A Full Set of Golf Clubs

Maybe we do get a mulligan


First of all, let me dispel some thoughts before digging much further into the topic at hand. I don't score that high on my "test" below, but I'm not bitter. This set of golf clubs I'm about to describe is how American society regards and rewards these attributes -- not me. Hopefully, to the extent that you're an individual you can play golf with whatever clubs you were given and come close to par. If you're as much an individual as me, you can design your own course and system of scoring. If you get a poor score based on some criteria, you can speak to “the sky”. I created this scale based on observation, and would not ace it by any means. God created mankind and mankind is the holder of the scorecards.

We are all battered by outrageous fortune -- life is a poker game. But in my forty-something years I've noticed consistently that some people skate by pretty easily, contributing in an average way. Others, in their striving to be earnest, individualistic, expressive or accomplished may get nailed to a cross. No good deed goes unpunished after all. Why this variance -- why can't we all get along, be happy, appreciate each other and share in life's good fortune? What disposes some people to God's good grace and sends others among us to the dark dungeon? Never mind Hell -- we dungeon habituees go there well before dying. Here my friend, is a full set of golf clubs. Add up your score and BE HONEST. Your golf club score foretells how many slings and arrows are headed your way -- and for no reason other than you being you.

1) PHYSICALLY HEALTHY - no major heath problems -- 20 points
2) MENTALLY HEALTHY - no illnesses or active subtance addictions -- 20 points
3) ANGLO-SAXON - 20 points
4) HETEROSEXUAL - attracted only to the opposite sex -- 20 points
5) PRACTICE A MAINSTREAM RELIGION -- 10 points
6) SMART -- but only B+ smart -- don't push the envelope or tackle taboos -- 5 points
7) GOOD-LOOKING -- 5 points

Notice that some things are different from what you'd suppose. You can be a happy dumb, cluck without scoring anything on 6 or 7. Still get a 90 percentile. You can overdo number 6 -- don't exceed the speed limit. Be smart but not a smart Alec. All of these are subjective -- does mental illness include a minor neurosis? You decide for yourself -- there's 20 points at stake. Criterion 3 is ethno-centric and would be different in other places. I've designed the test based on observation (not to mention my own golf game) but am not personally driven by the criteria or my final score.

If you score low, does it mean that God hates you? He doesn't want you to play the game? Maybe God or the Gods like an underdog. There are noteworthy people who have overcome these odds. All the more impressive, because they were sold short by other people. Sometimes the renegade, the founder of an offshoot religion for example, becomes the mainstream. Who is to say? I think there is some virtue in suffering; can't help thinking that God dwells where there is fomentation, change and controversy. You with the beret, the attitude, the weird religion -- that's you! Time to play golf.

And Then There's Maude

Maude Has a Chat with Florida

One of my favorite shows from the 1970's is "Maude". This show is from the golden era of Norman Lear productions; "Maude" was a spin-off of "All in the Family". She was Edith's mouthy, pushy, liberated, 40-something cousin who acted as an excellent foil to the conservative Archie. "Maude" was not included in my top-4 list of TV shows back in April -- she's an acquired taste for so many people. My mother didn't like her. My father had a more volcanic reaction. As soon as he heard the theme music, he would rush over and point to the TV set. He'd say, “THAT is NOT a WOMAN!” Then he would nearly break the knob off our Walnut, console style TV to change the channel. This would consign me to the back bedroom, where I'd watch her on a 13" B&W set.

The show was on from 1972 to 1977, and with such a strident female character, a bit ahead of its time. There are two other 70's shows that would probably also have a better following now than then: "Rhoda" and "Mary Hartman". Strong, opinionated females and the quirky irony of Mary Hartman were too much for TV at that time. Maude lived in a NY suburb with her 4th husband, Walter. Also in the cast were her breezy, liberated daughter Carol, grandson Phillip and neighbors Arthur and Vivian. Even at the time, the show’s writers saw Maude as over-the-top. The fact that she was on husband number 4, had a contentious relationship with her own Mother, and regularly alienated various male characters shows that her character was pushing the envelope, mostly for comedic purposes. My parents didn’t have a handle on such wack humor – most people didn’t. Bea Arthur was already a tall woman, with a deep voice. The wardrobe department furthered the look with mannish-looking tunics, pantsuits and a shag hairstyle. Bea might not be whom you’d ask to the high school prom, but you could appreciate her humor. A couple of examples, that I recall somewhat:

Carol answers Maude’s doorbell for her – it’s a Republican pollster. Maude says, “I’ll handle this”. She walks over placidly, and slams the door in the man’s face.

In another episode, Maude has run off Carol and the maid with her constant harping and judgmental remarks. The two women have run next door to Vivian’s house. Maude comes over to Vivian’s house and remarks, “What is this – a home for wayward girls?”

Vivian was played by Rue McClanahan – in a slightly mischievous, naughty housewife manner that would segue easily to her future role on “Golden Girls”. Speaking of “Golden Girls”, I have the same complaint about both shows. The shows would operate in a silly, almost cartoonish mode, and then suddenly try to be serious. They would go from loud chortles to an earnest plea about breast cancer, the homeless or the elderly. It may even be sincere in its way, but both shows suffered from these bipolar mood adjustments. Be funny or be preachy, but not both. All that being the case, “Maude” was hilarious in its prime, and probably a good thirty years ahead of its time. Some people can’t handle a mouthy broad; you don’t have to marry her – just laugh. And if it bothers you too much, maybe you have “issues” to resolve.

Smooth Operators

the Rock

Today's topic is a bit unusual, perhaps kinky. We are discussing hair on a man's body -- the pros and cons. There was a time in America's past, when a hairy chest was a masculine virtue. Cowboys derived half their swagger from a face of stubble; potable drinks were given with the phrase, "This will put hair on your chest". If you look at popular culture, there have been flash points where hair was there -- most notably in the 1960's. Sean Connery was a hirsute spy in the James Bond series. His chest was hairy enough to prompt the Austin Powers spoof of the 1990's. Charlton Heston showed scorn to damned dirty apes in "Planet of the Apes". All the while, he displayed his seminude, hairy ape-like body. In "Love Story", Ryan O'Neal was all hair, as he bedded down with the tragically star-crossed Ali McGraw character.

But where hair has shown up, it's almost unusual -- that's why a handful of film snippets can nearly account for all such appearances. Now if you look back to Tarzan movies of the 30's and 40's, Johnny Weissmuller was hairless. Any beach movie featuring Elvis or Frankie Avalon also give you hairless and hairless. If you scan through the 80's, 90's and 00's pop culture, we seem to be looking at the age of smooth skin. It's long been thought that young teenage girls were attracted to girlish looking boys. Thus, you have Lisa Simpson reading a magazine called "Non-threatening Teenage Boys". But is it just a teenage phenomenon? Consider that even the most ominous men, with muscles and tattoos still seem to eschew the hairy body -- the Rock for instance. Does hair interfere with muscle sheen or tattoo art? You have to figure it could obscure a tattoo.

Talking to various youthful males here at work, or at the gym -- it seems that hair should be removed if you weren't already born without it. Apparently it is both for personal esthetics and 'the pleasure of the woman'. Some take this to an extreme. Hair is gone from everywhere -- no carpet, no drapes. You can go for shaving, waxing or laser removal if you want to lose it for good. I myself take a conservative approach to a lot of things, and this is one -- thank you very much. I never went for piercing, tattoos or pants halfway down the butt. I’m a small percentage American Indian, which has given me a fairly hairless anatomy – I have no big dilemma like some guys.

Is hairlessness an ultimate trend, or merely a fad? Well, humans are sometimes referred to as the "naked ape". Civilization has given us clothing that can shield our skin and provide warmth. Is a hairy back some kind of vestigial evolutionary trait, like the tonsils, the appendix and the gall bladder? I'm starting to wonder. All that hair on the torso is a bother – maybe it'a holdover from our caveman past. Some hair is actually functional. Eyebrows, we need the eyebrows -- how else to express irony, derision, suspicion and other emotions? But so much of the other hair is purely optional; there are some people who actually like the look of it. If you are one of those hairy "throwbacks", or married to one go ahead and keep the hair there. Otherwise, it's time to wax and shine. (But skip the tattoo). :-)