ads without products

Archive for December 2nd, 2004

Nicely Played

leave a comment »

Chris Matthews kinda made Falwell’s head explode a little bit on his show recently. OK, good. Now just repeat this move eleven thousand times and maybe we’ll make some progress…

From Slate: Cable News Cretinism – Jerry Falwell’s straight story. By Dana Stevens.

Matthews: Did you choose to be heterosexual?

Falwell: I did.

Matthews: You thought about it and that was your choice?

Falwell: Well, put it this way, I was taught as a child that that’s the right way to be.

Matthews: But did you feel an attraction toward women?
Falwell: Oh, of course.

Matthews: But when people are born and they find themselves having an attraction to somebody from the same sex, do you think that’s a choice?

Falwell: I think you can experiment with any perversity and develop an appetite for it, just like you can food. […] I don’t think anybody is born a bank robber […]

Matthews: How old were you when you chose to be heterosexual?
Falwell: Oh, I don’t remember that.

Matthews: Well you must, because you say it’s a big decision.
Falwell: Well, I – I started dating when I was about thirteen.
Matthews: And you had to decide between boys and girls. And you chose girls.

Falwell: Well, I never had to decide, I never thought … (laughter)

Written by adswithoutproducts

December 2, 2004 at 11:23 pm

Posted in Television

Quick Question – Bitterish

leave a comment »

Is there any public figure who more tellingly exudes that particular brand of stupidity cultivated in the greater New York area than Bernie Kerik?

(Not that the New York brand is any worse than that of any other area of our great nation – quite the opposite. But you know what I’m talking about… I’ve been changing the channel for years now whenever his balding, drawling orb appears on the screen, and now we get to see him in front of the amazing technicolor terror forecast board).

Written by adswithoutproducts

December 2, 2004 at 11:15 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

The Cost of Living

leave a comment »

OK – as pop culture goes, it’s a pretty high end addiction. I like to watch Location Location Location on BBC America. Set the DVR to tape it, freak out just a little when it’s a repeat (happens more and more often – though tonight I had a great one from Glasgow to watch…)

Home for Thanksgiving, discovered mom to be a huge fan of the American version of the show, HGTV’s House Hunters.

I’ve seen mom’s show before, and found it just as unbearable watching it with her (while my wife and dad couch snoozed in the other room in from of some sort of Seinfeld retrospective…) as I had in the past.

Of course, it’s in large part my NYC urban snobbery. Can’t bear the friggin McMansions, faceless, hideous. Whereas Location, Location, Location generally features hip apartments (like) and crumbling country houses (like not so much).

But it’s more than that – the gaping difference between the shows is that the British version tells you the prices of the apartments / what the lookers are wanting to spend, whereas the American version leaves out that crucial bit of information. (Often, Househunters even leaves out the city, ahem, sprawling suburban wasteland where we’re looking…)

Since I’m firm in the believe that television always brings us exactly what we want (OK – that "we" is a little bit troublesome, but bear with me), what does it say about the trans-atlantic gap that "we" will tolerate a house-buying show with no prices.

Or is it more awful? The wild disparity between red state and blue state home prices would alternately gross out half the viewership or make the other half keel over in bedazzled laughter… Is that the problem? The Oklahoma housewife seeing the $900,000 1 bedroom in Chelsea and/or the Brooklyn bourgeois bohemian viewing the $75,000 3 bedroom ranch in Missouri?

Something to think about anyway…

Written by adswithoutproducts

December 2, 2004 at 12:50 am

Posted in Television