I like your hair long.

I was going to write a rant about work...and mistakes...but, no, it's Friday...happy, fluffy posts!

I occasionally watch Why Am I Still Single? (VH1), because, I don't know, I was hoping it may give me insight (it hasn't) and because I sometimes like/enjoy dating shows. Anyway, the premise of this one, in case you haven't seen it (you probably haven't), is that a New York City matchmaker takes "hopeless" daters, tells them what they are doing wrong and rights all those wrongs (sort of) and then sets them up on a final date, to test their new knowledge. Part of righting the wrongs, particularly for the women daters, is a "mini" make over. This consists of (again mostly for the women daters) two Jersy-ian orangey blonde twin stylists attacking the dater with (hevy, heavy) make up and a curling iron (according to this show, short hair on a woman is just evil, so don't try it!). On last week's episode, while curling one of the dater's hair, they explained to her that the way you part your hair matters. Huh? Apparently (according to their research?), guys see women with hair parted towards the left as stable, parted towards the right as more easy going.

Say what now? Is this real? Does a guy say, 'gee, I really enjoyed going out with Kelly but, I don't know, her hair parts to the left and I'm really seeking someone more carefree'? Or perhaps, 'Megan was so fun to go out with, but I don't think I'd marry her because of her hair parting to the right, like some kind of wild child.' What about someone who does that zig zag part - where it goes both ways? Or a woman with hair so short, there is no part...I know, I know, women with that short of hair don't deserve to date...thanks, TV!

six times a lady

I was watching the Maury show yesterday (yup) and one of the stories was about a couple making their SIXTH appearance on the show. (Sorry - I do not remember their names) Gloopy (the "husband") and Glompy (the wife) had come on the show five previous times (over the span of almost ten years), at Gloopy's insistence, for Gloopy to confess to his (long suffering) wife that he has cheated on her. And not the standard for these shows 'it just happened' one night stand - no, he had cheated multiple times with multiple people (I forgot the math, but the first time, he had cheated with 5 people, then the third time or so it was 25 people - which I don't know if that means a new 25 or if that includes the previous confessed dalliances).

Apparently, after all this, Glompy forgives and takes him back (FIVE times). Gloopy brings her back one last time - to prove he is no longer cheatin'! Lie detector test (not valid in most courts) prove he is no longer cheatin'! And poor Glompy says that if he fails (this test that really isn't that accurate), she is kicking him out. Good for you, Glompy! A bit late, but good for you!

In the end, he passes. He hasn't cheated on her in like a year or so, so everything is all rainbows and bubblegum. Maury ought to give them a trip somewhere (other than his show), - a second honeymoon or a first time 'I'm not cheating anymore!' trip - but he doesn't.

Which all this leaves me to wonder - if you were the wife, why in the world would you keep coming back on the Maury show? I mean, after the first two times or so, you kind of get the point that Gloopy has the Maury show producers on speed dial and that every time Gloopy says, "honey, pack your bags, we're going to Maury next week!" it means that, yes, he's cheating on you (except this last time!). Outside of the question why in the world did she keep this guy around? I mean, the first time my husband announces, on syndicated television, that's he's cheating, I'd be like, ok, alright, donzo, there's the door. Did he tell her the second, third, fourth, FIFTH time that it was a show not about his cheating or did he let it be a 'surprise' to her? And why choose that same show, that you humiliated your wife on five times before, to vindicate yourself? I mean, really.

Jeffrey

I watched Get Him to the Greek (2010) yesterday and it was a mixed bag (a "Jeffrey," if you will) - there were things I liked about it and things I hated about it, but what most bothered me was Mad Men's Peggy and Jonah Hill.

How and why are these two a couple? Peggy is a super busy and sleep deprived medical student who likes Gossip Girl and bright colors. Jonah Hill (who just makes me think of Allen Gregory, the character he voices on the sometimes amusing cartoon with the same name) is a sleep deprived (?) music fanatic who has some sort of job at a record label. One night, he asks Peggy to go see the Pixies and the Mars Volta (Pixies should have had lead billing) and Peggy asks to be reminded as to who Mars Volta is (really, Peggy? You are aware of the Pixies and not Mars Volta?) and decides she'd rather stay home and watch Gossip Girl than go see the Pixies. The Pixies. OMG. The flipping iconic Pixies lose to a show which has gotten weaker and weaker since it's first few seasons (like 90210, when they leave high school, the show goes downhill fast). Ugh. I digress.

How are these two even together? I hate, in films, when the main character loves loves loves music and is with a woman who has no clue about music (who is also usually a harpy). Really? How'd they get together? Some other common interest(s) the viewer isn't let in on?

I think it comes down to the fact that Jonah Hill's character is unlikable and inconsistent (I don't think a different actor would have done much with the role either). Peggy's going to be a doctor. She needs to move to Seattle without him. Find some other milk toast guy who likes Gossip Girl as much as she does, who also doesn't know who the Mars Volta is.

I also hate how, in movies, if both parties in a couple cheat (aka the man cheats so we have the woman cheat too) it somehow makes it okay/acceptable to both parties (cancels each other out?).

But, in the end, Peggy and Jonah work it all out. He lives the fake music industry to...oh, to stay in the music industry to become a producer. Uh, okay. What I'd love to see is a future sequel - with Russell Brand's character's son (who turns out to not be his son) grown up and working at Jonah Hill's totally real and not all flashy fake record label and given the task to get his father (not-father) to a reunion show...Get Him BACK to the Greek. Ha. No.

such a classic girl

[originally posted on myspace on August 4, 2009]

I wasn't much a fan of the Gilmore Girls. My mother actually watched the show regularly and eventually got me into it. When I first started watching, I liked the alt-music references, some of the snappy dialogue and the whole Rory-Jess thing. I liked Jess when he was first introduced, as the moody, rebellious boy who liked cool music and who actually read books and put him with Rory, in the whole 'they are so perfect together...will they or won't they ever get together' scenario...then the writers, as they tended to do with all of Rory's boyfriends (Dean, Logan) quickly turned him into a jerk.

Anyway, I watched an episode over the weekend, back from around the time I would have been Jess-fixated and ooh, they made a Belle and Sebastian reference-oriented time, but, now, since it's been some six or seven years since seeing this episode, one of the storylines was almost relatable. Lorelai, a character I never really liked much during the course of the show, a character I tended to find grating, was going through something (I almost felt sympathy towards her character, though I continue to find her grating) and if I did not say to myself, 'geez, everyone must go through that at least once, then.' It was oddly nice to know a fictional character was feeling comparable pain. And it made me laugh out loud.

And I've log wondered, what does my mom get out of that show? Insight into the mother-daughter relationship? Or is she just a sap for the Lorelai-Like relationship, like me?

So, what makes a 'classic' a classic?

This is something I've been thinking about (as I enter another inward philosophical period) - just the overall idea of what makes something (book, movie, television show) beyond good, what makes it beloved and worthy of multiple readings/viewings...because if there are such distinct traits, I want to know them and incorporate them in my work (I just hear Stewie's voice in my head, when he rails on Brian's never finished novel, 'a richer experience for the reader...').

Gilmore Girls, to me, is a classic, in that, much like the movie Singles, besides being entertaining with each viewing, it is multi-layered, you can get something different out of it, just depending on where you are at when you watch (is that what a critic means when he/she says something has 'depth'?).

So, can a classic just be something you are familiar with, that you can watch over and over, recite the lines out loud, like a reliable friend (or a comfort dish of mac and cheese), with predictability and known patterns/outcomes when all else seems upside down? Or does that just make something good? Does adding to it the layering, making it so that someone can get something different out of it each time, raise it to classic value?

And does someone who has no favorites (no favorite movie or book or - what I hate - no favorite bands or songs, even) just someone who needs the novel, who needs something new at every turn (one could also argue that nothing is new - that all things, books, movies, music, etc, is repeated/influenced by something and therefore, not 'new') or someone with an attachment disorder?

A person's television/movie/book preferences as it relates to his/her interpersonal relations. I've got my next research paper.

baby disorder

[originally posted on myspace on March 23, 2010]

So, yesterday, during the glorious day off, I watched some Dr. Phil (yeah, I know). It was an odd show about "kid obsession." The first segment was this sad stage mom wanting her three year old to make it in Hollywoodtown. Everyone told her, "don't waste your money, lady" and she nodded and smiled but did not listen. Poor three year old.

The second segment was about this very young (early 20s) married lady who really wants a baby. Really, really wants a baby. And not just any baby, but a "perfect" baby and, heck, make that three "perfect" babies. Um, ok. That's perfectly "normal." But this lady had bought thousands and thousands of dollars of baby stuff...and not just 'oh, that stroller's on sale, let me pick one, or two, up.' No. Toys and clothes and assorted baby stuff. She has a whole room devoted to future baby and all of future baby's stuff. A room that will not be, while she's alive, turned into a guest room or anything else.

Yup. That's perfectly.normal.

So, that combination...obsession with a "perfect" baby and hoarding (yes, hoarding) all that baby stuff before she has any true need for it...surely, Dr. Phil will tell her, "lady, this is crazy...you need to stop spending/wasting your money, go volunteer to hold some preemies down at the hospital if you really need to have a baby in your arms (and maybe that'll get you over the whole "perfect" thing)...because even *if* (yes, if, because not everyone is just promised a baby) you have a kid, who is to say that all the crap you've bought is "outdated" (even if it's not) by then...who is to say that you won't have a perfect baby or you may have a perfect baby who then grows up into a not so "perfect" kid...who is to say that buying all this unnecessary stuff for your future kid may actually bankrupt the kid for when he/she actually needs the money (doctors, schooling, etc)."

Please, Dr. Phil, please tell her something along those lines.

He turns to the camera to address the "women" watching at home. All the women who are watchign at home who absolutely, surely must be screaming at their TV sets (because, that's what ladies do, huh, they scream lots coz of their periods) that there is nothing insane or worrying about this, that the "biological clock" urge to have babies is absolutely normal, says women watching at home (according to Dr. Phil), so don't dare get after her about that...

I was so annoyed at the giganitc, sweeping gender stereotype made by a pretend doctor in the year 2010 during daytime television...that I turned channels and never looked back.

That's what I get for watching Dr. Phil.

God is my co-signer

[originally posted on myspace on Monday, February 18, 2008]

(aka Jesus is My Loan Shark)

TLC has a show called My First Home, which is a good enough show. It follows first time home buyers through the process and it can be very educational (though, often, I am left with this deadening feeling about how little these people know as they jump into a huge financial decision).

On a recent episode:

Husband, wife and four boys in Indiana (Indianapolis, I think, which, wow are their housing prices cheap!). Wife teaches at a Christian elementary school and husband does some sort of church related work (they show him a few times talking to kids/teens about Jebus). The two make a respectable combined salary (this is why I love this show – they tell you the median salaries for everyone's jobs). They have been renting the wife's childhood home, which, honestly, looks like a crack house. They mention it is a horrible neighborhood (I really hope the rent wasn't that high). So, they want to move to a better neighborhood (preferably the 'hood all their church peeps live in).

The town's home prices are dirt cheap ($120-150k for newish to new construction…insane!). They make a decent living yet have a shit FICO score and even though they have been "looking" at houses for three years now, have zero saved up for a down payment.

Anyway, they go look at houses and decide they really ought to custom build (still dirt cheap). They can't get approved for a lot (even after working to improve their FICO scores) but they pray on it. The husband says something along the lines of "if God wants us to have a house, he will provide."

They get approval but, oops, they need to have a down payment. They have nothing saved. So, they pray on it some more and their church takes up a collection, gifts them $5000 and all is well.

My (many) problems with this:

1) Husband is whiny and damn creepy (maybe in that he reminds me of former New Guy) and therefore enforces my stereotype that all churchy guys are oafish, dumb and creepy.

2) Husband and wife are older (I'd say 30s to 40s). How do they not save up something? Even a few hundred dollars, especially considering they have been "looking" at houses for three years. I understand, they have bills, they have kids, but they also have a crappy FICO score, which means they probably blew up their credit cards and didn't pay them off (so, again, why zero savings?). As Suze says, if you can't save up even a few hundred dollars, you (probably) have no business buying property.

3) (well, probably 2A) Husband complains that church people don't get paid a lot. Maybe think about another job? Or a second part time job, just for the down payment?

4) Oh, no, we keep asking God about it. That is something I really don't get. I understand (and kind of belief in) putting something out to the Universe to get some sort of answer (see: my last job) of what you might want to think about doing. But I would never ask the Universe, Krishna, Buddha, Santa Clause, etc to GIVE me a house or for that matter, money (that I should have been saving) to use towards said house.

5) (probably 4A) If there is a God, wouldn't he have more important things (oh, I don't know, war, famine, disease, Project Runway) to worry about than if this family got their dirt cheap (yet kinda nice) custom built home (that they saved nothing for)? I imagine it's like some high powered CEO or President getting calls from his bratty, spoiled teenaged daughter asking for money to buy a new purse or shoes since she's already blown this week's allowance. I mean, really.

And interesting note: at the end, the show spells out how much the people spend on the house, etc (which I love). The church gave them a love gift (which means it's a gift and not a loan) of $5000 for their down payment. The show lists the down payment put down at so not $5000 (I think about $4500). Which begs the question, where's the rest of the money? If I was one of the suckers, I mean, donors, I'd want to know…

dress you up in my love

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.