Spanning its world

Gleanings from Sunday's Times.

Idolastic
It's interesting that Ed Wyatt, in his look at the impact of the writer's strike on TV programming come the new year--You Couldn’t Write This Stuff: TV Reality Sets In-- doesn't mention the most obvious outcome: Viewers itching for non-reruns are likely to turn to American Idol in astonishing numbers. If FOX can find a few contestants as talented as the Chris Daughtry/Taylor Hicks/Elliott Yamin/Paris Bennett year, watch out.

Of the new reality shows Wyatt profiles, only this caught my eye:

Among the new reality offerings is “Oprah’s Big Give,” a contest on ABC sponsored by Oprah Winfrey to see who can give away large sums of money to society’s greatest benefit. ABC has long planned to have the series premiere in early 2008, but its potential effect on the network’s ratings is now more important than ever, given that the network’s most successful shows will be appearing in reruns.

False Idols
It struck me as odd that Ted Leonsis, an AOL executive who I previously knew only as an odd owner of the Washington Capitals and part-owner of the Washington Wizards, had made Nanking, a documentary about the mass rape and massacre of Chinese civilians in Nanking by the Japanese shortly before the beginning of WWII.

Why is Ted interested in this topic?

Is he married to an Asian-American? Not that I could find.

Does he have business interests in China, that he's hoping to further by doing the bidding of the Chinese government in the U.S.--like Rupert Murdoch does? Not that I could find.

Hmm, maybe he's an enlightened soul, interested in exposing Americans to Chinese history so we can understand key things about the second most important country in the world, like why the Chinese government, in a series of pre-Olympic programs, needs to make four major points:

Don't insult former wartime enemy Japan; don't swear; respect the referee; and don't snap indiscriminate photos.

Or, it could just be a form of self-worship.

“Nanking,” directed by Bill Guttentag and Dan Sturman and scheduled for release on Wednesday, recounts the Nanking massacre, or the Rape of Nanking, a months-long siege on the former Chinese capital by the Japanese Army that began in December 1937. Despite the efforts of a handful of Americans and Germans to create a safety zone for the protection of Nanking’s civilian population, the Japanese soldiers showed scant mercy. By the end of the occupation in March 1938, it is estimated that some 300,000 civilians and prisoners of war were killed and more than 20,000 women raped.

Like many Americans Mr. Leonsis was unaware of these events for much of his life. Three years ago he read an obituary of Iris Chang, author of “The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II,” who committed suicide in November 2004. Haunted by the account, Mr. Leonsis bought her book, as well as two others about the Westerners who attempted to protect the citizens of Nanking, and set out to make a film about the events.

“At a time when Americans are not looked at fondly around the world,” he said, “here’s people that are called gods and goddesses. But their memories haven’t echoed through history, and I wanted to tell that story.”

Jingle jangle
There's an interesting article about interfaith marriages around the holidays... well, interfaith if, as the Times does, you define it to mean Christian/Jewish:

It is a familiar problem, widely known as the December dilemma: the annual conflict faced by millions of adults in interfaith marriages over how to decorate homes, how and when to give gifts, and which rituals to celebrate.

As of 2001, more than 28 million Americans lived in mixed-religion households, according to the American Religious Identification Survey, which is widely viewed as providing some of the best data on the subject. Of those households, the largest group of interfaith marriages (distinct from interdenominational Christian ones) was Christian-Jewish, and few types of couples seem to experience the December dilemma as acutely as they do.

Anyway, there's this interesting paragraph about a third of the way through, which really would seem to warrant its own article:

But even sultry jazz versions of Christmas standards can alienate someone who does not celebrate the holiday, a concern frequently overlooked by those who grow up Christian and never experience the isolation of being part of a religious minority.

I think you can use a stronger word than overlooked--like dismissed.

English teachers rejoice
It's often surprising what people know, what sticks in their brain, what comes out at unexpected moments. Here's a quote from a friend of Sean Taylor, the Washington Redskins player who was so tragically slain in his home recently, from Taylor’s Heart of Kindness Might Have Left Him Vulnerable :

“To me, Sean was like Achilles, because he was this incredible warrior who could run through a brick wall, but these small things brought him down,” said Matt Sinnreich, 21, one of Taylor’s close friends since high school. “He was shot in the leg, not the heart or the head or anything. And he was just too nice. That ended up to be a huge weakness. We learned that the hard way.”

Juliet Macur's piece has lots of other nice touches, like this:

In school, Taylor was a star, though he never acted like one, friends and coaches said. And there, he fell in love. The day he met Garcia, a soccer standout, he ran home and told his grandmother that he had to learn Spanish to impress a girl. He came to enjoy the company of her large, tight-knit Cuban family. ...

Caught his eye
The thing about the Times is you never know what kind of article you'll find in its myriad Sunday sections. There's a profile of Kevin Sessums in the Real Estate pages, A Crisis Sent Him Away; Another Drew Him Home, for example, that really could've been in Book Review, Arts--or a political page.

Two interesting things stick out from the piece:

Mr. Sessums was pleased that he had pulled off a hat trick. He had three small apartments instead of one big one. “And I was paying about the same amount of money,” he said. “I set up my closets so I could just get on a plane and arrive and not have to carry a suitcase. Everything was set up everywhere. I did that for almost two years. It was like a fairy tale, and the fairy tale came crashing down on Sept. 11.”

He was in Paris on that day when an old boyfriend in New York, the AIDS activist Peter Staley, called and told him to turn on CNN. “I sat there for 48 hours; I had real separation anxiety,” he said. “That experience sent a lot of people away from the city, but it brought me back. Within 48 hours, I had decided to give up my apartment in Paris and come home. I was very homesick.” ...

Shortly after returning to New York, Mr. Sessums volunteered to be a buddy to Brandon Gonzalez, an 8-year-old boy from Brooklyn, through the Family Center, which specializes in helping children whose parents have life-threatening illnesses.

“I’m a mentor, not a tutor, so we do things like go to museums and the theater, and he spends a week with me in Provincetown every summer,” he said.

“I never thought I would be a 51-year-old homosexual in New York, and the two most important relationships in my life would be with a 13-year-old Puerto Rican kid and a 3-year-old Chihuahua,” said Mr. Sessums, a wide grin spreading across his devilishly handsome face.

8, 13; boy, dog; whatever... clearly Sessums isn't good with certain things, but there's something about him as profiled that's very likeable.

Timesian
We close with what could be the archetypical NYTimes feature--the magazine's yearly roundup of some of the best 'idea's of the year.

How arrogant, how ill-defined, how silly, how interesting.

80%?! Where were the reporters then?!
The Death of Checkers: This July, Jonathan Schaeffer, a computer scientist at the University of Alberta in Canada, announced that after running a computer program almost nonstop for 18 years, he had calculated the result of every possible endgame that could be played, all 39 trillion of them. He also revealed a sober fact about the game: checkers is a draw. As with tic-tac-toe, if both players never make a mistake, every match will end in a deadlock.

Schaeffer did not solve checkers by replicating human intuition or game-playing ability. Rather, he employed what’s known as a “brute force” attack. He programmed a cluster of computers to play out every possible position involving 10 or fewer pieces. At the peak of his labors, he had 200 computers working around the clock on the problem, both in Alberta and down in California. (The data requirements were so high that for a while in the early ’90s, more than 80 percent of the Internet traffic in western North America was checkers data being shipped between two research institutions.)

So why did they eliminate pants?
Left-Hand-Turn Elimination : It seems that sitting in the left lane, engine idling, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so you can make a left-hand turn, is minutely wasteful — of time and peace of mind, for sure, but also of gas and therefore money. Not a ton of gas and money if we’re talking about just you and your Windstar, say, but immensely wasteful if we’re talking about more than 95,000 big square brown trucks delivering packages every day. And this realization — that when you operate a gigantic fleet of vehicles, tiny improvements in the efficiency of each one will translate to huge savings overall — is what led U.P.S. to limit further the number of left-hand turns its drivers make.

The company employs what it calls a “package flow” software program, which among other hyperefficient practices involving the packing and sorting of its cargo, maps out routes for every one of its drivers, drastically reducing the number of left-hand turns they make (taking into consideration, of course, those instances where not to make the left-hand turn would result in a ridiculously circuitous route).

Last year, according to Heather Robinson, a U.P.S. spokeswoman, the software helped the company shave 28.5 million miles off its delivery routes, which has resulted in savings of roughly three million gallons of gas and has reduced CO2 emissions by 31,000 metric tons.

Can I buy this?
Self-Righting Object: The Gomboc is a result of a long mathematical quest. In 1995, the Russian mathematician Vladimir Arnold mused that it would be possible to create a “mono-monostatic” object — a three-dimensional thingy that purely by dint of its geometry had only one possible way to balance upright.

The challenge intrigued two scientists — Gabor Domokos and Peter Varkonyi, both of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. They spent a few years doing the math, and it seemed as if a mono-monostatic object could, in fact, exist. They began looking to see if they could find a naturally occurring example; at one point, Domokos was so obsessed that he spent hours testing 2,000 pebbles on a beach to see if they could right themselves. (None could.)

After several more years of scratching their heads, they finally hit upon a shape that looked promising. They designed it on a computer, and when it came back from the manufacturer, they nervously tipped it over, wondering if all their work would be for naught. Nope: the Gomboc performed perfectly. “It’s a very nice mathematical problem because you can hold the proof in your hands — and it’s quite beautiful,” Varkonyi says.

Yet the scientists now say that Mother Nature may have beaten them in the race after all. They have noticed that the Gomboc closely resembles the shell of a tortoise or a beetle, creatures whose round-shelled backs help them right themselves when flipped over. “We discovered it with mathematics,” Domokos notes, “but evolution got there first.”

Don't let Rep. Peter King hear about this
24/7 Alibi: Nine months after 9/11, Hasan Elahi, an art professor at Rutgers University, was detained at the Detroit airport after the F.B.I. received a bogus tip that he had stockpiled explosives in a storage locker. Six months of interrogations and nine polygraph tests later, the F.B.I. let him go. (The F.B.I. declined to comment.) But Elahi wasn’t ready to let go of the F.B.I. In a sly swipe at the surveillance system that botched his case, Elahi has self-consciously, if a bit ostentatiously, surrendered his privacy via a personal Web site. He has an alibi now — a perpetual one.

The project — part performance art, part post-trauma therapy — began as a practical matter. After his release, Elahi, who travels frequently as part of his job, contacted the F.B.I., letting it know his plans in advance. After a few months of this, he had an idea. “Why not share this information with everyone?” he remembers thinking. He began posting logs of his phone calls and pictures of his whereabouts. Up went his banking statements. He took to revealing the coordinates of his exact location on his Web site in real time. He snaps time-stamped digital images and uploads them.

Does everyone leave?
Unadapted Theatrical Adaptation: This year, John Collins, the cerebral leader of the experimental New York theater company Elevator Repair Service, offered a radical solution: adapt without adapting.

Collins mounted a production of “The Great Gatsby” without cutting a single word. “Gatz,” which refers to Jay Gatsby’s original name, is the most faithful version of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s book ever produced.

Despite the low-tech production and lack of period details, the show does not seem like a stunt, although it is at least partly inspired by the anticomedian Andy Kaufman’s stand-up routine in which he read “Gatsby” until everyone left.

Mixing it up

Gleanings from Sunday's NYTimes:

A War on Every Screen, A.O. Scott:

There are other stories to tell and other ways to tell them, and Hollywood, in spite of its reputation for liberal bias, does not like to risk alienating potential ticket buyers by taking sides. This fear may be misplaced, since the highest-grossing Iraq-related movie released is also among the most polemical, Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11.” But it is remarkable that nondocumentary filmmakers consistently draw the boundary between fact and fiction in such a way that the most vexed political event of our time has its political meaning blunted.

Instead the movies supply emotion, sentiment, metaphor and abstraction. Even those bloody Iraqis at the end of “Redacted” function as symbols, since we know nothing about who they were or how they died. In other Iraq movies, including quite a few documentaries, the local population is almost entirely invisible. Films set in other contemporary war zones — Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, wherever “Rendition” is supposed to take place — manage to include more Arab and Muslim characters, but their function tends to be symbolic as well.

I think if you want perpetual war in the real world, a good way to ensure that is to pat yourself on the back for making and watching films set in other countries, while continuing to see the residents of those countries as backdrop.

Where Gods Yearn for Long-Lost Treasures, Nicolai Ouroussoff:

When this museum in Athens opens next year, hundreds of marble sculptures from the old Acropolis museum alongside the Parthenon will finally reside in a place that can properly care for them. Missing, however, will be more than half of the surviving Parthenon sculptures, the Elgin Marbles, so called since they were carted off to London by Lord Elgin in the early 19th century.

Britain’s government maintains that they legally belong to the British Museum and insists that they will never be returned. The Greeks naturally argue that they belong in Athens.

Until now my sympathies tended to lie with the British. Most of the world’s great museum collections have some kind of dubious deals in their pasts. Why bother untangling thousands of years of imperialist history? Wise men avert their eyes and move on.

But by fusing sculpture, architecture and the ancient landscape into a forceful visual narrative, the New Acropolis Museum delivers a revelation that trumps the tired arguments and incessant flag waving by both sides. It’s impossible to stand in the top-floor galleries, in full view of the Parthenon’s ravaged, sun-bleached frame, without craving the marbles’ return.

Maybe a more accurate headline for Ouroussoff's piece would've been: Keep Your Mouth Shut Until I Yearn for Your Long-Lost Treasure.

A Teenager in Love (So-Called), Ginia Bellafante:

Television gives us teenage lust exercised or teenage lust repressed but rarely does it evoke the way young people translate their carnal urges into something they understand as a deeper abiding affection. “My So-Called Life” is essentially a study of a young mind processing desire into something less terrifying and more easily justified — substantiating it with false hopes — and in that regard it is more than a good TV show, it is a good TV show that attains the dimension and complexity of literature. The great postwar novels of adolescence deal with innocence lost; “My So-Called Life” deals with innocence sustained, but it offers a no-less-illuminating view of what it is to be young because of it.

The series, created by Winnie Holzman for the producers Ed Zwick and Marshall Hershkovitz, all of whom had worked on “Thirtysomething,” arrived before television began catering so aggressively to teenage tastes. Perhaps its morose and ragged appeal is best appreciated against the backdrop of what followed, an endless stream of teenage dramas — some good, some awful — that both recall and point it up as an essay embalmed in time about a way of being 15 that no one will ever experience again.

The balance of the review is the kind of self-indulgent sloppy valentine that makes you cringe when read in print, even if you happen to share Bellafante's enthusiasm for Claire Danes' "acting". Still, it's nice to see MSCL appreciated all over again, on the anniversary of the release of what sounds like the definitive DVD collection.

She’s Famous (and So Can You), Guy Trebay. Buried halfway through Trebay's uncharacteristically-interesting article--about Tila Tequila not Stephen Colbert (not that you'd be able to guess from the headline)--is this:

By the standards of the new “Jackass” landscape, traditional stardom, with its career building stations-of-the-cross, its rigid talent requirements, its “Entourage” shtick, seems clunky and out of step with a culture so much more fluid now that a hit record — like the recent Internet sensation “I’ll Kill Him,” by Soko — could emerge from a young French woman’s bedroom and MySpace page.

It turns out the song is actually I'll Kill Her--below--and it's pretty good. Although I wonder now that we live in the age of say everything anytime whether the kick of the song's title and lyrics exists for fewer and fewer of us.



Trebay's piece is worth reading; there's this:

When Jake Halpern set out to write “Fame Junkies,” his book about what is now a universal obsession with celebrity, he was surprised to uncover studies demonstrating that 31 percent of American teenagers had the honest expectation that they would one day be famous and that 80 percent thought of themselves as truly important. (The figure from the same study conducted in the 1950s was 12 percent.)

“Obviously people have been having delusions of grandeur since the beginning of time, but the chances of becoming well known were much slimmer” even five years ago than they are today, Mr. Halpern said. “There are an incredibly large number of venues for becoming known. Talent is not a prerequisite.”

And it ends with this:

“Whether you think Tila Tequila is corny or not, she already has a certain legitimacy to her name,” said Roger Gastman, the editor of Swindle magazine, an indie journal and Web site. Its most recent issue has Death and Fame as its theme. Tila Tequila may have “started out very niche, but she has crossed over to the mainstream,” said Mr. Gastman, citing what he termed “a body of work” including a Maxim cover, a hit show, a MySpace page that now links to a site offering guidance on how to become like her. “Tila could probably do signings at comic book conventions forever if she wanted to,” Mr. Gastman said.

And this would undoubtedly suit Ms. Tequila, for whom fame, she said, was never actually so much the goal as was fulfilling her love for acting and dancing and stripping and modeling and singing and, not incidentally, escaping the limited career growth available to someone who not long ago was posing half-naked on car hoods.

“The press and the media have glorified the celebrity thing and brainwashed people to live in that world,” Ms. Tequila said. “People try to stand out for nothing and they end up getting quote-unquote famous. I’m not into that at all. If you’re just into fame for fame, I’m like, ‘O.K., but what are you good at? What can you actually do?’”

Uncredited photo of Tequila via Vietnam.net.

Pay Up, Kid, or Your Igloo Melts, Mireya Navarro:

Like many parents, Mr. Rodriquez, a computer consultant, and his wife, Sarina, 37, a laboratory manager, are adjusting to a world that increasingly requires them to pay for their children’s computer play. Meanwhile, they are trying to figure out whether there is any reason to buy magical powers or virtual sunglasses.

The money-driven aspect of the games, whether involving actual or virtual cash, is becoming a concern for parents and consumer watchdogs as popular game sites like Club Penguin attract millions of new users. The number of unique monthly visitors to Club Penguin more than doubled in the last year, to 4.7 million from 1.9 million, while the traffic on Webkinz.com grew to 6 million visitors from less than 1 million, according to comScore Media Metrix, which tracks online usage.

What a great headline... if you read the rest of the article you find out it's not literally accurate, but it totally captures the story in seven words.

Oscar-gazing

-Observations from the red carpet: J.Lo has quite an interesting outfit, Ryan Seacrest is pretty good as host (although he flashes his temper at his co-hosts who are indeed total imbeciles), Kate Winslett is genuinely cool, a lot of Hollywood stars have no idea how shallow they are, adapting football telestrator technology to Oscar fashion works; and Penelope Cruz is My Fair Lady incarnate.

-The clip of past foreign language film winners is about as affecting a short film as I can remember the Oscars ever showing. Maybe in the 21st century it'll truly become a celebration of the best in world cinema.

-Glad Jennifer Hudson won; wish people would stop thinking American Idol's audience made a mistake not voting for her--most of them didn't watch the show then, so have no idea what they're talking about. It's like going after Michael Jordan's high school coach for not starting him--he simply wasn't ready yet (and Hollywood shouldn't fool itself into thinking the caliber of an Idol winner is so far below that of an Oscar winner--heck, not when the likes of Cuba Gooding Jr. has a gold statue).

-Nice to hear Mandarin again from the stage, as Ruby Yang wins for The Blood of Yingzhou District.

-I'll bet somewhere Bill Clinton can't believe between the two of them, it's Al Gore who's now officially Hollywood royalty. I no longer think, incidentally, that Gore will run for president this year. He looks like a Baldwin brother at this point; you've got to be fit to run (no joke).

-Am now 10-5 in my Oscar pool.

-Watching Ennio Morricone win his honorary Oscar--if Hollywood wasn't so insular he'd have long ago won for The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (or its two sister films); or Once Upon a Time in the West--makes me think not all Oscars are created equal. His caps a long, clearly heartfelt career; just how he holds the Oscar, dispalying it for the crowd, you can tell how very much it means to him. It's interesting watching Clint Eastwood play translator; makes me think about what an unexepected person he is.

-Whoah, Jack with a shaved head could be the poster child for AARP.

-I've always liked Ellen DeGeneres, I'm enjoying her as laid-back yet earnest host so far.

-J.Lo is headed toward Elizabeth Taylor territory, as she introduces the Dreamgirls cast doing some of their songs. Jennifer Hudson shows how much of a difference a little confidence can make, who'd have believed she'd look so comfortable on the world's biggest (for now) stage. Whoa, Beyonce appears out of a literal hole in the stage; it's like Venus appearing out of the sea--nothing beats a live performance, not even at the Oscars.

-In what's got to be one of the nuttiest co-host pairings, Queen Latifa and John Travolta come out and crack wise before announcing an upset in Original Song, I Need to Wake Up, by Melissa Ethridge (I guess the three songs from Dreamgirls split the votes, or else the Academy really is as white and out-of-touch as feared). She thanks her wife--that's gotta be an Oscars first, right? And another heartfelt thanks for Al Gore. Man, centuries from now historians might point to those few hundred voters in Florida as the most important of all time, as much because of the environmental damage the last 6 years as the international relations damage.

-Will Smith tells us the common thread in American cinema is there is no common thread, it's all over the place. It's true of us in every field, actually. Then follows an interesting collection of clips, with the common theme of 'America', which means it's about everything. Followed by--because in Hollywood craft has been replaced by unwitting irony--Kate Winslett. She names The Departed the winner for film editing, which means it'll win best picture/best director I'm guessing. It's a very unHollywood winner, Thelma Schoonmaker; looks like an older woman from any town in America, kindof cool.

-Jodie Foster, with her wonderful only in America accent, introduces the annual clip of Hollywood people who have died. This is always one of the best-made parts of the telecats; Glenn Ford, Don Knotts, Joe Barbera, June Allyson, Maureen Stapleton, Jack Palance, Robert Altman among others....

-Ellen comes back and does a funny bit pretending the show is over, and within schedule. Ah, time for the big four. First, leading actress--all of whom are people I like; Cruz, Dench, Mirren, Streep, Winslett. Mirren, of course, wins. It'd be great if someone did a movie with all five. She's, of course, appropriately British in her remarks; even to her (slightly awkward) toast to the Queen. In the Colonies, no less, so there's no roar of hear, hear from the crowd.

-Back with Ellen vaccuuming up in the front row; heh heh. Out comes a nearly-unrecognizable Reese Witherspoon with long hair. Leo, who's one of my favorite actors--even more so with his environmental activism; Ryan Goslin, who I know nothing about; Peter O'Toole, who's literally from a different era--Lawrence of Arabia was made in another Hollywood; Will Smith who I've also liked; and Forest Whitaker, who I also like, and of course wins. Wow--what a great moment for him. He reads touchingly from notes. He gives such a heartfelt speech about how far he's come that has many of the audience in tears. This is a real, serious moment for him; no flippancy, just absolute sincerity, including when he thanks the people of Uganda, his family and his ancestors.

-Some real heavyweights--Coppola, Lucas, and Spielberg next, to give the Oscar for directing, which means Marty must win. Wow, what talent; they do a funny bit spotlighting Lucas never having won. Scorsese, of course, wins; the crowd goes wild, he's totally animated, and you know this is one of those moments they'll be replaying for years. It's so nice they got his friends up on stage with him; gosh, to be a fly on their wall tonight. He appopriately thanks Andy Lau's original Hong Kong film (which is better in my opinion, this isn't one of his best films); what a class guy, you wish Hollywood could all be like him.

-Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton, with him playing his usual alpha male role, to present best film. And, of course, The Departed gets the Oscar. Really--it wasn't that great of a film; Marty watches, oddly, from backstage as some tone deaf British producer guy accepts and drones on, he really should just hand his time to him. What a strangely deflating end to the evening.

-So it ends, 17 minutes late. I finish 16-8 in my Oscar pool, having picked 5 of the 6 major awards correctly (missed on best supporting actor). I liked Ellen, and am left hopeful that Hollywood still has people who know how to do things properly.

The great movies once upon a time could be counted on be appopriate--things were subtle when they needed to be, epic when called for; the right words in the right places by the right people.

Now, a lot of people are making it up as they go; and it shows. We need more Leos, Kates, Whitakers, Hudsons--and Martys, even in an off year.

Yesterday's world

There's an interesting article in the current New Yorker, Whatever it Takes, about the FOX show '24.'

I've only watched one episode, the season premiere last year, but instantly disliked it--the show struck me as quintessentially Hollywood it that it tried hard to be 'real', but was actually dumb at its core because very few people in Lala land have a sense of things like politics and international relations. It simply felt unconvincing and frenetic to me, and had a clear political agenda to boot.

Based on that viewing, as I wrote about a year ago, and what I've read about the show, I think the show's actually trying to push Americans toward the Bush administration's worldview, namely that unless we both torture people who are the 'obvious' bad guys and exercise unceasing vigilance against those who say they're friends, the terrorists will win and America will lie in ruins. I'd respond it's more likely we'll pull the country down by acting un-American.

Add to this paranoid worldview the artificial device of a ticking clock, and you've made Americans comfortable with a world where driven by adrenaline and fear they're screaming at the 'good guys' to hit the bad guys harder and faster. It's pretty scary that the article finds some viewers of 24, who happen to be servicemembers serving in Iraq, not only buy into 24's worldview but have apparently tried to replicate things they've seen on the show in their day-to-day military actions.

Reading the New Yorker piece you're not surprised to learn that Joel Surnow, the co-creator and executive producer of 24, is a friend of the odious Rush Limbaugh, and a pretty vocal arch-conservative who's well aware of the effect his show has on America's pscyhe.

There's also this telling section:

This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind “24.” Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming. At first, Finnegan—wearing an immaculate Army uniform, his chest covered in ribbons and medals—aroused confusion: he was taken for an actor and was asked by someone what time his “call” was.

In fact, Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. “I’d like them to stop,” Finnegan said of the show’s producers. “They should do a show where torture backfires.”

The meeting, which lasted a couple of hours, had been arranged by David Danzig, the Human Rights First official. Several top producers of “24” were present, but Surnow was conspicuously absent. Surnow explained to me, “I just can’t sit in a room that long. I’m too A.D.D.—I can’t sit still.” He told the group that the meeting conflicted with a planned conference call with Roger Ailes, the chairman of the Fox News Channel. (Another participant in the conference call attended the meeting.) Ailes wanted to discuss a project that Surnow has been planning for months: the début, on February 18th, of “The Half Hour News Hour,” a conservative satirical treatment of the week’s news; Surnow sees the show as offering a counterpoint to the liberal slant of “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”

Ailes, of course, is the former GOP operative who in his day was, along with Lee Atwater, the media brains behind the rise of Reagan and the modern right wing.

The section on Kiefer Sutherland is also interesting:

Afterward, Danzig and Finnegan had an on-set exchange with Kiefer Sutherland, who is reportedly paid ten million dollars a year to play Jack Bauer. Sutherland, the grandson of Tommy Douglas, a former socialist leader in Canada, has described his own political views as anti-torture, and “leaning toward the left.” According to Danzig, Sutherland was “really upset, really intense” and stressed that he tries to tell people that the show “is just entertainment.”

Bono has shown how much impact a celebrity can have in the real world; I wonder if at some point Sutherland will be as vocal personally as his show is on the subject of torture.

Aside from the show's metamessage about torture, there's also, of course, the whole White Male American thing, where Jack Bauer is not only the fulcrum around which everything hangs but also presented as a loner whose America's only hope. Especially ironic given how we've all seen where cowboy politics gets you in today's world.

That aspect is pretty obvious on the screen; it becomes even more so when you look at Surnow himself.

Brian Grazer, an executive producer of “24,” who has primarily produced films, said that “TV guys either get broken by the system, or they get so tough that they have no warmth at all.” Surnow, he said, is “a devoted family man” and “a really close friend.” But when Grazer first met Surnow, he recalled, “I nearly walked out. He was really glib and insulting. I was shocked. He’s a tough guy. He’s a meat-eating alpha male. He’s a monster!” He observed, “Maybe Jack Bauer has some parts of him.”

During three decades as a journeyman screenwriter, Surnow grew increasingly conservative. He “hated welfare,” which he saw as government handouts. Liberal courts also angered him. He loved Ronald Reagan’s “strength” and disdained Jimmy Carter’s “belief that people would be nice to us just because we were humane. That never works.” He said of Reagan, “I can hardly think of him without breaking into tears. I just felt Ronald Reagan was the father that this country needed. . . . He made me feel good that I was in his family.”

Surnow said that he found the Clinton years obnoxious. “Hollywood under Clinton—it was like he was their guy,” he said. “He was the yuppie, baby-boomer narcissist that all of Hollywood related to.” During those years, Surnow recalled, he had countless arguments with liberal colleagues, some of whom stopped speaking to him. “My feeling is that the liberals’ ideas are wrong,” he said. “But they think I’m evil.” Last year, he contributed two thousand dollars to the losing campaign of Pennsylvania’s hard-line Republican senator Rick Santorum, because he “liked his position on immigration.” His favorite bumper sticker, he said, is “Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism & Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything.”

Although he is a supporter of President Bush—he told me that “America is in its glory days”—Surnow is critical of the way the war in Iraq has been conducted. An “isolationist” with “no faith in nation-building,” he thinks that “we could have been out of this thing three years ago.” After deposing Saddam Hussein, he argued, America should have “just handed it to the Baathists and . . . put in some other monster who’s going to keep these people in line but who’s not going to be aggressive to us.” In his view, America “is sort of the parent of the world, so we have to be stern but fair to people who are rebellious to us. We don’t spoil them. That’s not to say you abuse them, either. But you have to know who the adult in the room is.”

Ah, yes--WMAs are the daddies to the world, everybody needs to know who's boss or else. No wonder the show portrays China the way it does.

Oh well; I'm curious how long 24 maintains its popularity. Already, NBC's diverse ensemble drama Heroes has been beating it head to head. America's changing; the clock's ticking against Jack Bauer and his ilk, so Hollywood's one of their last refuges.

Uncredited photo of Sutherland as Bauer found in various spots online.

The Supremes

Caught part of an interesting documentary on PBS about the Supreme Court. Didn't know how bad of a choice William Rehnquist was--seemed like your classic 70s conservative WAM, mad at losing the 60s and looking for a backlash.

Next, they look at Roe v. Wade, with a focus on the newly-appointed Harry Blackmun (Nixon put three justices on the court at around the same time). Who had three daughters.... Classic newscast, Cronkite reporting on Roe v. Wade's decision being announced; well-written, direct copy. Law prof makes the point Blackmun's opinion focused more on doctor's rights than woman's.

Hmm, interesting, Rehnquist was apparently on the short end of a bunch of 8-1 votes, got the nickname the Lone Ranger. My gosh, the court and country sure have changed. I am getting annoyed by the documentary's style of quick cuts, multiple voices running into each other. Bad way to look at a topic like the Supreme Court. Even Sandra Day O'Connor gets one sentence on Rehnquist, and that's it. There are so many talking heads, all erudite--they're trying to weave them all into a coherent narrative, I'm sure things are being taken out of context, things are being bent to make it all come out neatly.

Now they're looking at William Brennan's ability to get 5 votes. Now, a few minutes later, and it's Warren Burger. My gosh, this is really getting to me. They also have this irritating habit of shooting someone wide, then jumping in tight; again, tricky editing, the similar angles make me think it's not two cameras. And now, photo manipulation--they show justices posing for a group shot, then move three of them together to illustrate how they found common ground on a Wainwright v. Sykes. Ugh.

I mean, really, this is meant to give you the veneer of having learned about the Supreme Court, when really, I doubt anyone who doesn't already know the topic is really following or retaining much of anything. Now Reagan is sworn in, by Berger. Hearing Ed Meese talk about him is midly comical, Meese really represented the nadir of Reagan's men.

In comes the conservative tide, which made Nixon look like a liberal (in an odd way he really wasn't a bad guy--they have him telling Rehnquist essentially now that you're on the court you're of course independent, here's some advice, now good luck).

Factoid: Carter appointed more women to the federal courts than all other presidents before him, combined. Reagan's looking for a non-Carter woman for the Court; of course, he finds O'Connor, who I've always liked even though I disagree with many of her views. They bring up her old ties to Rehnquist, not mentioning, oddly enough, that even though she was #2 in their class after him, she wasn't offered any jobs out of law school, and had to start as a secretary.

They show when Berger decided to step down from the court and Rehnquist was nominated to replace him; apparently the media was totally taken by surprise. Ah, Scalia's first appearance--looking oh so young. Rehnquist has already grown into his power, much more at ease than in the early 70s. And Nino--he looks nothing more than a bright, eager young guy, was confirmed 98-0. Rehnquist was confirmed, apparently with a lot of no votes.

Hmm, talking heads say Rehnquist's elevation was greeted well by the other justices, since he ran the court well (in contrast to Berger), and they respected him intellectually. Apparently pretty down-to-earth, efficient, well-liked. And yet--it's Rehnquist we're talking about here!

Soon therafter Marshall and Brennan are gone, then Kennedy, Souter, Thomas join. And the right has its majority, right? Well.... Planned Parenthood vs. Casey is next, I think; sure enough, and maybe I'm just getting used to it, but I think the documentary's pacing has slowed, it's a little better now. Focus now is on O'Connor. Who apparently coaxed, not bullied. How lady-like of her. Sheesh; she's steel, not velvet. Before you know it, Kennedy's voted with O'Connor and Rehnquist has lost another abortion case. Analysts contrast Rehnquist's acceptance of the decision and desire to get on with the work, with Scalia's 'primal scream' of an opinion. Ah, the old Nixonian conservatives vs. the new Reaganites.

They do a thing on federalism; I do think it's interesting how far we've come from the founders, who essentially said let's spell out exactly the powers government should have, because it's obvious that the vast bulk of things are beyond their reach. There's a shot of Rehnquist and his ridiculous Gilbert/Sullivan-inspired four gold stripes on his robe; then it's off to their shot at overturning Miranda.

Wow, they got John Roberts to talk; he says something general about the chief justice's role impacting your views when you move from associate to chief, he even specifically cites the Dickerson case they're focusing on.

Hmm, seems like they're already summing up the Rehnquist court; they assert for the most part, the nation approved--citing a poll that most of the public expressed confidence in the court. Well, sure, as an institution.

And then--Florida, and Bush v. Gore. Ah, those were crazy days. Everyone forgets the AP's private recount actually had Bush increasing his lead, so even if the Supreme Court had ruled for Gore, Bush would still have won. They show the analysts sprinting out of the Court afterwards to go on TV and read the opinion; I remember Jeffrey Toobin on ABC reading the first line, saying oh, they've gone with Gore; then continuing to read and realizing he misread.

The talking heads claim people trusted the court, so even though they saw the view as partisan, they still accepted it. Uh, I don't know about that--I think we underestimate how crucial a decision Gore made to accept the ruling. If it weren't for him, we could've had a true constitutional crisis.

And that wraps up the Rehnquist court. I guess it could've been worse--but I'm not sure we fully realize how bad it was. The court's role has shifted so rightward, in part because the left won a lot of the big battles in the 60s and 70s.

I still think on the issues of race in particular, discrimination in general, where most people are deluded but strongly don't believe they are and where pockets of outright bigots have undue influence, there's nothing wrong with an activist Supreme Court that's out ahead of most of the country. As long as they're right, of course.

Milk, cookies and thou

Even in a country of 300 million, pretty much everyone knows that C is for Cookie.

One of my closest friends used to say during our college days that instead of spending all our time arguing about the things that separate us, humans should remember that we have waaaay more in common with each other than differences. Like we all have two hands, two eyes, two feet....

I used to respond with well yeah, since everyone has those things in common we just take it as a given and thus the remaining .1% of difference becomes the 100% field and we go from there.

But it's still worth mentioning that what divides us is really just .1%; by and large the human experience is communal. We all spend most of our days eating and sleeping and working and talking within close proximity of each other if not always with each other. What's different are matters of degree, not kind.

And in pop culture, it's funny how much of our shaping childhood human experiences derive from furry puppets (with an assist from animated figures). Sesame Street, The Electric Company, The Muppet Show, Mister Roger's Neighborhood, Schoolhouse Rock--snippets of amazingly vivid memories set to the soundtrack of our youth, all brought back by the MOYT.

Below are some of my favorites. Warning: You will have these tunes stuck in your head for the rest of the day.

C is for Cookie (Sesame Street)

Somewhere in a (healthier) parallel universe millions of kids revere a Carrot Monster.

Grover the Waiter: Big Hamburger (Sesame Street)

Do they show this in waiter school?!

Orange sings 'Carmen' (Sesame Street)

I remember this one! I wonder how many opera singers were first inspired by Orange.

Yip Yips meet the telephone (Sesame Street)

If this doesn't make you laugh out loud, you're not human.

No Left Turn (Sesame Street)

Funnily, I remember the lines no left turn/no right turn/what, do I do? as being more central to the song. I guess that's a common thing of childhood, what you see as the crux of something often turns out to be just in passing.

Billy, Lick a Lolly (Electric Company)

It's fun just watching them dance in this one. I loved the Electric Company, and like everyone else am puzzled as to why it isn't as ubiquitous as Sesame Street.

Lolly, Lolly, Lolly (Schoolhouse Rock)

I'm surprised there aren't more kids named 'Lolly.'

Only a Bill (Schoolhouse Rock)

[insert joke about George Bush here]

Rufus Xavier Sarsaparilla (Schoolhouse Rock)

It's got an amazingly catchy melody.

Interplanetary Janet

Another incredibly catchy melody; it's amazing how talented these children's songwriters were.

Watching these again, I'm also struck at how much they teach. Both overtly and subtly. There was an interesting NYTimes magazine piece this weekend, What It Takes to Make a Student, where the appopriately-named Paul Tough took a look at how some charters schools are succeeding in educating poor, minority students (actually just black and Hispanic, Asian American didn't make a single appearance in the long piece; which is typical since they'd have upset all of Tough's pat conclusions).

It seems obvious to me that what matters is making sure kids first have values conducive to learning; and then you apply lots of hard work in the classroom, good teachers and teaching methods, and the appropriate curriculumn. All underscored--if possible--by supportive parents. Spending money on anything else is at best just feel-good pablum, at worst corruption.

The article means well, but is just a lot of twaddle about driven white people trying to rescue these poor benighted children by teaching them the things their parents failed to, the same things that middle-class white parents are presumed to pass on to their offspring.

The key paragraphs in the article are these:

There had, in fact, been evidence for a long time that poor children fell behind rich and middle-class children early, and stayed behind. But researchers had been unable to isolate the reasons for the divergence. Did rich parents have better genes? Did they value education more? Was it that rich parents bought more books and educational toys for their children? Was it because they were more likely to stay married than poor parents? Or was it that rich children ate more nutritious food? Moved less often? Watched less TV? Got more sleep? Without being able to identify the important factors and eliminate the irrelevant ones, there was no way even to begin to find a strategy to shrink the gap.

Researchers began peering deep into American homes, studying up close the interactions between parents and children. The first scholars to emerge with a specific culprit in hand were Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley, child psychologists at the University of Kansas, who in 1995 published the results of an intensive research project on language acquisition. Ten years earlier, they recruited 42 families with newborn children in Kansas City, and for the following three years they visited each family once a month, recording absolutely everything that occurred between the child and the parent or parents. The researchers then transcribed each encounter and analyzed each child’s language development and each parent’s communication style. They found, first, that vocabulary growth differed sharply by class and that the gap between the classes opened early. By age 3, children whose parents were professionals had vocabularies of about 1,100 words, and children whose parents were on welfare had vocabularies of about 525 words. The children’s I.Q.’s correlated closely to their vocabularies. The average I.Q. among the professional children was 117, and the welfare children had an average I.Q. of 79.

When Hart and Risley then addressed the question of just what caused those variations, the answer they arrived at was startling. By comparing the vocabulary scores with their observations of each child’s home life, they were able to conclude that the size of each child’s vocabulary correlated most closely to one simple factor: the number of words the parents spoke to the child. That varied greatly across the homes they visited, and again, it varied by class. In the professional homes, parents directed an average of 487 “utterances” — anything from a one-word command to a full soliloquy — to their children each hour. In welfare homes, the children heard 178 utterances per hour.

What’s more, the kinds of words and statements that children heard varied by class. The most basic difference was in the number of “discouragements” a child heard — prohibitions and words of disapproval — compared with the number of encouragements, or words of praise and approval. By age 3, the average child of a professional heard about 500,000 encouragements and 80,000 discouragements. For the welfare children, the situation was reversed: they heard, on average, about 75,000 encouragements and 200,000 discouragements. Hart and Risley found that as the number of words a child heard increased, the complexity of that language increased as well. As conversation moved beyond simple instructions, it blossomed into discussions of the past and future, of feelings, of abstractions, of the way one thing causes another — all of which stimulated intellectual development.

Hart and Risley showed that language exposure in early childhood correlated strongly with I.Q. and academic success later on in a child’s life. Hearing fewer words, and a lot of prohibitions and discouragements, had a negative effect on I.Q.; hearing lots of words, and more affirmations and complex sentences, had a positive effect on I.Q. The professional parents were giving their children an advantage with every word they spoke, and the advantage just kept building up.

These findings have been out there for years; it's why every time I see a ridiculous parent on the subway, I want to hand them a card that tells them no matter how badly off they think they are, just talk to your kids without anger or cursing and things will be okay.

It's funny how the Times doesn't pick up on the other key part of this research, which is all the bells and whistles harried well-off parents shove at their kids are not only ineffective, but are not as effective as what a lot of good poor and minority parents give their kids for free. Although at a cost.

What the article doesn't mention is middle class and rich parents, who really have no excuse, often are the ones who actually fail to spend this quality time with their kids because they're too busy getting ahead in their careers or doing things like turning Halloween into an adult holiday.

It's the well-off families who schedule themselves into oblivion, who out of selfishness outsource to nannies and babysitters and therapists their parental duties. Where's the scolding New York Times magazine piece on that?

I guess it's just so much more natural for the journalists at the times and their ilk to associate poor parenting with poverty. When in reality, poor families often have no choice--they live in smaller homes, and have less leisure time options, so by default parents spend lots of time with their kids.

Often that time is toxic; but at least it's time, and changing their attitude may be easier than getting suburbanites to change their schedules.

Sure, well-off kids score better on tests--they're not hungry on test days, and are shielded from the other dysfunctions that come with poverty. But compare white American kids to foreign kids at similar socio-economic levels, and you'll see nobody should be holding up these suburban test scores as the gold standard.

Maybe everyone just needs to watch more PBS, less MTV. I mean, if parents can't be there for their kids, they might be surprised at how good of a job Cookie Monster can do.

Remixed

Some more indicators that we're living in the golden age of television advertising.







This is probably my current favorite commerical, for the video game Gears of War. It shows how realistic-feeling video games have become, cinematically pairing the story of a lone soldier with Gary Jules' Donnie Darko version of the Tears for Fears song Mad World. Its strangely affecting on-screen action (you have to remind yourself it's only a video game character... versus a hired actor, I guess) is matched well to the melody and lyrics.

Jules' music video has a totally different, but I also like it. Mostly shot from overhead, it features schoolkids acting out objects, coupled with pans around to Jules standing on top of the school's roof, with a panoramic view of Brooklyn. Oddly, the long NYTimes review of the video doesn't mention its location. Luckily, an entry about the video's director, Michael Gondry (who also made Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), does.

Tears for Fears' original video is interesting in its own way, with most of it consisting of a guy standing at window, emoting, over your standard 80s sythethizers. It's a much faster song here; I like Jules' version better--just goes to show how different the same thing can be with a few tweaks.





Levi's 'Walk the Line' commercial has Adem Ilhan and Megan Wyler doing a duet version of the classic Johnny Cash song. It seems appropriately slowed-down, and Wyler has an other-worldy, almost metallic voice that fits the song well. The on-screen action is a bit hokey, but the way it's shot grainy and harsh brings out the lyrics.

By comparison, this YouTube clip of Cash's original seems almost flat--part of it is just the difference between a straight performance and a layered music video/commercial. It can be hard for something shot 3 or 4 decades ago to compete with all the subtle performance-sweeteners/boosters of today; imagine how great Cash and the legends would've come across if they had all the benefits the Ilhans and Wylers of the world do.

Then again, maybe they'd never have hammered out their hard-won style in today's world.

Nobody calls her Babs

Barbara Walters is great. She's a pure journalist, in the sense she has no problem asking questions and following her interests. I used to have more mixed feelings about her (it was always enjoyable watching Peter Jennings slap her down), but you know, somebody stays around long enough and you start to have a soft spot for them. Even though based on the show young Barbara was definitely a harder-edged reporter than current Barbara; maybe less invested in the system.

And even though I dislike that View show of hers, I think it's been a way for her to show she has a sense of humor about herself. I think she'd make a fun dinner party guest, assuming she isn't always working.

Her special looking back at 30 years of interviews (30 mistakes in 30 years) should be required viewing in high school journalism classes--we see all these interesting and surprising sides of famous people, all because of her questions.

It's amazing how many people she's talked to; here's what stood out for me:

-The obvious chemistry between her and Johnny Carson... gosh, they could've had superstar kids

-How her 'what kind of a tree' question came to be (it's Katharine Hepburn's fault)

-Clint Eastwood gazing at her during the interview, asking her out afterwards (she declined)

-Lucille Ball going on about Desi Arnez with her current husband next to her; as Walters said looking back, it was obvious she was still not over him

-Walter Matthau's wife, Carol Marcus, making comments about her ex-husband William Saroyan; Barbara said and yet you married him twice, after which Matthau added, "She's not sure what she's doing"

-Elton John playing for her; Stevie Wonder playing for her at 2 a.m. and Walters clapping off-rhythmn

-Tom Cruise being his obviously crazy self back in 2002, like charm could overcome oddness

-Howard Cossell answering how he'd like to be remembered: 'Good husband, good father, doting grandfather. That's all that matters.'

-Johnny Cash, asked if he thinks he's going to heaven or hell, saying 'Heaven. I've spent my time in hell.'

-Laurence Olivier saying he'd liked to be remembered as a 'diligent workman.'

-Sylvester Stallone's knives collection displayed weirdly on the wall

-The clip of her interview with the Oceans 11 cast, showing some great chemistry between Julia Roberts and Matt Damon

-Paris Hilton coming across as smart

-Robin Williams cracking Barbara and her crew up during his 'interview'; pretending to be a German during WWII, 'we woke up and we were in Poland, it wasn't anybody's fault'

-Sean Connery saying it's not that bad to slap a woman, like when they can't leave something alone and keep talking, then it's absolutely right to slap her

-Halle Barry celebrating getting through her interview without crying

-John Travolta's wife Kelly Preston saying she knows they'll be together forever, and him correcting her to say well, we think we will be

-Barbara and Oprah Winfrey--from young and naive to knowing and a pro

-Her surprising relationship with Richard Pryor, including the clip where he says he loves drugs, enjoys doing cocaine with his friends and getting high; watching how their relationship evolved over three interviews where at the end he admits lighting himself on fire to try and die, because he was ashamed of what he'd become as a drug addict.

She called him 'the most painfully honest man I've ever interviewed.'

Uncredited image of Barbara Walters found online

Starchy and poignant

One of my favorite tv shows was Sports Night, which was set behind the scenes at an ESPN-like cable channel in NYC. It was my first exposure to Aaron Sorkin and his brand of snappy, almost-sappy-yet-usually-just-right-writing, that at its best on Sports Night (and later the West Wing) melds the feel of reality shows with thoughtful story arcs.

Sorkin was still evolving his style, and I think West Wing was a better stage for his ability to leaven the big moments every tv show or movie depends on with the texture of interesting patter about the mundane.

But you might be surprised at how naturally and well major social issues arise and are played out within Sports Night... unless of course you're a sports fan, in which case you already know all about the sports page being a microcasm of the rest of the paper.

This particular episode--via the magic of YouTube (which already brings up 31,700 hits on Google)--has, among many things, one of my favorite lines of any tv or movie, ever. It comes near the end of the third clip.

As long as I'm recommending tv shows, if you've ever wondered what life at a big-city newspaper can be like, check out Bravo's new reality show, Tabloid Wars, which was shot last summer as they followed some New York Daily News reporters and editors around.

The News has a very particular personality, but it's a revealing look at how some top-notch journalists go about their jobs... and ought to be required viewing for conspiracy theorists and anyone else who speaks of the 'news media' as a collective.



Parts 2 and 3 of the episode, also broken up into 7-minute clips, are at this user's page

America's race

Amazing Race 10 Teams Announced

IGN.com: Executive Producer Jonathan Littman, Executive Producer/Co-Creator Bertram Van Munster and host Phil Keoghan were on hand today to speak to the press, as the 12 participating teams were unveiled from The Amazing Race 10.

This season includes one of the most diverse cast ever assembled for The Amazing Race, and for a reality program in general, including an Indian-American couple, two Asian brothers, a pair of Islamic friends, and a disabled contestant. The show's creators were very proud of the cast, saying that while they always like to have a cross-section of people, they felt they really lucked out with the exciting group they got this time. ...

Littman noted that the race started harder then ever before, and that they sent the teams "head first into the toughest possible areas," instead of easing them in by sending them to easier environments, as they feel they normally do. Van Munster revealed that China, Mongolia, Vietnam and Kuwait are among the destination this season, and that the language barrier was a frequent problem for both the teams and the producers.

Name: Vipul Patel
Occupation: Sales
Age: 29
Hometown: Windermere, Fla.

Name: Arti Patel
Occupation: Nutritional Educator
Age: 26
Hometown: Windermere, Fla.

Relationship: Married

Vipul and Arti are the first Indian-American team to run the Race. Both speak several languages and are well-traveled. Vipul admits to being a bit overzealous, while Arti takes great pride in her ability to reign in his emotions and focus his strengths - a skill she will undoubtedly be forced to call upon while racing around the world.


Name: Erwin Cho
Occupation: Insurance Company Manager
Age: 32
Hometown: San Francisco, Calif

Name: Godwin Cho
Occupation: Financial Analyst
Age: 29
Hometown: San Francisco, Calif

Relationship: Brothers

These overachieving, super-competitive brothers say they are ready for the adventure of a lifetime. Godwin has grown up in the shadow of his Harvard-educated brother and is eager to show his brother and his family that he has what it takes to win The Amazing Race. This team's love for traveling the world and competing is infectious.


Name: Bilal Abdul-Mani
Occupation: Medical Supply Technician
Age: 37
Hometown: Cleveland, Ohio

Name: Sa'eed Rudolph
Occupation: Power Lineman
Age: 39
Hometown: Cleveland, Ohio

Relationship: Best Friends

These best friends have spent years bonding over their love of food, Browns football and their shared Islamic faith. Bilal is energetic and outgoing while Sa'eed is quiet and passive. Their vastly different temperaments will be fun to watch as they attempt to navigate over 40,000 miles in under 30 days.

Ah, my favorite show on television gets better. I'm already looking forward to hours of yelling at the tv, moments of stunned silence, lots of laughter and knowing smiles, all hopefully capped off by wild cheering.

This will be, I kid you not, be a historic moment in American television history. The ratings will be through the roof, watching the show will become the impetus for all sorts of great gatherings, and tv executives will put this together with Lost and Grey's Anatomy and conclude: Hmmm, maybe Americans want to see America on television?

Who knows, maybe it'll even push CBS to recast its new 'The Class' show, which apparently is about the class of 1906:

Lisa deMoraes' blog in the Post: "Friends" exec producer David Crane came to Summer TV Press Tour 2006 over the weekend to promote his next all-white ensemble sitcom about a bunch of people living in an urban East Coast setting - this time Philly.

It's called "The Class," it's for CBS, and it's about a group of 20-somethings who have known each other since third grade and who get together for a reunion of sorts.

"Why aren't there any people of color in this show set in 2006?" one critic wanted to know.

"It is something that is unfortunate," Crane said, putting on his Sad Face.

"It happened because when we wrote the script, we wrote it color-blind... and then we auditioned. For six months we saw just a huge range and diversity of actors and at the end of the day these were absolutely the eight actors who were absolutely right for the parts."

Wouldn't you think that, in this day and age, the TV industry talk on the West Side of Los Angeles would have labored long and hard to come up with something fresher than that old line? Crane and gang were using this one back when "Friends" debuted in the mid 90's.

We weren't the only member of the press who found it lame:

"When the word 'color-blind' casting is almost always used, is it possible that color-blind casting isn't working and you need to think about some other way? Because color-blind doesn't seem to do it," one critic cracked

"Having gotten to the end of the process, I would say 'yeah.' If we had it to do over again, I think we wouldn't. I think we would have approached the piece differently," he said, which also sounded suspiciously familiar.

"Is it possible that it has to start in the writing?" the critic continued.

"I'm absolutely agreeing with you. I think whatever we do next -- hopefully we won't have too much opportunity to, because we'll be busy doing this -- but whatever we do next, yeah, I think that is absolutely the case."

And, he promised, we'll see some actual non-white characters in future episodes of the series. Turns out, twins Kat and Lina were adopted by Korean parents, while Nicole's stepdaughter has an African-American mother.

CBS photos of the Patels, Chos and Abdul-Mani and Rudolph (does their description hint that they're in it at the end?!) by Robert Voets via IGN.com. Both articles seen first via angryasianman.com

Look away

An Army of General Lees Charges Into Nashville

Dave Itzkoff in the Times: ... [W]hat lured Mr. Knotts, and 100,000 other loyal fans, to the Music City Motorplex was DukesFest, a two-day celebration of "The Dukes of Hazzard," the down-home comedy-adventure series that was broadcast on CBS from 1979 to 1985. The annual gathering (held this year on June 3 and 4) is an opportunity for viewers to mingle with the show's stars, trade memorabilia, dress in kitschy T-shirts or simply watch fireworks or eat pork products named for the show's corpulent villain, Boss Hogg. But among this crowd there is a smaller, more dedicated group for whom DukesFest is a kind of mystical calling, a sacred convocation for those who can find transcendence in an event as simple as a car leaping over a ditch.

Their high priest is Ben Jones, the actor who played the character of Cooter Davenport, a garage mechanic, and went on to serve two terms representing Georgia's Fourth District in the United States House of Representatives. After moving to Rappahannock County, Va., Mr. Jones and his wife, Alma, opened a "Dukes"-theme general store called Cooter's Place in the summer of 1999, and staged outdoor festivals there, honoring the series.

"The show had sort of flown under the radar for a long time," Mr. Jones said in a telephone interview. "It's timeless, except for the doofus haircuts. But a lot of people I know have doofus haircuts." ...

Mr. Jones, who has spent many years contemplating the cultural resilience of "The Dukes of Hazzard," offered a few theories about the show's place in the hearts of armchair outlaws. It could be that in politically polarized times, viewers are attracted to depictions of a simpler, idealized America. Or it could be that the Duke boys occupy a point on a proud line of incorruptible heroes that stretches all the way back to Robin Hood.

"Law, as represented by the Sheriff of Nottingham or Boss Hogg, can be corrupt," Mr. Jones said. "But order — that undercurrent of right and wrong, of making the correct moral choice — is there, no matter who the law is."

Or maybe people just like attractive actors and fast cars. "It was like Zen, you know what I'm saying?" Mr. Jones said. "It just was."

Wow--not once does the Times mention that this 'simpler, idealized America' featured a prominently displayed Confederate flag and no black characters (not to mention fans).

Of course, not every Times piece needs to be wide-eyed and aware; they're allowed to write pop culture fluff as much as anyone. As long as they're consistent... I can't imagine the Times attending a gospel music festival that was entirely black and not noting that, let alone a gospel music festival devoted to all-black gospel and leaving it be. White Americans are not neutral or the standard, especially when the article revolves around issues of identity.

I watched the show, and liked it for what it was. I think though it's recently joined the code words that white Christian Americans use to separate us and them--it slips right into place besides other hijacked and imbued things as family values and national security.

And I think anyone who holds it up as a model of what they want this country to be has either been asleep since well before the 80s, or is racist. I for one don't want an America where a couple of good old boys ride wild playing Dixie.

wish I was in de land ob cotton,
Old times dar am not forgotten;
Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.
In Dixie Land whar I was born in,
Early on one frosty mornin,
Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land. ...

Den I wish I was in Dixie, Hooray! Hooray!
In Dixie Land, I'll took my stand,
To lib an die in Dixie,
Away, Away, Away down south in Dixie,
Away, Away, Away down south in Dixie.

Photo of Bo, Luke, Daisy and the General Lee via Country Music Television.

American Idol season five

All 34 posts for the season, in one place.

American Idol's prom king

Taylor vs. Katharine

Their last time

Two left standing

Hard cut to three

Hound dogs

Bye-bye, American Idol

Doing her own thing

American surprises

Guests steal the show

Six to join Andrea

Kids go classic

All the Queen's subjects

Whitewashed Idol

Countrified

Goal draws nearer

The kids disappoint

The sky falls for one

Barry's bunch

Feeling their way into it

Tears and smiles

The cool and the crazy

All ends well

Down to the sweet 16

Boys and a man

Seeking their groove

Down to XX

Boys are back in town

Greater than ever

Lucky two dozen

Idle, Idol, Ideal

Idolwood

All-American Idol

Hooray for Hollywood

Amazing Race 9

All my posts for the season, in one place.

Amazing last race

Like it was scripted

A real race

Hippies come back

Stripped down

Latin to Greek

Usual race

Pros and the fools

Rushing through Russia

Not-so-amazing race

American Idol's prom king

Ah, the last American Idol of the season... so sad in some ways, yet it's probably gone on just about enough. Carrie Underwood comes out singing to open the show. Then Taylor in a white suit joins her. The Katherine, all in white too, completes the picture. Ah--to more screaming the rest of the top 12 come out, everyone's in white. It's like a preview of the concert tour. Just some 'Up With People' type song, we made it through being the chorus. And then the opening credits roll.

And out comes Ryan, everyone's cleared off the stage. Ben Stiller and Heather Locklear are in the audience, together. 200 million watching worldwide, Ryan says. They run clips of Randyisms, mostly dude, throughout the year. All spiffed up in a suit. String of Paula's emotional moments are shown, she's in nice gown. Funny clips of Simon touching himself, looking fit in a suit. Taylor's supporters are going nuts in Birmingham, the twins who were cut early host shrilly. Kat's supporters, much less rabit and smaller in Universal City, CA with Tamara from season one.

Paris next, they pick the pro to kick things off, sings a bit, then out comes Al Jarreau to do a duet with her. She skats a little too, it's smooth and easy--she's totally ready for the big-time. Ryan says that was Paris singing with her idol; then Chris sings with Live. He totally fits in, is like mirror image of the lead singer. So this is how they're gonna fill two hours... it's enjoyable listening to Chris, but not super-compelling. Crowd loves it.

Kellie Pickler and her sassy new short hair cut hangs out with Wolfgang Puck. She's hilarious, tries on his glasses, he says you look smart, she says maybe now people will take me seriously. They bring out escargot, she says she doesn't think she can eat it, says it's creepy, doesn't wanna eat it. She pretends to eat it, says hmmm, he forces it into her mouth, she spits it out; this is like classically funny. He can't say her hometown's name, Albermarle.

Meatloaf joins--Katharine?! Crazy, doing It's All Coming Back to Me Now. Who'd have thought this. He's so emotional to start, almost like a parody, shaking and trembling. She comes out in black, this is so weird. She looks horrible, all in black, he's doing all this stagey stuff with her, it's like bad opera. He's even singing in this fake deep voice, it's a train wreck. So bizarre, they're not even in synch or on key, like something you'd see on public access, late at night. She's not what you'd call a classy gal.

Back with some strange routine where Ryan's complaining about never winning an award, they're gonna give themselves the Golden Idol. Brought to you by Coca-Cola and Ford, of course. This is gonna be stupid; it's all making fun of people, worst clips show come back. It's mean-spirited and totally a waste of time. The worst male vocalist, Dave Hoover, actually is there, runs out on stage barefoot, screaming and yelling. It's pathetic and an example of how bad this show can be when it's feeling its oats.

Back with more Puck n' Pickler. They put a whole live lobster right next to her, she jumps onto the floor, it's hilarious. He's just teasing her. She's poking at it with a fork, this is so funny. It's by far the best part of the show. The five non-Taylor guys come out and do some stupid group song; Taking Care of Business. It's actually not bad in spots, Chris and Bucky are good. Out comes Taylor halfway through, playing his harmonica, big man on campus. He actually does take over, effortlessly. This is pretty good after all; Ace is totally ridiculous, as is Kevin; Elliott's okay, but Chris/Bucky are good, and Taylor rocks. Ace is really bad. Crowd is going nuts. They segue into Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow, which brings it all back down again. Then they work the crowd, ugh. Okay, this song is bad for everyone.

Back, and believe it or not there's a Ford commercial... with clips and outtakes from the season's other commercials, Taylor/Katharine just sit in the car and laugh. Thye give them both keys to a new Mustang, sheesh. Are excited but not so much so. Go back to stupid Golden Idols thing, this time it's proudest family moment. Elliott's mom, Katharine's dad, Chris' wife--she should 'win'. This is stupid, they're gonna say one moment is better than the others? And they pick Elliott's mom, give her a trophy, it's so ridiculous. He asks her to introduce Elliott, tells her to say Ladies and Gentlemen, Elliott Yamin... she, no dummy, takes mike and says Ladies and Gentlemen, my Elliott Yamin. So American.

He's singing One Love, it's okay; whoah, then Mary J. Blige comes out to sing with him. Where's Paris?! She's not discernibly better than Paris, actually. She's wailing actually, kindof not good. Back, Carrie Underwood, ugh. She's not very good. Another award, Randy Jackson award for public speaking, to that crazy cursing girl. It's a staged segment, stupid.

Taylor back, doing In the Ghetto--with Toni Braxton. He's not at all outof his element, it's not bad. Back, girls in all back; doing Man, I Feel Like a Woman; then Bad to the Bone, and some other stuff, it's not any good. Except when you-know-who takes the lead; Lisa Tucker's good too, they have a fun little duet together. Katharine has to assert herself to stay out front. Overall all it's pretty forced, not so entertaining. Lisa actually really stands out; best moment is Paris on You Make Me Feel Like a Natural Woman.

Next award is Best Impersonation, it's so painful. More Kellie and Wolfgagn! The 'winner', so-called Clay Aiken look-alike shows up on stage, clueless as always--he sings ridiculously bad, coming out behind him is real Clay Aiken, the guy's like why's everyone cheering, and is totally in shock and jumping around when a very-different looking Clay comes out to sing with him. It's actually pretty funny; like they do this nutty duet. He keeps saying oh my god, Clay after a while kindof ignores him, does his own thing. It's quite entertaining.

I hate to say it, but am actually enjoying this crazy two-hour thing--there's this weird mix of awful, tone-deaf stuff and truly entertaining content. Sortof like the show itself. Bert Baccarat, plays piano, Taylor then Katharine sing What the World Needs know. Then stupid Ace, don't remember him being this bad, it's like he's gone through a nervous breakdown and is put back together, but slightly off. Chick who was first of 12 to be axed sings with him, truly painful moment. Kellie next, looking and singing very 70ish; that would've been her time, everyone was discovering calamari and sushi together then. Her voice if a little thin for what she's singing. Bucky does Raindrops are Dropping on My Head, it's not bad. Mandisa belts out something, then Lisa against the piano does a quiet and nice slower number. Elliott next, both of them would be perfect in cabaret-like settings, he's doing a House is not a Home. Where are Peter, Paul and Mary?! They should do a folksong night next year; or Dylan.

Show's starting to drag a later, they need to liven it up. Kevin does a ridiculous What's New Pussycat, so the opposite of Tom Jones, it's pathetic. Look is totally wrong, tone isn't the worst but it's not believable. Chris comes out, kindof gives him a little tap, takes over; Ace and Kevie flank him, but may as well be oohing and aahing. Paris sings Why Do Birds Suddenly Appear. Everyone else is there to do backup. She introduces Dionne Warwick, who gets big applause. Such a bizarre collection of pretty good singers, but from other eras. Like a Time Life commercial.

Pacing is so uneven, it's totally a grab bag. Warwick sings a rendition of That's What Friends Are For that has everyone screaming in recognition, Taylor and Katharine join, then the others. Yeah, it's like a motely prom, they're pushing all the emotional buttons, sometimes it connects sometimes not, no flow to the evening, very disjointed and leaves you jittery.

Best Male Bonding--Ace and Chris's big hug; Ryan and Taylor's joint floor dance; and the cowboys mock trailer, which actually I liked. Man, I hope they bring these guys out. And yay, they come out--and sing! This is great. And you know, they're quite good. Doing Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Cowboys.

Ryan says no more surprise guest stars... results portion. Crazy chick dancers, then--oh my god! It's Prince! Holy holy cow! That is so unbelievable! I mean, this show is so crazy, people are going crazy. It's so entertaining and fun to listen to; he's such a natural performer. Man, if he can come on the show, there's no end to who they can get--there literally is nobody too big for this show, Prince has given it his stamp of approval. It's like a real performance too, he does two song, neither of which pander to the crowd. My gosh.

Taylor comes out singing Time of My Life; then Katharine. Words are very appropriate for both of them. It's a pretty good performace, they both seem totally happy, do a bit of dancing. Now Ryan... 63.4 million votes were cast, it's crazy. He says it's more than any president has ever received; well, generally in presidential elections you can't vote more than once. Bring out some accountant, hands the results to Ryan, and it's....

Taylor Hicks. Of course! His hometown crowd is totally going crazy, he's bent over in emotion for a few seconds, it's a nice moment. He screams out Soul Patrol at the end.

And another season's over. Pretty darn good... they have stuff to improve on, but overall, my favorite television show. It's a long way from January, can barely remember back that far. But I think the 'right' person won, in the sense of someone who gets the fans excited.

Can't wait for year six. Still can't believe Prince sang.

Their last time

Taylor vs. Katharine, at the big Kodak theater in Hollywood. As if the show wasn't already giant enough, now they're singing in front of a live audience of 3,000. Everybody's a bit more dolled up; Simon looks odd in a sport jacket. Three songs each, three numbers each, four numbers to vote.

They show their intro videos, from the beginning on. Simon's prediction that Paula and Randy and America wouldn't put Tyler in the final group turned out pretty wrong. Girl vs. boy, West vs. the South Ryan intones. How about fake vs. real?

Taylor won the toss, going second. Wow, short commercial breaks tonight. Chris hanging out, Kellie too? Katharine doing Black Horse and the Cherry Tree... that song she did when she sat on the floor, this time she's standing. Does that mean she's gonna finish with Somewhere Over the Rainbow? It's not interesting the second time around, something's lacking, maybe she's just a bit restrained or something. Not a very melodic song, odd first choice. Randy says it looked like you were having fun, but not sure it was that super-exciting the second time around. Paula says fun way to open, but expects more and better. Simon says good with a small 'g', occasion is bigger than that song, it's a warm-up. She says after she liked doing it before, liked it; belly on display. Apparently people from her fan club sent her a bunchof roses.

Living for the City by Taylor, in this crazy purple outfit, starts in the audience--perfect choice, totally shows off his tone of voice. Shot of all the past competitors in the audience. High energy, he's rocking right from the start. And some crazy dancing too. I think he'll win, and pretty easily, his fans are crazy and will vote a million times. Randy's like yo, the audience keeps cheering; he says he was worried about a Stevie Wonder song, but you made it your own as always, it's a hot one. Paula loves his dancing, and says they match. Simon says it was a great way to start the show, a smart choice of song--arguably the worst jacket I've ever seen in my life... round one, to Taylor. He's totally comfortable in front of the camera, cool guy. Although you can tell he's no pushover.

Sheesh, and she's doing Somewhere Over the Rainbow again. Why?! Sitting again too. It's good, again; and I think she does change it up a bit toward the end. But still, why not end with this, and do something new for your second song? Her dad's crying, audience cheers a lot. Randy's like it was hot, even if a repeat. Paula says you have a lot of talent. Simon says this was again your best performance of the competition. She says afterwards her equipment didn't work, that's so Katharine; why mention it at all?

Taylor's doing Leave On, again--although I think he last performed it before the top 12 round. It's slow and he's in control, audience totally caught up in it. It's a very professional performance, a bit restrained but vocally quite good. Randy says nice song, but a bit pitchy. Paula says good, great. Simon says what you just said makes no sense, Paula; Katharine won the second round, all up to the last song. Jeez, funny how neatly that works out.

Back, Katharine's parents say she's always been singing. Doing My Destiny, which will be her first single, nice to get a commercial in. Funny, it's like a Broadwayish song, chance for her to ham it up. She looks like Sandra Bullock; it's a good performance, bit lacking in energy, also not a great dress choice; as usual her movements are unnatural. Bit sedate as well; not sure who's gonna buy this, apart from the die-hards--pitch problems too. Worst of the night so far for me. Choir comes out on stage near the end; song feels forever long, it's almost like she's tired and is just howling to finish it out, really not good. Ovation not that great. Randy's like you look amazing, you sounded really good, but didn't love the song. Paula says it's not your fault, you're brilliant; Randy says the song is average. Simon says I'm sorry, it's quite good, but... basically remember the second song, not this one.

Hmm, they still have 15 minutes to kill, so besides Taylor they say they have a special guest. Can't be a past Idol, that'd overshadow them. Some celebrity who won't sing? Odd. Or a past Idol who's not as good? Taylor's dad says Taylor taught himself how to play the harmonica. Do I Make You Proud. Too bad he doesn't play harmonica. They song is actually pretty bad--he delivers it as best as he can, but so weird, the song doesn't fit at all. Who's picking these songs? I think he drops a lyric. Choir comes out again. He's sedate, not a classic Taylor performance, some pitch problems and the pacing is totally messed up. He brings some energy at the end, but too late. Crowd cheers, he's just jumping up and down yelling Soul Patrol, has look in his eyes, he knows it wasn't his best. Randy says slightly better song, you make it your own, yeah! Paula says you were better than the song. Simon says you've just won American Idol. Crowd goes crazy; Randy and Paula are dogging him for saying that. Randy and Paula are on the Taylor bandwagon, they say Simon was the one who didn't want him outof Vegas.

So I'd vote for Taylor, based on his body of work. Looks like he'll win, too; he's got the big mo. But it's all kindof anti-climatic; songs weren't great tonight. If Katharine had finished singing Somewhere Over the Rainbow for the first time tonight, she'd have won in a walk.

Wow, Daniel Powter sings So You Had a Bad Day, live. That's cool. Some technical problems, he's not sure when to start, so he actually is outof synch with the video. Heck, it's the best thing we've seen--he'd have won.

Katharine II
Taylor II
Taylor I
Katharine I
Taylor III
Katharine III