Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that I welcome you all to the Asylum. As I am constantly trying to cultivate my empire into something worthwhile and valuable I announce that from here out I will no longer descend into self deprecating rants of soliloquies of emotionally laden laments, but rather provide topical discussions of things a bit more approachable to the masses.
The requisite disclaimer out of the way, let’s dispense into a follow up of the previous entry with a more poignant question. While I have talked quite extensively about relationships and all they entail, everything from preferred terminology to dynamics of interaction and definition, an interesting query has presented itself. Hours after posting the previous entry it dawned on me that while most of my readers are female, and in truth most of my Facebook connections are female as well, the majority of the women I deal with do not actually have the issue I mentioned. So the puzzle begins to construct itself a piece at a time as I realize that there are very few people that must limit their contact with me, I begin to evaluate the reasons suggested as explanation by those that are subject to such limits.
Jealousy is an ugly monster. It infects and poisons the mind, leaving little more than unfounded suspicions and removing trust as the most implicit facet of any interpersonal dynamic. However we as a society have somehow allowed a mindset of ownership to permeate the landscape of romantic liaisons. Jealous men who request that their women have virtually zero contact with other men outside of their presence, women who willingly cow down to this treatment, and relationships built around the fear of infidelity.
Now I do understand that there do exist certain circumstances where it is prudent for one or the other party to be wary, but completely severing all measure of contact with friends is something I don’t comprehend. Perhaps I’ve been lucky in that I’ve never been asked to give up my friends in favor of my beloved, and I never would. But the double standard does lend itself to an interesting question. With a society where half of all marriages end in divorce, men are twice as likely to cheat as women, and female empowerment has become something engrained instead of something learned our culture still adheres to the norms of women being treated like property in terms of their interactions. Whether or not the fear of infidelity can be justified, the presence of that fear still makes itself known in a way that limits and influences the interactions perceived as acceptable behavior within the relationship.
In an age where independence is seen as the ultimate strength, why then would anyone willingly subject themselves to these rules? In my experience, the rhetoric of most people supports this, relationships are about mutual commitment toward collective betterment, yet inevitably romantic entanglements more often than not give way to a dominant and a submissive. Platitudes like “I wear the pants” “She makes all the decisions” “It’s just the way he was raised” and even “I know I could do better, but I love him” serve to illustrate the roles of each person involved in the relationship and in my opinion, once you’re done that, it’s not a partnership anymore.
Typically, the only facet that balances the relationship is the sex factor, in that men are more vocal about their sexual urges and women are more in control of them allowing for sex to be used a kind of weapon. However, the weakness in women is the emotional attachment they assign to their respective mates and thus men prey upon that in subtle ways as a means of dominating and satisfying their own sexual needs.
So in a society that nurtures the natural progression of dominant/submissive relationships, sex being used as a weapon, and somehow one party or the other having the authority to dictate allowable platonic association, why would anyone want to get into a relationship of any kind? The logic doesn’t add up. I mean I’ll be the first to admit that being in love is great. Being able to make yourself so incredibly vulnerable and trust someone completely is a wonderful feeling. Sadly the majority of relationships exist for years at a time, seemingly lost in unrivalled bliss, and then someone enters the dynamic that is unexpected and creates a tension and shows sides of people not previously seen. Such a dramatic change can alter or taint the relationship and raise fears previously absent.
But what happens when one person makes the decision to victimize their current other half for the mistakes of the previous one? For instance, a guy is has his relationship, it goes along great and then, BAM!, he finds out that the woman he’s trusted and loves has been cheating on him. So he’s heartbroken, dejected, and feeling stupid. I get all of that, it’s a normal emotional response, but then the guy gets into another relationship. Now this would be fine except that because his ex cheated on him, he now assumes that his current girlfriend is going to do the same. So he begins to request that she limit her contact with other guys, curtail “Girl’s Nights” with single women, makes a conscious and oftentimes heavy handed effort to integrate his friends into her social circle to the point of supplanting her own friends, and even insists that she go out with him and his buddies where she is summarily ignored. Now while most reading this description will scoff that they would never be cowed into this kind of behavior, take a moment and really look at your situation, maybe it’s not as extreme as I’ve said, but I’m sure there are areas where compromise has given way to subjugation.
For those that have made it this far, I’m sure the puzzle has begun to assemble itself. It’s not just the requests of limited contact but rather the expectation that it be adhered to, by both parties. It seems that when truthfully analyzed, there is no balanced relationship. Those around during my tenure with Nicole will announce firmly that I was mistreated in spite of my devotion. Countless other women are asked to sever contact with their male friends or made to feel guilt for having them. Men are harassed about any measure of communication with their exes or even good female friends. Yet we allow it to go on, perpetuating the behavior by doing little to stop it, by sheepishly complying with the demands, overt or otherwise, of our lovers, and actively seek out people to be in relationships with, all the while wholly ignorant of the behavior and badly crippling it really is.
With S.A.D. less than a month away, it’s no wonder that people are clamoring to hook up and find connection. Not a day goes by that I don’t see someone changing their status or flaunting their new relationship like a cheap pair of shoes. Actively searching out a means of feeling connected but at the same time giving up some of the most innate liberties we enjoy and all of it in the name of emotional completion.
Now I know this entire thing paints a very bleak picture of relationships, but the point I’m getting at, is that any romantic dynamic should make life better not worse. No sacrifice of friends, family, or connection should have to severed in order to placate your partner. Relationships are about growth not interdependency and the longer that we allow our culture to engender feelings of guilt or fear instead of love and acceptance, the more that we will propagate and nurture generations of people too spoiled to work at their relationships, and others who are too scared to fight for what they want.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Unexpected Response
So for the last three weeks or so I've allowed myself to play host to the delusion that I could woo a woman far out of my league. While the initial interaction proved somewhat fruitful, at least insofar as it seemed to convey a mutual attraction, it has now come to light that, like so many other wonderous chapters of my life, I'm a day late and a dollar short.
She was nice enough to let me down easy, and in all honesty seemed somewhat dejected that I chose not to pursue even conversation with her, after the admission. As a few unlucky readers have experienced, platonic relations with me are strained when the female is in a relationship. For some reason I'm unable to extricate myself from any measure of analysis regarding actions, words, and decisions, which causes me to form a deeper bond and inevitably cause friction. While this may seem like serendipity in that it allows me to satisfy my initial agenda, following my debacle with Nicole and the recent fiascos with not just one, but a total of three women whom I'd had any kind of connection with, beyond simple once a week communication, I'm forced to reason that I actually did the woman a favor.
The true irony though, is that I've realized, perhaps for the first time in true appreciation, just how complex an individual I really am. I embody a dangerous dichotomy of being not only able to understand the most minute and seemingly insignificant clues to someone's true feelings, but I function as an emotional extremist, feeling the true uncontained forces of primal emotional energy in their rawest form, regardless of connotation. Given my abilities it fits to reason that any contact with me is simply an invitation for undue complexity and stress. My seemingly inescapable, albeit innate, penchant for in depth analysis of human social behaviors and interactions has caused me to become a bigger burden than a boon when my observations are not altogether actively pursued or sought out by the receiving party. I'm capable of providing remarkable insight on complex situations in a way that leaves people, even twice my age, questioning their own powers of reasoning and yet marvelling at my deductive prowess. However, as I said, it is a double edged sword. My talent is put to extraordinary use when employed for the purpose of providing perspective to those in need, but it quickly becomes a curse when used to point out something I perceive to be obvious but ultimately is a fulcrum upon which a dynamic turns.
So while my initial reaction to her admission of no longer being available was no where close to being crestfallen, it does raise the very interesting question of just where exactly I fit into the lives of those women whose romantic liasons disallow for interpersonal dynamics such as those propogated by my association? While I will concede that I am perhaps dramatizing the effect of my involvment, I do feel it pertinent to point out that it is more the reaction to my insight, rather than the analysis itself that causes the issue. To put it another way, my insight usually catalyzes long needed but identified change which is turn elicits a question of impetus from the uninformed party. The explanation that follows is somewhat demoralizing because while my contact with the effected might be brief, my observations are poingnant and once listed, they are all but dumbfounded by how innately obvious everything truly was.
More and more I find myself becoming a remarkable and noteworthy anamoly among my peers. I purposely engendered a life of stability and reliability as a means of winning Nicole away from her husband, I actively seek to keep busy and perpetually occupied (lest my demons find a way to permeate the forefront of my thoughts) instead of whiling away countless hours in pursuit of hedonistic pleasures, I shy away from superficial relations in all forms, and have made an active and vocal commitment to decry excesses and extraneous trappings as unneeded. Yet still I spread the seeds of my complex nature like a plague, bringing insight, rational thinking, and a greater sense of self awareness to those unlucky enough to be targeted by my high powered perception, or worse, those that find themselves in the wake of my finely honed skills. Suddenly I feel very much like Wobbly-Headed-Bob.
It seems that, as always and much to the chagrin of those who've gone from my sphere of influence, with me there is never such a thing as an easy answer. Ever a deep and thought provoking idealist, my innate abilities make it almost impossible for me to simply take anything at face value. While it could be argued that if properly used it is a virtue, my stance is that I am inexorably driven to provide my (more often) accurate and deep observations even when forcibly trying not to, the action in itself creating an interesting duality of warring selves and being wholly aware and actively working toward resolution.
So the question becomes whether or not you, my readers, would agree that I am in point of fact the impetus of complication and complexity that I have professed to be, or if I serve as something more than a voice of reason catalyzed and villified by own need to comment on the unaddressed and misunderstood. Your thoughts?
She was nice enough to let me down easy, and in all honesty seemed somewhat dejected that I chose not to pursue even conversation with her, after the admission. As a few unlucky readers have experienced, platonic relations with me are strained when the female is in a relationship. For some reason I'm unable to extricate myself from any measure of analysis regarding actions, words, and decisions, which causes me to form a deeper bond and inevitably cause friction. While this may seem like serendipity in that it allows me to satisfy my initial agenda, following my debacle with Nicole and the recent fiascos with not just one, but a total of three women whom I'd had any kind of connection with, beyond simple once a week communication, I'm forced to reason that I actually did the woman a favor.
The true irony though, is that I've realized, perhaps for the first time in true appreciation, just how complex an individual I really am. I embody a dangerous dichotomy of being not only able to understand the most minute and seemingly insignificant clues to someone's true feelings, but I function as an emotional extremist, feeling the true uncontained forces of primal emotional energy in their rawest form, regardless of connotation. Given my abilities it fits to reason that any contact with me is simply an invitation for undue complexity and stress. My seemingly inescapable, albeit innate, penchant for in depth analysis of human social behaviors and interactions has caused me to become a bigger burden than a boon when my observations are not altogether actively pursued or sought out by the receiving party. I'm capable of providing remarkable insight on complex situations in a way that leaves people, even twice my age, questioning their own powers of reasoning and yet marvelling at my deductive prowess. However, as I said, it is a double edged sword. My talent is put to extraordinary use when employed for the purpose of providing perspective to those in need, but it quickly becomes a curse when used to point out something I perceive to be obvious but ultimately is a fulcrum upon which a dynamic turns.
So while my initial reaction to her admission of no longer being available was no where close to being crestfallen, it does raise the very interesting question of just where exactly I fit into the lives of those women whose romantic liasons disallow for interpersonal dynamics such as those propogated by my association? While I will concede that I am perhaps dramatizing the effect of my involvment, I do feel it pertinent to point out that it is more the reaction to my insight, rather than the analysis itself that causes the issue. To put it another way, my insight usually catalyzes long needed but identified change which is turn elicits a question of impetus from the uninformed party. The explanation that follows is somewhat demoralizing because while my contact with the effected might be brief, my observations are poingnant and once listed, they are all but dumbfounded by how innately obvious everything truly was.
More and more I find myself becoming a remarkable and noteworthy anamoly among my peers. I purposely engendered a life of stability and reliability as a means of winning Nicole away from her husband, I actively seek to keep busy and perpetually occupied (lest my demons find a way to permeate the forefront of my thoughts) instead of whiling away countless hours in pursuit of hedonistic pleasures, I shy away from superficial relations in all forms, and have made an active and vocal commitment to decry excesses and extraneous trappings as unneeded. Yet still I spread the seeds of my complex nature like a plague, bringing insight, rational thinking, and a greater sense of self awareness to those unlucky enough to be targeted by my high powered perception, or worse, those that find themselves in the wake of my finely honed skills. Suddenly I feel very much like Wobbly-Headed-Bob.
It seems that, as always and much to the chagrin of those who've gone from my sphere of influence, with me there is never such a thing as an easy answer. Ever a deep and thought provoking idealist, my innate abilities make it almost impossible for me to simply take anything at face value. While it could be argued that if properly used it is a virtue, my stance is that I am inexorably driven to provide my (more often) accurate and deep observations even when forcibly trying not to, the action in itself creating an interesting duality of warring selves and being wholly aware and actively working toward resolution.
So the question becomes whether or not you, my readers, would agree that I am in point of fact the impetus of complication and complexity that I have professed to be, or if I serve as something more than a voice of reason catalyzed and villified by own need to comment on the unaddressed and misunderstood. Your thoughts?
Monday, January 18, 2010
Remind me again where the jumper cables go...
“Systematic detachment from emotional reaction, terrifying to realize how easy it is to be affected.” If I had a nickel for how many times I’ve said those words as rhetoric, I’d be able to buy an island, balance the world economy and finance deep space exploration well into the next five centuries. The irony at this particular juncture is that words meant to indicate a lack of meaning or comment on how easily we assign meaning, have, at this particular point in time, no meaning at all for me. I’ve become remarkably numb and isolated from those around me, disconnected from the world. Even more interesting is the current propensity I seem to have been given for romantic interludes. Relationships in general have long been a primary focus of my works. I’ve had a billion and one pieces of commentary on them. I’ve given you all my insight, my brooding, my lurching rationalization on why certain things aren’t nearly as bad as they might be, but ultimately I fail to ask the underlying questions that can provoke more in depth thought. Recently it has occurred to me, that while I have several amorous pursuits at my disposal, some I’m even entertaining and devoting a considerable amount of time to developing, it’s all simply hollow endeavors, as I don’t seek the emotional pay off or truthfully even the physical intimacy that is so often the driving force behind these sorts of things. I’m not looking for a cheap hook up or even a relationship.
I find that despite the ease with which I can accomplish the above goals isn’t the deterrent for me, meaning I’m not bored with the lack of challenge, but rather that I’m unsure if I will find any kind of real satisfaction with winning out. The mindset seems to have devolved to a point where failure is truly the intended outcome and so that failure is assured through careful subversion of my own actions before the game is even put in play. I’m rekindling old connections and treading new ground with uncharacteristic fervor that makes for intimidating interpersonal climates if analyzed. Where once timidity and trepidation were espoused en masse as a kind of defense mechanism they’ve been replaced with brazen disregard for perception and now a proliferation of almost heretical rhetoric flows freely. To the firmly acquainted the change in behavior will come as a shock, while to others the brash affirmation of confidence serves more as a sign of genuine attitude. The ultimate commentary though is on the holder, in that I recognize the change from one school of behavior to another, and can’t say that I wholly like one over the other. To reignite and establish former silent channels provides excitement and interest but at the cost of being burned again, how long before the clock runs out and I have again run afoul of the implied and imposed rules? Further more, how long before the useless trappings of coveted flesh, intended promiscuity, and vapid personality does little more except further the spiral down this drain of disconnection and solitary movement? Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not depressed, woefully reflective or even miserably pining away in hopes of finding someone, but rather I’m all to aware of the irony of being content and yet feeling nothing at all for the potential excesses. A near army of women at my disposal for sexual satisfaction, even some for emotional contentment, and yet despite myself, I want none of it, not because I’ve gone gay or anything, but I think I’ve actually become afraid of women in true interpersonal relationships. This of course puts me at odds with the fact that while some part of me does feel a genuine loneliness that I want filled, I’m mentally and emotionally incapable of bridging the gap between my own introversion and my in born need to feel connected to another human being. So for now I’m an island, devoid of women, attachment, feeling, or even misery. I just am.
And so the question becomes, to you my dear readers, when the people meant to fill that vacuous void in the heart and mind are present but unwanted by the heart and mind yet the hole remains, what is left to fill it with? Why does anyone seek out companionship or connection with others? Why strive to forge a meaningful relationship when more often than not the trust we place in others is misused or abused? Why is it so easy for us as a society (sadly I’m finding it more and more often) that we make connections with people and then do little, if anything to maintain them, and further we openly acknowledge and apologize for our low involvement with others yet do little if anything to make a more committed investment in the people we haphazardly call friend. The word itself, friend, what does it mean. To most it’s an empty term used to denote someone with whom enough common ground is shared as to engender mutual feelings of enjoyment when in the others company. To me a friend is more than that. A friend is someone reliable, dependent, someone open minded not just like minded, someone willing to listen to an explanation or concerned enough to offer one of their own, and someone that is invested in the dynamic and not just aware of its existence. Sadly, and let me stress that word, SADLY, I find that far too few of the people I have in my life are worthy of the title of friend when that particular definition is used.
I’ve used words like connection to denote the dynamics between people, and with good reason. If you are friends with someone, you have made a connection, you connected to another human being, you shared yourself with them and they with you, yet far too many people are willfully disconnected from the people they facetiously call friend. At the risk of letting my sin dictate the next few observations, I’ve been told numerous times that I’m a better friend than (insert name) deserves. I am loyal to a fault, invested to the point of my own peril, and unyieldingly understanding of circumstances and behaviors that are painfully and obviously condemnable. I count the people I call my friends among the most trusted and revered in my social circle, as further evidence I have only taken one Best Friend at a time, a title that for me holds the meaning the words suggest, the first among all. The one person that no matter the time of night, the location or circumstance will be trusted to do everything within reason and ability to help me in my time of need. For far too many I am taken for granted, a useful tool for fixing computers, a plethora of encyclopedic information when needed, but not a viable human interest for interpersonal connection. The further irony is that for an alarmingly high number, and I do mean alarmingly high, of people in my life, some of you readers included, have become estranged, intimidated, afraid, or concerned when I invest myself in my relation to you. It’s not alien behavior, it’s human decency to want to listen and offer advice, or at least I thought it was at some point. But I have been impugned for my connected, my investment in others, and ultimately I’m left to feel as though my endeavor to maintain a friendship with someone I find worthwhile is something overt or unnecessary.
So again, I put it to you, my readers, do me a favor and define friendship. Not for me, but for yourself. What criteria do you put in place to know your friends from just people you know? Once you’re figured out how to know friend from acquaintance, decide if those friends are worth the time energy to maintain your connections or if you really owe nothing more than a phone call of need when you require their assistance.
I find that despite the ease with which I can accomplish the above goals isn’t the deterrent for me, meaning I’m not bored with the lack of challenge, but rather that I’m unsure if I will find any kind of real satisfaction with winning out. The mindset seems to have devolved to a point where failure is truly the intended outcome and so that failure is assured through careful subversion of my own actions before the game is even put in play. I’m rekindling old connections and treading new ground with uncharacteristic fervor that makes for intimidating interpersonal climates if analyzed. Where once timidity and trepidation were espoused en masse as a kind of defense mechanism they’ve been replaced with brazen disregard for perception and now a proliferation of almost heretical rhetoric flows freely. To the firmly acquainted the change in behavior will come as a shock, while to others the brash affirmation of confidence serves more as a sign of genuine attitude. The ultimate commentary though is on the holder, in that I recognize the change from one school of behavior to another, and can’t say that I wholly like one over the other. To reignite and establish former silent channels provides excitement and interest but at the cost of being burned again, how long before the clock runs out and I have again run afoul of the implied and imposed rules? Further more, how long before the useless trappings of coveted flesh, intended promiscuity, and vapid personality does little more except further the spiral down this drain of disconnection and solitary movement? Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not depressed, woefully reflective or even miserably pining away in hopes of finding someone, but rather I’m all to aware of the irony of being content and yet feeling nothing at all for the potential excesses. A near army of women at my disposal for sexual satisfaction, even some for emotional contentment, and yet despite myself, I want none of it, not because I’ve gone gay or anything, but I think I’ve actually become afraid of women in true interpersonal relationships. This of course puts me at odds with the fact that while some part of me does feel a genuine loneliness that I want filled, I’m mentally and emotionally incapable of bridging the gap between my own introversion and my in born need to feel connected to another human being. So for now I’m an island, devoid of women, attachment, feeling, or even misery. I just am.
And so the question becomes, to you my dear readers, when the people meant to fill that vacuous void in the heart and mind are present but unwanted by the heart and mind yet the hole remains, what is left to fill it with? Why does anyone seek out companionship or connection with others? Why strive to forge a meaningful relationship when more often than not the trust we place in others is misused or abused? Why is it so easy for us as a society (sadly I’m finding it more and more often) that we make connections with people and then do little, if anything to maintain them, and further we openly acknowledge and apologize for our low involvement with others yet do little if anything to make a more committed investment in the people we haphazardly call friend. The word itself, friend, what does it mean. To most it’s an empty term used to denote someone with whom enough common ground is shared as to engender mutual feelings of enjoyment when in the others company. To me a friend is more than that. A friend is someone reliable, dependent, someone open minded not just like minded, someone willing to listen to an explanation or concerned enough to offer one of their own, and someone that is invested in the dynamic and not just aware of its existence. Sadly, and let me stress that word, SADLY, I find that far too few of the people I have in my life are worthy of the title of friend when that particular definition is used.
I’ve used words like connection to denote the dynamics between people, and with good reason. If you are friends with someone, you have made a connection, you connected to another human being, you shared yourself with them and they with you, yet far too many people are willfully disconnected from the people they facetiously call friend. At the risk of letting my sin dictate the next few observations, I’ve been told numerous times that I’m a better friend than (insert name) deserves. I am loyal to a fault, invested to the point of my own peril, and unyieldingly understanding of circumstances and behaviors that are painfully and obviously condemnable. I count the people I call my friends among the most trusted and revered in my social circle, as further evidence I have only taken one Best Friend at a time, a title that for me holds the meaning the words suggest, the first among all. The one person that no matter the time of night, the location or circumstance will be trusted to do everything within reason and ability to help me in my time of need. For far too many I am taken for granted, a useful tool for fixing computers, a plethora of encyclopedic information when needed, but not a viable human interest for interpersonal connection. The further irony is that for an alarmingly high number, and I do mean alarmingly high, of people in my life, some of you readers included, have become estranged, intimidated, afraid, or concerned when I invest myself in my relation to you. It’s not alien behavior, it’s human decency to want to listen and offer advice, or at least I thought it was at some point. But I have been impugned for my connected, my investment in others, and ultimately I’m left to feel as though my endeavor to maintain a friendship with someone I find worthwhile is something overt or unnecessary.
So again, I put it to you, my readers, do me a favor and define friendship. Not for me, but for yourself. What criteria do you put in place to know your friends from just people you know? Once you’re figured out how to know friend from acquaintance, decide if those friends are worth the time energy to maintain your connections or if you really owe nothing more than a phone call of need when you require their assistance.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Team: I don't give a rat's ass!
Right now it seems that the whole country is up in arms about the whole Conan/Leno thing. It’s all bullshit. Sorry but it’s better you hear it now than continue diluting yourselves into this false pretense that somehow the host of the tonight show and which time slot they get makes a bit of difference. To put it into perspective, Wall Street is reporting record high profits and bonuses for their employees with none of that money going back to the millions of taxpayers that had that money taken from them, Haiti has been hit by an earthquake, Harry Reid is back in the limelight after making the word Negro no longer a pejorative, Palin has joined the ranks of Fox & Friends, Obama’s administration is being accused of having too many vacancies, the Facebook Bra color thing has made the news but also come under fire, and in the midst of it all the biggest story is who the hell is going to get the 11PM spot at NBC.
My gripe is that this isn’t news. Everyone has their own camp of thought as to who is funnier. Some people say Jay is unfunny and most of his rumor is derived from chiding, deriding, impugning or insulting people in an effort to make himself look smart, while others claim that Conan is unfunny and actively pushes to appear funny on the pretense that his humor isn’t guffaws but rather deeply intellectual. Either way, it’s two guys bickering over nothing. Time slots, show names, corporate decisions, what the hell does any of this have to do with the world at large. Like suddenly there’s going to be another terrorist attack because Conan isn’t on the Tonight Show anymore?
To be completely clear here, I don’t watch NBC, never have. I watch 2 hours of television a week, House and Lie to Me, and that’s it. Fox has a bad history of letting good shows go to hell, Firefly was huge, it failed, Brimstone had potential, cancelled, Family Guy, Futurama, need I go on? Fox doesn’t fare much better with their primary news outlet either. I hate the Fox News network, I think Bill O’Reilly is a pompous ass that clings to his rhetoric and limited understanding of things with blind tenacity, and overall I have to say I’m not a fan of their political viewpoint.
The bias aside, I really don’t think it’s going to be any big deal over who gets the 11PM time slot. People will either watch or they won’t. In the six years since House premiered the show has been moved around more times than I can count. Hell American Idol has been bounced around so much that at times it takes up entire weeks, but the show still gets viewers. If Jay is hosting the Tonight Show, he’ll get viewers, same thing with Conan, so it really doesn’t matter because the network still gets the viewers from whichever camp they “buyoff”. It’s great that people think their voices are heard and what they want will ultimately come into play when making up schedules and programming, but it doesn’t. I loved the George Carlin show back in the early 90’s but I’m wagering most of you have never heard of it. The needs of the many do occasionally cast sway and influence, but this isn’t an issue like gay marriage where there’s a clear shot sighted majority that will lend itself as the loudest voice in the land. Both camps are equally matched.
Most television I don’t watch because I find it insipid in many ways. Lost needed a score card to keep up, House has been derided as formulaic by many people who actually admit to being fans, American Idol operates on the idea that we can be told who our heroes are, I mean I could go on and on over this, citing one example after the next about how little television programming really has an impact or influence on the course of history. I sincerely doubt that whether Jay or Conan’s camp gets to have their way, either decision will better the works for world peace or solve world hunger or even help the economy and produce jobs. It’s all superficial, it doesn’t really matter, and the more that people fight over who the show belongs to, the more it shows just how indoctrinated we are as a society, where we pay more attention to the television than to the people that take our money.
My gripe is that this isn’t news. Everyone has their own camp of thought as to who is funnier. Some people say Jay is unfunny and most of his rumor is derived from chiding, deriding, impugning or insulting people in an effort to make himself look smart, while others claim that Conan is unfunny and actively pushes to appear funny on the pretense that his humor isn’t guffaws but rather deeply intellectual. Either way, it’s two guys bickering over nothing. Time slots, show names, corporate decisions, what the hell does any of this have to do with the world at large. Like suddenly there’s going to be another terrorist attack because Conan isn’t on the Tonight Show anymore?
To be completely clear here, I don’t watch NBC, never have. I watch 2 hours of television a week, House and Lie to Me, and that’s it. Fox has a bad history of letting good shows go to hell, Firefly was huge, it failed, Brimstone had potential, cancelled, Family Guy, Futurama, need I go on? Fox doesn’t fare much better with their primary news outlet either. I hate the Fox News network, I think Bill O’Reilly is a pompous ass that clings to his rhetoric and limited understanding of things with blind tenacity, and overall I have to say I’m not a fan of their political viewpoint.
The bias aside, I really don’t think it’s going to be any big deal over who gets the 11PM time slot. People will either watch or they won’t. In the six years since House premiered the show has been moved around more times than I can count. Hell American Idol has been bounced around so much that at times it takes up entire weeks, but the show still gets viewers. If Jay is hosting the Tonight Show, he’ll get viewers, same thing with Conan, so it really doesn’t matter because the network still gets the viewers from whichever camp they “buyoff”. It’s great that people think their voices are heard and what they want will ultimately come into play when making up schedules and programming, but it doesn’t. I loved the George Carlin show back in the early 90’s but I’m wagering most of you have never heard of it. The needs of the many do occasionally cast sway and influence, but this isn’t an issue like gay marriage where there’s a clear shot sighted majority that will lend itself as the loudest voice in the land. Both camps are equally matched.
Most television I don’t watch because I find it insipid in many ways. Lost needed a score card to keep up, House has been derided as formulaic by many people who actually admit to being fans, American Idol operates on the idea that we can be told who our heroes are, I mean I could go on and on over this, citing one example after the next about how little television programming really has an impact or influence on the course of history. I sincerely doubt that whether Jay or Conan’s camp gets to have their way, either decision will better the works for world peace or solve world hunger or even help the economy and produce jobs. It’s all superficial, it doesn’t really matter, and the more that people fight over who the show belongs to, the more it shows just how indoctrinated we are as a society, where we pay more attention to the television than to the people that take our money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)