many of them are completely unattractive in my eyes, only around to show off some designer's hideous outfits.
And, on the other hand, I never got the bulimia thing either, eating and then throwing up. To me, that is more a psychological thing than a weight or body image thing, but then again, I am not a doctor, so what do I know.
But those eating disorders can kill you. Some girls purge so often that their insides can't take it. Singer Karen Carpenter may have purged herself to death, as has been reported, and this was a woman who was thin as a rail, probably naturally so, but she wanted to be even thinner.
This obsession that we have with perfect bodies is so off base, but it isn't going away because of some Israeli law.
I have never figured out why so many women, in particular, go under the knife to change their looks, whether it be to increase or better shape their chests or to get nose jobs and face lifts.
Why can't we be who we are and be happy about it, or at least be comfortable in our own skins?
Some people are naturally thin. My mother is built like a pencil, has always been that way, so it is natural for her to be skinny as a rail.
My father, my sister and I are not built that way, not even close.
And that is what makes the world go around. You have fat people, skinny people, and people who are moderately skinny and heavy.
This obsession with being like actors and models--who also go under the knife to assure that they look "perfect"--really is appalling.
We should be who we are, and not be somebody else's approximation of that.
They say beauty is only skin deep, and I truly believe that.
Not that this law will make that much of a difference for many of us who are obsessed with how we look, but I guess it is a step in the right direction.
McDonald's is the top hamburger chain. Nothing comes near it in sales, and I mean nothing.
Its sales alone trump everything in its sight. Last year, McDonald's reportedly took in $34.2 billion in sales, which was much more than the No. 2 and No. 3 hamburger chains' sales combined ... and I mean much more.
But what are No. 2 and No. 3 anyway?
Wendy's dethroned Burger King as the U.S.'s second biggest hamburger chain based on sales last year.
According to research firm Technomic Inc., Wendy's reportedly had sales of $8.5 billion in 2011, and Burger King wasn't far behind, with $8.4 billion, so Wendy's is now the No. 2 hamburger chain in America, but not by much.
Worldwide, Burger King remains in second place behind McDonald's, as it has far more restaurants than Wendy's does in other countries, so if you add everything up, Burger King is still No. 2 worldwide, a very distant second to McDonald's.
But what is the No. 2 restaurant chain overall?
It is Subway, with $11.4 billion in sales in 2011, and Starbucks is No. 3 with $9.8 billion in volume.
But as far as strictly hamburger chains, Wendy's is No. 2.
Yes, I eat fast food. I know that is such a negative comment today, or seemingly it is, with everyone talking about eating healthy, but I do eat fast food on occasion.
My family and I just had Wendy's the other day, and I don't think it is as good as it once was. I had its new Big W sandwich, and it really didn't have that much taste.
It was OK, but nothing that special.
McDonald's deserves to be No. 1, because its food tastes better than the rest.
And its fries are excellent.
Burger King is Burger King, meaning that you don't get that much when you go there, but you know what you are getting.
It is less expensive than the other two chains, and that is reflected in the food there.
It is OK, but McDonald's and Wendy's are a couple of notches above Burger King.
I also like Taco Bell, Arby's and the like, but honestly, the best hamburger you can get remains the one that you cook up yourself at home.
But if you are on the go, and don't have the time to make one yourself, the fast foods do offer an alternative.
And no, you don't go to them if you are dieting or watching your weight.
They aren't to blame for any weight issues you might have.
But if you want a quick bite, the fast foods are the best place to get full in a hurry.
So congratulations to Wendy's. I think they deserve to be where they are, although I was a bit disappointed the last time I went there.
It's good to be back. I had some personal things to get out of the way, which I did, and now I am back in the saddle.
These things were somewhat involved, but toward the end of the day on Friday, I finally had a lot of fun.
I saw two basketball games virtually back to back, and the only thing that tied them together being the way the ball bounces.
The school district that my son is in, along with several other school districts in Nassau and Suffolk counties here on Long Island, have joined together to create a Challenger Basketball League. What that means is that Special Ed kids--the kids most likely to be forgotten in high school, and the kids that certainly feel left out when it comes to athletics--compete against one another on the basketball court in a slate of games against different schools.
My son is a Special Ed kid, and he also loves sports, so this league has been a godsend to him.
Sure, they bend the rules a bit to get all the Special Ed kids involved, but it is a fun time for all.
My son has wanted me to see him in one of the games, but since they are played during the weekday afternoons, I haven't had a chance to see them.
However, one of my goals for Friday was to finally see him play, and that is what I did.
Even though his team lost 42-26, I really enjoyed myself at the game, but the kids who played enjoyed themselves the most.
Whatever their ability, they were able to run up and down the court and feel good about themselves. Both boys and girls played at the same time, and a few of them actually showed some athletic ability.
But for kids who often feel left out of activities like this, this was a great thing. The season ends this week, and I hope that it spreads to other schools next year.
Right after the game, my son and I whisked off to see the New York Knicks take on the Indiana Pacers at Madison Square Garden.
It has been a rough stretch for the Knicks, as they've changed their coach and hopefully changed their attitude. As you may have read in my previous post, it has been a frustrating time for the team's fans too.
Anyway, with a new coach in tow, they have recently won three games in a row and look like an excellent team again. The game that my son and I saw was the middle game of this mini-winning streak, and it showed that a different mindset can do wonders for a team that was floundering.
Preaching defense, the Knicks put away the Pacers early. Although the score was 115-100, the Knicks were ahead by 30 or more points for a good part of the game, so for once, my son and I saw what amounted to a relaxing game at the Garden.
So we saw two games, and two good games at that.
One was much more important, in the grand scheme of things, than the other, and I will let you decide which one I am talking about.
As I am sure you already know, the New York Knicks have a new coach, because the old coach went ahead and quit because he lost the team during its recent trials and tribulations.
Mike D'Antoni, who was brought in three years ago as head coach when the team was in complete and total disarray with bad contracts and bad deals it had to answer for, felt that it was for the betterment of team for him to step down.
Fans have been after his head for nearly the entire season, and a small dose of "Linsanity" didn't last too long.
Actually, the refusal of his top player, Carmelo Anthony, to conform to his program doomed his status, and rather than coach out the season in losing fashion, D'Antoni decided to take the proverbial hike, and take two of his assistants--one his brother--with him to never never land, a place where doomed coaches retreat to, only to come back leading another team in the near future.
The team has given over its leadership to Mike Woodson, one of D'Antoni's assistant coaches, who was basically in never never land himself, having once coached the Atlanta Hawks before being fired.
This situation really went down the tubes because when you lose your star player, you basically lose the team.
The NBA is the only professional sports league that I know of where the players basically have more power than even the coach to help make decisions that are supposedly for the betterment of the organization. Teams rely on players to keep coaches in the right perspective, or the perspective that the players deem is right, and in this case, since Carmelo wasn't jelling with D'Antoni's vision, the coach had to go.
Can you imagine if Derek Jeter told the Yankees that he didn't like what Joe Girardi was doing to him by dropping him down in the batting order or not playing him on certain days of the week, and that, perhaps, the manager should be removed?
That will certainly never happen.
But in the NBA, even though Carmelo Anthony denies it, he has the ear of owner James Dolan, the Cablevision mogul, and even though D'Antoni supposedly resigned on his own, I somehow doubt that he wasn't going to be fired soon anyway.
It's called saving face.
And the Knicks went out and did what they should have done. They were so perplexed by what happened that they whooped the Portland Trailblazers by 42 points, stopping their losing streak.
Rooting for the Knicks, I'm afraid, is like rooting for the Mets. The Knicks haven't won a championship since 1973. They are in a perpetual state of losing and rebuilding. But they never seem to get it right.
This year, they were supposed to compete with the big boys like the Miami Heat and Boston Celtics, but all they've done is compete with the Mets as being New York's laughingstock team.
They are the true gang that couldn't shoot straight (sorry, Jimmy Breslin), and they seem to continue to shoot blanks while other organizations prosper.
Thank goodness the Yankees' season opens in less than three weeks.
And I am taking the day off tomorrow, so you will have to wait until Monday for my next pearls of wisdom.
I figured I would start off this Rant with that information, because I want to prepare you for what I am going to say about the current warm winter weather we have been enjoying in the Northeast part of the country this year.
I am not happy.
Sure, I don't have to do any snow shoveling. I think I shoveled once, and it took me about 10 minutes to clean up everything.
What I am saying is that the unseasonably warm weather we have been experiencing here--today, it is going to be 70 degrees again--is upsetting my body clock and making my allergies go haywire.
Look, I don't want to go back to the winter of 2011, when seemingly every day we had snow, and I must have shoveled more than a dozen times.
No, I don't want to go back to that again.
But the current spate of incredible and unseasonable weather here is throwing off everything else inside of me.
As the birds chirp, the pollen increases, and every day I wake up barely being able to see with seemingly every pore in my body clogged up with something.
My nose runs the entire day, and I often have to clear my throat because all that junk is making it difficult for me to speak.
Look, I expect this type of thing in April--certainly the weirdest month for weather, with extremes from snow early on to 90 degree temperatures later--but I don't expect it in February and March, which is what we've had this year.
We really can't blame anybody for this, except if you want to get into the global warming thing, which I am not going to get into here.
But the very early warm weather--and the possibility, say some meteorologists, that unseasonably warm weather will likely last into at least the real spring season, which begins on March 20--isn't doing me that much good physically.
Look, I feel for those who have had terrible winters, like the people of Alaska, who have had more snow than even Alaska normally gets this time of year, and the people of the Midwest, who have had to put up with deadly hurricanes. Many European countries have also had deadly winters this year.
But back where I sit, this winter hasn't been a good one, it's been a weird one, especially for people who suffer from allergies.
Sure, no shoveling, but on the other hand, way too much pollen as a result of it being too warm early in the year isn't making me a happy boy this year.
As most of you regular readers know, I am a Yankee fan, have been my whole life, and will be when I leave this earth.
I have rooted for them through thick and thin, during good years and bad, during championship years and years where they fell flat.
But each year, I am becoming more incensed at their ticket policy for the peons, the people who go to the games maybe once or twice a year.
The new Yankee Stadium seats around 54,000 for baseball, and less the higher-priced seats, the team basically sells out each and every game.
That's 81 games where the only seats that can be had are the ones that cost $1,000 or more.
Sorry, not in my league.
But the very last seat in the house, in the very last row, is a season ticket seat, no doubt.
This year, with seats at a premium, the Yankees has instituted a policy where they are running a lottery just to have a chance to buy single-game tickets from them.
That's right. To get tickets to one game, you have to be put into a lottery. If you are one of the "winners" of the lottery, you have the opportunity to buy tickets from them for single games.
Yes, it has gotten ridiculous. Soon, they will be selling seat licenses like football does.
How does a family who wants a day at the ballpark manage to get tickets?
They don't, that's how.
Or they go on one of the ticket broker sites. That is really the only way you can get tickets to a single game at Yankee Stadium, but you will pay for this privilege, paying much more for the ticket in nosebleed land than it is actually worth.
That's what I am probably going to do. My family and I want to go to one game, just one game, and it's doubtful that we are going to win any ticket lottery, so we'll have to go the StubHub route.
I wish some of our politicians would look into this.
Sure, there are bigger problems, but what the Yankees are basically doing is catering to the elite fan, those who can afford season tickets, while shutting out the average Joe who can just afford a single game.
And that is wrong.
We go to Florida each year on vacation. Since we are in Orlando, we usually try to take in a Rays game in St. Petersburg, and we will do so this year.
No problem there. They are lucky if they get 10,000 fans per game, so you have your choice on tickets.
And with the Rays, sometimes if you go through a broker, you can get a better deal on a ticket.
That is what we've done, and we will be sitting right behind the visiting team's dugout for the game we are seeing at Tropicana Field in July.
Look, the Yankees are the Yankees. They are the most successful sports franchise in the world, and they can basically do what they want with their tickets.
But not to offer families some sort of deal to take in a day at the ballpark is ludicrous.
I am sure I will pay an arm and a leg to see them this season, just for the one game, when I go the broker route.
But there's nothing like being out at the ballpark to see a game, so I am going to have to manage.
My family and I went to see a movie on Sunday. We don't go to the movies much anymore--too expensive, and lack of films to take the family to--but we decided that this Sunday, we weren't going to vegetate at home.
Oh, how I wish we would have.
We saw probably the worst movie of the year, if not the worst movie I have seen in many years.
Disney's "John Carter," about Edgar Rice Burrough's second most famous character--a distant second to Tarzan, of course--is an absolutely horrid film, overblown with special effects, horrid acting and, ultimately, not making much sense at all.
It is 150 minutes of boredom from beginning to end.
And funny, for a film touted as "the first blockbuster film of 2012," there were about 10 people in the audience besides us.
I can't even really tell you what it was about. It is sort of a cross between "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Star Wars," about interplanetary traveler John Carter, an archaeologist who ends up on Mars, saves that planet, and marries the girl.
And it stars Taylor Kitsch (I kitsch you not) and Lynn Collins.
Yes, it is really, really bad.
And evidently, I am not the only one who thinks this movie is ready for the trash bin already.
"John Carter" opened in second-place at the box office with $30.6 million. That's an awful start based on the $250 million that Disney reportedly spent to make the film, a movie which received generally poor reviews that some think could hurt its long-term prospects.
The movie's salvation could come overseas, where it opened in 55 markets with $70.6 million, giving it a worldwide total of $101.2 million.
"We would have hoped for more considering the larger economics of the film, but are still encouraged with how it's been received by audiences that have seen it and hope to see that generate positive word of mouth for the balance of the run," said Dave Hollis, Disney's head of distribution.
By the way, the top movie was Universal Pictures' "The Lorax" at No. 1 for the second-straight weekend as the animated adventure based on the children's book took in $39.1 million. That raised its 10-day domestic total to $122 million, making "The Lorax" the top-grossing movie released this year.
So, "The Lorax" is really "the first blockbuster film of 2012." Dr. Seuss is laughing about all of this, I am sure.
"John Carter" is an example of movie bloat, where a director is given x amount of dollars and does everything he can to spend every penny--except create an interesting move.
And thank goodness we saved a little money by seeing the non-3D version of this bomb!
On top of that, I swore I was watching an umpteenth rerun of "I Love Lucy" when I was watching this movie.
Why, you say? What's the connection?
Well, it isn't much of a connection, but you know how in "I Love Lucy," when they had a famous guest star on the show, they mentioned his/her name about 100 times in the show--and not just "John," or "Wayne," for John Wayne, but they would say "John Wayne" all those times during the episode?
Well, the name "John Carter" must have been said--and remember, I said "John Carter," not "John" or "Carter"--about 200 times throughout the film, if not more, as if to remind you what you were watching.
Why, I don't know, third base!
At least "I Love Lucy" was funny.
This film is just plain bad. Stay away at all costs.
(And a shout out to my mom, who celebrated her 81st birthday yesterday. She is the greatest mom that there ever was--heck, she put up with me, my sister and my dad through the years, so she has to be great!)
In the mid- to late-1960s, there were three teen idols that ruled the roost, that were the epitome of a level of fan frenzy that many attempted to attain, but really only three did.
Davy Jones, Peter Noone and Mark Lindsay were the three, and with one recently passed, the standard bearers continue to be Lindsay and Noone.
Today, Mark Lindsay, former lead singer of Paul Revere and the Raiders, celebrates his 70th birthday.
And like Jones, Lindsay's stardom was not only on record, but directly tied into television, too.
Lindsay was the star of the Raiders, the lead singer with the pony tail sprouting out under his tri-corner Revolutionary War hat.
Appearing originally as the house band on Dick Clark's afternoon rock and roll show, "Where the Action Is," the Pacific Northwest-based band soon basically took over the show, with Lindsay as its frontman.
They had many, many hits during that period: "KIcks," "Just Like Me," "Steppin' Out," "Ups and Downs," "The Great Airplane Strike," "Hungry," "Good Thing," ... the list goes on and on.
And Lindsay was the focus. He was sort of a Mick Jagger-lite, but that pout and that ponytail turned on female viewers during that period.
They even had one contest where the winner received his queue, also known as his ponytail!
Lindsay and his ever-changing cast of bandmates were regularly featured in Tiger Beat, Flip, and those types of magazines, competing for space with Herman's Hermits' Noone and a little later, with the Monkees, and primarily Davy Jones.
As the 1960s progressed, music changed, but the Raiders continued to have hits as they starred in their own shows under the "Happening" banner. They lasted longer than Herman's Hermits and the Monkees did, and even had one monster one in the 1970s, "Indian Reservation," as Lindsay's own solo career heated up.
He had one real big hit as a solo artist, "Arizona," and he kind of mellowed out as his former teenybopper fans grew up and out of the Raiders fandom clique.
He lasted with the Raiders and as a prominent solo artist until about 1974 or so.
Lindsay has supposedly been on the outs with bandleader Paul Revere for years, so over the past nearly four decades, the Raiders have had their own career as an oldies band, and Lindsay has had his own career as a solo act singing his old Raiders/solo hits.
He puts out a record on occasion, and plays oldies shows around the country.
Yet, he, like Noone and Jones, will always be remembered for their 1960s personas at the top of the teen idol list.
And with the passing of Jones, he and Noone have that "teen idol" mantle to keep going.
Happy birthday, Mark. Keep on going on for many years to come.
A private funeral was held in Florida yesterday for Davy Jones, the Monkees heartthrob who passed away on Feb. 29. Reports are that he was cremated.
It was only for immediate family members. Reports are that the three surviving Monkees--Peter Tork, Michael Nesmith and Micky Dolenz--would like to hold a memorial concert, or at least attend the public celebrations of Jones' life that are planned for New York and England.
They stayed away from the funeral so as not to cause a media stampede, but there weren't any clear reports that they were actually invited. No slight here, this was just for family members.
Plans are still sketchy on all of these memorials, but Tork said that any continuation of the group "doesn't seem very likely, does it?" But he isn't ruling it out entirely.
"It's not absolutely impossible," Tork told Billboard.com. "The Monkees have gone out as a threesome for most of the past 20-some years. But there are no plans, no discussion. This is way too early to begin to think about that."
Tork added that "certainly if there's some kind of concert in his honor, I think we would all attend if we could arrange it."
Although the surviving threesome will always be known as Monkees, each has carved out a somewhat impressive career away from the band.
Tork currently tours with his band Shoe Suede Blues, a blues-pop band that generally plays smaller venues. He is a cancer survivor, and the oldest Monkee.
Dolenz also tours as a solo act, and once again, he will be on the "Happy Together" tour with the Turtles and other acts this summer. He has also carved out a niche as a director and an actor, and has also been a DJ on WCBS-FM.
Nesmith, the most reclusive of the bunch, has had a successful career as a solo artist, producer, writer, and record company owner. He oversees Videoranch, a site where all facets of his career can be explored.
The three have never toured together since the Monkees' prime period in the mid to late 1960s, and never as a threesome. Nesmith did join the Monkees, including Jones, for a few concerts over the years, but generally swears off such things. He has performed solo a few times during the past year.
Tork and Dolenz have appeared in concert together numerous times over the years, both in the U.S. and overseas.
Will the threesome ever get together again? I kind of agree with Tork, it is pretty senseless without Jones, because even though each one of the foursome brought something else to the Monkees, Jones pretty much WAS the Monkees.
Without Davy, there really is no Monkees.
On a lesser level, it pretty much compares with the situation of John Lennon. With all the ballyhoo in the 1970s of the Beatles reforming for "just" one concert to save humanity, when Lennon passed in 1980, that was the end of the dream.
Without Lennon, there is no Beatles, and without Jones, there is no Monkees.
(And happy birthday to Micky Dolenz today. He hits No. 67 on this day, It must be a bittersweet celebration this year, but whatever it is, happy birthday, George Michael Dolenz!)
Once again. people are putting too much emphasis on what an actor says.
Again, I ask, why are actors all of a sudden spokesmen for our civilization?
Kirk Cameron, one-time boy heart throb on ABC's "Growing Pains" sitcom, recently made some comments about gays that many believed were antagonistic to the gay community.
On the Piers Morgan program on CNN, Cameron said that being gay was "detrimental," "unnatural," and "ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization."
When people heard that, they got simply hysterical. Fellow actors criticized him for his view, and seemingly, everybody had an opinion on what Cameron said.
Even his former "Growing Pains" co-stars came out against Cameron, as if anybody really cares what they have to say either.
Heck, Cameron's received more press from this incident than he did during his "Growing Pains" tenure.
Cameron is a born-again Christian who has appeared in faith-based movies and co-founded a California-based evangelical ministry.
No, he isn't a teenybopper anymore.
Once the backlash began, he kind of backpedalled, like any good "politician" would do, stating that "It's my life's mission to love people."
He also said something more important: "I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western Civilization for 2,000 years, without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told by those who preach tolerance that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I'm in the public square."
At least on this point, he is right.
This is America, where free speech is guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. He has a right to say what he wants.
If people want to disagree with him, that is fine.
That is what our country is all about.
Whatever you think about what he said, number one, he has a right to say it and believe it, and number two, remember, this isn't coming from a politician or somebody who really carries any weight.
He is an actor, remember? And he will dig his own hole--he's already done it.
Funny, when actors and others come out for gay rights, I don't hear people getting hysterical like this.
When Mel Gibson comes out with his anti-Semitic diatribes, I don't hear so many people rallying around him, ready to burn him at the stake, as I have heard many people want to do with Cameron.
But like Cameron, Gibson can say what he wants in this country.
He is ignorant, Cameron is ignorant, and let's leave it at that.
They are actors, not the creators of public policy. They are performers. Sure, they have a soapbox to stand on because of who they are, but c'mon, who is really going to pay attention to someone like this?
But the bottom line is the following:
Are the PC police patrolling around, looking for dimwitted people like Cameron to make an example of?
Usually in this space we celebrate birthdays of people who have come onto the radar, at least for a little bit, and changed our lives in one way or another.
Today, we will celebrate the 100th birthday of a cookie that has probably changed our lives, at least just a little bit, or at least enriched our lives to some degree--and I say this in a politically correct time when anything fattening is instantly labeled as being "no good."
Nabisco's Oreo cookie celebrates its 100th birthday today, and while this pales in comparison to the birthday of a famous person, let's say Gandhi, it is still significant.
The cookie was created in 1912 by the National Biscuit Company, with the chocolate cookie on the outside hiding the vanilla cream in the middle. That basic cookie has been with us for the past 100 years, but of course, there have been variations to the basic Oreo.
There have been Oreos with different-flavored middles, like orange and chocolate.
There have been inside-out, topsy-turvy Oreos, with a vanilla cookie and chocolate center.
And in other countries, there are as many variations of Oreos as can possibly be, including Oreos that have a fishy flavor.
But the basic Oreo stands as, in my mind, the perfect cookie.
Who hasn't sat down with a glass of milk and chomped down on a couple of Oreos?
I am sure most of us have.
Just as an aside, the Hydrox cookie predated the Oreo cookie by a good four years, but Hydrox never reached the heights of the Oreo cookie. Some claim that the Oreo was a knockoff of the Hydrox cookie, but Hydrox always had the reputation of being a knockoff of an Oreo.
But Hydrox simply wasn't as good a cookie as the Oreo was. It didn't have the sweetness of an Oreo, and in comparison, was pretty bland.
Back to the Oreo ...
Oreos were never meant to be diet foods, although there are lower-calorie Oreos on the market.
There are also larger Oreos, for those who just can't get enough of the cookie.
As I said, it is the perfect cookie, whether large or small. It offers just enough sweetness to get you by during the day, and it is the cookie that you can also relax to.
Is there anything more relaxing than taking a cookie break with an Oreo?
I went through a period where I would try to separate the cookie's halves. I would twist the thing and try not to break it.
I don't bother doing that anymore--why should I? The cookie tastes better not in pieces, but as one.
Oreos have taken us through 100 years of ups and downs, and it could be counted on to satisfy us when we were down, and when we were up.
It has even taken on social connotations. I am not going to get into what it means when you call someone an Oreo, but it isn't a very nice appellation to give to someone.
But as a cookie, the Oreo is grand.
Is there anything better than an Oreo?
Probably not.
Happy 100th birthday to the Oreo. It is incredible how a simple idea led to so much joy.
(And a "Shout Out" to one of the greatest comedians ever, Lou Costello, who would have been 106 today! "You're a bad boy," even on your birthday, Lou.)
After last week's tumult caused by the death of Davy Jones, I need a week to completely relax, at least here on this blog.
Maybe this week is it.
I don't really think there is that much going on to report on this week.
I really don't care to report on Rush Limbaugh's mouth, which one again, got in the way of his thoughts when he spoke out about birth control.
The Republican Presidential race doesn't interest me that much, because for the life of me, God help us whomever wins their nomination. They are all losers.
I don't care that Lindsay Lohan was on "Saturday Night Live." According to reports--since I did not watch the show--she lived up to any low expectations anyone had of her.
I know the Knicks lost yesterday, and that Jeremy Lin was totally outplayed by Rajon Rondo. I sat through that game at home, watching it on TV. That Paul Pierce three-pointer that sent the game into overtime was the real dagger that killed the Knicks in that game.
All these things are trumped by one yearly rite that is taking place now in Florida.
Spring training has started, and the games have begun.
When spring training starts, you know that the nicer weather is right around the corner.
Here in the East, we haven't had much of a winter, thank goodness. It has been unseasonably warm, with very little snow, and that's really good.
Other places, well, they've gotten hit very hard thus far this year, and I feel for them, I really do.
But happily, it isn't in my neck of the woods.
So right now, things are pretty copacetic.
And maybe it will be this way this week.
But I thought last week was going to be that way, and then Jones passed away, very unexpectedly.
This past weekend, retro channels like Me TV and Antenna TV held tributes, and the Bio channel aired some shows about the Monkees and Davy Jones.
But they stopped just short of making it overkill, which was a good thing.
This will probably be my final post on Davy Jones for at least a while, but to complete the story, I felt I had to provide you with some information.
An autopsy confirmed that Davy Jones died of a heart attack.
And what makes this information even more stunning is that he recently went for a physical, and was told that he was in sound health.
The medical examiner's office in Martin County, Fla., says authorities completed their examination Thursday morning, a day after Davy was rushed to the hospital. Toxicology tests could take another six or eight weeks, but there is no sign anything else is to blame for the 66-year-old enterainer's death.
A spokesman for the Jones family says funeral arrangements have not yet been made, but one of Jones' daughters has told media outlets that memorials are being planned, presumably held in the U.S. and in his native England.
I still feel so bad about his death, but all that I am reading on the Internet is glowing praise for the entertainer.
So many people really loved this guy.
Unfortunately, all the accolades come out after he is gone.
I presume that Jones knew that people really loved him, but I guess he figured that it was nothing more than fan adulation.
But in recent days, an outpouring of emotion has emerged about him that I don't remember happening since Michael Jackson died.
But Jackson was a certifiable weirdo, more in the news for his indiscretions that anything else.
Jones was rarely in the news. Yes, he had his demons--alcohol being one--but he seemed to have kicked his troubles, and what's more, his troubles never seemed to stop him like it did others.
Jones--and his other Monkees cohorts--seemed to be more grounded than other people who reach the fame that few have attained. I think that is because their fame was so fleeting, that they had to be able to view it differently, than say someone who has everlasting fame, constant fame, fame that won't go away.
Along with accolades from people like myself, so many celebrities chimed in on their adulation for this guy that I have to say that I was really amazed--and pleased.
"Davy Jones of the Monkees is dead," wrote Al Roker of the "Today" show. "He was 66 years old. A little bit of my youth just died."
Said Neil Diamond, who wrote "I'm a Believer": "I'm sad to hear about Davy Jones. The Monkees were such a sensation that it was a thrill for me to have them record some of my early songs."
"Eternal rest for Davy Jones who leaves a great legacy of music, fun and all the colors of the rainbow," wrote Nancy Sinatra.
"Sad news--RIP Davy Jones. My wife's childhood crush...," said Ralph Macchio, who knew a little about being a teen idol from his "Karate Kid" days, and probably knew how fleeting such fame could be.
Alyssa Milano and Will Smith tweeted rest in peace, with Smith adding, "Retweet for respect."
"Sad to hear of the passing of Davy Jones! Met him just last year, was very kind to me. Monkees should have been in Rock and Roll Hall of Fame years ago," said Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins. Julian Lennon said, "RIP Davy… You did some great work! Condolences to The Jones Family."
Wil Wheaton expressed some shock -- "Oh my god Davy Jones died at 66. That's way too young."
Comic Gilbert Gottfried noted, "True...David Bowie's real name is David Jones. That's why he had to change it to Bowie. R.I.P. Davy Jones."
But back to Davy.
Davy WAS the Monkees, whether he wanted to be or not, and I think he knew it.
Sure, Micky Dolenz was the jokester, the lead singer ... Peter was the quiet, kind of goofy musician ... and Mike was the studious, quiet musician.
They all played their roles to the hilt whenever the Monkees name was used in their presence.
But Davy was the guy, the heartthrob, the focus of the band, and I think he knew it, and probably the other guys knew it too.
The Monkees are more revered today than they ever were during their heyday. The connection between television and music is closer today than it ever was, and while the Monkees didn't start that ball rolling, they certainly cemented it as the way it was going to be from that time on.
I am personally going to miss Davy, miss the possibility of a real Monkees reunion--with Mike--and miss Davy coming around again with and without his bandmates.
I think the thing with the Monkees is that up until Feb. 29, there was always a possibility that the four of them would iron out their differences and get back together on stage again.
Since John Lennon died, there was absolutely no possibility that the Beatles could ever get back together.
But at least we had the Monkees to dream about.
Now, we have neither, and that's the real shame of this whole thing.
I was very happy to see that the TV news outlets gave Davy Jones' untimely passing full coverage yesterday and today.
This news was spread across news tickers on all the stations far and wide, and stories on his passing were on both the local news and network newscasts.
CNN's Piers Morgan interviewed Micky Dolenz last night, and the story got the maximum coverage that it should have gotten.
For baby boomers, we all aged a little yesterday.
Reportedly, Jones told a reporter recently that he had been to a doctor, and got a clean bill of health. In fact, the doctor said that he had the heart "of a 25-year old," and that he was in great shape at 66 years of age.
That number 66 is pretty eerie too. Not only was it Jones' age when he died, but 1966 was the year the Monkees debuted.
Very strange indeed.
Here are a couple of links to some interesting sound and video files that I've previously posted elsewhere. Some music, some chat, but all-Monkees.
And Davy was, ultimately the penultimate Monkee, probably the greatest pure teen idol of all time.
I think you will enjoy these files as much as I did posting them.
