Strange TV

There's a couple of strange TV programming choices that caught my eye. Strange only to people with young children, so if you don't have any then this blog is 2 minutes of your life you don't have to waste.

TV3 start screening Family Guy this Sunday night at 8pm, right after the Simpsons. The first one is great, even if it does touch on 'adult themes' from time to time (Marge gets a boob job, Homer has an affair, Marge likewise). The second one is also great but is in no way way suitable for young kids. The current promo for the show on TV3 says it all: a doctor pulls a wheelchair out of a vagina (if you watch the show, like I do, you'll understand why). The problem for those of us with young kids is that TV3 are promoting both of those shows together, as a package. Meaning we're going to have whiney kids at 8pm throwing a tween tantrum and demanding to watch the show.

The solution may seem simple: be a parent and tell your kids its time for bed. Explain to them it's a cartoon for grown-ups and they can watch it when they're older. Much older.

Yeah, right. Those 'solutions' are for people who've never had children, or Ned Flanders. My 7 year old daughter has seen Family Guy (via C4 and a babysitter we won't use again) and loves Stewie Griffin. Every time the promo comes up she squeals and demands to watch Family Guy. I tried watching a few episodes with her but it was horrific: non-stop extended vomiting, a talking Dog trying to have sex with Lois, Lois in full BDSM gear whipping Peter who's restrained and wearing a ball gag.

Yeah, try explaining all that to a 7 year old. We stopped watching it after that.

So why should you stop watching it just because it's not suitable for young kids? The answer is you shouldn't. All I want is for TV3 to stop promoting both shows together, in the same on-air promo. They're the ones trying to build the idea that they're a package and it's already working on my kid. She's very excited about seeing Stewie again this Sunday. But it aint gonna happen.

In another weird scheduling decision TV2 are screening Girlicious at 11am on Saturday mornings. This is a 'reality' show (we all know that there's nothing real about 'Reality TV' don't we? It's all manipulated by the show producers) where attractive young women aged 18-23 vie to be in a new pop group being created by the people who created The Pussycat Dolls. Actually, the show makes some tenuous claim that it's PSD themselves who are forming this off-shoot, meaning at least one of them pops up at least once during this show for a minute or three, but that's BS.

Anyway, what's wrong with this show is that it screens at a time when a whole bunch of preteen and teenage girls are most likely to see it. And what do they see: contestants cat-fighting all the time, shouting bleeps at each other, and then trying to decide which outfit makes them look like the biggest skank. Great. And then after that they have to dance like hoes, swinging on poles or writhing on the floor or grinding up on some male models that the producers have seen fit to bring into the contestants house.

Oh look, surprise surprise, one of the contestants and one of the models have snuck off to a bedroom to hook up. And she's got a boyfriend at home! Great TV, but not really the messages we want to be sending to young girls is it? Again, the obvious answer is don't let your kids watch it, or watch it with them and discuss the issues raised.

Yeah, right.

I'm On A Bridge! (Muthafukkers!!)

For the past month or so we've all been inundated with tweets and Facebook status updates saying "I'm On A Boat". Yes, very witty -- the first two times...

Today I went one better: I'm On A Bridge! No less than the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which is normally CLOSED to pedestrians and cyclists. I joined thousands of other Aucklanders this morning in pushing past the Police barricades and walking onto the Harbour Bridge via the Curran Street on-ramp. The Police tried to stop us, but they were hopelessly out-numbered (and they knew it) and we pushed past.

It was all very exciting, as you can imagine. We may not all be able to steal a million or four from a bank, but by crikey we can all cross a bridge if we damn well want to. The protest action was organised by Getacross.org.nz who have been agitating for bridge access for some time.

Once on the bridge you can see why 'they' (the Transit Authority) don't want to provide any access for pedestrians and cyclists -- the view is too blardy amazing! Especially on a day like today. If they did create an access lane it would be clogged with cyclists and pedestrians stopping to enjoy the vista.

Anyhoo, a picture tells a thousands words so I've downloaded some raw unedited photos to Facebook. You can see them here.

Pussycat Dolls vs Lady GaGa (UPDATE)

Just a quick update on my previous blog...

A Facebook friend said the Pussy Cat Dolls concert was 'good' - but was damning in his faint praise. He was surprised at the lack of any real 'show' ie there was no stage set, minimal costume changes, and the girls 'sang' over backing tracks ie no live band. This is fine for a Mall appearance, but when you're paying $130+ for a ticket you kinda expect more.

Evidently Lady GaGa (the support act) was great - she actually put on a show. You can read more about both performances in this NZ Herald review.

For more pictures of the show (like the ones below) check out The A List (www.thealist.co.nz)

http://www.thealist.co.nz/files/images/0-345.preview.jpg

Pussycat Dolls vs Lady GaGa (VIDEO)

The big showdown happens tonight at Auckland's sold-out Vector Arena. The Pussycat Dolls take on newcomer Lady GaGa in a fight to the finish to decide who is the hottest right now?

Officially Lady GaGa is the support act, but she's selling more records and getting more airtime right now than headliners The Pussycat Dolls. Do I really care? HELL NO!

The PCD (hey, I'm down with the kids) make for way much better eye candy than Lady GaGa (or should that be LGG?) and musically they're not really that much different. I can't listen to 'My Poker Face' without being reminded of Boney M's 'Ma Baker', which just shows my age.

Sure, I'd like to perve at PCD at Vector tonight but both my age and my girth prevent me. Being fat and forty and sitting amongst rows of teenage (and pre-teen) girls is not a good look. Especially if their mothers are also present.

Seriously, I know a bunch of women in their late 20s and 30s who are going, and I can't wait to ask them what it was like. And just how many squealing girls were there, ruining it. Because the PCD are a great act, and I would have loved to have something like them perform at one of my Cheap Sex club nights last century. But Cheap Sex was for grown-ups and PCD are for kids. They're just really not age-appropriate are they?

I was going to call this blog 'Teach Your Children Well' and ask what are todays mothers thinking when they let their tweenage daughters get down to PCD, but then I thought ... WTF? Don't get me wrong, I think they're the devil incarnate and are corrupting our youth with their unambiguous sexual messages, it's just that I can't be arsed.

The battle is over, they've won. You're daughters will grow up to be sluts and whores. GaGaGagging for it.

Here's some vids to watch. Funny, but sad, but funny.

A Quick Lesson In Group Sex

Dear Willie Jackson, John Tamihere, and your Radio Live Listeners,

Just because a girl agrees to go back to the Motel Room of two Aussie rugby league players for a threesome DOES NOT mean she consents to also having sex with the other four guys that turned up in the room unannounced and uninvited. Nor does it mean she agreed to put on a show for yet another four team members who also turned up, but just to watch.

Because by your logic if a hot young woman picks you up in a Hotel Bar, takes you upstairs to her room, and then her boyfriend jumps out of the wardrobe and fuçks your a$$, and later uploads the video to PornTube, then you can't complain because you were obviously up for anything when you agreed to go up to her room.

Sex is meant to be fun for everyone involved. If someone isn't enjoying themselves then you're just not doing it right.

Regards,

Gene Simmons

Leviticus Says Homosexuality is a Sin

Today's blog is lifted wholesale from here but I think it's worth repeating:

THE GOOD BOOK

On her US radio talkshow Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, from one of her listeners:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

Two Great Clips From MEDIA MATTERS

Media Matters has documented numerous examples of how Fox News hosts and correspondents crop comments by Democratic political figures (and anyone else who doesn't hold to the 'Conservative' viewpoint) in a manner that misrepresents them completely. This might not surprise anyone ("Fair & Balanced"? yeah, right) but the following clip really is something to behold:

Fox Crops

this one is also worth a look:

100 Days of "Fair & Balanced"

NB: if you are seeing this blog via Facebook you need to click on 'View Original Link' below to see the videos.

Do Facebook Have No Shame?

It's a rhetorical question because we all know they don't.

Facebook run ads, but they don't care how dubious. With all the frenetic activity of late regarding those Facebook "Quizzes" ('Top 5 Bands to Play The Powerstation', 'What Type of Penguin Are You?', etc etc) you may have been tempted to click on "Want a Girlfriend? Find out if you can be a good
boyfriend!"

Okay, maybe you weren't that stupid, but I was. I thought it was a quiz, but it wasn't. It was a link to a Russian dating site. A Russian dating site that sent my Mac into an apoplectic fit in it's haste to warn me that the site was the Dodgiest of Dodgy Sites and "could NOT be trusted!". I use a program called WOT so luckily I did not click onto the site proper, although the bevvy of attractive Russian brides waiting for me did look tempting.

You have to wonder how badly Facebook need the money that they accept this sort of advertising? Another ad they run is "Work-Out Technique ~ Do you want a 6-pack? There's a new way instead of doing repetitive sit-ups! Now you can get six-packs with a new proven method!". The ad features a photo of Edward Norton, lifted from the movie 'American History X'. Clearly they don't have the right to use that image, but Facebook don't care. They'll run the ad til either Edward Norton or NewLine Cinema tell them not to. But why anyone would run an ad with the image of a White Power Nazi, I don't know.

And if that isn't funny enough, there's always "You Smarter Than Rihanna? Take the IQ quiz and find out if you are smarter than this pop diva!" I guess the hook for that one (no pun intended) is that we all think we're
smarter than Rihanna now.

[And as a spooky aside:- one of my Facebook friends made the following comment on Facebook (after I'd written this blog, but before I'd published it)

BGE ~ I bet your ads on face book don't feature websites selling fake designer bags and competitions run by cigarette companies do they? (only in Indonesia...bless) ]

I Am Pathetic

In last Friday's blog I bleated about how I waste my time on Facebook babbling about nothing of consequence ... whilst at the same time promising to pull my finger out and actually blog about something real, namely my recent trip to a Melbourne strip club and brothel. Naturally I posted this breaking news on my Facebook page, which elicited the following witty comment from one wag:

"you just blogged about a blog that you're going to write.  

just write the blog."

Said wag is absolutely correct, although in my defence there was a subtext to the blog - namely that a lot of people waste a lot of time on Facebook talking about nothing. Like Seinfeld, but without the longevity.

Anyway, within minutes of me posting my blog and then cross-posting it on Facebook, Simon Grigg did exactly the same for his latest blog post.

His blog is brilliant and I felt quite deflated. Here I was, getting myself all fired up about blogging something real, and then he just quietly does it. I blog about how I'm going to blog, but he actually blogs. Damn him and his succinct precis of the immorality of our obsession with Swine Flu while the 3rd World continues (as always) to suffer a thousand times worse.

You can find his blog here, but to whet your appetite I'll lift one of his quotes:

We met at lunchtime, not to talk of heart attacks and Lego, but of flu. There have been deaths in Mexico. There has been one in the US. Our Indian partner said: "There were 2,000 deaths, mainly children in Africa and Asia, yesterday."

Our medical student looked shocked: "I didn't know swine flu had reached that part of the world." "It hasn't," said our partner. "I'm talking of deaths from malaria. But that isn't news, is it?"

We were silent for a while. Time to get things in proportion.

Oh yeah, and BTW: Grigg is actually planning a Box/Cause Celebre reunion party. Not just thinking about one (as I do all the time with Cheap Sex) but actually planning one - as in booking a venue and organising DJs.  I think I first realised my life had been wasted when Obama got elected. He's not that much older than me, and he's the President of the U.S.A. 

I'm a guy who blogs about blogging. One day. Maybe next week.

Damn this Facebook!

What is it about Facebook that makes the undisciplined jabber so much? I'm on it all the time, with very little of real consequence to say (and you're just as bad, you FacebookWHORE!) (you know who you are), whilst others clearly log on either fortnightly or monthly.

I've just got back from a week in Melbourne, where I had limited internet access. Yet somehow I still managed to provide Facebook status updates - about visiting two strip clubs and a brothel no less! I will blog about those experiences, because there's obviously more to it than that (no, I wasn't visiting my Mum, thankyouverymuch), but I can't help but wonder if I should just STFU a lot more these days...