Jack’s Blog

A while back, Jerry Seinfeld was a guest on Larry King Live.  Anyone who’s a frequent reader of this space knows how much of a Seinfeld fan I am, so when I saw he was going to be on Larry King’s show, I naturally tuned in.

As always, he was not only incredibly quick with his remarks, but the things he’d say came out of nowhere.  When a comedian - or anyone for that matter - is quick-witted, it’s apparent that it’s an art, to possess a brain that can respond that rapidly to an interviewer’s question - or a conversation in general.  Producing a humorous retort doesn’t come easily to most people - which is why people who can do it are considered funny - but to think up an off-the-wall response is a skill that can’t be taught or learned.

Jonathan Winters had it and, according to many who were close to him, it kept him walking the fine line between genius and insanity.  Robin Williams and Billy Crystal are others who come to mind who say things that make (some) people exclaim, “I wish I’d said that.”  It’s not just being funny.  These guys, Seinfeld included, have parlayed their talent into, as Seinfeld writer Larry David says, a pretty, . . . pretty, . . .  pretty, . . . pretty, pretty” good life for themselves.

How good?  When Larry King kidded with Seinfeld that he’d heard Jerry really didn’t want to be on his show, the comedian made as insightful a remark about how successful his life was as I’ve heard.  And when I thought about it afterward, I realized he captured the dream job.  I also realized there are precious few who can make this statement.

Seinfeld looked directly at King and said:

“I’m nowhere I don’t want to be.  Wherever I am, I’m there because I want to be there.”

This year is Larry King’s 25th anniversary with CNN.  There can’t be anyone with more connections than Larry King.  He gets nearly everyone he wants on his show.  His guest last Friday night was this (or any other) year’s most sought after NBA free agent, LeBron James.

LeBron, looking extremely relaxed, fit and comfortable (as well as completely recovered from the Cavaliers’ season-ending defeat in the second round of the NBA playoffs), answered the questions Larry (I’ll go to a first-name basis since they’re both referred to as “The King”) posed.  Naturally, a good many of those dealt with his impending decision regarding where he’ll be playing next, and likely, several more years to come.

When Larry brought a small sheet with notes and queried LeBron if he planned on getting together with the other free agents, this being the greatest assembly of talented free agents ever (Wade, Bosh, Stoudemaire, Johnson, Nowitzki, Lee, others) and plotting where each would play, LeBron joked about that being like a “Free Agent Committee.”  Larry agreed, stating that since they all were free agents, the league couldn’t prevent them from doing that - a suggestion I’m sure which was well-received by David Stern.  LeBron, who emphatically agreed with Larry’s crowning him the ringleader of such a group, seemed to think that, while it might not be “to that extent,” it would be intriguing.  I’m not certain LeBron used the word “intriguing,” yet for a guy who never went to college, he was remarkably poised, although he did occasionally butcher the English language as well as repeated the word, “absolutely” a seemingly infinite number of times.

“You go play here and I go here, . . . ” Larry hypothesized, to which LeBron answered something to the extent that it would be interesting for those guys to get together and do what they could to improve the league, another welcome idea for Stern and the league office to ponder.  Just for kicks, let’s say that these “power-brokers” in fact did decide to plot each other’s course - naturally, with the sole intention of making the league stronger. 

LeBron even mentioned that if it were baseball, they all could go to the same team.  (Hey, why not send Bud Selig to the asylum to give David Stern some company)?  Since they couldn’t, LeBron did propose that some guys could pair up while others would go to locations to be determined by this new cartel.  Since there are 30 NBA teams and, at last count, there aren’t nearly that many free agents who could improve all of the franchises, how, exactly, would this news be welcomed in one of the have-not cities?  Sounds like the makings of a sequel for George Orwell.

As far as where LeBron might wind up, does anybody else find it strange that the Cavs fired their coach and Danny Ferry, their GM, just resigned?  Could those moves mean that, in addition to being able to offer LeBron more money than anyone else, Cleveland might just let him have “considerable” say to who the new coach and general manager would be?  The Cleveland Cavaliers have taken after actress Gena Rowlands who once said:

“I can never have a poker face.  Anybody looking at me can tell exactly what I’m thinking.”        Â

How in the world couldn’t they?

This was one of the subjects on Larry King Live last night.  Doug Ferguson, who wrote the article, said that, not only did Tiger Woods far outdistance the competition (he received 56 first place votes to 33 for runner-up Lance Armstrong), he built an early lead (ballots sent in prior to his car accident) and actually, expanded on the lead after the word of his admission of infidelity became public.  Kind of like the way he (used to) play golf.  Get an early lead and pull away from the rest of the field.

Also on the program were former PGA player, Brandel Chamblee and LPGA Hall-of-Famer, Amy Alcott.  Each of them echoed the view of Ferguson, who said (if not he, then Larry King), “After all, it wasn’t Husband of the Decade” or “Person of the Decade.”  Kudos to these folks being able to separate what the award is from what the person receiving it is (or has become in the public’s eyes).  Too often, we, as a society, are ready (as has been mentioned in this space numerous times previously) to “strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”  What he did privately in no way diminishes the dominance he had in his sport for the past ten years.

If any other athlete had been chosen (mainly because over the past decade, no one has come close to being as superior to the competition in his or her sport), the award, and the recipient, would have been an embarrassment.  Isn’t Tiger an embarrassment, you say?  Of course, but not as a golfer - and certainly not for the past ten years!

What his next move is no one, maybe not even Tiger himself, knows.  But I think everyone is in agreement that, at some time (and that exact date is wide open for debate), he will return to the PGA Tour.  

What can we expect?  It was interesting to hear the two former pros discuss this possibility.  Chamblee said he found it incredibly amazing that, given the alleged length of time of Tiger’s dalliances, that he could remain so focused - that he had to realize what was going on in his life - and that it could explode at the drop of a name or text or email.  Alcott made the point that, because golf takes so much discipline, many golfers seek going “inside the ropes,” as she put it, to find sanctuary from the outside world.  There, great golfers can (must) block out everything else if they plan on playing their best - which in Tiger Woods’ case, means winning.

So everyone agrees he’ll be back.  The golf courses, however, won’t pose nearly as much of a challenge as the post match press conferences.  Whenever Tiger’s emergence occurs, extreme mental toughness will rule the day/weekend/year.

And if what Vince Lombardi said about mental toughness is true, Tiger Woods has a very tough road in front of him:

“Mental toughness is many things and rather difficult to explain.  Its qualities are sacrifice and self-denial.  Also, most importantly, it is combined with a perfectly disciplined will that refuses to give in.  It’s a state of mind - you could call it character in action.”  Â

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was a guest on Larry King Live last night and one of the questions the “King” asked him was whether he voted for Barack Obama because the Senator was black.

General Powell reminisced about his relationships with then-Senator Obama as well as the one he had with his “good friend of 30 years and fellow Vietnam veteran, John McCain.”  He said he weighed what he felt was each candidate’s philosophies, beliefs, platforms, strategies, plans (or whatever else a candidate has) for the United States and decided which man to support.

While he mentioned he had hoped race didn’t play a factor in his decision, there were a couple of things - one he said, and the other he didn’t - that made me skeptical.  I don’t pretend to be a voice specialist or an expert in body language, but I did detect a distinct hesitation in his voice (albeit brief) when he said race didn’t play a part.  Plus, later in the interview, he said that, on the night of the election, when he finally heard television reporters declare that Barack Obama was, in fact, going to be the country’s next president, he cried. Not that he shouldn’t have cried; that’s exactly what he, and the millions of African-Americans of his era, would be expected to do.  Yet, if his emotions were that strong, then quite possibly, race may have been more prominently on his mind than he’d realized at the time.

That interview reminded me of a story my late mentor, John Savage, used to tell when he said that people accused him of voting for John Kennedy because JFK was Catholic.  Savage always said:

“I did not vote for Kennedy because HE WAS CATHOLIC.  I voted for him because I’M Catholic.”  

A couple years ago, I posted a blog about regrets I had in my life.  “Regrets I’ve had a few, but then again, too few to mention” is a refrain from one of my favorite songs, My Way, by Frank Sinatra, but in no way, does it represent my first 60 years on this planet.  I have had many regrets and most of them are of my own doing - or lack of doing.  Many times, in life, a regret’s true cause is “lack of action.”

When I was on the staff at Western Carolina, our head coach, a native of North Carolina, used to talk about him and his wife going to see Elvis in concert.  I had read an article entitled, I think (after all, it was over 30 years ago), “You gotta see these performers live before you die.”  It was about whom the top three acts were.  In no particular order, they were Elvis, Wayne Newton and Liberace.  Each performance was spectacularly done, no expense spared.

It was during the first of my three years (1977-80) at Western when Elvis died.  I can still remember where I was standing when I heard the news.  Strangely, my first thought was, “Man, I’d better hurry because I don’t want to miss seeing him perform live.”  Of course, it soon struck me that I was already too late.  The funny thing was the real reason I wanted to go was just to say I saw the great Elvis in concert.  In 1980, I left WCU to become an assistant coach at Tennessee, and if you think there was any controversy about who the king of rock ‘n roll was, just live in Tennessee for a couple of days - or a couple of minutes, if you ask the first five people you meet, “Who do you think was the King of Rock ‘n Roll?”

That same feeling came over me tonight as I sat down to watch a CNN program about the 100 Most Influential People this year.  In the middle of it was mention that Danny Gans had died.  Since I worked for Jerry Tarkanian for his entire seven year tenure at Fresno State, I got to meet many people from Las Vegas, especially when FSU and UNLV were in the same conference (the WAC).  On one trip to Sin City, I’d seen many billboards and bumper stickers touting a sensational act, Danny Gans.

I asked my Vegas friends who this Danny Gans guy was and each and every person said, “Are you kidding?  He’s far and away the most popular act in Vegas.”  After asking what exactly it was he did, many of the people I questioned said, simply, “Everything.”  I found out that everything meant - singing, dancing, comedy, impersonations, you name it.  I also found out that he was an actor (he was performing in a one-man play on Broadway prior to making the move to Vegas so he could spend more time with his wife and three kids).  Oh yeah, and he was an All-American in baseball at Cal Poly SLO and had played in the minor leagues before a career ending injury (which simultaneously turned out to be a career beginning injury - in show business).  Naturally, someone this good would, in addition to all else, become a leader in the world of philanthopy.  Was he this good?

Remembering my days prior to Western Carolina, I figured I’d go see this show that was getting rave reviews from everybody who’d lived in Vegas and I asked a friend who was in the business of finding tickets and “deals” for shows, meals and hotels how much tickets to a Danny Gans’ show was.  I nearly collapsed when I heard the price, but my friend softened the blow when he said, “Don’t worry; you won’t have to pay that price.”

Beautiful!  Another perk of working for and knowing Jerry Tarkanian.  Except that wasn’t exactly the case.  My friend said to me, “Like I was saying, you don’t have to worry about getting tickets to see him.  You’re only here for three days and he’s sold out for over a week!”

“What?!?!?!”  You mean he’s that good?”

My friend just laughed.  Gans had been voted “Entertainer Of The Year” that year.  And wouldn’t you know it?  He’s been voted that honor every year since.  Yup, 11 years in a row, Danny Gans had been voted Las Vegas’ Entertainer of the Year.

What kind of guy was he?  In an interview with one of his closest friends, Larry King, Gans told a story of a painting his daughter drew when he was performing in a one-man play on Broadway.  She’d drawn everyone in the family, pets included, but no Danny.  When he asked his little girl, “Why is there a picture of our family, but daddy isn’t in it?”, she replied, “Oh, you’re in it daddy.  There you are - at the top.”

At the top of the sheet he saw a picture of an airplane with a likeness of Danny’s face in one of the windows.  That’s the day he knew, “If that’s my daughter’s perception of her dad, I’m working too hard and am away from my wife and kids entirely too much.”  The move to Las Vegas really paid off when he hooked up with Steve Wynn and the dollars starting rolling in faster than they could count them.  Until yesterday.  After he was found dead in his bedroom, apparently dying in his sleep.

Of all the entertainers mentioned in this blog, I’ve only made it to see, in person, Wayne Newton.  And his show is . . . breathtaking.  Danny Gans was only 52 when he died, but he seemed to squeeze every last drop out of most of those years.  He could be the person A. Sachs was talking about when he said:

“Death is more universal than life.  Everyone dies, but not everyone lives.”

After President Obama spoke, I watched the “post-game” analysis on both CNN and FOX.  Whether it was Larry King, Anderson Cooper, David Gergens or Paul Begala (CNN) or Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove or Dick Morris (FOX), how either of those two stations refuse to admit they have a predetermined, personal bias when any politician, but especially the president, speaks, is not giving the American people enough credit for possessing even one collective brain among us.

Larry King has paid his dues in longevity if nothing else, so he’s got a pass to be open with his political beliefs because he’s been on the air since he covered - live - the Gettysburg Address.  I have to admit I am an ardent admirer of his, if for no other reason than his Rolodex.  He is to getting guests on The Larry King Show what, on a much lesser level, Jerry Tarkanian is to getting guests on his radio show.  I’m sure there were some people who refused to go on with him (I remember Larry discussing the regrets he had regarding people whom he never got to interview - and I know it wasn’t because his people didn’t make an attempt) but that list is a mighty short one.  Same with Tark and coaches.  Each guy has his flaws, but I admire the heck out of both.

As for Cooper, Gergan and Begala, Larry King is making them into household names - outside of their own households.  It’s understandable that each has a belief regarding how the government should function, but they shouldn’t even try to come off as even handed in their comments.  It was overly apparent they began listening to the president last night, waiting for something they could praise.

On the other side, Hannity makes no bones about which side he’s on (according to him, the right side - waaaaaaay right), but, in O’Reilly’s case, he made a point of asking each of his guests (from the left) if they thought his show was presented in a fair manner.  Certainly, it was fair to have both sides represented, but was his assessment and view fair?  Hardly, and it never is - because, when it comes down to it, he’s a conservative.  It’s not a vulgar word, just a descriptive one.  When he listened to the president speak, it was with as jaundiced an ear as the CNN guys did, only he was waiting for something he could pounce on and tear to shreds.  When it comes to political beliefs, he feels all men are created equal, just that some are more equal than others (just like the person he has on frequently, the one God ruined making a perfect asshole by giving her teeth, Ann Coulter).  The amazing thing about both Hannity and O’Reilly (and Coulter) is they do their shows indoors.  Whoever constructed those studios need to be applauded.  How anyone could build something enclosed that would be able to house the egos of those three is remarkable.  But I’d better be careful what I say - O’Reilly will call me a pinhead (since I’m Jewish, I already know, from her appearance on Donnie Deutsch’s The Big Idea, that Coulter sees me as imperfect - and if she’s perfect, I want to be as far from perfect as I can be.  Besides, I have a similar name for those two, but the first part isn’t “pin.”

Rove and Morris are what they are - and both are articulate and well read on the subjects they discuss, Rove having a rather shaky past, but if someone didn’t know, they’d have to find his analysis extremely enlightening.

Speaking of backgrounds - or other flaws in character - it’s almost comical the way each side presents its case for whatever issue is the topic of the day.  The first four men mentioned will constantly refer to President Obama inheriting this mess. to which O’Reilly retorted, “Yeah, but he didn’t inherit AIG.”

When President Bush was in the Oval Office, few people heard O’Reilly saying anything derogatory of the way the economy was handled.  Now, that the worm has turned, it’s time to deflect criticism where it belonged - the absolutely irresponsible job the Bush administration did handling the budget to the absolutely irresponsible job the Obama administration has done with the AIG fiasco.  So it’s not about who is screwing up the country (worse), it’s about placing blame.  And, most of all, … being right.

One note of interest to anyone else who watched both networks.  CNN kept heaping praise on “our own Ed Henry” who asked the president why he waited so long to make a public statement about the AIG mess.  I didn’t think anyone could speak so highly about someone asking a question that, visibly pissed off a guy who few have ever seen ruffled.  That is, until I saw Ed Henry being interviewed and saw how much adulation he had for himself. 

Although CNN made that question out to be the sharpest and most direct asked of a president since Dan Rather asked his famous, “No, sir, are you?” to Richard Nixon, when Nixon asked Rather if he were running for something (public office).  Funny, but that question was never even brought up, never mentioned, on FOX.  Maybe they didn’t hear it.  Or maybe, by acknowledging the “other” station asked it, they would be giving credibility to CNN - and we know that can’t happen, because there’s only room for one “Big Man” (station) on TV. 

Regarding King, Cooper, Hannity or O’Reilly, it’s all about ratings.  Every one of these gentlemen talk about the plight of “Average Joe” and how, whoever’s in power isn’t looking out for us - like those four and the rest of us middle class Americans are getting shafted.  These guys are so far out of our league, if we ever stopped and thought about it, they are nothing more than entertainers.  And high priced entertainers at that.  I wonder if anybody thinks even one of those guys - and now I’m including all eight, and probably every other “regular” on those shows - received a stimulus check last year.

None of the people who are on those shows a number of times as a contributor, has filled out the short form in quite a while.  To them, it’s a game, a ruse, if you will, to inform the public, but mainly to outdo the other guys’ shows so that their ratings are higher, meaning they influence more people than their competitors (and don’t think that they don’t look at their colleagues’ numbers, those who inhabit the same side politically).  It’s a metter of money, fame, ratings, power and ego.

Who’s the winner?  I’m not sure but I can tell you who the loser is - and it’s the guy typing this blog and the people who are kind enough to read it.  It’s been said there’s no “I” in “TEAM.”  True, but there is “ME.”  That’s why the cheer has become:

“T-E-A-M, Goooooo ME!”    Â