Did you know this? I quote from An Authoritative Source. “England is old and small, and they started running out of places to bury people [back in the 1500s]. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a ‘bone-house’ and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, one out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they thought they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the ‘graveyard shift’) to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be ‘saved by the bell’ or was considered a ‘dead ringer.'”

That’s “true,” folks, as true as it gets, in some circles.

But let’s talk about those phrases again, okay? Saved by the bell, dead ringer, and the graveyard shift. Continue reading Saved by the Dead Ringer on the Graveyard Shift →

I have learned that both of these maxims have been employed over the years:

• The best defense is a solid offense.
• The best offense is a strong defense.

Which do you think is true or stronger, if both are true? I usually think of this the first way and in terms of a chess game. Your object in chess and any competitive game is to win, not to avoid losing too badly. I suppose in other conflicts you must be careful to avoid taking too much damage so that any victory would be hollow and sorely won, but even then defeating the opponent quickly will keep him from hurting you.

The page I link to above has a quote from George Washington which I looked up for a bit of context. The first American president and great American general said:

It is unfortunate when men cannot or will not see danger at a distance; or, seeing it, are undetermined as to the means, which are necessary to avert or keep it afar off. I question whether the evil arising from the French getting possession of Louisiana and the Floridas would be generally seen, until felt; and yet no problem in Euclid is more evident, or susceptible of clearer demonstration. Not less difficult is it to make them believe, that offensive operations oftentimes are the surest, if not in some cases the only means of defence.

That’s generally the way I see it. What do you think?

Sunday evening I watched my DVD of the movie, “You Were Never Lovelier,” starring Fred Astaire and Rita Hayworth.

Now I’m not normally a huge musical fan. I find Fred Astaire’s movies entertaining, but I wouldn’t actually spend money to acquire one.

But Astaire and Hayworth? That’s a whole different matter.

It’s not the greatest musical. Only one song became a standard (“I’m Old-Fashioned”). A silly plot, worthy of a P.G. Wodehouse novel (not that there’s anything wrong with that). It has the added eccentricity of featuring band leader Xavier Cugat in his pre-Abby Lane, way-pre-Charro days. Although it’s set in Argentina, everybody speaks in American accents. Except for Cugat. Quick! Don’t think about it!

Astaire and Hayworth only did two films together (I’ve still got to acquire “You’ll Never Get Rich”). Though they were miraculous as a team, and Astaire said he’d never worked with a better partner, he refused to do another with her because, he said, he didn’t want to be permanently paired with anyone again, as he had been previously, first with his sister, and then with Ginger Rogers.

I’m sure it had nothing at all to do with the fact that when Rita’s dancing, it’s impossible to see anybody else.

I know it’s mostly illusion. I know her real name was Margarita Cansino, and that her hair wasn’t really red, and that the studio gave her electrolysis to raise her hairline. I know that she once said, “Men marry Rita Hayworth, but wake up with me.” I know about her alcohol problems, and the string of awful marriages. And the final tragic descent into Alzheimer’s.

But movies are illusion. Rita was born to be a movie star, and nobody was ever lovelier on screen.