To tell the truth it hardly matters. Because I wrote this entry in order to document my recent television weekend. I was going to start by tracing my history with TV up to that point, but the fact is it doesn’t matter that much. However, I will give an abridged version thereof.

After leaving Atlanta, I spent some time with television, some time without. I never had my own TV or cable or anything. Over the course of about two years I lived in two hotels and one apartment. Both of the hotels had television with cable so while I lived there I had TV. My apartment did not. While there I did not have TV. It’s funny, but any time I didn’t have TV after having it for a while, you would think I missed it, but I never did.

Then I moved in with Cranius Maximus. We didn’t have TV for a while and then I got a mega-paying job. So we got TV. Again, was it any huge use? We looked forward to “Project Runway” but other than that, I generally just stared at it mouth agape, aimlessly flipping through the channels.

Although I should note that during this time I got into college football (I was also effectively out of the professional wrestling business). In effect, television served a purpose. More than that, we not only got basic cable, but we got the College Gameday gamepack. At that time, I expect all of our television expenses ran us about $700/year.

Then we moved to Maine and the gravy train (as far as well paying jobs) ran out. Upon our initial move, we did purchase cable. In retrospect, I don’t know why. I think it was something we (or rather, I) didn’t even think about, which is a sad comment on where I was mentally at that time.

However, things were about to take a turn thanks to cable company greed and college football.

It was the 2006 season and we had missed the first game because the cable company screwed up. It is unimportant why. They told us that we were ready to go for the second week of the season. Then the game came on and nothing. To say I was furious was an understatement. I’m still fairly obsessive-compulsive about my football, but at that time, I was absurd.

We called the company and told them if they didn’t get a repairman to our house within the hour, we were dropping cable altogether. An  hour came and went and no repairman. In effect, we called and told them to shove their cable up their ass. They in turn, offered us 75% off the college gameday package. Get that? 75% off of something they couldn’t provide for us. They might as well have offered to sell us air for 75% off.

After that we got Direct TV, but shortly after getting it we decided that TV was a life drainer and that we were better off without it. We paid the early cancellation fee to dump the satellite and we have never looked back.

I admittedly enjoy going to a hotel and watching TV. It is a treat. On the other hand, as I flip through the channels and inevitably come up with nothing I find myself frustrated and reminded of why we got rid of television.

To make a long story short, we have been television free since 2006. And then, on New Years Day 2010, we found ourselves in Winterset, Iowa.

Nevertheless, a necessary step towards becoming a published writer in any capacity is putting one’s writing out there. Which brings me to putting this as a link on my Facebook page.

My Book! My Blog! My Book! My Blog! My motherfucking hair?!?

Yes, I’d love if this stupid blog got 17,000 hits a day and motherfuckers wrote to me asking my opinions on bullshit. And then some dickwad publisher e-mailed me and told me he would pay me to do this.

However, I think the key is anonymity. I am not entirely comfortable with all of my best “friends” reading everything about me. It has been plainly established that I am a fairly private person.

Nevertheless, the bigger question has less to do with The BLOG than it does with Facebook. I’ve found myself getting terribly hot and cold regarding it.

My road to Facebook has been fairly well documented, so I won’t rehash it. I will say that I started out cooking like Betty Crocker™. I was embracing, I was “friending,” I was this and I was that. I had my plan to friend so many motherfuckers a week and then I don’t know what happened. For whatever reason, I got tired of it. It not only became cumbersome, it became absurd. Thus, I cooled on it.

Now, I am on a new hot streak. Perhaps not to the degree that I was when I started and I’m sure that my current lack of activity is playing its part. If I had other things to do I surely wouldn’t be spending this much time in front of a computer. Nevertheless, I’ve friended a few motherfuckers over the last few weeks. I’ve even been maintaining a thread with a person that is as obsessive-compulsive as I am (and thus, won’t let the thread drop any more quickly than I will).

Last week, I filled in my status- I wrote “East Bound and Down, Loaded up and Trucking…” because I was watching Smokey and the Bandit. Nevertheless, some of my “friends” seemed to think I was going on the road. Funny, though I admittedly enjoyed thinking that anybody thought I was going over the road.

Over the weekend, I filled in my favorite book, movie, etc. and wrote something about myself. I filled them in seriously although I took the whole thing somewhat lightly.

It was then pointed out to me that I do my Facebook thing as long as I am amusing myself. Then something happens that somehow threatens my privacy and I panic and go running for the hills.

It’s funny but when I began this post I felt like I was on the verge of discovering one of the great truths about me. At the very least, I thought I would make a coherent post with a beginning, middle and end.

This much is true- I have found a number of good pictures and links, I am currently in the middle of a Facebook hot streak and I can cross one more stupid thing off my short-term to-do list.

When we moved to NJ we bought a color TV to go with the black and white one. The color TV was kept in the family room. I still have nothing terribly notable to say about it. It was still cable-less. Thus, we got the three major networks (channels 2, 4 and 7), the public television channel (channel 13) WPIX (channel 11), WWOR (channel 9) and whatever channel 5 was known as before it became FOX. The only thing I specifically remember watching was the Mets on channel 9 and the Yankees on channel 11.

In 1982 we joined the cable revolution. We got all the channels that came with the subscription as well as HBO and Cinemax. I recall getting home from school and seeing it there, like a brand, new, shining toy. In truth, I don’t remember being aware that it was coming or looking forward to it in any way. I don’t even remember being excited to have it. However, I remember the first movie I watched. It was “Private Eyes” with Don Knotts and Tim Conway. Not only did I find the movie enjoyable, but there was a scene in which the two bumbling detectives (Knotts and Conway) were looking through a hole in the wall at a chick in black thing high stockings. She was changing her clothes. Of course, the movie didn’t show anything beyond the lady and her semi-bare legs but that was enough for my 10-year-old ass (in retrospect it would probably be enough for my 37-year-old ass).

Sooner or later, cable got to be a habit. Like most things, I forgot about life before it. It became standard. For me and for much of the United States. The funny thing is while I acknowledge that I watched more television than I had any business watching, I don’t recall having any favorite shows. Furthermore, I watched absolutely nothing in prime time. I watched reruns of old shows and that was all. In my time I saw every “Brady Bunch, “Partridge Family” and “Gilligan’s Island.” I saw most “Munsters” and “Addams Family” episodes as well as tons of awful (though fondly remembered) movies on HBO and Cinemax.

And, of course, when I got a bit older, Cinemax After Dark or Skinemax became a Saturday night feature. My favorites were “Young Lady Chatterley Pt. 2″ and “The Sensual Nurse.”

Anyway, things went on. I never did watch any TV shows in prime time. What sitcoms I did watch were usually watched while eating dinner (“Cheers” was a favorite). My primary interest in TV was to watch sports and/or movies.

When I went to college I was without a TV for what amounted to the first time in my life. I don’t recall missing it in any way. Nevertheless, a dorm-mate had a TV and a group of us gathered to watch “Cheers” after we ate dinner in the cafeteria.

Sophomore and Junior year were mostly TV-less. Senior year my girlfriend got cable and I suspect I spent far too much time in front of the TV just sort of staring at it. In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that when I have TV that is exactly what I do- I just sort of sit in front of it not watching anything in particular. However, I will come to that shortly.

I graduated college. I went back home to live with my parents. I lived there for almost another 5 years. TV was much the same as ever. I didn’t watch anything in particular. I watched reruns of TV shows (most notably “Seinfeld” and “The Simpsons”) while eating dinner.

My sport du jour was professional wrestling (I suppose some would question whether professional wrestling is a sport. It may or may not be, but it is not arguable that for viewers, neither football nor hockey nor professional wrestling is a “sport.” To the viewer, they are all strictly entertainment). This was at the time of the Monday Night Wars, when WCW and WWF were the competing organizations. Both had shows on Monday night and each week they would go head-to-head. Needless to say, I was terribly caught up in it. I also made it a point to watch Howard Stern’s TV show, even though it was just a film of him making his radio show.

I then moved to Atlanta for a while. I lived with a friend who charged me a nominal rent. Furthermore, he paid all the bills. Thus, the remote control was his. I watched TV with him, but as I had no control over it, I rarely paid attention to it. Generally, he watched MSNBC’s “Squawk Box” all day. That was the spring/summer I learned about stocks. Of course, what I learned was that they even though I had formerly been ignorant about them, my general opinion was accurate- it was gambling for phonies.

The long of it is as follows-

It is plainly evident that I am stricken with disgust when confronted with Betty Draper. Yet, I seem more forgiving of Don Draper. As I said, she is a bitch in the strictest sense of the word, but he is undeniably an asshole. As I do not consider an asshole to be any better than a bitch, why do I find him tolerable while she is the lowest of the low?

Keep that in mind while I consider the celebrities that I absolutely loathe- Oprah Winfrey, Madonna (although I have a love-hate relationship with Madonna, the singer. However, as a celebrity, I can’t stand her), Julia Roberts, and Tom Cruise.

Some might go so far as to say that the celebrities that I loathe are all “strong women,” with the exception of Tom Cruise who I think it is fair to say, is not strong.

Furthermore, when I think of celebrities and those sorts of motherfuckers that annoy me (even if they don’t make my “most despised” list) they are usually women.

In effect, I’ve got to ask myself, if the element that I despise is not their being strong and female then what is it? What is the common tie?

I do think their being female is imperative. For the most part, I doubt I could muster up the same degree of enmity for an annoying man that I can for what I consider to be an annoying woman.

To begin with, I think my annoyance with Julia Roberts is distinctly different than any annoyance I may feel for Oprah or Madonna. The problem with Julia Roberts is that, for a while, she was always there, always smiling, always being Ms. Fucking America. To me, she was the singular manifestation of everything that those awful movies that she was in represented- a wonderful, whitewashed, Disney-esque world of phony smiles and suburban lawns. Since she got married to somebody not named Lyle Lovett she has thankfully stepped out of the spotlight to some degree. In effect, my distaste for her has subsided to a large degree.

But Oprah and Madonna- what is my deal? Why do they annoy me so much? Why is Betty Draper loathsome, but Don Draper can get away with it? Why, when I watched “Alfie” (the original) however many years ago, did I not find Alfie to be an utterly reprehensible character?

I will further ask another question. Why do I not find Sarah Palin to be reprehensible? Do not get me wrong- philosophically, and intellectually I despise her. I acknowledge that she might be the embodiment of all that is currently wrong with the world. She might very well be the anti-Christ.

However, when I see her vapid mug (and she is a vapid looking motherfucker) I am not immediately driven to anger. I do not have a gut reaction that makes me want to bang my head against a wall. My negative reaction to Sarah Palin is purely cerebral.

Are Oprah and Madanna the antithesis to Sarah Palin? No, but I think there is something important there.

In my estimation Sarah Palin might be the face of modern horror. Yet, I do not have a visceral reaction. Conversely, whatever negative things I might say about Madonna or Oprah they probably are not leading hordes of racists in an effort to make sure the rich keep getting richer (then again, who knows).

And my reaction is immediate and at a gut level. I despise them.

I also consider them to be stronger women than I do Sarah Palin, In fact, I don’t consider Sarah Palin to be a strong woman. I consider her to be a power hungry woman and something of an arrogant idiot. As such, she has seemingly tapped into the arrogant inner idiot in so many Americans. That does not mean she is strong.

Whatever else I may think about Oprah and Madonna, are they strong women? I suppose, in their way one would have to call them strong.

On the other hand, Betty Draper is not strong. In fact, she’s terribly weak.

So where does all of this leave me?

I don’t have an answer. In the end, Julia Roberts annoys me (or annoyed me) because of her omnipresent cheeriness. Madonna annoys me because of her fake British accent, her pretentiousness and the seeming attitude she takes that her shit doesn’t stink. Oprah annoys me because she appeals to the lowest common denominator in all people. Tom Cruise annoys me because he is a whiny, in-the-closet jackass that just can’t get enough attention. And Betty Draper- she is suburbia incarnate.

Do any of them really have any common tie other than their vaginas?

And why would I be willing to bet that the only one of them that would accept the indignity of a facial is Tom Cruise?

Hey, maybe I am a misogynist. Or a homophobe. So many issues to wrestle with and so few words.

Perhaps this entire blog entry is a cop-out.

By the way, a shout out to Ms. Wonder Hips and her marvelous new blog . She isn’t a misogynist. She is an Oprah hater. And she is the biggest head in the blogosphere.

Franz Kafka said something along the lines of (I’m paraphrasing) the only way a motherfucker can get to know me is through my writing.

I’m no Franz Kafka. However, when I look at my life, at my particular abilities and predilections, my tastes and most importantly, those few people (both of them) that at a point in my life have known me, I realize they got to know me through things I’ve written. It was not through talking in any way. Yes, eventually, once they did know me, my mouth took the place of my pen, but that first window into who I was and am, was through my proverbial pen.

Are all people this way? I don’t know. However, I do agree with Cervantes in that “the pen is the tongue of the soul.” Of course, one can’t read too much into that because many people have a very poorly developed “tongue.” On the other hand, one finds that when one takes pen in hand, certain truths are revealed, even if the speaker/writer in question does not mean to reveal those truths.

Needless to say, my last post was somewhat lascivious. I am not embarrassed by it. I am not ashamed in any way by the fact that I dig porn and have a history with it. However, as I said, I am a private person. I don’t like the idea that all 30 of my Facebook motherfuckers can just look  up my shit and get to know me, because that is exactly what they’d be doing by reading my blog.

I guess that is the point. I think most people, at first glance, think I’m probably extremely boring and extremely harmless. Then they get to know me a little. At that point they think I’m kind of funny, moderately boring, harmless, but kind of intriguing. Then they know me a little more. At that point, they find me funny, definitely boring, harmless, yet very intriguing. The only people that have known me deeper than that have been invested for the long haul. I think if the majority knew me intimately they would be find me kind of dangerous, in no way boring, intriguing but unquestionably disgusting.

I feel like making this stupid blog (or anything I write) public is sort of giving people a free peak into my inner being. The only people that have known my inner being have made the investment, have paid the price, have walked through the fire; in short, they’ve earned my trust. So should I just throw my shit out to every motherfucker that thinks to “friend” me just because he or she kind of knows me. That seems untrue to who I am and more than that, disrespectful to those that have invested in me.

In the end, I realize anything I may write isn’t worth the electricity needed to keep this computer running. However, it’s the only voice I’ve got. And, dare I say, it is probably worth something to those that have paid the price to hear it.

In closing, this is all very stupid. Next week, I’ll get back to why my apparently misogynistic tendencies are decidedly non-chauvinistic. For now, I’m pulling my link off Facebook, and getting back to the reason I avoided Facebook in the first place.

Do I think I’m really a misogynist? No, not really. I think these are weird times and I’m not immune to the times. I often step back and look at porn from a purely academic point of view. I think of the trends and fashions and styles. In fact, I think a person could learn a lot about our society from watching porn. If an alien should come to earth and find all the humans destroyed but all of their culture left behind, I believe he could learn the majority of what he would need to know by looking at their porn, their monsters and their superheroes. But I digress.

Modern porn focuses a great deal of its energy on humiliating women. I can’t even begin to count the amount of websites that exclusively refer to women as “bitches.” Then there are the sites that that look to trick a woman into having sex and then leave her abandoned and naked on some street corner. And then there are the facials which are a strictly modern phenomenon.

One has to ask what is a facial or rather not “what is it” but what is its intent? The intent is obviously to leave an unmistakable fistful of gunk all over a woman’s face. It is the humiliation aspect. The psycho-sexually defining aspect of a woman is her modesty. That is what sexually differentiates a woman from a man. And a woman with schmooze all over her face is a slut (a non-modest woman) for all the world to see.

I believe all of this is borne from a great deal of misogyny. The target audience of porn are suburban hubbies. Suburban hubbies are often henpecked. And even if they’re not henpecked they’re playing some absurd role where they have to pretend to be henpecked when it suits them. Furthermore, so many of these suburban hubbies are (closeted gay men yes but also) working in a middle management office gig. You can say what you want, but that sort of job is no less than emasculating. Being a salesman, being a go-between, being a gofer, being a yes-man, being entirely insignificant and innocuous- it is emasculating. It is unbecoming. It is unmanly.

So why do these men do it? Because they have to maintain their absurd (and decidedly feminine) suburban lifestyle. They have to furnish their children with $200 sneakers, and they have to make sure the alarm system on their house works so none of those Mexicans steals their 200-foot-wide television.

In the end, what are they left with? They are left with three things- the aforementioned TV set, their scary-ass grill (both modern symbols of a pussified man’s virility [or lack thereof]) and a deep-seated, unfulfilled resentment for their wife.

What is such a man to do? There really isn’t much he can do. He is left with his sports, his meat and his porn, and all of these things feed his fantasies of what he wants to be and how he wants to subordinate his wife.

Again, facials have only become the norm in porn over the last 10 or so years (given that modern porn has only been around for 40 or so years you have to take trends and such with a grain of salt. Who knows how long anything will last?). Men always pulled out and gave the money shot, but it used to be on a woman’s breast or her rear or her belly. I don’t remember when I first saw a facial, but I can safely say it wasn’t until the new century or the end of the old one at the latest.

Well, how does all of this relate to Betty Draper and my feelings for her and whether I am indeed a misogynist? I won’t get into the latter questions right now (there’s always next week), but I will say that Betty Draper is the beginning of the end for Don Draper who, in 20 or so years time will become as tame as a puppy dog.

You see, Don Draper is a bona-fide asshole and in that respect he is no different than Joe Suburbia of today. The difference is he has not yet been tamed. He is still a man. Meanwhile, Betty has been broken. She is hardly a woman. She is hardly a human being. As I said, she is suburbia incarnate and suburbia is hardly alive.

Well, women’s lib will come along in 10 or so years and Betty will pick up a sign and march for her rights. And she (white women that is) will get them. But Betty will still be suburban. However, now she’ll be suburbia with a megaphone and Don had better listen. She will cut Don’s balls off and stick them under the sink and he, the asshole, will still be an asshole but he will no longer be a man.

Fast-forward to the 80′s, 90′s, 00′s and you’ve got the picture of the perfect family- a pseudo and silent man and a pseudo and loudmouth woman. Awful, miserable and terribly in love.

No Exit

Without further adieu I will follow in the path of past blog entries that focused on the worst movie and the worst television show of all time. Now I will delve into the worst character of all time though in truth she is not the worst character of all time in the truest sense. Rather, she is arguably the most loathsome character of all time.

Big fucking words, eh? You might think I’m referring to Joan Collins character in “Dynasty” or Susan Lucci during one of her bitch spells. No, I am referring to Mrs. Don Draper in the currently successful “Mad Men.” You notice, I am sure, that I referred to her as “Mrs. Don Draper” as opposed to Betty Draper- a very Of Mice and Men thing to do. The truth is I don’t think she deserves her own name as she defines herself, good and bad, entirely through her husband.

I put off watching “Mad Men” for quite a while. A few people recommended it, but after hearing what it was about (Madison Ave. advertising pricks in the early 60′s) I was afraid it would be a show about pricks. I find I have trouble having any sympathy for raging pricks and if I can’t have sympathy for the characters then I find it difficult to get into the show. Nevertheless, I saw a scene on Youtube that looked interesting and I figured I would take the plunge. So what do I think of it? I think it is a show that is primarily about an office full of pricks, prick wannabe’s, the mindless secretaries of pricks and the vapid shrew wives of pricks. However, surprisingly it is a pretty good show. Probably not as great as so many people think it is, but pretty good.

This moves me on to Mrs. Draper, played by January Jones. She is a shrew of shrews, a skank of skanks and a bitch of bitches. I think the key issue with her (as compared to Erica Cane or Alexis Carrington) is that she is a very realistic character. She represents an entire generation of suburban housewives who labor under the, at that time, antiquated delusion that they worked terribly hard, yet the truth is they generally did nothing remotely substantial.

I think that entire generation (and the one after it) are unique in that they didn’t have to make the obvious sacrifices of their parents, yet they benefited from the sacrifices their parents did make. The Silent and the Boomers were the two richest generations in American history (probably in world history). The problem is when you are handed everything on a silver platter and you live a life of duty with no thought there are going to be psychological consequences. Mid-life crises are a strictly Silent/Boomer phenomenon and this is no coincidence. I think a person has to work, has to create, has to accomplish, has to do something. This (I am referring to the Silent) is a generation that never really did anything other than try to facilitate the creations of their parents, and this was especially true of the housewives.

They went directly from their daddy’s house to their husband’s house and never experienced anything in between. They grew up dreaming of white weddings and safe suburban homes and having children that worshiped them the way they worshiped their parents. The problem was things didn’t work out that way. Their dream was the undeveloped dream of a child. And despite going through all the phony passages from one era of their lives to the next (passages that once meant something) they never really grew up. The Silent were also the youngest modern generation to get married.

So they turned 20 and 30 and 40 and they began to feel that something was amiss. Their children didn’t worship them and life wasn’t as fulfilling as they had been promised it would be if they did everything by the book.

Mrs. Draper is a picture of that dissatisfaction. She is a picture of misery, and  the old axiom holds true, misery loves company. In effect, she spreads her dull, lifeless, insecure misery onto her husband and her kids.

Of course, Mrs. Draper is having her mid-life crisis a bit early (she is 28), but it is probably better that she has it while she still has her looks. It makes it more interesting.

Anyway, I’ve digressed. What exactly is so awful about Mrs. Draper? I think she reminds me a great deal of what I don’t like as far as where we are as a society. She is childish, immature and oblivious (in a non-cute way). She has expectations and she feels entitled. She is spoiled, insecure and not clever enough to make anything she has work for her. She is a do-nothing and to accentuate all this, she’s got an annoying Cindy Brady lisp. She is suburbia incarnate.

Limousine and you’re all set

For Sunset, for sunset.

You know, I never dug the Donna Summer song “Sunset People.” Perhaps you are saying, “How many people did?” Well, quite a few when it was released in 1979. So how many people still dig it? I don’t know. Maybe not many, and when you consider that in 1979 my interest in music was primarily focused on show tunes, Kiss, the Village People, the Beatles and Simon & Garfunkel, well, Donna Summer didn’t have much of a place at that time. However, in some way or another disco has always been my thing. It is the one genre of music that I’ve dug, in some capacity or another, since I was a wee tike (notice the Village People above. And my introduction to Kiss was “Dynasty,” their disco album) and it has endured.

Riot House, a Pent House suite

The street’s alive below your feet

On Sunset, on Sunset

And I’m not talking that phony disco like KC and the Sunshine Band or the johnny-come-lately rock star disco like the Rolling Stones’ ass shit (and mind you, the backlash against disco was and is purely racist and homophobic. The meatheads couldn’t stand it that their shitbrained, talentless rock stars were making disco albums [that shitbrained and talentless line doesn't apply to "Dynasty." That was and is a great album]). I’m talking Donna Summer, the Chic Corporation, the Gamble and Huff albums and yes, the Village People.

Rainbow Girl, Whiskey Man

Spotting every star they can

on Sunset, on Sunset

Nevertheless, being a huge fan of “Dynasty” and such lesser-known Village People non-hits as “My Roommate” and “Cruiser/Women (Medley)” I never dug “Sunset People.” Then recently, I listened to it and in particular, listened to the lyrics.

Rock n’ Roll, Every night

Underneath them neon lights

on Sunset, on Sunset

The song encapsulates the entire era. I cannot speak from first hand experience because I did not really exist in that era. Rather, I grew up in it. It’s culture shaped me. I am, along with the rest of my immediate generation, the fallout from the disco era.

Sunset people- Night after Night, doin’ it right X4

Holding on to the last breath of life

On Sunset, on Sunset

It was an age that was doomed to crash and burn and, listening to the music, you get the idea that people knew it. They apparently lived every night like it was their last because it may very well have been their last.

Smooth haired guys, thumbing rides

Lining Up from side to side

On Sunset, On Sunset

One of my favorite things (in a past life) was the beach during the off-season. Nobody there, still a few arcades lit up, but only frequented by regulars and sometimes you had to wonder if it was cost-effective for them to keep those arcades open. During the off-season I swear, except for a rare weekend or due to overflow from the bars, the number of employees always outnumbered the number of patrons.

In between, pretty girls

Still sixteen but know the world

On Sunset, On Sunset

I think I’ve always been attracted to dying and dead scenes. The off-season beach, disco. I don’t know what the appeal is. I like the quiet. I like surveying the ghosts of the recently-alive scene.  My favorite season is autumn, particularly late autumn when winter is imminent.

Foreign cars, full of stars

Tinted glass to hide the scars

On Sunset, on Sunset

So, what’s my point? I don’t know that I really had one. Three weeks ago, when I wanted to write about “Sunset People” I was inspired, but I had to write about Swayze and “Red Dawn” and Lea Thompson and “Criminal Fucking Minds.” Now, I’m not inspired. I just want to make the point that while I never cared for “Sunset People” I have since now seen the light.

Billboard signs, on the strip

Glamorize the latest hits

On Sunset, on Sunset

I am also reminded of something I wrote a while ago about the movie “Breaking Away,” particularly a scene in which one of the characters laments about “something else [he'll] never get the chance to be.” I don’t think I dwell in the past and I don’t think I am a sad sack, but I am jaded and I am naturally melancholy.

Friday night, the weekend crowd

Moves on in to get on down

On Sunset, on Sunset

I have nothing more to say, but isn’t it funny how disco ultimately had a much larger influence than all that rock n’ roll Led Zeppelin shit? Obviously, disco always spoke to me and I can’t even dance.

Life is hot, life is fast

People try to make it last

On Sunset, on Sunset

]]> http://fiendsinc.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/sunset-people/feed/ 0 reverenddavidbloco http://fiendsinc.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/knock-knock-whos-there/ http://fiendsinc.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/knock-knock-whos-there/#comments Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:06:24 +0000 reverenddavidbloco http://fiendsinc.wordpress.com/?p=25 ]]> Peter. Peter Who?

Here is a thought- I have problems with Shemar, the Nose, Blondie and Montegna, but no problems with the two lily-white boys, Reed and what’s his name? Racism? I would agree to that except I think much of the reason I have a problem with the chicks is because they are such stupid, pigeon-holed stereotypes, and Shemar, in his way, is also a stereotype. Kind of a Nuevo-sensitive-but-still-tough-but-still-a-meathead-black-man stereotype, but a stereotype nonetheless. As for Montegna, he has nothing to do with any of this. He is just ridiculous on any level. So, am I a bigot for only taking exception with the white, non-women? Maybe, but I don’t think so.

More importantly, I will finally get back to Swayze though the truth is, is there that much more to say about him?

I will start by noting that when I think of Swayze, despite the juggernaut that was “The Outsiders,” despite the sad-ass chick flick that was “Ghost,” despite the rage that was “Dirty Dancing,” the first thing that comes to my mind is that Chippendales skit he did with Chris Farley on Saturday Night Live. the fact is I am not a Chris Farley fan. This is not to say I dislike him in any way. I just don’t get the shits and giggles whenever I think about him (despite currently living in his hometown). Like most of the more popular latter day SNL actors (Mike Myers aside) he had 2 or 3 characters that were funny, but grew somewhat old. In Farley’s case, it was his aggressive, loud, obnoxious, fat man (as best represented by the pep talker with his “van down by the river”), the insecure, soft-spoken, awkward guy (as represented in the Swayze, Chippendales skit) and the serious, bouncer-like guy that usually was in the background and didn’t get the big laughs. As I said, all funny characters, but after watching them in so many situations they become static and formulated. However, that tends to be the nature of SNL and maybe it is unfair to lay it at the feet of Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, David Spade, etc.

But back to Swayze, while watching that scene- while watching that particular episode in which Swayze hosted- it is difficult to forget his hair. It reminds me of “Unbreakable” in which Samuel L. Jackson’s character lays out the rules for the villain in a superhero comic. One of the first rules is that the villain has a larger than ordinary head. Patrick Swayze’s head, when accented by his huge, flowing, golden locks, was enormous. If they made Chippendales dolls where the dolls’ heads were huge as you see in some dolls that is what Patrick Swayze would have looked like. I wasn’t sure what era that was, but I just looked it up and apparently he was publicizing for “Ghost.” I am left to wonder how much mousse and hairspray he must have used to get his hair, and consequently his head, that big.

Other than that I can think of two more Swayze moments. The first was “Point Break,” that awful surfing movie with him and Keanu Reeves. I once saw that movie by accident. I say that- “I saw it by accident”- about a few movies- the movie where Tom Cruise met Nicole Kidman (I don’t remember what it was called. It was a period piece) was another one of those. What that means is that while I was in college I often took a chartered bus that went from Pittsburgh, where I attended college, to Philly, where my father picked me up (and then back again). Generally, they played a movie on the bus and one of the movies they played was “Point Break.” My viewing of it was “accidental” because if given the choice I never would have chosen, let alone paid money, to go to see it. There were also a number of free previews shown at Pitt- “Bugsy,” “Sneakers” and “The Doors” to name three- my viewings of which I describe as “accidental” (even though I “accidentally” saw the 3-hour snoozefest titled “The Doors” three times [two of those viewings involved females and yes, I am ashamed to say I put up money for those viewings even if I still insist it was "accidental"]).

My last memory of Swayze involves his small role in “Donnie Darko.” Originally I was dead set against watching that movie because of the involvement of Drew Barrymore as the producer. I didn’t and don’t trust her. I figured if she was going to be involved in a production capacity then there had to be something wrong with the movie- some kind of annoying agenda. I sort of don’t dislike Drew Barrymore, but I find her ridiculous. They keep paying her to be in movies and she doesn’t put any asses in seats (Julia Roberts and Tom Cruise may be annoying, may make awful movies, but let’s face it, they generally earn their money- they put asses in seats even if it’s not my ass). Furthermore, she looks sort of sloppy looking. Yes, she was a cute, little tyke when she was in ET, but she’s all grown up and I don’t get it- why would anybody be physically into her. She kind of looks like any big breasted, failed blond you might see walking down the street. Maybe a little better looking but $7 trillion will do that for you.

So, because she had terrible hair I didn’t trust “Donnie Darko.” Nevertheless, I eventually watched it, and liked it. I think a lot of people make it out to be this grand, fucking movie (kind of like “Fight Club”) when really, it was pretty good, pretty funny, but hardly the greatest thing since “Pulp Fiction” or “Zapped.” Nevertheless, in “Donnie Darko” Patrick Swayze played a Peter File and it was probably his finest role. In a way, it was kind of like Henry Fonda’s role in “Once Upon a Time in the West.” Here was the ultimate blue-eyed American good guy playing the personification of evil (as defined by each day’s standards). It wasn’t a huge role, but I like to think Swayze was aware of the statement he was making.

And that’s all I have for Swayze. He might be dead. He might not. I suspect my life will go on either way.

Before jumping into that 42 minute clusterfuck I feel it is necessary for me to give a little background. I do not have cable or satellite or any thing and thanks to our friends in Congress that basically means I don’t have TV (in all fairness I gave up on TV a while before they passed that Lets-hand-the-airwaves-over-to-the-corporations-and-effectively-kill-public-broadcasting bill. The last straw for me, in fact, was ESPNU but that is another story) and haven’t had it for over three years. Have things changed drastically in three years? I don’t know though it is also worth noting that I’ve never really been a big fan of any non-sitcom TV show and that especially applies to crime dramas. In fact, I never really cared for sitcoms either. Now that I think about it, I never liked much that was on TV which is really stupid because I’ve spent years of my life watching TV. Well, I’ll tell you this- getting rid of TV was one of the smarter things I’ve ever been involved in. It added hours of otherwise wasted time to my week. But I digress (surprise, surprise [thank you Gomer Pyle, we salute you])…

I don’t think TV has necessarily changed all that drastically in 3 years. It has changed a little. Couple that with me growing rapidly (I’ve finally reached my emotional growth spurt at the ripe old age of 36). Couple that with the fact that I’ve always made it a point not to watch awful TV shows. Couple that with Joseph Montegna and what you’ve got is the worst TV show of all time.

Much as with “Red Dawn,” “Criminal Minds” is not really the worst TV show as regards camera work, story line (though it’s getting there), acting (it’s about third in that category), etc. Rather, it is my particular perspective as regards that awful show which I have come to find insulting to my intelligence. So, let’s start from the beginning.

Why did I begin watching “Criminal Minds” in the first place? I’ve already said I make it a point not to watch obviously awful shows.

The answer to that is because Mandy Patinkin was in it and that is more than reason enough for me to watch it. I say that despite the fact that really, the only things I’ve ever seen him in that I liked were “The Princess Bride” and “Dead Like Me.” What’s more, I don’t even like his singing style all that much. I don’t know, way back when, I found his name to be hilarious so I took to saying “Who do I look like? Mandy Patinkin?” and over the years, he became something of an icon to me. And yes, not only have I seen him in concert but I saw him walking down State Street in Madison WI. So he was in “Criminal Minds” and that was enough for me (actually, as I recall, it still took some convincing).

However it did come about we rented some DVDs (we don’t have TV. We do have a television and a DVD player) and they were terrible but here is the thing. We used to joke about how terrible they were, but the fact is they were kind of enjoyable in a way. Moreover, some of the episodes were downright spooky. There was one about an obsessive compulsive arsonist, another about a chick that put her husband up to killing people- some funky stuff.

Then the unthinkable happened- Patinkin left the show. According to what I read it was due to “creative differences.” How could the worst show of all time bother Patinkin so much that he would have problems with the direction it was heading?

I just realized I forgot to even describe the show for the many people in Bulgaria that are reading this. “Criminal Minds” is a show about an elite FBI team called the BAU (Behavioral Analysis Unit). They use their keen psychology, criminal justice and police skills and make psychological profiles of various criminals (usually serial killers) which they then use to catch said criminals. It sounds pretty standard, but “Criminal Minds” claims to be different in that it gets into the criminals’ psyche- it understands the criminal.

Up until Patinkin left (the end of the 2nd season) I thought the show was bad but enjoyable and was neither embarrassed by it (though I feigned embarrassment) or offended by it. That all changed with season 3.

First of all, the show was always kind of marginalizing and insulting to women (and I assure you, this is coming from somebody that would probably revolt 97% of the hardcore feminists in this country). There was always two members of the team along with Garcia. Garcia was the techie that played the role of the funny, fat chick. Then there was Lola or whatever her name was who we called either size 2 (because that is about the size her butch FBI ass wore) or “Dutch Boy” because she inexplicably got a Dutch Boy haircut during season 2. Finally, there was JJ who is blonde, doe eyed, tight in the ass and that’s about all. Well, Lola left and the Nose took her place at some point near the end of Season 2. Why is she “The Nose?” Because she’s got a profile like a Toucan. She plays the tough girl as the foil to JJ’s blondeness. And in the middle of season 3 she (the Nose) went bang crazy (i.e. “bangs” as in a haircut) as well. There must be something in the water on that set. So there you go- you’ve got the embarrassing chicks of “Criminal Minds.”

Then there are the men- actually, I have no problem with Hotch who is the leader of the team and the by-the-books tight ass. I also have no problem with Dr. Spencer Reed despite the fact that he is absurd. My primary issues with the men are Shemar, who is the beefcake, meathead of the group and has been on the show from the beginning and Montegna. First, Shemar- really, if the show didn’t sink to the lowly levels it sunk to, Shemar would be tolerable, but as it is, the show sucks and I can’t put up with his meatheaded ass. Then there is Montegna- how did that guy ever get any notoriety? Why did they hire him? He might be the worst, famous actor of all time. Charisma? He’s got none. Ability? Not a lick. Looks? Nope. Bad Facial Hair? Plenty to go around. However, the show taking a dive was not as simple as Patinkin being replaced by Montegna (though it could be argued that was symptomatic).

The four big problems I had- the reason the show got to a point that it insulted my intelligence- were as follows-

Firstly, “Criminal Minds” was always a shameless huckster. I didn’t have to see the commercials to know whether it was Ford or GM that was sponsoring the show. All I had to do was look at which urban assault vehicle they were prominently driving that week. Nevertheless, there was one part of one episode that I vividly recall where the girlies were standing there drinking some bottled water and “ahhing” like they’d just spent three summer weeks in the back of a UPS truck, the labels to said water rammed up the viewers’ nose. It was so blatant and so over-the-top it was almost like a parody. I recall hearing a podcast a while back where this advertising guy noted how the unwritten contract between the viewer and the sponsor used to be “we will provide you with this free entertainment if you watch our pitch.” Fair enough. Thus, “You Bet Your Life” was sponsored by Plymouth or whatever. But this water-up-my-nose bullshit obliterates the contract.

Going one step further than that there is the selling of a way of life, the suburbanization and indoctrination of every viewer of the show. It not-too-coincidentally seemed that every case was spent saving the suburbs from another wacko monster. To read into that- the suburbs and the whitebread in it are America. We must save them from the weirdos (i.e. the non-consumers) so that they can purchase more shit from our sponsors.

Then there is the part about getting inside the criminal’s mind, understanding the criminal. That ended after season 2. There was no more understanding the criminal. In fact, rather than understanding or having any sympathy for anybody other than the helpless suburbanites and the sponsors there was nothing. The criminals had become the monsters that every show likes to paint them as being.

Lastly, there was the convenience of the denouement- “Hey Garcia, we’ve deduced that the killer is a 25-40 year old white male that is very intelligent. Can you get me the name of everybody that fits that description in the Baltimore area?” “Sure, hot lips.” 10 minutes later- “It’s got to be this one. His profile says he wears blue sweaters. This guy likes blue sweaters. Bingo.”

Well, I am done with “Criminal Minds.” What was once amusingly “the worst show of all time” has really become the worst show of all time. However, I am left to wonder one thing- was it coincidental that Patinkin left before the show turned terribly sour? Did it turn terribly sour because he left? Did he see the same things that I am seeing and say “no thank you?” Of course he did. That is why he is Mandy Patinkin.