I understand NBC is planning a mini-series about Hillary Clinton.
Starring Diane Lane.
Warning to political correctness adherents: You aren’t going to like this.
Diane Lane is one of the most sensual women on the planet, certainly the hottest 48-year-old you’ll find. Few men who have seen the top-of-the-staircase scene in her movie Unfaithful have forgotten it.
I don’t know squat about making movies, but the casting person who decided Diane Lane would make a credible Hillary Clinton might want to consider Charlize Theron or Angelina Jolie for the next Godzilla movie.
Hey, nothing against Hillary. She’s smart, she’s influential, she’s politically savvy and she has survived her tumultuous marriage to Bill. She might be our next president.
But in the hotness department, she’s right there with Margaret Thatcher and Nancy Pelosi.
Sexist, you say of me?
I recognize men can be homely, just as women can. I’m a good example.
Not so long ago, a person I hadn’t seen in 20 years or so approached me as I stood in line at a pharmacy.
He squinted at me through his bifocals for what seemed an interminable time.
“You that newspaperman?” he finally muttered.
“Yes, I am,” I replied, preening for a compliment.
“You sure have gotten wrinkled,” he said. Then he cackled and retreated, having zinged me with a live missile.
Hey, I look in the mirror occasionally, though not with much satisfaction. I know I’m no Matt Damon.
And that, by the way, brings up the little matter of his being outed for sending his children to private school.
Damon has been a tireless promoter of public schools. That’s a good thing. He’s been more than a little bit pious about it at times.
So when Damon sheepishly admitted that his own kids were in private school, he made a feeble attempt to explain his decision away by saying public schools weren’t offering the same liberal -- read that politically liberal -- atmosphere as the schools of his youth.
Can you spell hypocrite? If you read much about Hollywood stars, it’s a useful word to know.
Damon has nothing on presidents, though.
They’re all big on public education, except when it comes to their own families. Then it’s off to Washington’s most expensive and selective private schools, to the tune of 40 grand or so a year.
And finally, folksy author Bill Bryant tells us of what today would be the ultimate political and genealogical incorrectness.
The eminent scientist Charles Darwin, says Bryant, married his first cousin Emma Wedgewood, daughter of Josiah Wedgewood of the famous pottery family.
Darwin’s sister, Caroline, married Josiah Wedgewood III, Emma’s brother and another of the Darwin siblings’ first cousins.
Another of Emma’s brothers, Henry, married not a Darwin but a first cousin from his own Wedgewood family.
And Charles Langston, not a member of either family, married Charlotte Wedgewood, another daughter of Josiah. Upon her death, he married Darwin’s sister Emily, thus becoming his sister-in-law’s sister-in-law’s husband.
That raised the possibility that any children of their union would be their own first cousins, and that, my friends, would indeed be politically incorrect nowadays, though not as much so as believing Hollywood make-up artists can make Diane Lane look like Hillary Clinton.