Chapter 78.05: The Beerization of the Charity Gala

This just pisses me off. I have no problem with drinking, and I certainly have no qualms with people supporting a cause, but when someone thinks that drinking in and of itself should support a cause, well, that's where I get annoyed.

A co-worker put it like this, and I agree with her: "Call me old fashioned (or of advanced age, or whatever), but isn’t there something obnoxious about saying you don’t want to give time planting trees but will get drunk because you’re going to anyway, and a beer is a beer is a beer? OK, so I haven’t planted trees lately, either, and I do buy from companies that supposedly give a percentage of the proceeds to good causes even if I have to pay a few pennies more because I’m going to buy it anyway, but there’s something about this attitude that doing good shouldn’t inconvenience you or mean changing your lifestyle at all that’s really, really depressing to me."

When I was a kid, I sold stickers to support the Little League and sold candy bars to help out my school. I collected wrappers from soup cans and brought them into school. Whatever happened to collecting UNICEF pennies, or visiting orphanages? Drinking beer? That's not a charitable event.

You might argue that a charity gala is just a glorified way of drinking for a cause, and having attended a couple of them — and more importantly, knowing that those events rarely do much better than break even — I'd say you have a point. You might argue that the beer party is more honest, but the fact is, this is dishonest charity. It's not about charity, it's about getting drunk, it's about trying to get laid. Those may be worthy "causes" by themselves, but they are not charity (even if ugly people... sorry, won't finish that thought).

Do yourselves and the rest of humanity a favor: find a cause you believe in that helps other people, support it, and encourage others to do the same for their causes. Charity is intended to be unselfish. Give it a shot, I think you'll find it's far more buzz worthy than a six pack.

Chapter 79.1: Have Jetpack, Will Travel

How I wish I had a spare $100,000 to spend. Check out this article, which comes with a great video!

Chapter 78: Eureka! I've Found It!

I know I'm a little odd at times, but I have to admit I really enjoy a silly little show on the Sci Fi channel. Perhaps it's because of my family genetics, but I love Eureka, which is premiering its third season on Tuesday. From the infectious opening theme to the delightfully off-center characters in the town full of scientists and geniuses, I look forward to the whole thing. Even the new line of commercials that parody home shopping shows are clever. And I usually hate commercials that I've seen over and over again.

There are smarter shows out there, and it can be predictable, but there's something about this fictional town and the people that live there that make me happy. If you enjoyed Northern Exposure (one of my all time favorites) back in the early '90s, then I think you'll find a new home in Eureka.

Chapter 77.9: To the Moon! ... Bang, Zoom!

This could be interesting. The USA Today reports that a group of engineers is working on an alternative rocket to the Ares prototype that may eventually bring Americans back to the moon.

The article doesn't have a lot of detail (it is the USA Today, after all), but the way I read it, it sounds as though NASA doesn't believe it's safe enough to consider seriously; plus, NASA has spent about $7 billion to develop the Ares, so far, and it's not going to change its mind now.

I'm ok with that, but if some engineers can build a better rocket, I think the idea of competition should be fine. Of course, NASA is building with tax-payer dollars, so I'd like to think they've done enough homework to recognize that what they're working on is efficient and effective (I don't expect it be cheap; this is space we're dealing with!)

If nothing else, hopefully it'll inspire some great moon-related shows on Discovery!

Chapter 77.85: Cuppa Matt

I've been trying to figure out how to allow subscriptions to my blogs, and finally Blogger has added that capability. So if you enjoy my mental meanderings here, please sign up using the clickable subscription button on the right hand side.

I've also set up an email box for those who want to reach me but don't want to post a comment on the blog. So, feel free to email me at cuppasinclair@gmail.com and I promise to get back to you ASAP.

Chapter 77.8: Thanks Billy, Thanks Shea!

Billy Joel played the final concert at Shea Stadium on Friday night, and my wife and I were lucky enough to get tickets. (Thanks again, Bob & Suzanne, for the truly wonderful birthday present!)

I've seen Billy before, back when he still recorded new albums, but this was a special night and there was really no comparison to the previous concert. The show didn't start on time. He explained from his piano seat that they wanted to let everyone get into the stadium ("We all know the parking sucks," he joked.) But we learned later the real reason for the delay.

The night was electric with his hits and he also dug into his back catalog for songs that don't get much airplay but are still fun, exciting songs. Of course, he refused to play "Just the Way You Are," which he derides as a wedding song — and let's face it, he's right. And before too long it became obvious that "Piano Man" would be among the last songs played. It's his signature song, after all.

In between the first and the last songs was a night full of entertainment, both visual and aural. I truly got a sense of the amazing clarity of high-def television as the screens on which the images of Joel and the other musicians played seemed to be in 3-D. You could see every bead of sweat on Billy's balding pate.

Tony Bennett reprised his performance from Wednesday night on "New York State of Mind." He's really cemented his place among rock fans as the successor to Frank Sinatra, by which I mean an old crooner who can still connect with those of a younger generation. Speaking about generations, Roger Daltrey also came on stage to sing "My Generation" and swing his specially equipped microphone once more. In keeping with the legacy of The Who, Joel smashed a guitar on stage, a la Pete Townshend.

The other special guests were Steven Tyler, who sang "Walk This Way," and Garth Brooks — decked out in a Mets cap and jersey (he played with the team during spring training, 2000) — who sang the Joel-written song "Shameless" that he had a hit with.

Throughout the night, the significance of the venue was never lost. Indeed, with Citi Field towering behind the stage in Shea's center field, it was impossible to not be aware that this night was in part about celebrating the wonderful history of music at Shea Stadium, which began with the Beatles. During "Zanzibar," images of famous Mets games played on the screens.

So it wasn't surprising — indeed, Maureen and I kinda expected it — when Billy Joel reintroduced Sir Paul McCartney to Shea. The old Beatle sang "I Saw Her Standing There," which also could have been as much about the stadiums as it was a remembrance of songs past. The Beatles played Shea in 1965, which I believe was the first time a rock band had played a sports stadium.

Of course, only Piano Man could follow that, and Billy Joel — who had been looking exhausted for at least an hour at that point — allowed the fans to help him sing his song. Maureen and I made our way out as the final notes played, so we didn't actually witness Paul's return for "Let It Be," but I wouldn't be surprised to find the show presented as a DVD in time for Christmas. I'm sure I'll see it then.

So, thanks Billy, thanks Paul, and thanks to the other 55,000 people who shared in such a wonderful night. Even that annoying couple a row over from us who must have been on ecstacy or something.

And thanks again, Bob and Suzanne. This is one birthday present I'll never forget!

Chapter 77.7: Bobby Murcer, One of the Good Yankees

In my family, being a Yankee fan has never been an option. I've heard from my brothers that they rooted for Mickey Mantle, but not for the Yankees per se. Indeed, by the time the Miracle Mets won it all in 1969, we were already a family of Mets fans and I never knew anything but rooting for the Mets, despite the terrible teams of the late 70s.

Around the time the Mets were stinking up the National League and I was collecting baseball cards, Bobby Murcer was moving toward the tail end of his career. I remember watching Murcer play against the Mets when he was a member of the Cubs, and my older brothers told me about how he was always their favorite Yankee after Mantle retired after the 1968 season.

When he returned to the Yankees, I was able to watch him a little more regularly. (Just because I hated the Yankees didn't mean I wouldn't watch them. It was baseball, after all. I rooted for their opponents.) But it was always hard to root against Bobby Murcer.

I was rooting for him to beat the cancer in his brain, but I think any fan knew it was not quite the same as when he stood at the plate during the game after he'd delivered the eulogy for his close friend Thurman Munson. Murcer hit a homer and drove in the winning run that day. Yesterday, Murcer succumbed to the disease.

I'm a Mets fan and a Yankee hater, but there is always room on a team for a player like Bobby Murcer. He was known for his class and wit. I believe that most non-Yankee fans regarded Murcer as one of the good guys. My thoughts go out to his family.

Chapter 77.6: Why Did the New York Times Interview the Guy From Most Evil?

As a regular reader of the New York Times and an occasional viewer of television shows about cruel and unusual punishers, I immediately noticed a similarity between the man in a photo that accompanied a story about therapists to the megawealthy in today's Times.

The article discusses the unique needs of megawealthy patients in therapy, the challenges for psychiatrists and psychotherapists to treat them properly, and how the therapeutic needs of the megawealthy are changing.

But what the article didn't go into much detail about was why it was interviewing Dr. Michael Stone, who is a forensic psychiatrist who researches and categorizes the acts of killers, and is the main interviewer in Most Evil, which uses his taxonomy of evil -- detailing from those who kill in self-defense to serial psychpathic torturers who kill with torture as the primary motive. Also barely mentioned is the connection between the New York Times and the Investigation Discovery channel -- part of Discovery Networks.

I don't mean to suggest that anything illegal or unethical is going on; I don't think the people at the Discovery Network have any influence over the news room of America's most important daily newspaper. But Stone's place in the article is intriguing, to say the least.

In the article, Dr. Stone -- who is not the most frequently quoted interview subject, but is not exactly filler, either -- talks about the narcissism of the megawealthy patients. This seems in keeping with his study of murderers and psychopaths, but it seems like there should be more explanation for the lay audience why Dr. Stone is being interviewed at all. They interviewed more than a dozen therapists for the article. Why was Stone so prominent? He's described as "a psychiatrist affiliated with Columbia" and after the second jump it notes that he "is also known as a forensic psychiatrist and is the host of a show on the Investigation Discovery network."

I'd love to learn whether there are significant psychosocial similarities between the super rich and the super-psychotic. The article doesn't delve into this at all. And in the first few dozen comments that appeared, none of the published comments noted Stone's affiliation with Most Evil. Am I the only person who finds this intriguing?

If anyone could recommend some books for me to read about the possible connection between these seeming extremes of personality types (this is one area where I'd prefer nonfiction over fiction), please share them. This is fascinating.

Chapter 77.5: Thoughts on Independence Day

The other day, I read a great editorial from a somewhat unexpected source: William Kristol.

I'd not considered the idea, for example of reading the full Declaration of Independence aloud on July 4th, though it's not only perfectly appropriate, but perhaps something that should become customary.

William Kristol is not someone I read with regularity. I don't think of myself as inherently conservative, though I see some conservativism within me -- mostly on the financial side. Rather, I consider myself a moderate, though I tend to vote Democratic. Still, Kristol's piece is more about America as a political entity rather than as looking at it as either liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican.

As Kristol writes: "...the declaration itself notes, 'all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.' The people are conservative. Liberty sometimes requires the bold leadership of a few individuals."

In general I agree.

A friend of mine who is a consultant for nonprofit organizations once told me that his basic formula finds that the number of leaders within a group (even a group of leaders) is effectively equal to the square root of the total number.

That makes Thomas Jefferson's experience even more amazing. If the recent John Adams biopic on HBO is to be believed — and it was based on David McCullough's well researched history of the man — then Jefferson was not the most likely person to write the Declaration. Indeed, he appeared to be mostly standoffish and unengaged. Yet this man became the third president of the United States, to say nothing of his standing as the second vice president, serving in John Adams' administration.

And it helps identify this country as a wonderful aberration in history: A country that believes enough in the people to encourage even those who might not see the greatness within themselves to stand up and voice their conscience. God Bless America. Happy Fourth, everyone!