Now why is it so important to have an
11-year-old girl for the part? (Sue Lyon
was 15 when she starred in the film version with James Mason.) It would be
unfortunate, to say the least, if an 11-
year-old were found who could handle
the "explicit sex scenes" promised by
Could it be that jaded appetites are
no longer titillated by 14-year-olds?
Brooke Shields and Jody Foster seemed
like heady stuff a few years ago, but
that's all been done now—pubescent
hookers and bordello child-brides are
old hat. When casting directors were
looking for a 14-year-old girl for The
Exorcist, Pauline Kael wrote in the New
Yorker that she was horrified to see
the parents and agents of over 200
children scrambling to subject their
charges to the indignities of that role.
So now we can look forward to 10-
year-olds vying for the part of Lolita—
after all, they'll be 11 when it starts.
Sutherland and Albee, purists at heart,
are going all out for authenticity, not to
mention box-office receipts.
Sutherland explains that Albee and
director Frank Dunlap "fully expect
certain members of the audience to get
up and leave. I'll be surprised if the
majority of them last the night. It's
devastating stuff." But not nearly so
devastating as what Sutherland implies
about our society—that girl-children are
the last segment of the female population still malleable and vulnerable enough
to be exploited with impunity.
Sutherland has not been doing too
well in films lately. His most recent
effort, Nothing Personal with Suzanne
Somers, was wholeheartedly panned by
critics. Apparently, he hopes that Lolita,
his first stage appearance in this country,
will restore his fading fortunes.
"I've read the play . . ." he says,
"and I've also read the book. And now I
find I'm no longer able to look an
11-year-old girl straight in the eye . . ."
But that's a small price to pay for the
chance to boost those ticket sales.
James J. Kilpatrick is a conservative, a nationally syndicated
columnist and a bastion of Bill
Buckley's National Review. All
of which could be forgiven him if he were
a halfway decent journalist. But Kilpatrick persists in writing such cliched,
emotional drivel that one has to wonder
if anyone, of the right or the left, can
possibly take him seriously.
A recent example of his chronic logo-
rrhea was a column in which he expressed
the fervent hope that the upcoming White
House Conference on Families would
not turn into another "Houston zoo,"
like the IWY conference in 1977. (Kilpatrick covered that conference for the
"The last time Carter gave his benediction to one of these affairs," claimed
Kilpatrick, "Bella Abzug led a swarm of
ultra-libs into Houston . . . The IWY
conference was rigged, stacked and
loaded against such conservatives as
Kilpatrick recapped that "Houston
hairpull" where "the assembled bra
burners, welfare mamas, do-gooders,
lesbians and pro-abortionists easily overwhelmed a tiny minority of conservative women." One is left wondering
whether he attended an orderly conference or the siege of the Alamo.
His greatest fear for the families
conference is that delegates will accept Walter Mondale's "hair-raising concepts" of ". . . legislation that would
'CSnvert millions of children into vir
tual wards of the state, with their every
physical, emotional and mental need
tended by functionaries at thousands
of day care centers." The use of words
like "functionaries" is a favorite ploy of
Kilpatrick's—he also refers to feminists
as "comrades." Well, nobody ever
accused him of being subtle.
It is interesting that there is no liberal
counterpart to Kilpatrick—no one who
vilifies conservatives and anti-feminists
with the same abandon. For this we are
duly grateful. But it is unfortunate that
such a spokesperson exists for any philosophy. To paraphrase Saturday Night
Live, "James, you ignorant slut!"
People who criticize are fair game
for criticism. With this in mind,
it was doubly delightful to read
Michael Kilian's piece on Ronald
Reagan for the Chicago Tribune, reprinted
in the Houston Post April 18.
Kilian had received "numerous telephone calls, strangely scrawled letters,
threatened lynchings and other expressions of interest, "leading him to explain
more fully "why I am not entirely convinced that Ronald Reagan, star of
Bedtime for Bonzo, should be leader
of the Free World just now."
Herewith, excerpts from a funny,
In purely domestic terms, Reagan
as president would not be all that much
to fret about. The Congress would run
the country, while he smiled, saluted the
flag and made speeches. That's how California was run when he was governor.
But foreign affairs is quite another
matter. That show is entirely the president's. It's he who takes the hot-line calls
and drums his fingers on the SAC alert
button. It's he who negotiates our treaties
and deals with wily, cunning and sometimes deceitful foreign leaders.
If Jimmy Carter is a 2 on a foreign
affairs scale of 10, Reagan is a 1, or
maybe a zero. He soon will be 70 years
old, but the only foreign affairs experience he can claim is seven trips abroad to
19 countries for a total of 89 days. In a
press release he put out last month to
boast about this wealth of global expertise, he said he had met with "the King
Perhaps he meant he had met backstage with Yul Brynner of The King and
I. Siam changed its name to Thailand in
Reagan has said he's not as old as
such world leaders as Britain's Margaret
Thatcher, who happens to be 16 years
younger than he is. As recently as five
months ago, he didn't know who French
President Valery Giscard d'Estaing was.
Siam is one thing. France has The Bomb
Reagan not only called for American
troops to be sent to Pakistan; he told a
questioner that Pakistan should be allowed to build an atom bomb.
Two hours later, he came back and
said: "I suppose in my mind when I
answered that question, I was thinking
in terms of, if they were going ahead with
such a thing as that (atomic bombs),
it would not be our position to say, we
won't send them (combat planes)."
The trouble with being president,
especially with all those bombs around,
is that you don't always get a chance to
come back two hours later with a clarifying statement.
Ronald Reagan is a nice fellow, and
has some interesting things to say. But
he has no more business in that Oval
Office than Muhammad AH has being an
County Civil Court
At Law No. 2
• Presiding Judge — County Civil
Court at Law No. 2
• 19 years experience as
Assistant County Attorney
• Member, State Bar of Texas
• Degree in Business Administration,
University of Texas, 1953
• Law Degree, University of Texas
Law School, 1960
• Member, Houston Bar Association
• Member, State Bar District Grievance Committee, 1974-75
Harris County Democrats Coalition of Clergymen & Civic Organizations
Harris County Council of Organizations Westside Democrats
Harris County AFL - CIO Labor Council Houston Trial Lawyers Association
Paid for by The Judge Ed Landry Campaign Fund, Ed Landry, Treasurer
907 Heights Blvd. Houston. Texas 77008 '
Left to Right: Judy Elders, Peggy Hannigan, Sherlene Peterson, Peter
Armato, Joanne Adams, Marsha Goff
Joanne Adams: Montrose Coordinator, former Aide to Lance Lalor.
Judy Elders: Heights Coordinator,
former Aide to Rep. Ron Waters.
Marsha Goff: Campaign Manager,
former Aide to Rep. Ron Waters.
Sherlene Peterson: Heights Coordinator, Precinct Coordinator for
Peggy Hannigan: Montrose Precinct Coordinator, former Chair
Legislative Committee of Texas
Cynthia C. Gorczynski
Mrs. J.S. Gray
VOTE FOR PETER ARMATO MAY 3
Paid by PETER ARMATO Campaign, 3505 Washington, Houston
Eric Nelson, Treasurer.