TFP Column: Post "Network" Politics

(Contrary to all logic and reason, I have decided to put new material up on this blog, but only in the form of the columns that I have done for the Toledo Free Press.  This is done for the benefit of those with time to waste, who likewise do not spend their time reading the website of this award winning weekly newspaper, and I will go back and add efforts that were published earlier this year.)

This particular effort was published on 03/20/2014.

In 1976, Peter Finch spoke to a generation as newscaster Howard Beale by telling us: “So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out and yell, I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!”

Not many recall “Network” screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky’s cynical prescience regarding the degradation of television network news (cable news networks didn’t yet exist), or director Sidney Lumet’s portrayal of the general apathy and eager gullibility of the American viewing public. Few indeed remember anything of this film other than its iconic tagline.

The only thing that’s changed in the intervening years is the addition of cable channels dedicated, in theory, entirely to news yet with programs that have become in many ways far worse than Chayefsky anticipated, and perhaps more outrageous than Lumet was willing (or heroic enough) to portray.

We may not yet have astrology segments, but multiple (and mostly inaccurate) weather segments seem to serve well enough as a substitute. Revolutionary groups may not be on the air yet, but the proliferation of journalistic zealotry makes one often feel it is.

Not anticipated in 1976, however, was the proliferation of non-news stories (and reality shows) from Hollywood regarding those leading lives of unthinkable luxury and unthinking ignorance. While flouting moral precedent, society’s rules and the nation’s laws (with the permission of lenient courts), many find time (between rehab sessions) to support international tyranny under romantic notions of revolution.

Talk radio, for all its supposed sins, at least attempts to devote an entire 30-minute segment (including commercials, news and traffic) to a subject as important as whether we should get into or out of a war, or whether the laws and regulations pouring out of the pens of pampered politicians make a difference.

With television, we’ve come to accept a schizophrenic form of news. Most days, it’s force-fed to us in two- to four-minute segments (bipartisan commentary included). Eastern European politics or the science of hydraulic fracturing, we’re apparently only capable of digesting important national or world events in a Reader’s Digest condensed format, with segments only slightly longer (and often less intelligently written) than the commercials that separate them.

Occasionally however, the networks depart from their information shorthand to provide their viewers with nauseatingly repetitious offerings on what they don’t know on a story, supplemented by experts and pundits providing commentary so “inside baseball” that few if any can understand it.

As for their coverage of national politics, networks prefer an inflammatory sound bite to their job of covering the four W’s of the story (who, what, where and when). If they do get around to them, one can be certain of an Obi-Wan Kenobi interpretation of such facts “from a certain point of view.” And as for the fifth W (why), once more a panel of experts returns (fellow journalists and unemployed political minions) who can ignore questions in a bipartisan fashion, regurgitate party talking points ad nauseam and still find time to promote their current book.

Much of that unresolved “Network” anger still exists in this country, but remains largely unfocused. We’re angry with government for not doing the job it’s expected to do while doing far too many things it’s not needed for. We’re angry with politicians and political parties who’ve spent far too much time feathering their own nests instead of the nation’s work and have done so with our feathers. 

We’re angry with each other for the selective inattention we exhibit to the pain and suffering going on around us. Often however, we’re the most angry with a mainstream media that continues to assert special privilege as “The Fourth Estate,” ignoring their responsibilities and failing as badly as the American equivalents of the first three.

The right of a free press was included in the First Amendment for a reason by the founders, who understood that the republic would never survive without it. I wish Howard were still around, and this time “mad as hell” at those he worked with.

This Is An Official Statement

"Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah ...."

That, of course, is what they all seem to sound like these days (remarkably like the adults in a 'Charlie Brown' cartoon, if I do say so).  A representative of the city is standing in behind a podium and in front of a bunch of microphones to tell us that there's a problem, and that the water and sewer system is going to hell.  Oh sure, he knows as well as you do that part of what we've been paying for years was to take care of the upkeep of the system (which evidently no one really bothered to do, in spite of the fact that they told us they were).  That's not important now though.  What's important is that without money, a lot of money, the problem can never be solved. 

No wait, it's a representative of the state telling us that in spite of the fact that we're spending more money per child than we ever have in the nation's history on education, we need to spend much more money for it.  This isn't more money to keep and reward the best teachers, to test more innovative teaching methods, or for technology that might make the process better for teachers and students alike; but only to perpetuate the existing failed practices.  Previous dramatic increases in spending have done nothing to produce students more ready for higher education, increase measurable test results, or even increase general literacy in this country.  Such prior failure however, has nothing to do with the potential of success (no matter how remote it is); but more money it is.  

No, it's a representative of our federal government telling us that in spite of the increasing amount of money that we're spending on the war on poverty, that we're losing the battle.  Not only are we losing however, but according to the government, our investment has led to a situation where things are worse than when we started, and in fact worse than ever before.  In fact, perhaps one of the few successful bits of strategy is that some of the money we're spending has been to recruit new victims to the struggle or to relax the rules so that more than would have in the past will now qualify.  We've been fighting this war for over 50 years now, but instead of it being one that America has long since become tired of funding at previous or existing levels, it's one that our leaders tell us can only be held at a draw (no one even talks about winning it anymore) through ever increasing staffing and budgets.  You've guessed it ... more money from us it is.

Fortunately for you this isn't an official statement, which means that it isn't filled with what one of those once in power in the Glass City used to call "half-truths, mistruths, and outright lies".  That means that you're free to actually pay at least some limited attention to it (well, as much as you normally do with JBS at any rate) without fearing that it's going to cost you any money.  Cause if you're being even minimally honest with yourself, that's what you normally do.  You're tired of hearing the same old crap from the same cast of characters; and knowing that each time they open the pie hole in one of their two faces, someone's going to be reaching into your pocket. 

Like many of you in this economy, I've been forced to recognize that at times I've been a bit wasteful and profligate in my spending.  I always figured that this was money, earned from the sweat of my labors, and I could therefore do whatever I wanted with it.  I never counted on being able to borrow money from friends and relatives in order to fulfill my financial obligations; and in spite of my setbacks, think I can say that what I owe to both is simply my thanks for being supportive when I needed them to (and putting up with me in the first place of course).  And in the process of my minor trials and tribulations, I like to think that I've learned from my mistakes. 

Government at any level however, seems incapable of this last part, and therefore unable to do the same.  There are those at least in government, honest to admit that many of the same programs designed to take care of a problem, though designed and initiated with the best of intents, are full of waste and fraud.  Whether we're talking about the quality of drinking water or that of education, they can point to glaring errors (usually far enough in the past to show that they weren't responsible); and assure you that now that such situations have come to their attention are being seriously looked at.  They can likewise point to serious breaches in the rules and enforcement as part of the bad old days that will go away if new and additional funding is approved.  When was the last time that you heard any of them making a subsequent official statement regarding the progress that's been made, the rules that have been changed to close or even address issues, or the enforcement cases that are being prosecuted against those who have done little more than steal both our trust and our money.

Unfortunately we hear nothing of the kind.  Journalism (especially investigative journalism) has all but disappeared from the airwaves.  Neither the television nor the radio networks (nor the daily newspapers for that matter) can afford the news staffs required to attempt to do what they once considered their moral responsibility.  Instead more often than not, their programs and pages are filled little more than the official statements handed to them by the very corporations and governments that they once attempted to protect us from.  Most of those dedicated to editorializing on paper and television talking heads that are their broadcast counterparts have become willing sycophants to the official blather of the ruling elite in order to keep their 'inside access' to those in power.  This unfortunately, has become a gift that's little more than a parasitic arrangement used by both for feeding off the public.  It doesn't take someone with their tin foil hats slightly askew to believe that the parasites like it this way, since when you've tuned them out, they can do damned near anything they like to you.  After all, they've more than adequately informed you about it by issuing an official statement.

So before ending this I'd like to issue an official statement of my own:

"We regret that Just Blowing Smoke has done so few posts in the last couple of weeks.  Technical issues, in conjunction with a mild case of creative blockage and a healthy dose of pure laziness might normally have been considered the root of the problem.  In reality however, the sole responsibility for this has been a lack of government funding.

Since no government in their right mind is likely to change this situation, we at JBS will have to do our best to pull ourselves up by our collective bootstraps and return to doing a better job."

We apologize for the inconvenience, and now return you to reruns of Honey Boo Boo ...    

Capitalism Run Amok

I've been having a little trouble sleeping nights lately (and no, it's not the result of a guilty conscience ... unfortunately).  While much of the TV on late at night makes pretty bad look pretty good if you don't have cable, some of the 'Commercials for Insomniacs' are actually quite amusing.  I am learning more a about American popular culture from these examples of Capitalism than I do from watching the news.

Did you know that that there are elastic waistbands that women can buy to get the layered look without the layers?  While no one has explained to me why women want to look layered without being layered, I was able to grasp that one of the reasons for the purchase of this extra 12" waist band was so that when a woman bent over she didn't expose her waist, or worse yet, the exterior of her posterior.  While I can certainly see the desirability of limiting the display of 'Plumber's Syndrome", I was nevertheless struck that the same could be accomplished (without spending the $20, plus shipping and handling) by not purchasing shirts cut so high and tight they rode up and pants so low-cut and tight that they rode down.  (This is undoubtedly why I am neither an expert on fashion, nor a rich inventor/entrepreneur.)

Did you likewise know that you can buy devices that make slicing, dicing,and chopping far easier than it would be with an ordinary knife?  (Of course you did, since such devices, in one form or another, have been around for years.)  I can't really poke too much fun at this one, as I found myself purchasing one of these technological wonders many years ago in order to be able to fragment vegetables more efficiently ... and create Julienne fries 'in a snap'.  (The fact that I had never heard of Julienne fries before buying this device, and therefore didn't even know if I wanted them, seemed inconsequential at the time.)  While I must admit that the device did in fact slice potatoes, carrots,and onions admirably, and far faster than I could do in manually with a knife (even one of those fancy new knives that slice empty cans of refried beans before creating wafer thin tomato slices), I was still somewhat dubious of the process.  Of course after you added in time required for assembly, tear down, and cleaning; neither method actually proved faster than the other.  

Over succeeding years, I found that by the time I dragged the damn thing out, figured out how to reassemble it, found the proper cutting blades, and finally began to cut, I had lost interest in the vegetables requiring dis-assembly (and sometimes the will to live); so I parted with it through donation to a charitable organization (tax-deductible recycling).  I still have one of those 'slap choppers' collecting dust in the back of a cabinet, but seldom use it.  It likewise did nothing to truly expedite the vegetable dissection process and the memories of the sore hand that I got using it further remind me of why it too should be recycled.

But these forays into personal consumerism and rampant capitalism are educational as well.  I have recently learned that the only way that I'm going to get eight golf balls or a bowling ball out of my carpeting is to buy a $500 vacuum cleaner.  This model of modern carpet cleanliness is capable of maneuvering around furniture that I don't own, getting under tables that I don't posses, and is capable of vacuuming around corners by turning on a dime.  Of course, I like to vacuum in straight lines so I get those 'clean lines' in the finished carpet, and if the power it contains is half of what it brags about, I suspect that it would suck the dime up long before turning on it. I'm also told that it's very easy to carry up and down stairs, but since I live in a one-bedroom apartment, this ability seems of little practical benefit.

Then again, if the vacuum cleaner didn't make me a big enough sucker (and I suspect it would), I could always add to the volume of air movement in my residence by buying one of those massive air cleaners.  According to the nice lady on the infomercial, they exchange the air in a room at least three times an hour (though no one ever seems to explain what they're exchanging it with).  In fact, these devices confuse me.  While I'm trying to live a bit 'greener', dedicating myself in small ways to cleaner air, I can't help but wonder if such a unit wouldn't exchange the air before I had done my efficient best to use it.  Additionally, I'm not sure of the trade off between the pollution generated in order to power the unit with electricity vs the promise of cleaning the air with it is a fair exchange.  I fear I will not be able to reach a logical conclusion to this dilemma until presented with properly documented fact one way or the other.

As for women's undergarments, let me only say that I had no idea that so much scientific development was going into them; or that women could talk about them for hours on end in spite of the fact that they used to be called 'unmentionables'.  It seems that women are willing to buy articles of clothing that manipulate their bodies in ways that would surely get the average man arrested, even if he was married to the one in question.  The parts that aren't being pushed up are being pushed in.  Whatever real or imagined body parts or body faults that a woman has, according the show's hosts, should be quickly surrounded by elasticized material, manipulated, and re-displayed through methods that have already been outlawed as torture by the United Nations.  

And while corsets seem to have for the most part been done away with (except decoratively of course), most of the functionality of women's undergarments seems to have been taken over by the scientists that created the Ace Bandage, and with much the same material.  Perhaps most intriguing in this meat manipulation process (sorry ladies, but that's what it is) is that it's done in a mostly misguided attempt to gain the ability to wear styles of clothing that no one, let alone supposedly mature women, should wear.  While I have always been fascinated with women, like the making of sausages and laws; I suspect that this is a process probably better not viewed too closely, too often, and certainly not on television late at night.

(I am coming to believe that like many other areas of scientific study, women's underwear falls into two schools of thought.  The 'Victoria's Secret'  school of undergarment design holds that "less is more", and charges more for the less that they provide.  The 'Ace Bandage' school on the other hand, believes that "covering more showing less" is the answer, and charges far less than the Victoria's school for the more making it appear that there is in fact less being covered.  It's not a perfect theory, but it's a working one that works for me.)

I may be an unreconstructed capitalist, but some of this scares even me.  The fact that there are multiple channels dedicated to consumerism on such a scale is bad.  The fact that in these tough economic times, there appears to be a great many people with a day pass on the crazy train with 'disposable' income to buy this carnival crap is worse, and may in fact prove that Capitalism has finally run off the rails.  I'm not sure whether to give the process a standing ovation, or pull the covers over my head so I don't have to watch any more.

But if you'll excuse me now, I need to get back to the the show I was watching.  The electronics hour starts in 15 minutes and I have my eye on a deal on a 73" HD, 3D, surround sound TV that if I pull the trigger on it, they probably won't be able to get through my front door anyway.

Dancing With An American Idol On The Jersey Shore

It's always a relief to see an election cycle end, not because of who wins or loses the races; but because we don't have to watch and listen to the "half-truths, mis-truths, and outright lies" of political candidate ads any longer. Of course, then I remember about what's left on television, and my relief is short-lived. Actually, I found a number of curious comparisons here when looking at politics and popular culture:

• Many of those eligible to vote know who is on 'American Idol', 'Dancing with the Stars', 'Jersey Shore', and the flood of 'wives' programs from New Jersey, the South, and Orange County. Far fewer knew the cast of characters on their local ballots.
• Many Americans know the names and life stories of the judges on Idol and 'America's Got Talent', but far fewer can come up with even the names of an equal number of Supreme Court Justices.
• Far too many people believe that the level of civil political discourse in this country is defined by 'The View', 'The O'Reilly Factor', and 'The Sean Hannity Show'. They believe that shouting down ones opponents, refusing to let people complete the answers to questions, and walking off of the set qualify as good interview techniques.
• People are often disillusioned and disappointed when public political debate does not turn into a bad episode of 'The Jerry Springer Show'.
• Candidates and TV shows are both defined, not by the quality of the characters or the level of the writing; but on how outrageous, controversial, and manipulative they are.
• Far more people seem to get their news perspective from parody shows like 'The Daily Show' and 'The Colbert Report' on The Comedy Channel than do from network news.

I have nothing against any of the shows or networks listed above, but I have to say that I am grateful for the variety of programming on cable that allows me to avoid such programming. 


Quite frankly, I have never seen television as a medium that did well at providing information. Entertainment sure, but information ... not so much. And even the entertainment value of television has taken a nose-dive in recent years. Information and entertainment are now chopped into discreetly defined segments that can be fit between the advertising that pays for it. Any news story or part of the plot that doesn't fit in these visual slices ends up being left out of the story, even if it makes things more difficult to understand. 


To add to the mixed metaphors here, imagine television as a sports league. When there were only a few franchises, only the best of the best rose to prominence in their game and got their chance. When the league discovers that there is a lot of money to be made out there however and add teams at a frightening rate in an attempt to cash in while they can (like any other evil corporation), it inevitably leads to a dilution of the limited talent pool available. 


Eventually, such attenuation means that we end up with what most professional sports leagues like to call 'parity', but which we know really means a level of mediocrity that most of us watching find more than a little objectionable. Cable has now given us hundreds of franchises attempting to dip into the limited talent pool of writers, directors, and actors that exist. When they reach the shallow end of that pool (which they appear to have done some time back), they are forced create celebrities out of people whose only real talent was convincing someone to put them on TV in the first place to fill the void. There are no plots, no scripts, and no performances worthy of note; only bad behavior, worse hygiene, and faux tragedy to entertain the masses. 


Owners of the Roman Empire's coliseums would be proud of the circuses and bloodsport that we have turned cable into, reveling in these thinly veiled and badly acted gladiatorial contests (and that's before I get started on wrestling). Politics has begun to show the same decided lack of talent when seeking its principal performers. While there are some legitimate artists remaining in the field (for which we should be truly grateful), the sheer scope and scale of government at every level has begun to dilute the talent pool. 


In truth, many of those with any real talent have simply abandoned the auditions; finding what the process has become too intrusive, personally abusive, and to ungraciously fickle to make it worth bothering with. While some with a real gift or an overwhelming desire to participate remain, many of them simply find other ways to express their genius, and abandon the political venue to the more venial and power hungry of the inferior players. 


These elections and shows are now often filled with flawed individuals who do not deserve the limelight or the applause. Their lack of ability is exceeded only by their demands for diva status; and once illuminated on these public stages, they prove themselves mostly talentless and particularly unattractive. Yet we continue watch, helplessly staring, often without any care or understanding of the plot or the meaning of the drama unfolding before us. 


Perhaps like watching a traffic accident, we are simply shocked or fascinated by the appalling spectacle and simply cannot take our eyes away. On the other hand, like many other times when sitting on the couch at home, perhaps we've simply been unable to reach the remote yet to change the channel.

The Stupid Treatment

Is it just me, or has the world begun treating people as a lot more stupid in recent history? I find myself asking this question regularly as I look at the way that we are being treated by everything from entertainment to politics. I submit the following as evidence:

• Television networks seemed convinced that we will be entertained by shows about about the lives of people whose company we would take great pains to avoid.
• Pharmaceutical companies attempt to convince us in commercials to have a doctor put us on medications that have the potential of causing such side effects as rectal bleeding or death.
• Syndicated radio shows that we can listen to for free attempt to convince us that I should instead pay them a monthly fee to watch them perform this show on our computers. (How we are supposed to work using that computer while doing so is strangely left unexplained.)
• Infomercials seemed convinced that our lives would be truly fulfilled if we would only start that collection of quarters, buy a new set of knives, or trade in a working vacuum cleaner for any one of a dozen different new ones. (That is of course, when they are not telling us that they know the secret of making money, and they will share it if we share some of our money with them. I know it too, it's getting a bunch of mooks to send you a check to learn your secret.)
• The lawyers in Congress tell us that health care is too expensive because the doctors make too much money, while the doctors say that the cost increases in medicine are mostly about the cost of hiring lawyers to defend themselves in lawsuits.
• Car companies provide a warranty on the engine and drive train of up to 100,000 miles, but provide little or no warranty on the body or interior of the car. (What good the engine and drive train will do me without the body and interior has yet to be explained.)
• Some scientists tell us that the human race must stop producing greenhouse gases before they drive the temperature up from 2 to 10 degrees and melt the polar ice caps causing cataclysmic floods. Then they tell us that if we do so, it will only make about .5 degrees difference in those increases.
• Karl Rove (the Deputy Chief of Staff under former Republican president George W. Bush) wants us to believe that what's wrong with the country today is that Democrats are spending too much money, when the Administration that he worked for was doing pretty much the same thing on only a slightly smaller scale.
• Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tells us that Congress needs to pass health care legislation first, so that we can learn what's in it afterward. (which may not make sense but does kind of solve the problem that Congress has been having in reading bills before voting on them)

I'm sure that there is a reasonable and logical explanation for the apparent disconnect of such information, but I'm damned if I can figure out what it is, which is I suppose why I at least am considered stupid. 


Now perhaps there is a government study currently going on somewhere, consuming vast amounts of tax-supported resources to come up with a truly scholarly work on the subject. Have no fear however, when and if the answer is finally released in such a ponderous document written in academic code, we will all probably be too stupid to understand it.

The Irony of Profit

It seems as though I am constantly confronted in the news by the fact that ordinary Americans are outraged by the profits that banks and health insurance companies are attempting to make at someone's expense. I am told by these paid teleprompter readers, pundits, and others of those 'in the know' that this outrage has to do with the greed that these people show in attempting to make money for themselves or their companies at the expense of just plain ordinary folks. I am likewise told that this is not something that the American people are in any way interested in seeing occur in this world. 


Imagine my surprise then, when I see what these same ordinary Americans are watching on TV for entertainment. It is nothing more (or less) than people attempting to do the very same thing that they find so wrong in these corporations. One has to do no more than visit the current crop of reality television shows to see that this is so. "American Pickers" tells the story of two guys who scour the country to find bits of memorabilia that they can buy cheap (obviously in a greedy attempt to take things from ordinary Americans) and sell them at a profit. "Ax Wars" portrays a plucky group of lumbermen who cut down trees in remote parts of the country only to sell them to lumber mills at a profit. (This show carries the additionally disgusting message of lionizing those raping Mother Nature to feed evil corporations.) "Pawn Wars" shows us a family business (and a rather dysfunctional family at that) buying treasures from other families now down on their luck, only to be able to later turn them around and sell them at a profit. 


And these are just the shows on every week on The History Channel, a network whose original purpose was ostensibly to provide information, education, and entertainment relating to the subject contained in its title. The Arts and Entertainment Network has its contributions as well with "Dog the Bounty Hunter" glorifying a person who hunts men for profit and "Billy the Exterminator" who kills pests for profit. The Bravo Network takes this to the next level (down) by simply making shows about people who cut hair, model, or just live in New York, New Jersey, Atlanta, or Orange County; apparently for nothing more than money. The Entertainment Channel finally hits a societal bottom with a plethora of shows about people who live for little other money and the notoriety that it brings (and manage to make even more of a profit by doing so). 


Obviously all of these networks and all of these shows wouldn't be on the air (even on cable) if there wasn't some group of people out there watching them. Their numbers would not be increasing each and every new television season unless these networks were similarly making a profit by broadcasting them. 


And while I certainly don't have all of the answers here (a shock, I know), the question in my mind then becomes whether the American people are actually against the concept of anyone making a profit, or have we merely allowed an elite intelligentsia (who all seem to be doing pretty well financially) to attempt to dictate such standards to us. In the end, little of it may qualify as actual entertainment as far as I am concerned, but there is little doubt that there is a great deal of irony these days in the making of a profit.

Signs of the Apocalypse

I am forced to admit that signs of the dark clouds of doom may be appearing on the horizon, and signs of the Apocalypse are becoming visible. Though I try not to be prone to excess (in spite of the fact that one should take moderation in moderation), one can believe little else when you hear:

• Mark McGuire has admitted to using steroids while playing baseball!
• Jay Leno may go back to late night TV and Conan O'Brien may leave NBC!
• SIMON COWELL WILL LEAVE AMERICAN IDOL!

(In the spirit of full faith and disclosure, I have to admit that I have never watch American Idol, but have been a victim of second hand exposure from time to time.) 


I may have to get out the old sandwich board with "The End Is Near" on it.

Jay Leno Is Back & Television Is Saved?

This week, Jay Leno premiered his new prime time show on NBC. I would like to tell that having announced this, I can now say that television is saved ... but I can't. 

I'm not saying that the new Leno show is bad, as quite frankly, I haven't watched it. Then again, I hadn't watched Leno on his previous effort "The Tonight Show" for many years. As a consequence, when he turned that venue with great fanfare over to Conan O'Brien, it went pretty much without notice in my home. When he debuted this week with interviews of Jerry Seinfeld (another person who's show I didn't watch when it was on) and Kanye West (someone who I had barely heard of), it was fairly easy to pass up watching.  

Quite frankly, most of television today falls within the bounds of something fairly easy to ignore, as I have written before. Recently in fact, it has reached astonishing new lows with such things as a series about people whose house has become filled with filth because they can't throw anything away, another that sees entertainment in showing an addict's intervention, and an increasing number of shows featuring dysfunctional members of the Kardashian family doing whatever it is that they do. 

They even ruined my crab fisherman show "The Deadliest Catch" by adding one in which swordfish and tuna are caught (unless "Charlie the Tuna" gets caught, not so much); and the networks may finally kill the "CSI" shows in the same way that they did the "Law and Order" series for me, with the addition of yet another (CSI, CSI Miami, CSI NY, NCIS, and now NCIS LA). 

And don't even get me started on the overabundance of talent shows with their and incipient cast of talentless judges. I mean come on people! I know that creativity pretty much died in movies and network television years ago, but the rabid level of crap currently being broadcast ought to qualify as abuse of the air waves. 

Quite frankly, I can't tell these days whether Armageddon is upon us because of all of the shows on the subject on the History Channel, or if I should simply be convinced that it is already here from looking at the new fall line up on TV. 

Thank goodness for a good bit of the talk radio being broadcast and a great deal of the literature out there. As for radio, while some of the national programming can only be taken in small doses, due to the constant self-promotion and non-stop pontificating and bloviating of the hosts; the local stuff here in Toledo continues to provide something well worth the effort of listening. 

As for the written word, it has always provided a great deal of knowledge, insight, and solace to me (especially when it's not my poor efforts). As well as my continued attempts to read both novels and original reference material, I always enjoy falling back on blogs when I have the chance. With the current state of mainstream media news, they my be the future of news in this country. 

So thanks Jay Leno for coming back to television! You may not have saved it from the dismal state that it has been reduced to, but you have proved that entertainers and audiences alike may not know when a good thing has gone bad or when to walk away from the tube. (Hey, maybe on one of your upcoming shows you could interview Bret Favre, and compare notes on knowing when to step away from the game.)

 

The Hysteric Channel

My convalescence has afforded me far too much time to sample some of the offerings of cable television. While I find that I would actually rather be back at my normal duties, if I have to be spending time at home, I would much rather be doing it reading (and I try to). 

Unfortunately, I tend to fall asleep after a couple of pages and this makes for a rather laborious literary process. As a consequence, I have at least been trying to watch things that are educational (you know, the Discovery channel, the History Channel, and reruns of NCIS). 

I have discovered however, that the History channel is no longer what it used to be. In years past, this offering was often known as the "Hitler Channel", as most of its offerings had to do with the history of World War II and the well documented ravings of the leader of the German people at the time. Today however, it might well be better known as the "Hysteric Channel". 

Acting as an electronic prophet of Armageddon, it seems today that the predominance of their programming is either presenting bizarre interpretations of existing facts (as I write this, there is speculation that aliens might have left us coded messages in the Bible) or predicting the potential end of the world through various planetary disasters as predicted by the Incas, the Mayans, the Aztecs, or the prophecies of Nostradamus. Giant comets or meteors striking the planet, "Son of Krakatoa" or the giant caldera in Yosemite exploding in violent volcanic eruptions, floods, droughts, plagues, and locusts all take their place on the list of things that 'could' or 'might' happen. 

Not to be left out of the propaganda disbursement, we also of course have a smattering of warnings of the potential of either global warming or cooling looming just over the horizon (take your pick, it's still climate change). And if none of those events happen to occur, these guys have covered all the bases, pointing out that in a couple of billion years or so (just a hop and a skip on the galactic calendar) the sun is going to go nova, leaving the earth a burned out cinder. 

Recognizing that these cheery images were not the product of the medication that I am taking, I sought to decipher what meaning might be discovered behind these visions of the Apocalypse on the airwaves. Television from my youth however soon provided a ready answer. 

Aliens have taken control of the History Channel in an effort to scare the living crap out of us (and have a good laugh doing it). 

I came upon this simple solution by taking a page out of an old scifi television show popular before cable existed: "There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all you see and hear. We repeat, there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to the "Outer Limits". 

See, mystery solved! Therefore even if the History Channel is correct and the end is near, we can all take heart from the fact that these same aliens will undoubtedly rescue us in the nick of time. And why, you ask? The answer points to an episode of a competing scifi show from these dark ages of television. I refer of course, to the Twilight Zone episode, "To Serve Man". Have a great Holiday...  

In the spirit of full disclosure, it has likewise come to my attention that CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC might be likewise controlled by aliens. (How else do you explain Keith Olbermann?) To date, I have been able to neither prove, nor disprove this theory. 

TV Shows

I have previously admitted to not watching a lot of the television that seemed to have been popular over the last couple of years. Friends, Seinfeld, Everybody Loves Raymond, Grey's Anatomy, Sex and the City, American Idol, every version of the Survivor show, and every one of the Wrestling leagues has been on my "sorry, didn't watch it" list. I have likewise missed all of the "reality shows" from the tattoo artists to the bounty hunter, from the Osborne family to the Kardasian family. (I freely admit that I did watch "Deadliest Catch a couple of times, but only because I am a particular fan of king crab legs and wanted to see what they looked like attached to the animal.) 

This is not to say that I have not been witness to snippets of the nonsense from these shows from time to time, but more to say that embarrassment, disinterest, or simple anger at the sheer ignorance of these shows emerged rather quickly, causing me to change the channel. I guess the problem was that I never understood what it was about these shows that were considered entertainment. It got me thinking about where we seek entertainment, and what this level of entertainment says about us. 

Could it be that the popularity of such shows simply points to the level of desperation that people are beginning to feel about the world around them? Is it that looking at the foolishness of sitcom characters living caricature lives makes us feel better about our own situations? Could it be the false reality of reality shows make us less stressed out? Could the freak shows of the families portrayed on TV make us complacent about the mostly minor silliness that we find in our own homes? Could it be that watching people whose lives are worse than our own appeals to an inordinate number of us and that juvenile humor is our only form of escape?

I know one thing for sure, the networks certainly love us for what we are doing. With the exception of the sitcoms, none of these shows requires much in the way of a writing staff, making them much cheaper to produce. Those that do have writers don't appear to have very good ones (perhaps with the exception of some of the wrestling). For many of the rest of them, much of the work involved is simply to film (and perhaps orchestrate) the madness going on around them, then edit it in such a way that it appears to make some kind of sense. Considering the plunging revenues of network television these days however, all of this has to be a rather welcome relief to their respective owners.

On the other hand, maybe the new "hulu" commercials are right. Maybe all of this is simply an alien plot, attempting to turn human brains into a form of goo that can be consumed by them (and heaven knows, there is nothing better than a good meal of brain goo when you're really hungry). 

On that pleasant thought, have a great weekend...

Election Night Preview

By the time you read this, I will have made my contribution to the One Person / One vote process of the election of 2008 (ACORN didn't recruit me for some reason). I am left now to sit on the sidelines and watch the chips fall where they may. Like most of you, I am forced to wait until later in the day, to receive my information from hour upon hour of teleprompter readers and people who used to hold positions of power as they tell me what I already know ... Nothing.

In Phase I of this performance, they will inform us that they can't really say anything until after the polls are closed, though such information will not seem to keep them from continuing to speak. They will ostensibly tell us that this is because they are not allowed to influence the polls on the West Coast with results on the East Coast. If they were honest, they would admit that they have been been wrong so much of the time and have so little credibility left that they dare not stick their foot in it again during this election. This non-stop barrage on non-information normally causes me to open the first bottle of red wine of the evening and light the first cigar, while informing those on the screen what a bunch of vacuous fools they are.

Phase II will begin at the actual closing of the polls, when they begin to feed us tracking poll information and pull out the Electoral voter maps. The fact that this tracking poll information has not provided accurate information in the last couple of elections won't keep the pundits from "reading the tea leaves" of the election from them and sounding like they are somehow in the know. Nothing much of actual import will yet be said, but the use of computer graphics and maps will certainly make it look more important. The second bottle of red will probably come out somewhere in Phase II, as will the second cigar, accompanied by insults regarding the intelligence of a fair number of these experts while accusing their parents of never having been married in a voice loud enough that my neighbors may hear me.

In Phase III, the press and pundits will begin to attempt to call votes based on data released from key precincts in each states. Of course this will be especially difficult this year with the volume of early voting and the number of potential provisional ballots, but that won't stop the flood of educated guesses. Pretty red and blue colors will begin to fill the Electoral map, and the 'experts' will begin to talk about scenarios, trends, and motivations; as if these inside the beltway BS artists understood anything other than the mind of someone from Washington DC or New York City. The discussions will become more scholarly and less informative, as each one attempts to show how much more insight they have than the rest. It is usually around this time that I switch to whiskey, light the third cigar, and reconcile myself to a headache and a bad taste in my mouth come morning. While still exceptionally angry that they simply don't get it, my voice is usually too hoarse to continue my solitary diatribe about their numerous faults.

Phase IV for me can be a bit of a blur. Having over-served myself throughout the evening and smoked too many cigars, I now have a taste in my mouth normally reserved for those who allow small animals to die there. In spite of the fact that some real information is now available, I have begun to lose interest, lulled into insensibility by the alcohol and the droning voices on my TV. The election process is now over for good or ill, as is a good part of the evening and what remains of my voice. Once more, the American Voter has proved their predilection for choosing feeling over fact and emotion over logic. My disgust for my fellow man is renewed, though balanced with my admiration for the democratic process. My last concern for the evening is making sure that the last cigar of the evening is properly extinguished before my consciousness is. Smoking is bad enough for me (though Blowing Smoke is a necessity) without burning the place down in the process.

Note: This year will be slightly different, as I have been asked to post a few thoughts to Michael Miller of The Toledo Free Press throughout the evening. While I will at least attempt to maintain some shred of dignity through the evening, I wish to apologize now to Michael, for the nonsense (and typos) that he will undoubtedly receive as the evening progresses.

The Death of a Nation

I found myself doing something recently that I don't do much these days, watching television. There are times when I find this astonishing, since I was addicted to TV as a kid. I sat for hours in front of cartoons, episodic westerns, science fiction, and especially movies. When I wasn't parked in front of the idiot box, I was to be found with my nose crammed in a book. Hours spent with the Hardy Boys, Tom Swift, Sherlock Holmes, and later any science fiction I could get my hands on accounted for a greater part of any of the days of my youth. 

(Hey now that I think about it, do you think that this non-stop anti-social behavior may account in some part for the difficulties that I have had in personal relationships over the years? Nah ...) 

Books are still a huge part of my life, but as for TV, not so much any more. Somewhere over time, something in it has changed, has been lost, has in fact died; and it's imagination. That nation of my youth, where we had heroes and villains, good fighting evil, or at least cowboys fighting Indians has died. 

Today instead we have shows about people people who fix up houses or are supposed random strangers living in one together, people who drive trucks over ice, people who catch crabs (no silly, the kind you eat), people who tattoo other people, people who model clothes (or want to), people who sing, or dance, or simply lose weight. We even have shows about people who are stranded on and island (without Gilligan) and people who cut down trees (without playing the Monty Python lumberjack song). 

These are not shows with stories based on the lives of these kinds of people, with exciting plots written with a message or a point. They are just shows about what it's like to be these people. These shows are supposed to be anything but scripted, and it shows. No point is made, no lesson is learned, no higher moral purpose is served, and no great truth is revealed; but that's not the worst of it. 

The worst is that no imagination has been shown or used in creating them. Even when it's not one of these so-called reality shows, it seems as though there is a complete lack of anything new in the world of the box. (I mean I like CSI and Law and Order as much as the next guy, but do we really need this many of them?)  

What happened? We know that there are still talented people out there because so much is being produced in the way of good books. Good stories are still being told, great plots unfolding, and unforgettable characters are created; but not anywhere near a television studio. Is it just that cable has created too many options for anyone to deal with? Has the diversity of channels diluted the pool of talent out there to the point that it has no potency? Has evil Corporate America simply set aside good story telling to maximize profits? Have we their audience simply become so docile and brain dead that we no longer care, as long as something on the boob tube (watch yourself, this is a PG blog site) or flat panel? 

The realization of this loss hit me like a childhood friend who has lapsed into a coma, slowly passing away before my eyes. There was so much promise here, so much of a future to look forward to; and now it seems that it has ended. It is terrible to watch such a death, or the death of anything in this world for that matter. Sadder still is to see one of Man's greatest abilities, the ability to imagine; and a technology of such great promise, television, coming to such an ignominious end.