BUT IS IT TRUE?

From the New York Times:

Millions of the moviegoers who made “The Social Network” the top box-office draw of the weekend saw an unflattering portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder and chief executive of Facebook.

To many viewers, Mr. Zuckerberg comes off as a callow, socially inept schemer who misled fellow students who had wanted to build an online social network at Harvard and who also pushed out a co-founder of the company. With only a few exceptions — girlfriends and a prominent Silicon Valley venture capital firm — the names have not been changed to mask identities.

The film’s truthfulness, however, has been strongly questioned in forums like Slate, the online magazine, and The New Republic.

According to the articles in Slate and The New Republic, the movie is inaccurate in its portrayal of Zuckerberg, Harvard, and the founding of Facebook. People who know Mark Zuckerberg personally agree.

And that raises a question: how can filmmakers take liberties with the story of a living person, and does that person have any recourse if the portrayal upsets him? After all, many movies run a legal disclaimer in the credits that says, “Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.”
....

When it comes to public figures, lawyers say, appropriating someone’s life story for a movie is not so different from telling such details in a news article or printed biography. Politicians have grown used to harsh onscreen treatment, having learned that there is a degree of latitude for inaccuracy and strong protection against libel suits.

Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, law school, said that if Mr. Zuckerberg sued and was declared a public figure, he would then “have to show that the filmmakers knew the statements were false, or were reckless about the possibility of falsehood.”

In the Slate article, Nathan Heller, who attended Harvard at the same as Zuckerberg and was acquainted with him, is disappointed in "The Social Network":

The Social Network I saw was a rote and deeply mediocre film, much weaker than the best work of its writer or director. How could I, who should have been sucked deep into that on-screen universe (Mark Zuckerberg was one of the first people I met in college; we lived a couple of rooms apart as freshmen), feel so impervious to the movie's "emblematic" pull?

Of Zuckerberg, Heller says:

There was a sense in 2002 and 2003, in other words, that as a group of people on the verge of cultural maturity, we had little of our own with which to lay claim to the moment—besides, maybe, the social bonds and shorthand that arose from all being in this place together. That is the real beginning of Facebook's rise and the useful measure of Mark Zuckerberg's brilliance. What's often overlooked in recent talk of the Facebook founder's "robot" stiffness or bizarre, officious ideas about online privacy is what a canny and receptive cultural reader he was.

Heller should know. And my concerns about online privacy at Facebook are antediluvian, if not worse. And here I thought I was one of the elders who was keeping up. Good-bye to all that.

Lawrence Lessig, at The New Republic says:

In 2009, Aaron Sorkin (“Sports Night,” “The West Wing”) got (yes, the same word) the idea to write a script for a movie about this new social network. Here’s the important point: He made it. As with every one of his extraordinary works, Sorkin crafted dialogue for an as-yet-not-evolved species of humans—ordinary people, here students, who talk perpetually with the wit and brilliance of George Bernard Shaw or Bertrand Russell. (I’m a Harvard professor. Trust me: The students don’t speak this language.) With that script, and with a massive hand from the film’s director, David Fincher, he helped steer an intelligent, beautiful, and compelling film through to completion. You will see this movie, and you should. As a film, visually and rhythmically, and as a story, dramatically, the work earns its place in the history of the field.

But as a story about Facebook, it is deeply, deeply flawed. As I watched the film, and considered what it missed, it struck me that there was more than a hint of self-congratulatory contempt in the motives behind how this story was told. Imagine a jester from King George III’s court, charged in 1790 with writing a comedy about the new American Republic. That comedy would show the new Republic through the eyes of the old. It would dress up the story with familiar figures—an aristocracy, or a wannabe aristocracy, with grand estates, but none remotely as grand as in England. The message would be, “Fear not, there’s no reason to go. The new world is silly at best, deeply degenerate, at worst.”

Was I so affected by the movie because I share somewhat in Sorkin's self-congratulatory contempt of Facebook? Because I view the website through the eyes of the old?

Why am I giving so much time and thought to the movie? Why do I continue to bang on about it on my blog? Am I obsessed? I confess that I don't know. I know one thing. I'm still a presence on Facebook, but I don't quite approve of my being there. The website is useful for keeping in touch with family members and friends, but there is something that I truly dislike about Facebook, and seeing the movie played into that antipathy.

And it's a little disturbing for me to find myself out of sync with 500 billion people, with 1/14 of the population of the entire world.

Photo of the real Mark Zuckerberg from Wikipedia.

WANH, WANH, WANH!

Mining again from the Church Times:

THE Catholic Group in the General Synod was described on Wednesday morning as “incandescent” about Tuesday’s announcement of the membership of the group that will prepare the draft code of practice to accompany the women-bishops Measure.

The drafting group was set up by the House of Bishops, which has the responsibility of presenting a draft code to the General Synod.

You may read the names of the members appointed to the group with responsibility for preparing the draft code of practice on women bishops at the website.

Prebendary David Houlding, a leading member of the Catholic Group, said on Wednesday: “We are all so angry and dismayed. It’s clear from the compilation of this group that there is to be no honoured place in the Church of England for traditionalists — that we are not wanted. This group is set up to fail before it begins. It’s one [Bishop Martin Warner] against seven.

“To put two members of the revision committee and no members of the Catholic Group — the audacity of it. I think it’s a disaster.”

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch of the Disaffected:

TWO Church of England flying bishops have denied reports that they will resign in order to join the Roman Catholic Ordinariate before the end of the year.

The Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Rt Revd Andrew Burnham, and the Bishop of Richborough, the Rt Revd Keith Newton, both Provincial Epis copal Visitors, were said last week to have decided to leave the C of E and accept the Pope’s invitation to join the Ordinariate within the Roman Catholic Church.
....

The two bishops will be on study leave from tomorrow until the end of December.

Well, it appears that there may not be the quick rush for the door that certain bishops and clerics on both sides of the Tiber would have predicted.

The report also said that Bishop Burnham favoured joining the Ordinariate, and was not optimistic about the new Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda for Catholic clergy and laity (News, 1 October).

That would be SSWSH.

Describing the society’s purpose, Bishop Ford said that it “had been worked up in embryo to be offered as an option so that those who could not, in conscience, see a way forward in the Ordinariate would have some sort of identity”. It “is not competing with the Ordinariate”, he said, and it would “not be another club or pressure group”, but “a common life”.
....

The Revd Ivan Aquilina, Vicar of St John the Baptist, Sevenoaks, who attended the sacred synod, said: “So far, what the aims and objectives are is not clear, so, while some are joining it, already others will want to wait and see. . . The society may or may not secure some sort of provision or a stronger code of practice. It may also be an honoured vehicle for those who, for personal or ecclesial reasons, cannot be part of the Catholic family.”

It appears that in England there will be this group and that group of the disaffected formed until the motherland rivals its daughter, the US, in alphabet soup mixtures of "Anglican" religious bodies.

The current issue of the The Church Times is a gold mine of information.

THERE THEY GO AGAIN

From the Church Times:

PRIMATES from the Global South are contemplating a boycott of the next Primates’ Meeting because the US Presiding Bishop, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori, will be present.

The Archbishop of the Indian Ocean, the Most Revd Ian Ernest, has confirmed that he will not attend the meeting, due to take place in Dublin, 25-31 January.
....

Dr Jefferts Schori has already confirmed that she will attend the meeting.

Primates of the Global South are expected to meet this month to discuss whether they will refuse en masse to attend.
....

They [Global South primates] are being encouraged to attend by, among others, the president of the American Anglican Council, the Rt Revd David Anderson, a suffragan bishop within the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, who has posted a letter on a website urging traditionalist bishops to go to the meeting.

In a bizarre suggestion, he advises that Dr Jefferts Schori be shut out of the room, or removed “by force of numbers” if she attends. If Dr Williams objects to this, the meeting could go ahead in a separate room without him.
....

“In the above case, if Dr Williams did not go along with Jefferts Schori’s exclusion, then I would suggest having the next-door meeting with out him. I just don’t believe staying home from the field of battle helps win a war over the truth and nature of Christianity within Anglicanism.”

Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, "There they go again."

Guys, I have another suggestion: Stamp your feet hard and say (all together now), "If she's going to be there, I'm not going!" And then throw yourselves on the floor and scream and kick your feet. Perhaps then you will get your way.

And David Anderson signs off in his letter, with his "bizarre" suggestions and talk of battles and war, with these words:

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

H/T to Thinking Anglicans>

"THE SOCIAL NETWORK"

Jesse Eisenberg, left, and Joseph Mazzello star in a scene from 'The Social Network.'

Since Monday, I've been putting off writing about the movie, then stopping and starting, partly because I will have to, you know, actually compose, write words of my own, and not simply copy, paste, and link, and partly because I have writer's block. I traveled to New Orleans to see the film, because the theater in the next town over is not showing the movie. I assume that the movie theater powers assume that we are too low-brow here in the boonies to appreciate a movie about internet wonks. Judging from the small audience in attendance in the New Orleans 'burbs, I assume that the folks there may also be too low-brow to appreciate a film about internet wonks, but it's difficult to be certain for an afternoon showing. In any case, only a very few of the, no doubt, large percentage of the population of the area, who are active users of Facebook, were there to see the movie about the founders of Facebook.

UPDATED NOTE: I've just now remembered that the theater scheduled two simultaneous showings at the time I went, so there was likely a full house in another theater on the site. My smart remark probably does not apply to the New Orleans 'burbs.

UPDATED NOTE 2: The movie is now showing at the theater in Houma, the next town over. I guess we're not too low-brow around here to see the film after all. It was just a little slow in getting here. But one never knows, because a good many movies that I'd like to see are never shown in my area.

I'd read Mike Scott's review in the Times-Picayune and David Denby's review in The New Yorker. Both reviewers gave the film smashingly good marks.

From Mike Scott:

If "The Social Network" was a Facebook page, I'd have no choice but to "like" it -- but only because there's not a "love" button, or a "totally gaga about" button.

David Fincher's smartly written, expertly told chronicling of the dawn of the Facebook era -- and, more subtly, of the impact it's had on the devolution of humankind as a social animal -- is just that compelling, that engrossing, that hard to resist.

Kind of like a certain website.

For the record, I don't find the website quite so compelling, engrossing, and hard to resist as others, actually 500 million active-user others, one out of 14 people in the world. I'm a not-so-active user of Facebook, but....

From David Denby's long review:

“The Social Network,” directed by David Fincher and written by Aaron Sorkin, rushes through a coruscating series of exhilarations and desolations, triumphs and betrayals, and ends with what feels like darkness closing in on an isolated soul. This brilliantly entertaining and emotionally wrenching movie is built around a melancholy paradox: in 2003, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), a nineteen-year-old Harvard sophomore, invents Facebook and eventually creates a five-hundred-million-strong network of “friends,” but Zuckerberg is so egotistical, work-obsessed, and withdrawn that he can’t stay close to anyone; he blows off his only real pal, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), a fellow Jewish student at Harvard, who helps him launch the site.

The movie is outstanding, engrossing, and irresistible. I walked out in a stunned state. Truly, I was that affected. I didn't recover my equilibrium for quite some time. The movie captures the breathtaking pace of the growth of Facebook from its founder's dorm room at Harvard. Zuckerberg is so intensely focused on his vision and his codes that he blows off those around him, including his lovely girl friend, and seems to have few doubts about knocking others out of the way and walking over them, if necessary, in pursuit of his goals. Zuckerberg's emotional development seems stunted, and his social skills are utterly lacking.

Although Zuckerberg appears amoral in the movie, I felt that, in a way, he was not entirely responsible for the hurt that he caused to those around him. For all his brilliance, he's missing a character or personality component that would move him to pause and reflect on possible consequences of his actions on others, especially those close to him, or to feel remorse, once he saw the oftentimes unfortunate consequences.

The film is superbly written and directed, and the actors do the material full justice. Seeing the movie was an extraordinary experience. I definitely want to see it again to know the effect on me of a second viewing. Since I don't want to do a spoiler review, I won't say much more about the film, except to say that one of my favorite scenes comes early in the movie, a scene with Zuckerberg and his girl friend. Watch for it.

Already there is controversy about the movie. Zuckerberg says the portrayal of his character is inaccurate.

In my stunned state, as I left the theater, I said to myself, "I'm getting out of Facebook. I must get out of there." Well, I haven't yet. We shall see.

A couple of weeks ago, I read the "Letter From Palo Alto" on Mark Zuckerberg by Jose Antonio Vargas in The New Yorker, which is a profile of Zuckerberg, based on interviews with the subject himself and others who knew him, along with background research on the Facebook website.

Before there was Facebook, there was Facemash:

Soon afterward, he (Zuckerberg) came up with Facemash, where users looked at looked at photographs of two and clicked a button to note who they thought was hotter, a kind of sexual-playoff system. It was quickly shut down by the school administration.

Okay, Zuckerberg was 19. He's now 26. One hopes he's matured.

And this:

Zuckerberg's business model depends on the shifting notions of privacy, revelations, and sheer self-display. The more that people are willing to put online, the more money his site can make from advertizers.

My major concern with Facebook is privacy. To read this statement in the profile is surely cautionary to me. I don't know that using Facebook has, as yet, provided the online world or the great world out there with much more information than what has been revealed through my activities in Blogland, but what about the future Facebook?

Zuckerberg’s ultimate goal is to create, and dominate, a different kind of Internet. Google and other search engines may index the Web, but, he says, “most of the information that we care about is things that are in our heads, right? And that’s not out there to be indexed, right?” Zuckerberg was in middle school when Google launched, and he seems to have a deep desire to build something that moves beyond it. “It’s like hardwired into us in a deeper way: you really want to know what’s going on with the people around you,” he said.
....

For this plan to work optimally, people have to be willing to give up more and more personal information to Facebook and its partners. Perhaps to accelerate the process, in December, 2009, Facebook made changes to its privacy policies. Unless you wrestled with a set of complicated settings, vastly more of your information—possibly including your name, your gender, your photograph, your list of friends—would be made public by default. The following month, Zuckerberg declared that privacy was an evolving “social norm.”

The backlash came swiftly. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center cried foul. Users revolted, claiming that Facebook had violated the social compact upon which the company is based. What followed was a tug-of-war about what it means to be a private person with a public identity. In the spring, Zuckerberg announced a simplified version of the privacy settings.

In answer to the author's question about the privacy changes, Zuckerberg said, “We realize that people will probably criticize us for this for a long time, but we just believe that this is the right thing to do.” Zuckerberg's answer to the question is why I think that now may be the time for me to remove myself from Facebook, rather than later.

"THE BLESSING OF OUR RELATIVES"

From Paul at Byzigenous Buddhapalian:

Me (Paul the BB), rejoicing in Chica and Tuxedo, my friend Jan's horses, at San Gabriel, Corrales.

May your abundant ✠ blessing rest upon these creatures who are our companions in the journey of life. Amen.

Let us also remember the less fortunate creatures of this world.

Hear our humble prayer, O God, for our friends the animals, especially for those animals that are suffering; for all that are overworked and underfed and cruelly treated; for all wistful creatures in captivity that beat against the bars; for any that are hunted or lost or deserted or frightened; for all that are in pain or dying; for all that must be put to death. We entreat for those who deal with them a heart of compassion, gentle hands, and kind words; that they may share thus the blessing of the merciful. For you, O lord, will save both human and beast, and great is your loving-kindness. Amen.

--the BB

Without doubt, this is my favorite picture of my friend Paul. I had to copy the post because of the lovely blessing, for the beauty of the horses, and for the picture of handsome Paul. If you'd like to leave a comment, you may want to visit Paul's blog.

MORE ON THE NEW BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

Since my original post on the appointment by the crown of the Rt. Rev. Christopher Chessun as Bishop of the Diocese of Southwark in England ended in silliness, which was not at all my original intention, please read Chris Hansen's post at his blog chrishansenhome. Chris lives in the Diocese of Southwark and knows the bishop.

I am still collecting my thoughts about the appointment, which, I must admit, left me kind of gobsmacked. Not because Christopher is unfit to be Bishop of Southwark, because he is eminently fit. It is out of the ordinary for a suffragan bishop to be appointed Bishop of the Diocese in which he was suffragan, at least in the Church of England. Other clergy in the diocese have remarked that they thought he might get Truro (before that was filled). So appointing him to Southwark was an unexpected pleasure.

Read on at Chris' blog, and forgive my previous silliness.

WHAT LAPIN IS READING

No joke. Lapin purchased the book, which was published in 1899, and is, even now, deeply engrossed. He said the title story is about Blue Ridge hillbillies. Should I believe him?

ANN'S JIB-JAB HALLOWEEN VIDEO

You must click on over to see Ann's early Halloween present at her blog, What the Tide Brings In. It's wonderfully funny.

And I'm not sending you over there just because I am one of the stars of the video. Really. The video includes performances by several real VIPs, and I'm flattered to be included in their company.

OOH LA-LA!

Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec - Moulin Rouge: La Goulue

It was on this day in 1889 that the famous cabaret Moulin Rouge opened its doors.
....

In the early days of the Moulin Rouge, one of its attractions was a giant stucco elephant as tall as a building, and for a franc, men could go inside one of its legs and watch belly dancers. The can-can is said to have originated at the Moulin Rouge.

There's more, much more in today's post at the The Writer's Almanac, including a lovely poem by Howard Nelson, titled "The Man in the Yard", and tidbits on the history of early opera. Today's date was eventful over the years of history, as you will see if you check the link.

The powers at the website post strict rules about what can or cannot be copied, (apparently, nothing can be copied!) but the rule of fair use does not, or so I believe, exclude them. We shall see. The powers may come after me for my brief quote above. I'm quite careful not to use the words of others without attribution.

Image from Wikipedia Commons, not from "The Writer's Almanac".

DIOCESE OF SOUTHWARK (ENGLAND) - "HABEMUS EPISCOPUM!"

From The Diocese of Southwark:

Downing Street has announced this morning that The Rt Revd Christopher Chessun is to be the 10th Bishop of Southwark. He will succeed The Rt Revd Dr Tom Butler who retired in March. Consecrated Bishop in Southwark Cathedral on 21 April 2005, he is the Area Bishop of Woolwich, one of the three Episcopal Areas along with Kingston and Croydon in the Diocese of Southwark. He will be enthroned in Southwark Cathedral in the early part of 2011.

Bishop Christopher, 54, who is an identical twin, was also appointed as Bishop for Urban Life and Faith in May 2010. He will continue to hold this role as Bishop of Southwark.

Congratulations and blessings to Bishop Chessun! He's one of the diocese's own, so he won't take his throne as a stranger. (Aside: All churches with bishops should dump the phrase "enthronement". I don't care if the phrase is ancient and traditional, a bishop takes his position as a servant of the servants of Christ.)

I'm curious as to why the mention of the bishop being an identical twin is so prominent in the announcement. Perhaps, the reason is due to the possibility of photos of a person who looks very like the bishop being mistaken for the bishop.

H/T to Thinking Anglicans.

From the comments at TA:

Thank goodness he's not a wound on the church, like that awful Jeffrey John! (Irony alert!)

Oh dear. I meant for the post to be entirely serious, but it did not come out that way. In all sincerity, I pray for Bishop Chessun as he prepares to take up his new duties as Bishop of the Diocese of Southwark.

STORY OF THE DAY - STRESS MANAGEMENT

I can imagine it working out perfectly, I
said. I can't, she said & I said no wonder
you're so stressed.

From StoryPeople.

Love it, love it, love it!

My "Story of the Day" posts don't get much of a response in the comments, but I post them anyway - but only those that resonate with me. At times the stories don't actually make complete sense to me, but they still make me laugh - out loud.

A UPDATE FROM MARK ON HIS CAT, KATZIE

Katzie had her second surgery and is recovering. See details at Mark's blog, Enough About me.

Thanks be to God, the staff at the veterinarian's office, and to all of you who donated to make Katzie's life-saving surgery possible.

Please leave comments at Mark's blog. Mark has access to the internet only at night.

PLEASE PRAY...

...for Maddie the cat. Maddie, who is 18 years old, lives with my brother-in-law, Frank. She sleeps either in Frank's closet or on his bed. When Frank was living with his son and his family, Maddie adopted Frank, and when Frank moved to his own place, Maddie went with him.

In a recent visit, the vet diagnosed Maddie with cancerous tumors all over her body. In two or three weeks, Maddie will need to be gently eased out of her life on this good earth.

Frank's Corgi, Zoe, is elderly, too, and has a good many health problems, but she hangs in there. Pray for Maddie, Frank, and Zoe.

...and for Frank. Frank will have cataract surgery tomorrow, October 6, on the first eye and on the other eye on October 20. Frank says, "Looking forward to it (no pun intended)".

Pray that all goes well with Frank's surgery.

UPDATE FROM FRANK:

Arrived at 6:40 - prepped - finished by 8:15 - back home by 8:45. Fell asleep couple of times during surgery (they give you Versed under tongue). Typing with one eye - right eye patched over. Painless, etc. Ready for number two. Thanks for the prayers for me and my girls.

Frank

THE HELPFUL SCOTSMAN

A golfer is cupping his hand to scoop water from a Highland burn on the St Andrews course.

A Scottish groundskeeper shouts: 'Dinnae drink tha waater! Et's foo ae coo's shite an pish!'

The golfer replies: 'My good fellow, I'm afraid I'm from England. Could you repeat that for me please, in English?!'

The good Scotman replies: 'I said, use two hands - you'll spill less that way.'

Don't blame me. Blame my naughty friend from the desert, Paul, the BB.

TWO NEW BLOGS

OCICBW... has today launched two new websites St Laika's (a totally inclusive worship blog) and The Anchorhold (about prayer and stuff). Please do me a great favour and advertise
both sites on your own blogs.

Oh, and please, please, please do pop over
there yourselves, of course.

The Rev. Jonathan Hagger (aka MadPriest) and Sister Ellie Finlay administer the new blogs.

"THE SIN OF HONESTY"

Umm, umm, good! And I'm not talking Campbells's Soup. Benny Hazelhurst's post at Benny's Blog with the title above, which I "borrowed" for my post, is excellent.

From Benny's "About Me":

Benny is a husband, father, and a Rev in the Church of England. More controversially, he is an Evangelical Christian who beleives that homosexual relationships and partnerships should be welcomed, nurtured and blessed. He is a founder member of Accepting Evangelicals with his wife, Mel, and they beleive that God has a place for everyone in his/her Kingdom.

I see nothing controversial about Benny and Mel's views, but I'm sure not all will agree.

Benny says:

Over the last week there have been a number of Blogs pointing out the culture of secrecy that exists in the Church of England and the Anglican world over sexual orientation.
....

So the Archbishop's now famous phrase from last week's interview in the Times that "He has no problem with gay bishops' clearly needs another caveat placed alongside celibacy - the caveat that "He has no problem - as long as no-one knows!"

Ouch! Benny says further:

Is honesty the main issue then? Is it the honesty and openness of Jeffrey John that is the real cause of his awful treatment at the hands of the Church? And when is there going to be a sustained challenge to this way of doing things?

Is it the honesty of Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool that makes them and the Episcopal Church such a focus for disapproval in the Anglican Communion? If they had just kept quiet? If they had just lived a lie? If they had hidden behind a veneer of acceptability? Would everything have been ok?

The answer, of course, is a resounding "No!" If we, as Christ body here on earth are to convince people that God is real, we need to be real. If we want people to find abundant life in Christ, we need to live real lives, not carefully crafted veneers of acceptability.

Wise words, indeed. Please read Benny's post in its entirety. Benny's Blog is most certainly a blog I'll want to keep an eye on.

I am so pleased when clergy in the Church of England speak out on the matter of inclusion and equality for LGTB persons. The few voices which have been heard in the past have suffered and borne the brunt of the backlash from those who prefer an exclusive, pure church, which is not at all the example that Jesus set in the types of people he invited to be his followers, and which is a church that never existed, except in the fantasies of the purists and the exclusionists.

Go, Benny!

NOT AMUSED - AMUSED

Lapin said I would like this. Do you like the 5 pound note trick? I do.

"...ALL LIFE IS 6 TO 5 AGAINST"

Today is the birthday of, amongst other writers, Damon Runyon. From the The Writer's Almanac:

It's the birthday of the man who said, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong — but that is the way to bet." That's fiction writer and journalist Damon Runyon, (books by this author) born Alfred Damon Runyan in Manhattan, Kansas (1880). His mother died when he was young, and his three sisters grew up with various family members in Kansas. But young Alfred Damon was raised in Pueblo, Colorado, by his dad, who was a gambler, an alcoholic, a literature enthusiast, and a newspaperman.

The boy was kicked out of school in sixth grade for "excessive horseplay" and got a job for his dad's newspaper. By the age of 15, he was recognized as beyond his years in both his writing ability and his ability to drink and chain-smoke. He met all kinds of characters, and he wrote about them for the newspaper and also in his short stories. He spent a few years traveling around and working for papers, and one of them misspelled his last name as "Runyon" instead of "Runyan," so he decided to go with it.

In the olden days, that was the proper way to make a newspaperman. Each time I think of the reason given for Runyon's expulsion from school, "excessive horseplay", I burst out laughing.

He himself was an enthusiastic gambler, and he found other gamblers, as well as con men, mobsters, prostitutes, hustlers, and boxers. He made friends with these outsiders, and he spent his nights with them, fitting in easily with their lifestyle even though he had more or less given up drinking after moving to New York, sticking to coffee and cigarettes instead. It was said that he would drink 40 cups of coffee to stay up all night, and then show up for work at the newspaper in the late afternoon looking fresh and clean.
....

He said, "I long ago came to the conclusion that all life is 6 to 5 against."

Also, in the olden days, not a few newspapermen led similar lives to Runyon's, and those who wrote for newspapers were not treated with the extreme deference as the members of the top tier today. The opinion writers and reporters of the most prominent newspapers and the national TV news talking heads and pundits often hobnob with the high and the mighty in in positions of power in government, business, and lobbying. They attend the same dinner parties and cocktail parties and then claim to write unbiased stories and opinions about those same people.

However, certain opinion writers and reporters in the top tier are outstanding exceptions to the above description, and I highly respect their work. The less prominent writers and reporters and those on the local scene still work at their jobs.

Read the rest of Runyon's short biography at the website.

I thank Cathy and other friends for sending me links to the website and urging me to sign up for the feed to the "Today's Poem" feature.

Today's poem is "Small Boats" by Steve Kowit.

Picture from Wikipedia.

MAXINE SAYS COLOR IS GOOD

 

 

 

The M&Ms look yummy, don't they?

Thanks to Ann and Doug.