That photo looks opportunistically cropped.

Is there a wider view somewhere?

That photo is real. I remember it from MoJo back in '86. Plus, I have a recent email from Horowitz himself admitting that he indeed owned and posed in that shirt (which he no longer has, he added).

I loved the 80's too. I didn't know Nancy Pelosi existed, didn't know the Speaker of The House's phone number, and certainly did not care.(but now I do) 1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.
(ah, for the good ole daze)

I didn't say it wasn't real. It just looks cropped, and I thought there may have been additional, interesting people on the sidelines of the hoedown.

I love the look of that venue though. Looks like they might have let some dolphins into the pool and then plinked at them like good ole boys are wont to do.

That's really a good look for him.

It just looks cropped, and I thought there may have been additional, interesting people on the sidelines of the hoedown.

It is cropped, but the cropped parts are just more of the patio.

You take the Witz out of the Horowitz, and what's left?

Yo, thanks for making me scrutinize David Horowitz's crotch.

Oh sure, like you weren't already.

Good lord Perrin, I just saw the clip of Mailer on your site.

Is it just me or does it strike anyone else as strangely (strongly?) homoerotic? That's the problem with the planet burning to a cinder and all human life lost. We'd lose context for pieces like that.

teh hott!

Donescobar - You're likely aware that your very funny joke is even funnier for German speakers. I agree - there's nothing in Horowitz but the Witz!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

MY EYES

MUST STAB THEM OUT

MUST SCRUB MY BRAIN

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Aaron

And with him it's Witz as in joke, not as in wit.

I don't get it.

When did "Laverne and Shirley"'s Squiggy turn into a total nutjob?

Ted wrote:

Good lord Perrin, I just saw the clip of Mailer on your site.

Is it just me or does it strike anyone else as strangely (strongly?) homoerotic?
***

From James Kirkwood's 1970 novel, "P.S Your Cat Is Dead!":

"Ben says he thought Norman Mailer would like to do it with a guy. Probably he would like to have it be rape, with a gun at his head, so he'd have to, but then he'd dig it. That's why all that big deal machismo crap he gives out. Or else he'd want it to be some big deal judo-wrestling match, but he'd sneak in a little orgasm and call it sweat! Hah!"

IMO, Mailer's work is deeply, consciously homoerotic. Male sexuality thrilled him, in a way. His way, of course.

Speaking of ass-screwing--and at Tiny Revolution, when are we ever not?--I would suggest that Graham Greene's "The Quiet American" isn't the only Vietnam novel Pres. Bush has been catastrophically misinterpreting. Mailer's "Why Are We in Vietnam?" tentatively answers the eponymous question by Americanizing the Oedipus myth and modernizing the Huck-and-Jim tale, not to mention hyper-scatologizing the whole schmear: begins with father-and-son Texans preparing for a griz hunt, competitive pricks both, son D.J. resentful of his Daddy's power and prestige; ends with D.J. nestled against his best friend Tex beneath the northern lights, on the eve before they are shipped off to Vietnam, each "in lust to own the other," as D.J. contemplates his chance to "steal the iron from Texas' ass."

Mailer's cocktail of brilliance 'n' bullshit: sigh. But the man knew how to dramatize a Big Idea and range the fuck over it. Postmodern death of metanarrative or no, sometimes I do miss grand ambition.

Read the book to find out who "prongs" whom.

"Is it just me or does it strike anyone else as strangely (strongly?) homoerotic?"

Oh, it's on fire, that clip is.