Talk Amongst Yourselves

I will give you a topic!!

Rhode Island is neither a "road" nor an "Island."

Discuss!!

This is the story of my life.  Making sense of is all while using pop culture colloquialisms.  I tend to use Sex and the City, Golden Girls, John Landis movies, and Saturday Night Live to fill in the blanks when I need to make an analogy.  Sometimes, I use my own life, as my mother, grandmother, and father can usually provide some fodder for figuring out the ambiguities of life.

Because of the in-your-face nature of popular culture, women's emotions are put on display quite a bit.  Like "crying at a Hallmark commercial" as an example of women being "emotional" because of that "time of the month" or whatever.  Feh. But I've become cognizant of that perception, and maybe I can poke fun at myself because of it.  No, I won't cry during commercials.  But I do cry during movies.

I can mock cry at situations that actually do mean a lot to me.  Once, my mother and I were watching a Behind the Music featuring Cher, and we both started tearing up at Cher's eulogizing of Sonny Bono.  Something so silly, that doesn't affect either of us in real life. 

Yet, I can sometimes compartmentalize my feelings on situations, to make them funny.  This may be a defense mechanism.  But when I was out celebrating our mutual birthdays with Dee, her mother (a woman I affectionately refer to as my "aunt") said that she looked on me like a daughter.

And I got verklempt.  The Yiddish substitute for "emotional" that Linda Richman, character made famous by actor Mike Myers, that I like to say from time-to-time.  Okay.  I say it a LOT.  I like to say it because in happy situations, even if you want to cry tears of joy, it's all silly.  I like to keep life light.  So even if there is a reason to be emotional, it shouldn't be too overwhelming.  By saying something in Yiddish, I can deflect a lot of it, but still get the point across that it means a lot. 

Why do I get "verklempt" to begin with?  Sometimes, I get overwhelmed with the bigger picture.  I know there is a world that's a lot bigger than me, but I can only just take care of me and those closest to me.  I've been around for over 30 years, but people come into my life whom I thought I got along without just fine until I met them.  Post-It Notes were a "happy accident" by 3M.  My "happy accident" was meeting Dee and her mother.

I don't want to trivialize our relationship by calling it a post-it, but it is truly special and unique.  It's something that even at times that I do get really verklempt about things, it's something that can make me smile.  Which gets me even MORE verklempt.   

That gets me back to the reality that maybe women are more emotional creatures, maybe bigger picture things can hit us harder because we might be more conscience of the idea that we're just little specks on Earth, really. 

But in our universe, these specks can be huge to those of us who are the world to us. 

From Day One, we know our families.  We consider ourselves lucky if we are born into a cool one.  They help craft a lot of our humor and our overall personality.  Every day after, we use that and go around in life making our own family, taking existential pieces and making an authentic existence.  The family you choose is something that you have control over, and it's essential to find people who get the real you.

As Carrie Bradshaw said in the last episode of Sex and the City, "If you can find someone who loves the you YOU love, then, that's just fabulous."  I'm lucky enough to have found those people in my life.

Now, isn't this just like buttah??  Discuss!

COOPed Up In DEEcember? Not Us!

It's no secret that I've never been thrilled with having a birthday in December.  So close to Christmas and at the start of winter, it's kinda hard to fully enjoy.

When I was a child, it was Christmas wrapping paper on my birthday gifts or one card for both my birthday and Christmas(although not from my immediate family, the ones who really mattered).  But now it's on a different level. I can't hang up my Christmas cards until after my birthday because I don't want to take anything away from my birthday (and I don't have the room).  I have to wait a whole year before getting presents (although my mother would swear otherwise, and she's kinda right).  And people are too broke from all the holiday spending to come out and celebrate with me.  (Not to mention they have other obligations this time of the year and simply can't make it.)

Being a huge Mets fan, I could never spend a day at the ballpark, watching a game and cheering on my favorite team (and hoping for a win!).  But this year, I decided to try something different.  Not only did I attend my very first Jets game (I'm a huge Jets fan too), but my first professional football game ever!


Coop and I decided to spend one of our birthday weekends at Met Life Stadium, rooting for the J! E! T! S! JETS JETS JETS!  And since they beat the Chiefs 37-10 yesterday, I'd say we accomplished our goal of seeing a victory by one of our teams (although Coop is a NY Rangers fan too, so I'm sure they've won games on or near her special day) on our birthdays.  Well, sort of.

The game was two days before my birthday, and 11 days before Coop's. Since the only other home game in December was on Christmas Eve, this was really our only option. (Besides, we'd rather do it before both our birthdays than after them.)  And up until this day, we had weekends with temperatures near or just above 60 degrees.  So goes my luck.  But as so many reminded me as the weekend approached, it's not football if it's not cold.

As I said, this was my very first football game ever.  I had no idea what to expect.  I was a little anxious -- yes, anxious -- over the whole tailgating experience.  But it turned out to be a lot of fun!  Hosted by our friends, the Chapmans, there was more food than could be eaten, and more alcohol than could be, well, eliminated.  (That's another story.)  It didn't stop there.  More tailgating after the game with our friend Alan, another December baby, who is known in the social networking world as "Woo" because of his catch phrase of the same name.

Let's rewind for a moment. Did I mention that we may be on tv?  Food Network was there filming a pilot for "best tailgate burger" something-or-other and they just so happened to be in L11, our section.  There were three "finalists" and after the taste tests, the winner was awarded the "Golden Spatula".

But again, we didn't stop there.

After a semi-annoying NJ Transit experience back to Manhattan, I had about 20 minutes to spare before my train back to Long Island.  I had been dying for hot cocoa all day. (Some people crave alcohol, I crave chocolate!)  Coop suggested heading outside to the Dunkin' Donuts about a block or two away.  I had time, but figured if I did miss that train, I'd just take the next.  And then it hit me!  How many chances do I get to be in the city at Christmastime?  And so, off to Macy's window and Rockefeller Center we went!

There really is no better place in the world at Christmastime than New York City.  Everywhere you look on Sixth Avenue, lights and fake Santas bring the Christmas joy to you.  I was like a foreigner (oops! Not supposed to use that word!) with my camera, like I had never been to New York City before. At one point, I even asked Coop and here hubby (who joined us at the tree) who was worse, me or our friend from Cali who had visited here last summer for her first time ever in New York. Without any hesitation, Ed said "You!"

But I didn't care.  I knew it was all in good fun. Besides, no one had to know that I lived a half hour from the city. No one had to know that before I became friends with Coop, I hardly went to Manhattan, except for when I worked there for a very short time several years ago, and was afraid to leave the vicinity of my building, even to grab lunch.  No one had to know that while I grew up a lot over the past few years, inside, I was still a little girl in total awe of what I was seeing.

For me, it's the simple things.  A Mets or Jets game every now and then.  The Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center. And a margarita and good conversation with Coop every now and again.  We both love to talk, which is why our blog posts are so long, you probably lose interest by this point.  In fact, blogging and sports, and blogging about sports, is how we met.  (Oh yeah, and Facebook may have had something to do with it too.)  But who'da thunk true friendship -- to the point of sisterhood -- could come out of all that?

Not only are we both December babies and love sports and blogging, but we're both only children.  We can relate to so many things that others with siblings can't.  We know the difference between being spoiled and our parents just loving us and being able to shower us a little more easily than parents with many children.  And we appreciate our alone time because we are so used to it.

So in addition to this blog, sis (that's what I call her) and I have started our own birthday celebration tradition -- the annual Coop Dee Ville Birthday Spectacular -- adding something new to the festivities each year.  This year it was the Jets game.  Next year, maybe a Jets game and a trip to Atlantic City.  Who knows.  Who cares!  I'm just so lucky to have the friend in her that I do, and the sister I never had.

Ass-Backwards

When I was a kid, I mean we're talking little, like first grade little, I chased boys around the playground.  Yeah, I said it.  I'm married now, but to deny my boy-crazy and pants-chasing self that I was a child would be to deny a huge part of my childhood personality.

If I behaved like that today, as a child who is being a "kid," I might be suspended from school.  No, that's no joke.  I read today that some nine year old child was suspended for saying his teacher was "cute."  Cute! 

Media may be over-sexualized these days, but when you're nine years old and talking about someone being "cute," it's not for being a babe-hound (although, who knows, he may be one in the making), it's because you're being HONEST.   I remember telling a female lead singer of a band that I thought she was pretty when I was five years old.  I chased boys around the playground when I was six (and probably was chased around too by the same boys).  I remember holding hands with an eight year old boy when I was seven, at a New Year's party.  It wasn't something "sexual," when I was that age I didn't even know what "sex" was.  Well, maybe I did, but when you're a kid there's no urge, no "threat."

And while we're waxing intellectual, think about what "harassment" means.  Harassment is using sex as power.  A nine year old child has "power?"  Exactly what "power" does a nine year old have over a teacher?  I could see talking to the parents or principal if there's prank calling or threatening notes...because that stuff needs to be nipped in the bud.

But hey, Mrs. Smith, I think you're cute?  Total threat.

I can see in an era of political correctness of being cognizant of other cultures, religions, races, creeds.  But where is the cut-off?  It seems like in this case, and I'm sure there are others like it around, that it's an overreaction to probably a kid who may be a bit of a "troublemaker" in class (I'm making a HUGE assumption, especially since it appears he was suspended at one point), and the teacher was wielding her power.  Suspended?  Get a grip.  Maybe they should be concentrating on making teachers AND children more tolerant of each other.  And ignore certain behaviors while encouraging others to grow, like tolerance. 

Amplified Human Behaviors

There are some human behaviors that have transcended time.  Like greed, romantic love, among others.  We talk about forgiveness and forgetting that has biblical connotations, yet holding grudges is also a human behavior that not only transcends those eras, but seems to be more commonplace more than ever.

I tend to hold total strangers in higher regard than others.  There are some folks with whom I can be emotionally attached, but if a stranger behaves poorly, I just blow it off. I am neither disappointed nor surprised.  Friends or family, though, that is a different story.  They behave poorly, I am willing to cut them off immediately.  I know this is something that is hardly unique to me, but perhaps I feel like I've become more easily disappointed as years go on, but more willing to cut someone out because of poor behavior.

I know these attitudes are nothing new like the list of human behaviors I've listed above.  I feel as though things are more amplified in this day and age, because of the advent of social media tools, where we are more connected to each other than ever.

We hear about "deleting" or "unfollowing" people on different media, but the word substitution connotes the same idea: that we're cutting people out of our lives.  Sometimes it's warranted.  As an example, my husband interacted with a fellow who was disrespectful to me on several occasions.  I won't go into specifics, but it wasn't cool and at the end of the day, this person wasn't someone who my husband was emotionally invested with so it was an easy "delete." 

But what about the folks we do have an emotional investment in?  My networks have certainly expanded as a result of social media tools, but this also increases the number of people with whom I have an attachment.  This does not mean I have a gajillion more people I hang out, but there are generally more people I care about their wellbeing and what happens to them for sure.  That said, behaviors and perceived sleights are amplified.

Take for example, the "birthday."  There's no hidden meaning there, it's just the day of your birth.  It's one of the identifying characteristics we have on most of our social profiles, most notable Facebook.  And on the day of your birth, all your "friends," first degree or otherwise, come out of the woodwork to wish you well in your rotation around the sun!

How many of these people would send you a card, text, email or call you that day?  If you're anything like me, a majority of these folks you didn't even know till these outlets were mainstream.  But how many of us take an emotional inventory of those who did or did not wish you well in the upcoming year?  We all do it, and it may take a step in determining who stays or who goes in the cleansing process we then commence after our birthdays. 

This has happened to me recently.  I became friends with someone as met through a mutual friend in real life (and not virtually...though our "virtual" friendship came later on).  This was a person who spent a majority of her day on Facebook, yet would never answer her texts or calls at times.  It was very selective.  And though I had seen her a few days before my birthday last year (which was, I'll admit, simply a coincidence because she had moved away and normally she would not have been here), I did not get a birthday greeting on my wall.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, a birthday wish isn't the be-all end-all.   Sometimes there are circumstances outside of social media that may contribute.  On the flip side though when said "offender" has about a dozen updates during the day, they can find 20 seconds to send you a greeting.

That wasn't the only thing weighing in, but I took offense to that greatly.  Now, at the root of it, clearly my issues weren't only about the perceived birthday snub.  Yet, I feel like when someone deletes you with no reason or prior establishment, this is the ultimate diss, the biggest snub of them all.

I later found out through mutual friends that this person was going through a great deal and she was going through a very rough time.  I felt, then, that it was I who was being the petty one, the snubber, and felt very guilty about it.

Chances are, if social media did not exist, I may not have had that uncomfortable "reaching out" to do after I heard some terrible news about her family.

I've been on the receiving end, believe me.  I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine whom I lost touch with over the course of a year where I told her I refused to get involved in social media "wars" because I can be more effective arguing in person or providing a devil's advocate point of view outside of it.

As much good as social media has done in the past few years, it's also amplified a lot of harm and misunderstandings and infighting.  

A few years ago, a few of my girlfriends (or my guy friends' wives) started having babies.  As a rule of thumb, I started sending care packages of baby items -- onesies, wipes, diapers, butt paste -- fun and practical stuff for my friends' foray into parenthood.  Yet, ask me if I send them all birthday cards or individualized birthday greetings on Facebook, and probably my answer wouldn't always be 100% "yes." 

But I still send "thinking of you" gifts and think of real life as my litmus test for being a good person and my behavior on networks is an extension of who I am. Yet when we're more connected than ever, there's a layer of potentially overdoing it, under-doing things or even making grudges more evident.  Think about it: there is always that person whom you know you have to go the "extra mile" for, but there's always someone who will be okay with whatever you do.  This can happen in familial or friendship situations.

It happens in real life, but I think behaviors are amplified more with social media.

The Catch-22 of Self-Promotion

Catch-22: A logical paradox arising from a situation in which an individual needs something that can only be acquired with an action that will lead him to that very situation he is already in; therefore, the acquisition of this thing becomes logically impossible. Coined by Joseph Heller in book by same name.

Twenty years ago, if someone told you about this new contraption called the "world wide web" and that your business needed a website, chances are, you would have thought that person crazy and sent them packing. Today, we all know that if a business does NOT have a website, they are anything from bogus to out of touch to secretive...all recipes for disaster in creating a successful business model.

Add the term "social media" today, and you probably get the same looks.  I can't tell you how many people I discuss blogging and Twitter, among others, with business owners in this area, and they are shocked that they need to add yet another layer of marketing/communications to their business model.  There, in and of itself, lays many paradoxes in a successful business.

A business can create a Facebook "Fan" Page, which essentially gets followers, yet the number of followers one has doesn't necessarily mean that "quantity" is better than "quality."  If you create a fan page and have a huge hoopla behind it, then neglect it, chances are your clients or "fans" will lose interest and go someplace else for their info.  Same could be said for Twitter or other social media layers in promoting one's business or self. 

But then comes the Catch-22 of business.  I mean, at the end of day, all businesses are trying to promote ourselves and our business and what other products/services we are trying to sell.  But how do you try to sound like you're not trying to do all that?

Several blogs I know and follow are guilty of the shameless self-promotion.  I have a friend, as an example, whom I adore but his Twitter antics are legendary.  Generally, when he publishes a blog post, everyone and their brother/cousin/uncle gets a link to it.  It's legendary in that I find if I get notice that it's published, I tend to read it before he can "spam" with it.  Yet, it's something I think about -- we tend to do the same things for self-promotion just to get "page views."  But at the end of the day, is it really just a glorified pissing contest?  "I get more page views than you do."  Kind of silly, especially when we are not truly selling a product.

But then apply that to business.  I am on an email distribution for a social media "university" of sorts, and I decided to sign up for a webinar.  The course was scheduled for an hour and a half, and the first half hour I guess was the real "meat" of the deal.  However, they blew through the first half hour, then spent the next half hour promoting what THEY could do to help you.

Granted, I didn't pay for it, it was a free webinar.  So one could argue that you get what you pay for.  On the flip side, they just literally came off telling us that a tool like Twitter could be used for certain things, but not for "spamming" either links to the site, or sounding like a press release.  Which is exactly what they did after telling their listening audience NOT to!

No wonder so many people/business owners are reluctant to do a social media layer.  They wonder what's in it for them!

It's not that I didn't take anything away from it.  I mean, at the end of the day, we use social media for different purposes.  This could be for education, or following our favorite actors and actresses, getting updates from our favorite media outlets, and to converse with friends and family about common interests.  I often tell business people that you get what you put into Twitter, as an example.  If you find that Twitter isn't useful and that you're wasting time on it, chances are...you are!  But it's obviously the next layer of marketing that is essential in survival in business. 

Yet, building your own buzz is a Catch-22 in social media.  You have to follow several people, and make your mark by being accessible while answering and asking several questions in the field you are promoting yourselves in.  Learning and staying abreast of the newest technologies.  At the same time, you can't overtly "self-promote" like my friend can do.  Although the people he is respected in the community take it with a grain of salt, there are others who think that self-promoting is a turn-off. 

So which is it?  Can it be both ways?  If you're in social media for whatever reason, chances are you've hit the Catch-22 of self-promotion too.  It's a pain in the ass, but a necessary evil in today's technology.  Which is in and of itself, a Catch-22.

Oy.

Happy Holidays

It's no secret that we, as a society, for the most part, have been conditioned to act and speak politically correctly.  It's the typical way of the world now. Housewives have become "domestic engineers". Mailmen have become "letter carriers".  Etc., etc., etc. But what about when it comes to the holidays?

Growing up Catholic and attending Catholic grammar school, I really only knew about Catholic holidays.  I knew nothing about Hanukkah or Kwanzaa.  Heck, I didn't even know Jews celebrated Thanksgiving until I got to high school.  (Truth!)  And because there are so many different people and cultures celebrating different holidays and seasons, is it really so bad to take the safe route when you're not sure and just wish "Happy Holidays"?

I don't think using a general "Happy Holidays" greeting is about being politically correct or taking the religious aspect out of anything.  It's about "I don't know what you celebrate, but whatever it is, I hope it's a good one!"

Think about this.  If a Jewish person wished me a "Happy Hanukkah", I wouldn't be offended.  However, I would be like, "Well thanks, but I don't celebrate Hanukkah." That's the same way a Jewish person would react if I wished them a "Merry Christmas". No one holiday is better or more important than another and we shouldn't assume that someone else has the same beliefs or interests that we do.  As long as I keep the true meaning of Christmas alive with those who also celebrate the true meaning of Christmas, what's so wrong with me not saying "Merry Christmas" to someone whose beliefs I am unaware of?

I see no harm in being "politically correct" (for lack of a better term), but that doesn't mean I believe it's okay to forget about the true meaning of your respective holiday.  As a Christian, I need to keep Christ in Christmas.  As it is, Christmas has become so commercialized, with retailers starting earlier and earlier with their decorating and big sales.  And while I, too, am guilty of getting caught up in the Black Friday hype (which now begins late Thanksgiving night), as long as when the day comes I remember why it even exists, I haven't totally fallen victim to the typical ways of the world.

Pass The Beer Nuts

"Women...Can't live with 'em, pass the beer nuts!" - Norm Peterson, Cheers

Websites are devoted to the wisdom and wit of the character that was made famous by actor George Wendt.  Yet, I remember the first time I heard that quote about beer nuts and women, and I was confused.  Wasn't the saying supposed to be, "Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em!"  Norm's situation with his wife Vera was one of convenience it was evident on the show.  After all Vera worked for a living, and Norm was constantly between jobs and hung out at a bar all day (with a large tab at that).  It was Norm, really, who was probably difficult to live with.  

There might have been a kernel of truth with Norm's insight.  Understanding female relationships and complexities is something that television, pop culture, and psychologists have analyzed to many ends, often concluding with more open-ended questions. I've even tried to analyze here the battle that women wage with each other and themselves in an effort of understanding.  It seems as though the greatest mystery of the world isn't the Chicken or the Egg or the riddle of the Sphinx. 

No, it's understanding women.

Here's the thing: women are complex.  There's no one way we live our lives.  We rule by our emotions, and perhaps maybe make more decisions of the heart or by consensus, rather than cold, calculated moves.  Yet, when women are "cold and calculated," they are known as "ice queens."  When men are business-like and driven, they are just being "men." Having worked in fast-paced corporate environment, I've seen all those stereotypes in play, and I have to admit, I might be just as guilty stereotyping myself. 

I was reading an article on Forbes the other day about working women myths.  I had to laugh because while I've borne witness to most of these, fact is because women are so multifaceted -- we can be mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, caretakers, taskers, gatherers, etc -- that it's hard to pigeonhole us.

And boy, does that piss people off.   

Women can't show emotion at work because they will be classified as too high strung and therefore, are a breakdown away from going on long-term medical leave.  Yet, if they don't show emotion, they are trying too hard to be like men.  How can it be both ways? 

Business is treated as a boys club in some industries.  So women have to wear two hats: be one of the "boys" and still try to play peacemaker in whatever deal they are trying to work out.  I remember Samantha Jones in Sex and the City, when she was trying to broker a deal being the head of PR for a chain of hotels.  The man she had to pitch her business to suggested she work with someone else -- a man -- because he didn't think she could handle the work herself.  Later, he told her he wouldn't hire because she slept with his architect.  How did a woman's sex life get involved in a hiring decision?  When she told him if she were a man, they'd be celebrating over martinis.  After she stormed out, he hired her for admiring her "balls."  How about, not apologizing for herself and standing her ground because she knew she was best for the job?  Of course, this was all fictionalized, but you see my point.  It makes me wonder how many women might be turned down for pitched business because of their outside reputation.

Think about it: women are vilified when they are not flowery pieces of sunshine, being refreshed and wholesome when their husbands come home for the day.  Being a woman, I think that a male-dominated society will only be happy when we are back IN the kitchen, because then...they've figured us out! And by "they," I mean society.  Men aren't just hard on women, women are equally hard on our own gender, as I illustrated several months ago.  Hell, I went to an all-women's college and I'm still trying to figure us out! And by "us," I mean "me!"

You may get the idea that I'm some kind of angry female writer, but I'm really not.  I am very proud to be a woman.  I may write stuff to figure things out for me, but at the root of it all, I think it's great that women are complex creatures and have the ability to multitask and make decisions thoughtfully.  In fact, I attended a Women on Wall Street event where a woman who owned one of the first women-owned-and-operated trading exchange said, "The financial crisis in 2008 would not have happened if women were making the decisions."  I thought it was very telling that a woman in her late 70s would say that, especially one so close to the industry.  Just an example of something that I remember the difference in women and business. 

Fifty-plus years since the feminist revolution, it's still quite a radical notion that women can conduct business, be mothers, be wives, write about sports or music, operate a vehicle, cook meals, and the list can go on and on.  Norm Peterson may have preferred beer nuts to living with his wife. Perhaps he should have invited her to Cheers a few times and try to understand her.  But then again, she was too busy working, running the household and fixing her car to go out with him anyway.

Halloween Whore-or

If you get the title, then you already have an idea what this post might be about...

It's funny to see the generational differences in Halloween and how it has changed over the years.  In a nutshell, HALLOWEEN IS AN EXCUSE FOR GIRLS TO DRESS LIKE SLUTS.

Plain and simple.  Attention-seeking girls in desperate need of an ego boost.  Now, one can look at my pics from today and say the same thing.  (I won't post them here, because then it'd be true.)  However, the dress to my black cat costume wasn't half as short as some of the stuff I saw today.  

Girls in respectable positions of power, showing off their boobs, their butts and their midriffs.  Unprofessional? Yes.  Unacceptable?  That depends on whom you ask.

Logically, what these girls are doing is ridiculous. However, what guy in his right mind (assuming he's straight) would oppose this?  I don't care how tacky or tasteless it may be or what responsibilities these guys have in stopping goings-on like this in the workplace.  A man is a man.  

Sure, there are your old-fashioned, goody-goodies who may not make as big a deal out of it as other blatantly disrespectful and chauvanistic pigs would.  And of course, there are only so many times you can look at the same thing -- no matter how revealing it is -- before getting bored with it.  And the only reason why other women wouldn't approve of this is A) they're jealous of all the attention, or B) their man is the one who gets a little too immature in these situations and/or makes them feel less than adequate, compared to these girls.  

It's time to face it.  Halloween has turned into the mother of all meat markets -- Today's Special: Hooch a la Spook.

I Need More UN-Reality TV

When I was in second grade, that was when I first realized what the "Year 2000" (way prior to "Y2K") represented.  We would hear that, and automatically we would think that when we went to sleep on December 31, 1999, we'd wake up on January 1, 2000, to a world not dissimilar to the Jetsons, with sky condos, flying cars, and automated lifestyles.  Many things were automated by then, but we were far and away from living in a world where George and Jane would have video conferences (which would happen later on, especially with the advent of smart phones).
Even when I was a kid, MTV (MUSIC Television) and VH-1 (VIDEO Hits 1) were new and had actual videos, which if you think about it, are nothing more than short stories told by a band in song form.

When I was in high school, a show called The Real World probably launched the dreams of small-town kids everywhere, when a bunch of people who were trying to launch some kind of artistic career (music, acting, dancing) auditioned for a conceptual new show: the "reality" show, where things weren't 100% scripted, and edited to show that real life was also as intriguing as the old form television show. 

I can't say that I watch much television these days.  Except for sporting events, I am not a person who is all OMG-I-NEED-TO-BE-HOME-TO-WATCH-MY-SHOW-ASAP.  Even with sporting events, I can follow the action on my phone and never feel as though I'm missing anything.  My husband and I are big fans of the show Dexter, and he loves the new AMC show The Walking Dead.  I can't say I am one for zombie culture, but hey, to each their own.  Another series I am a big fan of is Desperate Housewives, and I am really sad to see this will be the final year it's on television.  One of my all-time favorites is the Sex and the City franchise, and quote it like it's Shakespeare (just don't ask this former English lit major what she thinks about Billy). 

I guess my point is that I like creativity, and always appreciate good writing, and that's what keeps me returning: the compelling art of the written word, whether it's reading a good story, website or watching one unfold on television or on the big screen.

Something that has changed somewhat in television in the "aughts" is what the public wants.  Reality shows kind of take over precedence from unreality.   Shows like Survivor, X-Factor and Biggest Loser are touted as these feel good types of rewards shows, yet the public has shown that they value the voyeur factor here.  I have to admit, the reality show contests I prefer add absolutely nothing to culture (i.e. stuff people aren't talking about Monday morning at the water cooler), like RuPaul's Drag Race and Flavor of Love.  I mean, if you think about it...those shows lean towards the more unrealistic (especially Drag Race, since it's men dressing up as beautiful and glamorous women, adhering to the whole "illusion" thing). 

Look at MTV and VH-1 now.  They promote not videos (except for VH-1 Classics or MTV in the morning or late evenings) but their own scripted reality shows, like The Hills or Jersey Shore, even Basketball Wives.  I have this here bridge I'd like to sell you if you think these shows aren't the least bit scripted, but something about voyeurism comes into play that makes these franchises successful. 

A misconception people have about reality shows is that these "actors" are somewhat not as credited as those on totally scripted fictional shows, but the reality is there they do have to file with the Screen Actors Guild.  In theory, they are making the acting playing field a little bit of a thinner margin, typical to how we fool ourselves that outsourcing jobs is somewhat good for the economy. Meanwhile no one ever applauds the people who make the shows what they are: no, not Snooki or The Situation, but the editors who make the calls about what goes on for the public to see. 


Many things have changed since I was in second grade, talking about the Year 2000 and beyond.  I suppose one of the things that had to evolve was the television, which itself evolved out of radio shows and soap operas.  Now, soap operas are going the way of the dodo, and reality shows based on daytime dramas are taking over.

Call me crazy, but the idea of television and entertainment is escapism.  Haven't these reality-type shows jumped the shark yet?  Gimme more fictional shows, or don't give me anything at all. The only thing that should be reality, in my opinion, are sporting events.

Removing All Doubt

I am all for free speech.  I like being able to speak my mind without ramifications from the government.  I like that I can disagree with a policy or social mores or whatever is on the docket and not have to worry about going into a political prison.  That's what great about our country, I'm sure most of us can agree upon.

There's an old saying that goes, "Best to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."  There are some folks in the public arena who certainly subscribe to that notion, but allow themselves to be raked all over the press.  I don't necessarily agree with some of the viciousness that's spread around, but that's a drawback of free speech, that flame speech is up for grabs.

That is, unless, you are being paid by an entity who feels your comment may have crossed some invisible lines.

There is an old saying in the corporate world that if you are to do something, and mostly if that something is "visible," what would it look like to the company or entity if it showed up on the front page of the Wall Street Journal the next day?

In recent days, the recent debate about Hank Williams, Jr., "Bocephus" himself, made an inflammatory comment about President Barack Obama, wondered how far "free speech" ethics and limitation of those with a difference of opinion affects his status on ESPN's Monday Night Football.  You see, Bocephus provided the MNF intro and was incredibly recognizable to that brand.  I have no idea what the terms of his deal were, but let's imagine that Walt Disney Co, the owner of ESPN, is paying a whole bucket of money for the copyright usage and rights and all that jazz to use that music. 

Oh and what he said?  He just happened to compare President Obama to possibly the worst war criminal in the history of the world.  Other have claimed that what he said was taken out of context, the usual, or that it was "perfectly okay when someone said it about President George W. Bush."  Now, I have to admit, I was probably one of W's biggest critics.  I thought the "Hitler Didn't Need Search Warrants Either" bumper stickers were a bit much.  But you know what -- the difference here isn't that Bocephus has a difference of opinion, or that his comments were taken out of context or even that he said them on Fox News and is a Tea Party supporter.  It's that these schmoes who sold these bumper stickers or made them in their garage are folks like you and me.  They are not on a world stage.  They are trying to make a buck off a political item.  When someone like Alec Baldwin said he did not agree with Bush is another thing.  He did not come out and say, "Bush is Hitler."  There's a big difference between what Williams said about Obama.

Now Williams claims his First Amendment rights were violated here.  Here's a guy who has had the privilege of having a famous name, of being his own man and beloved by millions for his music.  I mean, this guy has made an empire out of the very things that Good Ole Boys stand for.  Not to say he hasn't worked hard to where he got, I mean I remember listening to old Hank Williams Jr songs in my dad's truck as we drove around on the weekends...but he parted ways from a private corporate entity, that had to deal with backlash from derogatory remarks that could be potentially damaging to their brand.

It's nothing to do with race, class, free speech or corporate versus private thinking.  Hank Williams Jr is no schmuck like you and me: he's not begging someone for a job or living paycheck to paycheck.  When this whole thing blows over, he'll still make out nicely, methinks.

Despite what your political or social beliefs are, what makes this world go 'round isn't just love, but also differences of opinion.  It's okay to not like the President of the United States, especially if he's your President and you've come to that conclusion yourself after careful thought, not having been told by a news organization to think a certain way. 

But that brings me to another double-standard about this whole shebbang.  Remember in 2003, when Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks made an offhand remark about how the band was ashamed that President Bush was from Texas?  This happened to take place on a stage in London, and the night before attacks were launched on Iraq.

Remember what happened next?  These three talented and family-oriented women were thrown under the bus by the very fan base who supported them, they were called derogatory names like "Dixie Sluts" or told to get back into the kitchen.  I had to admire Natalie, Martie and Emily for taking those negatives and turning them into positives for themselves and their fans who didn't care what they thought?

The difference?  They were women who didn't agree with the President's philosophy, and their music was banned from country radio stations, particularly in the Bible Belt.  These women worked very hard to get to where they were, and were not employed by these radio stations per se.  They disagreed with them and subsequently trashed them to support their own views.

And you know what?  Maines' comments about Bush were not even a millionth as nasty as Williams' was.  Which leads to the question that Richard Roeper from Chicago Sun-Times asks, if Maines was a traitor, is Williams too?

Kind of makes you think, right?  There is a difference between working under someone's brand name and working under your own, and making a flame comment that the world can see or hear, as opposed to privately.

Better to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool, indeed.