Archive for the ‘Pop Culture/TV criticism’ Category
Brewers, Cards tied 1-1; also, DWTS info
Last night’s Milwaukee Brewers-St. Louis Cardinals game wasn’t worth much as the Cardinals won easily, 12-3 . Brewers starting pitcher Shaun Marcum again didn’t have it (this was at least the seventh game in a row where Marcum has looked awful), the Cardinals went up 3-0 in the first inning and the Brewers were unable to battle back.
Now, there was a blown call by the first base umpire in the fifth inning, as Rickie Weeks was called out (the second half of an inning-ending double play) when he should’ve been safe. And there were some defensive lapses in center field by Brewers OF Nyjer Morgan; at least twice, Morgan misplayed the ball (a third time, where he nearly made a great catch after “laying out” with his glove in front of him, was a very fine attempt) and that, too, revised the score upward for the Cardinals (while the blown umpire call definitely revised the Brewers’ score downward because if Weeks had been called safe as he should’ve been, a run would’ve scored in the bottom of the fifth).
So, a brief tally here with that umpire’s blown call revised and Morgan not running the wrong way in the outfield twice would’ve possibly changed the score to something like 7-4 (or 7-5) Cardinals if everything else had been the same. Which would’ve still been a loss, of course — it just would’ve been a loss that Brewers fans would’ve felt better about.
That Brewers manager Ron Roenicke agrees with Marcum’s self-assessment that Marcum “isn’t pitching that badly” is absurd. While Marcum has had a number of bloop hits and really light hits fall in lately, he’s also been hit really hard by Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols. It’s also blindingly obvious that Marcum has missed many of his spots (you don’t want to throw pitches high in the strike zone to Pujols unless you want him to hit .750 against you, yet that’s exactly where Marcum was throwing; later on, Marcum said on the radio post-game show that he “didn’t miss his spot by much.” What?) and doesn’t look good — instead, he looks like his arm is too tired for him to get any decent pitches over the plate.
Anyway, game 3, which will be played in St. Louis’s home park, Busch Stadium, will be tomorrow night. The pitching matchup will be Brewers ace Yovani Gallardo, who’s been great in the post-season thus far, and Chris Carpenter, who’s had one bad game and one outstanding game (the outstanding game, of course, was his complete game shutout effort in game 5 in the NLDS versus the Philadelphia Phillies). This game should be a much closer affair, and will be likely to be determined by how well the two starters pitch rather than how many runs the Cardinals and Brewers can get off two errant starters (as in the previous two games).
Finally, in tonight’s “Dancing with the Stars” results show, Chynna Phillips was voted off. Phillips was paired with professional partner Tony Dovolani, and the two were a very entertaining pairing; however, on Monday night’s show, Phillips completely forgot her routine and Dovolani had to talk her through it. This is a real shame, because as I’ve said before, there are a few stars who aren’t as good as Phillips who are still there, including Nancy Grace, Carson Kressley, and as much as I hate to admit it, Chaz Bono.
Now, I vote on the basis of entertainment, improvement, and whether or not I really like the professional dancer (as the longer the pro’s “star” stays on, the more the pro ends up getting paid as I understand it). Bono, thus far, has shown the most improvement, while of the three I mentioned, Kressley has been the most entertaining. Lacey Schwimmer, Bono’s pro, is by far my favorite pro dancer on the show, so between the two things — Bono having shown improvement, and Lacey being my favorite pro — they continue to get my votes week after week. (Mind you, I don’t really know Nancy Grace’s pro dancer, Tristan MacManus, though MacManus seems like a really nice guy and he’s certainly doing his best with Grace.)
The two good “star” dancers on the show, J.R. Martinez and Ricki Lake, are light-years beyond Bono, Grace and Kressley. But Phillips at her best wasn’t that far behind either Martinez or Lake, which is why it’s such a shame she had an off night and ended up being eliminated.
DWTS Results; Brewers Game in Progress
After a few hours worth of editing, I turned to two of my favorite things to do: watch “Dancing with the Stars,” and continue to follow the Milwaukee Brewers in their National League Division Series against the Arizona Diamondbacks. Thus far, the Brewers are leading the series 2-0, and with Shaun Marcum pitching tonight, there’s a good chance that the Brewers can wrap things up this evening if all goes well.
In tonight’s game so far, Marcum gave up two runs in the first inning but has otherwise been OK. (Not great, but not bad, either.) And Corey Hart hit a home run in the top of the third to cut the lead to 2-1, which is where the game stands as it enters the bottom of the third inning. My estimate as of now would be that the Brewers bullpen should be ready to go early, perhaps as early as the fourth inning if Marcum doesn’t regain any momentum; this game will definitely be up to the bullpen to win as it stands.
As for DWTS, the results show was one of the more unusual ones in recent memory because Kristin Cavallari — one of this season’s better dancers — went home rather than Chaz Bono (called safe early), the lowest scorer, Nancy Grace, who despite her name is far less than graceful, and David Arquette, who got scores that were much better than he deserved last night. Note that both Bono and Arquette danced the rhumba, while Grace danced the waltz; Cavallari had the demanding samba, and was the only dancer last night who had to perform that difficult dance.
Now, what probably sent Cavallari home early is her lack of name recognition. She’s best-known for being Chicago Bears QB Jay Cutler’s ex-fiancée and for her stint playing herself on “The Hills,” and her very first words on DWTS were something to the effect of how she’s really not “the b-word” (as this is a family-friendly blog, I won’t quote the word she did say that rhymes with witch) and that she hoped people would give her a chance.
Though I am no fan of Mark Ballas (he annoys me, and has for several seasons, most noticeably with former partner Bristol Palin and their “gorilla dance,” where both danced in gorilla masks and outfits), he actually toned it down this season and I was able to see his partner’s potential. So while I wasn’t on board the “Kristin train” (as Mary Murphy of “So You Think You Can Dance” would most likely put it), I definitely wasn’t against her and enjoyed watching her dance.
What I think happened is exactly what DWTS host Tom Bergeron suggested; voters assumed Cavallari would be safe and voted for those they felt would be in jeopardy, such as Bono (the night’s lowest scorer), Arquette (he’d been in the bottom two the week before, so people knew he needed help) and Grace (though I honestly don’t know who’s voting for her, I can see where people might think she needed help). Also, the clips from last night’s show for Bono, Arquette, and Grace were all much more stirring than Cavallari’s, and that, too, might’ve been a factor in how people voted. (To sum up: Bono danced to a song his father Sonny Bono wrote called “Laugh at Me,” which resonated with the crowd due to Bono’s overall likeability; Arquette confessed to his battle with alcoholism and laid the blame for his marital problems solely on his own shoulders; Grace nearly died in childbirth with her twins. While Cavallari hasn’t had that level of drama in her life by a mile; she’s only twenty-four, while Bono, Arquette and Grace are all at least forty years old.)
At any rate, the important thing to know is that Cavallari is out, though if someone else gets injured or withdraws, she might be called back as she was definitely a favorite of the judges. She also might be asked to dance with her partner, Ballas, on the results show just to show some more of her developing skills — this has happened before with someone who was truly eliminated too soon. Or something else good may come of this for all I know, as last night Cutler was in the DWTS audience and there was a photograph of the pair this morning, holding hands; perhaps this experience will help the pair down the road.
As I have been voting for Bono and Lacey Schwimmer (Bono’s professional partner) from the beginning (I will continue to do so as long as Bono lasts, partly because I like him but mostly because I really enjoy Schwimmer’s dancing as she is my favorite DWTS pro), I would’ve been unlikely to vote for Cavallari because I knew Bono and Schwimmer would need a lot of help. Maybe many people were like me, and wanted to see Bono’s journey because he’s so likeable, and because we can tell how hard he’s working, and because his pro, Schwimmer, is also quite likeable as well.
All that being said, the people I had firmly expected to be in the B2 this week were Grace and Arquette, with Grace going home. When those two were called safe, I was shocked — but really, it’s the judges fault for not putting those two far lower as they both were (I’m sorry to say) awful. And had the judges given those two, Arquette and Grace, the low scores they truly deserved as they should’ve been right down there with Bono, it’s quite possible one of them would’ve gone home and we’d have Cavallari’s performance and showmanship skills to look forward to next week rather than two more insipid performances by Grace and Arquette.
Dancer Lacey Schwimmer Tells Critics to “Zip It”
This week, controversy swirled around “Dancing with the Stars” cast member Lacey Schwimmer, a professional dancer, because supposedly at 5’3″ and being a size six, she’s “too fat.” As this isn’t the first time her weight has been talked about in a derogatory manner, Schwimmer has apparently had enough.
Here’s what she said here about these critics:
There’s nothing I can do about except let it go and get over it,” she told In Touch, adding two simples words for would-be critics, “Zip it!”
Let me try to explain how asinine it is that anyone would criticize this woman over her weight. Schwimmer, 23, is a size six. She dances for a living, so most of her body is toned muscle, as she is fit and in shape. She doesn’t have an ounce of flab on her, as the skimpy costumes the DWTS female pros often wear will show anyone who has any sense at all. And while she’s probably the curviest dancer on the show, that doesn’t mean her weight is too high; on the contrary. It means most of the other dancers need to gain weight.
Schwimmer seems to have a healthy body image, as the following quote shows:
“I have boobs, I have a huge butt and I have a lot of muscle,” the 23-year-old dancer told In Touch magazine, via the UK’s Daily Mail. “I like having curves – I’m proud of them!”
And I say, “Good for her!” Because if a woman who is a normal weight, who’s toned, fit, and in shape, is getting so much criticism, what chance do those of us who truly are “big, beautiful women” (also known as “full figured,” which are the kinder ways to say a larger than average size) have of being portrayed accurately in the media with any empathy at all?
“Drop Dead Diva” Season Three Finale: Fun, but Unbelievable
I’ve watched Lifetime’s original TV show Drop Dead Diva since its inception; it’s about a shallow blonde model, Deb, who dies and ends up in the body of a plus-sized lawyer, Jane (Brooke Elliot). This is a fun fantasy premise that has enchanted me for three years now; that Jane works with her former fiancé, Grayson (Jackson Hurst), only adds to the fun. Because as the beginning of “Drop Dead Diva” states, “The only people who know me are my girlfriend Stacey, and my Guardian Angel, Fred.” (Stacey is played by April Bowlby, and Fred by Ben Feldman.)
Jane is a great character to watch, partly because she’s had to come to terms with being a larger-sized person, and partly because actress Elliot definitely knows what she’s doing. Jane is smart, something Deb-turned-Jane appreciates as Deb wasn’t; Jane also is compassionate, something Deb tried to be but didn’t always accomplish in her former life as a bubbly blonde model.
At any rate, trying to summarize three seasons worth of episodes is probably too difficult, so let’s just say that Jane still loves her former fiancé but has an active social and sex life. She’s now dating a plus-sized man named Owen, a judge (played by Lex Medlin). Jane is a fashion plate who enjoys life and food and has an unusually good head for the law, so overall, it seems like Deb has come out ahead on the deal.
Note this is a fantasy premise that has often been used in romance novels but only rarely on TV; I point this out because in a fantasy/romance with anything close to a premise like this, the one thing that has to be inviolate is that Grayson (Deb’s fiancé, whom Deb-turned-Jane still loves) can never find out that Jane is really Deb. This has been pointed out several times in the past; for example, in season two’s cliffhanger, Jane tried to tell Grayson after Grayson had been hit by a car that she was really Deb.
And what happened? Well, Grayson didn’t remember anything Jane said. More to the point, he had partial memory loss of anything around the actual incident . . . so it’s been established that Grayson should not know that Jane is Deb, because God (or the Higher Power, or whoever Fred the Guardian Angel answers to) seems to want it that way.
However, Stacey actually tells Grayson after an ill-advised kiss (Grayson starts it and apologizes for it) that while she is not Deb, Jane actually is Deb. Which prompts Grayson to go to the airport to try to stop Jane from leaving for Italy (Jane saw Grayson and Stacey kiss, but didn’t see Stacey more or less pushing Grayson away, and told Fred that Stacey had cheated on him as Fred and Stacey have a relationship going that’s leading toward marriage; this prompted Jane to take the “vacation of a lifetime” and go to Italy), but of course he can’t manage it.
So who does get on the plane to go with Jane? Her current judge boyfriend, Owen, who’d been about to go to New Zealand for a year instead, but passed on that opportunity to be with Jane.
Look. I am very much in favor of love. I also am very much in favor of marriage, true romance, and all the ins and outs that come along with the deal. But I’m also a writer and editor. And because of that, I can tell you right now that Stacey telling Grayson that Jane was Deb shouldn’t have happened. Because if it did, Grayson shouldn’t have remembered it because up until now, Grayson hasn’t known and Jane hasn’t been able to tell him because every time she tried, something awful happened to Grayson.
For example, Fred said at the end of season 2’s finale that Grayson “needed to fall in love with Jane” as she was now, not merely to see Jane as an extension of Deb, which is what would’ve happened if God (or whatever the Deity/Higher Power is conceived of as being in this show) would’ve allowed Jane to tell Grayson who she was. When Jane tried anyway, Grayson promptly forgot and lost some other memories along the way.
That’s why Stacey absolutely cannot tell Grayson this and be believed; that Grayson did believe it is obvious because he went to the airport to try to stop Jane from leaving for Italy.
So what happened in last night’s episode turned the actual premise of Jane doing her best to get on with her life with or without Grayson as a romantic partner (as Grayson has been a very solid friend to Jane, and vice versa) into a farce. I don’t respect that, because the way the narrative has been framed up until this point made far more sense from a fantasy/paranormal perspective than it is making right now with this latest plot-wrinkle.
Further, Fred’s role as guardian angel is now in doubt because Jane admittedly shut him out (she told him to leave Stacey, too, but one would hope that Fred will instead confront Stacey and Grayson and find out quickly that both realized the kiss was a mistake and will never happen again under any circumstances whatsoever). And Fred’s character is what keeps this show as real as it is; Fred is honest, funny, down-to-Earth, in love with Stacey because he sees her goodness as well as her beauty and wants to have a life with Stacey and has given up a great deal in order to do so. (You’d have to go back to season one to see why I say this, but it’s the truth.) He’s a character that you can’t help but root for, because Fred cares about Deb-turned-Jane and wants her to be happy.
Every character on “Drop Dead Diva” has depth and I have really enjoyed watching them, and the show, evolve over time. But I don’t like it when a show’s premise has been compromised, and that’s exactly what’s happened here.
So the upshot of my critique is that “Drop Dead Diva’s” season three finale was fun, but completely unbelievable. And while I’ll still watch and enjoy season four, and wonder what Grayson is going to do with his newfound knowledge (if he really does remember it, long-term, as he still may not), I believe “Drop Dead Diva” has blown its original premise to high heaven. And that’s not good.
“Dancing with the Stars” Semifinals — is the fix in?
Folks, I just finished watching the semifinals for the television show Dancing with the Stars (henceforth called “DwtS,” their acronym; note I’m referring to the current United States show), and I am wondering whether what on Earth the judges were smoking tonight. To the point that I’m wondering whether the fix is, indeed, in . . . but first, some background.
DwtS is predicated on stars coming in who have little or no dance ability and little or no dance experience, both learning to dance and “put on a show” in the grand old show biz tradition, so I expect some stars to be better one week and not so good the next. This makes the show fun, unpredictable, yet interesting, as the stars are usually outside to well outside their comfort zones in learning to dance.
I’ve watched DwtS since their second season, the year Cheryl Burke and Drew Lachey won the “coveted mirror ball trophy” (which is actually a tacky piece of hardware that tends to fall apart within a year, but the stars want it anyway no matter how gaudy and trashy it is); I’ve seen many good dances, many bad dances, and many “huh?” dances. I’ve learned what makes up a good paso doble, what makes a good cha cha cha, etc., and I’ve also learned that the most successful stars fuse their personality with their technical ability, showing real, measured improvement from week to week as they go. (Often, they also show a measurable weight loss, as has contestant Kirstie Alley this season. More on Alley in a bit.)
However, I’ve never seen a night quite like this one, where I honestly felt that one couple — Chelsea Kane and Mark Ballas — were handed high scores after doing extremely questionable routines where Kane’s dancing seemed stiff, wooden, and much less of everything than any previous week (including her first week, as Kane had some dance experience, depth unknown, before she came into this intense competition). Kane had three dances — a very stiff tango, where her legs and body didn’t seem to go together very well, an extremely stiff rhumba (mind you, the rhumba has to be fluid and sexy, and Kane was neither), and worst of all, a stiff and clumsy cha cha cha. Yet for these three dances, she was praised and given high scores — a perfect thirty (three tens, the highest score given out on this show) for the rhumba, which was a travesty of justice — then given 15 extra points in the “winner-take-all” cha cha when it was stiff, wooden, clumsy, and even the “tricks” (flashy things to divert your attention) lacked polish?
I really didn’t agree with that “winner-take-all” thing at all. First off, in the “elimination rounds,” I thought Ralph Macchio danced better than Hines Ward, yet they kept Ward; in the other one, Kirstie Alley clearly out-danced Kane (and was probably the best cha cha dancer of the night), yet didn’t advance over the stiff and wooden Kane? Why?
As for the other dances, well, Macchio’s time should be up. He’s now healthier — last week he more or less got a “pass” from the viewers as he wasn’t able to dance well due to a hamstring injury — and wasn’t really any better until the cha cha (and I’ve already discussed how unjust that was), his third dance of the evening. Ward’s other two dances were clean and precise, and I liked his tango a great deal (that one deserved a thirty; the other one, not so much, but his pro, Kym Johnson, was dancing with an obvious amount of pain after sustaining a severe neck injury and I believe the judges gave him a little bit more for the first two dances than he deserved — Ward should’ve won the cha cha considering the judges put him there with a unanimous vote, considering how terrible Kane was, but there you go). And Alley danced with grace, elegance, and fire in her Viennese Waltz and Paso Doble — two diametrically opposed dances that are both extremely difficult — and really deserved to win that cha cha competition, too, on merit.
At any rate, Mark Ballas seems to go to the finals every year — and before some folks write in and tell me, “No he doesn’t,” I did say seems. He was there last season with the underperforming Bristol Palin; he’s been there with Shawn Johnson (a good dancer and gymnast), with Kristi Yamaguchi (an outstanding skater and a very good dancer also), and should’ve been there with Sabrina Bryan. He’s quite a good dancer and obviously teaches his students how to dance, of which I approve — but his attitude leaves me cold. (Even allowing for how DwtS can edit folks, Ballas should be more aware of how he comes across on camera. He acts like he’s the star, not his pro, and that’s just wrong. Though of course as a DwtS pro, he has fans rooting for him no matter who his partner is, he needs to remember to be humble — or at least learn to fake it a little better.)
And as for Kane — man, can she please eat a cheeseburger or two? Because she’s way, way, way too thin — every time I see her, I think how she needs to eat more. And when Ballas picks Kane up for the overhead “tricks,” I think, “Whee! She weighs what, two pounds? How tough was that, Mark?” (Compared to the real work Maksim Chmerikovskiy has put in, first teaching his partner Alley to dance and dance well, then to compensate for Alley being a big, beautiful woman — albeit less of one than when she started, as she’s obviously lost at least sixty pounds during the course of this season’s DwtS — I really don’t have much sympathy for Ballas at all.)
Look. It’s just a cheesy reality show, but I enjoy it. I like to see the dancers improve — and they all do, to some extent (even Bristol Palin improved last season). It’s a tough gig to be on DwtS; people get injured (look at Macchio’s injury last week, or poor pro Kym Johnson’s this past week). It’s hard to dance in front of hundreds, maybe a couple of thousand people in person, then know millions of people will see you dance either on television or YouTube. I can’t imagine the sort of pressure that puts on all the contestants and my hat is off to all of them — even the rather klutzy Kane this evening.
But it chaps my hide something fierce when the competition does not seem on the up and up. And I’m sorry — I know Ballas in particular, if he sees this blog for whatever reason, will not agree with me, but unless the camera angles were bad for all three dances with Kane, these were the worst three dances she has had all season. She may have an injury; she may well have been ill; she may be the funniest, cutest, nicest contestant they have ever had on DwtS. But she didn’t deserve the high scores she got tonight, nor did she deserve to win that cha cha as she really shouldn’t have even advanced over Alley in that first “elimination round.”
So the question is: is the fix in? And if it is, why should I watch this show if Kane and Ballas are destined to take home the cheesy trophy?
Valentine’s Day — for Love, not Conspicuous Consumption.
I’m tired of these jewelry companies, et. al., framing the narrative of Valentine’s Day and turning it into a purely commercial event.
Every year around this time I grit my teeth and want to scream after seeing all the ads for jewelry, flowers, Vermont Teddy Bears, the Pajamagram, and anything else that can be sold as “a unique testament to your love” on what’s purported to be the most romantic day of the year: Valentine’s Day.
But Valentine’s Day should mean more than an evening out (lovely though that is); it should mean more than a bouquet of flowers, any piece of jewelry (no matter how lovely, or expensive, it may be); it should mean more than sending a Pajamagram or a Vermont Teddy Bear (cute as the latter is, and practical as the former can be).
No. Valentine’s Day should be about your love for your partner. Period.
I don’t know why this isn’t discussed more; I know I’m not the only person in the world to feel this way. But when I see these commercials, I just get so disgusted, so irate, and so frustrated. Many people believe exactly what these advertisers tell them to believe: that it’s important to spend money on Valentine’s Day, to have a “unique testament” to your love (in the form of the advertiser’s choice, of course), rather than to do what’s truly important — spending time with your loved one.
Take it from me: no one wonders at the end of his or her life if you should’ve given your lover (wife, husband, soulmate) another gift, or wonders if the gifts you’ve given of a monetary nature were big enough.
Instead, what people wonder about is this: “Did I spend enough time with my husband/wife/significant other?” (Much less the ancillary questions of: “Did I show how much I care enough?” and ” Did I love (him/her) enough?”) Or, put another way, people wonder whether or not they fully expressed their love for their partner, and sometimes have regrets that they didn’t say or do enough emotionally. But they certainly do not worry about whether or not they did enough financially, in the sense of gift-giving, years later!
So, please, for those of you who truly love another, do your best to concentrate on what you have that you can’t quantify with money because it’s priceless — each other. Spend time with one another, and love each other, and have fun because you’re so jazzed to be in each other’s presence . . . and stop “counting coup,” financially. Please!
Keith Olbermann Ousted by MSNBC
Keith Olbermann is out at MSNBC, and many of my friends among the Hillary Clinton Democrats (and Independents) are cheering tonight because of some of the awful things KO said about Mrs. Clinton (one of the comments was something like, “Someone should take her into a room, then only one of ’em come back out,” which was indeed a terrible comment to make).
But I feel . . . strange, I guess is the best word. I don’t think this is a triumph at all, nor do I see it as a form of karmic comeuppance. I feel that Olbermann , while controversial, would nearly always backtrack when something he believed later turned out to be wrong. And in fact, earlier this year after the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), Olbermann apologized for any comments he might’ve made — including that awful one I alluded to above — that made violence seem at all an acceptable resort to combat any political candidate, or any politician. Olbermann has made it clear in recent weeks that the only two things people should do are these:
1) Educate yourself, and learn about the candidates.
2) Vote for the candidate who best represents you and your beliefs.
(For which I applaud him, as he’s been one of the very few commentators who’s been explicit about what should be done in the wake of what’s now being called the “Tucson Tragedy.”)
In other words, I think Olbermann has realized he made a few mistakes here and there, and had become a slightly better balanced commentator over recent weeks. I’d been heartened at this turn of events and hoped it would continue; that “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” is now off the air is, to my mind, a stunning disappointment because despite my objections to how Olbermann sometimes handled himself (especially over l’affaire Hillary Clinton in 2008), he was an entertaining host who made politics a little less complex and a lot more fun on his best nights.
Lawrence O’Donnell will be taking over Olbermann’s time slot, which isn’t an improvement by any means . . . while O’Donnell can have an interesting perspective, he doesn’t have much of a sense of humor, nor does he seem to know when to back off a little (his overwhelming personality, bigger than Olbermann’s in my opinion, does not help anything, either). Then Ed Schultz moves into O’Donnell’s late-night slot — and while I like Ed’s program a great deal, I’d rather see it at 5 PM CST where it’s always been than have it move to the 9 PM slot. And finally, Cenk Uyger, who’s called one of the “Young Turks,” is getting his own program at 5 PM for reasons that escape me . . . this, to my mind, does not bring MSNBC even close to being a balanced network, nor does it promote a balanced perspective in any way, shape or form.
Keith Olbermann has always been a lightning rod for criticism; he was one when he worked for ESPN as a sports announcer, and he’s been one at MSNBC as a news announcer. But one thing KO has never been is boring . . . so in that sense, unlike many of my HRC friends, I will miss Olbermann, especially as he really did seem to be getting a better, and more centrist, perspective lately.
Lobbyist Jimmy Williams says “It’s Hate” that causes shootings, not guns.
This, friends, is the best thing I’ve heard from the pundits since the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, D-AZ, last Saturday afternoon.
To be brief, Jimmy Williams, who is a Democratic lobbyist, said on today’s ‘Dylan Ratigan Show” on MSNBC that it is not guns alone that kill people. He noted that on 9/11, the terrorists did not use guns. In Oklahoma City, the terrorists did not use guns. And while some terrorists have used guns like Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald, they undoubtedly would’ve found another way if they hadn’t had guns because they were drunk on hatred.
So to be even more brief: “It’s hate,” said Jimmy Williams.
Williams elaborated that people learn hatred at home but can learn differently; he used his own experience growing up in the South, mentioning that his father had far different views about black people than he did, and that he’s told his father many, many times he’s wrong. And that focusing only on the fact this guy Jared Lee Loughner, 22, is severely mentally ill is missing the point.
Amen, brother!
Listen. I get really upset when someone blames all mentally ill people for something like this. The term “mental illness” has broadened to the point to include people who are grieving the loss of a loved one (transitory depression), those who suffer from panic attacks (the most high-profile one being football Hall of Fame running back Earl Campbell), and those suffering from situationally-based depression. None of these types of people are likely to go on a killing spree, though some are responsible hunters and take their responsibility as gun owners seriously.
So just saying, as one gal did here on the Dylan Ratigan show (I forgot her name already, sorry), that “all crazy people should not have guns” is really beside the point.
Also, what, exactly, is your definition of a “crazy person?” Is it, like the famed definition of pornography by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, something you’ll “know . . . when you see it?”
Jimmy Williams is right to say that it is hate, pure and simple, which makes someone — crazy or not — go out on a rampage like this one. And he’s right to say that hate — not being crazy — is what led to the deaths of six innocent people and the wounding of fourteen more (some of whom, like Congresswoman Giffords, remain in critical condition at this time).
You need to see this video from Dylan Ratigan’s MSNBC show; I can’t seem to get it to properly upload, so please go to this link where you should be able to see it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#41026206
Cut and paste this link if Word Press does something odd again . . . it should work and bring you to Dylan Ratigan’s home page, where this video (about ten minutes in length) will play, and you’ll see Jimmy Williams extraordinary “cut through the bull” moment, along with a few others who didn’t understand, plus host Dylan Ratigan, who did.
A Round-Up of Thoughts: Bristol Palin, War Poetry, and more
The last few days, I’ve been under the weather, so I have more than one subject I’d like to talk about today.
First, if you haven’t been to WinningWriters.com yet, now’s the time to go. They have a War Poetry contest every year and the winners have been announced; I read the top three winners’ poems along with several of the finalists and honorable mentions, and can say without equivocation that they contain some of the most harrowing imagery I’ve read in quite some time. Two of the top three poets are veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, while the third is not . . . if you enjoy poetry but think there’s nothing new under the sun, nor that there’s any way for poetry to convey war in any sort of meaningful or relevant way, I urge you to go to WinningWriters.com and check out the winners of the War Poetry contest. (The links will not work unless you’re a member, I found out with an earlier version of this blog, which is why I have not posted links.)
Second, and far less serious: what on Earth is Bristol Palin still doing on “Dancing with the Stars?”
(While it may seem a travesty to have the erudition of war poetry and Bristol Palin in the same blog, these have been the two major things that have gone through my mind in the past two days, thus this blog.)
Listen. I have nothing against Ms. Palin. She was asked to be on “Dancing with the Stars,” has competed to the best of her ability, and has shown improvement. She’s done what she’s supposed to do, but something has gone wrong with both the voters at home (voting by e-mail or telephone or text) and the judges panel of DWTS.
Put simply, Ms. Palin is not up to the level of previous finalists, and while she’s been compared most to Marie Osmond or Kelly Osbourne or even Warren Sapp (all of them being finalists that were good performers, or in the case of Mr. Sapp, a good performer and a professional athlete, being a retired football player, but not necessarily outstanding dancers), I don’t really see that in her because Ms. Osmond was beloved by most of the audience because she was over 45 during her season on DWTS, was out of shape and overweight when she started, and while she’d had an extensive performing career (and still does) as a singer, she’d never danced much beyond some very basic moves on stage with her brothers (most particularly her brother Donny). And Kelly Osbourne was overweight and not exactly in shape when she started her “journey” on DWTS (by the way, the word “journey” has been so overused by DWTS and other reality shows; I’d prefer a different word such as “struggle,” or “toil” or “Labor”), so she won the hearts of the voters by how hard she tried. And of course Warren Sapp was out of shape and also overweight when he started DWTS; all three of these contestants, Osmond, Osbourne and Sapp, lost significant amounts of weight and thus their hard work was able to be seen and measured.
I hate to stress the “they were all out of shape and overweight” part, but they were — the other thing that binds Osmond, Osbourne and Sapp together were that none of them were expected to go to the finals, yet you could tell how much they enjoyed being on DWTS. To be blunt, the only competitor this season who engenders any of the feelings Osmond, Osbourne or Sapp did is Kyle Massey (whose professional partner is the inestimable Lacey Schwimmer), not Bristol Palin.
Ms. Palin is at a disadvantage, yes, because she’s not a performer, is not an actress, not a model, not a professional athlete, yet she is athletic — she played volleyball, softball and other sports in high school and hikes and bikes and does all sorts of athletic things for fun in her off-hours. So in that sense, she’s certainly healthy enough to do well at DWTS, and as I said before, she has improved.
So why am I upset about it? Well, there is evidence that many people who follow her mother, politically, have power-voted for Ms. Palin using fake e-mail addresses, exploiting a bug in ABC.com that other power-voters have apparently done before (I’ve followed this show since the second season, and never knew about this; I’ve always used only my legitimate e-mail addresses to vote). This has skewed the voting somewhat in Ms. Palin’s favor because apparently more people have done this for her than have ever done it for anyone else in the past, plus, they’ve done it publicly. (There are multiple stories online about this at the moment; I prefer the LA Times one which has timed out for me — apparently it’s getting many hits. Type in “Bristol Palin voting scandal” into Ye Olde Search Engine and you will find it, though.)
Because of these “power-voters,” Ms. Palin has outlasted better contestants — five of them, to be precise. She’s taken out Brandy (this week), Kurt Warner (last week), Rick Fox (the week before that), Audrina Patridge (the week before that) and Florence Henderson (the week before that). All of those — all — danced better than Ms. Palin does right now at the time of their elimination, and considering Florence Henderson is over 70 years old, that’s saying something.
Ms. Palin can’t help who votes for her, or the method in which they’re doing it. But she can ask that people who don’t watch the show refrain from voting; that would be a classy move and would take away some of the negative publicity she’s been getting since Brandy, and not Bristol Palin, went home this last Tuesday night.
Now, as for the judges? They’ve been giving Ms. Palin marks she doesn’t deserve for weeks now, and that has to stop. Ms. Palin has improved, yes, but she’s improved from a three on Len Goodman’s scale (he gave an explanation of how he votes a few weeks ago during the results show) to probably a six on a good day. She has no natural rhythm and no performance skills, and at some level she must know this because her body is stiff and her face has almost no expression on it much of the time. She does not look happy while she’s dancing and she does not look like she enjoys herself; instead, it looks like dancing is a struggle for her (which I sympathize with; I’d do very poorly on that show, which is why I’d never be a contestant even if I were famous), and that she’d rather be anywhere else than dancing in front of millions of people (hundreds in person, the rest via television, of course).
The judges must score her honestly; if she only gives a dance that’s a six on Len’s scale, that’s what they should give her — not nines, like she got last week, or eights, or sevens — sixes. And if the others are not giving ten-worthy performances (it’s very hard to get a perfect score in the real world), don’t give them tens, either! (How tough is this, judges?)
I’ve been thinking about this for the past two days now, and while it’s probably a waste of my time and energy, I can’t help but to dissect the problem. Ms. Palin didn’t ask for anyone to use fake e-mail addresses to vote for her, and she’s done what she’s needed to do — dance, improve, and have fun (I’ll take it on faith that she’s had some fun as for the most part I’ve not seen it). But that doesn’t mean she’s learned to dance well enough to become a DWTS finalist, and she would’ve been better off in many respects to have gone home this past Tuesday.
It’s time for DWTS to realize that their voting system has been subverted and deal with it, openly, honestly and in a completely above-board manner. Only in that way can I have any hope as a longtime viewer of DWTS that whoever wins this season’s “coveted mirror-ball trophy” is the true and legitimate winner.
** Note: Host Tom Bergeron recently said in a long interview that if you don’t vote, you shouldn’t complain. I did vote — though my five votes can’t help Kyle Massey and Lacey Schwimmer much compared to the “power-voters” for Bristol Palin and Mark Ballas, I did vote.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 