Search Box

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Bruno


I saw Bruno yesterday.

It was extremely funny, but also painful to watch because so many of the scenes are just excruciating awkward and embarrassing -- which is of course what makes it so funny.

Sasha Baron Cohen has made a career out of showing the culture clashes between his various characters and "normal" (non-show business) people. (Part of the fun is in seeing how much patience people will show for an incredibly stupid person.) In his various roles, he shows absolutely no respect to any of the famous or nonfamous people he interacts with, almost none of whom are in on the joke while they are being filmed.

No matter which of his three roles he is playing, Cohen is a genius at staying in character. His last movie was done in the character of Borat, a clueless Kazakh reporter new to the ways of the West. Bruno, his current character, is a hysterically narcissistic, gay fashionista who is absolutely oblivious to any sensibilities other than his own.

Midway through the movie Bruno decides that in order to become a celebrity he must become heterosexual ("like John Travolta, Tom Cruise, and Kevin Spacey"). In his efforts to transform himself he crosses paths with a pair of drill sergeants at a National Guard training center, some hunters, drunken mixed martial arts fans, and some swingers at a party. Needless to say, Bruno, despite his "intentions," remains himself throughout.

At another point, Bruno decides he should adopt an African baby, "just like Madonna and Brangelina." When he appears in front of a local television talk show and it becomes increasingly apparent that the baby is nothing more than an accessory for him, the primarily African-American audience becomes increasingly enraged. But Bruno stays in character.

Cohen -- who wrote his senior thesis at Oxford on the role of American Jews in civil rights movement -- has spent an extraordinary amount of energy "exposing" anti-Semitism in "Borat" and on his former HBO show. (His definition of an anti-Semite seems to be, anyone who politely fails to object to his own anti-Semitic comments.)

Thankfully, Bruno didn't include much of that.

I happened to see a clip of Barbara Walters denouncing the movie on the internet today. She decried its graphic sex, homophobia, and cruel humor. (What did she expect?) Of course, she also said in the same breath that some of her comments (for instance, "I don't need to know exactly how they perform anal sex") would probably draw more people into the theater.

It's not clear whether Walters was slyly shilling for him or genuinely outraged by the movie's content. (She was probably shilling, but simultaneously covering herself.)

You'll enjoy the movie only if you have a twisted sense of humor to begin with. Even then, prepare to squirm.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Statutory rape

There's been a fair amount of publicity in the past year about teachers who've had sex with their teenage students. I'm often struck by how attractive the female teachers are.

I can't help but remember what I was like at fifteen. If some attractive twenty-five year old woman had tried to seduce me, well, it wouldn't have been all that traumatic. I've talked to other guys about this, and their reaction is almost universal: "Where was she when I was in high school?!"

I can't speak for girls, but I know that some are supposed to have crushes on their male teachers. Should teachers take advantage of that? Of course not. But sometimes, when I read about it, it seems more like forbidden love than a crime.

This does seem to be an area where there is a difference between the way the law might regard men and women. This goes against the spirit of the previous post which advocated equal rights (and responsibilities) for all, but my guess is that boys are generally less traumatized by this than girls.

A teacher should unquestionably lose his job over an affair with a student. And he should never work again as a teacher. But should he go to jail?

The most famous teacher involved in such a case, Mary Kay Letourneau, was obviously a little batty. She seduced a 13 year old, not a 17 year old. She gave up her family, including her four children, to continue to pursue this illicit love, even after being forbidden to do so by the authorities. (Parents who willingly give up their children are always at least a little bit off.) But how much harm did she do to her young lover (with whom she had two more children)? Generally, if someone hurts you in some way, you get away from them. But those two married, and are still together, which says something. (I don't think the Stockholm syndrome is in effect here.) She is now 47, he is 26. My guess is that by the time he is 39 and she is 60, he will have strayed. And that would be only fitting. But it would not be any indication that he was traumatized by that early experience.

In a sense, it's worse for a boss to take advantage of an underling. Your employer has far more power over you than any single teacher does: your entire livelihood depends on your boss, who usually has the power to fire you. A teacher has only the power only to give you one grade, in one class, in one year. That's not much power. (I've felt the need to kowtow to every boss I ever had, at least to some extent, but never to a teacher.) Yet while bosses occasionally get fired for such transgressions, there is no law against it.

The statutory rape law as it exists seems too arbitrary. There is a world of difference between an eighteen-year-old boy who has sex with his sixteen year old girlfriend, and a thirty five-year-old man who molests a prepubescent child. No self-respecting prosecutor will go after the former, while the latter will always be prosecuted. And this is as it should be. Yet the law doesn't distinguish between the two.

How does the law deal with, say, a twenty-four year old man who had sex with a willing fifteen year old girl who looked eighteen and lied about her age? There are many such cases colored in shades of gray, and a good judge will weigh the circumstances. But not all judges are good, and there is still far too much leeway for uneven enforcement.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Sarah Palin


The Left has recently focused all of its hatred -- which is a not inconsiderable amount -- on the soon-to-be ex-governor of Alaska, who, by dint of her appointment as Vice Presidential nominee in 2008, seems to be the presumptive frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2012.

The media anointed her an instant star after her initial speech at the Republican convention. She did have some clever, cutting lines about the Democratic ticket, and she delivered them well. But it was the speechwriter who was the real star, not Palin. McCain could have hired any number of good-looking actresses to make the same speech equally well (there were no other pretty governors available, however). But Palin was given credit, much in the same way a movie star is assumed to be sophisticated because he recites the scriptwriter's witty lines.

Unfortunately, there was nowhere to go after that brief, shining moment but down. When Palin was interviewed, her lack of political grounding quickly became apparent. Yes, Katie Couric did her best to ambush her, but Palin's deer in the headlights response to the attack did little to instill confidence. When asked about her foreign policy expertise, Palin responded that on a clear day you could see Russia across the Bering Strait. (Wince.) She was equally uninformed on other issues. To her credit, she did have a track record of going after malfeasance in her own party, showing an admirable independent streak. But she also lied about her track record concerning the Bridge to Nowhere.

Palin just isn't Presidential material (any more than Joe Biden, though for different reasons). Not only is she not a thinker, she's not even a particularly effective saleswoman.

The Right invested too much of its hopes in her, and as a result the Left has invested much of its hatred in her (which in turn makes the Right like her even more). But the Left also finds her irritating because of what she symbolizes: a particularly fecund brand of white motherhood, a fervent Christianity, and a sort of Annie Oakley-style self-reliance. She even helped her husband with his fishing business (this is a dangerous occupation) in the summers. The East Coast elite finds this sort of resume, at a certain level, somewhat intimidating, simply because they know they never could or would do any of those things. So they respond the way they know best: with contempt.

The Democrats like to present themselves as the party of the common people, who stick up for the underprivileged against the privileged. But when someone like Paula Jones (who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment) gets in their way, their true colors come out. All of those liberal women who are usually all too happy to act as pc thought police started calling Jones "trailer trash" and the like. (The usual class warfare, just fought from the other side this time.)

The same crowd has reacted in similar fashion to Palin.

The real threat to Obama in 2012 would seem to come not from Palin but from the well-informed and well-spoken Mitt Romney. He was denied last time around because he split the conservative vote with Huckabee, giving McCain the plurality, but that probably won't happen in 2012. Romney is a bit of a flip flopper (most notably on gay marriage when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts), but compared to Obama he looks like the Rock of Gibraltar. He is rich, and will not have to scrape for money in the next three years, as Palin will. And after a few more years of our economy being run by a leftist community organizer from Chicago who inevitably favors unions over companies (and even over workers), the national mood may shift. The electorate will probably start to hanker for the business savvy (or at least the presumed business savvy) of a self-made man like Romney.

As a Morgan Stanley analyst recently said, "Look for the union label...and sell it."

Imagine if Romney were to pick Palin as his VP. I hope he doesn't, because of all her negatives; but if he did, it would be the best-looking ticket ever. (Would they be able to keep their hands off each other, or would it be too much Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie on the set of Mr. and Mrs. Smith?)

In the meantime, let the Left focus its virulence on Palin. She'd make a lousy Presidential candidate, but she makes a fantastic stalking horse.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

The Coolest Guy I Ever Met

This is another in the series of essays I wrote about five years ago about extreme people I've known. This guy asked for his name to be changed, so it has been.


It’s instructive to see which icons of cool from the Fifties and Sixties have survived with their image intact, and analyze why. James Dean, because he died young and beautiful, was instantly immortalized as the original Rebel Without A Cause. No embarrassing old age full of faux pas, lawsuits, and revelations from jilted lovers to sully his youthful purity. From a distance Dean looks good, but upon closer examination, it’s hard to find much beyond the handsome face.

Marlon Brando, unlike Dean, was a real rebel, and an actor of originality and power, who followed his own path offscreen as well. He achieved greatness early on as Stanley Kowalski, then again in “On The Waterfront” and “The Wild Ones,” and later as the Godfather. But he survived even longer to become old and corpulent, as well as an icon of family dysfunctionality. His light might shine brighter had he too died young.

Lenny Bruce is still considered cool, although dying of a heroin overdose is hardly considered cool these days. He, too, was a rebel and a noncomformist. Jack Kerouac has faded a bit; today kids aspire to be more than writer/hobos. (Writer/millionaires might be more in keeping with current fashion.)

Ken Kesey was immortalized twice – once as the author of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Next”, and once as the hero of Tom Wolfe’s “The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.” Kesey still has a following, but he is more of a cult figure, meaning his following is small.

The Rat Pack – Sinatra, Martin, Davis et al – have been considered cool again for the past six or eight years, after a long eclipse. Perhaps the true measure of coolness lies in the number of people who try to imitate you. And millions make the trek each year to Vegas, a place Frank and Dean made glamorous.

Elvis, also officially passé by the late Sixties, has also enjoyed a recent resurgence. (Among the faithful, of whom there are many, he was never out of favor.) But he, like Brando, lived long enough to become an overweight self-parody, unable to function in the prison of his own fame.

The Beatles, the group symbolic of all that was the Sixties, now seem more icons of youthful exuberance than of cool. But when they first burst on the scene, with their long hair and high energy music, they seemed to represent a new, revolutionary kind of cool. In retrospect, Ringo seems merely lucky, a winner of the rock and roll lottery. George, a talented musician and guitar player, retreated into a mysticism which now seems merely mindless. John is still revered by many, but he was always a little too earnest; it’s hard to be cool when you’re a primal scream kind of guy. Paul was the Beatle who came closest to being cool. If not quite the musical genius that John was, Paul was the only one who seemed able to separate himself from his fame, and actually enjoy it, at times even with a twinkle in his eye.

Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix never lost their cool images, but if you’re too drugged out to be in full control, that’s not really cool. Both were truly great musicians, but both were also, surprisingly, crippled by shyness at various times in their lives. Morrison needed to get drunk before he could go on stage, and Hendrix was reportedly so shy in his youth that he went through junior high school hardly talking to anyone.

The closest thing the rock scene has to an enduring icon of cool is Mick Jagger. If his image as rock’s bad boy/street fightin’ man turned out to be a pose, well, that’s okay because being cool means not taking yourself that seriously. He ended up as a jet setter (when that phrase was in vogue), as one of the Beautiful People (when that phrase was in vogue), and as a very rich man (which is always in vogue). Jagger has also been one of the all-time great womanizers. But he has always seemed more boy than man, and now he seems a little too desperate to remain Peter Pan. (He still gets the girls, though, so who can blame him?)

It’s a lot easier to be considered cool if you’re a pop culture figure rather than a politician, but JFK, the leading political icon of the era, has survived all the passage of time with his cool totally intact. All of the stories which gradually emerged after his death, some originally meant to discredit him, have only served to augment the glamorous, even slightly decadent aura which now surrounds him. He did everything with style, and under the most daunting conditions.

Of course, it’s easy to be cool when you’re famous. What does it take to be cool when you’re not? We all had people we looked up to in high school or college, people we considered cool. But what was it exactly that made them that way? “Cool” is a certainly word that allows for a lot of wiggle room, but there are several qualities which must be included in any definition.

You have to be smart, or, at the very least, be able to hide your stupidity. You should be up to date on matters of taste and culture without being trendy. Ordinary SAT-type intelligence doesn't cut it; some sort of charm is required. You have to be witty, or somehow clever. Creativity is a huge plus.

It helps to be courageous. There is a certain romance, a certain intensity associated with the proximity of danger. The word "tragic" always adds to one's allure. (Evel Knievel managed to attract a fan base without anything other than that going for him.)

Calm unflappability is called for. Hysteria is the opposite of cool. Hemingway defined courage as grace under pressure. This is what made James Bond so cool.

You have to be able to keep a secret. Blabbing is the opposite of cool. You should have a good poker face when that’s called for.

Cool is also defined by what it is not:

You can't be needy. Needy people always need reassurance, and they always seem pathetic.

You can't be temperamental. Blowing one's stack is the opposite of cool. (Did you ever see the hero of a movie throw a tantrum?)

You have to be an original. No one who ever tried to imitate anyone else was cool. The people they imitated were the cool ones. Likewise, you can't pretend to be anything you’re not. You can't try to act richer than you are, or smarter, or tougher.

You can't try too hard. For coolness is like quicksilver: it's an evanescent quality which disappears the moment it's striven for. You either have it effortlessly or not at all. A lot of people pride themselves on being cool; but they’re not, for that reason.

There are two very superficial criteria which help in being perceived as cool. The first is looks. It's not fair, and it doesn't even make any sense, but if you're not attractive, people generally won't perceive you as cool. (One sure sign of "coolness" is when your poster is a big seller. No poster was more ubiquitous in the late Sixties than Che Guevara's. Most people had the vague idea that he was associated with Fidel Castro and leftist politics, but that's all they knew; they bought the poster because Che was handsome in a vive la revolucion sort of way. If Fidel had looked that good, people would simply have bought posters of him.)

The second superficial criterion is age: you can't be too old. This is no more fair than the looks criterion, but if you're old, people just don't perceive you as cool. (Witness James Dean, whom we'd long since have forgotten had he survived his twenties.) Coolness seems to go hand in hand with the insouciance of youth. Would the JFK/Camelot legend ever have been born if he had looked the way his brother Teddy looks now, and if Jackie had resembled Mamie? Would he have inspired all those young people to join the Peace Corps?

The word “cool” tends to evoke images of jazz musicians in smoky dives, or rock stars with nonchalant attitudes towards everyday responsibilities. It has slightly hipsterish connotations, and has a slightly more blue state than red state feel to it. But this needn’t be: James Bond was the ultimate icon of cool, and his instincts were obviously more red state.

Perhaps the best measure of cool is how often a person makes you think, wow, I could never have done that. Or, wow, how did he ever think of that? Or, wow, he handled that situation perfectly!

The coolest guy I ever met (though he is no longer young) is George Smith. He is a six foot one, muscular 180 pound black man. He is lean and handsome: his forehead is high and broad, his cheekbones prominent, his jaw square. He has the kind of face that people often refer to as “noble”. He speaks in a well-modulated baritone. He looks as if he could have been picked for the role of “cool guy.”

But this wasn’t always the case.

George was born in Washington D.C. in 1952, the son of two high school teachers. He showed an early academic and intellectual bent. At age fourteen he took the chemistry AT and scored 800; at age fifteen he took the physics AT and got another 800. He was even selected to appear on a quiz show while still in high school. His SATs were 722 Verbal and 774 Math.

George also ran track in high school, with no particular distinction. Part of the reason he didn't excel at athletics in secondary school was because by the time he was a senior he stood five foot six and weighed 120 pounds. If, at this point, he sounds more nerdy than cool, it’s because he was. (Even cool guys have their larval stage.)

He entered Harvard at age sixteen in September of 1969, and didn’t reach his full size until spring of his sophomore year. (As one high school acquaintance said when she ran into him in college, "You're little Georgie Smith?!")

George, having discovered his newfound attractiveness to women, was in no hurry to graduate. He took a year off from college in between his junior and senior years to work for Eastern Airlines as a flight attendant. Training base for the attendants was in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The ratio of women to men was roughly four to one, and men were mostly gay. Thus George and his two roommates anointed the base “Candyland”.

George majored in biology, and graduated with a respectable 3.2 average, below what he got in high school, but good enough to get into Georgetown Medical School, where he planned to matriculate in the fall of 1974. But that summer. George heard about a method of making money by counting cards in blackjack. He spent much of July and August in his basement practicing. (I once saw him take four decks of cards, shuffle them, place them all face down on a table, and pick them up two at a time, leaving the last two cards face down, all in sixty-three seconds. He then said within a small range what the two cards added up to. It wasn't trickery, just card-counting.)

That September, instead of going to medical school, George went off to play blackjack at the casinos instead. His first year, he made roughly $100,000, big money for a 22 year old back in 1974. George's mother had the expected reaction when "my son the doctor" suddenly morphed into "my son the card player." So, mostly to keep his mother happy, George also applied to law school that year.

The following September, George entered Harvard Law, but still spent much of his time playing blackjack; that year he made $135,000. During the next two years of law school George spent a lot of time in places like Monte Carlo and Panama City. But by 1976, the casinos had wised to the counters. Dealers now used six decks of cards, then reshuffled and started over again when they were only halfway through the six decks. This eliminated most of the counters' advantage. They also started to ban known counters from their casinos. George himself was never banned. In his words, "Racism worked in my favor. Everybody figured a black man would be too stupid to count cards."

George never graduated from law school because he never wrote two required papers. He just couldn't bring himself to finish them, because his heart wasn't in law. So he hung around Cambridge for three extra years, reading voraciously (and omnivorously), and working out, living off the remains of his blackjack earnings.

On every university campus, you’ll find post-grads who haven’t decided what to do with their lives. They are for the most part lost souls who can't seem to cut the umbilical cord attaching them to the warm friendly environs of their college. They're usually fairly bright -- they wouldn't love academia if they hadn't done well in school. But they are usually missing the gene for ambition, or toughness, or whatever it takes to face the real world beyond the campus. But George was different.

I met George in the fall of 1981, at the tail end of his sojourn in Cambridge, at the Harvard pool. I heard someone ask, “Are you John Craig?” I looked over and registered the following three impressions within the space of about a second: first, black; second, a lot of muscles; and third, very handsome. It occurred to me that if I had met this guy before, I would have remembered him, but I couldn’t place him. He introduced himself, and explained that he knew my brother and sister.

We chatted for a while, and it turned out that he knew all about competitive swimming, which surprised me, as swimming was a lily white sport at the time (it’s still mostly white). At one point he quizzed me on what some of the winning times had been at the 1964 Olympics. He seemed impressed that I remembered, so I turned the tables and tested him, certain he would not know the answers. George answered every question accurately. (Some swimmers have a surprisingly hard time remembering their own best times, and very few people in the sport know much of its history.)

As we walked out of the building, we heard some police sirens wail, and saw some flashing lights pull up to the front of Lowell House, where some young black men had congregated. George said lightly, "Ah, some of the brethren, in need of a jailhouse lawyer. Maybe I should offer my services."

I ran into him a few more times in the next couple weeks, and we were soon friends.

In those days, George gave off the air of a charming ne'er-do-well. At age 29, he had never held a steady job (blackjack not qualifying as "steady"), was unsure what he wanted to do (he was only sure of the many things he didn't want to do), and was running out of money and time. But with lots of energy, a sense of humor, and time on his hands, he was the perfect companion.

He was certainly a new experience for me. I had never expected to meet a black guy who knew as much as I did about swimming, and who was interested in SAT and IQ scores as much as George seemed to be. At one point I said to him, “You’ve been, uh, quite a surprise to me, I mean, uh….” He finished my question for me: “You mean why aren’t I like all the rest of them niggers?” I replied, “Uh….yeah.” He just shrugged, “I don’t know, I’m still trying to figure all that stuff out myself.”

On another occasion he asked me, “Have you ever slept with a black girl?” I replied that I had, once. He then asked, “Did you do it sort of just to see what it was like, or just to be able to say you’d done it?” I said, “Yeah, pretty much.” He seemed pleased by my honesty.

Most of our time was spent trying to meet girls. At the time it seemed our main purpose in life was to meet girls and get laid. One is never going to achieve much worldly success with that as one's primary goal; but it can be a fun way to spend a year or two.

Sex had always ranked high among my priorities, but I had never thought of it as a sport until I met George. I got my first inkling of this one Friday night when he suggested we go to a party he had heard about. When I explained that I had a date with Joanne, he looked at me as if there was something very, very wrong with me, and asked, incredulously, "What do you want that for? You've already haaad that." He was mostly joking, but it was still a new point of view for me.

Often, after one of us went on a date, we would perform a postmortem, analyzing what had gone right or wrong during the evening. Occasionally we would try to pinpoint the exact moment we knew we were going to score. George would often jokingly tell me what I would have done at each stage of the date had I been a "real man."

Although George would often kid me about how I should be more assertive with women, his own approach was anything but. Unlike most womanizers, he never lied to them about himself or his intentions. Although he was always polite and usually flattering, he never pretended to be even remotely in love with them. He would basically just present himself as a scalawag, and make a sort of joke out of the entire courtship process. The message he sent was always: this is what I want (your body), we both know it, and I'm not going to try to hide it. My role is that of the rake, yours is that of the potential "victim," but as long as we're both playing these roles, we may as well both have a few laughs, whether or not you succumb. As a result, he never had ugly breakups or recriminations afterwards. He even kept in touch with a few old girlfriends.

Almost all of us have a little bit of the stalker inside us, but George was strangely free of jealousy. One time he had chased a girl for weeks, taking her out to various restaurants and spending a fair amount of money in an effort to land her. It eventually became apparent that she liked me more than him (a rare occurrence) even though I had shown no interest in her. So one evening when we were all out together he said, "I'm tired. I'm going back to bed. But you two ought to go out, go somewhere." Then he leaned over to me, and murmured, "It'd be a shame if this thing went entirely to waste."

George seemed to enjoy the chase as much as the conquest. And it was always fun to watch him on the make. George seemed to know at least a sentence in virtually every language and whenever he met a woman from the country where it was spoken, he would trot it out; they would inevitably be pleased. One of the games he used to play was to challenge a woman to a running race, but with him running backwards. (He usually won.) He gave off an air of boyish enthusiasm and exuberance, but since it was combined with a very real underlying sophistication, the approach usually worked.

All young black men have a hurdle to clear when meeting new white people: they must prove they're not dangerous. George was extremely good at putting white people at ease. (I’ve seen him do it hundreds of times.) It may be unfair that the burden of proof was always on him, but he seemed to bear it lightly. One time I was out on a date and George came along for dinner. He ended up paying, so I said to my date, "Well, I guess you're George's date for the evening." George looked at her, and asked, "Well, have you ever dated a minority before?" She replied, "No.......Oh wait a second, I dated a Chinese guy once. Does that count?" George pursed his lips, considered this for a moment, then said, "Nah.....their SATs are too high. To qualify as a bona fide liberal you have to have dated one of us sub-humans."

If George was late, he would sometimes say, "Sorry, I operate on CPT." When asked what that was, he would reply, "Colored Peoples' Time. You know, we're always fifteen minutes late for everything."

Occasionally he would tell people that his Muslim name (this was back in the day when it was more common for blacks to change their names) was "Umgawa Acholi, which translates directly from the Swahili as, 'Bold warrior with great hook shot'."

Every now and then George would break into Ebonics just for effect; but this merely emphasized that he was in fact as far from the ghetto as the white people he was talking to. Every now and then he would talk about his "boys from the ghetto," but this never fooled anybody -- and wasn't meant to. (While George was capable of self-deprecating racial asides, his political loyalties veer decidedly left.)

Blacks with George's academic pedigree have another hurdle to jump: proving they are smart, and not merely products of affirmative action. Four or five minutes of talking to George is enough to convince anyone of his brightness, if not brilliance. He can converse with anybody on whatever subject interests them, and do so in a way that keeps them involved.

He's able to do this for two reasons. The first is that his range of interests is unparalleled. He knows a number of sports: swimming, track, football, basketball, boxing, and tennis. He also knows science, history, music, politics, law, and finance. And these are subjects he knows in depth; he has a smattering of knowledge about just about everything else. (One of his parlor tricks back in those days was to challenge someone to name a piece of classical music he couldn’t hum. The only time I ever saw him stumped was when a clever girl once asked him to hum Stravinsky's tuneless "Rites of Spring.")

The second reason is he is a good listener. Calling someone that is usually a jokey way of saying that he has nothing else going for him. In fact it's a rare skill; most people just wait their turn to talk (and some don't even wait for that). George actually thinks about what the other person says, and responds in a way that shows he has listened.

If nobody else is taking the lead in a conversation, he will fill in the silence, but if somebody else wants to be the center of attention, George is content to let him. His lack of neediness is demonstrated by the fact that it was only with extended cajoling that I got him to agree to this article, and even then only with a pseudonym. (Now that's cool -- being called the coolest guy, but not even wanting credit for it.)

Another unique thing about George was that he would never reply to a question with just a phrase or word: he almost always spoke in complete sentences. Yet he somehow managed never to sound stilted.

At the time it occurred to me that he was like a character out of a Ross Thomas novel. (Thomas’s novels always featured super-slick, clever, good-looking people who were well acquainted with the seedier side of life, and were inevitably involved in schemes of dubious legality.) Card counting may not strictly be illegal, but frequenting casinos while doing something they would expel you for does have a certain aura.

One of the defining traits of the characters in the Thomas novels is that none of them ever seem to suffer from self-doubt, or indulge in neurotic worries. George certainly never seemed to fret over how he might be coming across. Most guys would be afraid to go on about how another guy swims beautifully for fear of sounding gay. George would praise my butterfly effusively, even to other people, and then have me demonstrate. Some of this was done in an effort to attract girls, but he also had me do it for his mother one time, and a buddy another time.

George himself has dabbled at a number of sports. He has the build of a natural athlete, but sometimes it seems he practices a sport just enough to appreciate how good a champion has to be. He was a creditable swimmer: after two years of practice starting at age 26, he swam a 50 yard breaststroke in 30.7. He began running again at age 28 and ran 200 meters in 23.2, quite fast considering his limited background in the sport. In his thirties he took up tennis and attained a 5.0 NTRP ranking, good enough to play on the Volvo Satellite Tour. If possible, he'll compete with someone much better than he is, just to see what it is like. He once played an out of shape (and older) Tim Gullikson in tennis, and was beaten soundly. That became one of his favorite tennis stories.

George, like most charmers, had a lot of prepackaged routines; but he was also very quick-witted. Several times during that year he came to our house to have dinner with my family; he always managed to charm everybody. One time, after he had just said something clever, my brother said, “George is really the master of the mot juste." George, who had just held out his plate and asked my mother for some more gravy, nodded his head and said, "That's right -- more juice Mrs. Craig, more juice please."

There was one Asian-American woman whom George liked at the time, Tomiko. One time he expressed frustration with his inability to read her. I replied, “You know us Orientals, we’re inscrutable.” (I’m half-Japanese.) George replied without hesitation, “Take out the 't’ and you’d have Tomiko.”

George isn’t always funny; sometimes he’s downright boring. It’s not as if being around him is like being entertained by a nonstop movie with an exciting hero. But I’ve also never seen him at a loss for words; and the other difference between him and most people is that he is, fairly frequently, capable of creating magical moments.

That fall, George was hired as a bond trader by one of the major Wall Street firms (mostly because he had been a card counter), and I went to business school in New York City.

New York City was a new experience for both of us. In 1982, there were still a lot of homeless people on the streets. One of them, obviously crazy, came up to George one time and screamed, “Bring back the Dodgers,” George cried out, “Yeah! Bring back the Brooklyn Dodgers! Jackie Robinson! Yes!” He then turned to me and said, “Where else but in New York City can you just start up an intellectual conversation with someone in the street? The give and take here is just so stimulating!”

One thing George did not like about the city was the prevalence of smoking. Although there is a rule against smoking in the subway, people would often smoke anyway, and as often as not, the smokers were black men. Whenever George would be stuck in the same car as one, he would go up to him and say, “Don’t mean to scare you brother, but the Man is in the next car.” The smoker would usually quickly
extinguish his cigarette and reply, “Thanks, brother.”

After I graduated business school, we roomed together for two years in Brooklyn. We lived at the corner of Third Street and Fifth Avenue in Park Slope. At the time, Fifth Avenue was the clearly demarcated boundary between the gentrifying (whitening) area and a much poorer (primarily Puerto Rican) area, much as 96th Street divides the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Neither of us ever felt threatened, partly because we were young men, partly because we both had protective coloration (I look Hispanic). Once after I described to someone where we lived, George added, “Yep. The neighbors are still trying to figure out whether we pushed the boundary in or out.”

We continued to chase girls, though at a less furious pace. One time George, on the way home from work, saw a girl he thought attractive. He just followed her into her subway car, pretending he was just on his way home himself, and managed to strike up a conversation, which turned into a brief affair.

Another time we went out to dinner with two European girls who didn’t speak English very well. One of them said that the reason they were having dinner with us was because we were “interesting.” George furrowed his brow, then asked, in mock seriousness, “Hmm. So looks and wealth aren’t enough for you, eh?”

By this point, though, he seemed to be spending as much time evading girls as chasing them. I would often hear him answer the phone, tell some girl he was just on his way out the door, then go back to reading the newspaper.

Eventually, in 1987, he got married, to a beautiful Harvard Law School grad with a good sense of humor.

By the late Eighties, bond traders had attracted some publicity about the amount of money they were making. (Although it has been dwarfed since, this was the “Decade of Greed,” when Tom Wolfe wrote “The Bonfire of the Vanities” and the phrase "Master of the Universe" was in vogue.) Tom Brokaw did a television special on the subject, and was interviewing some young traders at George’s firm; the subtext of the show was how sinful it was for such young people to be making so much money. Because George was well-spoken, his firm had offered him to NBC as an interviewee. When Brokaw asked him how much he made, George replied, “I make enough to feed and shelter myself, and to contribute to organizations which help feed and shelter others, and then have some left over. But I make only a small fraction of what a network anchorman makes.” To Brokaw’s (and NBC’s) credit, they didn’t edit the comment out.

Fast forward twelve years, to 1999. I hadn’t see George for some time but he called and suggested we go to Seville to watch the world track and field championships. The meet was exciting; among the other races, we got to see Michael Johnson set the world record at 400 meters. The entire week, the locals -- many of whom had seen few blacks before -- would ask George, who looked much younger than his 46 years, if he was there to compete. George would say no, and that would end the matter. But towards the end of the week, a young boy approached him and asked the same question. George replied in Spanish, "Yes, but please keep it a secret. I don't want to be besieged by autograph seekers." The boy, of course, immediately told all his friends, and George was mobbed. When they asked his name, he replied, "Michael Johnson."

On another occasion, we ate dinner in a restaurant where a giant screen behind the bar was showing Ivan Pedroso of Cuba winning the long jump that evening. Pedroso, in the half light of the evening, bore a passing resemblance to George. The other diners looked at the screen, and then to George, and back at the screen. They started murmuring to each other, and pointing at him. George stood up, did an imitation of a long jumper on the dining room floor, and raised his arms in triumph. Everybody applauded him, and several women even came up to kiss him. He shrugged as if merely accepting his due.

One evening we went to Marbella so George could go to a casino. He drove seventy miles an hour on a two lane highway with no divider (about the same speed as most of the Spanish drivers). I suggested he slow down. He laughed and said, "If we get in a head-on at fifty, we're still going to die, so what's the difference?" (From that point on, I drove.) Later in Marbella, a cab driver drove us literally sixty miles an hour down a city street. I told George to tell him to stop, and George just laughed. The danger didn't seem to bother him.

Before we went to the casino he put on a collarless buttoned shirt, a sport jacket, and patent leather shoes. I told him he looked like a typically overdressed black professional athlete; he just snorted. When we entered the casino, it was immediately apparent that I, in polo shirt and slacks, was underdressed. Americans generally dress for casinos as if they're going to a Little League game; Europeans, as if going to a fancy ball. All the women were in evening gowns, the men in sports jackets or suits. George wandered around a bit, putting down some chips at a blackjack table, a roulette table, and a craps table, but didn't sit down. He seemed to be looking for something.

Suddenly he pointed at a doorway and said, "That's where we want to go." The high stakes room seemed to be filled mostly with blackjack tables. The minimum bet was the equivalent of roughly thirty dollars in pesetas. George sat down at one of the tables and started playing. He gradually raised his bets till he was betting the table maximum of roughly four hundred dollars a hand. The entire time he made jokes in a sort of guttural Spanish; I don't know what he was saying, but it must have been funny because everyone, even the dealer, was laughing. People started to gather round to watch him. After a while George tilted the seat next to him against the table, indicating that he wanted to be dealt two hands on each round. This meant he was betting eight hundred dollars a hand. By this point a fairly large crowd had gathered around. They were obviously wondering who George was. Meanwhile, George continued his patter.

I had never seen anything like this; I couldn't have imagined losing that much on one hand of cards. After an hour or so, we walked outside to get away from the smoke. I said, "There's a reason they set scenes from both 'Thunderball' and 'Diamonds are Forever' in casinos." George just laughed and said, "Once you've hung around these places long enough, they seem like sad, pathetic places that attract a lot of degenerates. But it is sort of satisfying to draw a crowd.

We returned to Seville to watch the last couple nights of track. After the meet each evening, we'd get a bite to eat, then take a taxi back to the hotel. We ate late, partly because we were trying to stay on East Coast time, and partly because that's the Spanish custom. The Spaniards would just hang out at bistros and outdoor nightclubs until the wee hours of the morning. I commented, "I can't believe that these precious people who sit around smoking till all hours of the night are the same dynamos who conquered a third of the world back in the 1500's." George replied, "Well, that was before they had invented the disco. You know when they invented the disco, right?" When I said I didn't, he replied, "Fifteen eighty-seven." (The Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588.)

Two years later we took a trip to Las Vegas. By this point, George, by now retired from his job as a bond trader, had done extremely well for himself trading stocks on his own, multiplying his net worth several times. This was reflected in the kinds of bets he now made: up to $10,000 a hand in blackjack, and similar amounts at the craps table. Yet neither winning nor losing seemed to have much effect on him. (James Bond also bet large sums, though he always seemed to win. The true test of his coolness would have come only when he lost. One suspects that he would have been as nonchalant as George.) One time I saw George lose $20,000 on one roll of the dice at the craps table. When this happened, all the spectators and employees who had gathered around the table looked at George, to see what his reaction would be. He just made a disgusted expression, shook his head slightly, and placed another bet.

George was now officially considered a “whale” at the casinos, and was treated as such, with all the attendant attention and amenities. He didn’t act like a typical whale, though. He often dressed in a t-shirt and shorts. And though his hosts would have fawned all over him had he chosen to boast about his own exploits, he was more interested in listening to their stories about Sin City.

At this point the suspicion might arise in the reader's mind that George has a monkey on his back. (The definition of an addict is someone for whom life seems bleak and boring if he does not have any chips on the table.) But although George lives in New York, he has never been to either Mohegan Sun or Atlantic City, places he would surely have visited had the monkey taken grip. He just likes going out to Vegas every now and then. And the amounts he bets never pose any threat to his financial well-being.

The Stratosphere Hotel and Casino in Vegas features a thrill ride, the Big Shot, which starts at the top of the 921 foot high casino roof and goes up a tower to a height of 1081 feet. Riders are strapped into their seats, and experience 4G’s on the way up, then, after a sickening pause, go into freefall. George suggested a ride. I am afraid of heights, so I demurred, despite his insistence that it was fun. (He had been on it several times.)

Back in Cambridge, I had always thought of George as being very similar to me, with similar interests and tastes. It was at this point that it struck me that George and I were in one way fundamentally different: while I was a coward, he was absolutely fearless. The types of phobias that bedevil most of us: heights, public speaking, swimming in the ocean, snakes, etc., never seemed to elicit any sort of reaction from him. I once asked him, what scares you? He furrowed his brow, thought for a few seconds, and replied, "Nothing I can think of, really." I said, come on, there must be something: spiders, snakes, something? He then grinned and replied, "Aremissoft going to fifty. Now that would scare me." (He was short Aremissoft at the time.)

George is not macho. He doesn't boast, or strut. He doesn't ever try to act tough, or pose as some sort of hard case. He has never been in a fight (though he did box in the Wall Street charity matches one year). Nor does he regard fearlessness as a particularly admirable trait. He simply lacks the fear response. (Is this a crucial ingredient of "cool"? It certainly seems to help.)

One thing that does get George’s motor going is the sensation of speed. He drives a Mercedes SL55, and has driven it well in excess of 100 mph. (George drives fast, gambles, and was at one point a womanizer – just like James Bond. But these are things that any rich man can do, and coolness is not a commodity that is for sale, otherwise any fool could buy it.)

There is a term used in psychology textbooks, “organic sociopath,” which connotes someone who because of his physical and neurobiological constitution, is more likely to end up as a sociopath. These people are much harder to socialize, simply because they are organically less inclined to feel fear: they cannot be scared into behaving themselves. (I’ve actually known a couple of stone cold sociopaths, who were quite “cool” in their own way, but I was disinclined to give them the nod for this essay for all the obvious reasons.) Such people also tend to have extremely high thresholds of excitement – it takes more to get their adrenalin flowing. George, brought up by two loving parents, is definitely not a sociopath. (In over twenty years I have yet to catch him in an outright lie.) But he is probably an organic sociopath.

The way George traded stocks reflected this fearlessness. During 2001, on three separate occasions he put his entire net worth into one stock. (This didn’t mean he put his entire portfolio into one stock: since he was always fully margined, he always had close to two hundred percent of his net worth invested.) Once again, the specter of a possible gambling problem (albeit in more legitimate form) raises its head. But the defining factor of George's trading was that he always did his homework very, very thoroughly -- which is why he had the confidence to make such bets. He would not only examine a company’s books, he would get to know its CEO, its CFO, its head of research, and its marketing manager. Then he would speak to its competitors, to find out what they thought of it. He would speak to both its suppliers and its customers. And he would talk to independent analysts about it.

George wasn’t necessarily long the stocks he traded; sometimes he’d be short to the maximum extent possible. At one point in 2001 he told me to short the telecommunications company Winstar, then trading at fifteen dollars. I had shorted some tech stocks during the bubble of 1999, and had gotten burned, so was reluctant. But he kept me on the phone for half an hour, saying that there was no way this stock could survive, given its massive debt service, and that I had to short it. He had analyzed the amount of debt they had backwards and forwards, and had even sent off a fax to me and a few other friends about it, in which he described Winstar’s huge debt as a “trap door” through which it the company would inevitably fall. I eventually shorted some. George, of course, was as short as his margin requirements would allow.

When the stock hit nine dollars, Jack Grubman of Salomon Smith Barney, who was the foremost telecom analyst in the Street at that point, came out with a strong buy recommendation. I phoned George and asked him about that. George replied, “Do you have any idea what Jack Grubman’s life is like? Every single mutual fund manager on the Street wants a piece of his time. He’s constantly tied up with all sorts of internal managerial meetings at Salomon Smith Barney. He has a huge staff to supervise. There’s no possible way he can do his homework thoroughly. And all of this is not even to mention that his recommendation can’t be trusted since Salomon is Winstar’s investment banker. Do you think they would jeopardize that relationship? You should short more now. That's what I'm doing.” When the stock hit two dollars and forty cents, I asked George if it was time to cover in. He replied that he was shorting even more at that price.

Soon after, Winstar declared bankruptcy, Jack Grubman was discredited, and George got even richer.

There are four cliches that one constantly hears on Wall Street. The first is that you have to be a risk-taker. Everybody pays lip service to this idea; but almost nobody takes big risks with his own money. (Taking risk with other peoples' money is just not the same thing.) I've heard guys go on and on about how you have to be able to stomach risk to work on Wall Street, but when it came to their own money, they invested in T-bills.

The second cliche you hear a lot of is that you make money by being smart. I’ve met a lot of people who made a lot of money, but almost none of them made it by being truly intelligent. Most made it by being shameless in some fashion: by kissing their bosses' behinds, by backstabbing their coworkers, by lying to their customers, by luck, or by outright thievery. Most of these professionals had no clue which stocks (or bonds) were going up (or down), though this certainly didn't prevent them from having very vocal opinions on these matters.

The third cliche is that as soon as somebody makes a certain amount of money, he is going to get out of the business and pursue his real passions. Yet nobody ever seems to retire. It's partly because some people can't seem to save money. (A typical Wall Streeter who has made, say, half a million dollars for ten years, might have a net worth of only two or three hundred thousand dollars, thanks to wild spending habits, poor investing, and perhaps a divorce or two.) The other reason is that the amount that they deem sufficient to retire on just keeps growing. (J.P. Morgan was once asked how much money is enough for a man, and he replied, "Just a little bit more." He may have been referring to himself, but his answer applies equally well to ninety-nine percent of the people who work on the Street.)

The fourth cliche has to do with "family values." Most guys pay lip service to the idea of spending time with their families, and like to imply what wonderful fathers they are. But in fact, a large percentage of them -- usually the ones who broadcast their "family values" the loudest -- actually go out drinking most nights, and spend a good part of their weekends playing golf with their buddies.

George never uttered any of those cliches. Yet he actually risked his own money. He got rich by being right (and by seeing who was wrong, in the case of his shorts). He stopped working for someone else at a point when he had what was by Wall Street standards a respectable, but by no means princely, bank account. And he did all this while spending lots of time with his children. (George also visited his mother regularly. Before she died in August 2004, he drove from Brooklyn to D.C. to visit her once every ten days or so.)

George's hot streak has extended beyond 2001 (though he no longer bets the family homestead). He sits on several corporate boards, is on the Visiting Scholars Committee at Harvard, and the board of Shakespeare in the Park. Yet at 52, he still looks young and spry enough so that when older white ladies see him coming in their direction on a city street, they clutch their pocketbooks just a little tighter, completely unaware of the irony. (In the summer of 2004, and again in the spring of 2009, George was part of a world record-setting Masters relay in track.)

When I try to convey a sense of George to people, I don’t have time to say all the things I’ve said here. So sometimes I summarize by saying, “He’s not the handsomest guy I’ve ever known, or the smartest, or the toughest, or the richest, or the funniest, or the best all around athlete. But he’s so close to the top in every single one of those categories that I have to say he’s the hottest shit guy I’ve ever met.” (People who haven’t met him generally nod politely, people who have usually nod with more enthusiasm.) Another reaction I often get when describing this essay to another guy is resentment that I haven’t considered that other guy for the title. (Sorry, you don’t come close.)

Old age may be lurking, but George is still the coolest guy I know: when his eyes light up with that mischevious glint, the world always seems a more appealing place.


Update, July 2009: Has moved to DC. No longer quite as rich, and the sports car has been replaced by a Lexus. But just as cool as ever (just saw him this week).

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Superstars TV show





















(Left, Terrell Owens; above, Joanna Krupa)






I've been watching Superstars for the past two weeks (on Tuesday evenings at 8PM on ABC.) I have no excuse, as it's pretty much the ultimate in trash TV. It barely even pretends to be a semi-serious athletic competition like the old Superstars from twenty years ago. The idea of this version of Superstars is to combine athletes (almost all pros past their primes) with entertainment figures (mostly from ABC television shows) into competing pairs. The last team not to be eliminated will be declared the winner. It's fun to imagine how you'd do against the various contestants. It's also fun to see what klutzes some of the athletes are.

So far the events have included a 1.1 mile bike/run (where the teams could switch off on the bicycle at any point), a kayak race, a 100 yard relay race, a long jump (off a pier into the water), and an obstacle course.

The most memorable part of the first show was the final elimination event, the obstacle course. Football player Terrell Owens, the most prominent athlete there, was paired with model Joanna Krupa, the most beautiful woman. Terrell got his leg caught in the ropes while getting over the cargo net. He floundered like a helpless fish while the other team got ahead. Krupa, waiting for him back at the starting line, cursed viciously. After it was all over she cursed him some more: "You're the one who fucked up. We'd still be in the game if it weren't for you." She then stalked off, her muttering caught by the cameras: "And he calls himself an athlete...What does he get paid a million dollars for?"

(He gets paid a lot more than that, Joanna.)

The sight of a petite white woman viciously cursing out a big, muscular black man for his lack of athletic skills while he just stood there and meekly took it seemed weirdly anomalous. (It's possible that the producers told them to play it up.)

As they walked off, Krupa complained even more, and Terrell could only manage, "I feel sorry for your boyfriend."

I don't. (Check picture above.) It does seem that Krupa has a case of learned narcissism though. A woman who looks like that expects the world on a silver platter for good reason -- because most men are willing to hand it to her that way, no matter how unpleasant she acts.

It seemed strange that the producers would let the pair with the most star attraction go after the first show. (There go the ratings.) But sure enough, at the beginning of the second show, it was announced that Jennifer Capriati had exacerbated an injury and had dropped out, which meant that the last team eliminated got to come back. Hmm. Got to wonder how that scenario was arranged behind the scenes. (Does Jennifer need the payoff money that badly?)

Owens is a remarkable physical specimen, as can be seen above. Thanks entirely to him, he and Joanna won the 100 yard relay. Running in the sand, T.O. looked as hard and fit and tall as Usain Bolt. Most amazingly, he looked about as fast, too. The two men even have somewhat of a facial resemblance. Both enjoy clowning around, too. On the second show, Owens felt absolutely no inhibitions about loudly razzing everyone else during the long jump competition, even after he had scored zero on the event himself by not clearing the distance he had set.

The two white male athletes looked surprisingly soft. Bode Miller, the champion skier who is still active, and Jeff Kent, the recently retired baseball player, both looked like typical suburban dads you might see at a summer barbecue, more sports fans than athletes. Miller's legs looked fairly strong, and you could still see some power in Kent's upper body, but both had rolls of fat around their midsections that did a good job of disguising their athletic pedigrees. The impossibly muscular Owens, as my son pointed out, looked as if he came from a different species.

In fact, two of the actors looked fitter than either Miller or Kent: singer Julio Iglesias, Jr. and Dan Cortese. Cortese, though well muscled, has the look of a gym rat more than an athlete. (He is an actor, after all.) And sure enough, he had to drop out after injuring himself in the 100 yard relay. Iglesias seems a more tightly wound personality, not nearly as effusive as the others, most of whom were very huggy and kissy after their events. Iglesias made up for it by long jumping a surprising seventeen feet, however. (It was gratifying to watch the show biz types beat the athletes.)

Some of the actresses looked a bit past their prime as well. When I first saw the plump Estella Warren, with whom I am not familiar, I assumed she was a character actress. I was amazed to find out when I Googled her that she had in fact started as a model, and had photos to prove it. The extra 20 or 30 pounds she was sporting had given her a sort of frog face. Perhaps there had been some recent illness for which she'd had to take cortical steroids; otherwise there's not much excuse for not getting in shape for the show.

I'm not a football fan, but know enough through simple osmosis to realize Owens is generally considered a bad guy. He is unpopular among former teammates and is known for publicly badmouthing them. But he came across reasonably well on the show. All his trash talking seemed good-natured. He was a sport about being being dressed down by Krupa and downright forgiving to her afterward. Imagine the class clown on steroids.

I can't in good conscience recommend the show, since it's such a complete waste of time. But I've found it strangely compelling.

Addendum, 7/7/09: Just watched the third episode. Incredibly boring. Please do not watch, or if you do, at least please don't blame me for the time you wasted.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

NY Post vs. NY Times

Here is an excerpt from the Post account by Ray Walser of what happened yesterday in Honduras:

"Honduras is a poor nation, and got worse on Zelaya's watch. But rather than blame the global downturn or his own failures, Zelaya sought to rally the masses behind him by fingering the nation's elites as behind the nation's woes.

"He sought vindication by ordering a national referendum that, he said, could alter the Constitution and allow him to run for re-election. And when every free, democratic institution from the Electoral Tribunal to the Supreme Court said no to his proposal, Zelaya pushed ahead anyway.

"Last week, he called the military on the carpet, demanding it support his referendum. Gen. Romeo Vasquez, the head of the armed forces, considered this an illegal order, and refused to play ball -- so Zelaya fired him. (He accepted the defense minister's resignation, too.)

"The next day, the Supreme Court ruled the firing unjustified. Zelaya refused to obey its decision....He'd set Sunday as the day of his contra-constitutional referendum. Instead, the Congress, the courts and the military stepped in and pulled the plug on Zelaya's maneuverings.

"They sent him packing on a plane to Costa Rica. Then, in a deliberate, bipartisan manner, they selected a civilian president to serve through scheduled elections in November."

Pretty straightforward.

The NY Times account was headlined, "In Honduras Coup, Ghosts of Past US Policies." The first two paragraphs:

"President Obama on Monday strongly condemned the ouster of Honduras's President as an illegal coup that set a 'terrible precedent' for the region, as the country's new government defied international calls to return the toppled president to power and clashed with thousands of protesters.

"'We do not want to go back to a dark past,' Mr. Obama said, in which military coups override elections. 'We always want to stand with democracy'."

It was not until the twelfth paragraph that the ghost-busting Times mentioned Zelaya's firing of the head of the military and the Supreme Court's decision that his referendum was illegal. The Times never even mentioned the Electoral Tribunal's judgment against Zelaya.

Imagine the following scenario. In early 2008 George W. Bush announced that he was going to flout term limits and arrange for a referendum to change the law. Congress said no. The Supreme Court said no. So Bush then asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to support him. They said no, so Bush fired them. So Congress and the Supreme Court then decided to call in the National Guard to escort him out of the White House and fly him up to Canada.

Bush would obviously never have tried this. But if he had, do you think the NY Times -- and Barack Obama -- would be decrying a subsequent "coup"? No, they would have expressed outrage against Bush every step of the way.

There's no question that the CIA has meddled in Central American politics in years past. But count on the Times to excoriate past US administrations for that before even mentioning the naked power grab the leftist President of Honduras was up to just last week.

The funniest part of the whole affair was how Zelaya had treated Hillary Clinton when she had traveled to Honduras for an OAS conference.

The Times reported, "He reportedly annoyed her when he summoned her to a private room late in the night after her arrival and had her shake hands with his extended family."

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, anyone who annoys Hillary is rendering perfectly poetic justice.

On the other hand, anyone who acts so self-indulgently should be overthrown just on principle, power grab or not.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Guns

Two Fridays ago my son and I went for a swimming workout. He comes along mostly just to humor me. It was the first day of his summer vacation, but he wasn't enjoying himself, so I felt bad for him. I actually felt bad enough to take him afterward to a place I despise but he enjoys: the firing range.

When we got there and Johnny had to choose a gun, he of course opted for a .357 Magnum. Johnny's not 18 yet, so I had to go into the gallery with him. We'd been there before, and once again, I found the entire experience extremely unpleasant. Each time he pulled the trigger, there was a very bright flash, and a mini-explosion. Even with ear muffs, the noise was painfully loud. I could feel the shock waves from the gun in my hair, my chest, and even in my hips. Every shot felt like a small grenade going off at fairly close quarters.

I found the thought of one of those bullets entering my body -- the purpose for which they were designed -- highly unappealing. And all it would have taken was one of these people in the range turning to the side before he pulled the trigger, instead of facing front as he was supposed to.

What kind of people are attracted to this stuff? The guys I saw at the range (and the gun shop connected to it) looked fairly normal. None would have attracted a second look had I passed them on the street. Of course, in the context of the shooting range, my first thought was "sickos." I found myself wondering briefly about why each of them was there.

But my son wanted to be there, too, and he's not a sicko. (He has no interest in hunting, and finds the idea of killing animals highly unsporting.) He loves guns, though. After each round of six shots, he would turn around and look at me with a big smile on his face. (I would wince back.) After we left, he said several times that when he's old enough, he wants a .357, as it felt "so right" in his hands.

Guns are one of those hyper-masculine passions -- along with firecrackers, muscle cars, loud (and not necessarily tuneful) music, and motorcycles -- that I've just never found appealing. Maybe I don't have enough testosterone to be attracted to these things. Maybe I'm too old now anyway. (Ask my son, he'll tell you there's no "maybe" about either of those things.)

I can understand the appeal of guns in an intellectual sort of way. They're finely crafted instruments. And they're a form of power. Who among us does not want more power -- whether it comes from the barrel of a gun or not? (If I could order the entire world to read this blog, even if I had to do so at gunpoint, I would.)

But the entire experience left me thinking what a better place the world would be without guns. People would still commit murder, but it would be much more difficult. (This doesn't mean I'm for gun control, I think the NRA is basically right when they say that such a policy would put all guns into the hands of criminals.)

The experience confirmed for me that I am a pacifist at heart.

Of course, I'm also a coward. I strongly suspect the two personality types have a fair amount of overlap. In any case, both have found a home in me.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Nonstop coverage

My 17 year old son just told me, with a big grin on his face, "Hey Dad, I was just doing some channel surfing, and I found out something I hadn't realized before. Michael Jackson was a saint!"

Johnny made another interesting observation last night: Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas are, psychologically speaking, mirror images. Thomas, who was dubbed "ABC" (for "America's blackest child," because of his dark skin) by other blacks in his youth, now takes political positions which reflect a more white, and conservative point of view: he's against affirmative action, against abortion, etc. And Thomas married a white woman.

Obama, who was brought up by his white mother in Hawaii and Indonesia and by his white grandparents in Kansas, had the opposite problem. When he first got involved in politics in Chicago, he had to prove that he was black enough to suit his constituency. (When he first ran for Congress in 2000, opponent Bobby Rush said, "I lived the civil rights movement. Barack just read about it.") Obama's political positions are now pro-everything that helps transfer money from white people to black people: higher taxes on the wealthy, giving the auto companies to their unions, a Supreme Court nominee who is a champion of affirmative action, nationalized health care, etc. And Obama married a dark-skinned black woman.

Both men had their fathers desert their families when they were only two years old. Both went to Ivy League law schools. And both spent their young manhoods intently focused on racial issues. They just ended up with opposite points of view.

Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, RIP

Quite a coincidence that two such huge cultural icons should die on the same day.

Fawcett, of course, was not nearly the phenomenon Jackson was. She was just a very beautiful woman who happened to hit it big, thanks in part to a hit TV series (which spawned an equally lame couple of movies) and in part to a poster which seemed to be ubiquitous in 1977. She really wasn't much more than a glorified model, try as she did to transcend that status. But at her peak, she radiated good health, vitality, and a sexuality that most men would have given anything to explore.

I expressed my sympathies for Michael Jackson earlier, in February: http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2009/02/good-father.html

Jackson, unlike Fawcett, was an incredible talent, and his music, unlike her beauty, will not fade. It seems unfortunate that he died while right on the verge of a comeback tour which might have gotten him out of debt. Perhaps, from a public image point of view, it's even more unfortunate that he didn't die twenty-five years ago as the still handsome young man who had just made Thriller, the best-selling album of all time. He had already produced his best music by that point, he was still at the height of his dancing powers, and more importantly, hadn't yet been tarred by the child molesting scandals or marred by the never ending plastic surgeries.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The toughest guy I ever met

A few weeks ago I met a guy who had been a Navy SEAL. Attaining that status is pretty much the ultimate in machismo, but this guy presented himself like a librarian. An appealing combination. This post is not about him, but he did get me to thinking about toughness in general, though, and I was reminded of a series of essays I had written about people I've known with extreme personality traits and which I never got around to trying to publish elsewhere. Anyway, this is one of them.

I know a guy named Dave who is a stockbroker in San Francisco. He lives with his wife and four children in Mill Valley, and commutes daily to his office downtown. But his life wasn't always so tame.

He grew up in South Dakota, one of ten siblings, the son of a nurse and a semi-employed truck driver. He and five brothers shared a bedroom, which had a cement floor and was lit by a single, naked light bulb. For many of his early years, he had only one pair of pants to wear during the entire year, and by the end of the year, it would be in tatters. When he was in kindergarten he and his identical twin brother got into a fight which lasted for three hours. it started right after their school session let out at noon, and was still going when the afternoon session ended at three.

By the time they were twelve, Dave and his twin spent their summers hoisting bales of hay onto their father's truck. Often for breakfast all they got was a candy bar. At one point at age thirteen he left home for three weeks, sleeping down by a river and living off handouts from friends' families and whatever else he could scrounge.

At age fourteen Dave took up bull riding, and competed in local rodeos. he had a friend whose face was torn off by an angry bull, but he himself managed to escape that fate. He also competed in wrestling; he and his brother developed their skills by constantly wrestling each other. Their matches would occasionally spin out of control; Dave still has the scars from bite marks on his chest from one particularly vicious fight when they were in college.

When Dave was fifteen and sixteen, he would go to bars with his buddies. (This being South Dakota in the late Seventies, IDs were not checked too rigorously.) They didn't exactly go looking for fights, but fights happened. When they did, Dave usually found himself the designated fighter/protector of his group. He weighed a hundred and fifty pounds at the time, and sometimes had to fight men who were ten or fifteen years older, and outweighed him by fifty pounds or more, but he always won.

Such backgrounds are not necessarily fertile backgrounds for productive lives (another brother is currently in prison for murder). But Dave and his brother both won wrestling scholarships to the University of Nebraska. At age 24, Dave won the world freestyle championship at 198 pounds, beating all the Russians, Iranians, Bulgarians, Turks, and Germans who came his way. Three years later, despite having a walking around weight of only 205, he tried out for the 1988 Olympic team at 220 pounds, so that his brother would have a chance to make the team at 198. Both made the team. Dave was favored to win the gold, but made an early tactical mistake in the semifinals that cost him, and he ended up with the bronze.

I once asked Dave how he would do against Mike Tyson (then still at the peak of his powers) in a street fight; Dave, in his soft-spoken way, said that unless Tyson immediately knocked him out, he would take him. (This was the answer I expected -- and agreed with.) On another occasion I asked him about the dirty tactics the Iranians and the Bulgars were known to use. He just shrugged and said that if someone blinded him during a bout, he would just continue to wrestle, since he could tell just from feel what move his opponent was planning next.

After the Ultimate Fighting Championships started to get some publicity in the early Nineties, Dave, several years into his Wall Street career, was bitten by the bug again. He decided to learn striking, with an eye towards possibly competing in the UFC. A year into his tae kwon do lessons, he went to Las Vegas with his buddies one weekend to watch the rodeo championships. While there, he noticed some ads for a full contact tae kwon do tournament, so he signed up to compete in the next day's matches. But that night, instead of making sure he got a good night's sleep, he went out carousing with his friends. The next day, he went to the arena where the tournament was being held. Despite the prospect of imminent punishment in a sport in which he was a relative novice, he was so relaxed that he just fell asleep near the mat, after asking someone to wake him up when it was his turn to fight. He was duly woken up, and fought his match with the full contact champion. When I asked how he did, he shrugged, "I held my own."

Dave is the second toughest guy I've ever met.

But what is toughness, exactly?

Some define toughness as the ability to be tough on others. But this isn't really toughness: it's just being a bully, or even a sociopath. This is the self-serving definition of "toughness" for the boastful "I'm a take no prisoners kind of guy" who, himself, would not do well if taken prisoner. Real toughness is about the ability to withstand hardship.

Is toughness simply the ability to withstand pain? Women often say that the most physically painful experience in life is giving birth; no man is in a position to dispute this. But that pain is in a sense involuntary (and, with modern medicine, less painful than it used to be). Perhaps toughness is more about what we voluntarily endure.

Haile Gebrselassie, the great Ethiopian distance runner, was extremely tough. He won Olympic gold medals in both 1996 and 2000 at 10,000 meters. Even more impressively, he placed fifth in the same event in 2004 despite not having trained for the previous three weeks due to a serious Achilles tendon injury, and despite barely warming up before the race due to the same injury. Abebe Bikila won the first of his two Olympic marathons in 1960 running barefoot through the streets of Rome. Grete Waitz won the New York Marathon nine separate times. During one of those races, she was suffering from diarrhea; but had she used one of the Port-O-Sans along the way, she would have lost valuable time. So, she simply continued to run, the excrement dribbling down her leg. That one race alone put her in the Toughness Hall of Fame.

Any boxer willing to endure punishment for the sake of his sport must be very tough. No one took more blows from more heavy punchers than Muhammad Ali, who in his time faced Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams, Ernie Shavers, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Ken Norton, and Larry Holmes, the best heavyweights of three decades. When Ali was in his twenties he was fast enough to dance away from their punches; later, in his thirties, he just absorbed them. Ali was the epitome of toughness in this regard (and paid the price later on); few would deny the heroic aspect to his life.

Anyone who makes it through Navy Seal Hell Week certainly qualifies as extremely tough. Among the tests the sleep-deprived Seals must pass is to spend an entire night sitting chest deep in the San Diego surf, wearing nothing more than a pair of pants and a T-shirt. They must also parachute from such high altitude that oxygen masks are required, in the middle of the night, into the ocean. They endure all this in order to get the opportunity to risk their lives in battle.

Does being tough mean having no fear? Some people just don't seem to have any of the phobias that bedevil most of us: public speaking, heights, snakes, spiders, the ocean, the dark, and so on. Or does fearlessness simply bespeak a certain emotional numbness? A better definition of toughness might be the willingness to confront one's fears. And the more debilitating they are, the more courage it takes.

Or is toughness simply stick-to-it-iveness? Is it the ability to keep after a goal year after year in the face of endless disappointments? To persevere in the face of contrary advice and even ridicule? Vincent Van Gogh kept painting even though he never sold a single painting during his lifetime; this seems the definition of will power. Of course, he also cut off his own ear; maybe some element of craziness is inherent in this kind of character.

One definition of grit is the single mother who works two or even three jobs in order to support her children. She does this not for glory, or even gratitude; merely for love. This is an unsung form of toughness, but it takes just as much steadfastness and endurance as Van Gogh showed.

Christy Brown, the subject of the movie "My Left Foot," was wracked with cerebral palsy. Despite this handicap, he taught himself to type with his left foot, the one part of his body he could control, and completed an entire book. This demonstrated a degree of will power most of us couldn't imagine.

One aspect of toughness is the willingness to go without creature comforts. Very few of us are willing to lead the life of a Spartan. How well would be put up without toilet paper, or hot running water, or a comfortable bed, or central heating?

Another element of toughness is simply the lack of self-indulgence. Norman Mailer once famously said that tough guys don't dance. Neither do they indulge in "comfort foods." they don't do leisure shopping and justify it with an "I deserve this" mentality. And "I need a drink" is not the clarion call of the tough guy.

Is toughness the ability to endure humiliations that would cause most of us to crawl back into our shells? By this definition, anybody who's ever had a career as a stand up comedian is tough. When the phrase "tough guy" is mentioned, Billy Crystal and Martin Short aren't the first two names that come to mind, but in their own way, they are tougher than most of us.

If toughness is measured by sticking to one's principles no matter the price, then Nelson Mandela is the ultimate in tenacity. All he had to do to be released from his South African jail was to renounce the African National Congress, but he wouldn't do so, and thus remained in jail for five more years.

Or is toughness a matter of unshakable confidence? Christopher Columbus not only ignored the conventional wisdom regarding the shape of the earth, he bet his life on it. To be sane when the rest of the world is crazy takes backbone. Far too many of us are swayed by popular opinion. Numerous psychological studies have documented that test subjects will change their opinion to suit what everyone else in the room is saying, even if they have to ignore the evidence right in front of them to do so. It takes a certain resolution to stick to one's guns; of course, when one is wrong, it's merely willful obtuseness.

Similarly, it takes a certain amount of toughness to stay calm when hysteria reigns.

The guy I know who comes closest to embodying all these traits is Tom Campbell.

Tom stands only five foot four, but is built very solidly, with powerful forearms and a barrel chest tapering down to a thin waist, and sturdy legs. He has a boyish but weathered face; he looks like a jockey on steroids. At times he evokes Popeye, at others Jimmy Cagney.

Tom spent his boyhood in Alaska, the stepson of an abusive Army colonel. (His father would, among other things, strike any child who dared speak during dinner.)

Although Tom didn't grow tall, he grew strong. He was a state high school champion at cross-country skiing, which he describes as no big deal because of the relatively small population of the state. But he was also the Alaska Golden Gloves champion at 135 pounds, a bigger deal because he had to beat every lightweight from the huge Army and Air Force bases up there. He also set his high school record for pull-ups with thirty-three.

Even more impressive for an abused kid from an Army base in Alaska were his SATs: 730 Verbal and 760 Math.

Upon graduating from high school in 1968, Tom enlisted in the Army. I once asked why. He replied, "I was young. I was foolish. I wanted some action." He volunteered to go through Ranger training, became an Airborne Ranger, then volunteered to go to Viet Nam.

The most dangerous job in Viet Nam was not, as is commonly believed, either Marine Reconnaissance or helicopter gunship pilot. It was tunnel rat. Tom Mangold and John Penycate, two reporters for the BBC, wrote a book, "The Tunnels of Cu Chi," which was published in 1985. In it they describe the labyrinthine network of tunnels where the Viet Cong hid, emerging only at night. The American soldiers, who lived in air conditioned barracks, were initially mystified by the disappearance of the Viet Cong during the day. Eventually they discovered the existence of the tunnels.

The tunnels were pitch black, dank, small corridors about four feet high and three feet wide which led into the bowels of the earth. The VC had booby-trapped these tunnels to make them even more forbidding to any intruder. They had rigged false bottoms in places, so that anyone who entered would fall into a pit and be impaled by sharpened bamboo stakes. Certain parts of the tunnels (sealed off by water barriers) would be filled with poison gas. There were secret vantage points from which the VC would lie in wait, ready to spear an intruder through the neck.

One trap the VC devised involved mounting a box of scorpions on the ceiling of a tunnel. If an intruder brushed the wall with his shoulder at the wrong time, he would release a catch-string which would open the bottom of the box, causing scorpions to rain down on his head. A similar trap was constructed by inserting a viper into a hollow bamboo pole so that only its head emerged. If a soldier brushed the wall of the tunnel the wrong way, the pole would swing down so that the viper's head would swing into the soldier's face. These were referred to as either one-step, two-step, or three-step vipers, depending on how many steps a soldier could take before he died. The VC also placed hornets' nests and bees' nests down there. Apart from the man-made traps, there were poisonous snakes, centipedes, spiders, and bats which simply lived down there.

Obviously, the Army couldn't simply order a soldier to go down into a tunnel; most would have refused. They had to ask for volunteers. The volunteers had to be small, so as to fit into tunnels built for the VC. They would also have to be fearless, or at least be able to control their fear. And they would have to be very alert, with sharp senses of smell and hearing, as well as good night vision. Mangold and Penycate described those who did volunteer as genuine American heroes, uncommonly willing to put their lives on the line. Within the ranks they were universally admired for their courage.

Tom volunteered. He went on numerous missions, crawling on his hands and knees and carrying nothing but a revolver in one hand, a flashlight in the other, and a knife in his teeth. He registered seventeen enemy kills. And he was one of the roughly fifty percent who survived that hazardous duty. Tom was awarded a Bronze Star for his bravery.

One of the first things you notice about Tom is that he's always aware of his surroundings, like an animal in the wild. His big, neonate eyes take in everything around him. And you can almost see his ears perk up at a new sound. Perhaps these instincts were developed as a tunnel rat; perhaps he had them to begin with. Either way, he was uniquely well suited for that dangerous occupation.

Tom grew to despise the ARVN, the South Vietnamese soldiers the Americans were supporting, for their cowardice and corruption. At the same time, he developed a grudging admiration for the tenacity of the VC. But the group he admired most were the Korean Special Forces soldiers who fought alongside the Americans. They were tough in a way he had simply never encountered before; even the VC were scared of them. If the Americans went down into the tunnels, it was usually kill or be killed. When the Koreans went down, the VC would often simply surrender. On several occasions Tom witnessed a Korean soldier come up out of a tunnel with a number of VC behind him, hands on their heads.

During a two week R&R (rest and recreation) break in Australia, Tom and a group of tunnel rat buddies went to a bar where they ran into a group of Australian soldiers. In Tom's words, "Well, we thought we were pretty tough, and they thought they were pretty tough, and what ended up happening was that I got in a fight with their leader. He was a lot bigger than me, but I knew how to box. Anyway, I wasn't that proficient at martial arts at the time, and the fight pretty much ended in a draw. Afterward, he put his arm around me and bought me a beer, and we were all making friends, when all of a sudden the bar door opened and some ROK [Republic of Korea] Special Forces guys walked in. I knew who they were because of the red triangle they wore on their shoulders. The second I saw them I was filled with fear. I knew exactly what was going to happen, because the Aussies were really racist."

Sure enough, the Aussie leader turned around, saw them, and said, "We don't want any of you slanty-eyed bastards in here. The Korean squad leader walked up to him and said, "What? You talk to me?" The Aussie leader, who didn't know any better, said, "That's right, I'm talking to you, gook." The Korean did a reverse spinning back kick and knocked the Aussie off his bar stool; the Aussie did not get up. Within thirty seconds, there wasn't a single Australian left standing up. And there wasn't a single Korean with so much as a bloody nose or split lip.

When Tom's tour of duty in Viet Nam was over, he decided to go to Korea with the Army Counterintelligence Corps to, among other reasons, learn tae kwon do. Tom dedicated himself to the art, practicing up to six hours a day.

In American, martial arts studios exist for the same reason every other business exists, to make money. At the average tae kwon do or karate studio, students are promoted through all through all the various belt colors (enough to make a medium-sized box of Crayolas proud) until they eventually become black belts. (Without all that positive reinforcement they might not continue to come to class and pay their fees.) To get their black belts, they must do katas (essentially elaborate dances) with good form. Almost everybody who attends class long enough, no matter how unathletic, is eventually rewarded with a black belt.

In Korea, tae kwon do is the national sport, and they take it very seriously. First, there is no rainbow of belt colors (an American invention) to be promoted through. You start out as a white belt, then, when you're ready, you get a brown belt, then a black belt. Koreans practice "hard" tae kwon do, which means they punch and kick two by fours wrapped in straw until the various striking surfaces of their hands and feet become tough and callused. The way a student becomes a black belt is to fight two black belts (in real, full contact fights, not the non-contact variety favored here). If he acquits himself well, he passes. If not, he fails. Unlike American teachers, Koreans feel no qualms about failing their students.

Tom stayed in Korea for two years, eventually earning his fourth degree black belt in tae kwon do. After he left Korea, for the next twenty years, Tom never stopped practicing and studying the martial arts. He studied Thai kickboxing, kali escrima (the art of turning a one foot bamboo stick into a weapon), hand trapping, and jeet kune do (Bruce Lee's martial art).

Once, in 1989, Tom offered to teach me some "real" fighting techniques. So I brought him to my gym. He suggested I use the eye gouge; to demonstrate, he had me put on a pair of Plexiglas welder's glasses, and told me to try to stay away from him. He would stiffen his fingers and strike the glass, never missing once, no matter how I tried to evade him. (He never hit me on the bridge of the nose, or the eyebrow, or the cheekbone, but always right on the eye.) He is one of the few people I've ever met who can successfully make a knife out of his hand and hurt you by pressing his fingers straight into your stomach. If most of us try this, we merely hurt our fingers, as when catching a football the wrong way.

Tom also showed me how to kick effectively. He said, "In the movies, they always show guys doing high kicks, but if you do those against a good fighter, they leave you vulnerable. I prefer to go for the kneecaps." He then demonstrated this by showing how he was able, no matter what position he was standing in, within about two tenths of a second, to have the outside edge of his foot resting lightly on top of my kneecap. He added, "All you really have to do is kick a guy lightly in the shins; that hurts like hell. Then, once he's bent over, you can just grab his head and knee him in the face." He seemed to let his lower body just flow into the gym wall, lightly kicking it at shin level; some of the hard plaster fell out. I tried kicking the wall, and nothing happened. In the ensuing months, I tried kicking that same wall many times as hard as I could, and was never able to dislodge any plaster.

There is gym strength, and there is usable strength. Gym strength is acquired by working on the bench press, the abdominal machine, and so on. Gym muscles look good, and these days they often look even better because they are shaved and artificially pumped up with steroids (witness the number of actors who've gone on steroids). But gym muscles don't necessarily allow their users to do anything with them, other than bench press, the ab machine, etc.

Usable strength is something else entirely. In virtually every sport, power is generated from the torso and hips. Whether you're hitting a golf ball, throwing a punch, or pitching a baseball, the power comes from the torque of the trunk, not the biceps or triceps. Dave, the wrestler referred to at the beginning of his article, is a perfect example of this. He acquired his strength from wrestling bales of hay onto his father's truck beginning at age twelve, then from wrestling his twin brother, both of which utilized his entire body -- and not from endless curls in front of a mirror. So his strength is much more effective.

Tom also had a lifetime of exercise that never included weights. He, like Dave, has forearms like an old-fashioned blacksmith. His hands are knotted, ridged, veiny affairs with gristly tendons that stand out in clear relilef when used. He can hurt you just br grabbing your arm and squeezing. (If you want to know which guys to avoid in fights, look at the forearms, not the pecs.) With Tom, it was as if all the power of a much larger man had been compressed into his smaller body, and then somehow the compression itself had then resulted in an even more strength. There was something almost inhuman about it, as if he had gorilla tendons rather than human ones (a 350 pound gorilla is as strong as eight full grown men).

After returning from Korea, Tom spent a year working on an Alskan commercial fishing boat. The job paid well by the standards of unskilled labor, for good reason: it has been rated the most dangerous job in the country. Relatively small boats go out to sea for weeks, not coming back till they are laden with fish, all the while subject to the many freak storms which bedevil the Aleutians year round. But Tom survived, again.

Tom also applied to college that year, and in the fall of 1974 entered Antioch on the GI Bill. Antioch had a reputation as a very left wing school; it was inevitable that there be some adjustment problems.

On one occasion during his freshman year, Tom inadvertently sat at the table where the black students normally sat (there was no one sitting there at the time) with a white friend. Two young black men walked up and told them they couldn't sit there. Tom's friend got up and left immediately. Tom told them that he didn't want to cause trouble, he just wanted to eat his lunch. In Tom's words, "I was twenty-five, I had been to Viet Nam, I didn't want to get pushed around by a couple of eighteen year old punks. The problem was, one of them had already told me to leave, and he couldn't then back down in front of his friend." To Tom's surprise, the fellow who told him to leave suddenly punched him in the mouth; the other one laughed. When Tom put his hand to his mouth, he both literally and figuratively saw red. He sprang up and immediately floored both of them (with kicks and punches, nothing lethal). By this point, eight other blacks had gathered around, but Tom was on fire. He yelled, "Come on, I'll take you all on!" Tom weighed all of 137 pounds, but none of them budged. They had seen how quickly and easily he had taken out their friends; they would no more have taken him on than they would have willingly wrestled a wolverine.

Like many short people, Tom is very sensitive about his height. But unlike most he is almost touchingly open about it: "I hate being short. It's like an open, festering sore....And I really hate it when people call me short." People have done this, some to their regret. During one summer in college, Tom worked for Northwest Airlines as a baggage handler. On his first day of work, his supervisor, a lanky white guy who stood around six-four, pointed at Tom and said, "I want to see some work out of you this summer, little man." As Tom later recounted, "Why did he have to humiliate me like that, in front of all those people?"

I asked Tom how he responded, and he shrugged, "I walked up to him, kicked him in the balls, then once I had him on the ground, I beat him to a bloody pulp." I said, you must have lost your job. Tom replied, "No, because he wasn't the guy who hired me. He didn't talk to me the rest of the summer, though."

Tom's failing is not that he acts like a bully, or picks on the weak; I've never seen him do either. His failing is that if someone pushes him, he can't just walk away. He always pushes back (a little harder), and mutual escalation leads to only one outcome. It's never a fair fight, at least in the sense that the combatants are well-matched. But at least the loser's beating is never entirely undeserved. (To those of us who've been pushed around by bullies -- and who've just taken it -- it's gratifying to hear of someone who doesn't.)

During school breaks, Tom sometimes returned to Alaska. While there, he would often go on backpacking trips by himself. Most of us are familiar with the basic safety rules: never travel alone, always tell someone where you are going, and give dangerous animals the right of way. Tom would just set off on his own for a two week trip to the far reaches of the Brooks Range, never seeing another human being the entire time. I once asked, "What if you had broken your leg? Or just sprained an ankle? You were a one week hike from the nearest road, and no one knew where you were. You would have been dead." He shrugged, "I guess."

Tom carried nothing more than a rifle, a fishing rod, and a sleeping bag. He ate wild berries and salmon virtually every day. Whenever he ran across a black bear, he would merely hold his rifle above his head with two hands and yell at it; this would invariably scare them off. he gave a wider berth to grizzlies, though. He never had to shoot a bear, though, to his relief, since he admires them.

After graduating from college, Tom went to medical school at Rutgers. While there he took up running, and at the age of 32, ran a marathon in two hours and thirty-eight minutes. After this he gave up marathons, preferring instead ot run through woods whenever he could, scrambling up hills and through bushes.

Although he graduated from medical school with honors, Tom never worked as a doctor. Instead he did research for various health organizations and worked as an inspector for the FDA.

Tom moved to New York City in 1988, at age forty. He had lost none of his feistiness at this point. During this period, Tom dated a lot of black women, and would often walk with them through their neighborhoods. Occasionally a certain type of black man, the type who traded on whites' fear of blacks, would loudly question why a black woman would want to date a white man. This usually proved a bad mistake. Within the first six months of moving to the city, Tom got into six street fights.

I told Tom that sooner or later he would run into someone with a gun, and then it would be his turn to be sorry. He replied, "Oh no, I'm very careful. I always make sure that I'm within six feet of a guy if I confront him. You think he could pull his gun out, aim it, and shoot me before I took his eyes out?"

On one occasion five teenagers were shooting their BB guns inside a subway car Tom happened to be in. An older lady asked them to stop, telling them that they could hit somebody in the eye. They ignored her. Tom, unarmed except for a foot long bamboo stick, walked up to their leader, pulled it out, and growled, "If you don't stop right now I'm going to take this stick and shove it up your ass." They stopped.

On another occasion he witnessed a woman being harassed by a man in the subway. He told the man to back off. The man attacked Tom. Tom hit him once, hard enough to make him fall, then held him down on the floor till the next stop, where the police came to take the man off. Tom ended up dating the woman briefly.

I once asked Tom what he thought of Roberto Duran, the Panamanian lightweight boxing champion who was an icon of ferocity. (I thought if there was one person he'd be a fan of, it would be Duran.) Tom replied, "I met Duran once. In the early Eighties, whenever I was in New York, i used to work out at Gleason's Gym, and once Duran was there, training for a fight." I asked what he had said to Duran, thinking that perhaps he had expressed admiration for the legendary fighter. Tom replied, "I told him, 'Roberto, you're fat! Look at you! You need to get in shape'!" I asked what Duran had said in reply. Tom said, "Nothing much. He just looked at me."

As part of his sojourn working for the FDA, Tom had to go through a training course required of all field operatives. The course was given at FBI headquarters in Quantico. He placed first in his class in marksmanship. He also, at age forty-two, placed first in all of the physical fitness tests, beating out all his twenty-something classmates.

In 1990, Tom decided to have an operation to repair the cartilage in his nose, which had been broken a few times. To do this the surgeons had to take some of the cartilage from behind his ear. Normally an operation would require a general anesthetic to put the patient under for the duration. Tom opted to go without even a local painkiller so that he could talk to the doctors about what they were doing while they performed the surgery.

Tom is not without fear. He is afraid of heights. This was a phobia he had to face many times as an Army Airborne Ranger. "No matter how many parachute jumps I took, I never got over my fear. I was always scared." But he did them nonetheless.

Recently he has been taken with the new research which has indicated that reduced caloric intake can result in a longer life. To this end, he eats only one meal every two days.


If you look at the evolution of civilization, from the time of the hunter gatherers on up through the development of agriculture, through the industrial revolution, through the technological revolution, through all the advances in medicine, up to the internet age, each development has been geared towards making life easier. With each invention, our need for toughness diminishes. A primitive hunter gatherer, if he met a farmer, would probably be surprised at his danger-free lifestyle. A farmer leading a hardscrabble existence would be amazed at the relative ease of life in the city. A rider for the Pony Express would be astonished at the ease of automobile travel on paved roads. Each of these people would probably also scoff at the softness of his descendants.

These days if we're thirsty, we simply turn on the tap; if we're hungry, we go to the refrigerator; if we're cold, we turn up the thermostat; and if we ache, we take a painkiller. It's not our fault that we're soft; we simply don't have any reason to be any other way.

All of us adapt to our environments by becoming whoever we need to be. Tom became what, in his mind, he needed to be in order to survive and thrive. Tom was regularly abused by his stepfather, and he only grew to five feet four inches, which would have exacerbated his general feeling of physical helplessness had he not compensated by turning himself into a walking weapon. Someone with a different physical constitution, and perhaps, fewer male hormones, might have reacted differently to the same set of circumstances. Tom's hormonal makeup predisposed him towards aggression and violence.

Tom, like the few other exceptionally tough people I've known, does not set great store by toughness as a character trait. (People who aspire to toughness almost always do so because they really aren't.) Tom sees himself as simply having a very no nonsense attitude about protecting what's his, and he's found that being confrontational often suits those purposes. He's not proud of being tough; he simply doesn't understand people who aren't. In particular, he doesn't understand guys who start fights but don't know how to fight.

What Tom does set great store by is intellectual accomplishment. He loves the idea of intelligence, cultural refinement, and even academic degrees with a passion that could only come from one who was never exposed to those things as a child. In fact, Tom's intellectual airs, if exhibited by someone without his tough guy credentials, could only be called effetely pretentious. He never uses a small word where a big one will do. He will allude to his various degrees (which now include one in clinical investigation from Harvard Medical School) or to his arcane scientific knowledge a little too readily. And he'll go on about wines long enough to cure an alcoholic.

Yet he never boasts about what makes him truly unique, his toughness. The academic degrees are a patina which are polished and shown off whenever possible. The toughness is such a basic part of him that it would never occur to him to boast about it, no more than most of us would boast about our breathing. Those of us who don't have it can only marvel.