Bad words...

(from http://wikionwikis.pbworks.com/w/page/14531812/Loaded%20Words)

My wife and I were watching TV when guess what? That's right a political commercial came on.  In this one it was announced that Obama and his LIBERAL allies would do such and such while Romney and the "COMMON SENSE CONSERVATIVES" will do such and such.  In another ad, which is specific to Colorado, its narrator announces that "Romney and his FRIENDS in CONGRESS and a "supporter of BIG OIL." I should warn you that I've been muting political ads but a few have gotten through.

The point here is that the ads besides giving me the giggles about their blatant attempts to paint using words are for the most part quite masterful at using loaded words and what media has begun to call dog whistles.  They include ideas which play to more base beliefs.  For example one of the folks on Facebook posted/shared something like,  "If you give a man a welfare check, a cell phone, cash for his clunker, food stamps,  housing, Medicaid, unemployment checks, a 40-ounce malt liquor, needles, drugs, contraceptives, and designer Air Jordan shoes, he will vote Democrat for a lifetime.” This is a statement dating back to the "welfare queens" of Reagan or the more recent "food stamp army."  Loaded language can be a powerful tool.

 Being liberal is not a bad thing.  A person who is generous is liberal with his money.  Liberal is someone who is free in his beliefs and giving.  Conservative in not a bad thing either.  Someone who carefully weighs what he says is conservative in his use of language.  If one protects live, he is conserving it.  He holds his ideas clear and close.  Congress is or was a noble calling before it seemed to lose its compass to serve the People instead of the Party.  We need oil, but honestly, I've got nothing to say, Big Oil is Big Oil after all.

Words get twisted or connoted.  For example, when I first started teaching and directing plays, there were a number of playwrights who used the word gay for happy or fun times.  But as time progressed and the Gay movement took on, the words connotation changed. So to keep high school students and a few adults from giggling, we could not leave lines like "having a gay time" in the script without changing them to "having a fun time."  At the beginning of the 1900's, some one told me that among the 10 dirtiest words was the word "suck." It is now a common and somewhat mild curse word.  Still not a word that I would use, but you see how things get loaded and changed.

(from http://blacklikemoi.com/2012/01/why-is-welfare-making-a-political-comeback/)

Unfortunately, it can create an ugly image too.

This brings me to the above statements about welfare.
At the least, it builds on  the idea that folks on welfare are "takers" and the industry is a "maker." It was actually a part of the extreme right campaign. At its extreme, the above statement is racially motivated.  It plays on the idea that welfare recipients are people of color especially African American.  It plays on the idea that most are drug addicts, lazy, shiftless and would rather live in tenements than work.

But what is more, it is wrong.

I know, I know.  The statement does not use specific race, but that is exactly the point of loading up ideas with ambiguity.  I mean, Air Jordans? Really?  It feeds an image and that image is racially charged.  You can deny it and yell it is a liberal conspiracy, but that still doesn't make it less true.

I am not going to wade through all the statistics which have been manipulated by both sides and besides my math skills are not that strong in stats, but I do know that many welfare recipients are white not just people of color and the number of white recipients goes up substantially if food stamps are included.  I know that many live in very conservative states and in rural areas not just in the inner city.  I know that most do not end up on welfare because they want to be there and that there are plenty of drug addicts who have money.  I know that the safety net has caught more than a few.  Medicaid, a part of that system, protected members of my own family as did unemployment payments. I know that owning Air Jordans or doing drugs is is not supplied by welfare.  I know that this statement is the true dog whistle and it saddens me a bit that someone would fall for such loaded words. There are by the way no stats I could find that show how welfare recipients will vote.

Loaded words are an essential part of persuasive discourse.  We all use them.  I just did: safety net. They can also be used to build a myth that is neither right nor good in a free country.  I can only hope that those who pass this kind of material on will realize they are being used to perpetuate a myth that is a very poor agenda by a very few individuals that would divide us instead of lift us up.

I know what I like.

 (from http://www.lostateminor.com/2009/01/08/marla-olmstead-an-eight-year-old-art-prodigy/)

(from http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2010/06/22/i-never-said-i-was-so-smart/)

(from http://www.reproduction-gallery.com/oil_painting/details/copy_artist/1129672533/masterpiece/Jackson_Pollock/museum_quality/Number_15_1948.xhtml)

"I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" goes the trite phrase that has been attributed to everyone from Mark Twain, Monty Python, James Thurber and the mutterings of a Texas oil man in an art gallery. What is art?  The art at the top of the page is by Marla Olmstead a "child prodigy artist" and worth several thousand dollars. Marla Olmstead was eight-years-old at the time she painted it.  The one beneath is finger painting and probably priceless only to the artist's parents.  For the rest of us, it would hang on the fridge for a while, if we  knew the kid. The third is by Jackson Pollock.  He had a painting sell for 140 million dollars.    I honestly don't see much of a a difference, although I've seen Pollock in a museum and there really is something about his work that does not translate in  a reproduction.  There really is something about seeing a masterpiece that a picture of it just doesn't capture.  But I digress...

Corpse Bride

A Nightmare Before Christmas

 I was given pause the other night when I went with a friend to Looper.  He said he had just gone to see Frankenweenie and I asked him how it was saying that I was not a Tim Burton fan.  He asked me why? I replied that all of his work had the same look.  Hence the series of pictures above.  He asked if that wasn't more like an artist's style rather than a lack of creativity or growth?  My response at the time was that it was like an artist who had a "blue" period but he never grew beyond it.  In short, an artist should grow.

But I must pause...

Is this a true answer or is there more here?  A Fellini film has a true style but much of his work has a very identifiable look.  The same is true of other great film makers like Akiro Kurosawa and Ingmar Bergman who have very identifiable looks too.  So what makes their work art and Burton not so much? Does style make art or just make it's creator identifiable.  And what about something less visible than visual art such as  sound art or word art? 

I can only say that there has to be both a measurable element but also a personal one.  I know what I like, but there is clearly something about high art that makes it last from generation to generation and person to person.  There is art of the moment such as performance art or Christo but that is an art that cannot be captured even on film.  It will not be repeated and is more or less inspiration.  This art is memory.

Solid, high art does more.  Style marks the maker, but art gives us insight, challenges us, puts us in awe.  It makes us look at who we are and our civilization.  It causes us to question.  It makes us wonder at our greatness and ponder our failures.  We see soul in art.  We see humanity.  So while there is style in what Burton does, I don't know about the art unless there is a degree of art.  

Entertainment is in and of itself art.  It is though, I think, preferential art.   I like it because I like it.  So by that standard, Burton is a successful artist.  He has definable style, but he is not high art anymore than Star Trek or Star Wars is.  These are cultural art.  They are something that gives us something we like.  They may give us a little insight, but not the insight that Shakespeare or Dante gives us into the human soul.  Not the curiosity that cause us to wonder what is in the window in American Gothic?  Sure, Star Trek may show us the folly of race relations or the realities of war, but they are not showing something new but reminding us of our humanity and our times.  Cultural art is important, but it is driven not just by depth but by personal taste. It is the difference between the depth of a fantasy like Lord of the Rings and a fantasy like Lord Foul's Bane.  Both are well written and both have artistic value but only one gives us a depth more and altered the course of it genre of literature.  Which brings me to another point.

What if a piece alters the course of its form?  Does Citizen Kane, or E.E. Cummings or even The Sword of Shannara count as high art? Kane altered the way movies were shot for all time. It altered the course of an entire industry and the stories it could tell.  It could be argued that it gave the movies the idea that they could become a true art form. E. E. Cummings didn't necessarily explore the soul, although he could, but he altered form and thought of what poetry could do and look like.  Shannara certainly is not Tolkien, but it did something that Rings didn't.  It was the first fantasy to go best seller.  It was this book that caused the explosion of fantasy books and science fiction books to appear.  When I went to a bookstore before Brooks wrote the book there was perhaps two or three, four at most shelves of fantasy and science fiction.  After, there was an explosion of these books.  They had been written before, but they were regarded as specialty books.  If you were lucky you would find an Edgar Rice Burroughs or a Robert E. Howard along with Heinlein or Asimov, but that was pretty much it.  After Shannara, publishers realized there was a market and money to be had.  So is it art? Yes.  Is it high art? Probably not, but I still like it and will re-read it from time to time.  It did alter its genre. 

So what is art?  It is something you like.  It is something that you think about.  It has levels and it has values.  Is Frakenweenie great art. No.  It is cultural and personal art defined by an artist with a clear, identifiable style.  I am still not a fan, but I have to admit, it is art. What can I say?  I know what I like.

There you go again...

(from http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/us-presidential-debates-2012)

Debates have been going on forever and I don't just mean the ones for this election, which includes seventeen Republican Primary Debates, three Presidential and one Vice Presidential.  The most watched debate, by the way, was the Palin - Biden debate in 2008. It was perhaps had the highest number of views of any debate ever. Maybe the Ryan - Biden debate will beat that. After all, if fact checkers are accurate on Ryan's convention speech and Biden remains in form it could prove to be interesting because  Ryan is unfettered by the truth and Biden makes so many gaffs he is almost gaff proof. There is a point here, though, despite its numbers, the Palin-Biden debate had very little in the way of impact on the actual election. Regardless, virtually every aspect of the debates are now controlled by the campaigns from temperature to lighting to where they stand.  Some may have even noticed that Romney wore a red tie and Obama a blue one.  Every detail is considered.

That debates have little effect is the case most of the time.  Despite the Obama's poor performance and Romney's more aggressive style, the debate may give the challenger a bump, but it will probably not have that much impact.  A bump in the first debate for the challenger is a matter of fact.  It's known as the "incumbent's curse."   Since the first televised debate, most agree that only three or four depending on who you believe, might be game changers. How much is actually lore and myth or how much an action in a debate was the final brick in an already struggling campaign is probably more the case. Nevertheless, here they are.

(from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/no-mercy-from-a-new-camera)

The first "game changer" was the first televised  debate between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy.  There is actually a great deal of lore around this debate.  Nixon's looks are credited with the problem. He was sweaty and pale while Kennedy was tan and calm.  In actuality, Nixon had just been discharged from the hospital with a massive leg infection giving him a temperature of over a hundred and Kennedy had just returned from a vacation where he had been working on his tan.  Then through a rather clever ploy, Kennedy used Nixon's ego against him by convincing him that he was not going to wear makeup and then just before the debate having it applied in his dressing room by his campaign manager.  The results may be found here.*  In the second debate, legend has it that Nixon tried to take control of the studio thermostat turning up the air conditioning to very cold.  It took an argument with the stage manager and two of Nixon's aides, who were guarding the thermostat before it was finally set to a reasonable temperature.

There is also much discussion about this being more myth than game changer since the black and white debate really doesn't seem to show that much. Nixon was a master politician.  There is still much wonder that he made such a mistake.  He changed the course of election history as Vice President candidate for Eisenhower when he gave the famous "Checker's Speech"* which would eventually lead to the the whole thing about candidates releasing taxes in the late '60s, when George Romney released a dozen tax returns.

(from http://ushistoryclass.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/from-ford-to-carter/)

The next supposed game changer came in the election debate between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.  Ford already had the problem of the Nixon pardon which some viewed as deal he had made with Nixon and others viewed as a necessary event so the country could move past Nixon and the Watergate scandal.  Regardless, Ford shot himself in the foot when he announced on national TV that "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe."  His lack of foreign policy knowledge truly worried Americans who had already come to accept the Cold War as fact.   Admittedly it wasn't just this statement, there was the baggage of being Nixon's Vice President, thought of as a klutz, the pardon, and viewed as just not overly bright that played into the loss as well.  It was that the statement* played into all this image, especially the idea of not being smart enough to be POTUS.

(from http://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/09/10-great-debate-moments/000450-006124.html)

Perhaps the most famous and true the game changer was the Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter debate.  Reagan slammed Carter with perhaps the two most famous lines in debate history, "There you go again..." and "Are you better off than you were four years ago." Carter was already struggling with the economy, something that came to a head under Reagan, and then the Iran hostage situation.  Most believe that Reagan was ready to use the "There you go again" line on anything about the economy that Carter offered.  The "better off" line became a Republican mantra but the fact is that it has never worked as it did here.* It was a true game changer.  Following the debate, Reagan's polling moved him into the lead finally winning 51% to Carter's 41%.

(from http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-09-24/voter-satisfaction-lowest-since-1992/)

The next expanded the lead but wasn't a true game changer.  In the Bill Clinton and George HW Bush debate is famous for something that happened on a cut away.  Bush looked at his watch like he had something better to do.  Clinton had received a tremendous bounce from his convention of 57% to Bush's 32%.  Bush had managed to narrow the gap though within a couple of points, but following the watch incident, Clinton's lead expanded and he never looked back. The watch look* may have caused some effect, but  I would also point out that this was the year of Ross Perot who garnered a large number of conservative votes probably impacted Bush as much or more.

If you actually look at it, debates that change the elections are more the last straws and something of an anomaly.  There are some truly great moments and lines, but few changed the outcome of an election because for the most part many folks already know how they will vote and they will most likely stilt the debate to their own points of view.  Some might argue that other debates have had more impact, but there are also many where the first debates winner closed the gap following the debate and still lost.

*link to YouTube video showing the moments.  The Checkers speech is in two parts.

Debatable?

(from Twitter)

I watched the first debate.  I suppose what we all hope for one of those moments. A true game changing moment or the final blow so we can end all this.  I thought I would first do something like report on the debates, but not on this one but the famous debates of Lincoln and Douglas who were running for the Illinois Senate.  While they were important, they read like most debates, and we cannot actually know what they sounded or looked like.  We only know that Douglas received the much wanted Whig endorsement and that the debates centered on slavery and they gave us L-D debates for speech teams in high schools across America.

All I know is after about twenty minutes in my wife's eyes and my eyes had glazed over, and it became a struggle to stay focused.

Obama the orator didn't show up.  Nobody knows why.  The person on stage appeared distracted and seeming to not really want to challenge his opponent.  Perhaps he had taken the "do no harm" idea to heart or maybe he was afraid of what Fox News has called the "angry black man" or maybe as Ronald Reagan put it that after hearing "Hail to the Chief" for four years, the POTUS  just didn't feel like debating.  We shall never really know, at least until someone in the campaign writes a book. His performance though made his opponent's look stellar by comparison. The information he presented was a bit difficult to follow but that could be because I kept drifting in an out of consciousness.  He lost the debate on style..or lack there of.

I did like the one suggestion on Twitter that instead of a debate, perhaps we should have a dance off...

Then there was the Other Mitt.  Like Obama, I don't know who that was on the stage.  I think we finally had that etch-a-sketch moment.  One of the things being retired has allowed me to do is watch a lot of the campaign speeches (political wonk..remember).  The plans the Other Mitt presented were not the ones that I've watched his doppelganger  present in interviews and stump speeches.  He has no tax cut proposal that will cut taxes on the rich or raise taxes on the middle class says the Other Mitt. I'm going to cut everyone's taxes across the board by 20 percent said the Mitt I was used to seeing.  I love teachers says the Other Mitt.  Didn't Obama get the message from here in Milwaukee?  We don't need more teachers and firefighters, said the Mitt I am used to seeing on the campaign stump. I am going to repeal Obama Care but my plan will cover... says Other Mitt.  The guy having a heart attack in his apartment can call an ambulance and go to the emergency room if he doesn't have insurance said the Mitt I am used to seeing on 60 Minutes. 

Who was this guy? Where was Obama?  What was the homework Obama had to do in Vegas and why didn't he use it?  And most importantly, where were the well rehearsed  zingers the Other Mitt was suppose to use?

This debate was a little like some Christmases or parties or movies; the anticipation -the hype- just outshines the event or the moment.  No, sometimes we want to see the debates like we see in the movies or that moment when Michael Douglas stands up and announces in The American President, "This is a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up. My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I *am* the President. " Sadly, it will not happen.

So all we can do now is try to wake Jim Lehrer and save Big Bird...

Welcome to my Party

(from http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/if-you-could-make-your-own-political-party-what-would-it-be-called-and-be-about/question-1834513/?link=ibaf&q=&imgurl=http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001834513/1fa1c18da7a55fe4367e24787ea14dfe_xlarge.jpeg)

Welcome to the Travicratic Party...or should that be Travipublican...hmmm...I need a better name for my Party.  We are the the centrist, progressive, left leaning to the right Party of the 99.9 percent of the people and I am the king.  The .10 percent that do not belong are the extreme right and left wackadoodles that make too much noise and thought they were in charge.  We won't invite them to the Party, even on Facebook.

In our party the first thing we did was to fire the left and right leaders of the house and senate.  We told them to hit the trail with Gingrich.  Their inability to accomplish anything and to stone wall meant that they were leading in the wrong way.  They whined about it until we told them that they could share the same prison cell as the ones who attempted to take the vote from us if they would rather spend the time with friends. They made their first wise choice.

We revoked Grover Norquist's citizenship.  Perhaps the  first time a native born citizen has been given the option of finding some another country in which to live since Benedict Arnold.  He too was given an option ..find somewhere that wants you  or  we will arrange for you to live near the US border in Mexico.  The town of course was ran by the lovely Club Cartel.  It was obvious to us that he didn't give a damn about this country.  We reminded the rest of the 1 percent that we made them wealthy and we could make them un-wealthy too.  The rest of elected congress too was given an option: renounce all written pledges except for the oath of office or join friend Norquist.  You see, as congressmen and women, the allegiance it to the American people, all of them, not to some lobbyist or wealthy donor.  You owe us the 99.9 percent.  Wackadoodles are protected enough.

We didn't really care what their opinion was on taxes and funding and the social contract because we understood their beliefs were a part of the original constitutional intent.  They were to sit down, work out their differences and compromise, leaving the worse of what they wanted on the table and bringing the best together.  That was their job.  That was why they were elected.  That was why there were two houses.  Their job was not being Republican or Democrat.  Their job was to serve to the best of their ability.

Lobbyists weren't given the option.  They visited Club Cartel.

We reminded the President that it wasn't about the title, the ads, the money of Super-Packs, or which group of wackadoodles they wooed to get through the primaries.  It's not the debates or the year long campaign to become the leader of the free world.  It IS the job and the people weak and unknown, rich and powerful, all that they protect.

We also limited campaign.  All primary campaigns may start in July.  All primaries and caucuses must be held in August.  All party conventions may be in early September.  And campaigns, debates and advertising, limited only by donor money and no super-packs, may only occur after this.  All early voting may begin in early October and it is for every one 18 and older.  Any one or group trying to take the right to vote, gets jail which results in revocation of their right to vote. The net result was less stress on the electorate, a succinct election, already elected candidates could pay more attention to their job, and MSNBC and FOX had less to talk about.

We reminded judges on the Supreme Court that their party affiliation was irrelevant. They were to dispense justice based on not some stale piece of parchment written over two hundred years ago, but to look at a living ideal that it represented and interpret it to meet that simple ideal.  If they didn't remember the ideal we read it to them, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Then we read it to Congress and the President and every governor and every house in the land.  You see, in that one sentence life was given to an ever-changing document   The key is simple...the framers wanted something for all ages..."our posterity." They knew things would change and they gave us the means to do it.  All we had to do was remember.

We are the Party that believes in giving a helping hand.  We are the party that believes in helping and taking care of our seniors and our vets.  We understand that most will occasionally need help and we will make sure that help will come. We will take care of our children and make sure they get a well supported education that offers well-paid teachers in state of the art facilities.  We believe that everyone has the right to try and succeed.  We believe that all persons should be protected to keep them healthy, but that does not mean we protect those who can afford to be healthy, they just choose not to be. We believe that everyone pays their fair share, but if they cannot, see our first belief.   ("Promote the general welfare")

We believe that we cannot legislate morality.  We believe that everyone has the right to join in government recognized marriage.  We believe that we cannot tell religions what to believe about this.  We believe in freedom of speech but if you abuse that speech to cause death and destruction, you get to spend time for negligent homicide.  Freedom comes with responsibility.  We believe everyone has the right to equal pay for the same job and the right to make their voice heard in writing and in voting.  That all are protected by the same civil rights and civil liberties.("Secure the blessings of liberty")

We believe in the right to bear arms.Hunters and sportsman have the  right.  People have a right to protect their home.  Carrying a concealed weapon is not a part of this right.  An automatic weapon is not a part of this right.  An over-sized clip is not a right.  No one needs to hunt with an M-16.  We know that guns do not kill people but a drive-by stabbing is infinitely more difficult.  We believe that all should be able to walk down the street without the concern of being shot by someone.  We understand that the original right was given so the country could feed its people and raise a militia and that such needs are not quite what they once were, but still we understand. We also understand the need to make sure we offer protection in a standing military and police ("To provide for the common defense")

We believe that citizens should have the ability to voice violations of their freedoms or their rights.  That they have a right to seek redress for these violations.  If they use this right for the inane and the frivolous, then both they and their lawyer equally share in the cost and time.  If it's fraudulent, they too might find a reminder that with liberty comes responsibility too. We believe that big money has no place in our election process or in the governmental process.  It's why the lobbyist were given a new place to work. ("Establish justice")

There is so much that we of the Travicratic? Travipublican? Party see what could be done if  those we elect would just remember this one sentence.  It really is all there in that one sentence. It is the twin belief in two simple ideals: Liberty and Civil Rights. It doesn't need to be unpacked or interpreted or updated.  It needs only to be read, remembered and taken to heart. Or you could look at something else that the framers surely knew when they wrote it: the golden rule,  protect and care for one another - welfare, responsibility, defense, and liberty.

Here ends the lesson...

Just one story line...

(from http://favim.com/image/494375/)

When I was a kid-

Not to grow nostalgic, the shows on the three channels we had were complete each week.  There was only one that I can recall that was continuous, The Fugitive. Still every week Dr. Kimble would help someone as he tried to find the one-armed man and hide from the police.  You didn't feel that if you missed an episode that you would miss an important piece of the plot.  Unlike Lost you could have watched the The Fugitive at any given point and still get it.  If you came in on Lost even two or three episodes in, you were like its title, LOST, forget about trying to pick up on the second season.  In all honesty from what I've heard about the finale of Lost, I think I am glad I didn't watch it's six seasons.

The rest of the shows back then were pretty much the same: one episode each week, one story each week, same characters. Every week, Marshal Dillon got the bad guy and McGarrett saved Hawaii and even eventually captured his nemesis, Wo Fat, who by the way was not the controlling plot of the show.  Even in the episodes he was in, McGarrett would foil his current plan in a single episode.

And now-

There are many shows that when you watch them, you can expect them to have a long running "to be continued" story line . There are a bunch of them: soap operas, some anime, mini series like Dexter or Game of Thrones, un-reality television, and the occasional show like Revolution or Lost or episodic shows like Doctor Who.  And then there are shows that have a back story or the occasional through line.  The problem is that too many of them have forgotten that back story is NOT the story and through line is a story that ties, NOT the story.  And then there are the shows that have a continuous plot without enough plot to carry it, which I suppose is a sign of having to come up with a show when there are hundreds of channels.

(from http://www.fanpop.com/spots/the-mentalist/images/5494631/title/mentalist-wallpaper)

Back Story...

Back story is something that gives the reason for the show's premise.  In The Mentalist, the back story is Patrick Jane, an accomplished conman, becomes a consultant for the California Bureau of Investigation.  The reason for this is that Jane's family was murdered by a serial killer named Red John.  Jane uses his abilities to solve crimes. He wants vengeance on Red John.  While the back story has an element to it where Jane should occasionally comes across Red John, it is a lose thread to keep the story going.  A book end of sorts.  Ideally, when the series draws to an end, Jane should find Red John and bring him to justice just as Dr. Kimble did with the one-armed man. Problem is that the back story has become the story and it has moved past believable, not that a conman joining the CBI is believable.  Red John is  a serial killer who is apparently of wealthy means and has the abilities of a cult leader, complete with followers and is able to keep his identity hidden.  It lacks truth within the framework of the story.

The consulting detective is after all an old plot nugget ranging from Sherlock Holmes and Auguste Dupin to Monk and Castle. The back story should bookend.  It should never take over the plot. Monk too had such a back story.  Monk searched occasionally for his wife's killer.  The difference here is that the back story did book end.  It was never the story.  If only it were true for the Mentalist. Grimm, another show I watch, is going down the Mentalist path too.  Too bad.  So many episodes and creatures for him to catch and only a single plot seeming to take over the entire show.

(from http://www.sitcomsonline.com/moonlightingseasons1and2dvdreview.html)

Through Lines...

Through lines come in a variety of ways.  They can involve a continuing story like Castle's sexual tension story line or a plot that is carefully an almost imperceptibly done in the background which is done so masterfully in NCIS.  Problem: for the shows of sexual tension the moment that love story become "real" the show is probably done.  It is called the Moonlighting Effect, so named for the show Moonlighting that fell apart as soon as its two main characters became an item.  House died a horrible death as a show when it became about his love life and less about curing the sick.  Castle has violated the rule and so has Bones.  Too bad.  I like these shows too, but that interplay between characters is gone.  The writers, I don't care how clever they think they are, will never get it back.

NCIS is the show that sneaks a continuous story line in culminating every season with it and then finishing it at the beginning of the next.  It is clever, but what is more important, is they still solve a single crime most every week.   The through line story is not the story. There are also shows like Warehouse 13 and Alphas. Both have through line stories. Warehouse is on the edge of crossing the find a bizarre artifacts each week, while the through line works in the background to the show that has a continuous plot that is the story and the through line is the sole plot.  Alphas has already crossed that line.

This is key.  When a show  that you don't expect to become continuous does, it's time to call it a night and wish it well in re-run syndication and Netflix

(from http://insidepulse.com/2012/08/31/blu-ray-review-once-upon-a-time-the-complete-first-season/)

Thin Plotted...

I don't need nor want everything to be continued.  When it becomes that, I quit watching. I do have a few such shows I follow, but I usually DVR all the episodes so I can watch them at my leisure or all at once. Generally speaking such shows are short-lived.  I will start a few of them and if they don't catch on, then I quit.  One such show was Once Upon a Time.  Great premise but a plot that never seemed to move forward and so ::yawn:: it left my DVR list.  I know...it is in its second season and a few fans will disagree with me, but to me the show just goes nowhere. Number of seasons does not mean impact or quality, by the way. I have the feeling that Revolution will go that way too. It has what seems to be The Hunger Games meets The Fugitive. It just seems to me that whoever makes the show doesn't get it. A plot has to go somewhere.  It cannot just roam aimlessly with no real explanation.  Sorry Alcatraz, Falling Skies, and Terra Nova you just lack plot and interesting characters. 

(from http://filmaholics.net/2010/10/2010-new-fall-tv-shows-review/)

Mystery shows need to solve a crime most every episode and do so without the interference of its back story or through line.  Medical shows need to diagnose and cure their obscure disease most every episode. A western should end with a good old fashioned justice for the bad guy most weeks.  A scifi should solve what ever its futuristic or fantastical problem is.

I just don't get it.  The most successful show on TV right now is NCIS.  It is clear the writers and producers are determined to build good continuous characters that solve an interesting crime each week and yet show after show thinks they should go the other way to get and keep ratings.  Guess who has lasted longer...

Good shows do so with out characters that are over-used and trite.  I am so sick of mouthy, angst ridden teens on TV I, will quit watching a show simply based on that.  I know it's another topic...maybe I will blog about it. Now if the show just don't run out of reasonable plots. I'm looking at you CSI..really how many serial killers and corrupt officials can one city have?

Living in Fear

(from http://vi.sualize.us/merry_christmas_crisis_graffiti_humor_picture_9BzW.html)

Since Columbine and probably a variety of other school related incidents that have made the news, we have become a society that lives in fear in an almost extremist way. Statistically, schools are still one of the safest places for kids but…

On the bathroom walls, someone scrawled a thin threat in small print and pencil and badly spelled. It happens. It happens every few years just before Columbine anniversary. It happens because it is also Hitler’s birthday and few think it’s cool or shocking to say what a "great man" this madman was…but for the most part they don’t believe it or they are just to dumb to realize the impact of praising this monster. They are flexing their childish "individuality."  It happens because it is national “pot day” yet another time of year for someone to kill brain cells. It happens because it gets attention and maybe a day off from school because scared mom or scared dad will keep them home.

The problem isn't that it happens. It happened before Columbine. It will happen even after the pain of Columbine fades in other parts of the country. When I first started teaching in my last school, there was a bomb threat. We cleared the school. You see bomb threats could clear a building and were definitely more substantial than an obscure threat on a bathroom stall. After a bit, it got close to end of school time, and teachers went back into the building to get jackets and backpacks for the kids.  We did it because we were unafraid the bomb threat was real.  We did it because the kids needed their stuff.  Why did it happen? It happened because it got the person anonymous attention. It happened because it got the person out of school. It happened because he thought it was a clever joke. It happened again.

This time though there was something new. There was something that hadn't existed before. It was caller ID. A service that at the time actually cost money and only a few larger organizations paid for. The call came and the number identified. It was a pay phone at the end of the hall. The secretary who took the call, saw the number, leaned out the window of the office and looked down the hall at the student using the phone. He was expelled and charges were filed. It happened because he wanted out of PE.

And then it all changed.  There were school shootings. There had been shootings before. They date back to the 1700's.  But things had changed.  People had grown fearful.  It was probably because of the growth of information and that it could be shared in the blink of an eye.  Stories and pictures and news both real and fictitious came to our homes in seconds.  And then there was Columbine...

Then day before Columbine’s anniversary, someone wrote a threat. We sent letters home and we posted it on the school website. We made sure that everyone knew we had an idea who had done it and that even the police believed the threat was far from credible. It had happened before and again we sent letters home and told people we were on heightened awareness and that there was no real credible threat ; just scribbles on a bathroom stall. 

It happened and people kept their kids home because they live in fear. They let those bastards win. They didn't stand up and say, “No more!” They didn't come to school with their child to defy some little foolish jerk who misspelled a threat. Instead, they stayed home and cowered. They live in fear from ink on a bathroom wall. Even in Columbine, they discovered the attackers had done more than write a threat on a bathroom wall. It happened and people lived frightened of graffiti.
                               

(from http://www.zazzle.com/stupid+people+bumperstickers)

"All we have to fear is fear, itself."   -Franklin Delano Roosevelt.