TV

Speaking of crying, there's an episode of Cheers that gets me every single time, even when I just read it. Stay with me:

The other day I was explaining to Partner about how the FOX network came to be so popular. Yesterday I decided to check out the wikipedia entry to see if I had it right (I did). While there, I was reminded of an early FOX show that I enjoyed but couldn't remember the name of. The wiki mentioned a show and an actress that I thought might be connected to the show I was thinking of, so I went to IMDB. Turns out that the show I remembered watching and enjoying was a one-season spinoff of that other show. So far so good. The show I was thinking about was Open House, which not only starred a young Ellen DeGeneres (as a man-crazy secretary - not type casting!) but also starred an actor who had one appearance in the first season of Cheers. Still on IMDB, I clicked on his name, saw the episode of Cheers ("Coach's Daughter"), then clicked on that.

In the entry about the ep, someone wrote out the transcript of three different scenes (although not the one when Diane called the man "pond scum," which I remember got the biggest laugh of the show) including the climatic scene when Coach tells his daughter not to marry that man. As I was reading the scene, tears welled up in my eyes. Such is the power of a good scene (and maybe a good visceral memory of watching the show), it can make the observer cry just by reading it. I can't think of any other scene in any other show which has had the same effect on me.

I've long had a love/hate relationship with TV. In high school, I used to stay up late watching David Letterman on weeknights, and for awhile The Young Ones on Sunday night. I had a few other favorite shows, but mostly the TV set was used as a monitor for the movies I watched on our VCR. In college, my roommates had our new faves (Star Trek:TNG and The Simpsons among them), but still the set was used more for movies than network TV.

At some point as an adult, I decided I needed a TV only as a monitor for my VCR and then DVD player, so I essentially stopped watching TV (got all my news and info from NPR, thank you very much). I must be one of the few Americans who didn't see the planes hit the WTC on 9/11, nor did I see any of the devastation from Katrina in New Orleans.

Lately I've lived in a house with all the premium channels, so I'm overloaded with choices. You'd think I might like that - and I do have quite a few favorite shows - but I actually don't like that I spend all my free time (well, most of my free time) watching the television. Hence, the love/hate relationship.

Maybe next time I'll talk about those favorites...

Memories

There's a part of Buddhist (or is it Taoist?) philosophy which says something like, "Only an empty cup is a useful cup." In other words, one should always have an open mind with no preconceptions. Given that, I have the most useful mind of all. I have no preconceptions because I couldn't remember them even if I wanted to. Thanks to my faulty memory, every day is a new adventure!

I bring this up because I just got a couple of emails from an old friend. In one of them, he included a link to news about my old high school: one of the social studies teachers just died. I'd like to be able to mourn him, even for a second, but the truth is that I have no memory of him whatsoever. In my defense, I never had him as a teacher (although at least one of my sisters did). However, our school was not very big, and there were only a handful of social studies teachers there. I know for a fact that I saw him, but for the life of me I can't even remember what he looked like.

Then again, even if I'd had him for a teacher and remembered him, I doubt I'd mourn very much. Truth is, once someone leaves my life, I have a lot of difficulty holding on. This actually has less to do with remembering them as it does to just my always letting go of the past. Over the years I've theorized why this is, and the only thing I can come up with is the fact that we moved three times (four houses in three towns) before I was ten. I'm sure that's not the only reason, but that's the only thing which explains why I've moved a lot over the years (before moving to PDX 4 years ago, I hadn't stayed in the same place for more than two years dating back 17 years) and can't seem/want to stay connected with anyone I've left. I have a fondness for the memories - I've really liked a lot of people, places and experiences - but no ability or desire to keep in touch.

Getting back to the topic of death, I also wouldn't mourn the teacher because I honestly believe that death is a natural part of life, so no need/sense to mourn too much. Having said that, there have been a few people in my life whom I wept for (I nearly lost it in my hotel room, the night of my cousin's wedding, when I thought about my dead uncle and how he wasn't alive to see his son's wedding), and a few more who I will truly miss once they pass. But, I think I've cried more watching movies ("Stella Dallas" nearly killed me) or reading books (ditto "Peter Pan") than at funerals.

Speaking of funerals, is it morbid to plan the music for your own? I have a list of songs I'd like played, but I don't know who to give it to. I'd also like to have a huge party when I pass, but the way that I haven't kept in touch with people, I don't know if anyone will actually come. Maybe with an open bar...

King of Procrasti-Nation

Ever since I was young, I procrastinated. When I was in grammar/high school, I would tell myself that I did my best work under pressure. That, of course, was just my own way of justifying not doing something until the last minute. Unfortunately, I was actually good enough to do homework (or cramming) just before it was due and still get a decent grade. Also, I had friends who seemingly did the same thing, and they actually did even better (I've always had smart friends). I say "unfortunate" because this only reinforced the bad behavior. Not having learned that it's better to start something right away and take the time to properly work through it, I continued my bad habits through college. Again, I got decent grades, but I honestly didn't do as well as I could've if I had had better study habits. I am not proud of the MANY all-nighters I had to pull to finish a paper.

Another of my - let's say 'quirks' - is that, if something's tough, I tend to procrastinate even more. Talk about putting things off, it took me over a year to paint three walls of our livingroom after I finished the first one. Whatever it is, I will think every day about doing it, feel guilty about not doing it, even talk about how I'm not doing it, but still I will keep putting it off.

Why I'm writing about this now is because I actually started a blog entry on Oct 7 - a diatribe about greed (and possibly feminism) - but still haven't finished it. It got tough trying to organize all my thoughts on the subject (in general, I don't like it), so I put writing it off. And off. And off. As a result, I haven't done any blog entries since then. I was hoping that this blog would help me, but instead it is just one more thing I have to feel guilty about not doing. Ugh.

I guess another problem is that I'm not quite as outraged about the political situation as I was. Yes, there is still a TON to be angry about, but I know whom I'm voting for, and at this point he has the momentum to probably win (knock on wood).

I'd write more on the subject, if only I could finish the other blog entry...

Favorite Films

Just cuz:

The Thin Man (1934) - The first is best, but Nick & Nora are wonderful throughout.

Casablanca (1942) - The dialogue is amazing – still one of the all-time best.

To Sir, With Love (1967) - My favorite of the “inspirational teacher/troubled students” movies. Great song, too!

Harold and Maude (1971) - I love this so much, I recorded the film onto a 90-minute cassette so I could listen to it in the car or on my Walkman.

What’s Up, Doc (1972) - A modern screw-ball comedy that’s second to none. Babs was never better.

The Godfather/Part II (1972/1974) - Both films are epic – runner-up in this genre is of course Goodfellas(1990).

Jaws (1975) - Enough said, right?

Star Wars (1977) - I was 8 when this appeared, and my Dad got passes from work, so we saw it the first week it was out. To me, it’s still the best of the bunch. And for any nit-pickers, I’ll say it: Star Wars IV: A New Hope. Happy?


Grease (1978) - First movie I saw multiple times (3) in the theater. The transformation of Olivia near the end still gives me chills.

The Warriors (1979) - Similar to Flash Gordon in that it’s very cartoony, but as a fantastical view of New York in 1979, it’s spot on. And great song by Joe Walsh!

9 to 5 (1980) - Dolly’s best. Lily isn’t bad either!

Flash Gordon (1980) - Love it – and great soundtrack from Queen.

The Thing (1982) - The special effects have never been matched, even though – or maybe because – it was made before CGI.

The Big Chill (1983) - I haven’t seen it in awhile, but when I was in high school I loved this film, so I had to include it.

This is Spinal Tap (1984) - I saw this in the theater, then saw the group play an all-ages show at the Channel in Boston. I’ve seen this more times than I can count. Great soundtrack, too!

Midnight Run (1988) - So many good quotes, it makes my head spin.

Tremors (1990) - I saw this at a sneak-preview show before I even knew what it was about. I was pleasantly surprised by this homage to 50’s B-movies, not to mention the appearance of Mr. Keaton as a gun-toting, conspiracy-minded survivalist.

Almost Famous (2000) - The extended director’s cut, also known as “the Bootleg,” is best. This is the movie that made Kate Hudson a star - and deservedly so!

Erin Brockovich (2000) - I wouldn’t have thought this would make my list of favorites, but it’s one of the few movies that I totally enjoy watching every time I see it.

Hedwig and the Angry Inch (2001) - Most of the movie is just so much window dressing for the songs, but what a group of songs! Actually a movie about finding your true love. Wonderful.

Girls Will Be Girls (2003) - I watched it with a group of guys, and almost everyone in that room has since bought the dvd. Bitchy fun at its best!

The Incredibles (2004) - see comments from Erin Brockovich above

Special mention has to go to the films of Jackie Chan. I'm not talking about the American-made films like Rush Hour, Shanghai Noon, their sequels and other pablum. I'm referring to the Hong Kong films that he co-wrote, directed, choreographed and/or sang the theme song! I could do a whole blog on why I love Jackie Chan (and may do someday), but suffice to say that the action in movies like the 2 Armour of God films, the Police Story films, Drunken Master 2 and (my favorite) The Miracle (also called Mr Canton and Lady Rose) is better than almost everything else out there.

Identity Crisis

I just got the chance to see SNL's skit from Sat night about the VP debate. Again, spot-on and hilarious. HIGHLY recommended, as are the other two skits starring Tina Fey as Palin.


Recently my friend loaned me a laptop with windows xp, and on the initial screen the user avatar he chose for me was a rubber duck. Clicking on that brought me to the desktop, and the wallpaper he chose was from the film Return of the King. This got me thinking about identity - specifically, what images we choose to represent ourselves.

Perhaps you've had this same experience: you walk into one of those 'hip' stores like Spencer Gifts or Newbury Comics and you're confronted with a bunch of items - let's say bobble-head dolls. Whereas in the past all the bobble heads were sports figures, today they have a bobble head for everything. So you stand in front of the wall of bobble heads and you wonder: if I'm gonna pick just one of these things, which one most represents me? If you're like me, you can't decide and walk away empty handed. The idea of a cool, hip bobble head from an obscure 70's cartoon character is wonderful, but does Grape Ape really represent me? Atom Ant?

Now on this brave new world of computers, we can choose wallpaper, screen-savers and avatars from a literal world of images, but which one(s) actually represent who we are? I guess for a lot of people this is easy. After all, I see friends' computers with great images flashing past - or I read posts with interesting avatars - and I think that these pictures must accurately reflect the user. I also think what a one-dimensional way to reflect who they are.

For me, I just can't seem to do it. For example, let's go back to the laptop. When I looked at the user account pics that my friend could've chosen for me, I saw that none of them really reflect who I am. I love animals, but the cat and dog pics were too cutesy; and besides, my love for animals is just one aspect of my personality. The rubber duck he chose was for all intents and purposes probably the best he could've done. I actually do have a small collection of rubber 'devil' ducks, and I do enjoy the quirky. As far as the wallpaper, I do enjoy fantasy and have loved Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" series since I was a child, but again this is just one small aspect of who I am. Did my friend think this was a much greater part of me? Could he not think of any other pics that he thought I might enjoy? Am I thinking too much about this?

Ultimately, I kept the user account avatar as the rubber duck. However, I changed the wallpaper to the cover art of "The Great Lost Kinks Album," and the screen saver is now random images from various Kinks logos. Do these images accurately represent me? Not totally, but they'll do for now, at least until I take the time to gather more images. Of course, none of this matters all that much. The computer is really just for me, and the likelihood that someone else will see it and/or watch my screen-saver is fairly remote.

VP Debate

I watched last night’s vice-presidential debate as planned. Then as planned, I went out for a few Capt. Morgan’s. No alcohol hang-over today, though I’m sure this political hang-over will last at least until the next presidential debate on Tuesday.

Since I know I’m going to vote Obiden, I was obviously disappointed by last night’s debate. Why? Because Biden didn’t slam her to the floor (figuratively, of course), nor did Palin implode (again, figuratively…maybe). And unlike Palin’s network interviews, the questioner/moderator didn’t force her to answer the questions. The result was that Palin successfully avoided answering questions she didn’t know (I’m still wondering if she even heard the question about her Achilles heel – or even if she knows what that means) and instead just repeated the campaign’s talking points, which she was obviously trained to do. She seemed to be more competent than she appeared in her interviews, so ignorant people will believe she can be a good vice president. I dare say that no one’s minds were changed by last night’s debate.

One of the things that bothered me about Palin was that she repeated the party line about Obama raising taxes. McCain did the same thing: he kept insisting that Obama’s plan would raise taxes, while Obama (and Biden last night) continually said that his plan would NOT raise taxes for those earning less than $250k a year. They seem to be doing the exact same thing that Bush did: if you say it enough, it must be true. Maybe it’s a strategy to keep Obiden on the defensive, but frankly, I want leaders who don’t play deceptive games just to squeeze out a few votes. Obiden have said that their plan won’t raise taxes for the middle class; until McPalin prove otherwise, they should stop repeating their lies.

Something else I wish the candidates would do is finally define what they mean by “preparations” and “pre-conditions” when it comes to diplomacy. Last night Palin repeated McCain’s assertion that Obama would sit down with the ‘crazy’ dictators of the world with no pre-conditions. This Palin described as “dangerous.” In my mind, a ‘preparation’ is something like having your lower-level diplomats begin talks with the other country or even something like deciding where to have the talks. ‘Pre-conditions’ are saying that we won’t even talk with you until you stop X. Obama’s point is that, if you want the other country to stop X, you don’t set that as the pre-condition because then you’re eliminating the need for the talks before they even begun. Obama wants to deal with the other countries diplomatically and with preparations; this is the wisest and best course of action going forward into the future. The fact that Palin (and really, I mean her handlers) thinks this is “dangerous” just shows that she (and by extension, McCain) still has a 20th century mentality. (Not to mention, it seems foolish to make such a judgment when you don’t even know what you’re talking about. She mentioned Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad as the leaders we’ll have to deal with. At this point, Kim Jong Il hasn’t been seen in months and may be ill; Ahmadinejad is only the president of Iran and does NOT have control of his country’s security. I find it disheartening that Palin didn’t know or mention either of these things.)

Another thing that bothered me about Palin last night is she said that the constitution guaranteed the legislative power of the VP. In other words, she would want to step in and take the same role as Cheney. Hmmm. I was so glad to hear Biden contradict her, saying that the constitution does not give the VP legislative powers, and furthermore that Cheney is the scariest VP in our history. (Ok, I can't remember exactly what Biden called Cheney, but it was something like that.)

Not matter what you think of him, you have to admit that Biden's got balls!

Correction

Yesterday I said that McCain was asked about seeking advice from Palin on energy. Thanks to a caller on NPR (who made the same point that I did), the question was not about energy but foreign policy. Also, the caller said that McCain met Palin twice before choosing her, not once.

My points still stand: do we really believe that McCain sought advice "many times" from an obscure governor in Alaska on foreign policy? And what exactly did he mean by "in the past" since she's only been his running mate for less than two months? I can understand if an infant thought two months was "in the past," but not a man in his 70's. Doesn't he have a longer view than that?


Tonight is the debate between Palin and Biden. I will watch, then I will go out drinking. I'm sure I will need a few cocktails to ease the pain. If that doesn't work, I'll click over to nbc.com again and watch the Tina Fey skits: the one with Clinton, and the one where she's being interviewed by Katie Couric. Top notch work by Fey in both.

Observations

I watched the Presidential debate last week. I was asked who I thought won, and I answered honestly that I thought it was very close, although possibly Obama edged it. Why? I think the face-to-face debate is great, not only for getting the candidates' views, but also for observing which candidate seems more 'presidential.' In that respect, it was a slam dunk for Obama.

Both gave good, reasonable answers but nothing we haven't heard from them on the campaign trail. However, I couldn't stand watching McCain smirk every time Obama was giving his answers. It was like he had a private joke that no one else was in on. It was rude and definitely NOT presidential. Also, the moderator asked both candidates to talk to each other, but only Obama attempted to do this. McCain never addressed Obama directly, nor did he even look at him. Further, Obama said several times during his rebuttal, "You're right about that, but..." or something to that effect. In other words, he was answering honestly that McCain's views were in some way valid but just weren't correct with what Obama thought. As we all know from everyday social discourse, this is the best way to talk with someone. However, McCain never said anything like that; instead, he stated several times about Obama, "He just doesn't understand," as if Obama's views were completely invalid and ignorant.

When it comes to the person with the better character, I'd say this debate clearly showed that Obama is head and shoulders (not a short joke) above McCain.


McCain was interviewed on NPR this morning. When he was asked if he'd ever asked Palin for advice about energy, McCain answered, "Many times in the past." He then got off topic by talking about how he wouldn't ask Obama or Biden for advice because they had always been wrong in the past.

Breaking that down, we can only assume that that was a big fat lie. First of all, he never gave any specifics. He said "many times" but, when pressed, couldn't give any specifics. Second, McCain only met Palin once - and then only briefly - before she was chosen as his running mate in August. Did he refer to the last month and a half as "the past"? Exactly when and about what did he ask for her advice? Do we really believe that McCain - with his years of experience as a senator - would really ask this relatively-new politician for advice about energy? With all his connections in Washington DC, Arizona and the government in general, do we really believe he called Palin for advice? Yet he insisted. Again, what a liar!


An observation: when people are giving information, they begin the sentence with "so." When they are trying to convince you of something, they begin with "look." I've heard "So..." a lot lately, particularly from scientists or experts trying to explain some complex issue. I wonder if that's been part of the science lexicon for awhile or if it's a relatively-new phenomenon. (For a good drinking game, listen to "Talk of the Nation/Science Friday" and drink every time someone starts a sentence with "So". You'll have a great start to the weekend!)

As far as starting a sentence with "Look..." I think that started most recently by Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration (with an added index finger tapping the podium for emphasis) when they had to answer questions about the war. The implication seems to be that, by saying "look," you are obviously right in what you are about to say.

For example, think of the difference between "So, we thought we had evidence of WMD's" vs "Look, we thought we had evidence of WMD's." The former is obviously softer and seems like more explanation is forthcoming or possibly an admission of guilt. The latter is harder and seems like it is shutting down the conversation, or at least leading to how it's not their fault. No wonder the government likes to use "Look..." Be careful when you hear that word start a sentence. (For this drinking game, listen to a press conference and drink when they start a sentence with "look". Just make sure you don't have to get up early the next day!)