Don't forget that although the unlimited class ran on Lake Washington, until 1984 there were hydroplanes on Green Lake as well, which is what my wife remembers as a kid. http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=...

Hmmm....I guess that means one isn't "successful" unless "wildly rich?" Or perhaps it just means that you haven't met people like LeBron James, Tommy Lee, Eminem, etc. Yes, the list of those who match the criteria you've set up is dominated by artists, musicians and athletes, but my guess is it won't be too long before it transcends profession. However, I personally don't equate "success" with "wildly rich," in which case I know plenty of people personally who are quite successful in their lives, and doing it with a healthy mix of tattoos and piercings.

Yes! Now this is the kind of book an old man needs. Definitely buying this.

Sounds like an interesting movie. The amazing thing to me is that it has Humpfest as a plot point. Hard to believe that Humpfest has been so successful that it's now serving as inspiration for actual full-length films. Who knew? BTW, in Seattle the film will be playing at the Harvard Exit.

For some incredible photos and quotes of MJ with both Fred Astaire and Frank Sinatra, see http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/quotes-o... Also, don't miss the video of Michael tap dancing.

Regarding the Fred Astaire-Michael Jackson, Frank Sinatra-Michael Jackson comparisons: apples and oranges when it comes to them as artists. The side you'll come down on in debates like that is highly dependent on your personal worldview, age, nationality, etc. To me, they all had huge impacts on their artistic fields, and on culture & society in general. One more so than the others? Very, very tough to call that, but I personally would have no problem including Michael Jackson in a group that included Astaire and Sinatra, and certainly Elvis Presley and the Beatles as well.

But when one considers popular dance, music, film, etc., isn't it both artistic and commercial success over a long period of time the ultimate scorecard? Or perhaps breadth of success across multiple popular artistic endeavors? After all, popular art by definition is that which can appeal to a mass audience.

Considered that way, I think time might not be as kind to Michael as it has been for both Astaire and Sinatra. (Or the Beatles.) Although his commercial music success is undisputed, Michael Jackson's personality flaws, his legal troubles, and his lack of meaningful and successful artistic output after 1995 will all work against him. In addition, he wasn't as versatile as either Sinatra or Astaire. And although his peak years were comparable in time to both of them, he didn't have the great years later on that each of them had. Astaire won an Emmy award for an acting performance in 1978, nearly 75 years after he first began performing as a child, and Sinatra came out with his Grammy-winning Trilogy in 1980, 40 years after he first began recording.

The body of work from his peak performing years is, to me, an obvious artistic success (and obviously a gigantic commercial success). So it's sad that his personal issues will in many ways overshadow that. However, I think the fame thrust upon him by modern media will unfairly diminish his true artistic reputation by many critics, who won't be able to disconnect his off-stage issues with his musical output and performances.

Would like to test facebook connect. Thanks.