This Just In

United States Currency Declared Worthless following Canadian Conquest. 

Canada celebrates, US mourns, after historic announcement

OTTAWA, ON -- Fresh off the surrender papers signed by President Obama on 21 February 2014, the Royal Canadian government has ordered United States currency declared worthless and all such fraudulent currency burned. 

"It is important that with this historic surrender of a nation that their currency be declared worthless," said officials at the Exchequer. With that the only currency permitted in the newly conquered territories will become the Canadian dollar.

Why do we choose sides?

Rod Dreher wonders why we feel compelled to pick a side in Ukraine:

Do you know who the good guys and the bad guys are in Ukraine? I do not. In Egypt, I was not sorry to see the Morsi government overthrown, but one should not be under any illusions that the Egyptian military are the good guys. Why do we have to pick a side? Are we sure we know enough about what’s going on there to do so? Some of us might; one of this blog’s readers is in Kiev, and he has clear and firmly held opinions about the Yanukovych government. I respect that, but it is clearer to me that America does not need to be picking sides in this fight than it is which side we should pick.

Well, the first thought that came to my mind is that we choose sides because we live in a culture today that forces us to choose sides.  The mentality is everywhere.  We love our sports, and we apply its terminology to everything.  Politics becomes a horserace, and it matters less whether a candidate can articulate an issue than it does that he’s scored points, he’s landed the knockout punch, he’s pulling away from the field or falling back into the pack.  Nobody wants to know about the substance of what’s discussed – they just want to know who wins and who loses.

ESPN’s motto on many of its shows is “embrace debate.”  Doesn’t matter what the issue is, there have to be two sides, and they have to be heard out – often at the top of their lungs.  Even if you don’t have a strong feeling one way or another, you take a side, because that’s what makes good television – and good entertainment.

Reality programming dominates television.  And what is it about reality shows that most often appeals to the viewers?  You have a winner and a loser.  And the viewer must take sides; no sane individual would watch a show like Survivor without developing a rooting interest for or against someone – for that’s the other side of the coin.  If you can’t find someone you like, someone to root for, find someone you hate, and root against them.  It’s just as much fun – try it.

Everything is personal.  You either agree with me, or else.  Whether it’s politics, religion, sports, restaurant cuisine: if you disagree with me, it invalidates not only your opinion on that issue, but on everything else as well.  See it on Facebook, read it on Twitter, it doesn’t matter if it’s your battle or not – the important thing is to choose a side, and make sure everyone else knows which side you’re on.  And if they’re on the other side, judge them for that.

Given all this, is it any wonder that we feel compelled to take sides?  Armed conflict is, for us, another form of entertainment.  War is a spectator sport, to be viewed on television in-between highlights of the Olympics and scenes from the most recent argument on Capitol Hill.  We take sides on those, why not on war as well?  It’s a zero-sum game; there has to be a winner and a loser, and Americans love a winner.

Remarkably, for a culture that seems reluctant to view morality in terms of black-and-white, we seem to have no qualms about doing just that when it comes to choosing sides.  It’s hard for us to believe that both sides in a conflict can be “the bad guys.”  The Egyptian rebels fighting to bring down Mubarak must be right; after all, isn’t Mubarak supposed to be a dictator?  So let’s support them, and the fact that there are some pretty bad dudes among them – well, we’ll look the other way on that.

We abhor a vacuum.  Even in a situation such as Vietnam, where antiwar sentiment was rampant, it’s not as if people refused to join sides.  Many of the antiwar activists were openly rooting for the Vietcong, and the conflict between pro- and antiwar sides became as much of a battle as the war itself.  Not choosing a side – there’s just something un-American about it.

We lead with our hearts, not our heads.  We’ve Oprahfied the way we look at foreign policy every bit as much as we have everything else in our world.  Who’s the scrappy underdog, which side has the most malnourished refugees, let’s cheer on the plucky rebels raging against the big bad machine.

You see how absurd this all is?  So when Rod asks this question – and I think it’s a very good one, a very telling one – why should we be surprised at what the answer is?  It is, after all, the world we created for ourselves. And after all - it's just entertainment, isn't it?  ◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: February 20, 1965

When we think of Burgess Meredith, we tend to associate him with the Penguin in the original Batman, or as the hapless librarian in the Twilight Zone episode "Time Enough at Last," or perhaps as the veteran cornerman in Rocky, for which he received an Oscar nomination.  But in February 1965, he's co-starring with James Franciscus in the high school drama Mr. Novak, where he plays Principal Martin Woodridge.

Meredith has come to the series in its second and last season, as a replacement for the ailing Dean Jagger, who was forced to leave due to an ulcer.  It is hoped that Meredith's character will inject some tension into the series; Jagger, as Principal Albert Vane, had been more of a father-figure, and Woodridge's introduction figures to inject some conflict with the idealistic Novak.  (It doesn't work, or at least not enough to boost the ratings; Meredith appears for 17 episodes, after which the show is cancelled.)

It's considered quite the coup to attract Meredith to series television; he'd previously turned down series such as The Travels of Jamie McPheeters, and is known much more as a Broadway actor and director. His TV guest shots, including four appearances on Twilight Zone, have been memorable, but he's well aware of the difficulties facing veteran actors.  "Let's face it, I live high," he tells Dwight Whitney.  "I raise jumping horses, Kaja [his wife] flies airplanes.  The younger people don't know who I am.  And that, in this day and age, is essential."

So Novak is not the show that will bring Burgess Meredith to prominence among the younger generation. But just wait a couple of years, and that will change. . .

View the rest here.  ◙

Television and advertising executives, holed up in Urban America, ignore the Heartland

Listening to Sean Hannity Friday evening on the way to a Baroque Soloists concert in regards to the departure of Jay Leno from Comcast had me taking notes that came to fruition after reading backlash over advertising that has aired during the Games of the XXII Winter Olympiad that has advanced sin peddling of sexual deviancy.  Mr. Hannity's comments on Mr. Leno resonated with the advertising push to advance same-sex “couples” that we've seen in both Super Bowl XLVIII and the XXII Winter Olympiad since they are intertwined.

Mr. Hannity noted how Comcast management in Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles, and Connecticut were out of touch with what plays in Middle America, and it was that attitude that led to Mr. Leno's dismissal.

When I though about it, I see the excessive push for sin and the controversy over the Coca-Cola advertisement during Super Bowl XLVIII (it has since been edited), and I see the same issue.  The advertising agencies that script, cast, and produce the advertisements have more control over the ad than the company paying for the ad.  And similar to the Comcast issue with Mr. Leno, the management of the advertising agencies are in the same major cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, et al) and what may play in the large cities, where the city-states that decided the 2012 elections are located, is not something that will play again in Middle America.

When you think about sexual deviancy activism (why is it being stuffed in your face as a way to show victory via Autogol), it will play in San Francisco, Seattle, and urban areas stuffed with cash by Tim Gill and others, but it does not play in the Heartland, as we have seen with arrogant urbanites trying to force their agenda down when a clear supermajority opposes them.  The urban areas are more likely to be loaded with people of no religious faith, which support the cause, and helped put the President over the top.  I'm sick of seeing the sexual deviancy group acting as if they own the world now to protest President Putin.

But seriously, Mr. Putin makes a serious point.  How would parents like it if sexual predators and deviants were allowed to push their propaganda in school and recruit the children?  We have seen the results of sex predators attacking children, and it is not pretty.  The Russian law makes perfect sense, in effect protecting children from being bombarded with propaganda advancing heinous behaviour we are taught in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 is wrong and sin.  Yet we have schools in the States trying to recruit new predators.  The Russians have made it clear we must defend our country against the Dan Savages of the world who rely on tactics such as cybersquatting on a Catholic politician and resulting in him losing every election since the cybersquatting tactic began, especially since his name is being used for X-rated material I cannot discuss.  How far worse can it be now?  I support Vlad here.

Reminds me of a music video over 20 years ago: ◙

Владимир Путин is right about Banni

Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it," was posted on letterheads of the parochial school where I was raised.  It effectively warns us that teaching children from a Biblical worldview matters.

Meanwhile, the President's decision on his Delegation to the Olympic Games raised furore, as he chose sexual deviants in an attempt to advance his humanist, anti-Christian propaganda that we have seen throught his Presidency, a complete opposite to the previous Administration, whose Olympic delegations have featured a man who made the Great Outdoors into his business, the man who would have painted the CCCP locker rooms for USA-CCCP game pink, baseball's Iron Man, and winners of the Daytona 500 and Indianapolis 500.

His reasoning was to protest Russia's law that prohibits sexual deviants and their from teaching propaganda promoting their sinful lifestyle that is against nature's law and nature's God, as David Barton called it in our SC Citizens for Life Proudly Pro-Life Banquet last month, to youth.  The law makes sense when you think of it from a Proverbs 22 perspective.  What the Russians said in the law that has the President and others protesting was children must be kept safe from harmful propaganda being pushed by activists that want to normalise and promote ideas that are against God and the things He established such as pedophilia and the entire playbook of sexual deviancy activists; agenda.  As the old saying goes, "O be careful of your eyes (and ears) what to see (and hear)."

Protecting children from the filth of propaganda pushes is crucial, and that's what the Russian law in question does.  Children should be trained on a solid Biblically based moral ground, and when when Russia has it right and the President has it wrong, we have a country on the downfall.  We have seen the results of rewarding child molesters in college (Sandusky), and we cannot pass the bill that would reward child molesters as a federally protected class;  we must teach the standards our Founding Fathers were taught, not the humanists. And now look at the push to force Olympians to conform to humanist worldview, and in effect abolish Christianity.

This morning following my morning workout, I saw a report on Common Core, or as an educator calls it, “Commie Core,” as it is also a fight against textbooks attempting to advance filth. The newfound federalisation shows its true colours in advancing left-wing propaganda when mathematics books were used to sell home the liberal point that Vice President Gore should have won the 2000 election. I saw after being forced to leave parochial school by family, in the first of the years at the same school as The Governess when I was bullied to submission physically, the math books were promoting Environmental Propaganda of the Greens. Folks, this problem isn't new -- but we cannot be pushing left-wing propaganda in our textbooks, especially math books.  It is the intentional dumbing down that has helped other nations surpass us, and make us the laughingstock of the world.

What will liberals think next to advance their propaganda and make us into the New CCCP?  Sadly, Владимир Путин is right about the absurdity of the sexual deviancy activists.  They, however, are making a protest because they want to force their view of the world that would shut churches down.   ◙

Shirley Temple Black, R.I.P.

From the May 4, 2013 edition of "This Week in TV Guide" at It's About TV:

The former child star, now all of 30 years old, is the host and occasional star of Shirley Temple's Storybook, airing on NBC.  She'd retired twice from acting, most recently at 21, having made 33 movies and more than $3,000,000. Since then she's been Mrs. Charles Alden Black, married with three children, but she's never really been that far from the public eye.  Dolls, storybooks, and TV repeats of her movies have ensured that Shirley Temple will always be an American icon.  She relates a story of how her mailman, "a darling old man about 70, said to me, 'Mrs. Black, does Shirley Temple live here?'  And I said, 'Why yes, I used to be Shirley Temple.' 'Oh, my!' he cackled. 'You used to be my favorite movie star - when I was a little boy!'"

Shirley Temple Black has led probably one of the most successful lives of any former child star. Although Storybook ended after two years, she continued to make television appearances, then became involved in politics (she'd always had an interest in current events), ran unsuccessfully for Congress, served as a representative to the United Nations, and was appointed U.S. ambassador to Ghana and later Czechoslovakia.  She survived breast cancer and was one of the first celebrities to speak openly about it.  And the name Shirley Temple is still - and will continue to be - magic.

In a day when most child stars seem to wind up on the police blotter as often as in the movies, when many others fade into obscurity or struggle with a lifetime of psychological problems, Shirley Temple stood apart. She was a movie star, mother, patriot, diplomat - and she did it with panache.  She was an individual who could remind the hardest politician that he was now in the presence of a real star, and her name alone brought back a wash of memories to generations who'd grown up with her and had passed her down to their children.

Shirley Temple was an American icon.  She may have died today, at the age of 85, and she will be missed, but she'll not be forgotten. ◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: February 11, 1961

Until a few years ago, the most I could say about Peter Gunn was that Craig Stevens played a suave private eye, and it had one of the coolest themes of all time.  Now, to know that I had to have seen it at some point in time, probably many years ago, before I was old enough to understand Lola Albright.  But then I was able to get the complete series on DVD - and then I got Lola Albright.

[Pause while heartbeat returns to normal.]

Albright plays Edie Hart, the singer who's also Gunn's girlfriend. She works out of a bar called Mother's, which doubles as the place where Gunn meets his clients and conducts his business.  She's a smart, sassy character* who's graced with some snappy dialogue, every bit Gunn's equal in the scenes in which they're matched.  She has a fine singing voice, doing her own vocals in the occasional set pieces at Mother's.  She exudes an adult sexiness that makes it impossible to take your eyes off of her when she's on screen.  And she's a likable character, as is Gunn, making this one of the easier private eye shows to watch.

*Gunn's nickname for her was "Silly."

Off screen, Lola Albright has some things to say about what she sees as an unreasonable invasion of her privacy since her divorce from actor Jack Carson.  "To tell the truth, I'm sick and tired of the line 'Does Lola get what Lola wants?'*  Every magazine and newspaper seems to leap on it as though discovering it for the very first time.  I am equally sick and tired of the line 'Lonely Lola.'"  Such are the curses of having an alliterative name, it would appear.  "If my name were Betty, I'd be two cliches to the good."  She struggles with the line between personal and public; while she understands the sacrifices of privacy that are part of stardom, she wonders "why does the press have to go so far?  Why do they print things you never said, things they make up out of a blue sky?  Why do they twist what you say into meanings you never meant?"  Lola also denies she's dissatisfied with her role on Gunn; she likes how Edie got her own place in the third (and final) season, a plot devise that gives her a chance to sing more.  "I don't want to dominate the show and I certainly don't want a series of my own."

*If you're unsure of the origin of the line, watch this.

People who work with her have nothing but good things to say.  Frank Stempel, who was her ex-husband Carson's manager, says that "Even now that she's making good money, she doesn't really know what it is.  She goes out of her way to help people.  She'd give away her last dime if she thought it would help somebody."  Press agent Bill Stein remembers how when his wife was in the hospital, "Lola must have called me a dozen times offering to come out and take care of the two kids while I was working.  If you know her, you like her."

Peter Gunn, which ends its three-year run at the end of the current season, is probably the high point of Lola Albright's career, although she's hardly a recluse once the series ends, appearing in several big-screen movies and is a steady presence in guest roles on TV through the 80s.  But there's no disagreeing that in a genre that often produces more than its share of annoying characters, Peter Gunn's Edie is one of the most enjoyable; in fact, after you've watched her in a few episodes, you'll probably be singing these words as well:



Read the rest here. ◙

Wish I'd Written That...

"The loss of the classical vernacular in architecture was inevitable, but tragic: we invented new ways for cities to look, and invented them all at once for everywhere, and the world did seem to be a different place that shook off the sodden caul of history. On the other hand, the new styles aged and died before our eyes, requiring new ones, and we remade things again, and again, ending up with style with no other purpose than catching the magpie-eye of the bauble hunter, appreciating the building for itself and nothing more. The Building of Tomorrow spends most of its life grousing in an ever-growing number of Yesterdays; the styles of our accumulated history brings the past right into the present and reminds us of the baggage we carry, the things we were. There’s not a classically-influenced church you couldn’t imagine with the Pope walking up the aisle. There’s not a modern spare church where you’d be surprised if someone took the pulpit and said 'I’d like to talk to you about term life insurance.'"

James Lileks 2/5/14   ◙

Olympics Preview: Interview with Marc Ryan, author of From Berlin to Beijing and London: A Look at TV and the Olympics

My interview this week at It's About TV is a return engagement with Marc Ryan.  Back in November we talked about his book on TV coverage of the JFK assassination; this time we discuss his book From Berlin to Beijing and London: A Look at TV and the Olympics.  I think you should take a look at it, but then I'm prejudiced.

But did you know that the first telecast of the Olympics was the Summer Games in 1936?  Yep, it's true.  And you would have known that if you'd read my article here. ◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: February 4, 1967

Dale Robertson is my kind of guy: plain-spoken, to the point, conservative.  The star of ABC's The Iron Horse, and previous Western series such as Tales of Wells Fargo and Death Valley Days, "believes in income taxes but thinks that they should be a flat 25 percent with no limit on how much the high rollers can make."*  He also believes that the troubled urban areas such as Harlem can be rehabilitated by installing some pride of place, perhaps an early version of the "Broken Windows" theory, and that anyone fortunate enough to have the kind of life he has - a loving wife, obedient children, and three square meals a day - should be able to "do anything on God's green earth he sets his mind to."  No wonder that Robertson was out campaigning for Ronald Reagan during his successful 1966 run for Governor of California.

*Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, as I've said more than once.

It's not a surprise to learn Robertson's values; a graduate from Oklahoma Military Academy, joined the Army right after Pearl Harbor, fought with Patton's Third Army in Europe.  Nor is it a surprise to read Robertson's opinions in TV Guide, or that a man with them is the star of a new series.  It's not quite so common today, however, to find conservatives in the industry so outspoken.  As Clint Howard (brother of Ron, and formerly of Gentle Ben) said not too long ago, “I always tell younger conservative-minded people that they better mind their P's and Q's and remember that you want to have a career."  This isn't a judgement on my part, by the way, just an observation. Of course TV Guide, a conservative publication, gives voice to conservative actors.   And there are still conservatives in Hollywood today - they're just a little harder to find.

On the opposite end of the political spectrum, Sunday night features the premiere of one of the most notable, controversial series of the 60s: The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour.  Once upon a time I reviewed a DVD release of season 3 of Smothers Brothers.  Upon looking back at it, I find I didn't think much of it, which doesn't surprise me since I didn't think much of the show when it was originally on, just as I never thought much of the Smothers Brothers themselves, other than as a testimonial on just how far one could get in the entertainment business without much talent.

But here we are, at the very beginning.  The Brothers are coming off a mildly amusing sitcom in which Tom played an angel (no typecasting there), not to mention a fairly successful stand-up act, and numerous appearances on various television shows.  Their opening night lineup is amazingly conventional, with Ed Sullivan (welcoming them to the Sunday night lineup; they immediately followed Ed's show), Danny Thomas, Jim Nabors, and Jill St. John.  The ad accompanying the show promises a "riotous new series,*" with "daffy ballads and oddball humor."  Sounds pretty innocuous, doesn't it?  As I mentioned in that review, for all the shouting about the Smothers Brothers, their show was actually pretty conventional, and when it's removed from the topical context it's actually kind of stupid.

*I don't know what CBS was expecting from the show, but I doubt they thought the biggest riots would come from the network's relationship with their stars.

Nonetheless, that innocent listing is exactly the kind of thing we like to look for here: an advertisement for a historic program, with no hint as to what lies ahead.  The Smothers Brothers were, in my opinion, far more influential in terms of the precedent they set for the shows that followed them than they were with their own show.  One thing's for sure, though - the times, they were a 'changing.

Read the rest here. ◙

Wish I'd Written That

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

 - John Adams, second President of the United States, 1798  (H/T) ◙

National Anthem, yes - Halftime, no

The NFL has made a smart move for the National Anthem during Super Bowl XLVIII in East Rutherford, New Jersey in Renée Fleming.  Just across the Hudson is the home of the great Metropolitan Opera, and why not give America's Soprano the right to do the Anthem prim and proper?

But the halftime show and Bruno Mars?  Give me a break.  The idea of big name pop figures doing the Super Bowl Halftime was a byproduct of successful counterprogramming by Fox in 1992 with a raunchy, Saturday night-night show airing during CBS' coverage of Super Bowl XXVI halftime, and the loss of viewers from CBS, forced the NFL to make changes.  Ten years after the worst fiasco in Super Bowl history with heavy fines, is it time we end this practice?  Surely I would have wanted an exposure of La Belle Renée and bass Keith Miller (a former Bronco himself), heldentenor Lawrence Harris (ex-Titan), and tenor Ta'u Pupu'a (drafted by the Browns but never played because of an injury) with an all-star orchestra trying great opera scenes would have been much better!   ◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: January 29, 1966

I'm generally not one to make hay of other people's misfortunes, but there's a line in Robert De Roos' cover story profile of Pat Crowley that shouts out for contextualization.

The actress, currently starring with Mark Miller in NBC's Please Don't Eat the Daisies, is talking about her marriage to attorney Ed Hookstratten.  De Roos asks her if the marriage, now eight years long, will last now that she's working on a weekly series.  "It sure is," she tells him.  "We are Catholics and there is a little solidity there."

That sounded like such a refreshing attitude to me that I immediately went to Google, to find that the Hookstrattens had divorced sometime in the 70s or 80s - Crowley remarried in 1986, to producer Andy Friendly.*

*Fun fact: Andy Friendly's father is legendary TV newsman Fred Friendly; his brother, David Friendly, was nominated for an Oscar in 2006 as producer of Little Miss Sunshine.

I hasten to say here that I have no knowledge of why Crowley and Hookstratten divorced, and I don't want to play either a pop psychologist, a pop marriage counselor, or a pop theologian.  But one of the many tragedies of the Catholic Church in the latter half of the 20th Century - particularly the post-Vatican II turmoil, which reached a peak in 1968 with Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae - is the breakdown of basic Catholic beliefs.  By the late 60s, Catholic doctrine had become a smorgasbord; if you didn't like what one priest had to say on birth control, for example, you could shop around and find a priest who would readily sanction it.  Similar situations existed for everything from premarital sex to divorce and remarriage to a whole host of previous elements of Catholic teaching that had rarely been questioned.  Inevitably, this kind of confusion among the faithful led many to doubt the Church's sincerity, authority, - what have you.  Bottom line: no solidity.

Again, I have no reason to think that this might have had any role to play in Pat Crowley's divorce from Ed Hookstratten. But I do think it's part of this blog's narrative to fit these kinds of things into the larger cultural environment.  The 60s were already a period of flux by now, and they were headed toward even more cataclysmic change. Understanding the climate of the times (even though the insufficient space here hardly scratches the surface) puts little moments like this into some sense of context.  It even adds, I think, a note of poignancy.

*Hookstratten, Elvis Presley's personal attorney, represented The King in his divorce from Priscilla, which certainly suggests mixed feelings regarding divorce.  

Read the rest here. ◙

Thoughts from the Pro-Life banquet

David Barton at Wallbuilders spoke at our 2014 South Carolina Citizens for Life March for Life banquet, which moved to the catering hall next to the State Fairgrounds this year and had an interesting series of notes that came from our banquet:

1.  American Exceptionalism.  There is a Divine Creator.

2.  Inalienable Rights Come from God.  They are endowed by their Creator.  Alexander Hamilton sand they are not to be rummaged, and written by God, and an antecedent to all government was in Genesis 9 (the laws God gave Noah).

3.  Government exists to protect inalienable rights.  James Wilson said Human Life is protected by the Common Law, and the Seventh Amendment protects that.  As we heard, "If they won't protect your life, they won't protect your money."

4.  There is a Fixed Moral Law.  Blackstone's law journals were among the first law journals written for this very country.  The laws of nature and nature's God apply, as shown in Psalms 19 and Romans 1.  In the eyes of the early era, the murder of children in the womb and sexual deviancy are against nature, in violation of fixed moral laws, and what is happening when we pass laws against nature violating fixed moral law?

5.  Consent of the Governed.  What does it say when one activist judge decides he is the superlegislator?  We are seeing it with Proposition Eight in the Autogol Strategy, which can be used to strike down pro-life legislation if an Attorney General is pro-abortion.  That is the bigger hazard we have when tiny loud minorities that oppose Moral Law impose their will to advance an agenda.

In the words of Mr. Barton, a secular government cannot be a limited government, as we are clearly seeing now.  In Grigsby vs. Reib (1913), governments promoted the security of the family.  But that collapsed in the 1960's and since that era.

The truth is that civil government has grown out of [proceeded from] marriage. . . . [Marriage] will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society, to free and just government, and to the support of Christianity. (from Grigsby vs. Reib)

Mr. Barton spoke at both the dinner and the march, though the latter was affected by rain.

Pictures from the South Carolina Citizens for Life March for Life
(click to enlarge)

Forty-one years later, we still march on, defying how the Supreme Court stripped the right of life in "fixed moral law" away. ◙

Can't read? Can't write? Can throw a football or dribble a basketball? No problem!

I'm a little late coming to the party on this, but did any of you see this article from CNN.com a couple of weeks ago?

It's not a surprise that so many of these college athletes are getting little or no education (a cynic might suggest that at some of these schools, the players are probably better off not learning what the institution has to teach), but that doesn't make it any less disgusting.  My first thought on reading this was that it was child abuse.  How these kids have been let down by the system!  To get all the way through to college, which allegedly prepares students for the real world, without even knowing to read?

As I thought about it, though, a stronger word came to mind.  Obscene.  It is an obscenity that this is happening in this country, that these - well, I don't think the schools even look at them as human beings, but as units of economic currency - are being chewed up, exploited for the school's profit, and then spit out. Excerpt:

"They're pushing them through," said Billy Hawkins, an associate professor and athlete mentor at the University of Georgia.

"They're graduating them. UGA is graduating No. 2 in the SEC, so they're able to graduate athletes, but have they learned anything? Are they productive citizens now? That's a thing I worry about. To get a degree is one thing, to be functional with that degree is totally different."

Yes, I know that many of these athletes stand to make a great deal of money themselves from the unholy alliance into which they've entered, but that's almost beside the point.  As a society - as adults - we're supposed to be stewards of the young, of the next generation.  We're supposed to help them, educate them, steer them in the right direction when they veer off path.  Is that being done here?  No.  Sure, there are plenty of reasons why, but none of them exculpate the responsibility of the college - many of which are being supported by taxpayer dollars.

I suspect there's a special ring in hell for the people letting these athletes down.

It isn't who you are, it's what you are

What Rod Dreher says.  I read the original Grantland piece and didn't think much more about it, other than that I thought it was a terrific story that accomplished one of the tenants of a good piece - it made me want to continue reading it to see how it turned out.  Never once did it occur to me that there'd be blowback on it.  I particularly like this point from Dreher:

[Grantland writer Caleb] Hannan and Grantland are being judged extremely harshly for reporting a relevant piece of information because they didn’t first run it by the sensibilities of the cultural police to see if It Is Good For The LGBT Community. That’s what Kahrl is complaining about in this last bit: that it doesn’t serve the cause of normalizing transgender. Is that what journalism is supposed to do: serve the cause of cultural politics?

Sadly, as we all know, that seems to be just what journalism's supposed to do - toe the party line.   ◙

Six Steps . . . of Kam Fong?

During Friday's Hawaii Five-0 (note the use of the zero in the 2010 retelling), the backstory of Detective Chin Ho Kelly was the discussion, his relationship with Malia (his wife murdered at the end of Season 2), and questions regarding potential coverup involving the investigation into the murder of his father resulted in a storyline case of integrating the original Five-O (note the letter "O" in the 1968-80 series) in a way that also involves Sgt. Duke Lukela of the current series, and also the Officer Kelly of the original series.

In the episode, Chin's father was named "Kam Tong Kelly". It turns out it was an homage to the original series, and the Chin Ho Kelly name himself.

When the actor known as Kam Fong was in school, his teacher misunderstood his name and taught him to write it as "Kam Fong Chun" instead of his birth name (Tong). Later, he legally changed it to "Kam Fong Chun". CBS dropped his surname for the original serie for a stage name. His son, Dennis (who does use the family surname Chun), played extras on the original series and on the current series is a recurring character of Sgt. Duke Lukela (in uniform), who works with the detectives during the show. You wonder if Dennis Chun melds both generations together. ◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: January 14, 1961

After two weeks in the 70s, it's back to this 60s with this issue celebrating the upcoming inauguration of John F. Kennedy as President.

Actually, it's kind of strange (not to say disconcerting), having so recently spent a good amount of time on Kennedy's assassination, to suddenly be propelled backwards to a time before "Ask not," before Camelot, before any of the myth.  In an ideal world I might well be giving you this TV Guide series in chronological order, but I have to go with what I have, and this happens to be the only available issue that fits the bill for what we need this week.*

*Of course, if' you'd like to help me rectify this by expanding my TV Guide collection, I'll be more than happy to accept your donations.  Email me and I'll give you my Paypal account.

***

Perry Como has no complaints about being labeled a nice guy.  "I suppose it is a tag it's hard to swallow at times.  Mr. Nice Guy.  But what in hell is wrong with that?  I don't know anyone in his right mind who doesn't like to be thought of as a nice person.*"

*Dennis Rodman doesn't count; we're talking about people in their right minds, remember?

Como is the 50s version of the king of cool, with one wife, three children, two homes, two cars and two offices, all of which are an oasis of calm.  As of 1961, Como has been on television longer than any other singer, and NBC pays him $1,250,000 per year for his services.  (He has an additional two-year, $25 million contract with Kraft Foods, sponsor of his show.)  And his biggest problem, according to industry insiders, is that Perry Como is bland.  As one says, "Perry's got all the seven sins - green, envy and so on - but he's blocked them out - almost."  When asked to explain the "almost," the source replies, "Well, he gets just as angry as anybody else if the men's room is locked."

Como's lifestyle would probably be considered unacceptable today, lacking the spicy elements of "celebrity" that seem to be prerequisites for stardom.  He's heard it all, of course, but "It really doesn't make a hell of a lo of difference to me."  But, he adds, ""I've got my moments, like everyone else.  But I hide 'em better'n anyone else*.  That's all it is."  When arguments do arise during production, "It takes me just 10 seconds to tell 'em - to set things straight.  And then maybe they think, 'Maybe this old so-and-so, he's been around, maybe he's right.'  I haven't beat anyone up lately.  Nobody's beat me up.  Maybe they have respect for my old age.  Here's a guy - me - sings a song, goes home, takes a bath, grabs what few dollars he can - of course, I'm exaggerating; it's a damned sight more than a few dollars - and doesn't beat up the old lady. She could probably beat me up.  What do they expect me to do?"

*Obviously, the man is immune to Freudian theories of repression.

Is it just me, or is this kind of refreshing?  It didn't hurt Como's career; his regular series runs until 1967, and his Christmas specials run for years after that.  Perhaps it's because Como was a barber before his musical success, and could probably go back to cutting hair if he wanted.  There's no sense of entitlement from Mr. C, though - "I've had things so good, I've just never really had to worry.  It's a hell of a feeling.  If that's bland, then I'm bland.  And pretty damned glad of it, at that."


Read the whole piece here. ◙

Russell Johnson, R.I.P.

In the days of my youth, when I most definitely favored Mary Ann over Ginger (and still do), there was something comforting about The Professor. Among the band of loonies occupying that uncharted island, The Professor often seemed to be the only sane one*. Unlike many of the others, he was usually slow to attack Gilligan. He was the focal point of whatever sexual tension might exist among the castaways (given that Mr. Howell was married, The Skipper was too much like Dad, and Gilligan was Gilligan). He was unquestionably brilliant, an early-day MacGyver able to concoct scientific marvels out of the most primitive materials. And yet, for all that, he was an everyman, neither a pocket-protector nerd nor an elitist, conquer-the-world mad scientist. Even his seldom-heard name, Roy Hinkley, was connotative of an ordinary man, someone who might have lived right next door.

*NPR had it right, describing him as "the voice of reason and calm on an island of shipwrecked ninnies."

It's fashionable, I suppose, to think of Gilligan as a show you should be embarrassed to have watched as a kid, before you became a sophisticated adult.  I can't speak to that; it's been a long time since I really tried to watch an episode.*  But even if Gilligan didn't stand the viewing test of time, there can be no doubt that it won a place in the hearts of millions of young viewers and stayed there forever, frozen in that memory, a series that was more than the sum of its stories.  It may or may not have been very good, but it endeared itself to people in a way that most series can only aspire to.

*I don't recall if I watched Gilligan's Island in its first-run days, though I suspect I did, but I definitely remember watching it when it was a fixture on Channel 11's after-school programming.  

How else to explain the outpouring of affection upon the news yesterday of the death of Russell Johnson at the age of 89?  It was Breaking News on CNN's website, a featured story in newspapers and broadcasts everywhere, an immediate topic on Facebook pages and Internet message boards and everywhere else classic television fans might reside.  Johnson was never a major star aside from Gilligan, but he did a lot of TV and movies over the years, playing both good guys and heavies.  Every time his face popped up (and it really wouldn't take long, if you were a dedicated viewer), the reaction was instantaneous: "Hey, it's The Professor!"

I started off talking about The Professor's likability quotient, and it seems that Russell Johnson the man was much the same way.  Dawn Wells said yesterday that "Russell was a true gentleman, a dear friend with a fantastic wit, and a wonderful actor."  It was a sentiment echoed by many others.

There are television stars and television celebrities, and we seem to have no shortage of the latter and too few of the former.  But Russell Johnson was something more than that; an icon, if you will, always remembered with warmth and affection by fans who invariably shared memories from their days watching Gilligan and probably knew the stories better than the actors did.  That takes something more than "talent," and it makes for a different kind of "success."  It's the ability to make that personal connection to the viewer and to leave an impression that can stay for upwards of 40 years.  Go back to the early 60s, check out what was on television, and see how many actors had that quality.

That's Russell Johnson's legacy, and I suspect there are a lot of stars and celebrities out there who would trade a lot to have it. ◙

Mid-January reflections

Rookie, Is That Legal? The National Football League has strict policies on items there athletes cannot endorse. 49ers running back Marcus Lattimore, who has been on the "Non-Football Injury List" all year for legal reasons, could run afoul of the NFL's rules against gambling endorsements after he accepted money from a state gambling commission to appear in ads for the state gambling agency. Under League policies, appearing in advertising for gambling is strictly prohibited.

Sir, You Can't Use Your Name. While walking in downtown Charleston over the weekend, the local "Second Sunday on King" had book signings from local media personalities Ken Burger (retired from the local newspaper) and Bill Walsh (weatherman in the Charleston area for over 25 years, initially at WCIV-4 (then an NBC station, and in the early 1980's had Steve Byrnes as weekend sports), but the past 20 at WCSC-5, eventually replacing the legendary Charlie Hall, whom after his death the road leading to WCSC's new studio being constructed at the time was named for the station's first sign-on personality in 1953 -- 2126 Charlie Hall Blvd) with their novels. In order to prevent mainstream confusion for reasons (the late gridiron legend), the popular weatherman has to go under an assumed name for his novel so that nobody knows he works for a television station or his station. (Photo of author W. F. Walsh.)

So Freedom Doesn't Ring, but Adult Language, Adult Content, and Psychological Nudity is Permitted. Sean Hannity's decision to break up from Cumulus Media has led my regional market to lose Sean Hannity, but we now have live three hours of San Francisco's Michael Weiner, Ph. D., and his legendary "The Savage Nation." So freedom won't ring now, but one of the notoriously nasty radio personalities is now on air regionally.

Crazier Denouncements of Pro-Life Groups. The notorious Steve Lefemine came to protest the South Carolina March for Life Saturday. According to his protests, aimed at the National Right to Life and its South Carolina chapter where I marched for the 17th time in 2014, the "road leads to Rome" because the pro-life marchers were Catholic and the affiliation was with Roman Catholics. What does it say when the President of the group and many sponsors are South Carolina Baptists including Convention-affiliated North Greenville University teachers, staffers, and the college-student karaoke performers? You're barking up the wrong tree with your anti-Catholic zealotry, Mr. Lefemine! Furthermore, our speaker this year was David Barton of Wallbuilders -- and he is not Catholic.

Islamic Cheering over Israeli Deaths. The classlessness of many Palestinian and Islamic organisations after high-profile Israeli deaths is poor behaviour that I cannot stand. Eleven years ago we saw it after STS-107 (an Israeli astronaut). With the death of Ariel Sharon, we are seeing numerous cheers and parties by anti-Israel groups. And now we have a college group saying the Holy Land is evil. What is happening?

Bourgeoisie vs Proletariat. So the new Governor of Virginia was elected by the "city-state" of Fairfax, which has effectively turned Virginia into a city-state run by the area near Washington, and he boasts of every leftist cause with codewords to protect "women's rights" (code for "men are bad" and "kill as many babies as you can) and "no matter who you love" (code for driving the church out of the public square and imposing a new state religion that will eliminate God's Moral Law, as we learned from our March for Life weekend). Then you have the socialist New York mayor who wants to ban horse drawn carriages. If it isn't clear now that there is a new "proletariat" of liberal leaders attacking the "bourgeoisie" who believe in a Moral Compass and high standards, it's clear.

Commie Core. A recent report noted how Classic Literature has been replaced by propaganda for left-wing causes in reading classes for Common Core. That is part of the plan to bring more liberals who cannot read, write, do arithmetic, but will feel good and follow in the steps of every leftist cause. ◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: January 10, 1976

Thought we'd stay with the 70s for another week, see what happens.  Will I live to regret it, or be pleasantly surprised?  Stay tuned.

This is another TV Guide from my own personal subscription, meaning it has my name on the mailing label and serves as a constant reminder of the programs I wasn't able to see while living in the world's worst town.  Shows like Happy Days, starring our cover boys, Ron Howard and Henry Winkler.  Oh sure, I'd heard of Happy Days, was aware that it was a hit, but the only time I might be able to see it was when we traveled back to the Twin Cities on vacation.  It seemed a lot more exotic then than it does now.

Last week I wrote about ABC's penchant for "prestige" dramas, and mentioned the acclaimed Eleanor and Franklin.  Well, that's the ABC Theatre two-part presentation on Sunday and Monday nights. The movie, which stars Jane Alexander and Edward Herrmann, will go on to win nine Emmys, a Golden Globe, and a Peabody, and spawn a sequel - The White House Years - that will air the following year. However, ABC doesn't have the Prestigious Presidential Biography category all to itself; NBC counters on Monday night with part five of Sandburg's Lincoln, starring Hal Holbrook in the title role.  That series, part of the ongoing Bicentennial celebration, was aired in six episodes over a year and a half, beginning in September 1974 and concluding in April 1976.  I won't spill the beans on the surprise ending...

Continuing our political theme, first lady Betty Ford appears on Saturday's episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, playing herself.  Probably just as well that I missed that one.  I didn't miss the replay of John Wayne's Swing Out, Sweet Land though.  The star-studded 90-minute special, which had originally been broadcast in 1970* and was being repeated as "A Bicentennial Salute," featured Lorne Greene and Jack Benny as George Washington and friend, Rowan and Martin as the Wright Brothers, Bing Crosby as Mark Twain, Bob Hope and Ann-Margaret as entertainers at Valley Forge - well, you get the idea.  Surprisingly, it's available on DVD (under the title John Wayne's Tribute to America), and it's actually not bad.  Mind you, it's not great, either.  But who am I to judge - see for yourself and make up your own mind:


*Come to think of it, that's probably the airing I remember.

Read the rest here.  ◙

Retro TV Friday - 50 years of deals

One thing about the 50 Years of Deals this year is that the show was exported to Egypt this year. From the channel itself (Al Hayat), here's an episode of Let's Make a Deal in Egypt, complete with a playing of "Gold Rush". Interestingly with the culture of playing cards and the Arab world, the game "Race to the Finish is played with cards representing the three levels of prizes (car, cash, furniture) and the Zonk. ◙

Wish I'd written that...

"W e could discuss this question for a long time, and analyze it from different angles. But, when all is said and done, both Nazism and Communism are tyranny. Murder. Murderous people decide to murder others, just because those others see the world differently.”

János Horváth, Hungarian economist, freedom fighter and Member of Parliament, and former candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Indiana.  (H/T Nordlinger)   ◙

Is Francis the sorrow and the pity of the Catholic Church?

Back in the day, when I was going through my instruction prior to converting to Catholicism, a priest asked this question: "If you stood accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"  It's an excellent question, thought-provoking but also chilling, when one is forced to admit (as I do, freely) that most of the time I'd get off scot-free.

Pertinent to this, here's a corollary to that question, which I don't mind posing today: "If you weren't already Catholic today, would you be convinced to convert?"

I'm not entirely sure what my answer would be - it's always hard to answer a hypothetical, especially in a situation that depends on ignorance of what you already know.  Given that, my temptation is to answer that question: No.

(If this were a radio program, you'd now hear me say, "The reason why, in a moment," followed by a commercial.  But since I don't have commercials, you'll just have to imagine it, as a way of building a dramatic cliffhanger.  OK, we're back.)

Catholicism had held a great deal of interest for me over the years prior to my conversion.  At the beginning, there was an aesthetic component to it, what with the ritual and the symbolism and the ceremonial nature of the Mass.*  I'd been drawn to the news coverage of the deaths of Paul VI and John Paul, I in 1978 and the conclaves that had ensued, and I'd been impressed by the dignity and bearing of the new pope, John Paul II. I'd begun reading more about the Church some time after that, and found not only an intellectual component that had been missing from my spiritual life, but a core set of beliefs that convinced me the Catholic Church stood for something.  There wasn't anything particularly political or ideological about it - it was more of the idea that the Church, in her teachings, was something worth living - and dying - for.

*Much of which had, in the post-Vatican II world, disappeared by that time.  Nonetheless, there were memories of earlier days, seen on television; in addition, mass media has always had a hard time shaking the myth of the old days in the Church; whenever you want to suggest religion on television or in the movies, the shorthand is always an ornamental Catholic church.

I've not made many comments about the current pope; it's a fray that for the most part is not worth getting into, since the voices that speak the loudest often have the least influence.  Wading into the Catholic blogosphere is also an invitation to act in an uncharitable manner, and God knows I don't need any provocation in that area; I do well enough on my own.

However, based on the few things I've written, it probably would come as no surprise to you that I'm not a big fan of this Bishop of Rome.  One must be careful here in parsing words; to say that I do not like him does not mean that I dislike him.  It's more of a studied indifference, I suppose; nonetheless, I say in honesty that I do not like him.  I worry about the fast and loose way in which he appears to use words, his apparent indifference to liturgical beauty, his identification with social justice to the (perhaps) detriment of theology.  I don't like the way the MSM fawns over him.  I don't like the way liberal Catholics use his words to justify their own reactionary beliefs (assuming, that is, that those beliefs are different from his own - with him, who can tell?), and I don't like the way "conservative" Catholics ridicule those who express such concerns.

This last group can be the most infuriating.  When I was in politics, I used to say (coming from a conservative Republican perspective) that at least when the Democrats stabbed you, they did in in the chest, which meant you could see the blade coming.  If you were stabbed by a Republican, on the other hand, you wouldn't know about it until you saw the tip of the blade protruding through your chest - in other words, after they had stuck it in your back.  I feel much the same way about these supporters of the pope.  They seem to go out of their way to antagonize people like me, using phrases like "those of us who get him" (meaning the rest of us are just too damn stupid to understand), and "I love this guy" (and the rest of us, apparently, don't).  I'm not sure if these words are meant to infuriate, like poking a stick in the tiger's cage, or if they're just thoughtless. However, as is the case when a hammer falls on your foot, it doesn't matter whether it was accidentally dropped or if someone hit you with it: it still hurts.

I've resolved over the past months to watch this fight from the sidelines.  When I was hospitalized last month, I made a vow that I would try to avoid any discussions which tended to inflame the situation*.  (I've been pretty good about that, but not perfect.)  So I've had some time to think and observe what's going on, and try to keep from getting sucked into a whirlpool of depression.

*I also knew, instinctively, that were he at my bedside the pope would be as gentle and gracious as anyone could ask for.  Which, again, is why I caution that I do not dislike him, something that would require active participation.  Plus, just because someone is kind and loving, that doesn't necessarily mean they're competent.

And to get back to the question from the beginning of this piece (before the commercial break), my feeling is that there's very little coming out of the Church right now that can be considered a flag to which the wise can repair.  There's precious little intellectual stimulation emanating from Rome; people who try to assure us of the orthodoxy of papal pronouncements often seem to be required to twist themselves into shapes that even the best chiropractor would be challenged to untie.  For the first time since before my conversion, I didn't watch any of the papal ceremonies at Christmastime; I just didn't have the interest in it.  There's no heft, no gravitas.

Frankly, were I approaching this as an outsider, I'm not at all sure I'd see anything that would convince me of what the Catholic Church stood for, if anything.  That whole, "Who am I to judge?" fiasco was, I think, incredibly damaging to the Church, because it not only implied (rightly or wrongly) a lack of importance in taking the measure of a situation, it also encouraged people to parse all of the pope's other words on that basis.  When words can be twisted as easily as this, then everything becomes relative.  I'm only glad that the workers who build airplanes work from more specific instructions than those that come to us from Rome.

At worst, this pope is a dangerous man, prepared to set the Church back to the dark ages following Vatican II, a time of confusion, disappointment and alienation, a time when "everything goes" seemed to apply to everyone except those who thought they were following what the Church had always taught.  This would be an invitation to the second pontificate of Paul VI, and we all know how successful that one was.  At best, this pope is a man who means well, has a good heart, and lives by orthodox beliefs, but has an amazing lack of awareness, an almost naive misunderstanding of the media, and a stunning inability to express himself with clarity and authority, leaving demoralized and dispirited believers in his wake.  At any rate, a man who lacks the ability to be "as cunning as a serpent." Either of these alternatives, it seems to me, suggest an uncertain future - uncertain, and just as disastrous as the one above.

Much has been written about the "cult of personality" surrounding the modern papacy.  I think there's more than a little merit to this, although in an era of 24/7 news that seeks to turn all leaders into media "newsmakers," it's probably impossible to completely avoid such a situation.  But there's an old saying that I think applies in this case - you never get a second chance to make a first impression.  And anyone who's part of an organization, large or small, knows that they may be the ones responsible for the first impression someone else gets.  In other words, we're all role models.

Perhaps, with the oversized papacies of John Paul II and (to a lesser extent) Benedict XVI, we became used to seeing the pope as synonymous with the Church, and that's obviously false; over two centuries, the Church has survived many a bad pope.  Still, for an outsider, someone who looks at the Catholic Church with an eye to conversion, that first impression may well come from the world's most visible Catholic.  What impression is he giving?  That of a man ready to lead a Church during uncertain times in a hostile world?  A man of strong beliefs, representing solid ground upon which the faithful can stand?  A man who understands the problems the Church faces?  Or is it a man reassuring us that we're all OK, someone who places earthly needs above spiritual ones, someone who in his celebrity is all style, no substance?  A man content to be all things to all people, with nobody quite sure of what he really believes in?  A man hostile to the traditions of the Church, and indifferent to those who have fought hard to preserve them?

So here's the answer to my question: if I were looking at the Church from outside, I would see few of the things which drew me to Catholicism in the first place.  I'd see people campaigning for social justice rather than trying to bring salvation to men's souls.  I'd see that Church being led by a man who is soft, who doesn't have the stomach for the fight that lies ahead.  I'd see dissension and discouragement in the ranks.  I'd see very little that would convince me it was worth dying for.

I might still convert.  But in doing so, I'd keep in mind the words of Whittaker Chambers, who remarked that in leaving Communism, "I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side, but it is better to die on the losing side than to live under Communism."

The Catholic Church cannot be the losing side.  Christ Himself promised that "the gates of Hell" would not prevail against His Church. And that is the reassurance that keeps us from slipping into despair.  If the pope can't infuse us with that confidence in Christ's words - if he cannot share with us that hope amidst a world of despair - then, quite frankly, what can he do?  ◙

A final tribute to 2013

Obviously, there's plenty of sports often discussed here. And there's one one perfect tribute to 2013 . . . let's open the gate one more time . . .◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: January 5, 1974

A fter spending a few weeks in 1963, we're skipping ahead by 10 years, taking a look at what's happening in January 1974.

In general, issues from the 70s aren't my favorites; this might be strange considering I subscribed to TV Guide throughout the 70s and therefore should have more of them than I do for any other decade. In addition, I was alive and watching television for the entire decade, which means in theory I could have seen any or all of the episodes in any of these issues.

But in truth, as I've mentioned before, the 70s issues leave me unimpressed.  The typeset is minimal and unappealing; the ads are cluttered and lack the simplistic charm of earlier editions, the programs themselves have moved on from the days of live drama and experimental programming.  In short, TV Guide - like television itself - is older, more mature, more polished - and, as is so often the case, less interesting.

There's another, more personal, reason for my dislike of the decade, however, and that's because I spent so much of it in the worst place on earth, where life with only one television station (NBC) meant I was constantly being taunted and mocked with listings for programs I would never see, shows that in the pre-cable, pre-VCR days remained mere rumors to those living out in the hinterlands.  It may be true that small-town life has its advantages, but watching television in those days was definitely not one of them, especially for someone who'd already begun to mainline programming like a milder version of Mike Teavee.

The 70s aren't without their charms, though.  Some of the things in these issues attain mythic status precisely because they were unavailable to me, while others display a genuine quality and feel that seem (to me, at least) unique to that era.  Let's see if we can find some examples, shall we?  ◙

Read the rest here.

Classic Sports Thursday

I was five years old at the time of the 1965 Bluebonnet Bowl, played between Tennessee and Tulsa in Houston. I had no great rooting interest in the game - at that age, I probably didn't root for anyone - and yet it must have made an impression on me.  For one thing, I found a TV Guide clipping on it in one of my old scrapbooks.  More significantly, I had a clear recollection not only of the game being played in a driving rain, but of one of the teams actually changing their jerseys at halftime so that it might be easier for people to tell the two muddy teams apart.

Well, you know how the mind can play tricks, especially when you're talking about something that happened almost 50 years ago with very little notice, so it was with a sense of vindication that I ran across this clip the other day - the game footage of the 1965 Bluebonnet Bowl, which indeed confirmed my memories.  Not a particularly notable game, but great fun to watch nonetheless.  See how much more interesting football can be when you don't remove the elements from the equation? ◙

Retro TV Monday - This week in TV Guide: December 16, 1961

It's a week until Christmas, and this issue of TV Guide is full of programs we’d never see on network television today.

Take, for example, NBC’s Project 20 documentary series, which on Wednesday night presents “The Coming of Christ.”  “The life and ministry of Christ and prophecies of His Coming were constant themes for painters of the 15th to 17th Centuries.  This taped, half-hour show, first seen last December, uses photographs of the works of many of these painters – to depict ‘The Coming of Christ.’”

A few thoughts on this: first, if a program like this were on today, it would be on PBS or one of the shrinking number of “arts” shows on cable, and the emphasis would be on the art, rather than the religion.* The sidebar ad underscores the idea that art is being used as a vehicle for the greater religious event: “’Project 20’ brings art treasures to life to tell their deeply moving story.”  This is reinforced by narrator Alexander Scourby’s reading of passages from the Old and New Testaments as the pictures are shown (in a “’still-pictures-to-action’ technique [used] to create the illusion of movement”; similar, I suppose, to what Ken Burns uses today).  It’s also interesting to note the capitalization of the pronoun “His” as well as “Coming,” and later capitalizations of “Virgin” and “Child.”  Again, this denotes a respect for religion that isn’t seen as often today, but was taken for granted back then even in secular publications.

*I say this because TVG clearly labels this as “religion” and not, say, “art.”  I think programs such as Sister Wendy’s undoubtedly had religious overtones, but were still packaged as art documentaries. 

Alexander Scourby had a fantastic voice; I wish I could track down a copy of this show, though an audio version is available, as well as a book tie-in.

Immediately following Project 20 is Perry Como’s Christmas show, which includes a scene in which “Perry reads the story of the first Christmas” to children from the production staff.  That’s very similar to Friday’s Bell Telephone Hour, where hostess Jane Wyatt “recites the story of the Nativity from the Gospel of St. Luke.”  Now, I’m not going to get into the larger question of a “War on Christmas” or anything like that; it’s simply to point out, as this blog is want to do, of how we can see the culture’s evolution through the programs on TV.  Undeniably, we’re at a point now where there seems to be a reluctance to even use the word “Christmas,” let alone discuss the religious ramifications it contains.  And while there are a lot of Hallmark- and Lifetime-style “Christmas” movies out there, they almost always deal with it as a secular event, perhaps with some quasi-touchy-feely “spirituality” wrapped up in its message.

Not so in 1961, where religion was seen as an integral part of Christmas.  Sure, there were variety shows such as Garry Moore’s and Red Skelton’s (both this week) that focus more on the secular, celebratory aspects of Christmas, but the larger point is that even within that context, it would not have been uncommon for the host or one of the guests to say or sing or otherwise do something that contained an explicitly religious message.

Perhaps it’s the fact that New Year’s isn’t far away, but I’m reminded of a song by Louden Wainwright III shortly after The New York Times building in Times Square (hence the name of the square) was renamed Allied Chemical Building.  “Have you been to Allied Chemical Square?/It used to be called Times, but times have changed.”

Indeed the times have changed.

Read the rest here. ◙

Amahl redux?

While penetrating myself through the first hour of NBC's The Sound of Music Live with Carrie Underwood in the lead role (I had to be in bed early because of another hard 6 AM workout), I read many criticisms of it compared to the 1965 movie, and much of the problem with the live event was the majority of viewers do not understand the difference between live theatre and a motion picture that is filmed and edited.

The biggest observations of the performance were twofold; one, the use of pre-recorded soundtracks, which Arturo Toscanini would have never approved. Mr. Toscanini was the conductor of NBC's orchestra until the 1950's. This is a problem we are seeing everywhere today, even in churches, which forced me to leave our church choir. The second observation was that it had roughly been fifty years since NBC had commissioned live musical theatre for television. Now Fox had commissioned a live Roc and NBC had live ER episodes, but they were just episodes for certain occasions.

For a generation that hasn't seen a live musical theatre event, and do not understand the importance of NBC's annual (1951-63) performances of Menotti's Amahl and the Night Visitors, including myself, that we have discussed on the blog, the live staging of Rodgers and Hammerstein's big musical was a throwback to that era. I can understand the criticism of the lead role being former Pop Idol Carrie Underwood, but other than that, the larger issue is something I hope will return to television annually, and that is live theatre. Is this the modern-day Amahl? Might we have a return to live theatre on television the way it was, with live orchestras too?   ◙