Okay, so I will cover my standard favorites another time, but I feel like documenting how I feel about first episodes of a few new series.
Defying Gravity (ABC) - I REALLY want to talk about this one... I am pretty much pissed off that ABC is not giving this show what it deserves. It was sold poorly as "Grey's Anatomy in space", and the show is SO much more than that. No, it isn't fully a drama, but no it also isn't fully a sci-fi. Lots of reviews have said that because it isn't enough of either that it isn't good, but from actually having watched it and LOVED it, I can't stand the fact that it isn't getting its fair shake. If ABC holds on to the remaining episodes and never airs them I might stop watching ABC shows... if they air the remaining episodes and still drop the show just because of ratings I will treat them like FOX and put them on a short leash.
Archer (FX) - The animation is a bit odd for the style of comedy that they are doing, but it could work... it was very funny in the first episode so we'll see how it goes.
Community (NBC) - Amusing enough. I don't know that any of the characters are compelling enough to me for it to be anything more than a time killer, but from the first two episodes it is at least funny enough to watch.
Glee (FOX) - From the Pilot I thought this show might really be going places with the humor of the over-the-top stereotypical characters and music, but the last two episodes really haven't gone anywhere... not giving up yet, but it is disappointing.
Bored to Death (HBO) - A pretty morbid show, but it seems like it could go places. I generally like Schwartzman.
Accidentally on Purpose (CBS) - It seems like a chick show... not sure where it is going, but it wasn't particularly funny, but not horrible. Again, we'll see.
The Forgotten (ABC) - If every show focuses on finding dead people and trying to figure out who they are only to reveal to their families that they are dead I don't know if I am going to be that interested in it. Plus cop shows rarely interest me.
The Good Wife (CBS) - Not really sure about this show either... I like lawyer shows more than cop shows, but as far as lawyer shows go this one isn't high on the list from what I can tell... which is sad because I like Josh Charles. Maybe he will have more of a role as things go on and it will be better.
Cougar Town, (ABC) - Not nearly as funny as I think it was cracked up to be... maybe it is because I am male and not over 40, but I found none of it amusing. It was like 2 minutes of funny and 20 minutes of constant reminders that the show was about Cougars.
Eastwick, (ABC) - A blonde a brunette and a redhead walk into a coven... but there is no punchline. It wasn't really a comedy, wasn't really a drama, and wasn't really worth watching.
Mercy, (NBC) - You know, I pretty much had enough of Girl Hospital with Grey's Anatomy and Private Practice, and in this show they aren't even the doctors. Yeah, I get that the focus is on their lives rather than the medicine, but still... would it be so hard to get a straight male character on the show that isn't there just to be the temporary object of affection of one of the women? Honestly if the show doesn't do something to break out of that mold I don't know if I will stick with it, although I am shocked that Taylor Schilling hasn't done more work as she seems to be at least a reasonably good actor. We'll see.
Modern Family, (ABC) - Also not as funny as I was expecting. Ed O'Neill was pretty great in a very subtle way, but I really wasn't getting much from the rest of the characters. There wasn't nearly enough comedy to carry even a 30 minute show.
Flash Forward, (ABC) - I actually really like the premise of this show... but since the flash was for 6 months I don't really see how the show can last longer than that... I am sure they will come up with some twist, but watching this episode I wasn't really that into any of the characters or any of the plot enough to think I really wanted to watch it again.
The Beautiful Life (CW) - No. Seriously, no. Bad acting, bad plot, the show really had no redeeming qualities whatsoever... but at least from the looks of things it won't last long.
Trauma, (NBC) - I don't really know what to make of this show... I mean yes it has the action, it has the drama... I just don't know if the characters and plot will really pan out. I don't know if I am up for just another medical drama. Given how much this has been promoted though I think it will make it through the whole season, so hopefully they can write something useful to make it more than just an episode by episode drama that is the same every week.
The Cleveland Show, (Fox) - I will admit it, I really like Family Guy. I was shocked and confused when both it and Futurama were canceled by FOX. Did they seriously think that something else in that time slot would get better ratings? You are generally dealing with football intros for a good chunk of the year and that means preemptions... and plus it is Sunday night... nobody is really watching TV. That said, I am not sure based on the premise if The Cleveland Show will really work, but it is basically just another 30 minutes a week of Family Guy as far as I see it... I can dig it.
Hank, The Middle (ABC) - Okay, I will review these together just because they are very similar in purpose... generic family comedies aimed at trying to get a wide appeal... which from watching them really offers me very little in terms of things to like or dislike. While I really enjoyed Frasier and Everybody Loves Raymond I really see none of the same characteristics in these shows that would make me enjoy them so far. With both Frasier and Raymond they had things from the beginning that really had me hooked... namely good writing. Neither Hank nor Middle had much to speak of for writing... or characters... or plot. Generic situational comedies that don't delve into the characters much at all and didn't really have anything to offer beyond generic wide range appeal. I will try them again for episode 2, but it doesn't look like they are going to be much for watching... and it's sad because ABC will probably keep these shows around forever and cancel things like Defying Gravity and Castle that are genuinely great shows. Urgh ABC! Why would you do this.
Three Rivers (CBS) - As far as medical dramas go Three Rivers was pretty standard, but unlike most other medical dramas right now the characters were very boring. None of them had any interesting interaction with one another, and none of them had anything compelling that made me care about seeing them ever again. The first episode was a full fail and makes me have no desire to see it again.
V (ABC) - Well I vaguely remember the original, but I was quite young and didn't get all the imagery... I definitely remember the eating of the guinea pig eating bit... but this is about the new series. The big thing about the new series seems to be the connection to our current situation... the aliens come in offering freedom from our bad economy, universal (pun?) health care, and of course coming in peace... but in reality they are the reptile people (lol conspiracy theories) that have come to cleverly take over and I suppose eat us all. I laugh at all the connections made to Obamania and socialism... not because they are fake but because so many people don't see it. Anyway, it looks good and I will definitely be watching it... at least after the 4 episodes and 4 month break.
And more to update as I see them... no, I won't watch them all, but I will see quite a few.
Will definitely watch again: Community, Glee, Archer, Defying Gravity, Cleveland Show, V
Might give another try: Mercy, Modern Family, Flash Forward, Cougar Town, Bored To Death, The Middle, The Good Wife
Will not watch: Eastwick, Beautiful Life, The Forgotten, Three Rivers, Trauma, Hank
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Sometimes you wake up at 3AM and want to write...
Money. It drives almost everything in the world today, and yet it is also the thing that Jesus talked about more than anything else. The funny thing about that though is that in church you never really hear about money the way that Jesus talked about it.
It seems like most churches have the same agenda as any corporation: Get more money. When the rich man came to Jesus and asked how he could get to heaven, he said "Sell all your possessions and give to the... church"? Right? Is that not how it went? Matthew 19 and Luke 18 certainly tell a different story... but what about those disciples in Acts that sold any property, land, possessions, etc and gave it to any as they had need? Well, would that be the same thing as giving to a church today? Not really. For as far back as I can tell, "the church" in a worldly corporate sense has always been driven to add to their number in their one location. These days we have churches that are bigger than sports arenas. For hundreds of years the Catholic church has built huge buildings, including not just a sanctuary building, but housing, schools, almost everything imaginable. This made sense for them though, because they actually WERE a school in a sense. Many catholic churches were built to house the priests and nuns, giving them a place to live and learn in proper solitude from the outside world. When people do that today we call it a "cult compound"... but that's another issue entirely. Somewhere along the line though, churches became more and more ornate, more decorations, more art, more gold, more architectural significance, and the church leadership became more and more concerned with gaining wealth. I suppose it was only a matter of time before the Christian church took a lesson from what the Synagogues were doing for centuries as well.
Things were a little different before the corporate church took hold. People in the early years of Christianity didn't meet in a group building. Some of course met in the local temple, but for the most part that wasn't an option seeing as they weren't exactly welcomed with open arms. No, the typical "church" was a few people in a house. Maybe I got reminded of this with the story about the home in San Diego that got fined for having a weekly bible study that met in their house... but anyway, that is what it was about. Just people getting together in the street, in a house, wherever they happened to be they gathered around and heard about their daily message of choice. So back then, where did the money go? While it is true we do have ONE reference of people gathering money to provide for a teacher of the Word, most of the time it went TO THE POOR, DIRECTLY. There was no idea of corporation, no savings account unless you perhaps consider Judas being the "bank" of Jesus' crew... they pooled their money together, he held it, and they used it as they had need. Well, what would they have spent money on other than food? Some new sandals perhaps? Maybe new robes? It's possible. How about the church in Acts? Pretty much the same way. People sold their possessions, pooled the money, and for the most part it was used to provide for each other. The earliest form of Communism perhaps. Yes, people always hate it when I refer to it that way... but that really is what it was like. There were no funds toward a new roof, or new parking lot, or new choir uniforms, or anything else like we have today... there wasn't even a budget. There was probably no yearly stewardship campaign to motivate the people to loosen their purse strings...
So where did things change? Well I think it came with the idea of the church being centered at a consistent location. Once you have that ONE thing, everything else falls apart. When you build the building, then you have a place of operation for the orphanage, the school, the giant auditorium, the pews, the offices, the kitchen... don't get me wrong of course. I don't think any of those things are evil and worthy of full blown condemnation to hell. I just think it got the focus away from what it was all supposed to be about. Selling ALL PROPERTY AND POSSESSIONS AND GIVING TO THE POOR. If you run a charity today, the one thing that most people look at is how much of each dollar given goes to benefit the actual target of the charity. Most of the time it is less than 80 cents per dollar, but there are plenty of charities that are almost half administrative expenses. Well what about if we look at churches the same way. What percentage of each dollar given to the church actually goes to the poor? I think that is how we really need to start looking at how things are run. In my search for a "church home" I hope I actually start finding some that will divulge that information.
Well what about me? How does my life reflect all this? Obviously I am not perfect. I own a home, I have a car, I have furniture and technology and all that... but I do live pretty simply. I decided a long time ago that the acquisition of goods didn't really suit me. I have never bought a car new, I have never paid someone to build me a home, all the furniture I own fits inside my bedroom... it allows me to live pretty cheap. There is more to it than that though. Living cheap by itself doesn't mean a thing, and I will fully admit that in the last year I haven't given much of anything to anyone... but in the last year my salary has also been $0... at least since September. Before that I can pretty much account for where SOME of my money has gone. $16000 here, $7000 there (half of which was repaid), a car given here, a car sold there (with so far no indication of payment), a few hundred over there to help with rent, a few hundred here to help with a phone bill... I could almost say that I spend more money on other people than I spend on myself. Almost. Things change a bit when you are unemployed, but when I did have money I can safely say that I did pretty well with things.
What most people ask me about when I tell them any part of this, and they always ask it, is if I felt like I was getting taken advantage of. It almost makes me laugh to think about it because of all the implications that come with that question. Do I feel like someone takes advantage of me because I give them money and the spend it? Not really. For that I would have to put some value on money, which other than providing for myself to eat and sleep and have a shelter I really don't. For the most part I wouldn't even blink an eye at someone stealing from me or mugging me. People question that I don't even lock my car or front door... the same implications. I am not that attached to anything I own. I give freely, expecting nothing in return, and expect nobody to share the same view that I do on possessions. Somewhere along the way we all seem to have lost the idea of living as a community and giving to others freely, and have fully embraced our global ideals of capitalism and accumulation of wealth. We put value, even sentimental value, on things that hold no real relevance in the grand scheme of things. I think more than anything in this entire diatribe on the state of our greed and lack of concern for the reality existing outside of our own walls, this one thing is what bothers me the most about how far we have come in two thousand years.
Many seem to think it is okay to just allow the government to take care of those in need, which flies in the face of the original idea, at least in a Christian sense, of how we are told to live our lives and use our money... but when I look at the fact that the government gives about 20% of it's budget to Medicaid and welfare, it's hard not to make a comparison to the amount that churches actually use on similar things... or even individuals... although there is the issue of the fact that a huge chunk of that money would go to administrative expenses rather than the actual program, far worse than any of the charities... even the bad ones. I know that if I give a dollar to a homeless person (or apparently homeless in any case) at least 100% of that dollar goes to them, even if it does get spent on alcohol or drugs.
And there is more... there is tons more. A lot of what is in my head can't even really be converted to language, but I think the idea is clear. If this were any sort of an official document I would probably trim half if not more of what is in here, but I can't be bothered to proofread or edit.
You know, if this were a sermon, in spite of all the extraneous stuff, it would probably be titled "Widows and Orphans". Yeah, I know I never mentioned that specifically, but that's pretty much what it is all about.
It seems like most churches have the same agenda as any corporation: Get more money. When the rich man came to Jesus and asked how he could get to heaven, he said "Sell all your possessions and give to the... church"? Right? Is that not how it went? Matthew 19 and Luke 18 certainly tell a different story... but what about those disciples in Acts that sold any property, land, possessions, etc and gave it to any as they had need? Well, would that be the same thing as giving to a church today? Not really. For as far back as I can tell, "the church" in a worldly corporate sense has always been driven to add to their number in their one location. These days we have churches that are bigger than sports arenas. For hundreds of years the Catholic church has built huge buildings, including not just a sanctuary building, but housing, schools, almost everything imaginable. This made sense for them though, because they actually WERE a school in a sense. Many catholic churches were built to house the priests and nuns, giving them a place to live and learn in proper solitude from the outside world. When people do that today we call it a "cult compound"... but that's another issue entirely. Somewhere along the line though, churches became more and more ornate, more decorations, more art, more gold, more architectural significance, and the church leadership became more and more concerned with gaining wealth. I suppose it was only a matter of time before the Christian church took a lesson from what the Synagogues were doing for centuries as well.
Things were a little different before the corporate church took hold. People in the early years of Christianity didn't meet in a group building. Some of course met in the local temple, but for the most part that wasn't an option seeing as they weren't exactly welcomed with open arms. No, the typical "church" was a few people in a house. Maybe I got reminded of this with the story about the home in San Diego that got fined for having a weekly bible study that met in their house... but anyway, that is what it was about. Just people getting together in the street, in a house, wherever they happened to be they gathered around and heard about their daily message of choice. So back then, where did the money go? While it is true we do have ONE reference of people gathering money to provide for a teacher of the Word, most of the time it went TO THE POOR, DIRECTLY. There was no idea of corporation, no savings account unless you perhaps consider Judas being the "bank" of Jesus' crew... they pooled their money together, he held it, and they used it as they had need. Well, what would they have spent money on other than food? Some new sandals perhaps? Maybe new robes? It's possible. How about the church in Acts? Pretty much the same way. People sold their possessions, pooled the money, and for the most part it was used to provide for each other. The earliest form of Communism perhaps. Yes, people always hate it when I refer to it that way... but that really is what it was like. There were no funds toward a new roof, or new parking lot, or new choir uniforms, or anything else like we have today... there wasn't even a budget. There was probably no yearly stewardship campaign to motivate the people to loosen their purse strings...
So where did things change? Well I think it came with the idea of the church being centered at a consistent location. Once you have that ONE thing, everything else falls apart. When you build the building, then you have a place of operation for the orphanage, the school, the giant auditorium, the pews, the offices, the kitchen... don't get me wrong of course. I don't think any of those things are evil and worthy of full blown condemnation to hell. I just think it got the focus away from what it was all supposed to be about. Selling ALL PROPERTY AND POSSESSIONS AND GIVING TO THE POOR. If you run a charity today, the one thing that most people look at is how much of each dollar given goes to benefit the actual target of the charity. Most of the time it is less than 80 cents per dollar, but there are plenty of charities that are almost half administrative expenses. Well what about if we look at churches the same way. What percentage of each dollar given to the church actually goes to the poor? I think that is how we really need to start looking at how things are run. In my search for a "church home" I hope I actually start finding some that will divulge that information.
Well what about me? How does my life reflect all this? Obviously I am not perfect. I own a home, I have a car, I have furniture and technology and all that... but I do live pretty simply. I decided a long time ago that the acquisition of goods didn't really suit me. I have never bought a car new, I have never paid someone to build me a home, all the furniture I own fits inside my bedroom... it allows me to live pretty cheap. There is more to it than that though. Living cheap by itself doesn't mean a thing, and I will fully admit that in the last year I haven't given much of anything to anyone... but in the last year my salary has also been $0... at least since September. Before that I can pretty much account for where SOME of my money has gone. $16000 here, $7000 there (half of which was repaid), a car given here, a car sold there (with so far no indication of payment), a few hundred over there to help with rent, a few hundred here to help with a phone bill... I could almost say that I spend more money on other people than I spend on myself. Almost. Things change a bit when you are unemployed, but when I did have money I can safely say that I did pretty well with things.
What most people ask me about when I tell them any part of this, and they always ask it, is if I felt like I was getting taken advantage of. It almost makes me laugh to think about it because of all the implications that come with that question. Do I feel like someone takes advantage of me because I give them money and the spend it? Not really. For that I would have to put some value on money, which other than providing for myself to eat and sleep and have a shelter I really don't. For the most part I wouldn't even blink an eye at someone stealing from me or mugging me. People question that I don't even lock my car or front door... the same implications. I am not that attached to anything I own. I give freely, expecting nothing in return, and expect nobody to share the same view that I do on possessions. Somewhere along the way we all seem to have lost the idea of living as a community and giving to others freely, and have fully embraced our global ideals of capitalism and accumulation of wealth. We put value, even sentimental value, on things that hold no real relevance in the grand scheme of things. I think more than anything in this entire diatribe on the state of our greed and lack of concern for the reality existing outside of our own walls, this one thing is what bothers me the most about how far we have come in two thousand years.
Many seem to think it is okay to just allow the government to take care of those in need, which flies in the face of the original idea, at least in a Christian sense, of how we are told to live our lives and use our money... but when I look at the fact that the government gives about 20% of it's budget to Medicaid and welfare, it's hard not to make a comparison to the amount that churches actually use on similar things... or even individuals... although there is the issue of the fact that a huge chunk of that money would go to administrative expenses rather than the actual program, far worse than any of the charities... even the bad ones. I know that if I give a dollar to a homeless person (or apparently homeless in any case) at least 100% of that dollar goes to them, even if it does get spent on alcohol or drugs.
And there is more... there is tons more. A lot of what is in my head can't even really be converted to language, but I think the idea is clear. If this were any sort of an official document I would probably trim half if not more of what is in here, but I can't be bothered to proofread or edit.
You know, if this were a sermon, in spite of all the extraneous stuff, it would probably be titled "Widows and Orphans". Yeah, I know I never mentioned that specifically, but that's pretty much what it is all about.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Tea Party April 15th, 2008
So already there is controversy surrounding the grassroots effort to protest the tax system (and government spending system) in the United States this year. Of course as a lot of people already know that actually pay attention this was not by any means the first "Tea Party" in recent years, but it was the first to actually get some media attention, mostly thanks to Fox News. Of course this meant that they themselves were taking credit for it after the fact even though they had nothing to do with the planning or execution of the events.
Let's actually look at some of the people that have been given credit for the Tea Parties around the country.
Dick Armey : Probably not a real credit, just CNBC making yet another teabagging reference
Newt Gingrich: Had nothing to do with it but probably saw a chance to take some credit
The Republicans: Had nothing to do with it since just about every tea party had signs indicating that "Republicans suck too"
Fox News: They did give a little publicity to it before it happened, but that's about the extent of their credit goes
Ron Paul: Although not directly planning all of this, he did have the idea and started the main force driving the planning - The Campaign for Liberty
Right Wing Extremists: I wanted to throw this in because the Department of Homeland Security in their infinite wisdom labelled everyone that opposed the size of government as people to keep a close eye on... right in there with the KKK, militias, and any other groups that criticized government as a whole. Nothing new.
So what was really behind all this? People. People sick of paying taxes that are too high and getting nothing in return for it other than government spending spiraling higher and higher every year. CNNs coverage of the event consisted of a single interview of a person on the street in Chicago that was questioned by the reporter, after saying that Obama claimed to be like Lincoln, as to why he was protesting taxes since he was eligible for a $400 credit for his two year old son that was with him. She didn't even let him finish talking about why he was there before the barrage of unrelated questions came... like Illinois getting $50 billion from the stimulus and wasn't that awesome? How could someone possibly protest when their state was getting money from that government?
Anyway, for those that weren't aware, here are some quick notes of truth about the Tea Parties
- Planners of the event were not affiliated with either major party
- No news organization or corporation or lobby had any part in planning when, where, and how any of the events would take place
- I knew about the event coming up for at least the last 6 months, if not a year. The date was already planned, details got worked out later.
- The closest thing to anyone actually affiliated with any official organization taking part would be Campaign for Liberty, and End The Fed
- The protest was focused mainly on HR 1207, trying to increase transparency in the federal reserve.
- Other people were there in part against the tax rates increasing (proactively), the current level of taxes being too high, the tax system being corrupt, and a lack of representation about how our taxes are actually spent. For those that actually responded and called in, the bailouts were opposed 99-1, and yet passed easily in congress.
And overall it was a major success... counts at each event from what I have heard ranged from 2,000 to 10,000 at each location... and those locations were far more numerous than just what was covered on CNN or Fox.
Let's actually look at some of the people that have been given credit for the Tea Parties around the country.
Dick Armey : Probably not a real credit, just CNBC making yet another teabagging reference
Newt Gingrich: Had nothing to do with it but probably saw a chance to take some credit
The Republicans: Had nothing to do with it since just about every tea party had signs indicating that "Republicans suck too"
Fox News: They did give a little publicity to it before it happened, but that's about the extent of their credit goes
Ron Paul: Although not directly planning all of this, he did have the idea and started the main force driving the planning - The Campaign for Liberty
Right Wing Extremists: I wanted to throw this in because the Department of Homeland Security in their infinite wisdom labelled everyone that opposed the size of government as people to keep a close eye on... right in there with the KKK, militias, and any other groups that criticized government as a whole. Nothing new.
So what was really behind all this? People. People sick of paying taxes that are too high and getting nothing in return for it other than government spending spiraling higher and higher every year. CNNs coverage of the event consisted of a single interview of a person on the street in Chicago that was questioned by the reporter, after saying that Obama claimed to be like Lincoln, as to why he was protesting taxes since he was eligible for a $400 credit for his two year old son that was with him. She didn't even let him finish talking about why he was there before the barrage of unrelated questions came... like Illinois getting $50 billion from the stimulus and wasn't that awesome? How could someone possibly protest when their state was getting money from that government?
Anyway, for those that weren't aware, here are some quick notes of truth about the Tea Parties
- Planners of the event were not affiliated with either major party
- No news organization or corporation or lobby had any part in planning when, where, and how any of the events would take place
- I knew about the event coming up for at least the last 6 months, if not a year. The date was already planned, details got worked out later.
- The closest thing to anyone actually affiliated with any official organization taking part would be Campaign for Liberty, and End The Fed
- The protest was focused mainly on HR 1207, trying to increase transparency in the federal reserve.
- Other people were there in part against the tax rates increasing (proactively), the current level of taxes being too high, the tax system being corrupt, and a lack of representation about how our taxes are actually spent. For those that actually responded and called in, the bailouts were opposed 99-1, and yet passed easily in congress.
And overall it was a major success... counts at each event from what I have heard ranged from 2,000 to 10,000 at each location... and those locations were far more numerous than just what was covered on CNN or Fox.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
So sometimes it is about both...
I don't always have to blog about just one thing, or just two things, but if I do blog mostly about TV and Politics, the two definitely go together. Ever since JFK made Nixon look like a zombie, the two were inseparable.
So coming up this week are the first new episodes of Survivor and The Dollhouse, and I am looking forward to both of them. The Dollhouse because Joss Whedon has a tendency to make a decent series every once in a while, especially when the networks hate it. Already Fox indicated that they were less enthusiastic about the pilot episode they saw, which means only good things for the series. In fact, the new series almost mirrors the way Firefly started out. So instead of what was probably a great pilot episode, we get to start with a chase... again. So as long as Joss ignores the suits and avoids the vampires, I think it could still turn out just fine.
And I am looking forward to Survivor also, just because I am. It is really the best show on television to see an almost real world example of the internal workings of the human mind, but instead of holding back and avoiding doing the horrible things that most people do, it's all out there in the open, with a running commentary on it by each person. It's like an office workplace with alcohol thrown in the mix. People always say too much, backstabbing goes on constantly (but this time we actually get to see it), and people get sent off the island because nobody likes them... or because too many people like them and they are a threat. It is seriously just like the real world for those who choose to see it.
And politics... seriously, I just wish there would be an uprising of the people who are paying all the taxes and are tired of getting nothing to show for it. Personal taxes are about a third of what the government spends every year, and corporate taxes are most of the rest. Corporations are already starting to move overseas since we have one of the highest corporate tax rates of any country in the world, and I can't help but think that individuals are going to start doing the same if they get the chance. I can just see some billionaire going and buying a country, and then developing it to the point that it is easily livable with reasonable infrastructure physically, and then just opening it up to all comers. There would be a mass migration of people with money heading for new scenery where they actually get to hold on to their hard earned money... or for most of the rich people in the world, most of thier great-great-grandparents' hard earned money. They could buy Canada.
So coming up this week are the first new episodes of Survivor and The Dollhouse, and I am looking forward to both of them. The Dollhouse because Joss Whedon has a tendency to make a decent series every once in a while, especially when the networks hate it. Already Fox indicated that they were less enthusiastic about the pilot episode they saw, which means only good things for the series. In fact, the new series almost mirrors the way Firefly started out. So instead of what was probably a great pilot episode, we get to start with a chase... again. So as long as Joss ignores the suits and avoids the vampires, I think it could still turn out just fine.
And I am looking forward to Survivor also, just because I am. It is really the best show on television to see an almost real world example of the internal workings of the human mind, but instead of holding back and avoiding doing the horrible things that most people do, it's all out there in the open, with a running commentary on it by each person. It's like an office workplace with alcohol thrown in the mix. People always say too much, backstabbing goes on constantly (but this time we actually get to see it), and people get sent off the island because nobody likes them... or because too many people like them and they are a threat. It is seriously just like the real world for those who choose to see it.
And politics... seriously, I just wish there would be an uprising of the people who are paying all the taxes and are tired of getting nothing to show for it. Personal taxes are about a third of what the government spends every year, and corporate taxes are most of the rest. Corporations are already starting to move overseas since we have one of the highest corporate tax rates of any country in the world, and I can't help but think that individuals are going to start doing the same if they get the chance. I can just see some billionaire going and buying a country, and then developing it to the point that it is easily livable with reasonable infrastructure physically, and then just opening it up to all comers. There would be a mass migration of people with money heading for new scenery where they actually get to hold on to their hard earned money... or for most of the rich people in the world, most of thier great-great-grandparents' hard earned money. They could buy Canada.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
American Idol Season 8
Okay, so continuing on with my theme of never picking the winner on American Idol, I decided to go with that and once again pick the non-winner this year. After the tryouts are over, I will name the definitive non-winner.
And for those who aren't in the know, every year on Idol there are "plants" in the running that already have ties in the music industry or to the show itself, or even those that have already had record deals with various labels, that always seem to have some sort of influence on who ends up making the top 10. In season 7 David Cook was the only one of the top 10 that wasn't one, and he ended up winning, probably due to the efforts of votefortheworst.com
http://votefortheworst.com/20090113/dictionary_plants_american_idol_8_so_far
But of course this does include a few spoilers as to who does and doesn't make it past Hollywood week, so you might click with caution.
And for your time, here is an awesome picture of Chris Daughtry
And for those who aren't in the know, every year on Idol there are "plants" in the running that already have ties in the music industry or to the show itself, or even those that have already had record deals with various labels, that always seem to have some sort of influence on who ends up making the top 10. In season 7 David Cook was the only one of the top 10 that wasn't one, and he ended up winning, probably due to the efforts of votefortheworst.com
http://votefortheworst.com/20090113/dictionary_plants_american_idol_8_so_far
But of course this does include a few spoilers as to who does and doesn't make it past Hollywood week, so you might click with caution.
And for your time, here is an awesome picture of Chris Daughtry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)