Monday, February 18, 2013

TELEVISION – the more the better?

 How much television do we watch? A group of average viewers from Pitfalls (Ohio) responded in agreement: “Not enough, we want more – we seriously need more, actually”. They all agreed that time in front of the television, is time well spent – especially when the TV is turned on!
“Me and husband just love watching TV with the kids,” added Patty Lou Rodin, who has a BS in agriculture and works for the local manure distributor. “It’s amazing how our tastes are so alike; choosing something to watch together is never a problem”.
Melvin Dabber, extremely single, continues: “Perfect for dinnertime. What could possibly be better than sucking your frozen TV-Dinner in front of:  Nip ‘n Tuck – Plastic Surgeon without a License”? For more “eating while watching television”, Mr. Dabber also suggested: Obesity – Is That You?  “But sometimes that show is hard to swallow!” he said giggling.
The group also concurred concerning the enormous help and support television supplies our youngsters during homework time. They agreed that the unfair academic challenges our children go through are tremendous. They have to balance learning basic academics, while listening to MP3 players – text Pitfalls High School’s entire cheerleader team (both of them) - chat on line while cradling the smart-phone between cheek and shoulder. Luckily, television comes to the salvation by blasting sensitive rap in between MTV-News about Paris Hilton - the superb buffer.
These are but a few excerpts from an utterly thorough research conducted by Dr. Pedro Steinbeck, Director of Human Fallacies, BOBS University, Downtown Paris (the one in Texas – not on Hilton). The report’s in-depth look at television today and its importance to the American society, socially and economically, involved several individuals including Dr. Steinbeck’s ex-wife, Lorelei Duke. The final report was published in January 2010 and received exceedingly positive reviews, and not only from Lorelei. Related government agencies fully agreed with the report and promised immediate action; hasn't happened yet, duh...
The weekly magazine “TV-Guide” fully embraced the report. Spokesperson Veranda Decker, (5’4” and weighing in at 92 pounds) expressed on behalf of her publication, that: “TV-Guide is finally being accepted as one of the most important publications in the country. We might soon become a more popular read than the Bible.” A veteran journalist from New York, asked Miss Decker if she recalled the misinterpreted “more popular than Jesus” statement made by John Lennon in 1966. “I’m sorry! I don’t follow football,” Ms. Decker responded - rather puzzled.
How did Dr. Steinbeck get involved? “I heard somebody utter an ignorant remark about the value of television some time back,” Dr. Steinbeck said in that cute foreign accent of his. “The statement came from the stall next to me. Somebody clearly moaned: “Do you know why television is called a ‘medium’? – It’s because it is never well done!”  I repulsed violently and decided to act immediately. I flushed, zipped up and went straight back to my office; something had to be done”.
It was clear to Dr. Steinbeck that something as powerful as television, something getting so much attention from just about everybody, something so holy and grand, should not be disrespectfully drilled into the dirt by any of those bleeding-hearted hippy Liberals of the press, nor of the government. He was determined to set the record straight - once and for all.          
Dr. Steinbeck also felt this research could possibly make him famous. He even went as far as thinking: “Nobel Prize is Right”. Publicly he stated (if anybody other than Lorelei wanted to listen), that he had not approached this challenge for any form of fame or fortune. (Privately though, he did hope for a possible formation of the ‘Steinbeck Groupies’, with visions of them running amok, semi clad, in his mobile home). Dr. Steinbeck challenged the issue of television because he knew “good from evil”: Television being “good” and those darn hippy Liberals being “evil”. Dr. Steinbeck strapped on his remote and went to work.
First priority:  A test-group needed to be assembled. He searched for people who watched TV constantly: watched while being awake, while eating, while sleeping, while making out, while exercising, cooking, cleaning, showering, and while – no, we can’t go there. The search included people who enjoyed every program available, from “NFL Locker- Room Survivors” to “Athletic Cops” and all the way to “learning to paint from that weird white dude with the Afro”. Dr. Steinbeck found it easy to select the group, as just about every single citizen, legal or not, would be a qualified prospect.
The second action was to create a scientific name for the group. Dr. Steinbeck animatedly discarded the suggestion: “test-dummies” as a degrading, derogatory, disrespectful, unprofessional and ignorant name. After several hours of constipation, he proudly announced that the name of the group would be: "Research Dummies” (RD).
The RD, consisting of 8 members, representing two major ethnic groups (males & females), were issued an extensive questionnaire concerning TV viewing habits, level of understanding the programs, language, commercials, quality of sitcom laugh-tracks, honesty in news reporting, etc. The following are just a few excerpts from this massive research report - unedited.
COMMERCIALS:
The RD agreed that most commercials have an overwhelmingly positive affect on our society. The group put commercials into five categories: “The good ones, the somewhat good ones, the ones that are less goodder than the first two good ones, the funny ones, and the ones nobody really understands due to complicated story-lines,” (as in beer commercials).
Asked if he felt beer commercials give a true picture concerning the products and what it can do for the consumer, Bubba (actually his real name) replied:
“It’s telling me, that we all have a chance with the beer-chicks. I mean, look at those happy drinkers, the chicks with those teasing smiles, small pieces of tight spandex covering those great {censored}. After several beers, see how they even eye those of us with a bit of a weight challenge,” Bubba is holding back tears. “I mean, even I could eventually get lucky – those commercials give you such hope. I love what they are telling us.”
“Have you actually met any of those young ladies?”
“Not yet,” Bubba smiles with teethes missing “But I keep drinking. And you know what? It has been scientifically proved, that the more beer the beer-chicks chuck down, the better they think I look.  And they also tell us, that the more beer we drink, the “butt-wiser” we get!” Bubba laughs loudly while we desperately try to avoid the stench from the bad joke, the beer & nut breath.
Overall, the sentiment was that good, solid, interesting, and helpful messages are being communicated to the viewers. The commercials were also marked as honest and certainly not misleading, as many of those Liberals claim. “Damn them hippies!” The group agreed.

PBS (Public Broadcasting Service):
The RD agreed, that this type of liberal propaganda, this filth and these endless quantities of falsified and misguided broadcasts, these “opera” screamers and holier than thou programs without commercials, are degrading, un-American and suspect. “And what about Sesame Street; what the hell are we telling the rug rats? You have somebody pretending to be a talking character made from fuzzy florescent remnants of used wall-to-wall carpeting, controlling it’s every move by sticking a hand up its butt? Really, it doesn’t get more disturbing and perverted than that, does it?” Pearl is the mother of six, so she would know. “And the way they are portraying that Oscar character” she continues, “like this really grouchy loser, living out of a trashcan. So where’s the problem with that? My uncle…” Pearl starts to choke up a bit.
PBS, or “Propaganda BS”, as the group renamed it, was voted a no-no for anybody to watch. The group did not find any form of value in that kind of television. Bubba said: “And they keep asking you for money. I don’t wanna pay to watch TV. No way, dude! Money’s for beer - not ballet crap and opera.”
REALITY SHOWS:
The group agreed 100% that it is so hard to believe how real these shows really are. They all became rather emotional when the talk turned towards the participants who were being eliminated. “You could just see how rejected she felt. All the others on the island hated her and you knew she was devastated when they told her to get lost. All those tears mixed with make-up running down her face. I had to reach for the TP myself. ” Shelby, an AA veteran of 22 years, smiled a bit shyly. George continued: “Yeah, she was one sad chick for sure. But it was cool how they filmed her as she walked away, into the sunset, shoulders slumping, dejected and crying; her thong hanging a bit loose, while giving us the finger. It was a sad sight; I’ll never forget it.” George reached for the TP himself.
NEWS SHOWS:
All agreed that primarily the honesty in news reporting is superb and overwhelming. No fluff, no fill, no fancy words beyond five letters. “The interpersonal communication between the anchor-people is truly amazing”, according to the RD. “You feel they are your close friends, right there, in your bedroom, telling us like it is”, Lorelei says. “And how about all those small friendly stabs at the end of the broadcast, when they make fun of each other, when they all laugh and, I mean, you can’t write stuff like that; it’s amazing. They even have fun with the weatherperson”. Dr. Steinbeck cleared his throat at this point and added: “I think the weather is better on Channel 5!” - They all looked rather puzzled.
“Doesn’t it bother you that they make jokes and laugh right after they have told you how many young Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan so far?” we asked. “Where?” They all answered…
Dr. Steinbeck’s research report has certainly opened the eyes of the nation. The reality for all of us, finally being able to publicly acknowledge the positive influence television has on us, as individuals and as a society (functional or not), is refreshing. We all used to feel a bit sheepish when asked if we had seen such and such show, and we always, defiantly loud, claimed that we most certainly “do not watch TV and if we did, we would most certainly not watch that show”. We all did it and admitting we did, is okay. Now we can proudly and without shame, (but maybe with a bit of nausea) say: “I watch as much TV as the rest of the country!”
By watching television, we pompously and patriotically support our country, support the United States of America, its economy and its sponsors: Nike, Budweiser, Kraft Foods, Pepsi, PantyLiners R Us, Nissan and the rest of the bunch. Are you doing your part?
Rounding out our interview, we asked Dr. Steinbeck:
“How would you describe ‘bad television’?”
“The only ‘bad television’ is the one that falls on your head!”  Dr. Steinbeck might still be laughing.

Disclaimer: For security reasons, all the person’s names used in this article have been changed. For example: Lorelei Duke’s real name is Pamela Schwartz, and so on.
Update: The “Steinbeck Groupies” disbanded the very moment they ran out of beer. For the record: They only ran amok once – it was a bathroom thing. Dr. Steinbeck now lives in a previously owned mobile home in Coca Cola, Florida.

Monday, February 4, 2013

WHO’S TO BLAME? – anybody but me

When we succeed in something, we eagerly take credit for it and perhaps we even lead the way to get our accomplishments acknowledged; fair enough. But when we do something in the OOPS category, we have a tendency to immediately look around for anybody to blame or something to be fully responsible, other than ourselves - but do you think that’s fair?
So here you go: “Not me; I pretty much fess up to all the OOPS in my life; I take full responsibility for my actions…” At least that’s what you think you do, but you really don’t. Of course that does not make you a bad person – just confirms that you are “one of us”, really.
I’m sitting here writing, using my trusted software and fast computer with all its impressive technology. More stuff in the word-processing program that I will ever be able use, or more likely, will never be able to figure out how to use; duh…
The screen goes blank, I lost two hours of work; so do I go (in a calm, deep and sensuous voice): “Oh, I wonder what has happened? Did I do something wrong? Did I press a key that should not have been pressed at this time? Did the cat run across the keyboard without my permission? Was that an earthquake?” That would be a good initial reaction, by looking for a reason within myself, by first checking what I might have done wrong; but that is not what we do.
My immediate reaction is an angry confrontation with that bloody computer, as in: “What the *&^%$ is happening? God damn stupid useless piece of technology – I hate it, ignorant pile of crap…” And then I proceed to kick the Hell out of it till it expires right in front of me – I’m sure you go: Yeah, been there and done that…
When looking at the two very different reactions, we ALL vote for option one, where we search within ourselves first, to find out what happened and find a way to fix it (in the above case: push sleeping cat off keyboard). But we blindly race into option two, doing the swearing and kicking bit. So why do we do that? Why are we playing the blame-game?
I see us use blame as an innocent component in our everyday life; we try to hide embarrassment in failing, by placing responsibility somewhere else. So we use the: “I didn’t do it” approach. And in most cases it is innocent and a rather natural (yeah, right) reaction. Rarely do we use it to speak ill of, to slander, and/or to find faults with other people or as a reproach; we do the normal blame bit in a much milder version… And we started doing all this as little kids.
As a small boy, my brother spat on the dining-room table; when our Mother saw it, she asked what had happened. My brother insisted that it was the lamp above the table that had done it. My Mother didn’t get upset about the spitting on the table, but it was negating telling the truth she did not accept – early case of the blame-game. And we have all been there and done that; yes, even the angels among us (and you know who you are)…
For the most part I don’t think we do this with malice, as I firmly trust that we do it more so out of embarrassment, trying to avoid the fact that we made a mistake; in most cases nobody really cares. But of cause the blame-game unfortunate also evolves into bigger issues and becomes a huge concern, dramatically affecting a few as well as many in serious ways.   
Criminals have a tendency to claim innocence by either stating that they didn’t do it (duh), or place blame on somebody else, no matter how convincing the forensic evidence stacks up against them (“denial” at its worst). They had an OOPS moment and can’t admit guilt – “The devil made me do it”, is another good one...
Alcohol and illegal drugs are getting a huge mountain of blame for so many things: affairs, traffic violations, idiotic behavior, more affairs, being loud at parties (been there and done that), slurry speech, just being stupid doing stupid things and the list is very long. Some issues are serious, others: …whatever?”
Alcohol and drugs are getting way too much credit; using any of the two as an excuse for pitiful behavior, is pathetic and irritatingly ignorant. I have certainly done my share of stupid stuff way back in my youth (1832), but in all fairness, I have never used the “It’s okay because I was sauced…”as an excuse (never done drugs – most of us “angels” don’t do that).
We have politicians blaming left and right, front and back. Why not use that wasted energy to find solutions instead, so we can move forward? Divorce courts are full of angry finger pointing with the blame-game at full speed. Shouldn’t they instead have looked at themselves first, tried to figure out how they each could have contributed to a better relationship, thereby have avoided court and lived happily ever after?
We play team sports and we win and we lose. We blame loses on others (defense sucked today), and take the wins as if they were our personal achievement. If defense sucked, why don’t we all think about how we each can help defense get better – by moving forward as the team we are supposed to be?
At the office, the large potential contract fell apart. Departments are scrambling, trying to find somebody to blame. Yeah, you can also look at it as searching for reasons why it fell apart, but the truth is that no matter how we pack it, blame is in the forefront, though we have a hard time admitting so. Let’s immediately admit to the failure causing the break-down, no matter who is responsible, learn from it, regroup and then move forward.
I have always respected people who announce out loud that they screwed up - because we all screw up at times– but we have such a hard time admitting we did.
When I hear somebody “blaming” something or somebody else for their own misfortune one way or another, I have a tendency to cringe a bit. If I know them well enough, I simple ask what THEY have done to fix it. Most answers are “huh?” - Which also explains why I don’t have many friends – of course.
Parker-Brothers should buy my philosophy about blame and make it into a board-game. Yeah, I know, my gentle readers are of course not into blaming anybody or anything for their OOPS moments – but all of us would still be great at playing Peter’s BLAME-GAME; don’t you think?

STEPHANIE FROM IRELAND
Is everything okay?
Cheers, Peter