Favorite Healine of the Day (So Far)

"Are Kids Getting Too Much Praise?"
Efforts to build self-esteem in schools may be leading to a generation of children with inflated egos.

I just love the New York Times sometimes. This was in one of their "blog" pages--I suspect these are little info nuggets or editorial rejects. Anyway, it gave me a laugh this morning. Poor kids.

One Heinous Show

I usually try to give new tv shows a little lee-way while they find themselves in the first season. HOWEVER--the cast at the left, the writers, producers, and anyone involved in the creation or airing of ABC's Big Shots should be ashamed of themselves. This is possibly one of the ugliest, most disgusting television shows I've ever seen. Here's why:

1. The plot: About for "big shots" (men, of course) who are despicable people trying to figure out "women" (the general, monolithic understanding of them as brainless vehicles for the men's pleasure), "life" (how to have more hot sex), and "family" (dealing with the bitches who divorced them and the burdens that are their children). Originally described (by ABC) as a kind of "sex and the city for men," this show is that except without the nuance, the humanity, the empowered women, and the wit. So, to summarize: it's not SATC but with men.

2. The characters: Both the men and women are sad caricatures of some pseudo-reality. The men are ulgy: womanizers (within and without their marriages), shallow, deceptive. And here's my favorite part--all of that is understood to be a good and natural part of man-hood (say that with the "movie announcer" voice and you get the picture). And now for the women: also ugly. These characters are completely either subservient to their (say with whispy voice) big, strong, men OR they're portrayed as constantly exhibiting symptoms of PMS. They might as well be blow-up dolls for all they give to the show in terms of "real-ness." And then there's what they say: they are somehow made to be complicit with the behavior of their men so that they help the men be womanizing, shallow, and deceptive--because that's what women do.

So, in summary, I have serious problems with plot and character which means, all in all, I'm never, EVER watching this again. But I have one last beef: this show is held up as a testament to "male bonding" and what it means to be a man in 2007. Let me be clear: if this is what manhood in 2007 is, they need to build loneliness into the characters--because no one, man or woman, would ever want to be near that.

Pushing What-sies?

And just when I thought tv was getting formulaic--this little gem arrives from ABC. When I first heard about it, it sounded bizarre. Basic concept: boy has extraordinary power to bring people back from the dead with his touch. Boy grows up, has an obsession with pies, and helps an investigator solve unsolved murders for the reward money. Catch(es): 1) The previously dead can only be alive for 1 minute or someone else dies to take their place and 2) if he touches them again, they die...again.
"Oh Lord," I thought, "could this get any more difficult to understand OR far-fetched." Well, I take it back. This has to be one of the most original television shows I've ever seen. But I'm not sure it's for everyone, especially for those who don't suffer the "magical fantasy" genre well. Here are the ways it deviates from "usual" (read "boring" or "formulaic" television):

1. It looks like the movies Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events and Nanny McPhee. The setting (and sets) are outrageously colorful and bizarre--a pie shop called "The Pie Hole" (which I LOVE), a garish house, a windmill someone lives in.

2. The characters are purely fictional. There's no realism here. This is like a children's book in that you have basically archetypal characters: Ned (the boy), Chuck (the girl he loves but can't touch b/c he's brought her back to life), Chuck's 2 spinster aunts, the Detective, the Pie Shop Girl. There's no sense of reality--just a sense of wonder from the characters that populate this bizarre "mystery" type of show.

3. The storyline is magical and planned but also bizarre. Because of Ned's powers, the way he relates to other people and his whole purpose is so out-of-left-field that it sets up really huge, unsubtle story lines, but it's mysterious. The story unfolds slowly and in a way that meanders so that some patience and "going with the weirdness" is required. But it makes you feel joyful and innocent somehow.

4. The supporting cast in IN-CREDIBLE. The two leads are virtual unknowns--all the better b/c we aren't hampered by lingering images of past characters. But Chi McBride (House, Boston Public) plays the Detective. Kristen Chenoweth (The West Wing, the original Galinda in Wicked, basic Broadway star and ingenue) plays the Pie Shop Girl in unrequited love with Ned. Swoosie Kurtz (Sisters, general Broadway star, appeared in multiple movies showing either on Lifetime or LMN) takes a turn as one of the spinster aunts. Couldn't ask for richer human scenery--and that's the key to this show: the supporting characters all get a turn at the front so that it's important to have great people in those parts. I love all of them.

This is by no means a laugh-out-loud opportunity. It's quirky, inventive, and shockingly different so that you almost have to switch into a totally different mental gear to appreciate it. But I was fascinated and mesmerized. It's like Teletubbies but for adults. I say give it a try.

(tip: catch up with the full episodes on line before jumping in to the primetime regular show, otherwise it'll be ultra confusing. If anything, at least watch the pilot--it makes the "rules" for Ned's dealing with others clear enough to actually get.)

A Slip Or Strategy?

Usually I leave politics out of this blog because it's a buzz-kill (albeit sometimes an important one) but check this out:
What the...? Seriously.

It's Time to Travel

Guess what I just heard...!!!

IT RETURNS!!!

A new season starts on November 4!!! At 8pm on CBS. For those who don't know, The Amazing Race is a reality competition show in which teams travel 50,000 miles across the world. Game Strategy: Finish 1st and win $1 million.

Oh how long I've waited for the comedy, the drama, the excitement, and the stupidity that leaps forth from this show. I say it's better than Survivor. But then, you'll have to watch to see if you agree!

TV Families that Ensure Interesting Mondays

If at about, oh, 7pm your Mondays get tedious and uninspired, take remote in hand and turn on TLC. It's two for the price of one--with the real families featured in Little People, Big World and Jon & Kate Plus 8. Allow me to tell you why these families endlessly fascinate me.

First, the Roloffs. This family, first introduced by TLC about 4 years ago on a show intended to feature the life of, well, little people in a big world. From the picture it's clear that Amy and Matt, the parents, are both little people while only Zach (far left) is a little person kid. Their other kids, (from right) Jeremy (Zach's twin brother!), Molly, and Jacob are average height (the Roloffs don't say "normal height" and I say good for them.) Over the past four years viewers have witnessed the way life gets done when you're 4 feet tall. One of the greatest developments I've witnessed as a regular watcher is how truly normal their life is. Don't get me wrong, both Matt and Amy have been incredibly resourceful in making this family work, but in the end, I watch because the people are so interesting and not because they're "little" or average. My love and personal take on each family member will show up in a future post because, truly, Matt Roloff deserves an entire tome devoted to his crazy amazingness. For now, suffice it to say, show up for the height differential, stay for the family life. More to come on this in a moment.

Now for the Gosselin's. I first saw this brood of 10 on a Discovery Chanel special that eventually morphed into a mid-season replacement and now is one of the most fascinating and scary shows on television. Jon and Kate are poster children for the effects of in-vitro: their twins (Cara and Mady) are 7 while their sextuplets (Aaden, Hannah, Alexis, Collin, Leah, and Joel) are 3. The show chronicles their life in both learning how to deal with a family this size but also how to make that life meaningful for the "older" girls and for the "little kids." This show, like America's Next Top Model (sadly), renders me powerless thereby often gluing me to the tv for as long as they continue to show these episodes. I have friends who just had one kid and their life is hectic. I cannot even imagine this life and yet I can sit and watch it unfold in front of me. Amazing.

What I find most interesting about both shows is the ability to watch gender construction rammed into the fertile minds of all of these children. Both families successfully deal with situations that are so possibly debilitating, they amaze me. At the same time, the ways in which they talk to their children, dress them, deal with their problems, etc. are so conventionally "boys are blue and girls are pink" that sometimes I find it hard to breathe. On LPBW, Amy and Molly often do what Matt calls "girls day out:" they go to the spa, have lunch, go shopping, get their nails done. Which is fine, except that Matt, who's the biggest...little...alpha male on television harps so hard on the boys to be "manly men" that I almost pity them. Jeremy and Zach (the oldest children) take it in stride, but poor Jacob. On yesterday's episode, Matt said that Jacob was "whining like a girly man". I often think Jacob would be happier hanging with Amy and Molly. On J&K+8, what's fascinating is that added to the gender mix is the fact that two of the girls are older which changes the dynamics--Cara and Mady are constantly pegged as being overly emotional, whiny, and clingy.

It's just a very interesting process. I probably could not handle the lives of these two families. But I find it interesting that despite these extreme circumstances in which they find themselves, the ways they categorize and socialize their children are very traditional...and boxed in. I'm fascinated. Watch 'em and you will be too.

Who's Alyssa Milano to Baseball?

I'm confused on multiple levels. As I was surfing along, trying to get info on the progression ALCS (that's baseball, people) I found out a couple interesting turns that had been happening on TBS who was carrying the early rounds of the playoffs. Apparently Alyssa Milano (formerly of Who's The Boss and Charmed fame) is a, like totally huge, baseball fan. She has a baseball blog ("Touch 'em all" or something) as well as designs baseball fashions for women--the line is named *Touch*, of course. All of this, apparently, made her eligible to be the feature reporter for TBS during the early rounds of the playoffs. Who knew...what we were missing! (read with the height of sarcasm).

Being the cub reporter I, myself, am I went about finding Alyssa's specific contributions to this venture and stumbled upon some excerpts of her "interviews" on The Hot Corner (yes, that's what it was called) via YouTube. Check this one out:

What I find interesting here is the overt sexiness of the interview. I didn't think it was going to be that kind of Hot Corner. Is that what TBS was hoping for when they hired her. Well, besides her crackerjack interview skills which I think are apparent here...um, no. So who is this supposed to appeal to? Guys? Because I'm thinking if guys are watching TBS for the playoffs, chances are they're watching for the games? If the appeal is supposed to be for women, I don't get it at all. And frankly, it makes me want to turn it off because it looks like Alyssa's uncomfortable and awkward, which makes me tense.

All I have to say is, I'm glad the playoffs are now on Fox...and the Hot Corner is closed, at least for another year.

A Whole New World

Recently, I lost my dear friend Andras to an online game called World of Warcraft. The effects are remarkable really--last night, instead of choosing to stay for another beer, he decided to go home because he had to meet other gamers online in the game at a particular time. He keeps referring to himself as a mage (which I've come to find out is a magician character within the game). He's in a class in which this game is the textbook and classroom. Today he sends me this which is actually very funny (beware, it's the whole episode):

Replay video | Share video | Watch more videos

But, as usual, in 20 minutes, Trey Parker and Matt Stone have been able to capture and cartoonically (that's right...I completely made that word up) editorialize all of the possible social "issues" that this (and other online games) pose for...well, civilization. I have not been a South Park fan in the past, only because it often steps too far over my line of decency and good taste (and this offering is no exception) but I couldn't not put this here. It's so right on in terms of explaining how seemingly "normal" people get caught up in a virtual world.

Just beware...if you hear Worlds of Warcraft" issuing forth from the mouths of loved ones, halt everything and fight like hell to get them back to reality. Otherwise, you might be living forever with a mage...and I don't think that's a good thing.

Guess Who's Baaaack?

The Roloff's!

That's right...TLC's Little People, Big World returns for another fun-filled season. Not just another couple months on their farm in Oregon, this season features a true RVing expedition ala National Lampoon's Summer Vacation. Unfortunately, I missed the premier of this season because I was busy watching ABC's new offering Samantha Who?, but I have no fear that I've missed anything. The way TLC tends to schedule programs, the first episode will be broadcast about 8 times in the next 7 days to prepare me for the 2nd episode next Monday... and I couldn't be more excited.

I've gone far too long without Matt Roloff in my life. And if you don't know what I'm talking about, you've gone far too long without Matt Roloff in yours. This is an awesome show and I'm pumped they're back for more!

Samantha Who?

Oh thank God the Monday-night doldrums are finally over. Out of sheer desperation, I tuned into to the new ABC comedy-slash-drama (I shun the word "dramedy" as cliche and trying too hard to be witty--like those celebrity merger names such as "bennifer" and "brangelina" which incidentally sounds very high in fiber) Samantha Who? starring Christina Applegate. Shockingly, I was pleasantly surprised. Although it's new and a show that could possibly become very old very fast (which seems more typical than not these days), the first episode ended and I wanted to continue to tune in, so that's gotta be a good sign. Here's why I think it's worthy for now:

1. The story may be formulaic but the beauty is we don't know it. For the same reason I love F/X's Damages, the facts of this show are doled out to the audience in little interesting pieces that cause the story to twist and turn in unexpected ways. Unlike Damages, however, this is attempting to be funny, not scary--which I appreciate. Whether or not it will be ultimately funny remains to be seen, but I wasn't repulsed by the initial attempt so that's probably a good sign.

2. Great supporting cast. There are some really big tv names showing up on this little newcomer. Of course, Christina Applegate (who's not supporting but actually the lead) has done some great tv in the past (Married...With Children, Jesse). I was also absolutely delighted to see Melissa McCarthy, who played Sookie St. James on Gilmore Girls in addition to Jennifer Esposito who made her tv debut on Spin City and carved a gaping hole in that show when she left (She also had an amazing turn in the movie Crash). Playing Samantha's parents in the show are Jean Smart of Designing Women fame (who is probably one of the most versatile actors I've ever seen) and Kevin Dunn who's played a lot of bit parts in movies. All are familiar faces who have proven to have some comedic timing and an ability to carry comedy throughout a show.

3. Christina Applegate showcases some great hair throughout the show. Her hair is just so *cute*. The little blonde ringlets and rumpled bed-head are almost enough motivation to keep tuning in. How do they get it to do that?

All in all, this show seems to have a little creativity, drama, and possibility for light drama--factors which, taken together, mean it will at very least be interesting. I'm just glad it doesn't follow typical ensemble sit-com format and suggests that the character Samantha had many layers--most not very nice. This dual character-within-a-character set-up compels me to watch at least one more show and then re-evaluate. Check it out: Monday's at 8:30 pm (CST) on ABC.

A Pop-Culture Addict First

It's been a gloomy, semi-cold day here and I've found myself laying on the couch under my down comforter and enjoying the laziness of an afternoon sipping coffee and watching cooking shows. What's so "first" about this for me: I've been watching PBS...and liking it.

Out of the people I hang around with, I'm usually lambasted as the one who could care less about NPR (I know, I know...I should care) and who turns my nose up at any kind of crunchy, granola mass media choices for the loud and flashy shallowness of E! or VH1. But, I was perfectly content to snuggle in with America's Test Kitchen, Check Please!, and Everyday Cooking. Since I've been looking for viable alternatives to most of the shows on the Food Network which have become so carnivalized since their inception, I was overjoyed to find just what I was looking for on WTTW11. So, let me give a rundown of the actual shows I watched today:

America's Test Kitchen: This is a great alternative to 30 Minute Meals (and don't we all deserve one?). What they do is present one meal that the test kitchen has perfected over several trials. What I really appreciated is that they break down what can seem like very complicated recipes into very simple steps and make great suggestions on how to make it simply but still retain the "best it can be" quality. Extra special is a 10 minute segment in the middle where they do a taste test of a particular product featured in the recipe. Informative and practical. Warning: Of all the episodes I've seen (5), I've never seen a vegetarian dish featured. But, the cooking tips and the way they teach working with flavors could probably translate into vegetarian meals.


Real Simple: Alright, confession: this is not a cooking show. But it's one of those "lifestyle shows" that's good brain candy. The episode I saw featured segments on stenciling, whether or not price clubs are worth it, and other "lifestyle" artsy-craftsy lessons. While not deep or really showing anything new, it seems to capture the essence of the "Real Simple" magazine which I love but cannot afford at a cover price that's nearly $5. These are three lovely people (obviously not paid for their brainpower) but willing to relate to me the virtues of table-scaping. A GREAT and BETTER alternative to Stupid Cooking with Sandra Lee, as it features neither stupid cooking nor Sandra Lee.

Everyday Food: Exec-Produced by Martha Stewart(grrrr), this show is a nice conglomeration of what you might find on 30 Minute Meals, Barefoot Contessa, Tyler's Ultimate, and any other of the barrage of semi-annoying shows the Food Network offers. Again, very simple recipes that end up looking really elegant. This cast mixes up entrees, appetizers, and dessert recipes nicely and run the gamut from country fried chicken to the best peanut butter and jelly sandwich ever. It's just a nice show to watch and the recipes are easy to replicate.

Personally, I think the only show on Food Network that will not be replicated anywhere else is Alton Brown's Good Eats, which I will still happily tune in for at every chance I get.

And, while I love the fact that PBS now offers a quasi-food network feast on Saturdays, I have to wonder how much this means that PBS is changing its original oatey, crunchy granola platform to be able to compete with flashier networks. PBS has always been the home for some tie to more intellectual, certainly high(er) culture, efforts offered to everyone who has a television. While there are 8 ESPN channels, there's always been only one PBS with a distinctive ability to fill a small yet important niche in local programming that will never include a discussion of Britney Spears or "super simple, spicey and savory, savvy suppers" touted by a Barbie-doll proportioned know-nothing. So, I feel a little conflicted about my joy that now their shows are mostly produced by the people and companies that it was able to distinguish itself from for so long. Even though they still offer programming without commercials (a fact that overjoyed me to my core) what does that mean when the programming itself turns decidedly commercial?

Aw, hell...I'm still watching...and I'm telling all my pop culture junkies to do the same.

Guess What?!?

I can't WAIT.

My Acceptance of the Top Chef Finale

It's taken awhile for me to come to terms with the way Top Chef season 3 ended up. Hung won. (crickets...quiet...more crickets). By all means, Hung was worthy. He'd been told by the judges outrightly 3 weeks ago that he was the best technical chef there, but that they found his food soulless. They wanted to see more of "Hung" in his cooking. Frankly, I thought his cooking already was a good indicator of "Hung." I guess they gave him more credit--maybe he was different in person. But, in being consistent with the rest of what seemed to be an "iffy" season, I don't think the new live finale format went off without any hitches.

Hitch #1: Casey blew it in the final round making the "final 3" format senseless. Once we watched her completely bite it in Aspen (which was sad, but predictable. I think it would be hard to argue that Casey deserved to be in the finals. Did I like her, yes. But was the run of creativity that got her to the end in part luck, also yes.) it was silly that she had to show up to the final judging table and basically try to save face. Everyone knew she was out--including her. She stuck up for herself, god love her, and bowed out gracefully. However, the final three didn't seem to "pan" out (ha-HA!). Recommendation: Go back to the final 2 scenario. I almost wonder if they tried the "final three" to avoid the fan reaction from last season when fan-fave Sam shockingly got eliminated (b/c he totally sucked it in the last competition round) leaving Ilan and Marcel (neither fan favorites) to go to the lackluster, overly "foamy" finale. It doesn't matter--the 2 best should, by all means, funnel into the final.

Hitch #2: Directly related to Hitch #1--the judging. It annoyed me that Gail was back for the finale when she'd been there all of 3 prior shows. Anthony Bourdain seemed the rightful choice to be there, as he was there equally often as Gail, blogged the show EVERY WEEK (check this out for the finale--hilarious and I'm willing to trust that he knows better than I) , and brings forth the chef perspective instead of the food critic perspective. Ted Allen was already representative of that group and, honestly, the show is not "Top Food Snob." If you're going to harp on technical skills and, ultimately, choose Hung b/c of them, then your judges need to have some credibility in that area. Sorry, Gail, but get out. Recommendation: Stick with a panel of three judges who are there EVERY WEEK and have the one rotating guest judge throughout the season, but for the FINALE go to the three who have seen everything from start to finish.

Hitch #3: Dale had soul that the judges somehow overlooked. Fact is, I loved Dale. I think a lot of fans of the show loved Dale. Dale is lovable and obviously serious and he lives food. Hung tells me that but Dale shows me that. So, when the judges did the dish-for-dish comparison, it sounded to me like Dale was the one. The judges got hung up (ha-HA...and I didn't even mean to here) on that (supposedly) crappy lobster dish, but here's the thing: Dale brought it. He served it. He rocked it. Yeah he made a mistake...but he had the balls to make a BIG mistake. Anthony Bourdain called them "balls the size of casaba melons"--seriously. That would have made me choose him. Hung did not do that, thereby forcing me to assume that Hung has little balls...(ahem) culinarily speaking. Recommendation: For the sake of my fan-ship, please pick Dale next time. Just throw me one...I'm begging. (Although, I think Harold of Season 1 managed to be both a fan-fave and a kick-ass chef).

Hitch #4: With the "final three" format, the eliminated chefs who returned to "help" prepare the final meal were actually a hindrance. Brian got to eat the meal. Um, excuse me, but Brian had just been eliminated for basically presenting a circus on a plate. Is he the best to judge refined culinary style in the final? And Howie? Seriously, I felt bad for Casey; I think Casey felt bad for Casey. She should have gotten extra points for getting Howie's help. When they did the final two, each chef got two of the last four eliminated, thus making up some kind of team. Honestly, that was better for the most part. Recommendation: Stop forcing people to work with the crappy chefs who were already eliminated.

I did really love one part of this finale: I thought it was genius to pair each finale contestant with a major culinary figure (Rocco DiSpirito, Michelle Bernstein, Todd English (who's hot)) That was cool to watch them work as sous chefs for the contestants and to hear their commentary ala Tom Colicchio from the kitchen. If they could talk them into it, these chefs should be the "helpers" for the finale, not eliminated contestants.

So, there it is. My humble opinion. Am I happy with Hung? No. But honestly, I haven't been happy since Harold won in Season 1, so now the bar is really high...but I'm sure looking forward to the next season already.

Aaaaannnd...Iiiiii'm.... Ready to Take a Chance Again

...Ready to put my love on the line...with you. (Thanks Barry Manilow for the opening song)

Okay, so as I'm sitting here sweating out the Cleveland Indians Game 3 in the series with the Yankees, I was blazing through the channels, dealing with sub-par Monday night programming when I stumbled upon No Reservations. After deep consideration, I decided to stick with it--Tony's in Brazil (in a re-run), drinking caipirinhas and feasting on traditional Brazilian dishes in Sao Paolo...and he was a different person. Despite being hung-over from an over-abundance of caipirihnas, Tony was happy, he looked healthy and content and was drooling all over the food as he chowed down in a tiny dining room of a local woman, decorated with multiple crucifixes and a wall painted orange.

And here's where I've decided: Tony requires the new and exotic to be happy. He's a 50-year-old chef with ADD who thrives on traversing lands that serve as homes to bugs (and spiders) the size of your head. He's happier--and edgier--drinking a cocktail in Peru made from yuca fermented with spit than being content eating delicious meals made with fresh but conventional ingredients somewhere in the contiguous United States. He sneered at Las Vegas. He mocked Cleveland. (I'm not sure what he did in South Carolina, but my guess is that if he liked it, he treated it as an exotic "other country.") Why? Because they were not "authentic" (gasp...I hate that word) in the sense that they were nothing new to him. He seems most impressed when he's just floored by the surroundings because they're new and so different and they kick his ass in someway. Thus, when he's in Cleveland, he has to find the sewer surfers and suck Twinkie cream from a warehouse pipe--because in some way those things will assault his senses...or his sensibility.

But, whether I'm just rationalizing (very possible) or really on to something, I have a question: Tony...why does the local experience of people around the United States require a sneering while local experiences of other countries are the "real thing"? If a place doesn't beat all 6'5" of the lanky you--yes you, Tony--then is it not worthy...or is it just what you consider fake...or commercial...or (gasp) touristy? And we all hate all of those things sometimes (my personal beef is with Walmart but who's counting) , but does it mean that they're not real? Does it mean the food or the atmosphere or the people who create it are somehow less?

As I watch the start of the next episode, Tony's on a mission to find the real Puerto Rico. He said it himself--the Puerto Rico only found by hanging with the locals. And while I get and actually agree that we cannot take an already touristy place (like Cleveland?) at face value to understand the "real" experience of it, what I don't understand, then, is the lack of interest--or abject disdain-- for the "real" experience of people living in Las Vegas or Cleveland or South Carolina (or wherever). Is it because it's not real--or it's just not exciting?

If "exciting" and "real" are what Tony's after, then I think the show needs a name change--because those obviously constitute "Reservations."

But, just for the record Tony, we're friends again.

Random But Important Pop Culture Sighting

Hey--I went to college with this guy.

He's starting the second season of Heroes as Claire's (the cheerleader's) boyfriend (apparently as they're still in the "flirty" stage on the actual show tonight).

His name is Nick D'Agosto and I knew him when he was a freshman at Marquette University. Nice kid. Very serious about his craft. The last time I talked to him (literally May of 1999) he was going to LA to sleep on the floor of the agent he got over Christmas break and audition for pilots. Apparently, things worked out as I read he's starred in several failed pilots and independent films that have debuted at Sundance Film Festival. As I read on IMDB, he actually graduated in 2002--cum laude. He always was a smart cookie.

Aaaand...I forgot about this but before he came to Marquette, he actually had a small but memorable part in the movie Election with Reese Witherspoon. I was mystified...alright, I still am...

And now he's on Heroes...and I'm here...still worrying about getting my homework done for Thursday.

Suddenly I feel small. But good for Nick.

Break a leg, kid.

Restricted "View"

Oh, there are days. And usually, for this show, the days that Barbara Walters appears means nothing good. So this morning, I woke up, stumbled out to my couch (yes at 10 am...so?) and stretched out to tuck into the 20 minutes of on-air hilarity and, at the very least, topical segment aptly-named "hot topics" section of The View, only to see Barbara Walters in all of her "mommy dearest" glory. Accordingly, I sighed with exasperation and braced for the cringing that would staaaaart...now.

Barbara makes no bones about the fact that she often dislikes the topics that get "raunchy" too quickly--topping that list anything sexual in nature (including body parts, even if in a non-sexualized context. Quick story: this morning, Sherri Shepherd was mentioning that she was in a picture with Pamela Anderson. The bottom line of the story was that there were a lot of "boobs" (Sherri's word...well and mine I guess) going on. Barbara insisted they change the topic. Of course that went down like this--Barbara: "We're not discussing this." Sherri: Shocked and scared face.) She's also not fond of criticizing the "celebrati"--Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie, Lindsay Lohan (other's call them the bimbo summit which seems appropriate). Usually Joy will bring these issues to the table only to have Barbara pull her usual--"Her parents are personal friends of mine...blah blah blah." If you dis the Republicans, you better watch it--Barbara's comin' after ya. If you dis anyone she's interviewed--be careful and watch your back. To summarize: Barbara Walters is a no-sense-of-humor kill-joy who's so deeply involved in ass-kissing the rich and famous that she cannot see the sorry joke she has become.

All of this, then, becomes interesting when juxtaposed with the insane levels of credibility her "journalistic reputation" has granted her over the years. If you're wondering what that consists of just tune in to a show--Barbara usually name-drops like she's getting royalties on the mentions. People trust her as a journalist but on The View she appears ignorant, intolerant, and...well, stupid. No, really. Barbara censors her own show for the same reasons that people want to censor the Internet and the FCC fines networks gajillions of dollars for saying "shit." All of that causes chaos and (gasp) the possibility for free-thinking. And we can't have that--not in Barbara's world--where free-thinking only logically brings about the conclusion that we've been duped for 20 years about the intellectual capacity (or lack thereof) of this woman with a weird accent and a snooty air about her. No, here decorum (read: women are demure and speak when spoken to) counts for a lot. Then I have to wonder how this show is about women. Newsflash Barbara: Women have boobs...and sometimes we wanna talk about 'em.

So, we have The View that once brought women's perspectives (albeit often stereotyped and represented by an archetypal member of the aggregate) to the table in search for their experiences. Apparently, according to Barbara Walters women don't have sex (or don't enjoy it), don't swear, don't question authority, don't criticize others, should not be comfortable discussing underwear, bodily fluids of any sort, body parts in general, or anything that could become "raunchy."

Since when did journalists decide that getting up on their soapbox and claiming the position of "moral authority of the planet" was acceptable? And how in the world does BW become THE person who decides what is acceptable breakfast-table conversation? And how are the all the things she likes to discuss somehow perfectly appropriate? This morning, Barbara called Bill O'Reilly someone she was "fond of." The last time I checked, Bill O'Reilly was an ugly and ignorant bigot who proudly demeans anyone that is not Bill O'Reilly--but apparently that's acceptable conversation? That conversation is more ugly and raunchy than the discussion of any body part I can think of...

Barbara--for god's sake (or should I not say god...does that make someone uncomfortable...)--if you're going to preach to your audience and your panel about what is acceptable publicly these days, you need to give Oprah a call--she can set you up with the ultimate in "queen of the universe" lessons (I believe that comes with a t-shirt from Oprah's favorite "Queen-of-the-universe" t-shirt company as well). Otherwise, sit down and shut the fuck up...and possibly persuade Elizabeth to do the same.

Home Spun Attempts at Music Videos: The Technology That is YouTube

I have a friend, Jayme, who I know is a pop culture hound underneath all of his high culture bluster (and I mean "bluster" in the kindest way). Yes, he sings with the CSO. Yes, he's an Elliott scholar. Yes, he's got multiple advanced degrees. But all of that becomes details to what I've been trying to convince him is a calling toward the embracing of pop culture. How do I know? He always asks me to comment on things Pop Culture and takes great pleasure in my ensuing discussions. He's watched The Sopranos from beginning to end. He trolls YouTube. That's right--if you're a YouTube troller, you immediately become a pop culture consumer.

So, Jayme is moving to El Salvador for three years on Monday and in order to convince him that this blog needs to be a regular stop on his daily tour of the Internet (which I've found is infinitely funnier if you call it the "Interweb."), I'm gladly posting and commenting on a little gem that he suggested to me via YouTube. So, I offer it here--make sure to watch all of it (hold on...it's not easy) with my thoughts on the flipside.

There's a lot going on here, so allow me to unpack all the ways this could be detrimental to society.

1. First and foremost: YouTube can become scary technology when in the hands of someone like Mamamialove. Really, my questions range from "Does Hellen Reddy really need to make a comeback?" to "How do I stop the pain of this song from invading my worldview?" This is evidence of YouTube gone wrong...but then, I've not seen huge evidence of YouTube gone right.

2. What I found fascinating was the commentary on the site responding to this spectacle. There was "Absolutely breathtaking. Thank you for the song. Kathie" to " OMG-how Beautiful...Thank you. Words fail me right now." Well, frankly, words fail me too, but that doesn't mean anyone should ever have to see this. The reviews were overwhelmingly positive, leading me to believe that most of the people responding were friends who were actually encouraging this behavior...and asking for more. Mama responded with these comments: "Someone asked me what this video is about. It's about prayer. It's about looking, watching, and believing in the best outcome for people that are having it rough in life. Once I went on a cruise and was over the sometimes scary bermuda triangle. First the calm came. It was the erriest calm ever. Then the came the Hurricane. Everyone thought we were going down. Life is like that hurricane- We need each other. And most times without the kind prayer of others I know I wouldn't make it." Hmmm. Okaaaay.

3. Which leads me to the next point: I'm fascinated in Mama's own view of herself as kind of a religious prophet, if you will, simply touting her own kind of religion based on an animated-yet-real Disney cartoon feature film popular in the early 80s (Pete's Dragon is where this little ditty debuted). There's a spiritual claim being made here which is clear in the *staging* of this self-directed video. The veil...the lighted candle...the starry background. I'm sure Mama would give you a great deal on a tea-leaf reading if you'd just let her sing to you some more, but that's part of her ministry--bringing Helen Reddy (of "I am Woman Hear Me Roar" fame) back to the people. Oh good.

Aaaand 4. Let's discuss the staging here for just a sec. Jayme suggested I pay close attention to the end when she manually fades in the *candle* (notice the lack of water) and I think it's a good suggestion. I love the tension here between artistic, dare I say symbolic, intention and the constraints of practicality--a line which every director worth his or her salt must learn to straddle. Marty Scorsese, hey, pay attention--you could learn somethin' here (Taxi Driver reference).

Oh, how many ways this whole experience makes me lament this song, Helen Reddy, Pete's Dragon, candles, water, and new age nuts just practicing their *special* kind of internet love via bad homemade music video. Mamamialove 1 The Hope for a Better Society 0. But as Natazha says, "Bless you! You don't need music. Your voice is music (heavenly)!" which helps me more clearly understand my own sense of spirituality. If this voice is heavenly music, then I feel little better about the musical selections I'll surely find in hell.