November 26, 2005














  • Average American ???




    Kevin O’Keefe

    November 18, 2005
    Books of The Times | ‘The Average American’
    Winnowing the Field of America to One Representative
    By WILLIAM GRIMES

    All Americans can be average some of the time, but only one American, apparently, can be perfectly average all the time. Kevin O’Keefe, a marketing consultant, set out to find that person five years ago, armed with fresh data from the 2000 national census and a burning desire to pursue and comprehend the very thing he had spent most of his time avoiding: life as lived, defined and loved by the vast majority of his fellow citizens. “The Average American” is the logbook of that quest.

    Mr. O’Keefe tries, somewhat feebly, to put a philosophical gloss on his statistical journey. “If I could find the numbers, I could find the person, and if I could find the person, maybe I could find a piece of myself,” he writes, but “The Average American,” from start to finish, is nothing more (or less) than a clever game. The author starts with a pool of candidates that embraces all 281,421,906 official residents of the 50 United States and the District of Columbia counted in the 2000 census, and chapter by chapter, using the census and other statistical sources, introduces new categories of averageness that gradually whittle that number down to one. His eventual winner, and the community he lives in, comes the closest of all Americans to matching 140 criteria, from average height and weight to average annual rainfall.

    As a piece of statistical analysis, “The Average American” is wobblier than a three-legged table. A multitude of numbers are thrown around, some from official government sources like the Census Bureau and others from opinion polls and marketing surveys. The author does not actually insist that his winning candidate match each and every criterion. In many cases, it’s enough that he belongs to the statistical majority. For example, the average American has 12.7 years of education, but Mr. O’Keefe decides that a high school diploma, which the majority of Americans have, would be sufficient.

    No one is likely to look too closely at the methodology, just as no one, listening to a joke, wonders why a rabbi and a priest would walk into a bar. “The Average American” is really just an excuse to play with numbers and overturn commonly held notions of what the average American does and thinks. It’s also a golden opportunity for the author to hit the road, always traveling in a midsize car, and spend time with people like Myklar the Ordinary, a magician who carefully explains to his audiences that there is no such thing as magic, and Rich Bean, the first politician to run under the banner of the Average American Party. Not to mention an 88-year-old Brooklynite named Harry Average.

    It is not surprising to learn that most American families do not consist of a working father, stay-at-home mother and children. It is surprising to learn that such families account for only 7 percent of the population. In 1948, 4 percent of American said they were in favor of marriages between blacks and whites. In 2002 the number was 65 percent, and in 2003, 72 percent. The majority of Americans say they do not want to become famous.

    Mr. O’Keefe, ruthlessly swinging his statistical scythe, eliminates vast populations at a single go. Since most Americans live in a one-unit owner-occupied detached dwelling, or private home, more than 50 percent of Los Angeles County and 99.5 percent of Manhattan disappear from contention. The majority of American towns get at least some snowfall. Residents of those that do not fall off the list of contenders. So long, Florida, except for a few thousand residents near the Georgia and Alabama borders, as well as large parts of Texas, and all beachside residents in California from Santa Monica to Mexico. City dwellers and country folk also fall by the wayside, since most Americans live in suburbs.

    Gradually, the average American takes form. He (or she) spends 95 percent of the time indoors, thinks abortion is morally wrong but supports the right to have one, owns an electric coffeemaker, has nine friends and at least one pet, and would rather spend a week in jail than become president. He (or she) lives within a 20-minute drive of a Wal-Mart, attends church at least once a month, prefers smooth peanut butter to chunky, lives where the average annual temperature is between 45 and 65 degrees, and believes that Jews make up 18 percent of the population (the actual figure is between 2 and 3 percent).

    Mr. O’Keefe, a Manhattanite who married late in life, expresses more than average astonishment that most Americans, even though they do not live in Manhattan or mingle with powerful and famous people, describe themselves as happy and place a higher value on family than on work. He also comes across as a lot more average than he thinks he is. He’s a lot less interesting than most of the people he meets, but his project is intriguing, combining as it does the elements of a detective story and the trivia interest of Ripley’s Believe It or Not.

    With the clock ticking, Mr. O’Keefe narrows his search to 94 houses, and diligently makes contact with one adult resident in each, probing with his list of questions. “This is a joke, right?” one woman asks. Not on your life. One by one, his prospects flunk the test. One has too many cars. Another lacks a pet. And so it goes, down to the wire.

    Fittingly, the book’s final chapter lies midway between a foregone conclusion and a twist ending. The author winds up in a strangely familiar place, talking to a strangely familiar figure. And average, even when distilled to its quintessence, turns out to be exactly what you’d expect. What’s wrong with that?

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top







    Children and Divorce




    Dave Calver

    November 27, 2005
    More Options to Answer ‘What About the Kids?’
    By MIREYA NAVARRO

    IN the new film “The Squid and the Whale,” the Berkmans announce their breakup to their 16- and 12-year-old sons and proceed to put them in the middle of their fight. The dad tells the kids that their mother is to blame and confides to the older son that she has cheated. The mother asks the younger boy to keep secrets from the father and soon starts dating the children’s tennis instructor.

    The scenes draw audible gasps from the audience. In the decades since the divorce boom of the 1960′s and 70′s, and even since the mid-80′s, when the film takes place, many divorcing parents have struggled to avoid such disastrous events; the trend has been toward agreeing to agree early in the divorce for the sake of the children. Increasingly, say lawyers, psychologists, educators and other professionals who deal with divorce, ex-spouses are showing a willingness to try new or little known strategies to lessen the damage to children from a fracturing household.

    These strategies include interactive Web sites where parents communicate with each other through message boards and calendar postings instead of arguing; a “collaborative law” movement in which parents and their lawyers commit to come to terms without going to court; and, for the highly contentious who can’t even agree by e-mail, “parenting coordinators” available for hire to make decisions for them.

    The increased role of fathers in child rearing, divorce lawyers and mediators say, has also led to more creative joint-custody living arrangements. In one example, known as bird-nesting, children stay in the family home and parents take turns living there.

    “The one thing you can say is that when parents are communicating and getting along and putting the kids first, the kids are more likely to thrive and do better,” said Peter Salem, executive director of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, a group of judges, mediators and others involved in the resolution of family conflict that has grown 50 percent over the last four years, to 2,600 members.

    These efforts go on despite a recent, much-publicized challenge to the “good divorce” movement in the form of a book, “Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce.” The book, by Elizabeth Marquardt, a scholar with the Institute for American Values, a pro-marriage organization, is based on a national study that found that even in amicable divorces children suffer more isolation and feelings of being torn between two worlds than children from intact families. The pain of divorce is lasting even when efforts are made to minimize it, Ms. Marquardt argues. The study has drawn criticism from those who say it does not address what they argue is a more apt comparison: how the children of divorce would have fared if their parents had stayed in troubled marriages.

    But Ms. Marquardt, 35, a child of divorce herself, concludes that parents in “low conflict” marriages – those not involving violence or serious fighting, for example – should stick it out.

    “When parents are married,” Ms. Marquardt said in an interview, “it is their job to first deal with conflict. When the parents get divorced, it becomes their children’s job to make sense of the two worlds.”

    But what constitutes “low” conflict for some is unbearable for others. Hundreds of thousands of couples continue to divorce annually – with some government surveys showing about a million children experience divorce each year in the United States – and get down to the business of raising their children separately, hoping the way they handle themselves, not the act of separation, will determine how well their children fare.

    With four children, KatRyn Howell, 47, a piano teacher, and Roger Bowerman, 48, a community college professor, devised a bird-nesting solution requiring a level of cooperation that belied the tensions of the marriage. Since January, when the couple separated, the kids have lived in the four-bedroom family home in the San Fernando Valley, while the parents each went back to their own parents’ homes, the same homes where they grew up about five miles apart.

    They now take turns living with the children – she every Monday, Tuesday and Friday; he every Wednesday and Thursday. They alternate Saturdays and Sundays.

    It allows the children “to have a fairly normal life,” explained Mr. Bowerman. “Their lives haven’t changed that much except Mom and Dad are not around at the same time – and we’re not fighting.”

    The shift to more equitable custody arrangements over the last decades, a reflection of the changing role of fathers, has propelled many couples into more contentious divorce proceedings, as they fight over equal time with their children, some divorce lawyers say. Yet the resulting financial and emotional toll of protracted litigation is at the same time creating a powerful incentive for many separating couples to look for ways to agree.

    Judges are increasingly mandating that parents play nice, sending them to child-rearing classes and requiring them to draw up plans. This year the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers put out a “model parenting plan” that spells out responsibilities and contingencies at different ages, including whether parents must confer before allowing piercing and tattooing, access to the Internet or viewing R-rated movies.

    Divorcing parents seeking to avoid warfare can also find tools that they didn’t have before. Erica Laughlin, 35, an outreach program director at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, logs on to OurFamilyWizard.com, a Web site created in 2001 by Paul Volker, an airline mechanic with three children and a stepdaughter.

    Ms. Laughlin uses the site to hash out the scheduling and expenses of her two young sons with her ex-husband. The couple, who split custody 50-50, pay $100 a year to use the Web site, which has features that allow them to request trading days with their kids and to keep an expense log.

    “The things that are difficult to discuss – who gets the kids when, who owes who money – that’s handled electronically,” Ms. Laughlin said. “The kids don’t have to listen to talk about all that. Our conversations are focused on the kids. They’re about the school conference or Christmas.”

    The site, used by more than 4,000 parents, is growing steadily, adding up to 150 new accounts a month, Mr. Volker said. Like e-mails, the system not only helps by keeping emotions out of communications but also by keeping a record.

    Tracking how many divorced parents are exploring such novel strategies to improve their relations is difficult because states and courts vary in what they mandate, divorce experts said. And while some strategies have helped cut down on return visits to court by quarreling couples, mediators and others say, the long-term influence on children is more subjective and harder to gauge.

    But the growth of some organizations suggest an increased attitude of cooperation. The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals has trained more than 7,000 lawyers, child specialists and other professionals in the workings of a nonadversarial divorce proceeding, known as collaborative practice, over the last five years, its incoming president, Susan Hansen, said.

    And Mr. Salem of the courts association said surveys show that parent education programs for divorcing couples number in the thousands, compared with just a few hundred in the mid-90′s.

    On a recent Thursday night Jayne A. Major, a parent educator in Los Angeles who gets referrals from family court, gathered half a dozen parents at an Indian restaurant in Brentwood for a session of her “breakthrough parenting” program, which teaches separating or divorced couples how to minimize conflict. The husbands and wives often attend different sessions; the conversation underscored the ugliness that can emerge in marital discord. One man asked how he could protect himself if his ex-wife was not cashing his child support checks so that she could later claim he was not paying it.

    One woman, 53, who had been divorced for several years, said the classes were helping her communicate better with her ex-husband.

    “Even in my communication by e-mail I turn everything into ‘I’ statements,” she said, singling out one lesson from the workshops. ” ‘I want this to be done because I believe this is best for the child,’ ” she explained, “instead of saying, ‘You are wrong,’ and pointing out the negative. It takes the sting off everything.” She asked not to be named because she is in the middle of a custody fight over her 12-year-old son.

    For high-conflict cases, some parents are turning to a third party to make decisions for them. Bruce Copeland, a clinical psychologist who serves as a “parent coordinator” in Bethesda, Md., said parents hire him to decide which holidays their kids will spend with which parent, who buys school uniforms and other day-to-day issues.

    “You can get involved in absolute minutiae,” he said.

    Joan Kelly, a psychologist and researcher on children’s adjustment to divorce, said that options like parent coordinators are gaining ground as the emphasis in many divorces shift away from the combative route.

    “The approach,” she said, “has been to use the research that has been developed over the last 25 years to make post-divorce arrangements appropriate for kids, so they don’t experience longing and loss.”

    But Ms. Marquardt, who conducted a survey of 1,500 adults from 18 to 35 whose parents divorced during their childhood, said longing and loss are inevitable.

    In publicizing her research, Ms. Marquardt has pointed at her survey and to movies like “The Squid and the Whale” as representing the increasingly vocal opinions of adult children of divorce. In an interview Noah Baumbach, who wrote and directed the movie and was 14 when his parents divorced, insisted that his film is not meant to judge the parents, even when it portrays their joint custody arrangement as hard on the two brothers.

    “Some kids are affected much more than others, and it has to do with the dynamics of the family beforehand,” he said. “A lot of families never break up, and there’s this underlying tension and anxiety. Each situation is so specific.”

    He seemed reluctant to discuss his own family and the effect divorce had on him. “I almost don’t know,” he said. “Obviously it was very hard at the time, and you adapt, and it becomes an experience for you.”

    Many parents say they can plainly see how hard divorce is on children. But of those interviewed for this article, all said they thought their children were better off.

    “It’s equally unhealthy to not see an open display of love,” said Sherwin Bryant, 33, a college professor in Evanston, Ill., who separated six months ago from his wife and now spends half of the week with his two young daughters. “The absence of love is very loud.”

    In Los Angeles the bird-nesters Ms. Howell and Mr. Bowerman plan to divorce, although they have not filed papers. “We stayed together for many years because of the kids,” Ms. Howell said of her 23-year-old marriage. “Finally you ask, Is it better to see happy parents or parents who are always arguing?”

    The couple have four children, three girls, ages 17, 15 and 11, and a 9-year-old boy. One of their children, Deanna Bowerman, 15, said she preferred living in her house while her parents came and went to having to move between two separate homes. “It’d be a hassle to move all of us,” she said. “They’re still both around.”

    The couple keep most of their belongings and receive mail at their old address. They switch off stays under certain rules: each will leave the house tidy, each is responsible for his or her own groceries, and neither will bring dates. Mr. Bowerman said the arrangement “makes it more difficult” for both parents “because you don’t get closure.”

    But he added, “Right now I see it as the best thing for the kids.”

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top



     







    Dave Chappelle




    David Lee

    The comedian Dave Chappelle in a bongo mood at Dave Chappelle’s Block Party, in September 2004.


     


    November 27, 2005


    Dave Chappelle Is Alive and Well (and Playing Las Vegas)




    LAS VEGAS


    IN a cavernous corner of Caesars Palace, flanked by six giant television screens broadcasting three horse races, two basketball games and a hockey match, a massive electronic board provides precise odds on the most doubtful propositions. A one-dollar bet, for example, would earn you $75 if the beleaguered New York Knicks should win the N.B.A. championship, and $200 if the lowly Green Bay Packers could somehow win the Super Bowl. And if you knew whom to ask, and promised to use the information for entertainment purposes only, you could obtain odds on an even more uncertain outcome: that Dave Chappelle would actually show up to his Nov. 19 gig as a headliner of the city’s three-day Comedy Festival.


    He clearly had the support of the locals. “I’d say it’s a thousand to one in favor that he’ll make it,” said the casino’s chief line-maker, Chuck Esposito, two days beforehand. “Dave is an overwhelming favorite. It’s a lock.”


    Bob Crestani, the festival’s chief executive officer, seemed just as certain. “He’s our anchor position,” Mr. Crestani said. “He gets the punch line to end all punch lines.”


    Just six months ago, Mr. Chappelle seemed dangerously close to becoming a different kind of punch line – starring in the kind of spectacular career flameout normally reserved for philandering clergymen and disgraced politicians.


    In August 2004, with his Comedy Central series, “Chappelle’s Show,” surging in the ratings and a first-season DVD compilation of the program on its way to becoming the best-selling television-to-DVD release of all time, he signed a new development deal with Comedy Central that could have yielded him as much as $50 million.


    But at the end of 2004, with several episodes’ worth of material for “Chappelle’s Show” already completed, Comedy Central was forced to push the series’ premiere back three months, amid rumors that its star was suffering from either writer’s block, the flu or walking pneumonia.


    Production resumed again in the spring, but on April 28, Mr. Chappelle disappeared from the set. He resurfaced a few weeks later in Durban, South Africa, where, he said, he was on a spiritual retreat. As the rescheduled premiere date of his show came and went, and Comedy Central began replacing promotions for the program with advertisements for other coming series, it became clear that “Chappelle’s Show” was no more.


    Then, as abruptly as he had departed, Mr. Chappelle returned. On June 1, he performed a pair of unannounced sets at two stand-up clubs in Los Angeles, the Improv and the Comedy Store, where he riffed on his recent troubles and thoroughly startled the clubs’ promoters, who had had less than a day’s notice. “Boy, I’d love to take credit for it, but all I did was answer the phone,” said the Improv’s director of talent, Erin Von Schonfeldt. “What happens is, when Dave wants to do something, I just say, ‘O.K.’ ” In the weeks that followed, Mr. Chappelle took on a full calendar of stand-up dates, performing across the country in everything from 325-person nightclubs to 14,000-seat college auditoriums.


    Yet the reasons for Mr. Chappelle’s dramatic reappearance remain even murkier than the reasons for his departure; he declined to comment for this story, as did several of his former “Chappelle’s Show” colleagues. His friends and associates who speak about him tend to choose their words carefully, but what emerges from the accounts of those who have seen Mr. Chappelle since his return from South Africa is a portrait of a performer who, at least on the surface, appears unfazed by the controversy he created and invigorated by his newfound freedom.


    “Right now he seems pretty happy,” said Jason Steinberg, a talent manager who has known Mr. Chappelle for more than 15 years. “He seems like he’s trying to figure out exactly what he wants to do, and put it out there the way he wants to.” Without the obligations of a television series, Mr. Steinberg said: “He could say, ‘All right, I’m going to play tonight in San Francisco,’ and it will sell out that moment. To decide that and know the place will be full of fans coming to see you, it’s such a powerful thing.”


    But another confidant, the rapper David Banner, wondered if Mr. Chappelle might still be struggling with the consequences of his drastic professional choices. “He looked better than he ever looked to me,” said Mr. Banner, who appeared with Mr. Chappelle in a series of Hurricane Katrina benefits. “But he’s the one who decides whether he can look at himself in the daytime. The one thing you have to understand about comedians is, the more they make people smile, the more pain that they usually feel inside.”


    At an HBO-sponsored charity poker tournament the evening before Mr. Chappelle was scheduled to perform, comics spoke with less hesitation. Jeffrey Ross, one of the hilariously vulgar talking heads from the film “The Aristocrats,” was unqualified in his admiration for Mr. Chappelle, a longtime friend. “He chose art over commerce,” said Mr. Ross, who had affixed himself to an hors d’oeuvres table. “He decided the quality of his emotions was more important to him than a fear of burning bridges.”


    Bill Maher, the acerbic host of HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher,” was more skeptical about Mr. Chappelle’s motivations. “He certainly created a huge sense of anticipation among people for his performance,” Mr. Maher said. “I don’t think anybody ever was angry with him – except maybe his network.”


    Jon Stewart, almost unrecognizable in a T-shirt and slacks, joked that he and other Comedy Central stars had formed a support group to help them cope with the loss of Mr. Chappelle. “Me, the kids from ‘Strangers With Candy’ and ‘Mind of Mencia,’ we meet every Sunday and have brunch, and we cry,” he said. Then, in a more candid tone, he said: “People have the wrong idea about that dude. He’s just a normal, nice, thoughtful guy.”


    If anything, Mr. Chappelle’s recent notoriety has deepened his mystique and burnished his image as an unpredictable, iconoclastic artist. Upon being introduced to Mr. Chappelle the night before his show, even the formidable talent manager Bernie Brillstein could only muster a “hello.” “I really don’t like people who bother people,” said Mr. Brillstein, who was walking through the Caesars Palace lobby in a blue-and-yellow tracksuit. “And who knows what Dave has on his mind?”


    As the possibility that Mr. Chappelle might finally answer that question drew tantalizingly closer, speculation about his show became commonplace. At a question-and-answer session, Chris Rock said that he had heard that Mr. Chappelle’s show would be three hours long. “Only if he talks very slowly,” Jerry Seinfeld replied.


    At the Mesa Grill restaurant in Caesars Palace, at least one veteran comedian was still skeptical that the concert would happen at all. “I think the greatest thing he could do is not show up,” said George Wallace, a former writer for “The Redd Foxx Show.” “Wouldn’t that be something? It’d be the greatest press he ever got.”


    There was no doubt, however, in the minds of the more than 4,000 fans who were assembling at the Colosseum at Caesars Palace for Mr. Chappelle’s sold-out 11 p.m. show. “Look at what a diverse crowd he can draw,” said Jarod DeAnda, 27, who drove more than 300 miles, from Gilbert, Ariz., to see Mr. Chappelle. “You’ve got stoner rock ‘n’ roll dudes and you’ve got guys in dreads.”


    On a stage built expressly for Celine Dion’s standing engagement, the dynamic young comedian Al Madrigal, who is of Mexican and Sicilian descent, was the first to take the microphone, joking that he and his half-Korean, half-Greek wife were “the interracial ‘Blade Runner’ couple of the future.”


    At midnight, Mr. Madrigal left the stage. And there in his place appeared Mr. Chappelle, a lanky exclamation point of a man, in a green zippered sweater, black jeans and sneakers.


    “Thank you very much for welcoming me back to America,” he said, as his first standing ovation of the night subsided.


    “In case you haven’t heard about me, I’m insane.”


    In a move that would set the tone for the rest of the evening, he opened with remarks that seemed to address his conflict with Comedy Central, but elliptically, and in racially polarizing terms. “Whatever you do in your life,” he said, “do not stand up for yourself, because these white” – let’s just substitute the word “people” here – “will beat you down.”


    But then he slowly backed off from the fight he had picked, joking about how his recent career maneuvers had put a strain on his marriage (“Don’t think you can walk away from $50 million and your wife will be cool with it”), before segueing into a long riff about marital fidelity and the temptations he faced as a comedian on the road.


    Mr. Chappelle is gifted with a wonderfully elastic, childlike voice, but it comes with several adolescent fixations, and he peppered his routine with extended bits about masturbation and gynecology. They got laughs, but they seemed like filler, coming from a man who can brilliantly tease out the racial overtones in the language of television newscasters or the remake of “Planet of the Apes.”


    For as much as Mr. Chappelle appeared to be tackling issues of race head-on, he was often keeping them, and his audience, at a distance. When he spoke about his experience watching “Hotel Rwanda,” he was really talking about an embarrassing bathroom encounter he had at the movie theater and how it made him giggle inappropriately during the film. And to the extent that he discussed his retreat to Africa, he was trading in old stereotypes. ” ‘You know what you should always remember, Dave?’ ” said Mr. Chappelle, impersonating a local who tried to comfort him on his trip. “What’s that, Mbutu?,” Mr. Chappelle asked him. The response: “I ate a dog today.”


    Perhaps Mr. Chappelle feels he must soften his identity as an astute, slightly radical observer of politics, who already has his eye on a potential presidential match-up between Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice (“You know who’s going to win? Ralph Nader by a landslide”), and who essentially agrees with the controversial assertion of President Vicente Fox of Mexico that Mexicans would work jobs that not even African-Americans would take.


    By far, Mr. Chappelle’s most illuminating observation of the night occurred as he was discussing the rap star Kanye West’s nationally broadcast remarks that President Bush does not care about African-Americans. “I don’t know if you agree with him or not, but give it up for him,” Mr. Chappelle said. “I’ve got a lot of respect for him. And,” he added, “I’m going to miss him.” Then, almost as an aside, he continued, “I’m not risking my entire career to tell white people obvious things.”


    It’s a wise calculation. After all, it is only when he confronts the subjects he knows intimately that he has an act worth staking his professional reputation on. That’s when he has the greatest capacity to be incisive and even poignant. The room went almost completely silent when he mentioned that his mother was half-white, and again when he said that his wife was Filipino, and a third time when he added that “our kid is Puerto Rican, somehow.” That last line, the audience eventually figured out, was a joke.


    Mr. Chappelle really did risk his career this year. But as he smoked his way through a pack of American Spirit cigarettes, he never really discussed the factors that led to the disintegration of “Chappelle’s Show,” which in any given episode was more daring than his current routine. He did not explain what ultimately compelled him to travel to Africa, except to say that it was a childhood dream, and he never expressed so much as a hint of remorse about how his actions might have affected the lives of former colleagues who did not have producing fees and DVD royalties to fall back on. After performing for almost exactly 60 minutes, Mr. Chappelle wrapped up a surreal bit about having sex with a woman who was wearing nothing but a motorcycle helmet, thanked his crowd, and bid them goodnight.


    In typical Las Vegas fashion, most audience members filed out of the auditorium as quickly as Mr. Chappelle had departed it, though a few remained in their seats, as if they expected him to come back onstage and send them off with a parting insightful thought. But Mr. Chappelle did not return this time. Once again, comedy’s most visible invisible man had eluded them.





Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *