Oh, and yeah, the Grammys
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2004 9:46 PM
Snark is still worthwhile even when kinda poorly written.

Vote Vote Vote!
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2004 9:32PM
If you're in California and you're registered to vote, you can apply for an absentee ballot and you can even apply for permanent absentee voter status. Just go to the Secretary of State's special page on voting.

Random Law Issues
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2004 9:30 PM
Nice that some people just don't know when to put down their sticks and walk away from the dead horse. Georgia House Minority Leader Glenn Richardson's plan to put the 10 Commandments in all 159 Georgia County courthouses is just silly. Doesn't federal law apply there, too, or is there some Georgia exemption I've missed? Hello? Alabama? It's just going to be a waste of taxpayer money to fight this and why shove religion into unwilling faces. People who already believe don't need the reminder and people who don't believe aren't going to change their minds. And somebody's gonna sue.

I'm relieved to know that "the hottie defense" is indeed valid.

If I was in the Nebraska Senate, I'd probably vote to be able to surf the web on the chamber floor.

Yeah, I think recusal is appropriate for Supreme Court Justice Scalia in the investigation of his hunting buddy Dick Cheney. Way to separate those powers guys. Has either of them ever heard of the appearance of impropriety?

Silence is Golden . . . and 99¢
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2004 8:34 PM
This is in competition for my favorite story ever. I love musicians. And I suppose the inventiveness of capitalism factors in here somewhere too.

Too . . . Many . . . Thoughts
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2004 6:35 PM
2004: A Look Ahead
So I finally finished EW’s 2004 preview issue and I’m excited about a couple of things in there. I’m most impatient for David Sedaris’ book (due out June 1, so far away!), which by existing in and of itself makes me excited, but the words on the book jacket will also be great: Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim. I think it’s a killer title and I think it would be the motto of my life if I could pull it off.

I’m hopeful for Avril Lavigne’s new CD only because I think buried underneath the spin is a real artist. I’m naïve, I know, but she has these moments and whatever you say about her stupid necktie and the fact that she always seems a little vacant and she’s done some really wretched live singing, “Complicated” was an engaging number. She apparently wrote some songs that may or may not go anywhere with one of my favorite artists, Chantal Kreviazuk (“Surrounded,” “Before You,” “In This Life”), which is nice, but I’m not sure how that works with Avril’s desire for a more rock album. Maybe Chantal’s helping her craft those “pop songs for radio” that the kid notes you have to have.

Some of the movies they previewed look sketchy. Halle Berry’s Catwoman is wearing possibly the most impractical looking crime fighting outfit I have ever seen. My only real response is “Why?” The trailer I’ve seen for The Stepford Wives remake isn’t really promising and the-shoot-went-on-too-long-and-was-sometimes-hell bent of the article isn’t drawing me in, either. I’m looking forward to Troy, but that might only be because of Orlando Bloom. He’s awful pretty.

All the Queer Eye knockoffs seem silly, especially that there are four that can be described as such. Comedy Central’s Straight Plan for the Queer Man will either be really funny or really awful as that’s pretty much how Comedy Central’s programming is. Very little is just okay. (EW’s impression seems to be a vote for pointless.) Bravo’s Straight Eye for the Queer Guy will be good if only they know enough to make fun of themselves. Seriously, who exactly do gay men need to be straightened up for? Playing it Straight on Fox, which EW describes as the hetero Boy Meets Boy, seems both cruel and silly. Here girl meets boys, some gay, some straight. I never watched Boy because the premise (you want true love, we want to f*#% with you! because a plain old gay dating show wouldn't be interesting enough) kind of offended me and this does even more because already on most dating reality shows with a twist, the women get screwed whether they are picking or being picked. Joe Millionaire 1 & 2, Mr. Personality, Average Joe, etc. I think it’s because a) women theoretically often will try to be nice and not hurt people’s feelings (to their faces anyway, prime trait of Randi on My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé), b) women who bring the crazy™TWOP on reality shows can be more entertaining than men who do (though witness Sam from The Apprentice and any number of male loonies on Survivor; maybe it’s just in matters of the “heart”), and c) I really think there’s an undercurrent of sexism. Basically women have been pigeon-holed into defending the twin concepts of looks don’t matter and money doesn’t matter, neither of which I think most women subscribe to. It’s more that they tend to not be first on the list, but be sure, they’re both on the list and are more complicated. So these women/girls/ladies have to sit there and pretend they don’t need to be attracted to the guy they’re with (a component of which is physical) and that even though he’s super-rich, that makes no difference (uh, women like to have a comfortable life, and they’re not going to argue with one that’s infinitely so). (p.s. I know that few to none of these relationships survive and it’s a lousy way to look for true love, but even famewhores deserve a fair shot.) And that’s that. Oh, the fourth one? Celeste in the City? I’m sure “whatever” is a sufficient description.

You are not my content partner!
I’m convinced AOL for Broadband is the content partner for every single music radio station I listen to. Every time there’s any story, it comes from the fast internet arm of the company that killed Time Warner. I don’t know what that says besides that the homogenization of radio just keeps on going. I don’t think any of them are replacing much if any local news with generic national interest news, and they get money and the content partner gets its name out there, but I just always find it silly and pointless. If we’re all getting it from the same place, why even mention it? I guess the market isn’t about being distinctive anymore.

So all I have to do is pay you $15 billion now and you'll never ask me again? Sign me up!
So Governor Schwarzenegger’s bond measure isn't getting much traction in the state. Without it we get probably a combination of both program cuts and higher taxes. With it, I think we still get cuts. If the balanced budget initiative passes too we definitely get the same result. I'm no political pundit, but I think if you vote yes on one you might be inclined to do so on the other and vice versa. And I've said it before, reversing the VLF "increase" was dumb because it was the equivalent of saying "I'm in debt, but I'd really rather you didn't give me that money that, you know, you kind of actually owe me" because the state needs increased revenues or it's more budget cuts for important public programs with long-term benefits (schools, healthcare, public safety, and other such small, incidental programs).

I personally don't buy the whole we'll never do this again argument in support of the bond. Politicians can't predict the future and they have limited ability to bind the state legislature of tomorrow. Besides, in the Bay Area at least, we've heard those kinds of promises. Take the 7 state owned bridges here. Voters in 1988 approved a uniform $1 toll to pay for upkeep and maintenance. In 1998, we voters approved a $1 increase to $2 to pay for bridge projects including the ever important seismic related ones. That was supposed to be a temporary hike until 2006 with an option to extend another two years. Well, in 2001, the legislature decided it wasn't enough money and extended the $2 toll to 2038. That's not another 2 years. That's another 32 years. And now they want (us voters) to raise it to $3 for 35 years or so, which I'm not exactly thrilled about. So that being said, you’re thinking “What’s your point?” Was it to complain about being tricked into believing a "temporary" toll hike? Well, yes, but also to point out that things like that sour you on the process. The state needs money and I accept that and understand there need to be sacrifices, but I don't know why they always have to ask for it like they're your no account cousin who promises to pay you back when things are looking up and then steals an extra 50 bucks from your wallet.

I'm sure you all had no idea
I'm glad Janet Jackson finally admitted it was all b.s. that the halftime show incident wasn't planned. Early speculation had CBS in the know, which I can buy (though it's Drudge saying it). There was a great story that pointed out the whole "accidental" nature seemed suspicious given the timing and the lyrics and Timberlake's lack of contrition. Hope this doesn't hurt her new CD's sales. All involved would know there would be a controversy, but maybe they underestimated how much of one. I don't think they thought about the TiVo effect--apparently just about everyone with a TiVo watching the game felt inclined to back that one up. But really the timing is just bad. Demanding stricter network censoring has been brewing since Bono said the f-word at 2003's Golden Globes and it made it on air because it was live, but there was no fine because even though it was in the family hour, it wasn't a sexual reference, which would have been finable. That really got people mad. You had to know this incident would set off FCC chairman Mike Powell, who actually found the entire halftime show offensive. I would have said boring (up to that one moment), but potato, potahto.

The Americanization of the Britcom
FEBRUARY 1, 2004 3:42 PM
As a child of many Britcoms by way of PBS (Fawlty Towers, Are You Being Served?, Keeping Up Appearances, etc.), I'm always confused when some American network decides to do an American version of a British hit. The recent track record hasn't been great: see Men Behaving Badly as an excellent case in point. I get that one limitation is that the British series (the equivalent of a season in the States) is shorter, often only 6 episodes, which would never work for the American market which demands 12 to 13 episodes in the Fall and Spring each. But we could have been saved from Coupling, which, to be fair, arrived already extraneous as the American version of the British version of the American hit Friends. While Friends was still on the air. On the same night as Friends. Also it was really horrible. Reality shows are largely adapted (some might say pillaged) from all over the world, which doesn't guarantee success. Big Brother has been boring, probably partly because it can't be as racy as the European versions because of comparatively Puritanical American television standards and because apparently those housewives keep voting off all the interesting people. American Idol has worked because it's managed to deliver a few talented people among the wreckage and the judges and host have created entertaining characters that you can love or hate, but will certainly talk about.

But with scripted fare, borrowing from our friends abroad just seems silly. Taking this trend of shying away from originality, to new levels of silliness, USA recently showed Traffic: The Miniseries. Not the acclaimed British miniseries that inspired the acclaimed American movie, but rather a new American miniseries inspired by the acclaimed American film inspired by the acclaimed British miniseries. All I could think was: Why? It's supposed to be an update and not half bad, but still, why?

I'm particularly concerned about this issue because my beloved The Office is in talks to be adapted into an American show. I cannot understand this at all. It's so funny and I'm pretty sure the American version will be inferior. Are British people that hard to understand? It can't be the humor because otherwise we'd never want the shows in the first place. I'd rather see some network pick up The Office in its original brilliant, British form, cruelly cut each 40 minute episode into two half hour shows with ads, giving 12 episodes, but still almost certainly something more wonderful that most of what else is out there. I'll be hopeful and believe that the involvement of Ricky Gervais (the show's creator) will ensure I have nothing to worry about.

comments? e-mail me.