In case you're curious, you can pretty much figure out what tv shows will be cancelled by checking my level of enthusiasm. Well, not a hundred percent of the time but very nearly. Apparently American Idol's lead-in was stronger than my enthusiasm-of-death for House because it's still doing well even though I've liked it all along. I do hope I haven't jinxed the second season of Damages, however.

I have to wonder what the producers' reasoning is when they give us strong and interesting characters who become part of our lives . . . and then they yank them away without warning or time to prepare. After all, you'd know if you're coming to the end of a book.

I may have inherited this curse from my father. We both enjoyed the Robert Urich "Spenser" series - especially the Hawk characterization. And we both liked Tom Selleck's version of the Jesse Stone novels by Robert Parker. Last year I was a fan of James Woods' Shark mostly because I loved the relationship between Shark and his daughter, difficult and loving and layered. In shows like these, central plots may be clichéd and/or silly but none have clichéd or predictable characters.

The current example is this and last year's Eli Stone. It had some simplistic flaws and even a few wince-worthy moments but it made an attempt to mix drama with humor and even outrageousness now and then, even occasional flamboyance. Watching it was a lot of fun. Who'd have thought George Michael could be charming as a recurrent figment of someone's imagination? Who'd have known that Victor Garber could break into song and dance right after delivering a serious legal argument and be terrific fun? Or that Katie Holmes could be a rousing song and dance girl herself? All that was true, however, and yet last night appears to have been the final aired episode. No warning to the writers so they could wrap up story lines. No warning to viewers so we could wrap up our feelings. It's as if a whole bunch of acquaintances were just vaporized. It's unfair to them, and to us.

Labels: questions, tv, whining

Not sure why Caroline is being reviled as far as the senate seat. When Hillary moved to NY and ran for that office, her only qualifications were that she had lived in the White House (as did Caroline) and been married to the President (Caroline was his daughter) and been an advocate for health care reform (different cause but similar advocacy). Caroline brings the connectedness of a Kennedy which is good and bad news, of course, but that's like Hillary, too. Caroline's previous reluctance to be involved in politics might even mean that she's only getting into it now because her heart is finally leading her where her head probably still tells her to stay away (or it vice versa?). Anyway, I'm not sure why there's any question.

P.S. Doesn't playing Beg-The-Governor almost guarantee unseemly and/or untoward behavior (cf. Illinois)? Shouldn't replacing a statewide elected official be done with a special election?

Labels: politics, questions

Not sure why PBS is conducting polls, but they are. It all comes off their PBS Now page. Seems a little odd on a non-profit tv station's website but what the heck. A friend of mine received an email urging her to vote about whether Palin is qualified to run. One should not assume that friends or people we like share our tastes or beliefs. Be careful what you wish for and what you urge on others.

The same website has an interactive electoral map. It's really interesting to hover over each state and learn about 2004 and polls there. On the other hand, this map might make us all think it doesn't matter whether we vote. Since no one has voted yet, the assignments of states to either candidate are a tad premature and full of assumptions. They may be correct assumptions but human beings have been known to throw prognostication to the wolves. (Can you say Dewey?)

Labels: 2008 election, questions

Have you found the last weeks puzzling too? I mean, Obama's meteoric rise to exciting prominence was in large account because of his expressed and new approach to political discourse as much as his views. As a bright young Democrat, his points of view seemed clear even if they weren't a matter of record since his record is thin. But his post-anger, post-negative, post-antagonistic attitude thrilled me and others. I felt hopeful, thought maybe there was a fresh breeze in American politics, a new way to solve and prevent problems. It felt calming and rational and renewing.

The first warning shot was the revelation about Jeremiah Wright's fiendishly angry diatribes. Even if they were somewhat misinterpreted, they were dreadful. And when Obama said he'd never heard Wright speak like that before, my stomach lurched because either he'd lied about being there or he was ridiculously inattentive or he he was lying about not hearing the previous rants. Evidently I'd succumbed to the mania, I realized, because I suddenly felt off balance.

Then there were incidents and a changed tone of voice over following weeks, all documented elsewhere and not worth rehashing right now. Even meanness and nastiness, weirdness, anger. But each seemingly minor moment was greeted by Obama with a back-track or an explanation an excuse. But in the end it came down to the pedestal crumbling and Obama no longer being the fair-haired child, no longer being the post-anger, post-negative, post-antagonistic figure he claimed and seemed to be. I'm afraid it's back to politics as disgusting and as usual.

So who on earth do I vote for? I am between a fairly hard rock that I know somewhat and a hard place that might be all right or might be dreadful but who the heck knows. Do I vote for a man who's been part of the government for decades and who has a moderately good record but is most likely to be a caretaker? Or do I vote for a man who's less seasoned than almost any have been and who also has the infamous Chicago machine behind him? They both dissemble and exaggerate and make promises they'll never be able to keep. It's all too familiar a choice between people I don't feel great about. But the times are worse than usual, or so it seems, so the president might matter more than usual.

A friend suggested a political science-y way to choose. Ask myself whether I want a president who (A) is the same party and "flavor" as Congress and therefore can (presumably) get anything done he wants, or (B) is the other party from Congress and therefore must persuade and cajole to get things done. Keeping in mind our revered and generally successful three-part government structure, would it be preferable if two of the parts can operate as one, or would it be better if they are in dynamic opposition?

Labels: 2008 election, questions

We watched The Counterfeiters last weekend. It's an Austrian film that won the foreign film Oscar for 2007 and it's terrific. A master forger is arrested and held in a concentration camp and one day the Nazis decide they are going to forge British pounds and attempt to undermine the British economy. Apparently this idea occurred to Roosevelt and Churchill, too, other way around of course, but they didn't put it into action. The prisoners were so good at it - linen in the paper, complicated printing presses, numbering system of the Bank of England, etc., etc. - that they floated nearly 400 million pounds (~9 million physical pieces of money). After the war the Brits had to change the paper and the size of the bills lest the fake bills inflate their economy. Apparently they were truly indistinguishable from the real ones.

There are slogans on the walls of the forgers' workroom and print shop that are never translated but are a perfect touch of the sadism we all know abounded. "Mit Halbheiten wird nichts Ganzes gewonnen" (Half will never become whole - presumably meaning you must work full-tilt, not half-heartedly), and "Jedem das Seine" (Everyone his own - presumably meaning you get what you put into it) and "Mehr tun als es die Pflicht befiehlt !" (Do more than your duty commands you to). The intensity and uses of such slogans are hard to deal with.

The movie also poses a challenging dilemma. Should you sabotage an enterprise run by evildoers, your enemy, simply because they are doing it? Or should you resist sabotage because your fellow 145 prisoners will be killed if you do? Might it have stopped the Nazis sooner if they had sabotaged the effort? Would sending comrades to their death although foiling the Nazis be the using bad means to accomplish a good end? Would it have been justifiable?

There's also a wry telling of these events in a British series called Private Schultz. Very funny because it shows the utter absurdity of the horrific events and manages to be smart at the same time while yet never ignoring the miserable situation.

The Counterfeiters skillfully presents its story and questions while being neither preachy nor somber and all the while telling an enthralling tale. I highly recommended both the tv series and the film.

Labels: modern culture, moralism, movies, questions

I'm not sure why it's "the" American teenager in the title and not "an" American teenager and heaven knows none of these kids bear much resemblance to any teenagers I've ever known or know now aside from their relentless self-absorption. Whatever, I got hooked watching The Secret Life of the American Teenager because of Molly Ringwald and couldn't not watch after that. It had its season finale last night and just as confused about what I think of it as I was at the beginning. I know I like Ashley best (she's the imperfect daughter and is played by Olivia Hussey's daughter, India Eisley) and Molly Ringwald's a close second. Everyone else is almost unbearably breathily emotional, a description that doesn't make much sense unless you've seen the show. There are plenty of big issues (pregnancy, divorce, religion, intolerance, emotional and physical abuse, handicaps, just to name a few) and every episode touched on almost all of them just a tad manipulatively and casually, to the point where sometimes I had to scream and stop watching or skip ahead. Here's the basic story outline:

15-year-old gets carelessly pregnant, doesn't even like the guy let alone want to be his girlfriend or wife or the mother of his child

same girl meets really nice guy soon after discovering she's preggers and they realize they're each other's soulmates even though . . . .

same girl's two supposedly best friends spill the beans and pretty soon everyone knows that goodie-two-shoes isn't so pure after all

meanwhile back at the ranch (just kidding) the putative father is a rotten guy who'll twist and turn every way he can to get girls to, er, play with him

but then we learn that his parents were wastes of space and he was abused so it's really all so sad and understandable

except that his main squeeze (literally, in this case) is the school slut who we would hate except that she's also brilliant even though her father has been absent for 16 years (yes, all her life)

but since she wants to be in charge of her life she tracks him down and finds out he's the town's D.A. and when she confronts him he decides he want to get involved in her life now and suddenly he's the only parental unit in the whole show who acts like one

There are a bazillion other things going on. Like the actor who played Smallville's Clark Kent's father (John Schneider) plays the father of the "Christian good girl" which is just too recent and the roles are too similar so every show I had to remind myself that we're not in Kansas any more. And Grace, the aforementioned "Christian good girl," is ridiculously stereotypical, down to and including being blonde and sticky sweet and about to fall hooklineandsinker for the 15-year-old's bad-guy-father-to-be, of course. And there's a black girlfriend and a Latina slutty girl and all the rest. But it's somehow hard to resist despite way too many coincidences, juxtapositions, convenient overlaps, etc., and a tremendously unpleasant smug self-righteous attitude about all those platitudes. And yet . . .

Labels: questions, tv, writing

Not sure.  Read this and add your thoughts, please.  I mean, we've all had friends who did things we would never do.  So is it part of Obama's wholecloth or beside the point?

I am definitely puzzled as to what might be so "wrong" with the ad or with the American Issues Project that both Fox and CNN will not run the ad.  When was the last time they agreed so thoroughly?

Labels: 2008 election, questions