The Boob Tube

Hanging out with MacBoy has gotten me back into regular television. I limited my viewing habits to Family Guy and Intervention after Friends went off the air, mostly out of lack of interest. Now he has me hooked on Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty. Here's my take on things so far this season:

Can we get a new dynamic on Tom and Lynette's relationship? It seems like every episode either (1) Tom has some crazy new idea (RV, garageband, etc) that Lynette shoots down, (2) Lynette does something sneaky and manipulative to get what she wants or (3) Lynette is on Tom's back about spending time with the family. It's getting old and a bit predictable. And WTF was up with the RV idea anyway? Did Tom really think his family would want to ditch all their friends and wonder around the country for a year? The Scavos is supposed to me the"All-American" family (white, middle-class, kids), so it's unlikely the two will break up or have full-blown affairs, but it's clear the writers have trouble finding interesting things for them to do.

Susan's annoying slapstick humor is thankfully missing so far. I enjoyed seeing the drama of her divorce from Mike. As melodramatic as her "we're Susan and Mike" speech was, Teri Hatcher made it work. She practically broke the fourth wall and said to us "C'mon we're Susan and Mike, you just know we're getting back together".

Gabby and Carlos have been a little light on humor, but I'm enjoying the growth of the two characters. The two selfish rich people are gone and they resemble a loving, if dysfunctional, family now. But how is a masseuse making payments on a home like that and feeding his family?

Bree remains the funniest and most intriguing housewife. Except for arguably Susan, she endured the most tumultuous time during the break. Andrew has even grew into a responsible, stand-up guy. Mostly. Did anyone else find it convenient that Bree threw two dinner parties and only invited people relevant to the context of the episode, first when Edie asked Dave about his past and again for Orson's send-off before he went to prison?

Dave's creepy, mysterious presence brings a slight bit of tension to the show, something I expect to increase during November sweeps. Some have speculated that he's related to George (they both have the last name Williams), but his target is a man, when Bree would be the most logical target for avenging George's death. So who does that leave? Hopefully not Mike Delfino, too predictable.Could Orson have ticked him off? Or was he an old business associate of Carlos? Tom Scavo would be a nice change of pace. Who knows.

As for Ugly Betty, things are hit-or-miss. That dorky, stiff, boring Henry is thankfully gone, and Gio's definitely the more interesting of the two love interests. Gio's more blunt and rude than Henry, which works better against Betty's good-girl persona. Alexis has been reduced to a recurring character, which is probably good. I imagine that transgender fans weren't too happy with her endless backstabbing and attempts to murder people.

Wilhelmina's maneuvers for power are losing steam. Honestly, how many times can she stand in front of the Meades with that stiff, cold look and say "I've got you by the balls, now give me what I want before I twist"? Daniel's growth as a would-be father was a nice change of pace and it gave Claire an opportunity to drop the alcohol and be a real mother. But so far the season is just meh. Will having a child soften Wilhelmina up? What happened to Marks' boyfriend? And will Amanda's far-fetched search for her real dad go anywhere? We'll see.

On a final note, MacBoy also finally forced convinced me to watch Queer As Folk and quite possibly the four most painful episodes of television this side of House of Payne. Some parts softcore porn, some parts drama, no parts good dialogue or acting. Some parts are so painful I had to check if the show wasn't a parody.

Why I won't be voting Republican anytime soon

So in a conversation with a friend about the 2008 election, he lamented that, while he supports Obama, the election will likely hand both houses of Congress to the Democrats. His line of thinking is that it's best for Washington have one branch of government be controlled by Dems and another controlled by Republicans, forcing compromises to get anything done. I simply disagree with this notion.

First of all let me say that fiscal conservatism has a lot of good points in theory. Most people would agree that limited government spending, a small government, and a balanced budget are worthwhile goals. Let me also say the Democrats, even under the banner of Obama, aren't the golden caravan that will take America to the Promised Land. The liberals compromise too often and rarely take a stand on issues. Intellectuals could make a strong argument to support the ideals of either party.

But that isn't what wins Republican elections. The Republicans have a long history of relying on animosity towards gays, blacks, and illegal immigrants to shore up votes. That's why Willie Horton's pictures was plastered all over TV screens in 1988, that's why Jesse Helms attacked Harvey Gantt on affirmative action, and that's why the Federal Marriage Amendment was discussed on the floor of the Senate in 2004 and 2006. This vile, divisive strategy was coined the "Southern Strategy" by Richard Nixon's strategist, Kevin Phillips.

The Christian Right align themselves with Republicans to help shore up the votes, brazenly attacking science, art, and anything that contradicts their world view. The almost-scary manner in which these people adhere to a point of view in the face of contrary evidence keeps me awake at night. Take abstinence-only education. The overwhelming majority of people will have sex before marriage, yet the Christian Right refuse to admit that it'd be helpful to teach children about protection. And on top of all this, they hold up the 1950's as the ideal time of the American people, ignoring the blatant, systemic racism that kept people of color from moving up at the time.

This is to say nothing of the gays (which I'm one of), a group who they believe can be "healed" or "converted", despite the APA disavowing the notion THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO. When they're not bleating about how sinful we are, they're attributing every tragedy imaginable to us, including Hurricane Katrina, 9/11, and the collapse of the Roman empire (really).

And when the Republicans can't rely on racial animosity, homophobia, and religious fanaticism to win them votes, they'll resort to voter suppression (to be fair, Democrats have been accused of this too), targeting many of the very groups they're already stepping on. It amazes me that a party which claims to be so patriotic can violate the very basis of our government with a straight face.

There are so many other things that I could get into: the disdain for and disregard of poor people, the ridiculous distractions during elections (OMG that guy isn't wearing a lapel pin!), the anti-intellectualism, flip-flopping on issues, the lazy complaints about the "liberal media", etc. For me to vote Republican the party would have to morph into a creature virtually unrecognizable from its current incarnation, working to address the interest of people from all walks of life, not just straight, Christian, white males. It has to show respect scientific advancement, make real strides in eliminating poverty, develop a foreign policy that seeks diplomacy first with a concerted effort, and quit trying to institute a theocracy. Until I'll either vote Democrat, third party, or just sit out the elections

More about that whole collapse of the economy thing.

NPR did another great show explaining the complexities of the financial crisis. If you're as clueless as I am, I definitely recommend giving it a listen. Some of the practices of the firms on Wall Street were absolutely ridiculous. Towards the end of the show they outline an alternative to the bailout that the treasury secretary can use, a "stock injection". The experts explained that this would hold banks responsible while putting the government at less risk. The majority of economists prefer this option and it would go over better with the public, so naturally the odds of the secretary using it are pretty low.

Sigh.

And I couldn't ignore this. McCain's campaign is tanking fast, so he might as well try to link Obama to terrorists. The GOP has never been afraid to play off people's basest fears. And since implying Obama wants to teach kindergarteners that pee-pees go in hoo-hahs didn't fly, he might as well throw whatever he can at Barack. 29 days and (hopefully) this will all be over.