Potential Embarrassment (2 cents)

One of the books I recently picked up is called "Politics". It is not about politics at all. It is a book of fiction written by a young English author and literary figure, Adam Thirlwell. And, I soon learned, it is about sex.

I wonder about books about sex. Where do authors get the nerve to write them? That is the source of my wonder.

The plot line is simple. A young half-Jewish Englishman (and struggling actor) is in love with a young six foot tall non-Jewish English architectural Ph.D. student, but their relationship gets complicated where, at his girlfriend's initiative, a young Anglo-Indian friend of his and struggling actress joins them to form a menage a trois. The book, narrated by a second young man, who seems to know these three, but who only appears as a voyeur (if that) talks of their physical and psychological relationships. The images are all x-rated, and the psychology more humorous than profound.

But interspersed with all of this in this relatively short book are illusions to various matters of European and American cultural interest. For example, the story of the relationship between Osip Mandelstam and the communist state, the plot of "Cabaret" and the goings-on in then contemporary Germany, the architecture of Rem Koolhass and particularly his view on Prada store design, a visit to Targu Jiu, Romania and the outdoor sculpture of Constatine Brancusi (and who knew that his name is pronounced Broncoosh?), the moral lessons of the movie Casablanca, the sexual habits of Mao Tse Tung as published by his physician after Mao's death, Bauhaus architecture and Mies van der Rohe, and the prison notebooks of Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci. As opposed to the philosophizing I got lost in when reading Michel Rio's Dreaming Jungles, and the fake intellectualizing of David Nokes' The Nightingale Papers, I found it all rather refreshing.

Then why the potential embarrassment? I took the book with me to the gym this morning. As the cover said "Politics" I was originally not worried, but what if someone had said, "what is that book on politics about?" and taken it from me? I would have had to find a new gym.

Akbar Ahmed (2 cents)

Until recently, I had not heard of Professor Akbar Ahmed, who heads the Islamic Studies Department at American University. Ahmed, a Pakistani Muslim and former diplomat and part time academic, has been at AU for several years, where he has become perhaps the best known (but not to me) ecumenical voice of the American Moslem community. He has authored 30 books, and written numerous articles. See www.akbarahmed.org.

Now, he has written a play, "Noor" ("Light" in Arabic), which received its world premier staged reading at Theater J as part of its Voices from the New Middle East contribution to the Capital Fringe Festival. The reading was followed by an audience talk-back.

Being read on the set of Motti Lerner's "Pangs of the Messiah", with a large photo of the West Bank in the background, "Noor" tells the story of a family in an unnamed Islamic city in a country whose government is bureaucratic, arbitrary and cruel. Noor, the daughter and her older attorney brother are kidnapped from a public market. The brother is beaten, sodomized, and released. Noor is not returned and, when young women are taken in this manner, the expectation is that they will be forced into sexual relations with the country's political elite.

But what kind of government is this? We are not told. Is it a fundamentalist led government? Is it a simple dictatorship? Is it an American pawn? Does it make a difference?

Noor is eventually released, but not before you learn that each of her three brothers, her father and her aunt have very different reactions. Her father is a product of the old, more liberal society that preceded the current government. One brother, the lawyer, believes that the law will eventually work to bring justice. Another, the religious radical, thinks more radically, and plans vengeance, although it is unclear if his thinking is religious or tribal. The third, also religious, is a Sufi, a spiritual man, given to prayer and supplication. The aunt, a traditionalist, is convinced that, irrespective of what actually happened to Noor, her reputation has been ruined and she has become (and must become) an outcast.

Clearly, an unusual play to come from a prominent Muslim in 2007. But, a play in some ways identical to Lerner's play, where similar family differences appeared when a West Bank Jewish settler family is threatened by a peace treaty which will lead to the destruction of their home, and the redrawing of the borders of Israel.

On Ahmed's website, there are links to a number of articles he has written, including articles on potential Moslem dialogues with other religions. I wish I had time to read them; perhaps you will have the time that I don't. Clearly, Ahmed believes that it is possible for Islam to co-exist with other religions in a conflict-free manner. But, although he believes this, he is also deeply pessimistic, not only because of the attitude of so many Moslems to the outside world, but because of the attitude of so much of the outside world to Islam.

Once again, the questions have been framed, and there are no answers.

Today.

T-Shirts of the Day (one cent)

People have a lot of choices in T-shirts. Two that I saw today say:

"I would really like to punch you in the face" and

"It's only funny until someone gets hurt.....Then, it's hilarious"

Huh? What am I missing?

Let's have a civility-in- shirts law. But whom do you punish? The wearer? The purchaser? The designer? The T-shirt printer? The manufacturer? The distributors or suppliers?

Everything is just so complicated.

Nobody Cares about the Nightingale Papers (11 cents)

No one cares about David Nokes' book "The Nightingale Papers". Including me.

I picked up this recent novel by Kings College Professor Nokes, a prize winning biographer. Perhaps he should stick to biography.

But on the other hand, the book deals with matters that are quite foreign to me. English academia. Welsh poets. English humor.

It is a short novel, centered around a conference of experts in the poetry of a little known Welsh poet. Things happen in this book. There are academic jealousies. There are academic trysts. And there are surprises. And academic deaths.

Unfortunately, the minute I finished the book, I already had forgotten how it ended. Was it determined that the poet's works were really his wife's? Or were they written by one of the acamedicians? Or by the poet himself?

And how did McWhinnie die? And what was the gardener's problem?

I don't remember any of it, except that I do remember that I really don't care.

Is there any reason that there have been virtually no sales of this book the U.S. of A.?

What I have done (one cent)

1. I finished two books. One, I enjoyed. One, I didn't.

I enjoyed David Horowitz's memoir, "Radical Son". Here goes: Horowitz has led a number of lives. First as a son of New York communists, raised in the 1940s and 1950s, he was a part of an interesting historical community. Second, as an intellectual prodigy and a would be philosopher, and published academic author. Third, as a husband and father of four. Fourth, as a California radical, involved with all the other California radicals, and especially with members of the Black Panthers. Fifth, as a left wing journalist. Sixth, with his partner Peter Collier, a mainstream biographer of the Rockefeller, Kennedy and Ford families. Seventh, as a victim of a mid-life crisis, leaving his wife and family and having a few affairs, and two more unsuccessful marriages. Finally, as a right wing author and pundit, from the time of the Reagan administration onward.

Horowitz needs ideology, it appears. He goes from Marxism to radical Conservatism with hardly a stop in between. He was equally devoted to both.

Horowitz also needs people, as he himself admits. His Marxist, his intellectual, his left-wing, his Black Panther, his biographical subject, and his right wing friends. All high powered. He was always right in the middle of everything.

None of this makes for deciding that Horowitz is an admirable character. But all of it makes for good reading. And especially interesting are the many pages devoted to the Black Panthers. For anyone interested in left wing California politics of the 1960s and 1970s, the book is essential.

The other book is a short novel called (in English) "Dreaming Jungles" by French author Michel Rio. It is just over 100 pages.

There is an article in this morning's newspaper that says that the French think too much. And that is the case with this short book (that seems like a long book). A story of two naturalists looking at chimpanzee society in Africa 100 years ago (one man, one woman; one English, one French) becomes a vehicle for discussing Darwin and natural selection, and religion and art, and science and philosophy and literature. The story line probably runs 25 of the 100 pages. The rest is all discussion.

Why is there so much of this sort of speculation in France? Is it the language, the red wine, or the cheese?

2. The new establishment. When Sirius Coffee Shop closed on Connecticut Avenue at the Van Ness Metro spot, I was concerned that it would be replaced by an establishment lacking in personality. I should not have worried. It is becoming a Starbucks. What a great thing. Now, residents of this area will not have to go four or five blocks distant to find a Starbucks. God works in wondrous ways. (Message to God: there are still three or four blocks in DC without a Starbucks. Please keep your omnipresent eyes open)

3. The plays. I saw two. First, at Forum yesterday, I saw Don DeLillo's "Valparaiso", about (apparently) a lonely, disconnected man who had to take a business trip to Valparaiso, Indiana, and concoted a story about going instead by accident to Valparaiso, Chile, so as to gether 24-7 media attention. Which he did. But which did not make him feel any more connected. An interesting premise, but I would like to see the playwright working a little harder to sharpen the play and its premise (but don't I always).

And today, I saw "Margherita" as part of the Capital Fringe festival, the story of Mussolini and his long time Jewish mistress, Margherita Sarfatti. This is a great (and important) story, but the playwright blew it by once again coming up with an unlikely situation (Mussolini paying visits to his now ex-mistress in order to retrieve fifteen years of love letters). The best part of the play was the acting of Marian Licha as the title character; the worst was Paul McLane who tried to pass muster as Benito Mussolini.

Pangs of the Messiah (26 cents)

The play - "Pangs of the Messiah" by Motti Lerner, now in the middle of a very successful first-ever English language run at Theater J.

A "settler" family living in the Occupied Territories/West Bank in the year 2012. A final peace treaty leading to the creation of a Palestinian state is imminent. The family lives on territory that will become part of the new Palestine.

The father, a rabbi and leader of the settler bloc, very influential. The mother, follows the father and runs an elementary school. The older son, just returned from three years in New York, and his wife, originally from Tel Aviv and less committed to the settler movement. The younger son, mentally challenged, is building his own house down the street from his parents. The daughter, pregnant with her fourth child, helps her mother at the school. Her husband, more radical, served a prison term for the murder of a number of Arabs, and is either considered a crazy or a saint. This son's father, an old friend of the rabbi, who is also involved in the movement. And off stage, CNN, telecasting the latest news.

The family is united in opposition to the treaty. Their reasons are a combination of "this is our home" and "we are doing the work of God, to encourage the appearance of the Messiah". Their preferred methods of opposition, from not quite Gandhi to virtually Baruch Goldstein, vary.

The story builds to a personal, political, human, and spiritual climax. Everyone loves this play. I did not care for it. Not that it was bad, because it isn't. But I did not think it was at all that special.

Why?

There were several reasons. For one, I did not think that the characterizations were deep enough. Or subtle enough. They were each too predictable.

For another, I couldn't figure out the historical context, which is very important to this play.
In 2012, there had apparently been a series of moves which had already moved Israeli out of control over large parts of the West Bank. But there was no Palestinian state (leaving the question: what was there?). This piece meal evacuation over the next five years is unrealistic.

And now, it was time for the final pull out, with a treaty that would create a Palestinian state. The country and the world was for it, but this family and other members of the its community were against it. After all, it was their houses which would be affected. And they cannot find allies, anywhere within the Israeli community.

So, what is the play really about? They were protesting the destruction of their small community? Yes, there was some talk of God's plan in giving the land to the Jews, but a lot of the land had apparently already been given back, and this ideology did not seem central. There was certainly no concern as to the fate of the country (in spite of what happens at the end of the play); this is not a political play.

So, it wasn't quite religious ideology. It wasn't politics. It was basically about holding on to your own house. But this is not what the play was trying to say, was it? I don't know. Everything was too shallow.

And, because this was not political, there was no sense that giving back this land would hurt Israel the nation. There was no fear that Palestine would be ungovernable. There was no reference to Hamas, or any other issues concerning the new Palestinian state.

This is because the play was written twenty years ago, before Hamas, before the security wall, before a lot of things. And it might have made more sense then. The idea that today (or in 2012), the country would be indifferent to a peace treaty that would take an established settlement within the security wall and destroy it is very hard for me to grasp on any of the three levels: political, personal and religious.

So to me, the play failed to pass the reality test. And that was its biggest problem.

How Exciting

Of the four semi-finalists we saw today at the piano competition (four of the nine of that category), three will be the finalists. Sara Daneshpour and Spencer Myer from the US and Sofya Gulyak of Russia.

Waiting for 7:45

That's the time that the three finalists of the William Kapell piano competition will be announced on the University of Maryland website. We went this afternoon to see the final (of 3 days) of the semi-finals in the chamber music competition. My hope is that Sofya Gulyak, who played a Schumann trio with two U. Md. faculty members makes the finals. Having only heard four of the nine semi-finalists, I cannot say that she is the best pianist but I thought she was in the lead this afternoon.

And that is saying something because they are all excellent. The competition, now held every four years, had 27 invited entrants, ranging in age from 20 to 33, and from many countries. Their bios in the program show them all to be early prodigies, well schooled, and with quite a bit of performance experience of various types.

The requirements are to play solo, chamber music, concerto excerpts and, for the three finalists, a concerto with the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra on Saturday night. More to report then.

And Speaking of the Future of Humanity......

I went yesterday mid-day to the Holocaust Memorial Museum, because I wanted to see if their book store had a copy of the book containing the James McDonald diaries. They seem to have been sold out.

But I did look at two of the special exhibits at the museum, the one on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and the one on the children of the Lodz ghetto.

I have to give credit to the Holocaust Museum. Their designers may be turning out the best-designed museum exhibits in the city, and perhaps consistently. Both of these exhibits are extremely well done.

I had wanted to see the Protocols exhibit. It consists of nothing more than about 20 versions of the Protocols, published in different languages at different times, and several refutation pieces, placed into window-like settings on a series of very busy temporary poster-walls, nicely arranged. The poster-walls contain, as background, photos and newspaper stories, and as insets, material to describe the history and uses of the Protocols

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which continue to get reproduced, distributed and sold today throughout the world (particularly in certain Arab countries) and on the Internet, are, as everyone really knows, fabricated fiction. I am sure that this is known to those to reproduce, translate, publish and distribute.

So, why does distribution continue? And why does fiction become, in some minds, fact?

All I can think of is that the Protocols pick up on something that many people generally believe and fear, that the Jews internationally conspire to control the world. If this is what the Jews do, this is one way that they might do it. And since there is no proof that they do it in any other way, this must be the way. Therefore, this fiction becomes historic fact. And, although the protocols are set in time-gone-by, not only historic fact, because the conspiracies of the Jews continue today, and will continue tomorrow.

In other words, the Protocols provide a basis for something that some people believe so strongly, that their rationally required condition of disbelief is suspended, and the false becomes the true.

But this does not normally happen in fiction, does it? People do not think that Harry Potter, or Hamlet, or even the Merchant of Vence is true.

Where is the precedent?

Aha. It is the bible. It is the Koran. It is that religious writing which is deemed true, irrespective of whether or not it is historically proven, or even historically possible.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a religious text.

(As to the exhibit on the children of the Lodz ghetto, it proceeds chronologically through photos, writings, remembrances, documents, videos and memorabilia. It is an attractive exhibit, it is an educational exhibit, the exhibits are placed so you can see them, the writings are placed so you can read them, there is plenty of room, the are sufficient seats at the videos that groups can be accommodated.

The treatment of Mordecai Rumkowski, the Nazi's selected leader of the ghetto is very interesting. In fact, he is in some ways the focus of the exhibit. Good guy? Awful guy? The exhibit does not really take a position. What did the ghetto dwellers think of him? Remember, that the individual with a similar position in Vienna, Rabbi Mermelstein, was hated by the community; was he any different?)

Win some, lose some (one cent)

I went to see "la Vie en Rose", the movie about Edith Piaf, this evening, with high hopes. A French movie, it has won a number of awards. But it was not to be. Edith Piaf's voice, as always, is remarkable, although the movie does not show it off to its best. But both her life, and this movie, were extraordinarily sad and depressing. But was her life always as depressing as the movie made it out to be?

But let's talk about reviews. I had previous said that I thought that there must be two movies named "A Mighty Heart", the one that I saw, and the one that my friends saw. Looking at several on-line reviews, I discover that I am correct. For example, Roger Ebert and other reviewers saw the precise movie that I saw, while still other reviews saw the precise movie my friends saw.

As to "La Vie en Rose", much the same. Several reviewers saw the overly depressing movie that I watched last night, while others saw one of the best biopics ever made.

How can this be? And what does it mean for the future of humanity?

"A Mighty Heart"

We were with friends over the weekend who had seen "A Mighty Heart" and who were vocally critical of it as being nothing other than a virtuoso piece for Angelina Jolie, and telling nothing about why Daniel Pearl was kidnapped.

I saw the movie last night, and can only conclude that there are two separate movies being circulated, both called "A Mighty Heart", both ostensibly about the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl, and both starring Angelina Jolie. But there the resemblance ends.

The "A Mighty Heart" I saw last night was absolutely riveting, one of the few movies that I have ever seen that kept me on the edge of my seat with continual anxiety throughout. I was surprised both because of my friends' weekend reviews, but also because I did not expect much from the story. A journalist in Pakistan goes on an interview that he perhaps should have known better than pursuing, is kidnapped and murdered by radical Islamists. Leaves behind a young, beautiful, French and pregnant journalist wife. Very sad, obviously. But it would not appear that this would be the makings of a great film or adventure story.

But that is what it is. Karachi comes alive, socially and visually. The life of a young western couple about to leave the country and have their first child, but living in the chaos of Pakistan becomes almost intelligible. The possibility of scoring a major interview with a radical sheik and the risks (and yes, the precautions) taken in getting the interview are easily understood.

And he does not come home. And his wife Marianne and her support from the Wall Street Journal community and, yes, from the Pakistanis with whom she is in contact, make perfect sense.

It is the effort put into the search by everyone, Pakistani officials, friends, informal contacts, American embassy and, yes, CIA workers, Wall Street Journal staffers. It is this, the effort, and the complexity of the search, that is truly remarkable.

The acting is extraordinary. Not only Jolie, but everyone. You are not watching actors playing Johnny and June Carter Cash. You are watching the real thing. You are there.

The direction, the seamless moving from scene to scene (with most scenes relatively short, and absolutely no wasted footage or dialogue), and the building crescendo from start to finish were nothing short of remarkable. And, presumably, true to the story and to the personalities involved.

I have a copy of Marianne Pearl's book. It never occurred to me that I wanted to read it. But now, I think I will.

One question remains. The title of the movie (and book), which may be a bit misleading. If it is Daniel Pearl's heart that is mighty, you could expect a little more information about Daniel Pearl. But the title should not be a criterion for judging the movie.

A Day in the Country (one cent)

The 17th annual Contemporary American Theater Festival in Shepherdstown, WV. We have probably been there three or four other times, usually with an overnight stay, so that we can see all four performances. This time, we went down and back the same day, seeing two of the four. We had not been for a few years.

Thoughts:

1. The Drive. I-270 to Frederick, and I-70 west to ALT US 40, then through Middletown to Boonesboro, left on MD 34 through Sharpsburg and over the Potomac into Shepherdstown. It is just over 60 miles, and (once you get beyond Frederick), a very, very pretty drive. Beautiful hill and mountain scenery, attractive and historic towns, the Anteitam battlefields.

2. The Festival. More crowded, more professional in its staging, clearly spending a lot more on the technical aspects of the productions.

3. The Food. A disappointment. Lunch at Stone Soup, where it was hard to find the chicken curry in the chicken curry whole wheat wrap, was mediocre but comfortable. More disappointing was the Yellow Brick Bank, formerly a favorite of ours, but also disappointing at our last visit to Shepherdstown a year or so ago, when we had lunch at the restaurant. it is still a very attractive restaurant, but the food was minor league, while the prices remained in the majors. The salmon (and as I understand it the halibut) was extremely bland, and no one raved about what they had.

4. Play #1 - My Name is Rachel Corrie. Rachel Corrie is the 23 year old American killed by an IDF bulldozer in Gaza in 2003. The play is compiled from her diary and journals and emails. She is an idealistic young girl, not satisfied living her life out in Olympia WA, and who thinks that it is everyone's obligation to fix the world. Without knowing it (perhaps), the personification of tikkun olam. Somehow (not clear how), she joins a group dedicated to helping the Palestinians in Gaza, is trained in non-violence, and with others go to Gaza to work with the people. The Palestinians are very welcoming. Sh e is doing her thing, hoping (wondering) if it will help. She starts thinking, Ann Frank-style, that all people are really good, but at the end (and not surprisingly) begins to think that the Israelis must be a breed apart. This is not surprising, since she had spent several months in the line of fire. There is nothing in the play about politics, per se. Nothing about any political issue, just a social issue, the ranting against people being forced into the situation of the Gaza residents. Or about strategy. The play is about Rachel Corrie, and what goes on in her mind, as she (to her own surprise) does some very brave things.

The play has been very controversial, as being pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israel. I was very surprised at how inaccurate this interpretation was. With the exception of a line or two, the play is only about Corrie, and about the universal problem of suffering during times of trouble. Lisa Traiger in the review of the play in Jewish Week, said much the same thing. Her review was quite accurate. There is nothing for the Jewish world to be upset about here and if it is upset, it is not the problem of the play.

Rachel Corrie is a one woman, one act play. Anne Marie Nest is to be commended for her performance, and for learning all the lines. My question is whether her portrayal of Corrie mirrored Corrie's carriage and demeanor. Before I give my overall impression of her performance, I would like to know that. I know that Corrie's parents were in Shepherdstown to see an early performance; I would like to know what they thought of the production. I also wonder what Corrie herself would think about what is happening in Gaza today, where the Israelis are no longer the ones doing the shooting.

Following the play, there was a talk back with Yonatan Shapira, a former IDF fighter turned peace activist. In a tent on the grounds of the Shepherd U. campus, it drew a surprisingly big crowd. But it did not look like his presentation, nor the Q and A which was to follow, would be fun, and we left.

5. Play #2 - 1001. We were all looking forward to Jason Grote's play, a spoof on Sheherazade and her 1001 tales. It was a mainstage production and technically very complicated, and visually appealing for the most part. The acting was of high caliber. But the play, jumping forward from an old Persian kingdom to New York in 2001, was as cluttered as cluttered can be, none of the characters were at all sympathetic, and the cameo appearances (in the stories) of people like Gustav Flaubert, Jorge Luis Borges, Alan Dershowitz and a singing/dancing Osama bin Laden, were downright bizarre. Many groups (the Moslems, the Persians, the Arabs, the Jews, the Christians) were parodied without mercy. Some were undeserving; others deserve the criticism, but not in a comic fashion. I was in fact embarrassed for the playwright and the cast.

But the large audience seem to have loved it. So perhaps, I am being harsh. Maybe I was just expecting something different. I went with a very positive attitude. What turned me off? It was not the humor; I like humor. I think it was the insulting way that Grote (or the director) dealt with the portrayal of each ethnic/religious group. In part it seemed so mean spirited that it destroyed the humor for me even where I thought that the subject could be treated with humor, and by destroying the humor, it turned me so away from the performance that I could no longer look at it a manner that would enable me to enjoy those facets of it that I would otherwise have appreciated.

OK, it's late, but....

When you start watching the PBS biography of guitarist Les Paul, you can't turn it off, even as it approaches 11:30. And it came after a delightful hour of Dan Abrams' news show on MSNBC.

We won't talk about ABC tonight. Although its American Idol-like show about celebrity look-a-likes was very entertaining, it was offset by the reality show on American inventors, which deserves immediate deep-sixing.

Back to Les Paul.

Interesting, if Wrong

On my trip, I picked up and read "Betrayal at Pearl Harbor", written by two British (OK, one Australian) intelligence experts, one of whom was deeply involved in breaking Japanese codes in the Pacific during the second world war. Their premise is that not only did some Americans have knowledge of the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor in time to minimize damage, but failed to recognize it, but that the British had broken the Japanese military codes (as opposed to the Japanese diplomatic codes, which had been broken by the Americans as well) but failed to tell the Americans. (This is a loose paraphrase; details may be not quite correct, but you get the gist)

The result was that the British could have told the Americans about the Japanese preparation for the attack.

OK, so the two countries did not work totally in concert (after all, the Americans were not in the war), and even within each country's multi-headed intelligence operations, cooperation was not always there (as it has not been in the US with respect to CIA, FBI, etc).

But the premise is that Churchill wanted Pearl Harbor to be attacked, because he knew that would bring America into a fight he would otherwise lose. This novel theory has, according to what I can see on the internet, not been accepted by others.

Sicko

After having watched Good Morning America yesterday and having been impressed by the segment they devoted to Joel Siegel, I decided to give ABC a chance and watch the network last night. I did, through prime time, 8 to 11.

Wife Swap: here two women trade houses and families for two weeks. During the first week, the guest wife must go by the family's rules. During the second week, the guest wife sets the family's rules. Dumb, you say. OK, but maybe entertaining? Imagine this. Wife 1 is a fitness freak and perfectionist, who wins fitness titles, gets up at 3:30 a.m. to exercise and fix high protein breakfasts. Her kids are all super athletes. Her house is perfect. Everyone does their chores. Nothing is out of place. Wife 2 is a dwarf, or to be PC in the show, a "little person". So is her husband. They are not athletes, they are very laid back, they have never exercised in their lives, their house is a bit of a chaotic mess. 'Nuff said.

Extreme Makeover: OK, so my ability to concentrate and my interest began to lag. This appears to be a show about fat people, who are given an extreme makeover and turn into people like wife 1 in Wife Swap. There were a bunch of teenagers, but I didn't follow that plot line (by now the sound on the tv was off); there was a woman from Washington (maybe her name was Heidi), who had lost 100 pounds, but still had the old skin flab, was very depressed, and looked at the start of the show that she hadn't slept in a couple of years and must have been allergic to soap or make up. By the end of the show, she looked like a cover girl, had had surgery to get rid of the fat, ate salads, wore a bathing suit, wore makeup, and had long styled hair. And, of yes, a new nose (her nose was bandaged through most of the show).

Super Nanny (or something like that): now the sound was off, and I probably only glanced at the screen for or five times over the hour. I saw the parents (she was 35 and looked normal; he was 47, and had long blond hair) and the 3 year old (Nathan?), who was shown primarily terrorizing all of the other shoppers in a supermarket. He was clearly more than anyone could be expected to handle, except for SUPERNANNY, who came like Mary Poppins sans umbrella in a taxicab to the rescue. I assume that, over the course of the hour, Nathan turned into a model young gentleman and lived happily ever after, his father had time to go the barber, and Super Nanny went on to her next conquest.

Unbelievable. Sicko.

But Some Things Were Terre Haute

1. Parts of Bristol, VA and the food at Jersey Lily's

2. Jackson and Lebanon, TN

3. Parts of Little Rock

4. The Mexican restaurant in Marshfield MO

5. All of the towns of western Indiana, and some of the towns in Pennsylvania

6. The traffic on I-68, where they narrowed the road (in two places) to one lane highways

7. Weavers Restaurant in Hancock MD.

8. Hancock MD.

Everthing was not Terre Haute

Let's talk about the good things.

1. Winchester VA, a terrific place to spend a few days.

2. The drive generally through the Shenandoah.

3. Roanoke and particularly the new museum, and the bagel place where I had breakfast.

4. The tour of Nashville, including the downtown tourist area and the Parthenon.

5. Blue Fish, an extraordinary restaurant in Memphis

6. The exhibit in the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis that goes through not only the night of the murder of Martin Luther King, but the entire investigation and trial, and looming questions.

7. Seeing my Memphis cousins and meeting my two new cousins (both by marriage) and liking them.

8. The Flying Fish Restaurant in Little Rock (funky and good) for lunch

9. Visiting aunt and cousins in Hot Springs, and looking at the bathhouse which is open as a Park Service Museum.

10. Route 7 heading north from Hot Springs

11. Seeing Branson (ok, maybe this wasn't good, but it wasn't bad, either)

12. Seeing family in St. Louis for a one-night stand

13. Going through Richmond, Indiana and St. Clairville Ohio

14. Looking at the possibilities of somewhat decrepit, but very appealing, Wheeling WV

15. Driving Highway 40 through Pennslvania until is crosses Interstate 68

16. Interstate 68, but also High German Road.

17. Getting home, not the worse for wear.

Joel Siegel (2 cents)

"Good Morning America" had a segment this morning honoring Joel Siegel, their movie critic who passed away recently after a long struggle with cancer. It was quite a nice tribute.

They talked a bit about Siegel's sense of fun, his ability to monitor young ABC staffers, and his general qualities as a human being.

He was a transplanted Californian, who loved NY, and thought that the only culture in LA could be found in its yogurt, and that the Berkeley football team would never win any games until they learned how to put cleats on sandals.

He loved movies and was a respected reviewer and critic, but he refused to review plays. Reviewing plays, he said, was too cruel. A bad review, and the actors are hurt, no one comes, the play closes, everyone is affected. A movie is different. Everyone (almost everyone) has already been paid, and the movie has already been made. Interesting, I thought.

Abu Ghraib, Step Aside

It might be worse to be sentenced to time in Terra Haute IN.

We stopped at a restaurant which claimed to have been in existence forever, to serve excellent Italian food (meat, chicken, seafood and pasta) and to have introduced pizza to the city. There were several Harley's parked outside, weird people in the bar, and a couple sitting outside, who told us that they weren't sure if they had food or not at the restaurant. A waitress came out and told us that their kitchen was being renovated ( a likely story) and that they had pizza and, at night, a dinner special.

so much for that, so across the street to the Irish pub, where the Greek salad was hardly Greek and the turkey ruben took forever "because he had to carve the turkey" [loaf].

What a dead place Terra Haute seems to be, even though it is the home of Indiana State (send me anywhere but there, please).

But what a county court house.

And that is what Indiana seems to excel in. Late 19th century county courthouses.