Let’s Talk About Egos!

In my piece about Trump’s “impending arrest” in the Mar. 28 issue, I said, “What Trump’s foes hoped would come from [an indictment] was a derailment of his presidential campaign. Given the strength of Trump’s ego and the passion of his fans, that doesn’t seem likely.”

“I’m no shrink,” SL wrote after reading it, “but it seems to me his ego is about as strong as an egg laid by a malnourished chicken. His characteristic bravado and bragging reflect a fragile ego. Don’t you think?”

SL makes an interesting point. Putting aside the clinical Freudian definition, when we, as laypeople, say, “He’s got a big ego,” we usually mean, “He thinks a lot of himself.” And when we say, “He has a fragile ego,” we mean, “He is excessively sensitive to criticism.”

Hmmm. That gives me an idea. It would be interesting to come up with one of those quadrants where we create four classifications of personalities based on those two ego factors: size (big vs. small) and strength (fragile vs. durable).

That would give us a quadrant that looks like this:

  1. Big and Durable
  2. Big and Fragile
  3. Small and Durable
  4. Small and Fragile

Thinking about Trump in these terms, I would put him in the first category. He certainly thinks a lot of himself. And he is amazingly insensitive to criticism. Can you think of any public person that has endured more? And has any of that made Trump cower or retreat? Quite the contrary, he feeds on it!

If you consider lashing back at your critics to be a form of weakness, I take your point. But whereas someone with a fragile ego might lash out initially, he/she would not make a daily meal of it. For, Trump, criticism is just another opportunity to see his name in the media. In other words, I don’t believe that lashing back comes from fragility, any more than I believe counterpunching is a fragile strategy in boxing. It’s just the way Trump plays the game. And I believe he thinks he is always winning.

Since SL and I are armchair-analyzing the man, let me throw this out – something I’ve been saying about Trump since The Apprentice days:

Trump’s primary personality characteristic is narcissism. And one of the defining features of narcissists is that, notwithstanding their constant drive to be the center of attention, they are indiscriminate about the sort of attention they get. For them, negative criticism is almost as good as positive criticism.

If you agree, let’s continue the conversation. If you think Trump belongs in a different box, make your case. At the same time, let’s take the opportunity to categorize other public figures about whom we know only the most publicized details. Not just politicians, but actors, athletes, etc.

Here are four to get you started…

* Jimmy Carter: Small and Durable

* Arnold Schwarzenegger: Big and Durable

* Will Smith: Big and Fragile

* Marilyn Monroe: Small and Fragile

Continue Reading

Let’s Change the Subject and Talk About… Killer Bees

Sunday afternoons, various members of the Ford and Fitzgerald clans gather at the Swamp House (K’s term for our cottage at Paradise Palms) for coffee and conversation. We do our best to avoid politics because… well, I don’t have to explain how that can go these days.

The usual topics range from updates on siblings and cousins to books and movies, sports, and what’s new in the gardens. What was new in the gardens this week was Uncle R’s campaign against a recent influx of bees.

Apparently, the two owl houses R and I had put high up in a copse of melaleuca trees several years ago had been taken over by the bees when, for whatever reason, the owls decided to relocate. There were, according to R, thousands of them. But they are not sweet little honeybees.

They are a dangerously aggressive species called Africanized honeybees – or, as some prefer to refer to them, “killer bees.”

Africanized Honeybee (Apis mellifera scutellata)

Killer bees! Finally, the whole family had something we could fear together! A threat that was frightening to all of us equally, regardless of what we thought of Trump or Biden or DeSantis!

And, oh, what a marvelous conversation it was, all of us united against a common enemy!

Here’s a sampling of some of what I learned from that conversation (most of it from R), fact-checked on Wikipedia for your edification:

* The killer bee is a hybrid species. It is the result of a 1956 effort in Brazil to mate bees from southern Africa with Brazilian bees to increase honey production.

* Apparently (and this is documented, although it sounds like the plot of a bad movie), a handful of those hybrid bees escaped quarantine, then quickly spread throughout Central and South America and then to Mexico and the US.

* Killer bees are meaner than “regular” bees. Much meaner. Melittologists (scientists specializing in the study of bees) don’t like using terms like “mean.” They point out that all the little fellers are doing is protecting their turf. So they prefer to describe them as “highly defensive.”

R explained what that means in practice. He told us that when he had an exterminator take down their nest, a band of several hundred escaped. Somehow aware that he was behind the attack on their headquarters, they set up an encampment in the eaves of a nearby barn and proceeded to launch vicious attacks against him whenever he came within twenty yards of their bivouac.

Sounds farfetched. And, indeed, R, an Irishman like yours truly, is not entirely loath to dressing up a story now and then. But when I fact-checked him, I discovered that it was probably true. Killer bees have even been known to chase people they consider to be their enemies for more than a quarter of a mile. And according to one source, they have killed “more than 1,000 humans and an unknown number of horses and other animals over the years.”

If you want to enjoy a surprisingly good movie about killer bees, I can recommend The Swarm (French, with subtitles).

Watch the trailer here.

Continue Reading

Has Your Baby’s Car Seat Expired?

“No need to bring a car seat,” we told our niece. “We have at least four of them somewhere.”

“How old?”

“You mean for what sized child?”

“No, how old are the seats? When were they manufactured?”

“What difference does that make?”

“If they are older than six years, they may be expired.”

“Expired? Like a bottle of milk? You’ve got to be kidding!”

I looked it up. She wasn’t kidding. Car seats sold in the US these days come with expiration dates. As in: Do not use after…!

It’s not a federal or state law. But all car seat manufacturers use expiration dates. And you’d be hard-pressed to find any information that doesn’t advise parents to respect them.

It sounds absurd. But I searched online and found numerous websites that provided some justification in terms of safety. Improvements in technology and changes in standards are made all the time.

I can certainly understand, then, why my niece wasn’t going to strap her most precious cargo into something that was antiquated and possibly dangerous. Still, I wanted to know: Is this just another umpteenth rule about parenting?  Is there any, as they say, “science” behind it?

I spent more time looking. There were many magazine articles and even published guidelines by parenting organizations that abided by the idea that car seats can expire. And there were even some explanations – i.e., the plastic can harden, the straps can weaken, etc. But I could find no studies. I found only one article in Motherly Parenting that that even addressed the issue. Click here.

Of course, the lack of evidence that baby car seats expire is not proof that they don’t. And when it comes to the safety of our bambinos, what parent is going to roll the dice?

And what do we do with all those hundreds of thousands of “expired” baby seats? Are they put into landfills to slowly biodegrade and cause more pollution? Don’t worry. No Green issue here. Most of them are collected and resold south of the border.

Continue Reading

The Incontestable Importance of Editors

In most areas of publishing, the importance of editors is never in doubt. But in the world of newsletter publishing, editors have played only a minor role. They are usually tasked with cleaning up the text. And rarely asked to make decisions like, “Should this be published at all?”

I’ve not convinced all of my colleagues to work with highly intelligent and skilled editors. But for my own writing, I’ve relied on the same editor to guide me in everything I’ve written in the past 40 years. J doesn’t pay much attention to grammar anymore. (The algorithms do a good job of that.) But she regularly helps me sort through my ideas, separating the wheat from the chaff.

The older I get, the more important this becomes. I’m finding that my confidence in what is interesting or funny, clever or juvenile is diminishing quickly. Luckily, J is still good at knowing the difference.

For example, look at the image above. (It’s from a viral twitter thread featuring AI-generated portraits of all 46 US presidents reimagined as professional wrestlers.) I saw it somewhere and thought it was clever. But I had doubts about including it in this issue.

So, I sent it to J, saying: “I’m passing this along because, at first, I thought it was funny. Now, I’m not sure.

She wrote back: “If you have to ask…”

Continue Reading

True Story 

This happened Tuesday morning…

K: “Did you ever find the check for C and M?”

(C is our nephew. M is his new wife. I was supposed to give the check to them at their wedding, which was held at Paradise Palms. I wrote about the wedding in the Jan. 31 issue. Remember the above photo?)

Me: “No. I looked everywhere I could think of. I can’t find it.”

K: “Are you sure you didn’t give it to them?”

Me: “No, I’m not sure. I can’t remember anything anymore.”

K: “Did you check your pocket?”

Me: “What pocket?”

K: “The pocket of the suit jacket you wore that night.”

Me: “What suit was it?”

(K goes upstairs to look in my closet. A few minutes later, she comes down with check in hand.)

Me: “So, you found it!”

K: “No.”

Me: “No?”

(She shows me the check. It was for SB’s wedding, which took place in 2013!)

Me: “Oh, boy!”

K: “Exactly!”

Me (sheepishly grinning): “Gee.”

K: “No wonder we never got a thank you note!”

Me: “I guess I’ll have to write another check.”

K: “With interest!”

Continue Reading

My Oscar Predictions: How Did I Do?

Plus: My Take on Some Categories You’ve Never Heard Of

I know you are dying to hear my thoughts on the Oscars and to find out, if you don’t know already, how my predictions panned out. So, here you go…

Best Movie: Yes, I said Everything Everywhere would take home the Oscar. A no-brainer (even though it really should not have won).

Best Director: I was right. Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert won for Everything Everywhere. Alas, one of the greatest directors of our time (Spielberg) lost to them.

Best Cinematography: I knew James Friend would win because he did such amazing work on All Quiet. I would have preferred Frank van den Eeden, because of the riveting depth he gave to Close. But he wasn’t even nominated.

Best Actor: This Oscar should have gone to Bill Nighy in Living or Paul Mescal in Aftersun. (Although Austin Butler was pretty good, too, as Elvis.) But, as I predicted, it went, of course, to Brendan Fraser.

Best Actress: Michelle Yeoh was, along with everyone else in Everything Everywhere, the odds-on favorite. And she won. Ho hum. She wasn’t bad. But Cate Blanchett and Andrea Riseborough were better. (I liked Yeoh’s comment in her acceptance speech: “Ladies, never let anyone tell you that you are past your prime.”)

Best Supporting Actor: I said that Ke Huy Quan would win, and he did. But not because of his performance. It was because the Academy wants a sweep and is nostalgic for a comeback story. My pick would have been Brendan Gleeson. Actually, I think Barry Keoghan was even better.

Best Supporting Actress: All of the nominees were very good. (It was the best group in this category that I can remember.) I correctly said the Oscar would go to Jamie Lee Curtis, even though I would have given it to Kerry Condon.

Best Original Screenplay: I predicted The Banshees, though I would have preferred Triangle of Sadness. But the Oscar went to Everything Everywhere. How I got that wrong, I can’t explain. I guess I thought they had to give Banshees something.

Best Adapted Screenplay: I correctly predicted that All Quiet (which should have won) would be beat out by Women Talking, because Hollywood believes that sort of script deserves to win something.

Best Animated Feature: I was right again. The Oscar went to Pinocchio. A worthy choice, although I think Puss in Bootswas equal to it.

Best Documentary Feature: This one was easy. Navalny was destined to win. It was very good. But I thought All the Beauty and the Bloodshed was a tad better.

Best International Feature: Another easy call. Because All Quiet was also nominated for Best Picture, there was no chance that a better film, Argentina, 1986, would get more votes in this lesser category.

My Score: 11 out of 12 

Bonus Categories 

Most Common Adjective of the Night: Beautiful

 Second Most Common Adjective: Incredible

Best Mindless Moment: Lady Gaga explaining why her track for Top Gun (“Hold My Hand”) is important and more meaningful than the mediocre lyrics suggest.

Best Sentence in an Acceptance Speech: From Ruth E. Carter (who won Best Costume Design), referring to the passing of her mother, at 101, as “becoming an ancestor.”

Best German Moment: Edward Berger’s thank-you speech for All Quiet. (If you don’t get it, you don’t know the Germans.)

Another Great Thank-You Moment: Matthew Freud, accepting (with Charlie Mackesy), the award for Best Animated Short: “I know the protocol is to say thank you a lot, but I’m British, so instead I’ll say sorry.”

Lamest Speech: Bill Cramer, representing the Academy, talking about the awards that nobody is interested in.

Weirdest Commercial: Snapchat. What was that about?

Most Inclusive Commercial: Applebee’s. (And why not?)

Best Back-Walking Moments: The commercials about COVID (how it’s actually dangerous only for fat people) sponsored by Pfizer.

Most Narcissistic Statement: “Thank you so much to everyone who has unlocked my genius.” (Daniel Kwan in his acceptance speech for Best Director)

Most Pretentious Moment: There were too many to fairly choose from.

 

Continue Reading

Oscar Winners for 2023

Okay. I know you’ve been dying to find out. Here are my picks for this year’s Academy Awards.

 Best Movie 

* What Will Get It: Everything Everywhere All at Once

* What Should Get It: All Quiet on The Western Front

None of the nominated “Best” movies were great. But Tár, All Quiet, and Everything Everywhere were the top contenders. All Quiet should get it because it was good at doing a much more ambitious job. But Everything Everywherewill win because it won Best Picture in most of the other contests, and the Academy Awards generally follow suit.

Best Director 

* Who Will Win: Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, Everything Everywhere All at Once

* Who Should Win: Steven Spielberg, The Fabelmans

It’s going to be a contest between Spielberg and Kwan/Scheinert. The latter will win, I think, because the Best Director Oscar usually goes with the Best Picture. Moreover, this year Kwan/Scheinert took the top prize from the Directors Guild of America. I don’t think they deserve it, because the primary job of a director is to make everything about the film feel emotionally true. Spielberg did exactly that with Fabelman’s, whereas Kwan/Scheinert failed to do it with Everything Everywhere.

Best Cinematography 

* Who Will Win: James Friend, All Quiet on the Western Front

* Who Should Win: Frank van den Eeden, Close

Cinematography is the distinguishing feature of film making. If a movie doesn’t have great cinematography, it shouldn’t be considered for Best Picture. Most of the nominees for Best Picture had excellent cinematography, but I’m guessing All Quiet will win because of its scope. I would, however, have given the award to van den Eedenm, which you would understand had you seen the movie.

Best Actor 

* Who Will Win: Brendan Fraser, The Whale

* Who Should Win: Bill Nighy, Living

The Academy likes actors that take on transformative roles. And the most obvious actor that did that last year was Brendan Fraser in The Whale. He did a good job, especially considering he was working in a fat suit. But in terms of pure performance, I can’t see anyone deserving Best Actor more than Bill Nighy.

Best Actress 

* Who Will Win: Michelle Yeoh, Everything Everywhere All at Once

* Who Should Win: Cate Blanchett, Tár or Andrea Riseborough, To Leslie

If Michelle Yeoh wins it, I will be disappointed. Her performance was adequate, but hardly challenging. The award should go to one of two actresses that beautifully executed two much more difficult roles: Cate Blanchett or Andrea Riseborough.

Best Supporting Actor 

* Who Will Win: Ke Huy Quan, Everything Everywhere All at Once

* Who Should Win: Brendan Gleeson, The Banshees of Inisherin

Ke Huy Quan had Hollywood fame as a child actor in The Goonies and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Coming back now in the movie that is expected to win Best Picture, he’s a sentimental shoe-in.

Best Supporting Actress 

* Who Will Win: Jamie Lee Curtis, Everything Everywhere All at Once

* Who Should Win: Kerry Condon, The Banshees of Inisherin

Jamie Lee Curtis was terrific. Without her, Everything Everywhere would have been much less funny. But I’d give the nod to Condon for her finely tuned dramatic role.

Best Original Screenplay 

* What Will Win: The Banshees of Inisherin

* What Should Win: Triangle of Sadness

Best Adapted Screenplay 

* What Will Win: Women Talking

* What Should Win: All Quiet on the Western Front

Women Talking is a script that celebrates victimhood. Plus, Hollywood likes actors that write screenplays. So, I’m guessing that Sarah Polley will take the Oscar home. But it’s a tight race.

Best Animated Film 

* What Will Win: Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio

* What Should Win: Puss in Boots: The Last Wish

They are both very good and deserving. But I’m guessing that Guillermo del Toro is more popular with the voters.

Best Documentary Feature 

* What Will Win: Navalny

* What Should Win: All the Beauty and the Bloodshed

Best International Feature 

* What Will Win: All Quiet on the Western Front (Germany)

* What Should Win: Argentina, 1985 (Argentina)

As a best-picture nominee, All Quiet is almost certain to win. I thought Argentina, 1985 was the better movie.

Continue Reading

What a pleasant day Friday was for me. I had two tickets to see Hugh Eakin speak about Picasso’s War, his fantastic account of how modern art came to America, at the Norton Museum in nearby West Palm Beach. (You can read my review of the book here.)

K was out of town, so I asked M, Number Three Son and fellow art lover, to join me.

I was expecting an elderly, slightly disheveled Oxford-donnish fellow to appear. Instead, Mr. Eakin turned out to be a young-ish, bespectacled nebbish with an appropriately nebbish-y voice.

This is what he looks like:

This is what he sounds like.

It didn’t take me long to fall in love with the man, however. He was smartly funny in a self-effacing way that, for someone that went to both Harvard and Cambridge and has had a spectacular literary career, is both rare and adorable. Moreover, he had clearly done some serious research on his topic. He was able to answer every question thrown at him, including one of mine, with authority, grace, and detail.

Afterwards, I asked M if I could stop by to see Hudson, Number Five Grandson. M and his wife M keep a strict schedule for their one-year-old. The lights in his room are turned off promptly at eight o’clock. So, looking at his watch, M agreed, so long as I understood that there would only be time for me to assist him with Hudson’s bath and bedtime story.

When I got to their home, I realized that I was interrupting a dinner party. I apologized, but M and M assured me I was not intruding, and invited me to stay.

The bath and bedtime story were wonderfully rewarding in every sense that time spent with a one-year-old grandchild could be. Coming downstairs afterwards, I discovered that two of the three dinner guests were friends of M’s that I had known since they were in their early teens. Back then, they were all misfit kids that had found their way to a public but very exclusive high school for the arts (as had M). And now, they were very accomplished professionals with promising lives.

So, I stayed and enjoyed an excellent meal and some excellent Pinot Noir. And I went home feeling very lucky indeed.

Continue Reading

Do You Remember Bob Ross?

When I was in my 30s, I occasionally watched a PBS instructional series on painting, starring a tall, White guy with an afro named Bob Ross. During the 11 years he appeared on The Joy of Painting, he recorded more than 400 videos.

Ross had a gentle, upbeat way of speaking – not unlike Mr. Rogers – that made him easy to watch and learn from. Plus, he used and taught techniques that were easy to replicate at home.

I thought my interest in him was esoteric. I’ve never known anyone else that watched him. In fact, I don’t think he or his show ever made their way into any conversation I’ve ever had.

When Netflix released a documentary about Ross in 2021, I was surprised to discover that there was more to him than “happy little clouds and trees.” Titled Happy Accidents, Betrayal & Greed, it was revealing and somewhat disturbing. And now it turns out that a feature film loosely based on his life – titled Paint – will be airing next month on Netflix. Another surprise. This one’s a comedy! And it will be starring Owen Wilson, of all people, as the Bob Ross-esque character.

Take a look at the trailer here.

Continue Reading

What to Eat? What to Watch? 

Should we walk two blocks to our local eatery, Boheme Bistro, where Adel treats us like celebrities, and enjoy some great Lebanese food? Or walk half a block farther, to Burger Fi, for juicy cheeseburgers by the sea? Or… maybe we should stay home and watch a movie?

Those were the questions last Sunday evening. And since G, K’s sister, was our guest, we let her decide. She opted for staying home. Very happy with that decision, I brought trays and silverware and napkins into the TV room, and searched for a few Oscar-nominated movies to choose from.

Twenty minutes later, we were having fresh salad, cacio e pepe pasta, and a big bottle of well-balanced merlot. The choice of movie was The Whale, which, as I’m sure you know, is about a 600-pound man that deals with depression by eating himself to death.

The Whale, starring a fat-suited Brendan Fraser, is worth watching. It was tightly scripted and very well acted (earning Fraser his first-ever Oscar nomination). But there were things I didn’t like about it.

It was much more a stage play than it was a film. And not just a stage play, but one that was restricted to a single room. Filmed plays can sometimes be well done, but I’ve never seen one that wouldn’t have been better on stage.

The subject matter was important. And, for the most part, it was treated with the seriousness it deserved. That is to say, the film attempted to deal with the issues at stake in a reasonably balanced way.

But when it came to the secondary plot – the effort of the protagonist to encourage his students to write better essays – it failed miserably. Instead of an inspired argument for good writing, the audience gets a threadbare Hollywood cliché about expressing your passions.

Ugh!

Anyway, I didn’t hate it. And the pasta and wine (Prisoner) was fantastic!

Continue Reading