ARE YOU TRYING TO DISGUST ME, MRS. ROBINSON?

When I was a child, I remember hearing repeatedly that Sophia Loren was "still the most beautiful woman in the world." At that time, Ms. Loren was in her mid-fifties. Even as a kid, I remember being infuriated by this statement. Clearly, a woman with both feet in menopause could not be Earth's finest female specimen.

Today when I hear this kind of mumbo jumbo I start ranting like Mussolini in a Red Bull commercial. Younger women should be ranting too; this statement is a grave insult to them. Seniority and experience have no place in the beauty world. Older women, even former bombshells, even former "most beautiful women in the world" are typically much, much, much less attractive than even average young women.

Young lasses, even homely ones, have the world on a leash, but they only hold that leash for a few fleeting years. Precious few of them understand this. And society's constant fibs about older women "still having it" certainly doesn't help, which is why younger women are even less likely to appreciate and leverage their powers...until it is too late.

And stop me if you've heard this outrageous claim: Tina Turner "still having great legs." What brand of aphrodesciac-laced crack are these commentators smoking? By the time I was old enough to know who Tina Turner was she already should have been confined to pant suits. Why were we all supposed to pretend not to notice that the ship had sailed on Tina's yams? Ms. Turner absolutely did not continue to have good legs any more than Joe DiMaggio continued to hit home runs. At least no one pretended that a rickety old Yankee Clipper could have stepped into the batter's box against Pedro Martinez. I would have rather had sex with Ike Turner.

Yes, the mid-fiftes Sophia Loren I saw as a child did look good for a woman her age, but that is the most that can be said. Almost any 20-year-old woman would have been far superior to this former bombshell. The only thing that ages like wine is wine.

It is true that once in a rare while a woman manages to remain beautiful long after you would expect her to (Marisa Tomei). And she does this how? Not by "growing into her looks." No...she remains beautiful by continuing to look more or less the way she did when she was young.

Let it be shouted from every rooftop: in her prime, Sophia Loren was the second most attractive woman ever captured on film. Luckily, we live in the age of YouTube and Google Images so that we can continue to enjoy her as she was then.

He's going the distance

Once a bachelor reaches a certain age, many women start to view him with suspicion. Because he has no broken marriages or engagements in his past, he is seen by many women as unstable. He hasn't demonstrated he can go all the way.

"I don't know about this guy, he's never been married. He's never even been engaged!"

So one of your must-haves for a potential husband is that he not be able to keep a marriage together? Basically what you're saying is: How can I expect this guy to succeed when he doesn't have a proven track record of failure?

Mixed signals, ladies. Mixed signals. Or maybe I'm just a hata because I'm not on my fourth bad marriage.

A star in nobody's sky

One of the comedians I started with, we'll call him King Charisma, has a booming star quality. This quality has been put to good use; King Charisma has been on television for several years.

Recently we saw each other for the first time in half a decade. He was back in NY, so we went out to reconquer some of his old haunts.

We visited two comedy clubs. When we stepped into the first one, King Charisma got the kind of welcome usually reserved for Santa Claus upon entering an orphanage. Everyone in this place hopped to their feet at the sight of him. Waitresses, hostesses, other comedians...even the manager (no one hates comedians more than managers) rushed to greet him. The greetings ranged from flirtation to awe to strange, older male sentimantality. Something for everyone.

I have known King for a long time, have seen him light up many rooms and have watched myriad people gaze up at him adoringly. But this display was beyond even what I was accustomed to. These people were reacting to King Charisma like he was James Bond. Not like he was Sean Connery; Sean Connery is a mere actor. I mean like James Bond the film character...the whole thing felt so exaggerated it seemed to be out of a summer blockbuster.

I was standing beside the King as this all happened. But instead of getting some of the run off from the starpower he was brandishing, at least three people looked at me, then turned back to King and said disdainfully, "What's with your friend?"

I wasn't doing anything wrong. I wasn't doing anything at all. I was just standing and observing.

We went to a second comedy club, one more drab and threadbare than the first. Somehow King Charisma managed to bring its deadened occupants to life. They didn't seem to notice me. At one point the bartender's wife popped in with a friend of hers. The bartender's wife remembered King Charisma and bopped over to bow to him. As soon as she and her friend noticed me, they kept the tradition alive by saying, "What's with your friend?"

I have heard this spiel many times from many people. Many nights I have listened to people who just met me make point blank comments about my evidently unfortunate presence. Many nights I have listened to people who don't know me share their theories about what must have happened in my life to turn me into such an unfortunate presence. I used to become incensed. Now I am starting to see it their way.

When I met King Charisma, he was in his late twenties, so I attributed his ability to inspire giddiness to his being a suave, seasoned guy with good looks. At that point I was in my late teens, so I figured this was standard fare. I did not grasp how much firepower he had or how uncommon he truly is. The guy is now in his forties, and still ignites that type of reaction. It occured to me that night that no matter what King does, he will always have a booming star quality. He will be the most charismatic bingo player in his nursing home.

Something I didn't understand when I met King Charisma but certainly understand now is that magnetism works both ways. I am the other side of the magnetism coin. I don't know why I didn't notice it sooner. No matter what I do in life or where I go, I will still be unequivocally repellant. There is something about me that is indefinably off-putting (or maybe it is perfectly definable). If this wasn't so, I wouldn't have spent my life answering queries about what is "with me."

My friend will always be a comet. As for me...well, the universe also needs wormholes.

Robert Aickman

There is a very highly regarded weird fiction writer named Robert Aickman (he called his tales "strange stories"). He published 48 during his lifetime, and although many fellow writers and weird fiction aficionados rank him among the absolute best weird fiction writers of the 20th Century, his books are very hard to find. Even buying them online means prices starting at $100.

I have seen Aickman referenced time and time again, but figured I'd probably never read him.

Then it hit me...might the New York Public Library possess a few copies?

Sure enough, they have some of his books available to read on the premises.

So I went...

The first book I requested...had been mysteriously moved off the premises. How appropriate.

The second one...was there.

As soon as I started reading his tale "The School Friend",  I knew I'd found a man who was absolutely his own writer; a writer in the same league as Poe or Lovecraft. His stories are unlike most weird or supernatural stories. They have very little action. Instead, their effect is more cumulative. Every sentence has some unsettling detail, like a reference to a bed that looked like the sleeper had been awakened very suddenly, which slowly taps the amygdala.


Aickman created atmosphere through meticulous, unconventional detail. It is like with each story he was building a Jenga tower little by little. Then suddenly there is a moment where things first begin to really feel wrong, where one of those Jenga pieces is yanked out. Like the moment in "Never Visit Venice" where the women says offhandedly that they're headed to where "the real danger" is. That's when the Jenga tower first loses one of its pieces.

But unlike most weird fiction, when a piece or pieces is removed from an Aickman tower, the tower doesn't collapse like you'd expect. Instead, Aickman's towers just wobble and wobble, leaving you to wonder what the hell is keeping it up...

It is refreshing when an artist lives up to the hype. If you care about this sort of thing and have access to Aickman's work, he is worth checking out.

Here is an radio adaptation of one of his most famous stories: http://archive.org/details/Nightfall-cbcRadioProgram-episodesMp3Format

It is episode 17, "Ringing the Changes".

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF YOUR LIFETIME (since the last one)!

If you live long enough, you get to see firsthand just how stupid people really are.

In the 2004 presidential election, the mantra was "anyone but Bush." Sure we're in trouble, but if we can just get John Kerry in there, maybe there is still time to save the country! Get to the polls: this is the most important election of your lifetime!

Now in 2012 the mantra among Republicans is "anyone but Obama." Sure we're in trouble, but if we can just get Mitt Romney in there, maybe there is still time to save the country! Get to the polls: this is the most important election of your lifetime!

Wow, two "most important elections of my lifetime" in just eight years. I guess no one expected me to live very long.

There is no such thing as a "most important election of a lifetime," because each election is exactly the same. Presidential elections alter nothing.

In 2008, the Obama Apostles ran to the polls seeking change! Instead of change, these adorable do-gooders have been treated to a delightful continuation of Bush's foreign policies (and aggressive interventionism certainly didn't start with Bush; the US has been an international occupying force since McKinley) and domestic brutality.

And those who claim Bush was a free market alternative to Obama seem to have missed his bailout of the banks and and the car companies.

Now if you're a young voter, say 20 or younger, you can't really be expected to appreciate the histrionics of 2004 or the fact that they are being repeated verbatim today. You have an excuse. This is the first MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF YOUR LIFETIME of your lifetime.

But if you are 26 or older, and a believer in the UNPRECENDENTED IMPORTANCE OF THIS ELECTION, you're at best a useful idiot (and probably a useless eater).

It does not matter who holds the musical chair in the Oval Office. Under Bush II, the Republicans captured all three branches of government. There was thundering talk from Republicans and Democrats about the dramatic implications for abortion!

Nothing happened. Nothing changed. The supposedly anti-abortion Republicans had control of all three branches of government and Roe vs. Wade escaped without a scratch on it. The Republican voters who thought this was their chance to stop abortion saw their efforts lead to a whole lotta nothing.

And all the Democratic voters who gnashed their teeth about the impending disappearance of Roe vs Wade thanks to Republican control...also wrong. Nothing happened. Nothing changed.

Take a breath. This is not the most important election of your lifetime. Every election is the same, and it is an airtight bet that each new president is going to be worse than his precedessor. Bamboozled voters sprint to the polls every four years, and appropriately utter the same line beggars use: "Gimme some change, gimme some change!" And like those unfortunate beggars (who also don't see their fortunes change), each time they are left holding an empty cup.

The Paradox of Theft

When central banks cause bubbles, they leave a trail of broken dreams and broken bank accounts in their wake. Many of the newly rich find they are less rich than they thought, and many of those who bought in expecting to become rich find that not only are they not rich; they are much poorer than they were before. The bottom line: these bubbles induce people to speculate more recklesslessly and spend more in aggregate than they otherwise would have.
Then comes the crash. And what happens? Central banks cut interest rates, sometimes drastically. This induces those with any savings left to save less, and continues the dislocations caused by the original bubble.
And when some unsophisticate from outside the central bank priesthood points out that abnormally low interest rates might be harming saving (thereby limiting the pool of funds that would reliquify lending) and are thus keeping household balance sheets in peril, the reply comes that we can't hike interest rates now; after all, the economy is still recovering from the collapse of the bubble!
It is like saying to someone who's been on a merry-go-round too long and is now neckdeep in dizziness and nausea that he shouldn't get off the merry-go-round just yet. After all, he's not ready to be on his feet! Much better to stay on a lurching, spinning apparatus until he is no longer dizzy...

A VERY Few Good Men

I have voted just once, and it was for Ron Paul in 2008. It is unlikely I will ever vote again.

This has nothing to do Dr. Paul’s 2008 performance. I knew going in that every vote cast is a vote thrown away, but I guess I had some notion of registering my dissatisfaction with the establishment (yes, I realize that is also a waste of time). Anyway, Paul is the only elected figure I respect, and the way he has sustained the momentum of the 2008 campaign and risen so dramatically in the public consciousness has been one of the few encouraging surprises of my lifetime.

But although I have been inspired by Ron Paul’s ascendance, this has not improved my opinion of government. If anything, it has fortified my grim view of it.

The very fact that Ron Paul is so exceptional is all the evidence you need that government cannot be managed or restrained. It would take a House and a Senate and a Supreme Court overwhelmingly filled with Ron Pauls to keep government from being a winter without end, and there has been just one Ron Paul in the entire history of the US (and one Ron Paul isn’t even enough to dominate a committee, let alone a Congress). I am not exaggerating. When it comes to abstaining from nonsense, there isn’t another track record as consistent as Paul’s (and many of his supposedly fellow anti-establishment types don't hold up to examination). And we should remember that he has never been tested at the executive level. Much as I admire him, we have no idea if he would remain Dr. No while residing in the White House.

The exception of Ron Paul proves the rule: government is an unwieldy boomerang…everything you put into it comes soaring back to lop your face off.

Yet folks continue to believe. Reminds me of investors who pay Wall Street fund managers hefty performance fees to deliver them above-market returns. Most fund managers do not beat the market. This has always been true. Yet people forever point to those sparse few market-beaters like Peter Lynch and Ray Dalio as proof that trying to beat the market is worthwhile. Stand back and you'll observe that the staggering dearth of market-beaters suggests that attempting to beat the market is unrealistic. This info. falls on stone deaf ears. Investors keep fruitlessly chasing unrealistic market returns and voters keep fruitlessly chasing unrealistic political returns.

There has been one Ron Paul in 200+ years, yet we're expected to keep the faith about government. And voters do keep the faith. No matter how many times their efforts fail, no matter how many times they're betrayed...they keep believing. Just like investors. Wall Street comes out with Value at Risk; the political system comes out with Tea Parties. The results remain as dire as ever. The fact that the Ron Pauls and Howard Buffetts and Grover Clevelands are as stunningly infrequent as the Peter Lynches and Ray Dalios demonstrates how useless it is to think you’re going to beat the government. The difference is that when you buy a mutual fund, they might charge you a 2% performance fee. For voters, the “performance fee” charged by the government (taxes) is usually more than ten times that.