Our question this week comes to us from little Bobby Edinger of Moosejaw, Saskatchewan. Bobby wants to know what a "Hoe Handle" is.
Well, "Bobby," thanks to your naturally inquisitive nature, now, tens, if not dozens, of people will be able to stop asking themselves that very same question.
It turns out that, in spite of what your parents may have told you, "A ' Hoe Handle' is the moniker by which a lady of the evening refers to herself when conversing on a citizen's band radio."
Thanks for playing, we have a special prize on the way, just for you.
Keep those cards and letters coming in - you never know what you may learn.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
And The Word Is . . .
Today's new word is Cidiot -
Cid•i•ot - pronounced sih•dee•ut
Noun
A stupid person who comes from, and dwells within, urban or suburbanized areas and is so far removed from our country's agrarian roots and rural zip codes that they believe the food they buy at the grocery store actually, magically originates at the grocery store.
It further goes without saying that this is also a group of people who cannot distinguish the difference between a hay rake and a hoe handle. These people are not constrained by any regional or territorial boundaries, appear to be otherwise normal by all accounts and may even interact with you on a daily basis, while leaving no clues as to their condition.
The time they most draw attention to themselves is when they move to small midwest towns or into the country to get away from the stresses of 21st century life, where, many times, they are deemed to be functionally illiterate. Moving out into farm country to live the good life and then complaining about the smell of their new neighbor's dairy barn also tends to drop their IQ by a few points, at least as perceived by their genuinely rural counterparts.
Cid•i•ot - pronounced sih•dee•ut
Noun
A stupid person who comes from, and dwells within, urban or suburbanized areas and is so far removed from our country's agrarian roots and rural zip codes that they believe the food they buy at the grocery store actually, magically originates at the grocery store.
It further goes without saying that this is also a group of people who cannot distinguish the difference between a hay rake and a hoe handle. These people are not constrained by any regional or territorial boundaries, appear to be otherwise normal by all accounts and may even interact with you on a daily basis, while leaving no clues as to their condition.
The time they most draw attention to themselves is when they move to small midwest towns or into the country to get away from the stresses of 21st century life, where, many times, they are deemed to be functionally illiterate. Moving out into farm country to live the good life and then complaining about the smell of their new neighbor's dairy barn also tends to drop their IQ by a few points, at least as perceived by their genuinely rural counterparts.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
This Just In: Obama's Pants Are On Fire - Nobody Seems To Care
As radio talk show hosts go, Mark Levin is a cut above the rest. Well, several cuts, actually. He possesses a brilliant legal mind and a scholarly knowledge of our constitution, as well as pivotal and obscure Supreme Court cases. In addition, he is the president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a law firm which argues cases before the courts, usually on behalf of defending the rights and interests of the American people where constitutional issues are concerned and against the corruption and over-reaching tentacles of an out of control federal government.
He is also a three time New York Times, bestselling author with two books on politics; 'Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America,' 'Liberty and Tyranny' and 'Rescuing Sprite,' a non-political offering dealing with the adoption and eventual heartbreak that comes with the death of a beloved family pet.
As a younger man, he graduated college at 19 and by the time he was 23 he had already earned his Juris Doctor and was working in Washington D.C. for the Reagan Administration. Now at 53, he has a keen eye and ear on political matters and regularly dissects and deconstructs the silly, outrageous and stupid things our political leaders say with a strait face and which they whole heartedly expect us to believe.
One such occasion for Mark to dissect the words of an itinerant politico was when he took a serious look and listen to what President Obama said to Bill O'Reilly in response to his questions in an interview which aired on Super Bowl Sunday. In this particular sit down, President Obama scoffed at the notion that he has raised taxes. His claim is that he has actually cut taxes for the American people, which, I guess he can say with a strait face - because it is true. But only just barely. This is the place where his nose starts to grow (or in this president's case, his ears). Let's take a look at all the ways this 'pro-big-government' president has lessened the burden for the average citizen, then let's see all the various ways he has made that burden heavier.
First of all, how has he cut taxes?
Levin finds that Obama's entire claim of being a net tax cutter is based solely upon the temporary tax relief he signed into law.
Now, how has he raised taxes?
This is the list that takes a little more time to read. Oh yeah, these tax increases signed into law by President Obama have invariably been PERMANENT tax increases.
These are increases unearthed by Levin and enumerated on his broadcast on 2/8/2011:
• Federal tobacco tax hike
• The individual mandate excise tax
• The employer mandate excise tax
• The small business 1099 information reporting (which is a tax if it's a cost. Recently repealed)
• Surtax on investment income
• Excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans
• A hike in the Medicare payroll tax
• Medicine cabinet tax
• HSA withdrawal tax hike
• Flexible Spending Account cap (aka Special Needs Kids tax)
• Tax on medical devise manufactures
• Reduction in medical itemized deduction from 7.5% to 10% of adjusted gross income
• Tax on indoor tanning services
• The elimination of the tax deduction for employer provided retirement drug coverage
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield tax hike
• Excise tax on charitable hospitals
• Tax on innovator drug companies
• Tax on health insurers
• Bio-fuels "black liquor" tax hike
• This does not even include the tax increases in the EPA regulations that are coming out and the
impact they will have on the economy.
It turns out that:
• President Obama signed into law $7 of permanent tax increases for every $1 of permanent tax cuts.
• Ninety percent of the tax cuts Obama has signed into law have been temporary.
• 100 percent of the tax increases are permanent.
The net tax increase under Obama, so far:
• 618.7 Billion dollars.
And those who still support this man have the nerve to get upset when anyone questions his honesty or intentions? I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they continue to support him out of their own ignorance, willful or otherwise, not because they truly understand what it is that he is doing.
I'll admit, this information may not be widely disseminated, but it is easy to find if you know where to look. All the information Mr. Levin shares on his nightly broadcasts is information that any responsible, so-called 'journalist' could find and report . . . if they were curious enough to do so.
It seems that not reporting the reality of the Obama Administration is the game being played by the Dinosaur Media. Not reporting news, which puts Obama in a bad light, has the same effect as having had that bad news never really happen at all. It's kinda like Obama has taken advantage of a giant propaganda machine at his disposal, there to do his bidding, and being that the majority of the media are so in tune with Obama's political agenda and worldview, they don't require much prodding to stay on the same page. In the end, the only ones who suffer are the American people. No big deal. That seems to be Obama's attitude and the attitude of a Press which, for the most part, no longer do their collective job.
With that in mind, I suppose it is just plain silly to think they'll give any ink to the fact that Obama and his Interior Department were held in Contempt of Court by a Federal Judge last week for ignoring his declaration that the moratorium imposed by department head, Ken Salazar, last summer on off-shore oil drilling is illegal. Another Federal Judge has declared Obamacare unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Obama's response? Nothing so far, except to press full steam ahead by telling the states that they cannot use the judge's ruling as a reason for noncompliance when it comes to implementation of this, now, illegal health-care law.
Thank God for Mark Levin and his courage to say the things so few dare say these days. Thank God Mark Levin has the curiosity to research the facts and has the courage to continue to speak the truth.
He is also a three time New York Times, bestselling author with two books on politics; 'Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America,' 'Liberty and Tyranny' and 'Rescuing Sprite,' a non-political offering dealing with the adoption and eventual heartbreak that comes with the death of a beloved family pet.
As a younger man, he graduated college at 19 and by the time he was 23 he had already earned his Juris Doctor and was working in Washington D.C. for the Reagan Administration. Now at 53, he has a keen eye and ear on political matters and regularly dissects and deconstructs the silly, outrageous and stupid things our political leaders say with a strait face and which they whole heartedly expect us to believe.
One such occasion for Mark to dissect the words of an itinerant politico was when he took a serious look and listen to what President Obama said to Bill O'Reilly in response to his questions in an interview which aired on Super Bowl Sunday. In this particular sit down, President Obama scoffed at the notion that he has raised taxes. His claim is that he has actually cut taxes for the American people, which, I guess he can say with a strait face - because it is true. But only just barely. This is the place where his nose starts to grow (or in this president's case, his ears). Let's take a look at all the ways this 'pro-big-government' president has lessened the burden for the average citizen, then let's see all the various ways he has made that burden heavier.
First of all, how has he cut taxes?
Levin finds that Obama's entire claim of being a net tax cutter is based solely upon the temporary tax relief he signed into law.
Now, how has he raised taxes?
This is the list that takes a little more time to read. Oh yeah, these tax increases signed into law by President Obama have invariably been PERMANENT tax increases.
These are increases unearthed by Levin and enumerated on his broadcast on 2/8/2011:
• Federal tobacco tax hike
• The individual mandate excise tax
• The employer mandate excise tax
• The small business 1099 information reporting (which is a tax if it's a cost. Recently repealed)
• Surtax on investment income
• Excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans
• A hike in the Medicare payroll tax
• Medicine cabinet tax
• HSA withdrawal tax hike
• Flexible Spending Account cap (aka Special Needs Kids tax)
• Tax on medical devise manufactures
• Reduction in medical itemized deduction from 7.5% to 10% of adjusted gross income
• Tax on indoor tanning services
• The elimination of the tax deduction for employer provided retirement drug coverage
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield tax hike
• Excise tax on charitable hospitals
• Tax on innovator drug companies
• Tax on health insurers
• Bio-fuels "black liquor" tax hike
• This does not even include the tax increases in the EPA regulations that are coming out and the
impact they will have on the economy.
It turns out that:
• President Obama signed into law $7 of permanent tax increases for every $1 of permanent tax cuts.
• Ninety percent of the tax cuts Obama has signed into law have been temporary.
• 100 percent of the tax increases are permanent.
The net tax increase under Obama, so far:
• 618.7 Billion dollars.
And those who still support this man have the nerve to get upset when anyone questions his honesty or intentions? I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they continue to support him out of their own ignorance, willful or otherwise, not because they truly understand what it is that he is doing.
I'll admit, this information may not be widely disseminated, but it is easy to find if you know where to look. All the information Mr. Levin shares on his nightly broadcasts is information that any responsible, so-called 'journalist' could find and report . . . if they were curious enough to do so.
It seems that not reporting the reality of the Obama Administration is the game being played by the Dinosaur Media. Not reporting news, which puts Obama in a bad light, has the same effect as having had that bad news never really happen at all. It's kinda like Obama has taken advantage of a giant propaganda machine at his disposal, there to do his bidding, and being that the majority of the media are so in tune with Obama's political agenda and worldview, they don't require much prodding to stay on the same page. In the end, the only ones who suffer are the American people. No big deal. That seems to be Obama's attitude and the attitude of a Press which, for the most part, no longer do their collective job.
With that in mind, I suppose it is just plain silly to think they'll give any ink to the fact that Obama and his Interior Department were held in Contempt of Court by a Federal Judge last week for ignoring his declaration that the moratorium imposed by department head, Ken Salazar, last summer on off-shore oil drilling is illegal. Another Federal Judge has declared Obamacare unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Obama's response? Nothing so far, except to press full steam ahead by telling the states that they cannot use the judge's ruling as a reason for noncompliance when it comes to implementation of this, now, illegal health-care law.
Thank God for Mark Levin and his courage to say the things so few dare say these days. Thank God Mark Levin has the curiosity to research the facts and has the courage to continue to speak the truth.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Bill O'Reilly and Obama And The Arguments That Ensued
During Bill O'Reilly's recent interview with President Obama, O'Reilly asked Barry why he thought so many people hated him. Obama responded in the usual way by not owning up to anything. Of course, you realize, if anyone dislikes Obama it's not because of anything Obama has done, it's only that people have a misconception of him and have bought into an inaccurate depiction of the one who would be king.
B.D.:
Obama rationalizes and deflects, saying what people hate is an incorrect interpretation of him. Wrong again, Barry. We hate what you have done so far, and continue to do to this country and to us. You side with our enemies and abandon our allies while restricting our freedom with more useless laws and regulations. THAT is why you are so disliked. You started it first by hating US!
Mark:
It has amused me for a while, now it is just getting anoying. During the Bush administation I was yelling about all the tax breaks to the upper 2% and all the stimulous checks all not paid for and was told I must want the country to fail. Then if I said I didn't like him I was told I was unamerican because you never say anything bad about a pres. during war time. Am I missing something or are we not still at war, because I can tell you all love this country --WHY IS IT DIFFERENT TO SAY BAD THINGS AGAINST THE PRES. NOW ?
The following is part of a discussion from another forum, where a friend of mine is unhappy that everyone hasn't fallen in love with our president, Barack Hussein Obama.
We begin with my response to the question of people hating Obama:
Obama rationalizes and deflects, saying what people hate is an incorrect interpretation of him. Wrong again, Barry. We hate what you have done so far, and continue to do to this country and to us. You side with our enemies and abandon our allies while restricting our freedom with more useless laws and regulations. THAT is why you are so disliked. You started it first by hating US!
Mark:
It has amused me for a while, now it is just getting anoying. During the Bush administation I was yelling about all the tax breaks to the upper 2% and all the stimulous checks all not paid for and was told I must want the country to fail. Then if I said I didn't like him I was told I was unamerican because you never say anything bad about a pres. during war time. Am I missing something or are we not still at war, because I can tell you all love this country --WHY IS IT DIFFERENT TO SAY BAD THINGS AGAINST THE PRES. NOW ?
B.D.:
Mark, It isn't any different now. I recall Bush constantly and continually getting bashed in the press as some sort of moron or boy king who didn't have a clue as to what he was doing and was accused of having everyone else make his decisions for him.
Reagan was also a guy who had a hard time getting a fair shake from the media and now, because the guy you back is getting a little friction from American citizens you're "annoyed"? Don't worry, the media still have his back and will continue to refuse to report news that is damaging to him.
News like this: Obama and his Interior Dept. were found in Contempt of Court last week by a Federal Judge for willfully disregarding his ruling that their moratorium on off-shore oil drilling was illegal. They ignored the ruling. What now? Or how about the Federal Judge who ruled that Obamacare is Unconstitutional and is therefore null and void? The dinosaur media aren't really bringing this up are they? No, of course not. It makes Obama look bad if they accurately report that he picks and chooses which laws he will obey and which laws he will ignore.
Obama's plan? He has told the states not to use the Judge's ruling as a reason for non-compliance. Can you believe that?
We have our government divided into 3 branches for a reason; so one branch does not assume more power for itself than it is allowed. The three branches are designed to keep the power of one another in check. Obama must remember: He is our President not our King and he does not rule over us, a president governs, but not with absolute power.
You must run with a rough crowd if they called you un-American for criticizing Bush. He was far from perfect and I had many objections to some of his policies while president. The thing with Bush was you didn't have to figure out what he was trying to say when he said it. He was pretty strait forward. Contrast that with our current president whose words and actions just don't seem to sync up at all . . . unless he is threatening to raise our taxes, as he said he will do in two years. He was pretty clear about that and I believe his sincerity.
I guess I said all of that to say this: It is our right to say what we want about any president, short of threatening his life. Whoever told you otherwise is uniformed.
You have every right to yell about Bush giving tax breaks to the upper 2% of the achievers in this country if you like, but they weren't the only ones singled out for such treatment. EVERYONE got a tax break under Bush, just as EVERYONE got a tax break under Reagan and JFK before him. Why was this done? Because it is a proven fact that lower tax rates spurs economic growth. Both Reagan and Bush doubled the amount of revenue coming into the Treasury by lowering tax rates, so your argument about Bush not paying for the tax breaks for all, and the stimulus checks that went out to lower and middle class families simply doesn't hold water. It is a fact of economics that lower tax rates pay for themselves. If you want something to get annoyed about, how about getting P.O.ed at the so-called Earned Income Tax Credit. This program actually gives tax refunds (if you can call it that) to people who pay no federal income tax at all. How is that for fair?
I would never question your love for this country. I would only question why you remain loyal to anyone just because of the political party to which they belong.
During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Obama told anyone who was listening what kind of president he would be. Now that he's in office no one should be surprised at how things have turned out. He is a true believer and adherent to a political philosophy that has failed under it's own weight every time it has been implemented anywhere around the world. The problem is, people of his persuasion always think that those who came before were not smart enough, or up to task, to bring about a true socialist utopia.
A true believer, such as Obama, cannot see that the defect is inherent in the system: Socialism and it's top down centralized power structure and promise of equal outcome are at odds with human nature.
To quote the late Austrian analyst Willi Schlamm, "The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists."
Reagan was also a guy who had a hard time getting a fair shake from the media and now, because the guy you back is getting a little friction from American citizens you're "annoyed"? Don't worry, the media still have his back and will continue to refuse to report news that is damaging to him.
News like this: Obama and his Interior Dept. were found in Contempt of Court last week by a Federal Judge for willfully disregarding his ruling that their moratorium on off-shore oil drilling was illegal. They ignored the ruling. What now? Or how about the Federal Judge who ruled that Obamacare is Unconstitutional and is therefore null and void? The dinosaur media aren't really bringing this up are they? No, of course not. It makes Obama look bad if they accurately report that he picks and chooses which laws he will obey and which laws he will ignore.
Obama's plan? He has told the states not to use the Judge's ruling as a reason for non-compliance. Can you believe that?
We have our government divided into 3 branches for a reason; so one branch does not assume more power for itself than it is allowed. The three branches are designed to keep the power of one another in check. Obama must remember: He is our President not our King and he does not rule over us, a president governs, but not with absolute power.
You must run with a rough crowd if they called you un-American for criticizing Bush. He was far from perfect and I had many objections to some of his policies while president. The thing with Bush was you didn't have to figure out what he was trying to say when he said it. He was pretty strait forward. Contrast that with our current president whose words and actions just don't seem to sync up at all . . . unless he is threatening to raise our taxes, as he said he will do in two years. He was pretty clear about that and I believe his sincerity.
I guess I said all of that to say this: It is our right to say what we want about any president, short of threatening his life. Whoever told you otherwise is uniformed.
You have every right to yell about Bush giving tax breaks to the upper 2% of the achievers in this country if you like, but they weren't the only ones singled out for such treatment. EVERYONE got a tax break under Bush, just as EVERYONE got a tax break under Reagan and JFK before him. Why was this done? Because it is a proven fact that lower tax rates spurs economic growth. Both Reagan and Bush doubled the amount of revenue coming into the Treasury by lowering tax rates, so your argument about Bush not paying for the tax breaks for all, and the stimulus checks that went out to lower and middle class families simply doesn't hold water. It is a fact of economics that lower tax rates pay for themselves. If you want something to get annoyed about, how about getting P.O.ed at the so-called Earned Income Tax Credit. This program actually gives tax refunds (if you can call it that) to people who pay no federal income tax at all. How is that for fair?
I would never question your love for this country. I would only question why you remain loyal to anyone just because of the political party to which they belong.
During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Obama told anyone who was listening what kind of president he would be. Now that he's in office no one should be surprised at how things have turned out. He is a true believer and adherent to a political philosophy that has failed under it's own weight every time it has been implemented anywhere around the world. The problem is, people of his persuasion always think that those who came before were not smart enough, or up to task, to bring about a true socialist utopia.
A true believer, such as Obama, cannot see that the defect is inherent in the system: Socialism and it's top down centralized power structure and promise of equal outcome are at odds with human nature.
To quote the late Austrian analyst Willi Schlamm, "The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists."
Monday, February 7, 2011
Cloverturd
When I set out to watch a movie the thought of stopping it, because it will be so bad, never crosses my mind. Well, it used not to cross my mind (the movie 'Hoodwinked' being the exception), then I began to watch "Cloverfield." I think I made it about 30 minutes in before I had to shut it off. It was one of the most stupid, poorly filmed, poorly lighted, poorly directed and poorly edited movies I've ever deliberately watched. The special effects, however, were beyond compare, but I just couldn't take it anymore. I could actually feel my brain starting to get smaller. I had wanted so much more from J.J. Abrams. An interesting concept, but I was starting to hope the monster would find these pathetic 'twenty-somethings' and have a light snack.
An Alluring Temptress
This is a rather long winded ode inspired by a fast-food run I made with my two sons back in December. It also speaks to the fickle tastes of the American consumer and the products some favor and others choose to shun. Stick with it as it may not seem to make sense at first - my story starts mid-shift in about 3rd gear.
This comes across best if read by a deliberate and meticulous voice in your head that sounds like the dramatic Shakespearean actor, Patrick Stewart.
This comes across best if read by a deliberate and meticulous voice in your head that sounds like the dramatic Shakespearean actor, Patrick Stewart.
and was taken to the local practitioner of the medical arts, whom, after removing the leeches, gently applied a healing salve made of pulverized anchovies and pimentos to the afflicted vagabond's wounds.
. . . And so it came to pass that in the waning moments of twilight, when that bright heavenly orb had nearly release the land from it's warming glow on that cold winter's evening, the three travelers, bedraggled, and made weary from the passing day's peregrinations, pushed on over hill and dale ... Ye, they traversed field, stream and smoothly paved surfaces alike, as they sought out out a warm and suitable abode in which they could obtain refuge and take sup.
In the distance, a gleaming beacon silently called and urged them on in their collective quest for sustenance. Upon crossing the threshold of the warm and inviting edifice, a wondrous and sumptuous array of foodstuffs beheld themselves and enchanted the onlookers' senses as the succulent morsels that adorned the shelves, ovens and workspaces, awaited to be caressed and consumed by our esurient visitors' trembling lips, which were now, wrought with expectancy.
The youngest of the trio, not being much more than ten years of age, decided upon a strange, yet oddly attractive and alluring menu item which captivated his gaze and would not release him from it's mesmerizing power until his few shekels were placed upon the counter and into the awaiting grip of the proprietor's chapped and well worn hands.
Making his way through the jumbled floor plan of the premises, he and his fellow wanderers found adequate seating and an evenly hewn surface on which to partake of their much anticipated banquet. The wee one, eager to break his unintended fast, raised the moist and steaming concoction of meat and bread to his mouth, only to be confounded as the joy, which had so recently welled within him, was quickly and surreptitiously stolen away.
Our young hero, though dejected, was somewhat easily comforted as he took solace in the knowledge that there were, as of yet, other undiscovered menu items to be had. The wailing was cut short, but much gnashing of teeth remained as a substitute cheeseburger exercised his undeveloped jowls on it's way to his nearly empty gullet which churned and rumbled with expectation at the prospect of the arrival of a few, savory, moist boluses.
Alas, make no mistake, take heed, understand and know full well .... For verily, verily I say unto thee that the much ballyhooed McRib can be a foul temptress whose siren call is one that is not easily dismissed. She has also occupied the role of a beguiling epicurean vixen who carries with her a taste that may call for acquisition through repetition. Know this, my friend, it is a taste which does not necessarily tickle and delight the pallet of all who seek her out.
Thus endeth our reading.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Today Is Not Her Birthday
For those of you who have had a family member affected by Alzheimer's, you know that of which I am about to speak.
Today is not her birthday
She defiantly insists
Today is not her birthday
Yet she can't say when it is
The room is dark, curtains tightly drawn
How long has it been
Since the time she knew what day it was
Or the month she's living in?
She sees familiar faces
Is put as ease by a warm smile
But keeps repeating questions
Although you’ve only just arrived
The bathtub, it sits empty
Collecting dust now its main task
To merely suggest bathing
Makes you wish you hadn’t asked
The pieces of her puzzle
Do not fit and aren't much fun
Confusion now controls the day
Am I a brother or a son?
Medications neatly sorted
Beneath a month of plastic tops
Passing by them all throughout the day
She never takes them, never stops
“The world is out to get me”
“Why don’t you leave me here to die”?
Paranoia says these things . . .
Paranoia’s been known to lie
The room is still, the air is thick
How long has it been
Since the time it mattered what day it was
Or the month that she was in?
Today will be her birthday
She won't recall her gifts
Today is my Mom's birthday
And that's just the way she is.
Today is not her birthday
She defiantly insists
Today is not her birthday
Yet she can't say when it is
The room is dark, curtains tightly drawn
How long has it been
Since the time she knew what day it was
Or the month she's living in?
She sees familiar faces
Is put as ease by a warm smile
But keeps repeating questions
Although you’ve only just arrived
The bathtub, it sits empty
Collecting dust now its main task
To merely suggest bathing
Makes you wish you hadn’t asked
The pieces of her puzzle
Do not fit and aren't much fun
Confusion now controls the day
Am I a brother or a son?
Medications neatly sorted
Beneath a month of plastic tops
Passing by them all throughout the day
She never takes them, never stops
“The world is out to get me”
“Why don’t you leave me here to die”?
Paranoia says these things . . .
Paranoia’s been known to lie
The room is still, the air is thick
How long has it been
Since the time it mattered what day it was
Or the month that she was in?
Today will be her birthday
She won't recall her gifts
Today is my Mom's birthday
And that's just the way she is.
Mad Men . . . Mystery Solved
I admit, I am a few years behind the times, but have recently succumbed to the pressure of friends and others who have extolled the virtues of AMC's 'Mad Men' and have been trying to catch up to the current season's episodes by starting with Season One on DVD.
While the show is visually alluring - if you like to see how people in the big city dressed back in the early sixties and are also interested in all the accompanying architecture and interior design elements that go with the period, it's the show for you. Plus, you get a look at some nice vintage automobiles to boot.
You also learn that just about any occasion at the advertising office is reason enough to have a drink or two . . . or three. And we're not talking the cheap stuff here either. Actually, it could all be room temperature Nestea for all I know, but when dispensed from a fancy Lead Crystal Decanter, you just have to imagine that it's something a little more potent. I am oddly attracted to the trappings of the show, but not necessarily to the show itself, not yet anyway; not to the point of those who are genuine fans.
What I have learned so far is that the main character; advertising executive, Don Draper, smokes like a fiend, but then again he's in good company, so does everyone else on the show. They seem to smoke to the point of making themselves caricatures of the stereotypical chain smoker - even the housewives, who aren't really doing it out of necessity or need, but rather reflexively or just to have something else to do with their hands while washing the dishes.
The thing that stands out most about Don Draper is that he really is a Dick. One of the many layers of his troubled and amorous character is that 'Don' is not his real name, and for some reason, after earning a Purple Heart in the Korean War, he chose to disconnect himself and everyone associated with the name, 'Dick Whitman,' from his life. Fair enough.
The thing that disturbs me about the show (not to the point that I have stopped watching yet), is how discreetly randy all these Madison Avenue-type men are and how their escapades are kept clandestine by their own enabling personal secretaries. Somehow, it's just expected, but not necessarily accepted by their spouses, that if you are a married man you are entitled to multiple rolls in the hay with a string of women, some of the trollops being far less savory and more tart than others. OK. I get it. It's a TV show, and a drama at that.
Outside of that, everyone on the show seems to have their own set of problems or demons and are all messed up to some degree . . . you know, like real life.
The one thing that overrides my other levels of tepid disgust with the characters connected to this series is the portrayal of Don Draper's secretary, Peggy Olson. I don't know who she is in real life - never saw her before in anything. The impression that I'm getting is that she is supposed to be one hot tomato to some, which confuses me, because I just don't see it. The thing about her is, even though I haven't seen her, I could have sworn I have seen her somewhere else, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
Then, six episodes in, it hit me! I knew where I had seen her before, but it wasn't really her I had seen, but rather someone else who possessed a striking resemblance to her. Now, I can't look at her without chuckling to myself - even some of her expressions and mannerisms seem to be channeled from this other person . . . who just happens to be a guy! A much younger guy, but still a guy. A kid actually, in the form of Jerry Mathers who played Beaver Cleaver.
To me it is a clear case of "Separated At Birth."
Now, when Don Draper (if that is his real name) steps out of his office, I half expect Peggy to stop typing, smile and say with a quizzical expression, "Gee, Mr. Draper, you sure have a lot of neato furniture and junk."
I'll have to wait for that one, I guess.
From a time travel standpoint, it is clearly plausible that the two were actually contemporaneous brother and sister or perhaps even twins . . . separated at birth.
Take a look and tell me what you think.
While the show is visually alluring - if you like to see how people in the big city dressed back in the early sixties and are also interested in all the accompanying architecture and interior design elements that go with the period, it's the show for you. Plus, you get a look at some nice vintage automobiles to boot.
You also learn that just about any occasion at the advertising office is reason enough to have a drink or two . . . or three. And we're not talking the cheap stuff here either. Actually, it could all be room temperature Nestea for all I know, but when dispensed from a fancy Lead Crystal Decanter, you just have to imagine that it's something a little more potent. I am oddly attracted to the trappings of the show, but not necessarily to the show itself, not yet anyway; not to the point of those who are genuine fans.
What I have learned so far is that the main character; advertising executive, Don Draper, smokes like a fiend, but then again he's in good company, so does everyone else on the show. They seem to smoke to the point of making themselves caricatures of the stereotypical chain smoker - even the housewives, who aren't really doing it out of necessity or need, but rather reflexively or just to have something else to do with their hands while washing the dishes.
The thing that stands out most about Don Draper is that he really is a Dick. One of the many layers of his troubled and amorous character is that 'Don' is not his real name, and for some reason, after earning a Purple Heart in the Korean War, he chose to disconnect himself and everyone associated with the name, 'Dick Whitman,' from his life. Fair enough.
The thing that disturbs me about the show (not to the point that I have stopped watching yet), is how discreetly randy all these Madison Avenue-type men are and how their escapades are kept clandestine by their own enabling personal secretaries. Somehow, it's just expected, but not necessarily accepted by their spouses, that if you are a married man you are entitled to multiple rolls in the hay with a string of women, some of the trollops being far less savory and more tart than others. OK. I get it. It's a TV show, and a drama at that.
Outside of that, everyone on the show seems to have their own set of problems or demons and are all messed up to some degree . . . you know, like real life.
The one thing that overrides my other levels of tepid disgust with the characters connected to this series is the portrayal of Don Draper's secretary, Peggy Olson. I don't know who she is in real life - never saw her before in anything. The impression that I'm getting is that she is supposed to be one hot tomato to some, which confuses me, because I just don't see it. The thing about her is, even though I haven't seen her, I could have sworn I have seen her somewhere else, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
Then, six episodes in, it hit me! I knew where I had seen her before, but it wasn't really her I had seen, but rather someone else who possessed a striking resemblance to her. Now, I can't look at her without chuckling to myself - even some of her expressions and mannerisms seem to be channeled from this other person . . . who just happens to be a guy! A much younger guy, but still a guy. A kid actually, in the form of Jerry Mathers who played Beaver Cleaver.
To me it is a clear case of "Separated At Birth."
Now, when Don Draper (if that is his real name) steps out of his office, I half expect Peggy to stop typing, smile and say with a quizzical expression, "Gee, Mr. Draper, you sure have a lot of neato furniture and junk."
I'll have to wait for that one, I guess.
From a time travel standpoint, it is clearly plausible that the two were actually contemporaneous brother and sister or perhaps even twins . . . separated at birth.
Take a look and tell me what you think.
"Gee . . . I wonder what I would look like in a dress with a nasty hair-do and junk, but with the same expression that I have now."
"So . . . this is what I would look like in a dress with a nasty hair-do. Where's my junk"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)