( 9:29 AM )
My wife is pregnant with our second child. I'm mentioning that here despite the fact that there's still a whole group of friends and probably some relatives that we haven't told the news to yet.
The pregnancy is what those in the family planning industry term "unexpected." We considered the possibility of naming the new addition after our initial reaction to the news but "You Have Got To Be Freakin' Kidding Me" seems kind of long. Now we're leaning towards a unisex name like "Oops" instead.
It's really only been a couple of years since the last time my wife was pregnant, but it seems like a very long time ago. Apparently, you block out a lot of the memories of what it's like to be pregnant and live with a pregnant person...probably so that you won't remember that you vowed never to go through it again.
The biggest thing I've been reminded of so far is just what a lie the term "morning sickness" is. Everyone in my household wishes that the nausea was confined strictly to the AM. Instead it's morning, noon and night with seemingly no reason to it whatsoever. She can go from being perfectly fine to horribly sick quicker than a Porsche Carrera can go from 0 to 60 (that's about 5 seconds for you non-Porsche aficionados).
Then there's the sensitivity to otherwise undectable smells, at levels usually reserved for feral animals, which is a lot of fun as well. I can open the refrigerator three rooms away but the smell of something inside will still make my wife sick.
Trust me when I tell you that you don't know how much you love someone until you hear the words, "Honey, I tried to make it to the bathroom but..." I'm sure there are people out there with strong enough constitutions that vomit doesn't faze them one bit, but I'm not part of that select group. I'm now fully prepared for some deep sea diving thanks to the time I've spent holding my breath and cleaning.
I'd like to find the person that coined that "morning sickness" phrase and beat them senseless with my scrub brush. I'd like them to stop by at 11 p.m. while my wife's pale and clutching her stomach and explain to me how that qualifies as "morning." Basically, I'd like them marched across the country with a big sign that says "Liar" hanging from their neck.
Really there should be a program from Planned Parenthood where they make teenage girls spend a week with a pregnant woman that's going through the sickness stage. Then force them to sit through an actual delivery. If that doesn't inspire them to take the necessary precautions to keep from getting pregnant then nothing will.
Great...my wife's got that "glow" of pregnancy again. If you'll excuse me, I need to go get my cleaning supplies...
::
0 comments
( 7:59 AM )
I've mentioned here before that I'm a huge fan of Fox's extremely funny, but ratings challenged, sitcom "Arrested Development." The show's second season began last week and last night I was once again parked in front of my set for another slice of life with the Bluth family. It wasn't one of the show's strongest episodes, but as is always the case there was at least one very funny exchange:
Michael: Ever since we were kids, Dad has pitted us against each other.
Gob: Dad always said that was your fault.
Most of the show's funnier moments were sight gags - David Cross in blue paint as a wannabe Blue Man Group understudy will probably get old at some point, but not yet - which lose something in translation so I won't bother mentioning them. Besides, I really wanted to write about the new show that follows AD.
When the earlier Fox show "My Big, Fat, Obnoxious Fiance" was airing, I wasn't anymore interested in it than I am in any other reality show, even if it was mostly just a big practical joke. My biggest problem with it was the fact that I easily recognized the actor playing the "fiance" from national TV commercials that I knew had aired before the show ever taped. If I could spot that quickly - and the guy is fairly distinctive looking - how is it that no one that wasn't in on the whole thing didn't bring up the fact that he was a commercial actor? Having played "myself" on an episode of Comedy Central's "I'm With Busey" it just smacked of more suspended reality than anything else.
But when Fox began running promos for the follow-up - "My Big, Fat, Obnoxious Boss" - my wife immediately announced that she wanted to watch it. I didn't protest too much, like I did when she watched "Joe Millionaire," because the premise did sound more interesting.
Basically, they took a bunch of young business go-getters (ie suck-ups) - or more accurately rejects from "The Apprentice" - and told them they were going to be on an "Apprentice" knock-off featuring a Chicago billionaire. Instead, it's all a big set-up with the billionaire and all of his associates being played by actors. The producers devise exceedingly stupid "challenges" for the contestants and the actors do their best to be confusing, abrasive and obnoxious.
I should confess here that I don't like or watch "The Apprentice." I've spent large chunks of my life working for big corporations and I've known people like those contestants...and really I haven't liked most of them. To me, these shows lose something if you're rooting for everyone to fail...a problem I've had with "Survivor" the times that I've tried to watch it.
Well, here the whole idea is for all of them to fail, so it doesn't matter if you don't have a rooting interest. The best part of the show is watching the little boot-lickers try to take all of it seriously and put on their best "I'm here to win this thing!" face. It's like watching a group of less literate Linuses trying to convince everyone that each has the most sincere pumpkin patch. There was one laugh out loud moment on last night's episode when six of the contestants were rewarded with a tour of the fake billionaire's multimillion dollar brownstone and were subsequently convinced that he owned the "real" sword Excalibur. Then they kept referring to it in their straight into the camera asides. Now that's funny stuff.
The one thing that I thought about as all of the Yuppies (and one token Buppie) try to make sense out of the nonsensical challenges is that working in corporate America conditions you to take even the most asinine request seriously...which leads to these people buying this hook, line and sinker. Sure, reality TV has the contestants expecting the outrageousness, but exposure to corporate life helps out a great deal. Whether it's goofy team building exercises or a fatally flawed project that was suggested by someone too high up to be told "no," you learn in corporate offices to just go along with the harmless stupidity and if you want to get ahead, to go along with great enthusiasm.
Actually, I've been impressed with the level of creativity the contestants have mustered in trying to complete their first two challenges (panhandling and selling hot soup in the middle of summer). The fact that they've managed to pull some of it off bodes well for their future in business. They still look like tools while they're doing it, but looking like or being a tool is an asset in plenty of companies all across this great country.
I'm curious to hear what the contestants think now as they watch themselves going along with everything and discussing all of it with the utmost seriousness. Fox keeps referring to them as Ivy Leaguers even though my best guess is that at most one or maybe two attended one of those 8 institutions. It's sort of like when "The Bachelorette" announces that they have the "most eligible single men" in the country when a group of them are out of work actors.
The most disappointing thing about all of this was when they announced that there is a real prize as well as a "secret" Trump-level boss actually deciding who stays and goes. Personally, I was hoping for a Monty Hall "Let's Make a Deal" style finale where the winner gets the live donkey that's behind Door Number 3. I suppose I'll just have to be happy with the show making these people look like asses on broadcast television.
It's not the most enlightening hour of television, but it's certainly amusing enough. If you feel too guilty spending an hour watching it, do something else at the same time (balance the checkbook, straighten bookshelves, write your dissertation, etc.). That's what I do anyway.
::
0 comments
( 10:08 PM )
The site currently has an article up that discusses how insidious Christmas music can be (). Well, I've got a little confession to make...I'm one of those freaks that love Christmas music. I have ever since I was a kid listening to scratched up LP's on the family's old record player. Come Thanksgiving and going through New Year's Eve, I'll have Christmas music playing in my house and car at least half the time.
Just because I have an affinity for Christmas music though doesn't mean that I like all Christmas music. I don't suddenly go tone deaf in December every year. Just because it's seasonal music doesn't mean that Manneheim Steamroller doesn't suck. Actually, most Christmas albums that are released range from barely listenable to God awful. That's why as a fan of the music of the season -- and without getting too Amazon.com on everyone -- I'm offering up a list of 12 CD's of Christmas that I break out every year to help celebrate:
A Jolly Christmas From Frank Sinatra - Frank Sinatra: If you don't like Sinatra, I'm not going to try to sell you on how perfect a vocalist he was. All I'm going to say is that this album has the swingingest version of "Jingle Bells" ever recorded. What was Side 2 on the album is almost entirely secular music, which might not be everyone's cup of tea, but if you like that sort of thing it's a rare treat to hear Sinatra trying on a spiritual hat.
The Christmas Song - Nat King Cole: You can get "The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting On An Open Fire)" on literally hundreds of compilations. What makes the full album worth having is the way Cole makes every song sound as smooth as silk. The guy's voice was amazing and Christmas standards brought out his best.
Making Spirits Bright - Dean Martin: This is actually a combination of two of his old Christmas albums, from his time with Capital and then Reprise. That old Reprise album has a loyal following but has never been released on CD, so this is as close as you can get. The handiest part of the combination is having one disc with both "Baby, It's Cold Outside" and "Marshmallow World" included.
Christmas With Johnny Mathis - Johnny Mathis: Like Nat King Cole, Mathis' voice just seems to lay perfectly for Christmas music. He has a number of Christmas releases but this is the best of the bunch. Unfortunately, again the original vinyl release from the '60's was better, mostly because it included two other songs that have subsequently disappeared. One of those, "Have Reindeer Will Travel," was my favorite Christmas song as a kid.
That Holiday Feeling - Steve Lawrence & Eydie Gorme: OK, admittedly this is more of a personal favorite rather than a stellar album...it's hard for Steve & Eydie not to be cheesy. That said, the title track and their versions of "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town" and "Baby, It's Cold Outside" kick ass. That's right, I just said Steve & Eydie kick ass. Sometimes the truth hurts.
A Charlie Brown Christmas - Vince Guaraldi: So what if it's not entirely Christmas music...you know darn well that these songs are burned somewhere in your head because of the TV special. I've been to parties where this was the only CD played for the entire evening and no one complained.
A Very Special Christmas, Volume 1 - Various Artists: As with most things, the original is the best. This compilation is decent almost the whole way through, which isn't true for the rest of the series. The main reason that it wins out is that Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without a little Run-DMC.
A Motown Christmas - Various Artists: Amazingly, the weakest songs on this album are sung by Smokey Robinson. This is a must have just for Stevie Wonder's "What Christmas Means To Me," but it doesn't hurt your ears to listen to the cuts from The Supremes, The Temptations and The Jackson 5, all in their prime, either.
Christmas of Hope - Various Artists: This is out of print, but you can find used copies. It was a fund raising CD and I like it for two reasons. First, it has The Eagles' version of "Please Come Home For Christmas" included. Second, it tries to pass off U2's "New Year's Day" as a holiday song.
Snowfall - Tony Bennett: I'm not sure what the deal is but Tony Bennett has become a better singer the older he's gotten. This album probably wouldn't have worked in the 60's when he was trying to compete with the other crooners of the day but in the 90's it sounds mint. Still, the best song is the recording of Bennett doing "I'll Be Home For Christmas" on the old Jon Stewart Show.
Ella Wishes You a Merry Christmas - Ella Fitzgerald: If you haven't learned to appreciate Ella Fitzgerald, Christmas is as good a time as any to start. Not all of the songs on here are good, but her voice always is. And her take on "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" practically reinvents the song.
Merry Christmas - Mariah Carey: I'm loathe to include this because her vocal histrionics get on my nerves and she's not exactly subtle when she gets hold of the Christmas hymns. However, her "All I Want For Christmas Is You" is one of the best Christmas recordings of the last 25 years. Just be aware that if you're feeling suicidal around the holidays "Miss You Most (At Christmas Time)" just might push you over the edge.
If I were to make it a baker's dozen, number 13 would be "A Christmas Gift For You From Phil Spector." It's a little uneven but Darlene Love and The Ronettes can liven up most any occasion. Just overlook Spector's various sins (giving Sonny Bono his start, ruining some Beatles songs, allegedly killing his actress girlfriend, etc.) since after all Christmas is a season of forgiving.
While I didn't include it the NOW! Christmas compilation does have merit with classics by Bing Crosby and Nat King Cole and newer classics by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. It just also has a lot of crap on it too. There's a better out of of print British compilation called "It's Christmas" that includes the solo Beatles' songs as well as Christmas hits by Elton John, The Kinks and Greg Lake. And, even though Elvis Presley hated his voice, I've always been partial to Robert Goulet's Christmas album. Actually, depending on your mood Elvis' Christmas offering isn't terrible either.
So, wait a few weeks, light the yule log, bust out some mulled wine, pop a few of these CD's in the player and do what comes naturally. Trust me, you'll be making merry and spreading joy in no time.
::
0 comments
( 3:13 PM )
In an earlier post, I mentioned that I was going to find out where the expression "take a stroll down memory lane" came from after I trotted out that old chestnut cliche. Well, I don't just say these things...I mean them. So, after not being able to find anything initially, I sent an e-mail to the Library of Congress.
What I was told is that they found an origin given in the book "The Facts on File Dictionary of Cliches: Meanings and Origins of More Than 3,500 Terms and Expressions" by Christine Ammer. Apparently, there was a book published in 1954 titled "Down Memory Lane: The Arthur Murray Picture Book of Social Dancing" by Sylvia Dannett and Frank Rachel. It was a history of dance with particular attention paid to the Jazz Age. The expression about going "down memory lane" somehow caught on from there.
If you're thinking that it seems more likely that the book would've been named after the expression, instead of the expression being taken from the book, well that's kind of nagging at me too. I mean, I realize that Arthur Murry was quite popular back in the day, but that popular? However, since I can't find anything else that gives a different explanation for where the phrase comes from, I'm just going to have to trust the Library of Congress on this one.
::
0 comments
( 9:09 AM )
As the election results seemingly show, the United States is moving in a decidedly conservative and decidedly Republican direction. I'm sure that's fine if you are conservative and Republican, but if you're neither it can leave you feeling a little like a man without a country.
It isn't so much that I disagree with the policies put forth by the Republican Party -- although, for the most part, I do -- as much as I'm dismayed by the culture it's fostering, particularly in its zeal to tie itself to certain religious issues. It seems wrong to me that in a country settled by people seeking religious freedom that in many elections in this country it's impossible to win unless you loudly profess certain religious beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, religion is something that's completely personal. I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs, I just don't understand how that becomes the deciding factor in casting a vote.
We saw it in this election...there are people out there that are out of work, with no prospect of finding anything close to a decent paying job, that have a child fighting a war in Iraq that they don't completely understand...but they still voted for George W. Bush because he's against abortion and gay marriage. I find that nearly incomprehensible.
Abortion I can at least understand why people feel the way that they do, even if I don't and I'm against them trying to force others to believe their way. But the gay marriage dust up I just don't understand at all. I don't really care if two people -- any two people -- want to get married. If a company wants to offer domestic partner benefits and cover more people under their insurance, I honestly don't see the downside. The rallying cry is "we must protect the sanctity of marriage." Well, the only marriage that's sanctity I care about is my own. Besides, if as a country we're really that worried about the "sanctity of marriage" then where's the big hue and cry to outlaw divorce? Oh that's right, it's because there are all sorts of divorced religious leaders around the country with fistfuls of divorced church goers as part of their congregations.
The other tact that came up in this election, with both abortion and stem cell research, was the argument that people shouldn't have to have their tax money going towards programs that they disagree with. When did we decide that individuals get to say that they don't want their tax money spent for this or that? Really, I want to know, because there's a whole host of things that I don't really want my tax dollars spent on. I mean, I thought that's why we have elections and ballot initiatives and so forth, but if I'm wrong about that just tell me where I can send my list of things that I want my tax money used for.
The old Democratic Party -- the version before the current floundering one -- turned people off with its air of intellectual superiority, like the brainiacs at school that always made people self-conscious with their know-it-all ways. Well, the current Republican Party has seized power by making like the popular clique that dominated most of our high schools. They know how to use aggressive tactics to give off the impression of superiority. What they say might not make any sense, but they say it in a manner that says that there's something wrong with you if you don't go along with them. And not only does what's said frequently not make sense, they're not above throwing out bald-faced lies if it suits the purpose. Afer all if you just say something often enough with television cameras around the public will eventually just accept it as fact. The Democrats in this election tried to fight fire with fire and lie with lie and just came off looking like the geek that's trying to act cool.
Considering that there's a lot of people out there that, if they weren't in the popular clique wanted to be, I'm really not sure how you combat that. Eventually, I suppose, things become so messed up and whole groups become so disenfranchised that people are willing to make an honest assessment. Then again, in listening to many of my fellow Americans talk, I'm not even sure that's the case anymore. Sometimes in a democracy, you've got to be willing to cave to the majority on most issues. However, that doesn't mean that you can't think that the majority is a pack of slobbering idiots. I'm pretty sure that's an inalienable right...even for those of us on the left.
::
0 comments
( 10:31 PM )
With Election Day upon us there’s something that I’ve been thinking about quite a bit. I call myself a Democrat because that’s more right than the alternative. But I’m Democrat much the same way that I’m Catholic – it’s easier to label yourself as what you grew up around than to try to explain that you really don’t entirely agree with any of the options available.
I disagree with the Republican position on almost every issue, but then again, the Democratic Party doesn’t necessarily speak for me either. The fringe parties – the Libertarians, the Green Party, etc. – all have their own multitude of issues. Just like with religion, there isn’t really a political party that fits me well. Unlike with my particular religious issues, however, I think there’s a whole big group of Americans that are thinking the same thing as I am politically.
So, here’s what needs to happen – I need to find a group of people that includes a number of people with a lot of money and then we need to start a new mainstream political party. One that’s based on some semblance of common sense reasoning. One that’s willing to listen to the concerns of a special interest group without the requisite trip to the Bahamas and backroom promises. One that can say “no” to those same special interest groups when that interest runs opposite of what’s right for the majority of Americans.
One that doesn’t have a problem with a company wanting to be as profitable as possible, but wants to find ways for those companies to do so without completely destroying the working class of this country. One that’s committed to streamlining various antiquated processes within the government, whether it’s something as simple as the contract bid processes or larger issues having to do with legal, legislative and healthcare reform.
The government structure has allowed too many procedural elements to become too convoluted and too many people make money off of the problems to get anyone excited about change – so we need to find enough of the people that want things to change and get them started on a path where they can eventually affect change. That can’t happen overnight, of course, it would take at least a couple of decades. But if there was a solid commitment to certain principals and a willingness to keep fighting no matter how nasty the entrenched politicos would get, then slowly but surely people might realize that things don’t have to remain the way they are ad infinitum.
The biggest principal would be common sense. What makes the most sense for the most Americans? And does what makes the most sense work without harming too many other Americans? If it is harmful, is there a 1A solution that strikes a better balance? Government isn’t quite as complicated as we’ve allowed it to become…it’s just that what we’re seeing is what has happened in other societies when complacency and greed have eventually taken over. It’s what has happened in pretty much every successful example you can think of and it eventually led to the downfall of those structures.
Where we should be smarter in this day and age is there should be enough people smart enough to recognize what’s happening and where things are leading. Then we can take counter measures to bring us back to the foundation that our country was founded on. It’s never been perfect, but we’ve allowed it to become a lot more imperfect since World War II than it really should be. So, let’s legitimately try to do something about it without solely resorting to reassuring the American public with empty rhetoric like the “USA is Number 1!” and the “USA Kicks Ass!” I’m not saying that those aren’t true, I’m saying that those aren’t the guaranteed birthright of any country – you have to put in the work and you have to be smart enough to be self-critical when it’s necessary.
It would be nice if the two party system that we have now were actually as committed to the common good as they once were or as they would have you believe that they still are. But the fact is that they aren’t. There’s too much money going into too many directions. Things are made complicated to act as a series of smoke screens to block out the American public. The media – which both sides of the equation likes to call biased against them – is in fact biased, only it’s biased in the fact that all of our major media outlets are controlled by huge corporate conglomerates. The interest that they have most at heart is that of their corporate parent.
So, there’s my reasoning for believing that we need to start a new political party committed to doing what’s right for our nation without immediately bending over and whipping out a tube of KY every time Big Money decides to pay a booty call.
Here’s the biggest problem that I see though – worse than the fact that both the Republican and Democratic parties would immediately squash any movement that they felt was a legitimate threat to their strangleholds – and that’s figuring out a name for the party.
I mean, what can you do? The main parties have serious name recognition and those are good, strong sounding names. You can’t really trot out an old party name, like the Federalist, because who the hell would have any idea what that’s supposed to mean? You can’t borrow from another country and call it something like the Labor Party, because that’s got a whole different Jimmy Hoffa-ish connotation here. That’s one of the biggest issues that the fringe parties have is that most of their names sound stupid.
Could it be called the Common Sense Party? The Commoners? The Sensians? The Commoners would give off a nice anti-establishment vibe, but do people really want to call themselves Commoners? I just don’t know.
Without the backing money and a really good name, I’m just not sure how to proceed from here. Maybe this is where the revolution has always bogged down – not enough funding and not a good enough marketing department.
That doesn’t mean that I plan on giving up entirely on my foolhardy idea. I think this country could use as many Don Quixote’s tilting at our governmental windmills as possible. So, if you’ve got several million dollars or you’ve got the perfect catchy name for a hip and trendy new political party, by all means let me know.
::
0 comments
|
