It Could Happen

During one of the coldest springs that I can remember (certainly in the last few decades), I have been reading a story about how the decline in snow cover "could push some creatures to extinction".  I hate stories like that!

Don't get me wrong here.  I'm a news junkie and I like reading news stories about as many different things as I can get my grubby little hands on.  Stories like these however, annoy me beyond my capacity to absorb new information.  My particular distaste for them is not that the stories are wrong (or right for that matter); and it has nothing to do with whether I believe that the premise is correct or incorrect (well, maybe a little bit).  My problem with any story like this is that it is in fact not the reporting of fact as news, nor is it taking a position in editorializing about facts in evidence.  It is instead pure speculation posing as something news-like that never says enough about a subject to even face the potential of being wrong.  They are so riddled with the terms 'could' and 'might' that they become almost meaningless and all but useless.

Do not be deceived by these cowardly scribbles.  While such stories often do a fair enough job of picking out particular observations of phenomena or data (often local or temporary), their use of such information leads them to do little more than attempt to weakly speculate about conclusions.  In a complete abandonment of scientific principles and simple symbolic logic, they don't bother to fix a relationship between the observations they make and any kind of conclusion.  These attempts to gain notoriety, panic the general public, or simply simply bloviate on the printed page do little more than hide behind their lack of conviction in either their observations or conclusions, and in the end make them worth less that the space that they take up. 

So for example, the cold spring that the Midwest has experienced this year 'could' lead to a cooler than expected summer, in spite of the dire predictions of Global Warming.  On the other hand, the same data on the lateness and coolness of spring 'might' lead to even warmer summers than those that the Midwest has experienced in recent years.  The waffling nature of both claims make both conjectures equally possible, and predictively useless.  You may as well claim during the Bible's 'Great Flood' story that rain falling for 40 days and nights 'might' mean that it will rain forever.  On the other hand, such unprecedented and consecutive rainfall 'could' mean that such rain will end as soon as tomorrow.  

There is no courage in either alternative, nor is there any danger in making them.  Regardless of the outcome, the person making either of these potentially dire predictions is allowed the weasel defense of the using could or might to excuse their cowardly inaccuracy, while still allowing them to claim success if their 'coin flip' of speculation proves in any way to be the case.

Far too much of what we see these days as news pass as 'could' and 'might' stories; and their collective uselessness has become a testament to how the mighty have fallen where gathering news is concerned.  And let's face it, it's not that our mainstream media outlets are afraid of being wrong.  Hell, they're wrong all the time.  Of course many of them have the luxury of burying admission of their errors (and their retractions) in sections of the newspaper or segments of their broadcast in such a way that they can go all but unnoticed.  Even with this media backstroking available however, it seldom prevents these bastions of fact and truth from running off in meaningless and idle speculation about facts not in evidence.

Looking at the far too many mealy-mouthed stories like this posing as news, one cannot help believe that this 'might' have something to do with the reduced stature of the current mainstream media outlets.  Of course it 'could' also have something to with the rather biased methods that this same media uses in its often-failed attempts to bring their version of the facts and the truth to light.  Perhaps if these news outlets returned to reporting news instead of attempting to influence events, such efforts 'might' even have a positive effect on their current lack of profitability and 'could' even lead them to a far brighter and more long-lasting future.  Then again, it 'might' be too late for a public far too sick of idle and pointless speculation to dig themselves out of the hole that they've dug themselves into.

On the other hand, many of them 'might' be reading this blog right now and manage to slow if not stop their fall before it's too late.  It 'could' happen....


 

Pop Culture Identity Theft

All the syndicated radio talk show hosts in the country are trying to convince us to buy identity theft protection.  So are our banks, our credit cards, our mortgage companies, and even some of our favorite TV shows.  I'm now ashamed to say that I have traditionally rejected these entreaties to protect myself.  I always figured that being me was not only nothing to brag about, but has in may ways been a serious detriment to my past, present, and future.  I therefore couldn't understand why anyone would attempt to steal an identity like mine, what possible good it would do them to have it, and if they did for some reason find themselves in possession of it, would probably pay me money to take it back..

After all, I was a geek long before it was popular to be one.  I not only owned a number of pocket protectors (cartridge pens leaked and ruined white school shirts), and wore them rather proudly.  I owned a 24" slide ruler in a fake leather case, and was rather proficient in its use.  I began reading sci-fi soon after learning how to read, beginning with the Tom Swift adventures, before moving on to Jules Vern and eventually graduating to the classics of Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein; along with the fantasy of Tolkien, Robert E Howard's Conan, Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars, and Fritz Leiber's Fafhd and the Gray Mouser (with a overlarge and perhaps unhealthy dose of comic books filling the spots in between).  I enjoyed school and loved learning, especially history, math, and science.  I fulfilled every requirement for the position of geek in fact except for glasses with tape on them, and this only because it took me until my twenties to wreck my vision through reading too much in darkened rooms with the book crammed within three inches of my nose.

As you might expect, this didn't make me the most popular guy in my social strata during my youth.  I was often only reluctantly picked for sports, had only a limited number of friends, and wasted far too much of that youth with the TV or a good book to bury myself in.  I watched every episode of "Twilight Zone", "Outer Limits", and "Star Trek"; and was easily caught up in every cheesy sci-fi 'B' movies.  As I grew up (I refuse to use the term 'matured' as I'm still waiting for that), this led to the obvious awkwardness in social situations.  Speaking to members of the opposite sex was proof of ineptness and a source of lingering terror (actually, it still is).  Dating was what be termed an infrequent occurrence (you know, like rain in the desert) and it's likely that I was saved considerable failure and embarrassment in this area by attending a Catholic all-boys school for most of my high school career. 

Unlike many others, I failed to grow out of my 'geekhood'.  I've owned as many computers in my life as I have cars.  In my late fifties, I'm still playing video games (when I'm not caught up in weekend of cheesy movie festivals on the ScyFy channel).  I spend much of my spare time (such as it is) researching and writing on a computer, when I'm not reading other literary efforts online and off.  As for the state of my social life, let's just say that two marriages allowed me to be a small part of the lives of two pretty good women and continue to allow me to be part of three great kids and five grand-kids.  Other than that, I have trouble even making Facebook friends and the concept of dating is one that should largely be considered an intellectual pursuit.

I'm sure many you are asking yourself why I'm admitting to so much that's at the very least embarrassing and borders on humiliating.  (The rest of you are getting ready to click on to the next blog you follow or see if there's something on TV.)  I'm enduring this personal torture however, so that you can clearly understand that my life is not one that anyone in their right mind would choose to covet.  And yet ...

Now suddenly "The Big Bang Theory", a show fulls geeks, is one of the most popular situation-comedies on TV (and here I thought that laughing at geeks was restricted to schools).  Sci-fi movies like "Oblivion" are the rage, and the latest incarnation of Star Trek is getting ready to release its much-anticipate sequel "Into Darkness".  Science fiction has its own channel on cable these days with the 'ScyFy' channel (though I'm still trying to figure out where wresting fits into it).  Fantasy has likewise taken its rightful place with the beginning of a successful portrayal of "The Hobbit" coming after the hugely successful "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.  And need we even have to mention the unparalleled successes of Marvel and DC's characters whose movies have just come out ("Iron Man 3") or are much anticipated (Superman's "Man of Steel").  But it's not just the mainstream media.

Facebook is full this weekend of "May the Fourth Be With You" images from "Star Wars" (as well as "Revenge of the Fifth" or Sixth if they want to leave Cinco de Mayo in), and the Toledo Mudhens (wow, there's a geek name if ever there was one) are wearing 'Chewbacca' jerseys for their game today.  Disney has recently purchased the entire 'Star Wars' franchise from George Lucas with a promised release of new movies, video games, and collectable crap coming out every year.  People are even out there buying the 'red-shirts' from 'Star Trek', in tribute to their rather twisted meaning (these were usually the security guys who never had first and last names and seldom lasted half way through an entire episode).  Something has turned the world upside down and inside-out, and it's become popular to be a geek whether you actually are or not.

I'm sorry people but this just isn't fair.  I've had to spend in excess of a half a century attempting to deal with, if not hide my geekhood as best I can from the rest of society.  To no one's shock, those attempts have been largely unsuccessful.  That being said, I'm finding it far too painful, time-consuming, and largely unsuccessful for me to now calmly surrender this once pariah status identity to the whims of popular culture.  Do you have any idea what's going to happen to the cost of replacement copies for my worn out John Carter books?  Do you comprehend what kind of inflation is happening to the 'Star Trek' Enterprise collectibles market?  Don't you realize that I'm now going to have to buy a Chewbacca Cubs jersey when I'm sure it will come out next year?  Enough already!

You captains of the football team and ex-cheerleaders need to keep your grubby hands off of the geek identity that's been my private burden for so many years!  Isn't it enough that you were able to establish superior social status in my youth without now attempting to rip the only thing left to me in a lost-in-book, front-of-the-class, pocket protector distinctiveness.  Having murdered me in the past by pointedly remarking on my awkwardness and terminal shyness among my fellows, must you likewise now rob me of my ability to commit social suicide every time I now attempt some form of reinstatement to your existing social order?  Having submitted to your whims in paisley, tie-die, and bell bottoms in my youth; must I also now surrender my technological hideaways and fantasy and sci-fi sanctuaries.

Dammit, that's it!  I'm calling Lifelock tomorrow.  I don't know if they can actually protect from all this rampant Pop Culture Identity Theft, but it's at least worth a try.  Now where did I leave that slide ruler case?

Isn't It Funny Too (II)

It seems that even more "Isn't Funny ..." ideas occurred to me after the first such posting was put up.  I even got a few suggestions from friends such as Brad Reynolds that needed to have a place somewhere in a listing.  Like the previous list, these little bits of life's ironies are not in fact, the periodic WTH (pardon my capitals) moments that suddenly occur to us, but more in line with the overall ludicrous nature of what we laughingly call civilization in general, and our legal and political systems in particular.  Because these are additional offerings in a second posting, I couldn't decide how to phrase this one.  I therefore chose to both applicable word usages in yet another bit of irony. (Though I suppose that 'Isn't It Also Funny would be a more proper grammatical form.  Get over it.)

• Isn't funny that one of the centers of liberalism in this country (Hollywood) makes much of its money from movies depicting things that Liberals absolutely abhor and the rest from traditional Conservative values? 
• Isn't it also funny that the government pays people to produce more of things that it says are bad (tobacco and oil), then makes other people pay them in turn (cigarette and gas taxes) for using what are supposed to be the bad products produced under such government encouragement?  
• Isn't it funny that the only thing more annoying that a politician giving another fairly well-written, but seemingly endless set of teleprompter prepared remarks are the hours of even more boring analysis, historical perspective, and critical parsing of those remarks by 'inside the beltway' pundits?
• Isn't it funny that some of the worst acting on television comes from those working in reality TV shows that are attempting to portray ... themselves? 
• Isn't funny, speaking of reality shows, that many of them are people who are rich or attempting to become so, at a time when those of wealth are considered little more than an object of scorn? 
• Isn't it funny that the more channels that you have on your cable system, the less likely that you will be able to find something you want to watch on TV?
• Isn't it funny that after queuing up hundreds of movies on Netflix that you want to make sure to watch at one point, that you can go down the entire list later, unconvinced that you want to give any of them the 90 minutes required?  
• Isn't it funny that some of the same states that have very strict laws against driving while under the influence also have drive-thru liquor stores?
• Isn't it funny that wineries take great pains to provide stopper systems to keep air out of wine, but recommend that you let a recently opened bottle 'breathe' before serving it?
• Isn't it funny the longer these lists get, the less amusing any of this becomes?     

Yeah, I'm still not laughing either... 

Such A Sentimental Scmuck

(I know that the weekend rant is a bit late this weekend, but some of this is harder to write that others.)

For those of you hormonally imbalanced from eating leftover Halloween candy or too charged with adrenaline from the election results to notice, it has officially become the Holiday season.  While many may complain that Thanksgiving gets a rather short shrift in this process, I don't find the couple of weeks accorded to a turkey and the Pilgrims a big problem on our way to the fat guy with a white beard taking center state (and no, the personal resemblance has nothing to do with this attitude .... at least as far as you know).

In fact, I choose to lump this multiple holiday period together into one big "happy happy time" of over-the-top emotions that must be fought with all of the strength that a over weight, gray-haired, stogie-smoking Curmudgeon possesses.  After all, the kids are grown and moved away (and the fact that I did as much or more of the moving is besides the point), the grand kids went where the kids did (which for some reason they tend to do), and there is no significant other currently in my life.  (This last of course, is a subject on which a posting of its own could be written, but that would in fact be another post and not this one.)  So as the holiday season comes into full bloom, it's my hand on the TV remote, with none to complain or compete when it comes to channel selection.  As the title of this post suggests, this mastery of my digital world inevitably lead down a path of sentimental pap.

Because in spite of what I at least would consider my nature, I have found myself increasingly and surprisingly dialed in on offerings from the Hallmark Channel.  Unlike many other networks who have long abandoned the callings of their network names in favor of low-budget, no-plot reality shows, the Hallmark Channel has remained true to delivering a product in keeping with their line of cards (you know, sentimental crap for all occasions).  We are not talking about Cecil B DeMille cinematic efforts of legendary proportion here, but the made-for-TV movies that these are the offspring of.  What we see are TV sitcom stars whose careers apparently disappeared when their shows departed returning for efforts in the way they used to for "Love Boat" episodes.  All of which are obviously being filmed in Canada with the same cast of supporting players as every other Hallmark movie (and a lot of the non-network dramas) because it's cheaper to film in Vancouver, BC than in NYC in spite of the fact that the exchange rate has gone the other way.  The generate a suprising number of offerings with a small book of cookie cutter plots that though formulaic, have not completely lost their appeal.

There are no car crashes except tragic ones that lead to lost loved ones, and no car chases except those to reach an airport or train station before a newly-found or rediscovered loved one departs.  There is little violence and less nudity, though the actors are certainly still attractive enough to pull it off.  There's always a hint of comedy and a dose of drama on which these tales are based; with the supposed cliffhanger ending being one in which everyone in the the fictional community (and the audience) knows that the star-crossed lovers are going to reunite before they do.  In other words it's schmaltz, pure and simple.

And yet it serves its purpose in this crazy world of ours today.  This is the entertainment the way most of us my age remember it.  It's where family is everything and the good guys always wins.  It's where the right guy gets the girl, and where love and the holiday spirit always triumph.  Now most of us today are going into a period where we may not be able to be with our families that way that we'd like, where holidays are often a time of greater stress, and where being alone is simply something that must be borne.  Aren't these times where such diversions are the true meaning of entertainment?  While the knowledge is ever-present that the world can be a bad place and is certainly not as simple as stories we love to watch, isn't their very presence something that helps to give us a little hope and the strength to go on?  Isn't an underlying belief in their positive nature something that we hope lies at the heart of every one of us?  For even if the world cannot be the these movies portray, isn't it still necessary for us to believe so?

And so as the Holiday Season begins, you will have to forgive me my occasional retreat into "Good Witch" marathons and the all-day Christmas specials already playing in this Norman Rockwell cable TV world.  It's hard enough to face today's all-too-harsh realities without allowing one's self to be occasionally diverted by such optimistic fiction.  It may be true that underneath this cranky old, stogie smoking Curmudgeon is in fact another one that's even worse; but apparently somewhere deep underneath all of that lies little more that another Sentimental Schmuck.     

Fixing Four Year Events

The closing ceremonies of the 30th Olympics of the modern era is getting ready to draw to a close.  (I suppose to be more correct, I should be saying the XXX Olympiad; but someone is going to have to explain to me why it's more correct to use Roman numerals to describe a sporting event born of Greek traditions some day.)  Somehow I missed the opening ceremonies (I was probably watching a reality show about Pawn Shops buying the contents of storage units in a swamp full of alligators or something important like that.), and with just a bit of planning and luck, it seems likely that I will miss the closing ceremonies tomorrow.

Now having missed these gala outdoor Broadway shows, some might want to believe that I've more than made it up to NBC and its sister stations by immersing myself in the drama of Olympic competition with its 'thrill of victory and agony of defeat'.  (No wait, that's ABC.)  Wrong!  Like "Friends", "Seinfeld", "Everybody Loves Raymond", and "American Idol" before it; I have somehow managed to avoid more than the amount of viewing time contained in channel surfing past.

This is not to decry the achievements of athletes who have dedicated their entire existence to an attempt to stand at the top of the podium in these quadrennial events.  Nor is it a twisted form of protest by a twisted old man engendered by a growing jealousy over his inability to run from the couch to the kitchen, and whose next break of the tape is likely to occur while wrapping Christmas packages.  (OK, maybe a little bit is that.)  My gripe is with the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and NBC (the National Bullshit, sorry, Broadcast Company).

The IOC is after all to sports what the UN is to politics, a self-serving and bloated organization full of graft, bribery, and fiscal irresponsibility.  (Wow, it actually sounds a lot like a government.)  Both organizations are full of petty dictators who seem to meet endlessly, and mostly in secret; with little more decided than to do a more in-depth study and agree to meet again.  Neither the IOC nor the UN gathers any level of world respect, and both manage to go through unimaginably vast amounts of money without achieving anything meaningful in the way of results.  Merging the two together would not only manage to get a far greater number of the villains and thieves in one place, but perhaps by doing so we could move their headquarters to a more suitable location. (I'm voting for any small to medium-sized city in a country whose name ends with 'stan'.)

As for NBC, they lost my respect as a source of information or entertainment even before Johnny Carson blew them a kiss goodbye.  The best that I can say about them is that by using the letters NBC in the many of their network names, they at least warn you of what you can channel surf through without worrying.  They're normal news coverage is shoddy at best, but they fail to rise even to that level of mediocrity when placed up front and center on the world stage, as the Olympics does.  Bob Costas is a nice enough guy, but even he can't make up for failing to cover events that are only noticed, or which shine brightest in these four year venues.  Instead they in insist on filling the limited prime time hours available to 'looks back' at things most have long since lost interest in.  ABC did a better job in the old days, in spite of only having the one-channel flagship network to work with.   

Actually though, my real beef this year has been with the refusal to add political campaigning to the list of Olympic sports.  After all, major elections (in this country at least) are held in Olympic years.  I see no reason why other democratic nations can't bring their political competitions in line with sporting ones.  Not only would this increase world interest in the rivalries, and thereby TV audience and revenue; but it would also increase what's gained by those at the podium's peak.  Not only would they hang a gold medal (not so much gold in them these days) around your neck, but place a gold crown (at least temporarily) on your head. 

And think of the events that could be added!  Presidential campaigns (and many of their lower counterparts) have already become a full-contact sport.  Maybe we could allow teams of their spin-masters to actually take the field and go at it head-to-head.  (It might not be interesting television, but think of the lives that could be saved if they injured each other in such events.)   Debates could be changed to simple 'Rhetoric Singles' matches and VP's could participate in singles competition as well.  Political tickets could similarly debate in 'Mixed Doubles' competition.  

Candidates could receive further approbation and medals for the Olympic version of Political Tap-Dancing (with and without music).  Party spokesman (sorry it's still easier to write than spokespersons) could compete in 'Olympic backpedaling', an event where they walk back or properly interpret the misstatements of their candidates.  Campaign media too could be added to the venue, with Oscar or Emmy like events: 'Best campaign ad with not a shred of fact', 'Best editing in a political ad using their own words to misrepresent the opposition', or 'Catchiest, but most meaningless slogan' come to mind.  Perhaps such incorporation would allow politics to once and for all write down the rules under which such competitions will be held (and not in crayon this time). 

While we're at it, why not borrow (unapologetically steal) from those oh so popular TV talent competitions by using celebrity judges and allowing the audience to vote for winners and losers by an 800 number.  We've complained for years that we were sick of medals being robbed from worthy competitors because the French or East German judges were in the tank.  Maybe we could get Sean Hannity and James Carville to sit at the scoring table from the political right and left respectively, pair them up with Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore (neither of whom will let anyone else get a word in edgewise), and toss in a bit of Chris Matthews to let us know who gives him a leg tingle.  And to balance off the ongoing and spirited competition (mostly for the spotlight, air time, and attention by the judges themselves), we could allow Mr, MS, and Mrs World to vote for winners and losers.  It may not mean much to a lot of the rest of the world, who take their RIGHT and OBLIGATION to vote far more seriously than Americans; but it seems highly likely to at least increase the numbers of those going to the polls in this country. 

Many have been complaining for years that it's long past time to do something about what's gone wrong with the Olympics.  Many have also said for years that politics is passed due for change and improvement.  Combining the two might not exactly meet the goals of those complaining the most or the loudest, but it would likely make either temporarily a bit more entertaining while we come up with better ideas for both.
       
    

Media Intervention

Now that the dust has settled, perhaps we can all look back more objectively at the furor over Brian Wilson's comments on WSPD about education in this country. 

We all watched Tom Troy and The Blade's painfully obvious efforts to paint the man and the radio station into a corner in order to get either his resignation or firing. We watched as well as the subsequent vindication unfolded based on the work done by the Toledo Free Press to reveal the facts of the case and the failed machinations of the daily paper. We even watched as Mr Troy wrote a response to the TFP coverage, published on January 19th, which did little to vindicate him or settle his part of the controversy.

Now anyone who has listened to Brian Wilson over time or read the Blade know that there is no love lost between the two (nor between Mr Wilson and Mr Troy). As someone who was involved intimately with the daily newspaper business for over thirty years, who is acquainted on a personal level with Brian Wilson and WSPD, and who listened to the entire show in question; I found the entire situation both fascinating and sad.

How could a newspaper that condemned out-of-context soundbites and a rush to judgment in the case of Shirley Sherrod find itself at the heart (if not behind) this case? How much further will management (and ownership) permit the continued blurring of the lines between objective reporting and editorializing? How many more setbacks can daily newspapers in Toledo and elsewhere across the country suffer to their credibility and survive as a reputable source for news?

For there is a relationship between talk radio and newspapers. Personalities like Brian Wilson are dependent to some extent upon daily newspapers for a part of the basic basic research required for them to do their job. Show preparation to fill three hours a day is an arduous task, and commenting on the events of the day usually requires that someone first report on them. Whether the source is a column by a well-known writer, an internet news website link, or something from a newspaper website itself; the ultimate source material for much of the news today remains the research and reporting of daily newspapers.

Now it's obvious to anyone paying even occasional attention to the goings on in the newspaper industry today, that such organizations continue to suffer from declining circulation and revenue, reduced reporting staffs, and desperate and often inconsistent business plans to cope with their current downward business trends. This decline should be no cause for celebration for their detractors however, as a co-dependency between newspapers and other forms of media exist whether they like it or not.

When was the last time that you watched a TV news broadcast that did not reference at least one newspaper story? When was the last time that you listened to a radio show (nationally syndicated or local) that did not do the same? When was the last time that you watched cable news pundits get through an hour without talking about something a newspaper said? Without newspapers as source material, these now more timely an relevant media sources would be hard pressed to fill their programs.

OK, that establishes a dependent relationship, but not co-dependency.

One need only look at the recent elimination and consolidation of newspaper titles and production sites, the switch in some cases to online-only products, and the downsizing of product and reporting staffs at these former print properties to understand that they are facing doom as a means of communicating the news. 

The constant reference by other media forms of material in daily newspapers may be the best advertising that they could receive, and may allow them to retain the relevance in the marketplace of ideas that they still deserve. Without being used and referenced for the source material that they provide however, I fear that their decline would be even more dramatic and precipitous.

Daily newspapers may not like it, but will eventually have to understand that much like the free standing insert advertisements that they once looked down upon, these other media are now an integral part of the effort required to promote their continued existence. Other forms of media like radio and TV likewise need to understand that without the labor on source material done by daily newspapers to repeat and comment on, their jobs would be much more difficult than they already are.

While anything but a believer in the philosophy of "can't we all just get along", I cannot help but think that perhaps some form of Media Intervention is in order to tell both that while they aren't required to like each other (and in fact it's a lot more interesting when they don't), they do in fact have to recognize that they need each other; if for no other reason than to know who to demonize.

Media Misandry

Many of you are undoubtedly looking at the title of this posting and saying to yourself: "Huh?" I can't say that I blame you, as I had to look up the term myself. But it is in fact a term with which we should all become more familiar, since it appears to be a growing sentiment in this country. 


Now for those who will not take the time to look up the term, Misandry is defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary as: "a hatred of men". I find this to be a growing message in this country, willingly perpetrated on the public by the popular media. TV sitcoms on all of the major networks (and many of the cable networks as well) have shows in which apparently all of male characters are portrayed in a less than favorable light. 


If this were not enough however, additional abuse is heaped upon my gender during the commercial breaks. Women buy smaller, environmentally friendly cars, while guys buy trucks. Women save money buying groceries that men spend on foolish toys. Women, hoping for a modicum of thrift and common sense from their spouses, send them shopping for home appliances; only to have these men, who are seeking only the quickest way out the situation, allow the store to do the searching while actually spending their time vainly attempting to fool their spouses (and playing ping-pong). 


Nor is even radio a safe haven from these demeaning examples of male bashing, as advertising spots depict the advantages of women having the time to blog about their "jerk ex-boyfriend". Positive messages about members of the male gender seem limited to straight men who show up with jewelry or new cars for their female paramours or gay men who seem to have the ability to understand how horrible straight men are. (Please don't write me about gay bashing, as this is anything but my intent or point.) 


This consistently poor representation of men disturbs me in ways that I have difficulty describing (not that this has or will keep me from trying). Not only do I find all of this grossly insulting to myself and other members of my gender, but I wonder at the example that it provides. 


Too much of television today is geared towards and watched by impressionable young males. Far too many of those young people we are told, are looking for positive role models in sports in the media. What then are they given as a guide in the media? It appears to be an endless series of images in programs and commercials of a group of moronic, juvenile, and mostly disgusting, beer-swilling misogynists (the opposite of misandry but you probably figured that out), who are completely incapable of self-sufficiency. 


This is something that I think all can agree might be something better left off of the role model educational curriculum. Now this should surprise us, since we are told that corporate America is in fact one of the last bastions of male domination. If we are to believe that this is truly the case though, how could these negative images be the media message of the gender in charge? Could it be that men are filled with such self-loathing that they allow these images as some demented form of penance? Could it be that some of these images are correct and that while men think that they are in charge, they are secretly being manipulated by women into doing things against their own best interest? Could it be that not only do men fit a profile that may not place them much above the other apes, but are so blind to their own shortcomings that they either don't realize the message being sent or mistakenly and wholeheartedly endorse these images as an accurate projection?


Don't get me wrong, many of us may well fit the profile being handed out (Nah ...); but pointing it out doesn't help, reminding us of it shatters our all too fragile male self-esteem, and bombarding the airwaves with such images can only contribute to the continuation of what (according to these images) must already be an appalling situation. So if any of you media or advertising moguls out there are reading this (yeah, like that's happening), would you mind giving us a break from this Media Misandry.

Fear Factor

Though I have never actually watched this show, I believe that I at least understand its premise. It didn't take much thought however, to realize that this show had missed it's calling in providing truly chilling experiences for its contestants. I don't know if it's still on, if it is on hiatus due to the writer's strike (though how would you write a reality show anyway), or if the producers are merely sitting back waiting for just such ideas as I am about to present before going back into taping. I offer these thoughts up however, knowing that most of them would either be considered too cruel to actually use, or would eliminate all of the players in the first round, ruining the episode.

- Being forced to watch political debates for 24 straight hours.

- Being forced to watch political commercials for 24 straight hours.

- Being forced to watch Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, and Will Farrell movies non-stop for an entire weekend. (I am adding Will to my "Hall of Shame" of deplorable comic movie actors. I can't think of anyone who's career deserves it more.)
- Repeated Viewings of Michael Moore's "Sicko", followed immediately by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". (I can't decide if this or the previous movie festival is worse, but believe that both will eventually be outlawed by the Geneva Convention.)
- Waiting in a doctor's waiting room for 24 hours with nothing but health guides and out of date magazines to alleviate the boredom.

- Submitting to back-to-back physical examinations until the contestant's spirit breaks.



- Forcing contestants to stand in horribly long lines at the BMV.

- Participation in any course taught by the IRS.

- Being forced to fill out tax forms for 24 hours straight.

- Being forced to watch Reality shows in all of their forms while still particpating in them.


Those of you out there who watch these shows will have to let me know if they steal any of my ideas, as I have no intention of changing my practice of ignoring these shows. I will be happy to cut you in on any settlement recieved from the unlicensed use of my ideas.