let's do the time warp again

Well, I've managed to watch the pilot episode of 90210. Oh my god. The clothes (Kelly wore long, patterned spandex shorts over stretchie pants; the color palette). And the hair! Brandon has a full-on mullet. Funny, I remember Steve growing one, but I wouldn't even call his a pseudo-mullet in this episode.

The ridiculousness of Brenda pretending to be in college to impress 25-year-old Jason (Maxwell Caulfield) and thinking she's in love with him after two dates. And why the hell would he make their second date a double date with his friends?! (And I guess they have to get guys to play several years younger than they actually are when the high schoolers are in their twenties.)

The most absurd thing is the West Beverly Hills Transit bus that shuttles Andrea from home in Van Nuys to school at West Beverly (which, of course, doesn't even exist; Beverly Hills only has one high school and it's called Beverly Hills High). As if Beverly Hills would have a transit system! Let alone the western part of the city. I don't actually get why they gave it a directional name or why they chose West (though almost universally, western parts of American cities are more affluent than their eastern counterparts). And it doesn't even look like a transit bus, it's a coach sort of thing. And then we see that Andrea lives in an old craftsman bungalow off Gramercy Place. Hmmm...sure this isn't West Adams? (I need to consult my Thomas Guide, and I'll get back to you.)

Yeah, I don't think I've seen this episode since it aired 17 years ago. No wonder I was infatuated with this when I was seven.

Though remember, this was a seriously groundbreaking TV show in its day. It helped make Fox a serious network and ushered in an era of entertainment catering to teens. It's the first teen soap, but my whole family watched this show. Even Dad.

i take offense

In yesterday's Bible Industry news there was a little blurb on ABC's fall lineup that really iritated me, especially after watching Ugly Betty this evening. Here's the quote:

"In deciding what new programs to take on for the 2007-2008 season, ABC Entertainment President Stephen McPherson said Tuesday that the network had listened to 'a tonal shift in the viewer'-- away from darker, complicated series like Lost and towards lighter fare like Ugly Betty."

Ugly Betty is not light fare. Since when does bullshit alien supernatural crap on some paradise island gone to hell (realize I've never actually seen one episode of Lost and I'm intentionally exaggerating...it's my way, back off) constitute dark and complicated and an unbelievably smart (especially compared to the rest of TV's offerings) show that happens to make you laugh (yo, it's no sit-com, it is a serial comic drama) laden with social messages light fare? What does Lost teach you? Game theory? Didn't we learn this in microeconomics? A show that validates difference, standing up for who you are and what you believe, and actually shows complicated homosexual as well as heterosexual AND transgender individuals AND people of different colors and economic classes... Do I really need to beat this dead horse? And don't tell me it's not dark. It started with a death and the season just ended with one.

Though I have to say I was a bit peeved tonight with Betty's dental hygienist decided that she was so obsessed with romantic comedies (don't snicker) that she was forcing Betty to think she was the female lead in one. To Betty's credit (and the writers!), Betty didn't fall into that trap. She was Betty, she was there for her family at a time of crisis. This show is almost too good.

and another thing

Another idea that percolated in my mind as I was watching Notes From the Underbelly that I have to share: how do people who have never lived in L.A. stand to watch shows that take place there and constantly drop references to obscure things?

In one scene characters talk about Arclight. Some guy says he loves their popcorn, especially the caramel corn they make fresh there. Why the name dropping really? Is this a new type of product placement (with limited sales possibilities, since most of the audience will never go to Arclight)?

Or the street and freeway name game. Actually, Allie makes fun of me all the time for talking that way so maybe it is a very L.A. thing.

The show is very westside, though. At least the commercial streets are.

on the unspeakable of sexual politics

Last night I decided to check ABC's free streaming archive for something to watch. I settled on the two episodes of Notes From the Underbelly. Ordinarily I wouldn't be drawn into a show about pregnancy. Come on, as if this damn society doesn't cater enough to the worship of children, I need to see it on TV (or my computer). But the pilot got me because the guy (quite cute and young looking, and actually he's playing a character older than he) was the one begging the wife for a kid. How often do you see that? I'm sure it happens quite a lot in reality, but pop culture would have you think that the only way we multiply society is by women trapping men into having children (and maybe or maybe not sticking around to raise them). Overall, the show is amusing enough that I'll stream another episode eventually, but I'm not so in love with it that I feel the need to watch it.

There is something that really bugged me. The sexual politics of the show are whacked (big shock, I know). In the second episode, one of the main themes is that the couple hasn't had sex in 25 days (their longest dry spell) because she is constantly nauseous. In typical sit-com setup, you think that might change when he comes home to a house romantically set up with rose petals, candles, and soft lighting. He's so excited! Then his wife tells him she's out the door and he can take care of business on his own. She set the romantic mood so he could jerk off. But of course she can't even utter the works "jerk off" or "masturbate" (FCC's doing maybe?) but has to resort to some nonspecific euphemism. In the process she tells us that this isn't something they ordinarily talk about, because there's no reason to since their sex life is usually so great. Uh-huh. (This scene works quite well with an essay I read yesterday by Samuel Delaney called "On the Unspeakable.")

Where do I begin? First, this reinforces the notion that sex should be paired with romance. You want romance, fine, but there is really nothing inherently romantic about swapping sexual fluid. Society tells us it should be this way to keep us in line. If you think sex is romance then you're less inclined to have nonromantic sex or godforbid sex with strangers (worse yet:) in a setting that isn't a bedroom. Next, this places masturbation in a less than positive position in the sexual network. You should only masturbate when your partner has shut you out for a month and then gives you permission. I guarantee in the real world that man had masturbated each of those 25 days, because he regularly masturbates even when they're having sex! Masturbation shouldn't be interpreted as some sort of dirty secret that gets the job done when your partner's libido doesn't match your own. Society would crumble if we admitted it was a positive experience of exploration whether you have a sexual partner or not. This leads me to my final point about the lack of communication about self-pleasure between a married couple. How fucking sad, really. The shame people must feel to discuss what does or doesn't turn them on to never speak about something as banal as masturbation. Great sex life, huh? (Pair this with The OH in Ohio, which equated masturbation with adultery for a really morally-warped time.)

And then there are people who feel as though they can't share certain desires with the people they love, but yet will do it with those they have less invested in. I can see why this is in such a world, but that doesn't mean I think it's a healthy way to be. The show didn't address this, of course. There's nothing shameful about desire. I won't say there's nothing shameful about some actions, however. But as long as it's between/among consenting adults and abides by the golden rule, I say go for it. (That means I don't condone cheating nor prescribe monogamy, either.)

whose health do we insure?

The second I heard about Bush's health insurance tax plan on Monday I was incensed. I can only imagine him sitting there thinking, "How can we create a diversion for the skyrocketing cost of health care that looks like we're helping the uninsured but instead penalizes a lot of other people?" Of course I'm kidding, we know he couldn't construct that sentence (as rambling as it was), but some of his advisers might be able to help with it.

The last sentence in the article I've linked you to above sums it up:
"We're tilting the playing field toward this very flawed market," said Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute.

If you tax people who receive health benefits from employers, you're undermining this very effective and generous system (relatively speaking). Considering this country is never going to give us affordable universal coverage (can you blame them when the private system makes dollars hands over fist and then gets to include these figures in the GDP?), all we've got is that firms offer these benefits to their workers. The plans that large firms can acquire from health insurance companies are so much better than anything anyone could buy individually (you'd think these capitalists would know that). Plus, if you work for a large enough firm, they cover you wholly at the same rate as everyone else in your firm, even if you have certain pre-existing conditions other insurance plans wouldn't allow (or you'd pay insanely high premiums). I'd basically be screwed if the employer-insurance system collapsed.

Read the article. It's the best thing I've seen yet against the plan.

dangerous jokes?

From this week's Savage Love:

What's the biggest difference between a gay and a straight marriage?

Straight Boy Wants To Know

The only really significant difference, SBWTK, is the likelihood of any given husband hearing these 11 magic words: "Honey, it's been way too long since we had a three-way."

I howled when I read that, but then it hit me that Savage's enemies won't get this is a joke. They'll just say, "See, we're right! They will degrade the institution of marriage."

You think that last observation is hyperbole? Then you should read this gem I learned about today in the class I TA: "Prole Models: America's Elites Take Their Cues from the Underclass." Charles Murray is absolutely insane, but sadly, probably also the pulse of conservative America.

washington-gay-gate

The controversy over Isaiah Washington's comments on the set of Grey's Anatomy and then later denying them (while his costars contend he's lying) is getting out of control. The Bible's news reported today that ABC is reportedly considering firing him effective immediately even though his character will be featured in an upcoming storyline that has already been filmed. Then the industry news reports that some gay activists are pushing for his character to come out on the show, which isn't going to happen.

This kind of stuff is why conservative schmucks think us lefties are loons. This is identity politics run a muck. What Washington said was wrong, denying it only made it worse, and this whole affair has been blown out of proportion (but helping the show's already high ratings). The fact that we're having a public dialog about what's transpired is what is important. No matter how ignorant, insensitive, or inappropriate the comment was, it's not grounds for firing him. He's cooperating. Let's just get over it, learn from it, and hope this has lessened the use of the word.

burger beef

I love a good burger and fries, but this is ridiculous. Fighting over who owns the title to the first burger isn't the worst part, the fact that some stupid congressperson in Texas is trying to pass a resolution in Congress about it is. You mean to tell me they don't have better things to do?! And hasn't Texas contributed enough stupid things to this country?

This is more embarrassing than the fact that the lead story on last night's 11:00 news on ABC was the revived controversy behind Grey's Anatomy. The lead story!

Back to burgers, my money's on Louis' Lunch. That's what I've known for years. But I could never eat there. You aren't allowed any ketchup. And anyone who has seen me eat a burger knows I can't do it without ketchup.

P.S. The New York Times is now hip to how annoying it is that their links used to expire within 14 days of publication, and now offer "permalinks" that remain available after the article enters the archive.

sex ed 101

It's always been a big mystery to me and others how I developed into such a progressive, outspoken person. Sure, there are clues here and there that string together a theory or two, but I can't point to a definitive list of events or structures that shaped me in such a way. But naturally place is central to my theory of who I am. And this article from today's Washington Post about how the overhaul of Montgomery County (Md.)'s school heath and sexuality curriculum is perhaps the leading edge in the nation (e.g. not only teaching about sexual orientation but also transgenderism) supports that claim. In other words, obviously I'm not going to benefit from this new, progressive program, but I was schooled in this kind of liberal environment that focused on providing information and stressed diversity (not just in this area, of course). I'm a huge proponent of thorough sexual education, because only moralist morons think that giving people information is akin to encouraging them to pursue only the "detestable" things they learn rather than arming them with tools to survive in and contribute to society.

It's also interesting to see how Montgomery County compares to the other suburban D.C. school districts. Some places do not address non-heteronormative activity, while one county in Virginia only brings it up in reference to STDs. What the hell is that about? No disease is dependent on sexual orientation. Of course there are certain correlations to disease and populations, but that is based on people's individual acts and risk taking, which isn't inherent to sexual orientation.

transgender confusion?

This week I learned of two socially disturbing things. Ok, I probably picked up a couple others somewhere, but these are two prominent ones that are related. First, The Bible's industry news reported that the soap All My Children will debut a transgender character named Zarf. And GLADD was all excited about it. I am all for the greater visability and understanding of transgender individuals, but let's step back for a moment. What the hell kind of name is Zarf? It sounds like an alien. Yeah, that's exactly the impression we want to give the wider, ignorant public about transgenders. They're so fucking weird they don't even have human names. No transgender person I've ever met has introduced himself/herself as anything so ambiguous. Just now I googled "zarf" to verify the name of the soap, and it turns out it's a word found in both Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia, and the principle meaning is the sleeve that protects your hand from that hot cup of whatever. The devil is in the details. If you're going to celebrate diversity, let's do it respectfully.

The next day after learning about Zarf, I was driving west on Sunset headed home when I saw a billboard that reads, "HIV is a transgender disease. Get tested." And yes, the emphasis was in the original. The background features women of all sorts. I get that the city (yes, it was put up by the city's AIDS Council) is trying to target women since most of the other billboards regarding HIV/AIDS awareness feature men, but why use "transgender"? I have never before seen "transgender" used to refer to both men and women. "Transgender" is a confusing enough word as it is. And now your images say one thing, but the text reads another. It's potentially damaging and stigmitizing. What the hell were they thinking?