Ho! Lee! Cow!

“I don’t want to be a killjoy, but it’s been my experience that it’s always safer to bet against the Cubs.”

That is what I tweeted a week ago last Monday. Now, I have to eat my words, and I couldn’t be happier!

I’ve always been a casual baseball fan. As a kid, my family supported the Mets because our uncle was a scout for them. Our local radio station carried the Royals.

As an adult, I lived in Lincoln for 14 years and I knew a lot of Cubs fans, but I didn’t care. I moved to Denver nine years ago and have been to more than a few Rockies games, but I’m not passionate about them.

Having said that, I admire the dedicated loyalty of Cubs fans everywhere. To paraphrase Eddie Vedder, Cubs supporters are not fair weather fans, but foul weather fans.

They’re people like my pal Amy B, who always wore a Cubs T-shirt when the weather got nice. I watched a lot of the competition between Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire in 1998 on her living room floor. Or her Uncle Ray, a school teacher who took a day off every year for the first Cubs game of the season

Or my buddy Wes, who was more interested in the Cubs match-up against the Marlins that night at Applebee’s in 2003. I was more interested in guzzling Long Island ice teas and flirting with some girl or other.

Wes was perfectly in character when he dragged Amy M and I to a Cubs game when we visited Chicago over Labor Day weekend of 2007. The Cubs won that day and I affectionately chuckled at the fans who stayed around and sang, “Go Cubs, Go!”

Then, there’s my folks. I’d like to think that they would have been Cubs fans if not for family loyalty. Whatever the case, their association with Jim Hendry brought them around in the early 2000’s. I texted Mom the other night that I didn’t think the Cubs would win. Her response was classic Mom: “Shame on you!”

As an aside, I would’ve tried much harder to kiss Mr. Hendry’s ass that night he came to dinner at our house if I’d known he was gonna turn into a baseball big shot.

Even those Chicagoans who are not Cubs fans can’t help but be impacted. My coworker Matt, for instance. He’s a White Sox fan. I asked him if he was stoked about a possible Cubs victory yesterday and, in his trademark flat Chicago tone, he stated, “I’m indifferent.”

And yet, we’re having lunch today from a place called, Mustard’s Last Stand, which serves Chicago-style hot dogs.

I was pleased to see the Cubs win last night. I love the fact that we have back-to-back Midwestern championships. But this victory isn’t for me. I’m just the guy who occasionally had a game on in the background.

This is for Wes, Amy B, Uncle Ray, Mom and Dad, Jim Hendry and all the thousands of long-suffering fans who took the jokes and the affectionate contempt in the name of something bigger than themselves. They stuck with their Cubbies year after disappointing year, but they kept coming back. If that isn’t love, you tell me what is.

So, congratulations to the Chicago Cubs, 2016 World Series champions. And congratulations to their fans. 108 years is a long time.

“IT MIGHT BE…IT COULD BE…IT IS!!!”

By the way, did Steve Bartman ever come out of hiding?

Everybody Lies

One of my favorite entries from the old blog was titled, “The top 10 Lies People Tell.” There was no official study taken for this compilation; only my life experience served for the parameters.

Here, as best as I can remember, are the 10 lies with very abridged explanations.

By the way, lest you think I make these proclamations from an elevated position, I’m as guilty as the rest of you for propagating many of these lies, especially numbers 10 and three.

10. “I will pay you back.”: Everyone uses it and no one ever means it. It’s why we have a crushing national debt, why credit card companies make a killing and why your best friend secretly resents you after five years of waiting.

9. “I do.” If people really stopped and reflected on the meaning of these two simple words and the vows that go with them, the divorce rate would not be at 50 percent and professional florists and photographers would have to take up panhandling to supplement their income.

8. “I don’t want to date you because I don’t want to ruin our friendship.”: A lie commonly told to men by women when they are just not attracted to him enough to take the next step.

7. “It’s what the people want.”: This lie rests at the foundation of every honey-coated untruth that drips from the forked tongue of politicians, activists, false prophets and social architects. What they really mean is, “It’s what will give me more power.”

6. “It’s not you…it’s me.”: A lie commonly told to women by men in the course of a break-up. What they are really thinking is, It’s not me…it’s you.

5. “I don’t have a favorite child.”: A lie commonly told to children by their parents. It is usually followed by the compounding lie, “Parents just love each child differently.”

4. “Violence never solves anything.”: Think about this lie the next time you see President Barack Obama on television, and realize that he might very well be picking your cotton for you if it weren’t for violence. Or maybe we’d all be eating chicken teriyaki with chopsticks. Or English tea would be a hell of a lot more expensive. Get the picture?

3. “I’m sorry.”: Usually said when someone who committed a wrong merely wants to smooth over the hurt feelings of the injured party without really feeling regret for what they did.

2. “I don’t judge.”: This lie is my biggest pet peeve. Everyone judges. We can’t help it. As human beings, we make dozens of judgments every day. We’re wired that way. It’s what we do with those judgments after they are made that really counts. I don’t give a damn how non-judgmental you are. If you come home after a hard day of work and find your wife shagging the grocery delivery boy on the kitchen table…you’re gonna judge her.

1. “I love you.”: The three most over-used, misused words in the English language. People use it as a mask for lust, envy, control, manipulation, fear, violence and even hate. Parents, children, spouses, friends and even leaders use it without truly understanding it’s deeper meaning.
I posted this abridged entry to Facebook a year ago. The longer entry, which is now gone, was written sometime in 2011. If I’d known then what I know now, we could’ve added two more lies to the top 10 for the sheer number of times we’ve heard them over the past year:

“I’m gonna build a wall and Mexico is gonna pay for it!”

And…

“I thought C stood for Clinton.”

I’m paraphrasing that second one, but you get my point.

I’m done now. Thanks for reading this. Love you guys.

When I Figure Out the Ballot, Will I be Too Old to Care?

Last Saturday, we were honored to have a guest speaker at our NFB Denver chapter meeting. She was a rep from the League of Women Voters. She seemed like a kindly, gentle soul who was very genuine. She reminded me a lot of my friend Deb, sans the squash soup.

She was there to outline the many different proposed amendments, propositions and other items that will appear in our local ballot in three weeks. This is a tradition that has occurred for many years between the local NFB and the League of Women Voters.

She began her speech by saying, “I was here once before and I made a boo-boo. I used the word, see.”

Immediately, a dozen members tried to console her, But our assurances did not seem to assuage her fears. Several times throughout her presentation, she tripped over the word, “see,” pausing self-consciously to say, “Oops! I did it again.”

I figured that someone with more gravitas would buttonhole her after the meeting and have a friendly, enlightening chat with her.

As it happened, I was leaving and she held the door for me. I thanked her for sacrificing her Saturday, told her I enjoyed her presentation very much and then I asked her, “Has anyone talked to you about the word, see, yet?”

“No,” she said, sounding genuinely confused.

Batter up!

I proceeded to explain to her that most blind people don’t have a problem with words like, “See,” “Look,” or “Sight.” I told her that the word, “See,” doesn’t merely mean to view something with one’s eyes. It also connotes a general perception or understanding of a concept or point. “I see what you’re saying,” or “Look at the facts.”

I further explained that most blind people would notice her awkward attempts to steer around the terms more than they would take note of her use of them as part of a smooth presentation.
I told her that none of us were offended in the least by her use of such words and I wanted to make sure she did not leave thinking she had ruffled any feathers. She seemed to see my point.

Then she said, “Look at the sky. It’s so blue today. Oh gosh! I’m sorry! I did it again!”

*sigh*

Oh well. She has decades of misconceptions to overcome.

So for all of our sighted friends, please don’t police your speech around blind people. Most of us don’t give a damn and the ones who do are the ones who have the real problem.

Stick to the important issues, like banning Halloween costumes from college campuses because they signify cultural appropriation. Next year, I’m gonna go as a sighted person and see if anyone gets offended.

It’s Not Funny

I promised not to comment on the election in this blog until November 9. That still goes. But let me put one toe over the line.

I heard the infamous Trump tape. I will let all of you make your own judgements about The Donald. I will only say that, if any of you were surprised by this latest revelation, you haven’t been paying attention. I’m sure there’s more to come.

What I really want to talk about is sexual assault.

I’ve known many women in my life. Many of these women have been victims of sexual assault; that is, the unwanted sexual advances or contact from either men or women.

I’ve known women who were abused by their friends, boyfriends, husbands, authority figures such as bosses or coaches, strangers, or worst of all, by their relatives. The impact of this trauma is nothing less than heartbreaking. It never strikes women in the same way.

Some of them lose their basic sense of self-worth and believe that the only way they can relate to men is to have sex with them. Other women suppress their sex drive entirely. Some learn to hate all men.

Some women battle depression or other mood disorders for years afterward. Some go into deep denial and pretend it never happened. Some women want to talk about it. Some don’t. Some talk about it too much. And some women choose to go on a long, painful journey that leads to healing and recovery.

Some women have chosen to come forward, either privately to trusted friends or family, or publicly by exposing their abusers. The women who come forward are sometimes believed, sometimes not. Often, their revelations lead to fractures within families and friendships that never heal. This is why most women who are molested choose to stay silent. It’s just easier.

Don’t get me wrong…I’m far from a feminist who thinks that every woman has the right to be believed. I am firmly in favor of due process and the constitutional guarantee of innocent until proven guilty.

Whatever the case, sexual assault is not a joking matter. It’s not funny. Any man who would find humor in it doesn’t have a mother, a daughter, a sister, a friend or a coworker who has survived sexual assault.

One defense I’ve heard over the past 72 hours is, “It’s no big deal. All men talk like this from time to time.”

That is flatly, patently false! I’ve said and done many things in my life of which I’m not proud, but rape jokes are not part of that. Moreover, most of the men I’ve known over my life would not joke about such a subject. I am hard pressed to imagine my father joking or laughing about rape or sexual advances of any sort.

This election really has brought out the worst in our country, not the least of which is abject hypocrisy on both sides.

For those of you supporting Hillary, I suggest you study the term, “Enabling.” Those who enable sexual predators are little better than the predators themselves. If you want to call yourself a feminist and brag about the first female president, think long and hard about Bill Clinton’s victims. I’m looking at you, Ms. Albright and Ms. Pelosi.

As for you Trump supporters, many of you were around during Bill Clinton’s era. Why is it that character no longer matters? What makes Trump so much better than Slick Willie? I’m looking at you, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Limbaugh.

Finally, to any man or woman who has been sexually assaulted, I won’t presume to tell you how to feel. I won’t presume to tell you what you should do. The only thing I will do is beg you to please share your burden with someone you can trust. Don’t go through it alone.

D’oh!

I was recently on a long car trip with some friends when I was suddenly alerted to an aspect of my personality that I never knew existed. One of them told me that I’m a nerd.

I balked at this characterization at first. I’ve never thought of myself as a nerd. Then, a few days later, I learned of the existence of a new book by TV critics Alan Sepinwall and Matt Zoller Seitz. It is called, TV (The Book.) It is a listing of the top 100 American TV shows of all time.

Once my paycheck permitted it, I ran right out and bought an unabridged audio copy.

So now, in my glorious TV nerdiness, here is the complete listing of the top 100 TV shows, according to these two critics.

Preliminaries:

The shows they selected are only scripted dramas and comedies. No variety shows like Saturday Night Live, news shows such as 60 Minutes, talk shows such as Oprah, etc.

With only a couple of exceptions, no shows currently on the air were included, such as The Big Bang Theory and Game of Thrones. They figure that series like South Park have been around long enough so that the true measure of the show can be accurately judged.

Sorry, Jim Henson. They chose to avoid children’s programming, promising that a separate book will follow at some point. The animated programs chosen are intended for both kids and adults, or in one case, adults only.

The shows are judged and ranked on the basis of six categories, with a point score of 10 maximum per category, per author. The six categories are: innovation, influence, consistency, performance, storytelling and peak.

Shows that last one season or less were considered, though they were penalized with lesser point values.

And now…the list as ranked from greatest to least:

1. The Simpsons (1989-present)
2. The Sopranos (1999-2007)
3. The Wire (2003-2009)
4. Cheers (1983-1993)
5. Breaking Bad (2008-2013)
6. Mad Men (2007-2015)
7. Seinfeld (1989-1998)
8. I Love Lucy (1951-1957)
9. Deadwood (2004-2006)
10. All in the Family (1971-1979)
11. M*A*S*H (1972-1983)
12. Hill Street Blues (1981-1987)
13. The Shield (2001-2008)
14. The Twilight Zone (1959-1964)
15. Arrested Development (2003-2006, 2013)
16. The Larry Sanders Show (1992-1998)
17. The Honeymooners (1955-1956)
18. Louie (2010-2015)
19. The Mary Tyler Moore Show (1970-1977)
20. The X-Files (1993-2002)
21. Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000-2011)
22. SpongeBob SquarePants (1999-present)
23. Twin Peaks (1990-1991)
24. Lost (2004-2010)
25. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003)
26. Freaks and Geeks (1999-2000)
27. My So-Called Life (1994-1995)
28. Oz (1997-2003)
29. The Dick Van Dyke Show (1961-1966)
30. Friday Night Lights (2006-2011)
31. NYPD Blue (1993-2005)
32. Frasier (1993-2004)
33. Homicide: Life on the Street (1993-1999)
34. Battlestar Galactica (2003-2009)
35. In Treatment (2008-2010)
36. South Park (1997-present)
37. The West Wing (1999-2006)
38. Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman (1976-1977)
39. The Andy Griffith Show (1960-1968)
40. The Cosby Show (1984-1992)
41. Moonlighting (1985-1989)
42. Taxi (1978-1983)
43. East Side/West Side (1963-1964)
44. Hannibal (2013-2015)
45. ER (1994-2009)
46. Parks and Recreation (2009-2015)
47. Roseanne (1988-1997)
48. 30 Rock (2006-2013)
49. The Bob Newhart Show (1971-1978)
50. Malcolm in the Middle (2000-2006)
51. Miami Vice (1984-1989)
52. The Office (2005-2013)
53. St. Elsewhere (1982-1988)
54. Community (2009-2015)
55. The Golden Girls (1985-1992)
56. Police Squad! (1982)
57. 24 (2001-2010, 2014)
58. The Defenders (1961-1965)
59. Gunsmoke (1955-1975)
60. Sex and the City (1998-2004)
61. Star Trek (1966-1969)
62. Firefly (2002)
63. Law & Order (1990-2010)
64. Maude (1972-1978)
65. The Rockford Files (1974-1980)
66. China Beach (1988-1991)
67. Enlightened (2011-2013)
68. Everybody Loves Raymond (1996-2005)
69. The Wonder Years (1988-1993)
70. Barney Miller (1975-1982)
71. Frank’s Place (1987-1988)
72. It’s Garry Shandling’s Show (1986-1990)
73. The Jack Benny Program (1950-1965)
74. Justified (2010-2015)
75. The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show (1959-1964)
76. Thirtysomething (1987-1991)
77. Columbo (1971-1978, 1989-2003)
78. Friends (1994-2004)
79. Futurama (1999-2003, 2008-2015)
80. The Outer Limits (1963-1965)
81. Northern Exposure (1990-1995)
82. Batman (1966-1968)
83. King of the Hill (1997-2009)
84. Veronica Mars (2004-2007)
85. Cagney & Lacey (1981-1988)
86. EZ Streets (1996-1997)
87. Gilmore Girls (2000-2007)
88. Six Feet Under (2001-2005)
89. Sports Night (1998-2000)
90. Wiseguy (1987-1990)
91. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993-1999)
92. Batman: The Animated Series (1992-1995)
93. Boardwalk Empire (2010-2014)
94. NewsRadio (1995-1999)
95. Picket Fences (1992-1996)
96. Scrubs (2001-2010)
97. WKRP in Cincinnati (1978-1982)
98. How I Met Your Mother (2005-2014)
99. Soap (1977-1981)
100. Terriers (2010)

Reactions:

I have always leaned toward television dramas over comedy. Many of my comments on individual programs will focus on dramatic fare. This is why I don’t have much to say about Andy Griffith, Seinfeld or The Office. M*A*S*H is an exception and you can find more detailed thoughts on it in an earlier entry.

The only animated stuff I occasionally watch is cartoons from my childhood; The Flintstones, Scooby-Doo, The Transformers, etc.

Sepinwall and Zoller Seitz were smart enough to acknowledge the absurdity of ranking art from the start. In terms of objectivity or long-lasting substance, the contents of this volume amounts to little more than bathroom reading.

They also acknowledge that some of the shows made the list merely because they have a soft spot for them. Thus, they know their rankings and opinions will make a lot of people mad. So, since they already put the shoes on their own feet, allow me to lace them up.

As you browse the list, you’ll notice that modern shows score higher. I would define “modern” as 1990 to the present. The essays that accompany each entry tend to be lengthier and evoke more passion from the authors when the show is more recent. This is not a coincidence. Both Sepinwall and Zoller Seitz have been critiquing these shows for decades. They are human beings with a certain worldview. Therefore, they tend to gravitate toward shows that espouse a more post modern worldview, thereby validating their biases.

In Sepinwall’s case, his apparent impartiality may be coming from a more crystallized place. Four years ago, he wrote a book called, “The Revolution Was Televised,” in which he chronicled the rise of 12 TV programs that changed the modern television landscape. Unsurprisingly, 11 of 12 shows made the top 50 in this list. To that end, he interviewed 11 of the 12 showrunners, including David Chase (The Sopranos), David Simon (The Wire), Matthew Weiner (Mad Men) and David Milch (Deadwood). In fact, after the controversial finale of The Sopranos, David Chase granted only one interview. Guess who won the prize.

Can you really be objective about a show’s placement in a historical context when you’ve had coffee and chatted it up with a showrunner? The reader will have to be the judge.

The Simpsons as the best show of all time?! Really!? I was never a fan so I can’t comment on the particulars, but I do know that The Simpsons offers critical commentary on much of modern American life. Such criticisms are tame compared to South Park and Family Guy, but they are there nonetheless.

I am, however, thoroughly familiar with The Sopranos and The Wire. Aside from featuring excellent storytelling, both series offer a mostly bleak outlook on the American experience.

At its heart, The Sopranos offers a not-so-subtle indictment of excess; a failing that David Chase seems to view as uniquely American. Never mind that the story is told from the point of view of members of the mafia; a subculture that is undeniably criminal in our society. In Chase’s jaded view, the harsh truth about American hypocrisy and materialism still holds. The series finale is called, “Made in America,” a title that is not accidental. Nothing David Chase does is accidental, including the infamous black screen that still causes consternation amongst Sopranos fans to this day.

The Wire is a show about failure; specifically, the failure of institutions as reflected in America’s futile war on drugs. It was also a thinly-veiled commentary on the Iraq War and the post 9/11 war on terror. The title of the third season finale is, “Mission Accomplished,” which was a jab at President George W. Bush’s willfully misunderstood speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003.

If I seem contrarian in my own critique of the critics, I don’t mean to be. I loved The Sopranos and still find it infinitely rewatchable. I respect The Wire more than I like it. If the former had claimed the top spot, I wouldn’t have griped at all. The latter would have elicited more skepticism from me, though no surprise.

Then, we get to Cheers. I didn’t watch it in the ‘80’s, but I remember many adults constantly discussing it. My folks, my teachers, friends of my folks, babysitters…even my grandma loved the show. I could have swallowed Cheers as the best show of all time before The Simpsons.

This brings up the issue of, “The Pantheon,” which is Sepinwall’s and Zoller Seitz’s name for the grand list. This is an appropriate name, not just for the list, but for the book itself. It is intended as an affectionate, somewhat flippant reference to the list, but there is more than a touch of unintentional pretentious snobbery in it.

In writing about The Pantheon, our two heroes show us a transcript of a debate in which they try to rank the top five shows of the list. Why shouldn’t Breaking Bad be number one? Why is The Sopranos better than The Wire? Why is The Simpsons better than Cheers? In the end, after they’re finished, you get a lot of opinion dressed up as pseudo intellectualism. It is very fitting for the entirety of the book.

Why not Cheers, indeed? Again, I’m not a fan. I have always been curious to catch up on it; for nostalgia, if nothing else. Doesn’t Cheers capture the human experience just as well as The Sopranos, or is it too optimistic? Or maybe it’s just too ‘80’s. That wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

It will surprise none of my three loyal readers to learn that Breaking Bad is the ultimate deity in my personal pantheon. No TV series is without its missteps, but the flaws of Breaking Bad are so minor in comparison with its greatness in craft that I can overlook them. In contrast to the other two dramas in the top five, Breaking Bad is the ultimate story of change. Vince Gilligan said that TV is all about keeping its characters in stasis. This is true even of The Sopranos and The Wire. The Sopranos is all about the virtual impossibility of change within people. The Wire is all about the constant failure of institutions. Each season may look a little different, but it’s themes and basic execution never change.

Breaking Bad is more narrow in its focus as it tells the story of one man’s transformation from a hen-pecked husband and over-qualified chemistry teacher into a murderous drug lord. It is a character study, rather than a societal study.

Let me put it another way. You can watch the first season of The Sopranos and quit. After the viewing, you will have felt the fullness of The Sopranos experience. Some fans (myself included) would argue that season one encapsulated the show at its best. That doesn’t mean the rest of the series isn’t worthy, but only that the show becomes repetitious after a point. The same holds true for The Wire, though our heroes would prefer it if you watched the fourth season in a bottle if you so chose.

But you can’t stop at the end of the first season of Breaking Bad, because there is clearly more story to be told. See my point?

In fairness, I must admit that Breaking Bad validates my worldview. My father always said, “Life’s about choices.” That maxim illustrates Breaking Bad in a nutshell. Society did not turn Walter White into Heisenberg. He followed his own path based on deliberate, conscious choices.

Then, there’s Deadwood. I loved Deadwood. I was sorry to see it canceled before it’s time. Part of me still longs for it to be resurrected in those wrap-up movies that we’ll probably never get. That said, it has it’s weaknesses that our two heroes tend to gloss over.

This is where RyanO, TV Nerd extraordinaire, really shows his face. When I truly dig a show, I watch all of those behind-the-scenes DVD extras.

Series creator David Milch doesn’t write his scripts. He lies on a couch and dictates them to one of his other writers, who transcribes it on a computer. It’s important to note this so that you understand me when I say that, Mr. Milch loves to hear himself talk. This is why many of his characters are so loquacious. There are times when good old swearin’ Al Swearengen is delivering a soliloquy and you wish he’d just shut the fuck up and get on with the blood-letting. This excess of verbosity becomes apparent in the show’s third season as the language gets richer, but Calamity Jane and company bloviate more and more.

Also, the character of George Hearst is a walking card board cut-out of predatory capitalism. He is a cigar-chomping villain who does not contain the depth and breadth of his fellow townspeople. Compare Hearst’s actions in the finale of season two to his actions throughout the whole of season three and see if you don’t detect a swerve in Milch’s intent for the arc of the character.

And there’s the theater troop. But never mind…I don’t want to pile on, thereby giving a false impression that I didn’t love Deadwood dearly. Sufficed to say that I don’t think the show belonged in the top 10. I would’ve taken top 20, gladly.

Ditto for The Shield. It was a solid cop drama with one of the best finales in TV history, but it owed its existence and success to Tony Soprano. I would’ve placed it somewhere in the top 50, below Homicide and Hill Street Blues; either of which are far more realistic, less hyperbolic cop shows.

We also have another character swerve on the part of Vic Mackey, the show’s main anti-hero protagonist. The Vic who killed Terry Crowley at the end of the pilot was not the more careful, calculating Vic we came to know in the course of the series. Yet, Sean Ryan needed to top the evil antics of Tony Soprano in order to push the envelope so he could sell the show to FX. Ahh well. It was a great series

I was glad to see The Twilight Zone make the top 15. 51 years after it went off the air, people still recognize the term and the iconic theme song. I’m still waiting for some kindhearted sighted person to describe, “The Invaders,” to me.

Sepinwall claims that the finale of The Shield elevates everything that came before it. I agree. Many fans believe the opposite of Lost; the finale pretty much ruined the whole series. I never got past the first season because I didn’t buy the image of a guy listening to Mama Cass inside The Hatch. Everything after that point just seemed ludicrous to me.

Do you notice how Buffy, Freaks and Geeks and My So-Called Life are all ranked together? For those unaware, all three are dramas with teenagers at their center. Hmmm.

Despite my desensitization to the brutality of modern crime shows such as The Sopranos, Breaking Bad and Deadwood, there are certain lines I have no interest in crossing. Oz represents one of those lines.

Sepinwall and I disagree about the appeal of Homicide. He says the show was at its best in its early years when it stuck to the small moments, such as the banter between Munch and Stan ‘The Big Man’ Bolander. Yes, those moments are what gave Homicide it’s special texture, but even in later seasons when the series became more conventional and adopted more cop show clichés, it was still great TV. Yes, Alan, Luther Mahoney was a bit of a trope, but Homicide still did him far better than Miami freakin’ Vice. Whatever the case, Frank Pembleton will go down in my pantheon as the best TV cop ever.

Notice that the reboot of Battlestar Galactica is ranked 34th, while the original Star Trek is way down there in 61st place? To paraphrase George Orwell, “That is so absurd that only a critic could believe it.”

Yes, by today’s standards, the original Trek was pretty clunky. Yes, the special affects and Shatner’s acting were cheesy. But how do you minimize the cultural impact that Trek had after it went off the air? Take the spin-off series, movies and novels out of the equation. Spock deserved better than a lower 50 rating.

Sidebar: People make the mistake of assuming that playing Spock was not a challenge for Leonard Nimoy due to the repressed nature of the character. Such people couldn’t be more wrong. I would place Nimoy’s acting skills on par with Patrick Stewart’s any day.

Meanwhile, I made it through three seasons of Battlestar Galactica before I threw up my hands in disgust. Starbuck as an angel?…meh.

This is what I mean when I talk about bias. Sometimes, our two heroes are clearly blurring the line between an attempt at impartial critique and fan service. Just like the three Davids (Chase, Milch and Simon), our heroes love Ronald D. Moore, creator and head writer of the BSG reboot.

Moore was also instrumental in the evolution of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Some elements of both shows are similar including overt themes of politics, religion and heavy serialization. It also may explain why DS9 made The Pantheon, while Star Trek: The Next Generation was excluded, even though Zoller Seitz admits that TNG was the best of all the series when it fired on all cylinders.

I’m not at all surprise that Deep Space Nine made the list, while TNG did not. Sepinwall and I had a Twitter debate once over which series was better. He lost. I mean…he’s got a major internet site and a few books published and decades of newspaper columns and he’s met Bryan Cranston in person and he rubs elbows with the cream of the TV crop on a regular basis. And I’ve got…this blog? But I don’t give a merry damn. He lost.

For my money, DS9 didn’t work because of flawed acting and mostly uninteresting characters. Avery Brooks was terrible as a leading man. I mean, I’d watch him in a scene and his stiff acting would pull me out of it. That was acceptable when Shatner was the only Federation starship captain in the universe, but after Patrick Stewart, the bar was raised and Brooks failed to clear it.

Yes, DS9 was more ambitious in its storytelling, but who cares about the Dominion War when you can’t care about Sisko, Kira and Quark? If Patrick Stewart was the only good apple in an otherwise bad barrel (a point that I don’t concede), then the same is true of René Auberjonois.

One of the most sadly moving parts of the book is when Sepinwall wrote about his decision to no longer hold viewing marathons of The Cosby Show for his kids. As a child of the ‘80’s, the unfolding saga of Bill Cosby’s downfall is a heartbreaker for me. I didn’t watch his sitcom, but I loved Fat Albert and his comedy albums. I know I shouldn’t convict him before his trial, but I think he’s already been rightly judged in the court of public opinion.

Most TV critics are liberal. Zoller Seitz is no exception and restrains himself less in his political expressions than does his writing partner. I suspect that it was very hard for him to acknowledge that 24 was the 57th best series of all time. At one point, Zoller Seitz says, “Torture rarely works in real life, but the version practiced by 24 got results.” Mkay, Matt. Tell that one to Kathryn Bigelow. To give you an idea of where Zoller Seitz comes down on the political spectrum, he just published a book celebrating the career of Oliver Stone.

Actually, I didn’t care for the torture scenes on 24 after a while because they began to smack of plot repetition and the controversy eventually overshadowed the better aspects of the series. Also, Zoller Seitz claims that seasons one, two and four are the peak of the series. He’s right about the first two, but Day Four is when the torture controversy got out of hand through its overuse as a plot device. He also ignored season five, which began with the death of David Palmer and ended with Jack being kidnapped and shipped off to China. In between, we got President and Mrs. Logan. The show didn’t get any better than that.

I was glad to see Gunsmoke on the list. I preferred the radio version to the TV, but the early scripts by John Meston were truly groundbreaking for their time. It’s also not inconsequential that Gunsmoke was one of only two TV dramas to last 20 years.

The other was Law & Order. I went through a two-year phase in college when I was obsessed with this show. Long after I got over it, I kept coming back to it because it’s TV comfort food. I’m not sure why it made this list because it’s really a cookie-cutter procedural. Maybe it was the two-part structure that made it unique? Maybe it was Jerry Orbach. I can except either explanation. That said, I did enjoy Sepinwall’s rankings of every cast combination over the course of the series from best to worst.

The Rockford Files deserved to be in the top 50, rather than at 65th place. During the first four decades of television, the private eye genre was a staple of entertainment. Rockford represented the best of that genre, just as Gunsmoke represented the cream of the TV western.

Jack Benny also deserved better than 73rd place. People wouldn’t remember it now, but he was considered the king of comedy from the ‘30’s through the ‘50’s. I guess I should be glad he made the list at all. The only reason I know this is due to my love for old-time radio.

I should also be glad Justified made it to 74th place. I loved this show, though it was very uneven at times. In their usual critic logic, our heroes seemed to value the dialogue of Elmore Leonard and themes of manhood and poverty over the show’s more basic elements. In truth, the plots were often overly-convoluted and too clever by half. Still, I’ll take it. I loved the show so much that I named my cat after Mags Bennett. “It was already in the glass, not in the jar.”

“Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!”

God bless Peter Falk! Columbo is an American treasure, though the original NBC Mystery Movies from ’71 through ‘78 were superior to the later AB C version, when the writers played up Columbo’s eccentricities until they reached farcical levels.

Whatever my criticisms of Zoller Seitz may be, he absolutely nailed it in his essay about Batman (1966). Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan took the comic book genre far too seriously. At least Adam West and company knew that they were doing campy comedy. This may offend WatchMojo.com, but they can just give me a great big “Pow!” in the jaw as payback.

P.S: God bless Frank Gorshin! Best. Riddler. Ever. And I still want to marry Julie Newmar. I don’t care if she’s 83!

Sometimes, I would smile when I came across a show, not because I was a fan, but because it reminded me of a friend. I never got into Hannibal, but Katy enjoyed it. I was glad to see Cagney & Lacey make the list because my friend Amy always loved that show.

No, Alan, Picket Fences was not David E. Kelley’s signature work. That was merely a legal drama masquerading as a quirky small town drama. Kelley’s best work came in the first five seasons of, The Practice (1997-2001), which does not appear in The Pantheon or in the honorable mentions section. Kelley was a former lawyer who knew the trade inside and out. The Practice served as an excellent counterpoint to Law & Order, which hit the height of its popularity at the same time that The Practice went on the air. The afore-mentioned quirky small town drama was done better by Northern Exposure and Twin Peaks, both of which made the list.

Two more of my favorite shows rounded out the top hundred; Boardwalk Empire and Terriers. Again, I love them both and long for the day when NetFlix announces that it will revive Terriers, but aside from personal prejudice, I don’t understand what made Terriers worthy of the list. Sepinwall even admits that every trope put forth in the show was done before. Could it be that it was a favored underdog because, like Deadwood, it was canceled before its time?

As for Boardwalk, it was more consistently solid than The Sopranos. Yet, it somehow lacked that emotional punch that would’ve made it water cooler conversation.

To my mind, there was only one obvious, glaring omission. Dragnet (1951). It received an honorable mention in the, “A Certain Regard,” section, but that’s not good enough.

It was apparent that Zoller Seitz, who gravitated more toward the historical programs, was judging Dragnet based on the 1967 revival series. This is unfair and did not represent Dragnet at its earlier peak.

Let’s take the categories one by one:

Innovation: Dragnet is the undisputed progenitor of the police procedural. Nothing like it had ever been done before. Prior to Dragnet, cops were mostly painted in crime fiction as corrupt, incompetent or mere window-dressing for the superior private eye. Jack Webb’s documentary-style approach was meant to depict a more authentic portrayal of police work.

Influence: The theme song aside, Dragnet was a cultural phenomenon in the ‘50’s. It was even parodied by Stan Freberg and later, Johnny Carson. It was a constant ratings success and even generated a feature film in 1954.

Consistency: For better or worse, Dragnet never changed its formula. Neither did Law & Order, Rockford and Columbo, all of whom made the list.

Performance: Webb wasn’t much of an actor and he insisted that all of his actors deliver an understated performance in the name of realism. For that matter, Jerry Seinfeld was a limited actor. I already beat up on Bill Shatner, so I won’t do it again.

Storytelling: The original author of most of the early Dragnet scripts was James E. Moser. He did not write Sgt. Joe Friday as the pompous, autocratic cop we would come to know in the later series of the ‘60’s. He wrote Friday as a soft-spoken, humble police officer who went about each case with the quiet intent to close it. The comical elements were lent by Ben Alexander as Frank Smith and were underplayed, unlike Harry Morgan’s over-the-top approach in the latter show. Moser also addressed many themes that were unheard of for their time, including sexual assault, pedophilia and child neglect.

Peak: I’m not fully certain what this means. There are far fewer episodes of the original Dragnet available today, whereas the entire 1967 series has been available since it was first broadcast.

Yes, based on style and substance, Dragnet seems dated today, but it’s no more fair to compare it to Hill Street Blues or The Wire than it is to compare Gunsmoke to Deadwood or I Love Lucy to Sex and the City. If we’re applying different standards to different eras, Dragnet should have been included in The Pantheon.

I’m also bummed that Perry Mason didn’t get a nod. It’s first three seasons were faithful to the spirit of Gardener’s novels. If you look at it from a sociological viewpoint, it was probably a subtle answer to McCarthyism, which represented the dark side of the 1950’s. If Joe Friday represented law and order, Perry Mason represented every American’s right to due process.

I’m glad I read this book, much as it frustrated me at times. It was a lot of fun to chew up and digest. Incidentally, there are many other bonus features outside of The Pantheon, including ‘Best Miniseries’ (remember those?), ‘Best TV Moms and Dads’, ‘Best TV Cars’, ‘Best Hair’, ‘Best Deaths’, and much more. If you want to learn about the exact rankings for each show, buy the book. It’s worth it.

Writing about it has exhausted me. Guess I’ll go watch The Flintstones and relax before I scour the internet trying to find copies of Wiseguy and The Rifleman.

Oh Say, Can You Stand?

Colin Kaepernick has every right not to stand during the singing of our national anthem. That is a freedom guaranteed to him by our Constitution and protected by the military and law enforcement officers whom he is choosing to disparage.

Fans across the country also have the right to agree with him, or to express their outrage at Mr. Kaepernick’s generalizations and mal-informed commentary. If they want to burn his jersey in protest, that is also their right. If they want to boycott the 49ers, or boycott any product that he has endorsed, they can go ahead and more power to them. That is how the marketplace works.

I hope the NFL doesn’t take punitive action against Kaepernick. That might have a chilling effect on his First Amendment rights. I hope the NFL remembers said rights when the Dallas Cowboys want to display pro-police decals on their uniforms, or when some closet white supremacist screams, “Make America great again!” as he runs through the goal posts. The NFL should stay out of politics and stick to policing quarterbacks who suck the air out of their balls, or slapping the wrists of wife-beaters.

My minimal research indicates that Mr. Kaepernick is a man of considerable wealth. If he wanted to have a meaningful impact on race relations, there were other, far less petulant methods he might have employed to do so. But given the recent climate of symbolism over substance that permeates our politics and our culture in this country, I’m not surprised he chose this route; a route that might very well backfire on him. He probably should analyze the career trajectory of The Dixie Chicks before he pulls more stunts such as this one.

Or, maybe I’m just over-thinking the whole thing. My minimal research also indicates that Mr. Kaepernick has spent a lot of time on the bench of late. Maybe he just got to like sitting down so much that he didn’t feel that the flag was worth stretching his legs.

My final thought…thank God Denver didn’t acquire him! In the aftermath of Von Miller and The Great QB Question, we don’t need any more drama. Thank you, Marty.

Grab the Domes and Ride

This blog entry is dedicated to all the ladies out there. Clearly, many of you desperately need to read this. I won’t bother with the men, because they already know what I’m about to write here.

I just heard the song, “It’s Different for Girls,” by Dierks Bentley. This little ditty from an artist whom I used to respect is further proof to me that country music is a genre in a state of decline.

But before we get to that, let’s examine the premise of the song by sampling a few of the lyrics:

“She don’t throw any t-shirt on and walk to a bar
She don’t text her friends and say, I gotta get laid tonight
She don’t say, it’s okay, I never loved him anyway
She don’t scroll through her phone just looking for a Band-Aid
It’s different for girls when their hearts get broke
They can’t tape it back together with a whiskey and Coke
They don’t take someone home and act like it’s nothing
They can’t just switch it off every time they feel something
A guy gets drunk with his friends and he might hook up
Fast forward through the pain, pushing back when the tears come on
But it’s different for girls”

The rest of this song continues in the same vein, piling on every cliché and gender-related stereotype in order to paint a picture that girls have it so much harder when it comes to matters of the heart.

I’ve had my share of relationships and break-ups, so I speak with more than a little authority when I call bullshit on this song. What’s more, I think Mr. Bentley knows it’s bullshit. He’s likely a man who’s been hurt by a woman before and he knows what a man’s pain is like. He is also an artist who understands his listener base.

Over the past decade or so, country music has had an increasingly large female audience. This explains the shift in tone from male-centric songs to those in which the emotions of a woman are featured front and center. The reasons aren’t so much a matter of male enlightenment as they are economic. Dierks wants to sell his music, therefore, he wants to give his fans what they want. So, let’s trot out a song that relies on every sexist cliché in the book to boost those sales.

I have no idea who wrote the song and I’m not inclined to spend any energy researching it. It was either a woman who is coming from a place of ignorance where men are concerned, or a man who wanted to spread bullshit like fertilizer in order to put TV dinners in his freezer.

Now, pay attention, ladies. Here’s what you really need to know.

I will start with the caveat that I am only speaking from my own experiences here. The following remarks do contain some generalities. In this age of bathroom wars and gender fluidity, the masculine and feminine concepts seem to be evolving. That said, it still holds true where most modern men are concerned.

When men set foot in the arena of love, they do indeed suffer. They hurt. They bleed. They cry. They carry guilt and regret. They try and fail and often chew on that failure like a well-worn bone in the jaws of a hungry terrier. Where then do women get the idea that men don’t bleed from the prick of love’s needle? The answer is, they get it from men themselves.

When a man breaks up with a woman, he will usually withdraw from her emotionally. The pullback is almost instantaneous. If the man is the one who dumps the woman, he often feels a sense of guilt because he knows he hurt her. If the woman dumps the guy, he feels the pain of rejection; a pain that is deep and real. Either way, he’s not going to be inclined to share his emotions with the person with whom he’s just burned a major emotional bridge.

The reason women operate under the erroneous assumption that men have it easier after a break-up is only because that’s how men want it to look. The song is accurate in that many men often do go out, get drunk, hook up with strangers or casual acquaintances and pretend like everything is alright. But it’s not. Women tend to wear their emotions on their sleeves, while men bury them.

But it’s never as easy as it may seem. Men lie awake at night and struggle with the demons of what might have been. They don’t often go out for coffee with their buddies and maybe cry in public. Instead, they will find someone close who they can trust and they will vent privately. It may be a family member, a close buddy or two or even a gal pal who is an emotional confidant. Whatever the manifestation, guys are far more selective over whom they choose to show their private face of pain to.

Like it or not, ladies, men simply process pain differently than women. Break-ups are very depressing affairs. Women tend to feel sorrow and display it openly. Men tend to feel anger and guilt. Yes, men may go out and bestow their carnal favors on another woman, but it’s usually rebound. Men have an easier time compartmentalizing when it comes to sex. Blame it on biology, or society, or the fact that Mercury is in retrograde. Whatever the reason, men can more easily separate sex from love.

Does that mean they don’t feel love? Hell no! Another harsh fact of life is that men are more selective about whom they fall in love with. Just because many men aren’t as discriminating over their sex partners doesn’t mean they aren’t subject to the most powerful emotion on Earth. Men feel love, but just as it is with the grief over the death of a relationship, so it is with love. Men process it and display it differently.

Several years ago, I was a part of a group of guys. Every so often, we’d hold a guys’ night; beer, cigars, sports, junk food and music. We were comprised of an alpha male jock type, one or two shy, geek types, and one or two more sensitive types. In other words, we were a fair cross-section of manhood.

Inevitably, women would become the focus of conversation. In fact, I’d say women were the main topic more than any other. On the surface, a female eavesdropper would have had her worst stereotypes confirmed. There was much talk of tits, asses, blowjobs, levels of hotness, speculation about moaners versus screamers and more about tits and asses. We would even play a game called, Marry, Fuck or Kill, in which a contestant was given three names, thereby being forced to choose which female he would engage in the three activities sited in the game’s title.

Yes, we were guys being guys and feminism be damned. Yet, if the eavesdropper had listened long enough, she would have heard things come out from beneath the crass surface. Certain women would emerge who would garner a softer approach. Certain names would carry with them a thoughtful pause, followed by a statement such as, “She’s really a sweetheart,” or “I’d take her home to Mom.”

One guy (the jock type) connected with a woman who was special in his eyes. Yes, we all heard about how impressive her bust size was, but it was clear from his tone of voice that she was more than just a casual conquest. She had taken out real estate in the domain of his heart. Today, he’s living with her. They may make it and they may not. My crystal ball is broken just now. But I will tell you this. If their relationship does meet its demise, he will be the poster boy for the guy in Dierks’ song. He may get drunk with his buddies, smoke a few bowls and bang a few women for comfort. Yet, when he takes a breather from his coping mechanism, she will be waiting for him in the night. No man escapes unscathed.

Another guy in the group (the loveable geek type), was relatively inexperienced in the sexual realm, yet he loved to fixate on a woman’s breasts. This makes him similar to 99.9 percent of men on the planet. He is now in a serious relationship. If it were to fail, he would be devastated. You wouldn’t catch him going to a support group for comfort. He’d just go home and sob into his pillow with a few empty beer cans strewn over his bedroom floor.

Then, there was the smooth-talking salesman type of the group. He was married for a while, but ran into the airplane propeller of divorce a couple of years ago. He chooses to be more open and expressive about his struggles with depression than the rest of us do. Yet, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t go out and get trashed and bang random women from the bar. Some would argue that they are better off divorced. This may be true, but no one can tell me that the parting did not take a major toll on him.

Then, there’s me. I’ve been through too many relationships. I’ve had serious ones in which I was sure I’d get married. I’ve had relationships that were more casual. I’ve had one or two that felt more like prison; when I got out, I drank in the sweet taste of freedom. Some women I’ve dated have been kind and genuine, some were damaged and some were just bat shit crazy. In the sexual arena, I’ve made passionate love to women, I’ve fucked a few women and I’ve been ambiguous when the sun came up the next day. I’ve approached certain partners with honest intentions and I’ve been less than honorable with one or two. I’ve been with women who went home to visit my folks and I’ve been with a few who required me to shower after they were gone in a futile attempt to wash away the shame. I’ve had relationships that ranged in duration from one night to two years. But all of them had an impact that went beyond the sad confines of this country music depiction of the gender gap.

As I write this, I am struck by an irony. Three of my ex girlfriends are getting married this year. One of them is a recent relationship that I terminated after it became obvious that she was using me as a distraction from her regular boyfriend. From her perspective, I’m a heartless prick who suddenly cut off communication with her for no good reason. From my perspective, she was a less-than-stable person who needed a good laugh and who resorted to subterfuge in order to get it. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? God can sort it out later. Until then, I won’t care if I never encounter her again.

The second woman represented a dark time in my life. I won’t trash talk her, save to say that she is a big part of the reason why I left Nebraska and why I took up cigar smoking as a full time vice. We don’t speak anymore and I’m fine with that, but I do wish her well and hope her future husband treats her well.

The third ex girlfriend slated for the altar is one of my closest friends. We dated for two years and they were often tumultuous, but I don’t regret a single day. We have shared much laughter, many tears and a lot of vulnerability. The passionate intensity of our sexual encounters were matched by those of our fights, but we weathered the various storms and have a strong friendship because of it. It will be my honor to watch her get married to a guy who is true, honest and worthy of her.

Sidebar: After our break-up, she dedicated the song, “Insensitive,” by Jann Arden, to me. This song carries more emotional credibility than the Dierks song because it comes from the female perspective after a break-up. She played it for me and I exploded like a virgin getting a tug by a hand other than his own. We talked it over and came to a better understanding about the grief and pain that the other person was experiencing.

These were three separate relationships that garnered three separate reactions. At no time did I ever grieve over any of these women by getting drunk and hooking up with random chicks. Does that make me an abnormal man? Oh well.

But what about the other side of the coin? If the lyrics of this farcical tune are to be believed, women never grieve the loss of their men by drinking and screwing. Again, I call bullshit. I know women who lie, cheat, drink and spread their favors around like promises at a campaign rally. Are they abnormal women? Oh well.

Seriously…haven’t any of you ladies ever reading this ever sat around over a few margaritas and played MFK? Be honest.

You never hear them anymore, but men in the country music genre used to be sad. Their hearts used to break over lost love and what might have been. You don’t even have to go back to the days of Waylon Jennings and Merle Haggard to hear men cry over a broken heart. Try some vintage George Strait, Randy Travis, Alan Jackson, Vince Gill or Steve Wariner. In my opinion, the ultimate break-up song from the male perspective is, “The Lights are On (But Nobody’s Home)” by Clint Black. It is the perfect illustration of a man who is clearly depressed by a failed relationship, but who hides it behind the façade of normalcy.

I had lunch with a former coworker and I told her I was writing a blog rant about this stupid song. “I love that song!” she said as we pulled into Wendy’s. I smiled to myself. She loves modern country music. I hope she reads this and finds it instructive.

Ladies, if you want to enjoy this song by Dierks Bentley, more power to you. You may crank it up loud, give a great big “huzzah!” to Mother Wicca and go to bed with a smile on your face. But you’re dead wrong. I know Mr. Bentley is offering a musical placebo that eases your pain, anger or frustration through the application of simplicity, but men ain’t that simple. There are men who are honest, noble and who puke after one shot. There are women who lie, cheat and do coke out of a man’s naval. Sleep on that.

I was just about to post this when Rosie walked into the control room. I give her a 7/10 on the hotness scale.

Marty, if you read that, ignore it. I give you 26/10 on the hotness scale.

Shit!

Folks, while I figure out how to dig myself out of this hole, go YouTube Clint Black.

Addendum:

Several female friends read this and wanted me to clarify that not all women buy into the line of BS that Dierks and company are selling. Consider the point made. Yet, my original argument about the decline of country music stands. The themes have changed over the years, largely due to marketing toward a certain kind of female listener. I’m not saying all women…just some.

This addendum is your wedding gift, Alicia. Congratulations!

Waiter! There’s a Fly in My Vinegar!

This will be my last blog post about the current election until November 9.

You cannot rationalize with irrational people.

A therapist once told me that and, as I grow older, I find that this little maxim becomes more and more true.

It applies to the current political landscape. A gulf has emerged, as symbolized by the feud between pro-Trump pundits like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham and #NeverTrumpers like Bret Stephens and Jonah Goldberg. These folks were once on the same side, bound together by common principles and political enemies, but the invasion of Trump into this election has thrown everything and everyone asunder.

It’s one thing for the left and the right to come into conflicts of personalities. This is the natural outcome of a system that was designed to be adversarial. The left excels at name-calling and dirty attacks. But when Republicans start doing it to each other, it’s time to withdraw. There is nothing to be gained by below-the-belt fighting. These tactics may suit Donald Trump, but I thought Hannity was better than that. Obviously, I was wrong.

This kind of dirty pool has even crept into my personal life. Several friends and family members have started to sharpen their arguments with personal coercion when I state that I will not vote for Donald Trump. This disappoints me, but it is indicative of a larger truth that has shown its ugly head this year. It is best expressed by Bill Kristol who says, “Trumpism corrupts.” There is ample evidence of the truth of this statement. I have never seen an election so rife with pettiness and ranker than this one. Yes, that includes the Bush/Gore fiasco in 2000.

So, as of right now, I am done. I am finished posting various rants and raves about a political contest that started in the basement and has graduated to the sewer. I am following my dad’s example and am going to be a class act in the face of further bullying from the Trump camp. I am secure in my decision not to vote for Trump and have nothing to prove to anyone. I suggest those of you #NeverTrumpers adopt the same mentality. Hunker down and ride out the next two-and-a-half months quietly and gracefully.

I will impart one final truth before I conclude. In a free and open society, no one is obligated to vote for a candidate. A vote is the most valuable form of political currency. The best politicians learn how to woo voters, not bully them. In other words, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Sadly, Donald Trump never learned this very basic lesson and it will be his undoing (and that of his loyal base) in November.

If you want to continue to take an interest in my political machinations, you can follow me on Twitter at RyanO218.

Finally, a note of hope in these murky times. Despite the fear and anger from both the right and left, our country will survive, no matter the outcome in November.

There is No Sulu. Only Zuul!

I have no plans to go see the Ghostbusters reboot. It’s not because I’m sexist. Melissa McCarthy doesn’t do it for me, but whatever.

The reason I’m not going is the same reason I have no intention of wasting time and money on the latest Star Trek installment. I don’t care that Sulu is gay. I mean… George Takei doesn’t like it, but what does his opinion matter, right?

I was talking with Joe and we were commenting on the fact that we never go to movies anymore. It’s not the cost that is prohibitive. I’ll pay $12 to see a good movie. It’s not the visual medium. Most major theaters have audio description for the blind now (and sometimes, it actually works.)

The reason is more basic. I officially have reboot/sequel burn-out. I firmly believe that Hollywood no longer has any originality when it comes to blockbuster entertainment.

Let’s take a look at the biggest movies from the Spring/Summer season of this year:

Superman vs. Batman: Dawn of Justice
Captain America: Civil War
The Jungle Book (this is the third film interpretation of the Rudyard Kipling novel)
Warcraft (based on a videogame)
Finding Dory (sequel)
X-Men: Apocalypse
Star Trek Beyond
The Legend of Tarzan
Ghostbusters
Suicide Squad (another comic book movie)
The Purge: Election Year (sequel)
Jason Bourne (sequel based on the Robert Ludlum novels)
Independence Day: Resurgence (sequel)

The only two original movies I can find that have done well at the box office this season are Zootopia, and The Secret Life of Pets; both animated movies geared for kids.

Now, let’s contrast this list with the top 10 grossing films from 1984; the year the original Ghostbusters was released:

1. Beverly Hills Cop
2. Ghostbusters
3. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (sequel)
4. Gremlins
5. The Karate Kid
6. Police Academy
7. Footloose
8. Romancing the Stone
9. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (sequel)
10. Splash

Let me clarify that those 10 films were from the entire year, not just the summer season. Only two sequels out of 10. Not one animated flick! Videogames were still B-grade entertainment. Honest to God… Can you imagine a movie based on Pac-Man?

In closing, let me say that the glut of sequels and reboots shows no sign of ebbing. Coming soon, we will be treated to remakes of Ben-Hur and The Magnificent Seven.

If there’s any justice, the ghosts of Yul Brynner and Charlton Heston will send a giant marshmallow man to Hollywood. There, he will take a giant, sugary crap all over that festering town, because ghosts love symbolism. And it won’t be no wimpy 50-foot marshmallow man. Since Hollywood has to do everything bigger and better, it will be a 500-foot version.

If it survives an attack on Hollywood, maybe Seth MacFarlane could talk it into stopping by Trump Tower for one final push. Wouldn’t it be great if that Staypuff stud could do what the GOP couldn’t and, dump Trump?

Pick Your Poison

I recently received a message from a former student named Sai (pronounced Sigh.) Yes, you read it correctly. I used to be a teacher at the Colorado Center for the Blind. My job lasted for about two months. I’d love to share a story about how I got fired and went out in a blaze of glory, but truthfully, the job was temporary. It was a summer counseling job. I had the (ahem) honor to work with blind teenagers as a cane travel instructor.

Sai was one of our best. She was quiet, thoughtful and she never broke curfew. A lot of our male students had a crush on her, but she couldn’t be bothered with boys. She was too busy figuring out how to plan her cane travel route, cook a meal and memorize Braille contractions.

As often happens, I kept in touch with some of my students through social media. To that end, Sai wrote me privately a few days ago and asked this question. I will paste the relevant portion below, then give my response.

Quote:
Since you mentioned that you wouldn’t mind answering questions about politics, I’d like to ask one thing I’ve been curious about. Because you consider (or maybe used to consider) yourself a republican, but you don’t support Donald Trump, what are you planning to do when the election rolls around in November? I heard that some democrats who don’t like Hilary would bite their lips and vote for her anyway because they don’t want trump as president, so I was just wondering what republican supporters who don’t like Trump would do. Please let me know if you don’t feel comfortable answering any of my question, or if you’re already planning to address it in one of your future blog post. In the former case I’ll just wait to read your article.
End quote

Sai, here is your rather protracted answer.

I am a part of the Never Trump movement. That means exactly what it says. Under no circumstances will I ever be persuaded to vote for Donald Trump for president. He has had almost 14 months to convince me and he has failed miserably. Many Republicans disagree with me and I will try my best to illustrate their position later in this post.

I don’t believe that Mr. Trump has proven himself to be temperamentally suited for the Oval Office.

Serving as the President of the United States is the most difficult job in the world. It requires the ability to have a vision of what you think America should be. It requires the ability to compromise with many competing agendas. I don’t merely mean the Republicans and the Democrats, but you have to manage hundreds (sometimes thousands) of people, all with their own selfish interests in mind. A truly gifted leader has the ability to maintain his or her own vision while simultaneously respecting the goals and views of their opponents. If you want examples, study Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Most leaders are not truly gifted. If they are merely good, they possess the ability to steer a steady course in order to keep our country safe from harm, whether that harm comes from internal or external forces.

Donald Trump has demonstrated that he is completely bereft of these characteristics. He is a petty bully when he feels attacked, resorting to name-calling and blame displacement that is more befitting an adolescent than an adult. When he is asked about his views on issues of substance, he often dodges the questions, resorting to slogans and shallow political rhetoric to smooth over his very obvious deficiencies in his knowledge of political affairs.

He is capricious in the making of promises that have no chance of ever being kept. There is no practical way that we will ever build a wall along our southern border and compel Mexico to pay for it. There is no pragmatic way that we can ever start a trade war with China without suffering major financial repercussions. There is no legal or ethical way we can ever ban an entire religion from entering this country.

There are many other objections I have to Mr. Trump, but we don’t have enough time to go into all of them.

The other major red flag I will discuss here is the fact that Trump refuses to release his tax returns. It is pro forma for all presidential candidates to disclose their financial records to the public. Trump has made it clear that he refuses to do so. He blames an IRS audit for this, but that is a dodge. An audit does not prevent anyone from making their tax returns available for public scrutiny.

One of the biggest reasons that Trump inspires his supporters is because they believe that he is a rich man who creates jobs and builds things. Trump is, by nature, a braggart. If his tax returns would flatter his image as a self-made billionaire, he would release them in a heartbeat. Moreover, he wouldn’t just casually release them. He’d throw them in the faces of his skeptics, adding his middle finger to boot.

Yet, his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, recently indicated that the Trump campaign had no intention of releasing his tax returns during the current cycle. I’m sure there are sound reasons for this. I believe that, if he were to show them to the public, we would learn a good deal about his finances that would not flatter his not-so-carefully crafted façade as an economic stimulator.

I am sad to say that many people who voted for Trump in the primaries were not smart. They chose not to employ their critical thinking skills, choosing instead to fall for his populist line of bs. After he became the Republican nominee, many who did not initially support him came reluctantly over to his camp. This is not because of his skills of persuasion, but rather, they are taking a desperate stand against the alternative to Trump, Hillary Clinton.

From an experience perspective, Hillary has Trump beat hands down. She was the First Lady for eight years, a senator from New York for six years and she spent four years as Secretary of State. Yet, many people on both sides of the aisle view her resume as a weakness. They believe that Hillary represents a broken and corrupt system that badly needs to be reformed. She does very little in her conduct to effectively counter this image.

Hillary badly mishandled the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, she put our national security at risk by storing classified E-mail messages on her private server, then blatantly lied to the public, the press and FBI investigators in order to cover it up. The recent revelations that the DNC tried to stack the deck against Bernie Sanders came as no surprise to me. I am hard pressed to think that Hillary didn’t have a hand in it.

The feminist fanfare about Hillary shattering the glass ceiling by being the first woman nominee for president rings hollow with me. Her husband, former President Clinton, is a proven sexual predator. I firmly believe that she enabled and covered up his atrocious behavior, thereby putting many women in jeopardy, in order to advance her career. I have no doubt that she will perpetuate Obama’s liberal agenda for the country by appointing left-of-center Supreme Court justices, by federally funding abortion and by adding to our already staggering national debt.

I’ve heard a few Republicans say that they would rather bite the bullet and vote for Hillary, rather than support Trump. Frankly, I don’t know how any self-respecting Republican could ever pull the lever for Hillary. Trump exemplifies the stark fact that desperation makes people do crazy things. Whatever the case, I am too conservative for this option. In these perilous times, I could be persuaded to vote for a moderate Democrat, but such a breed doesn’t exist anymore, thanks largely to Bernie Sanders. At any rate, Hillary sure ain’t it.

Many Trump supporters have tried to pressure me to change my mind, invoking the anti-Hillary arguments. Sometimes, their attacks have become personal. One Trump supporter called me, “Narrow-minded,” because I refuse to back Trump.

I am not an inflexible person. I have made compromises in the voting booth in spite of my conservative world view. In 2008, I supported John McCain for president, even though he was not my first, nor second, nor third choice during the primaries. I disagreed with his stance on immigration, manmade global warming and campaign finance reform. That said, I believed that, at his core, he was a Republican who cared about the welfare of our country.

In 2012, I voted for Mitt Romney, even though his involvement with socialized healthcare in Massachusetts and his past pro-choice views made me nervous. Once again, I perceived Romney as a decent person who would do what was best for the country.

But for me, Donald Trump is a bridge too far. He is an opportunistic, narcissistic bully with no real sense of what it takes to serve as the leader of the free world. Bill Kristol, a political pundit and father of the Never Trump movement, has a saying that I have found to be accurate. “Trumpism corrupts.” He is saying that Trump’s bad behavior has infected, not only the leaders of the Republican Party, but his supporters as well. If the high-pressure tactics of those who show a preference of the stick to the carrot is any indication, Kristol is dead right.

Trump’s tactics may have been effective in the primaries when the voters were fragmented between 17 candidates, but they have only served to backfire on him since the Indiana primary. Instead of instigating and provoking, Trump should be wooing disaffected members of the conservative base, as well as right-leaning independents. The fact that neither Ted Cruz nor John Kasich would endorse him is very telling.

He should have made amends with Ted Cruz, thereby courting his endorsement at the GOP convention in Cleveland. Instead, his supporters tried to bully Cruz once again from the floor, only to discover that it was all for not. Cruz refused to endorse Trump, gaining my respect along with many other rock-ribbed conservatives. Even though the convention was hosted in Cleveland, Ohio Governor John Kasich refused to attend, declining an opportunity to associate himself with Trump’s antics.

As we head into the final three months of the campaign, Republicans now find themselves weathering one gratuitous controversy after another as Donald Trump attacks judges of Hispanic heritage, Gold Star families who happen to be Muslim and babies at his rallies. I don’t even want to talk about Putin. I understand that many want to shake up the political establishment in Washington D.C., but Trump is a walking, talking hand grenade who serves as the wrong kind of disruption.

This is the dilemma our country now faces. We get to choose which poison we’d rather drink. Would you rather sip a cyanide shake, or arsenic juice? I choose neither. My party affiliation creates no obligation for me to vote for any candidate, particularly when he (and many of his supporters) presume that they are entitled to my favors.

I was praying that a viable third-party alternative would emerge before the Republican convention, but my hopes have been repeatedly dashed. I investigated Gary Johnson, but in these troubling times of ISIS and the fatally flawed Iran nuclear deal, I feel the libertarian approach of non-intervention is willfully naive. So, I will do what Ronald Reagan did in 1976 and leave the presidential contest blank when I go to vote in November.

To my Trump-supporting comrades who would accuse me of a proxy vote for Hillary, nice try. That is a manipulation tactic worthy of The Donald, but it is not a positive argument in favor of a candidate. It was appropriate in 2008 when I cast a pro-McCain vote that was really anti-Obama, but it won’t fly this time. Trump is just too unstable to be given the nuclear codes. Yes, I remember Marco Rubio’s words, even if he doesn’t.

You asked whether or not I still consider myself a Republican. The answer is a hesitant, yes. I’m not ready to leave the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan just yet. That said, I am particularly angry at the way the GOP silenced descent on the floor of our convention two weeks ago when the anti-Trump delegates tried to have their say. I will remember those actions with bitter irony the next time some GOP official is censored from speaking on a college campus.

Despite our recent difficulties (which were largely self-inflicted), I still believe that the GOP is the best apparatus to keep this country on the right track. If we are still in chaos four years from now, I will give up my long-held Republican registration and become an Independent until such time as a viable conservative third party can be established.

Finally, Sai, let me slip briefly back into my role as your instructor. You’re in college now and you indicated to me that the pervasive sentiment on your college campus is liberal. I won’t presume to tell you how to think. I can only give you the facts as I see them and let you draw your own conclusions. Any good teacher or friend who truly cares about you will adopt this same approach. The structured discovery method is the best, whether we’re talking about cane travel, or life in general.

That said, the reason that the Democrat party is being pulled to the left is due to Bernie Sanders; a self-described socialist. Many of your professors and fellow students agree with the core tenants of socialism. I strongly urge you to employ your critical thinking skills that I know you have and analyze socialism.

When Bernie Sanders says that he wants to make college free for all, is it possible? I submit to you that there is no such thing. Someone, somewhere, will always have to pay the bill, whether it’s for college, entitlement benefits such as Food Stamps, or mass transit in a big city like Denver. When Bernie Sanders talks about breaking up the banks, is that something that a president should be allowed to do? When he talks about defunding the military, do you think Russia and ISIS would welcome such a thing?

Then, ask yourself, your friends and your teachers where socialism has succeeded in the world. I’ll give you a hint; take a hard look at Venezuela.

I appreciate your questions, Sai. You were a joy to work with two years ago and I hope you are well now. I apologize that this was so long, but I wanted to give you as thorough an explanation as possible.

Take care, Sai, and please do keep in touch.

Your friend and former instructor,

Osentowski!