Improbably Foxy

So tonight I went to what I thought was going to be an album release party for the incredibly catchy ensemble Kay Kay and his Weathered Underground. Turns out that I'd misread the billing, thinking that "Siberium" was the album name when it was in fact the name of the band releasing the album. Oops.

( More details and two photos... )

You know what's funny? Flawed people. Or at least that's the conclusion you'd reach watching most sitcoms. Many of the historic Prime Time Guys are primarily defined by their inadequacies, running the spectrum from selfish and neurotic (Jerry Seinfeld) to lazy and stupid (Homer Simpson). In fact, there's basically a whole subgenre of lazy, ugly, out-of-shape guys who can't stop whining about their horrible life married to a gorgeous woman and hanging out with their friends and family in their beautiful home.

So when a comedy comes along that successfully makes with the funny without overwhelmingly focusing on a character's failings, it's worth recognition. Following are seven Sitcom Guys who are the type of person you'd actually like to have as one of your guys. The rules: the Guy has to be a major character, not an occasional cameo. The show must be funny most of the time; dramas with comedic elements are objectively disqualified but other than that it's completely subject to my preferences (which also means I have to have seen it). Finally, no more than one Guy per show.

7. Will Smith (Will Smith)
The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air
A good guy because: His street-wise upbringing served as an effective foil to his rich relatives' snooty ways. He managed to live the good life from the perspective of a guy who knows exactly how lucky he's become.
Could be disqualified for: The Fresh Prince played its brand of family-friendly class warfare far too broadly for its own good. What's more, its later years saw a number of episodes with enough cheesy drama to qualify for Very Special status.

6. Sam Malone (Ted Danson)
Cheers
A good guy because: Say what you will about the ill effects of alcohol, Sam's bar served as a home away from home for the show's lovable group of misfits and losers. The theme song says it all, "you want to go where everybody knows your name" and it was Sam's charm and welcoming nature that made that place possible.
Could be disqualified for: Sam's womanizing was a major plot point for the series, which combined with his constant feuds with the female leads made a sizable dent in his "good guy" credibility.

5. Cliff Huxtable (Bill Cosby)
The Cosby Show
A good guy because: Patriarch of the formidable Huxtable clan, Cliff's resolution was rock-solid. The errors of his childrens' ways, no matter how overwhelming to them, never seemed beyond his capabilities. Snarky before the word was coined, but only to put a sharp point on his wise and savvy guidance.
Could be disqualified for: He's certainly a good person, but a bit too crusty and crotchety to be called a "guy" in the typical sense. Moreover, The Cosby Show and its descendants were even more guilty of Very Special Episode syndrome than The Fresh Prince. Still, the consistent quality of those shows serves to keep ol' Heathcliff firmly in the running.

4. Donna Pinciotti (Laura Prepon)
That 70's Show
A good guy because: Donna reflected all the features of her frequent love interest, Eric. She was the group's female anchor; never one to shy away from a good time but always keeping her feet on the ground. While geeky Eric was the butt of the joke as often as not, Donna almost always managed to rise above.
Could be disqualified for: For all her successes as a guy, it was a running gag that she was lacking in the more traditionally feminine categories. Nevertheless, being a bimbo never seemed to make her friend Jackie any more appealing.

3. Jim Halpert (John Krasinski)
The Office (US version)
A good guy because: The type of officemate everyone wants to have; talented and reliable, but laid back enough to chat with on an extended coffee break or challenge in paper football. His easygoing exterior gives him a natural charisma effective against all but the most jaded or defensive personalities.
Could be disqualified for: A casual nature is great in moderation, but sometimes you have to be a bit more assertive or considerate. Jim tiptoed around his flirtatious relationship with Pam when the direct approach would have been preferable, and when he wasn't busy with that he was pushing his practical joking with Dwight and his romance with Katy beyond advisable levels.

2. Ted Mosby (Josh Radnor)
How I Met Your Mother
A good guy because: He's the whole package. A charismatic bachelor in the big city, young enough to laugh at fart jokes but mature enough to be looking for the love of his life. And all the while soaked in his fair share and then some of tasty alcoholic beverages.
Could be disqualified for: Though he usually has good intentions, Ted can get misled by his own emotions to the detriment of others. His near-cheating and birthday breakups would seem to take him out of the running, but the future narration (provided by Bob Saget) makes it clear that the burdens of these regrets eventually make him a better person.

1. Michael Bluth (Jason Bateman)
Arrested Development
A good guy because: Another patriarch, but without the benefit of seniority informing his actions. Michael's business acumen and confident exterior belie the soul of a sentimental family man. He may not have the steadfast certainty of a Heathcliff Huxtable, but that just makes him more appealing as he tries to learn from his mistakes.
Could be disqualified for: As he runs around cleaning up the debris of his siblings' and parents' antics, he often fails to share his humanity with his son, George Michael (Michael Cera). The parental guidance that ends up fitting into the schedule is Hallmark Card fatherhood, which is usually wildly (and hilariously) inappropriate to George Michael's actual issues.

Who'd I miss?

The Daily Show was interesting tonight. One of the features was about the recently-rediscovered video clip of Cheney (in 1994) enumerating several of the obvious complications and issues of removing Saddam from power. Complications and issues which were forgotten? Ignored? Suppressed? ...in the lead-up to our current invasion.

The guest, topically, was the author of a new book about Cheney. As soon as they mentioned that he'd personally interviewed the Vice President, alarm bells went off in my head. If we've learned nothing else, it's that this administration only talks to the press when they absolutely have to, or when they know they're speaking into a supportive ear. And indeed, Stephen Hayes proved no exception.

When Stewart brought up Cheney's 1994 statements, Hayes tried to deflect it with the "9/11 changed everything" cliché. Which, in addition to being a cheap sound-bite reply, wasn't even an answer to the question. After all, as Stewart pointed out, even if you accept for the sake of argument that it somehow justified the invasion, 9/11 didn't change any of the consequences of invading Iraq. And yet when critics of the administration make the points that it turns out Cheney himself has made, they are dismissed as defeatists and traitors.

In response, Hayes denied that Stewart's specific wording had ever been said, when a stoned six-year-old could have identified the wording as humorous hyperbole. Jon's incredulity was palpable as he explained that he wasn't directly quoting Bush when he said "duhhhh, it'll only cost a million dollars and take a week!"

One can forgive our esteemed Daily Show host for being impatient, after having a similarly frustrating experience the night before interviewing conservative pundit Bill Kristol. Or, on a more personal level, being mocked by Fox talk show host John Gibson.

After all, people who expressed emotion in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 are just whiny pussies, amirite? We need another 9/11 to thin out their numbers unite the country again, because the people who correctly criticized the Bush administration's mistakes are the reason the Bush administration made mistakes... somehow.

It makes me very cynical to watch these intellectual invertebrates achieve popularity and success by insulting one of the few eloquent, honest, and impassioned members of the media.

mickj writes... "People who voted for democrats last year learned nothing from how republican voters were hoodwinked for the last decade."

Corollary: the democrats who people voted for learned nothing from why those same republicans lost last year.

This comment on metafilter has a point, though. The republicans have essentially flushed decades of legislative etiquette down the toilet to serve Bush's interests. We saw it when the GOP controlled congress: they'd outright ignore democratic committee members, they'd introduce legislation at the last possible instant, they'd change the text of bills after all the voting had been completed.

And now that they don't have an explicit majority, they're manipulating the few safeguards we had in place. The filibuster was meant to be reserved for blatant abuses but the GOP is using it to stonewall just about anything. And because Cheney is the officer and Lieberman is a republican in everything except official party affiliation, the democrats can't use the nuclear option to stop it in the senate.

The worst part is, these tactics might actually work. Case in point: even though the wiretapping expansion was "ayed" by 186 out of 202 republicans and "nayed" by 181 out of 231 democrats in the house, all the publicity about it is painting the story as "democrats approve surveillance program." So the republicans get the legislation that they want, and the democrats get the blame.

This isn't to serve only as a democrat apologia. They may not be able to pass the bills they want, but that doesn't mean they have to accept the GOP versions just to pass something. I wish I could say they're showing that they actually care about government, that they'd rather pass BS legislation than watch America crumble while congress bickers. But I don't think that's true. I think they're scared. They've been battered and bruised as the "pansy party" for so long that they're willing to do just about anything to avoid being tarred with that brush.

The problem is, the people who think of them that way are consummate republicans. The dems aren't going to "win them over" unless they introduce mandatory school prayer, turn the middle east into a glass parking lot, and run a presidential campaign of "Zombie Reagan/Lieberman '08".

In other words, some of the democrats are trying to ditch their smart friends to sit at the "cool" table, without realizing that most people hate the "cool" kids these days.

Not going to spoil The Simpsons Movie for anyone, but it's absolutely worth seeing for fans of the show.

And because I'm such a charitable person, I took the liberty of seeing it sitting in front of that obnoxious guy who repeats every joke, and reads everything on the screen out loud, and talks to his friends the whole time. Now that he's seen it, you all are safe. You can thank me later. And nothing says "thanks" like sending me a check.

What's the first site that comes up in your address bar autocomplete when you type each letter? Note, if you set your privacy settings to clear your history every time you restart the browser, then wait until it's been open a while before answering.

A: http://aporter.org/msg/
B: http://barmaidblog.livejournal.com/
C: http://craigslist.com/
D: http://digg.com/
E: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CV
F: http://flickr.com/
G: http://www.google.com/reader/view/
H: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
I: http://icanhascheezburger.com/
J: nothing
K: http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=436
L: http://www.livejournal.com/update.bml
M: http://www.metafilter.com/
N: http://www.netflix.com/MemberHome
O: http://opinionsnobodyaskedfor.blogspot.com/
P: http://pierceh.livejournal.com/friends
Q: nothing
R: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/
S: http://slashdot.org/
T: http://www.theonion.com/content/index
U: nothing
V: http://vt.facebook.com/home.php?
W: http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=98121
X: http://xkcd.com/
Y: http://youtube.com/watch?v=GFqTd-CEjHM
Z: http://zeekspizza.com/

...I discover that I'm about to end a question in a punctuated acronym (like "U.S."). It feels wrong to leave it unpunctuated ("US"), but it also feels wrong to have two sentence-ending punctuation marks in a row ("How long have you lived in the U.S.?", as an example).

Share your pet peeves!!

One of the major seven/four celebrations around here is the "Fourth of Julivar's," sponsored by Ivar's Acres of Clams. And reiterating how awesome it is to live where I do, it was over Elliott Bay and I would've had a fantastic view only three blocks away. Nevertheless, in the interest of avoiding the crowds and ambient light, I walked about two-thirds of a mile towards the grain elevator and then walked out onto the rocky ledge overlooking Puget Sound. The results were pretty spifftastic. I've never seen fireworks over a body of water before, but it had an incredible serene beauty to it which made me very emo.

Okay, come on now. I walked right past the 7-Eleven by the Space Needle on my walk yesterday, and either I'm completely inattentive or they decided to put up the Kwik-E-Mart decorations the day after I went by. I really could've gone for a nice cold Squishee, too.

One near you?

I went for quite a long walk around Seattle today (requires me to mark you as a friend on Flickr, since it indicates where I live), and as sometimes happens in the city I encountered a few overly-extroverted people in my travels.

What makes for a a curious trend is that four of the last five individuals who have thus approached me have made vaguely-disparaging comments, jokes, or outright criticisms of gay people. Is there something about me that says "I share your homophobia and wish to chat about it with you" to creepy strangers?

Update: when categorizing my photos from today, I discovered an amusingly relevant piece of trivia. One of the particularly creepy people who came up to me today was right around Cal Anderson Park, apparently named after Washington's first openly gay state legislator.

On the subject of facebook and social networking sites, what are the rules of etiquette to which you all subscribe? Specifically, how good a friend does someone have to be (or have been) for you to feel comfortable making a friend request?

The test I usually use is whether or not I would want to have a beer with that person now. Yep, that metric's not just for deciding on presidential candidates anymore.

Of course, it's not completely foolproof. For one, there's always the desire to add someone as a connection just to formally acknowledge your affiliation with them, even if you weren't really good friends. This practice makes the networking site a better means of graphing your entire social history, but dilutes your friends list with people you don't really care about.

Another problem is the tendency -- especially if you're SNUI (social networking under the influence) -- to see a name and exaggerate their importance. You're much more likely to want to have a beer with someone if you're having the beer anyway. It's like if you had a one-night stand with someone gross and annoying, but instead of it being an embarrassing personal memory, there's a permanent public record of it.

Then there's the risk of upsetting a delicate balance. Maybe you have an old friend you don't really call anymore. No hard feelings, the relationship just gradually entered a state of torpor and it's perfectly fine staying that way indefinitely. Making a friend request may give the momentary impression that you may want to reactivate the friendship, and if that's not the case then you seem like an asshole.

That last flaw has a corollary, which is the bummed feeling you get when you repeatedly see a list of people who used to be your best friends but aren't anymore.

And finally, there's the gamble you take when you try to officially label anything... what if the other person doesn't think of you the same way? This one's not specific to social networking sites, but its real-world parallel is usually limited to the taxonomy of romantic relationships. Are you fuck buddies? Friends with benefits? Dating? Boyfriend/girlfriend? Exclusive? In love? Engaged? Married? And that's not to mention the different bases. All of these classifications are associated with at least a momentary awkwardness... rare is the relationship where partners attain the same involvement level simultaneously, while also recognizing that status in each other.

Now, thanks to the miracles of modern science, we have sites which attempt to categorize your non-romantic relationships just as discretely! Which means that you can't express your history with a person at all unless they're willing to call you a "friend," and their criteria may be wildly different from yours. Likewise, you may get friend requests that surprise you, which puts you in the awkward position of either diluting your friends list, or actively indicating to that person that you don't like them as much as they thought you did.

To conclude my rambling observations, I think the major sites could use a lower tier of establishing relationships. Right now, when I get a friend request on facebook, I can specify or confirm relevant details, like "I went to high school with _____" or "_____ and I hooked up in 1997." I think you shouldn't have to actively befriend someone in order to create these links. They shouldn't even need confirmation by the other party, although he or she can choose to deny the assertion if it's inaccurate.

If you haven't yet seen Friday Night Lights on NBC, vamoose your keister over to nbc.com and get started. Or, download the episodes from iTunes for $1.99 each. Both are probably good ways to show support to NBC for airing such a solid program, and hopefully edge them towards granting it many seasons to come.

First off, let me say that for a show to sympathetically present southern characters is very difficult in this day and age... the redneck stereotype is so ingrained, and even once-positive models like the "southern gentleman" are now tainted with preconceptions about racism, sexism, and rabid evangelical christianity. Friday Night Lights distinguishes itself, not by pretending these traits don't exist, and not by presenting them as harmless anachronisms, and not by simply demonizing them and the characters that exhibit them. Instead, it offers them as the everyday trials and mistakes of fallible human beings. That the citizens of Dillon, TX are often products of their environment allows the show to explain their behavior without excusing it.

Second off, for a show about a football team, there's very little actual football played. Consequently, when they do have a game sequence, it possesses that much more gravity. I suspect the creators have wisely realized that there are a billion cliche sports films in which "winning the game" is the most significant plotline and all character interaction revolves around that point. Lights defies the formula, recognizing the game as simply a microcosm of the more important (and complicated) real-life conflicts.

I suspect this is why the show's main protagonist, Coach Taylor, is such a strong central character. Jon Voight's Coach Kilmer in Varsity Blues was the enemy because he cared about the win without the "why". For those of us who never saw football as a Lifestyle Choice, it's hard to summon an inkling of sympathy or understanding for such a character's behavior. Kyle Chandler's Coach Taylor makes it clear that he values the game less than what it's intended to represent: honor, loyalty, camraderie, and discipline. The talented writing team complements Chandler's powerful performances to form a seamless central foundation to the show.

And third, its simple and informal presentation grants Lights a level of realism to truly personalize it. Handheld cameras and slightly grainy, desaturated film style make you feel like you're watching a documentary about these kids. They don't always have a witty retort, they don't go off soliloquizing using words no high schooler would know, and I find myself immersed in their world more than in any other series or film I've ever seen.

So seriously. Take my word for it.

P.S. I won't deny that the themes of school spirit and solidarity in the face of tragedy are particularly resonant at the moment, but for the record I started watching and appreciating this show before the events of this past week.

My heart goes out to everyone in Blacksburg, and everyone affected by this horrible tragedy. I don't know what could bring a person to this kind of awful state of being, but it's a pity that pain like this would ever be brought into the world.

Things have changed since I was certified for CPR in high school... now I may just have been remembering it wrong, but I thought it was supposed to be a cycle of 15 compressions, then two breaths. But this article indicates that the appropriate sequence is now 30 compressions followed by two breaths, rather than 15 followed by one. Apparently, every time you pause compressions the heart empties, creating a form of circulatory overhead to the procedure. So continuing compressions for longer stretches makes that part of the CPR much more effective.

Also, apparently the stuff they taught us about searching for a pulse isn't a priority anymore, since even trained professionals have a very high error rate in detecting it under emergency conditions. And really, depending on the circumstances of the collapse, the breaths may be mostly unnecessary anyway since the blood will be sufficiently oxygenated for a few minutes of CPR... meaning that the important thing is getting that blood to the vital organs.

(this topic jacked from metafilter: http://www.metafilter.com/60125/Kickstart-a-heart)

Smith

Ray Liotta's not the only reason this seems like a Guy Ritchie film, but unfortunately it lacks the pacing and punch that gave Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch such momentum. It gives me the same feelings as the slightly superior Thief on FX... it's possible that the "heist" genre is just not suited to episodic television.

Pilot: 5
Future Potential: 3

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

It's hard to argue with Aaron Sorkin's credentials. He is the master of creating the world of the "backstage", presenting the larger-than-life characterizations of the neurotics and workoholics and alcoholics and prima donnas (often times being collectively manifested in a single character) without failing to keep them humble and human. Studio 60 is no variation on the formula, even perpetuating Sorkin's apparent elitism about the art of writing. I'd be more critical of that trait if Sorkin wasn't the most talented dialoguist I've ever seen. Studio 60 has the edge, the publicity, the star power, and the talent behind it to succeed where its quirky little sibling Sports Night failed.

Pilot: 8
Future Potential: 10

The Class

Someone tell the creators of The Class that you can't make an entire show off of contrasting one-dimensional characters anymore. Friends drove that into the ground and only succeeded because it was inordinately clever. It's like they flipped a coin for every character they created... heads for "Dharma", tails for "Greg".

Pilot: 3
Future Potential: 2

Heroes

Drafting after Lost is yet another ensemble supernatural drama. I'll be frank, I know I tend to give the superhero genre a lot of benefit of the doubt, and by that metric I would describe Heroes as passable. I'll give it a few more shots to attain excellence, but I don't know if I can reasonably recommend it to others based on the merits of its pilot. I'll note that the effects budget is far below the normal standards for the genre, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If they can make a compelling show without resorting to "ooh shiny!" then they'll be stronger for it.

Pilot: 5
Future Potential: 6

Brothers and Sisters

I don't envy Brothers and Sisters... it's hard to divorce Calista Flockhart from the preposterous oversensation that was Ally McBeal. With that in mind, it seems like there would have been a million better casting choices for a conservative republican in a liberal family than someone whose most notable resume point is almost the archetype of "insipid liberal hollywood entertainment". However... the show's not bad. The supporting cast manages to add dimension to the cookie-cutter roster of ensemble characters; even the token gay guy does okay. Sally Field masters her part as the slightly controlling suburbanite mother, but I can't help but wonder if she's overqualified for the job.

Pilot: 6
Future Potential: 6

From Amy.

1. Who was your best friend(s)? Miguel, Monica, Carly
2. What sports did you play? Lacrosse until I separated my shoulder. Is foosball a sport?
3. What kind of car did you drive? Ford Explorer until I crashed it.
4. It's Friday night, where were you at? If there was a football game then lounging around TJ, otherwise at Phill's or Dan's or at home.
5. Were you a party animal? Not in the typical definition of the word.
6. Were you considered a flirt? Most likely.
7. Ever skip school? Only on "senior skip day" and once or twice when I was genuinely sick but perhaps played up the symptoms.
8. Were you a nerd? Most likely.
9. Were you in any clubs? Lacrosse team, Debate team
10. Did you get suspended/expelled? Nope.
11. Can you sing the fight song? 'Fraid not.
12. Favorite teacher? Mrs. Hannah, AP Psychology.
13. Favorite class? AP Psychology unless I hadn't done my homework.
14. What was your school's full name? Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology.
15. School mascot? Colonials.
16. Did you go to dances? Yep: homecoming, spring formal, and prom.
17. If you could go back and do it over, would you? Sure, those were great times.
18. What do you remember most about graduation? Being embarrassed when one of my family members refused to applaud after Al Gore's speech, simply because it was Al Gore.
19. Favorite memory of your Senior Year? Talking to Carly instead of writing during our Writing Seminar trips to a local park.
20. Were you ever posted up on the senior wall? Buh?
21. Did you have a job your senior year? Not during the year, but before it.
23. Have you gained weight since then? Gained about 45 pounds, then lost about 55 pounds.
24. What did you do after graduation? Went to Italy over the summer to visit my cousin, then went to college.
27. Are you going to your ten year reunion? Probably... the five- and six- year ones were fun and if I end up going home for Thanksgiving I'll be going to the seven-year too.
28. Who was the worst/annoying/weird teacher? Mrs. Bellaqua (sp?). So focused on the "give them busywork" method of teaching that I got a D in Calculus despite getting a 5/5 on the AP exam and a 108% on the final exam.
29. Who will repost this after you? Some bored east coast office worker on Monday morning. .)