Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The World and the Handbasket Are Already in Hell

Since the epidemic of school and other random shootings in the last ten years, I've heard a lot of people commenting on how the world is "going to hell in a handbasket" i.e. that society is sliding further and further downhill. In fact, it seems to be the general consensus that the 20th century was pretty much the turning point in the whole of human history, triggering tighter restrictions on everything from guns on down. I won't say that all of these were bad. Hell thats what laws are for. Sometimes you really do need to limit people for their own good. What I object to is this notion that the decay of society has only recently begun in the industrial age and in concert with decline of organized religion.

*cue dramatic music* Newsflash: people have been doing random crazy shit for thousands of years. This is not new. Look back through history and you will find many legitimate accounts of everything we have today, serial killers, mass murders etc. It's all been done before. The major differences are the speed with which the media can disseminate news of these sorts of things, thereby making them far more common knowledge than in the past, and the advent of weapons that increase body counts exponentially in a single incident. Other than that, nothing has really changed.

Is the way we did things a hundred years ago, two hundred years ago, three hundred years ago really any different than the way we do things now? Think about it. For a while there, until very recently, everyone thought that we were all so civilized. Now all of a sudden, this is the shittiest that civilization has ever been. Oh really?

You know, once upon time, not so long ago, we had public executions anybody could attend like it was a carnival, bring the kiddies and root the hangman on, take a souvenir.

Over two thousand years ago, it was considered a sport to toss someone in a ring with a lion or other vicious wild animal and watch him die. They built a stadium for it in Rome and thousands of people would come to watch.

Gilles de Rais, Jack the Ripper, Elizabeth Bathory: These are serial killers from the 15th, 19th and 16th centuries. De Rais killed about a hundred people. Elizabeth Bathory killed roughly 600 over a period of 8 or so years. No serial killer in the last 50 years has come close to that body count.

Slavery: enough said. I'm not just talking about Africans in America, but slavery has been an ongoing theme throughout human history. The Jews by the Egyptians, pretty much everyone by Rome. The Greeks had slaves. Viking peoples had slaves. The list goes on and on. Most of us have pretty much agreed that this is wrong, but it continues to this day, having only gone underground so that it's perpetrators can avoid prosecution.

Anyone ever heard the term pederasty? in ancient Greece, this was a relationship between grown men and adolescent boys outside their families that was often sexual. That's right. Greek men cornered the market on child sexual abuse about 2 millennia before Catholic priests.

Genocide: Europeans tried to do it with indigenous American people and the Nazis tried to do it with Jewish people. There is about 500 years between these two occurrences, which are not by any means the only ones. Both are peppered with incidents of mass murder far outstripping anything we've seen in the last 30 years.

These are just a few examples. If anyone lamenting the woes of contemporary society actually took the time to shut up and read a book, they'd see the things that used to happen are pretty much on par with things that happen now. If people think that human life has no value presently, they should take a look at what rich people and people in power could do to someone considered of no consequence, not only do it, but do it and get away it in many instances.

So the next time someone starts whining about not knowing what the world is coming to I'm going to strangle them. I am so tired of hearing that. The world is coming to the same thing its been coming to for about 5000 years.

Where the hell have these people have been living that any of this comes as a surprise?

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

S-y-F-y? W-T-F?!

I am a geek. I make no bones about. I love all things geek. Star Trek, Star Wars, comic book movies, Sword and Sorcery fantasy novels, World of Warcraft, anime . . . I could go on.

This love of all thing dorky, of course extends to SciFi movies and t.v. shows. One of my staple channels for this genre of geekery is the Sci Fi Channel. . . or it used to be, anyway. That changed right around the time the network changed to the spelling of it's name to SyFy. That's right. S-y-F-y. They are basically spelling it phonetically now. And to that I say "wtf?!"

Perhaps I 'm making a stereotypical generalization here, but most geeks tend to be intelligent people. Hell, some of them are highly intelligent. Think Bill Gates or Stephen Hawking. These are two of the most famous nerds in the world and they're filthy ass rich from being ridiculously smart.

That being said, I do think that either one of them, or any other geek, would know the correct spelling of the abbreviation for science fiction. So why the hell would the good people over at the SciFi channel purposely seek to spell it incorrectly? My only guess as to the reasoning behind this is in order to attract a more mainstream audience; to make the name cool and hip so that the ratings "in" crowd watches the channel.

I have just one question: since when is it cool and hip to be illiterate? Is the network gearing up to become the BET of science fiction? Seriously, their original movies were always godawful. But I for one was willing to let such classics as Mansquito slide because there were good reruns and original series. Hell, they were even occasionally able to get a hold of a good movie or two. But this ridiculous name change is enough to drive me away from the channel completely. I cringe every time I see it. Who's dumb ass idea was it to attract one audience by completely alienating another?

Forget for a second that spelling SciFi phonetically is an insult to my and many other peoples' intelligence, but what the hell does that say about what the network thinks of the mainstream viewership? Do we have a nation of George W. Bushs out there trying to figure out what the want to watch on Friday night? Newflash: they probably don't want to watch Battlestar Galactica.

The channel was designed to attract a niche audience, that niche being. . . wait for it. . . geeks! That was the whole point. Everything isn't for everyone. Take the show Frasier. It was a spin-off of Cheers featuring the Frasier Crane character and his family. I'll admit, it had its high-toned moments and not everyone liked it. That was partially because it was intelligent humor and sometimes you would miss the jokes if you weren't familiar with a particular reference. But that was alright. Because the show had a target audience that loved it just the way it was.

If the SciFi is having a problem with attracting core geek audiences maybe they need to pick up some more viable geek fare instead of taking the low road of just trying to pull in any and everyone.

There used to be great reruns on the SciFi Channel. Dark Shadows, Quantum Leap, the original Star Trek, Forever Knight. Now, for some reason, ECW is on there. What the HELL does ECW have to do with science fiction?! What's next? NASCAR? Don't get me wrong. NASCAR is fine for whoever enjoys it. But it doesn't belong anywhere in the vicinity of Eureka and Ghost Hunters.

The SciFi channel has been going downhill for a while. This name change might just be the last straw for me. I don't want to abandon it, but. . . damn. If Chiller ever gets its shit together I'm out. As much as I want my geek fix, I'm not willing to lower my IQ to get it.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Dear Daytime T.V. . .

I don't know quite how to say this. We've been together for a long time, but. . . . I think it's time we went our separate ways. Wait. . . . let me finish.

I remember when I first saw you. In second grade, the teacher used to bring the t.v. into the classroom so we could watch Sesame Street while we ate lunch. I think that's when it began, when I started to fall in love with you. Then there were all those youthful summers when I discovered everything you had to offer: gameshows, soap operas, 8 gazillion talk shows, reruns of classic t.v. During the school year, I used to look forward to holidays and sick days where we could spend time together; just you, me and Jerry Springer.

But lately, Daytime t.v.. . . . . you've changed. I don't feel like I know you at all anymore. *sigh* I guess it all began when the soap operas started recycling story lines. I was willing to let that slide and did for quite a while. I mean, we've been together so long, Daytime t.v,. and relationships are all about give and take. I figured that you were just going through a rough patch and I just needed to hang in there while you took some time to get yourself together.

Then every Maury Povich Show started being about paternity test results. I really wasn't happy about that, but I didn't know how to tell you. I guess you thought you were doing the right thing and giving me what I wanted. I didn't want to hurt your feelings.

But, Daytime t.v., when Bob Barker retired from The Price is Right, I knew we had a problem. It was like you didn't care what I wanted, like you were going to do any old thing you pleased and to hell with me.

It was all down hill from there what with the proliferation of courtroom shows and random B-list celebrity talk shows. There are no more cartoons in the afternoons. Mr. Rogers is gone AND you changed the theme song to Sesame Street. Wtf? Also, who in hell is Judge Karen? It's not like there aren't enough judges already. What's happening to you, Daytime t.v.?!

*Cry* I thought long and hard about this decision before I made it. After much soul searching, I truly think it's the right thing to do. I just don't care about you the way I used to anymore. I love you but I'm not IN love with you. We're different people now and it's time we moved on from each other. I-I. . . . I'm seeing Netflix now.

I know you may not wanna hear this, but you'll find someone else. Someone who'll love you the way you deserve to be loved. Please don't make this harder for me by begging. Yes, I know Inside Edition is still on, but that's just not good enough for me anymore. We can still be friends. I'll come by and see you every now and again.

For now, I just want to remember the good times. . . . The Bozo Show, Jenny Jones, Let's Make a Deal, Oprah (when she was good). . . .

Trust me, it's better this way.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Nursing Homes: For When You Want Someone to Care of Your Elderly, But Don't Want It To Be You

My grandmother has had three debilitating strokes. Before them, she was a spry lady in her 60s. She gardened, concocted all sorts of homemade goodies, attended church regularly. Each successive stroke took away more and more of her independence. Primarily homebound before her last stroke, if she survives this latest (and most devastating one) it is a certainty that she will never be able to live alone again.

And so the debate has begun among her offspring and grandoffspring regarding what may potentially be done regarding her future. Of course, home care is preferred by all involved, but private home care is expensive and medicare is cheaper than a two-dollar whore when it comes to springing for, well. . . anything. Gotta love that bargain basement medical insurance. Verily, it is the Costco of health care; only the government jacks a lot more than $100 a year out of everyone's check to pay for it. You would think we could at least get a complementary crate of generic Vicodin at that price, but noo-oooo. . .

Anyway, since none of us are living a swimming-pool/movie-stars liftstyle at the moment and Medicare will only pay for a caregiver for 20 minutes every six months, some mention has naturally been made of *gasp* a nursing home.

Now, to some people, a nursing facility doesn't really sound like a bad idea. But where some people hear "assisted living" and think of smiling nurses leading elderly sing-a-longs in a sunny rec room, I associate it with being locked in your room until you die.

Ok, so that might be a bit of an exaggeration. But I only had to visit someone in a nursing home once to know that I would never allow any of my loved ones to be plopped in there, let alone ever find myself one. Frankly, I'd rather be taken out back and shot Old Yeller style. Much quicker and less boring.

I mean, let's think about it for a second. This isn't "retirement" as some folks would phrase it. Retirement is when you stop working and start arguing with clerks at the grocery store about 10 cent coupons on $3 items then go home and go to sleep at 7pm because you don't have anything else to do. It's when you drive 30 mph everywhere you go because you're not in any particular hurry to get anywhere anymore. Retirement is not being shoved away like some ugly Christmas sweater and forgotten about until someone wonders aloud about whatever happened to that sweater they gave you.

Now some people might argue that this isn't their intention at all, that its all about the welfare of their elderly loved one. Pfft. Let someone hand you that line in about 40 years when you're trapped in a place that won't let you have salt and see how you like it.

It's one thing if a family is just not equipped to care for their relative, quite another if they feel like they're just too busy. Somewhere n the midst of everyday life, we all find enough time to do ten or twenty meaningless things. You mean to tell me we can't find enough time to sponge bath grandpa and make him some dinner? I'm sure there were plenty of times during everyone's childhood where their mom and dad would much rather have been playing Guitar Hero (well, Pac Man if you want to nitpicky about timelines) than helping us with our homework; but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do when you have responsibilities.

Are people so willing to entrust the care of the people that cared for them to total strangers? Now, I'm not trying to knock CNAs and LPNs and other folks that work in nursing homes. I know a couple and it takes a hell of a person to clean up the shit of someone they barely know. But they are underpaid and overworked. The average salary is $20,000 a year. . . IF they're lucky. Baristas at Starbuck's make this without having to change any adult diapers. What the hell is up with our priorities when we pay the same amount of money to the person making our coffee as we do to the person who makes sure grandma doesn't fall and break her hip?

I'm just sayin' is all. . .

One thing is for sure, if I ever end up in a nursing home, my kids are out the will.