Vengeance, Art, and Being Just Too Darn Young to Comment

Well, it's been a busy week, so I've been remiss in posting. I'll just throw out three unrelated topics, and see what happens.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! (Or in this case, blowing up yourself and your home to spite an ex-spouse.) Last Monday, this doctor blew up his wonderful little building on East 60-something so his ex-wife couldn't get her hands on it. He killed himself in the process, which I'm sure was the plan, though he lingered for almost a week.

What a gift to UES developers! Land cleared - ready for an ugly high-rise of some kind, ex-wife (if she gets a cut of it) ready to sell for the big bucks - 'way bigger than the building's estimated worth pre-blow-up. Kinda have to wonder what the guy was thinking, given the circumstances. If he managed to tie up legal and financial details of insurance, etc., to ensure "no building = no money," then he surely went the extra mile and a half to keep the woman's hands off the dough. If not - and she manages to get a cut of the action - then he could've used a copy of vengeance for Dummies.

Big news - and big anger - here in NY about the Metropolitan Museum of Art increasing its suggested admission fee from $15 to $20 August 1. Is it worth it? Well, certainly the Met holds one of the most (if not the most) extensive collection in the world - a perfect one-stop-shop, if you will, of arts from every period. I'm sure the upkeep, etc., costs are enormous. Every little penny counts. But. I don't think that's the point. The point is that it's too darn expensive for regular Joes and Janes to frequent the place. Goodness, I'd be there every other day if I had the money to get into the place. The increase has caused much outrage, so much so that the term "suggested admission fee" is getting a lot of play. Did you know, ask many, that you don't have to pay $15 or $20 to get into the Met - the fee is "suggested." You can pay $2 or a dime, for that matter. Good to know. But I hear the ticket-takers at the Met are real snotty to anyone who does it. Still, they're required to accept what you offer and give you an admission button. So, I guess the dilemma is: shame vs. financial cost.

VH1 is currently airing "I Love the 70's Part 2," which always makes me wonder who puts these things together. These compilations often miss the real stuff that was going on at the time - or even the cult stuff - and make a big deal over things that, well, just weren't a big deal. I'm guessing 20- or 30-somethings are putting them together, and it shows.

The other thing that gets me is the folks they choose for commentary. While a few were certainly around in the 1970s (the pre-school years for most of 'em), some couldn't have possibly been old enough to remember fads, movies, etc. And yet, they don't say, "Well, my parents told me . . . " or "I saw Super Fly for the first time a year ago . . . " No, they all talk as if they were actually there and enjoying Studio 54 back in the day. It would be like me waxing nostalgic about "C'mon a My House," which came out the year I was born. It's just silly. Then again, I guess they don't want people who were actually there giving commentary, the old fogies. (OK, they do feature huge 1970s stars like Charo and Allison Arngrim . . . )

So, what we've learned here:

1. Don't go blowing yourself and your house up just for vengeance when there might be a better way to get back at an ex-whatever.
2. You don't have to pay $20 to get into the Metropolitan Museum of Art since that's just the suggested price, but you will have to be woman or man enough to take scorn from Met employees.
3. If you're going to make a big deal out of Billy Jack, "One Tin Soldier" should be playing in the background, not "Everybody was Kung-Fu Fighting."