Thursday, October 25, 2007

Let me tell you what's wrong with LIFE....

So I've been watching this new NBC show, Life, on Wednesday nights. Now, truth be told, it has more to do with the lead actor, and the fact that Alan Arkin is part of the cast, but there you are; I watch it. It's the story of a former policeman who was framed and sentenced to life for a crime he didn't commit and then, after 12 years in prison, is found innocent and awarded $50 million in an wrongful imprisonment suit and been reinstated on the police force. He's back on the force because he wants to find out who framed him and why. The premise, I thought, was that his experience had given him a new found way of looking at "life" helped him to solve crimes using unconventional methods.
The first show was good. It didn't give us too much information, just enough to intrigue and keep the audience coming back. I did. But now, after 4 shows, I'm beginning to think the original character has been lost along the way. Charlie Crews is supposed to have found some sort of Zen-like peace in prison and is now this changed person. He has a lot of money but doesn't care about it. He lives in an empty mansion with his ex-con friend, Arkin. The mansion is empty because, like I said, the money doesn't mean anything to him. Or at least, because he's found this inner peace, he doesn't want to money to mean anything to him. But lately he just seems detached and almost bored and lazy.
The guy struts around like a Miami Vice wanna-be. He poses while wearing expensive suits, expensive watches, expensive shoes and expensive sunglasses. Which doesn't make sense to me. If the guy was an ordinary police detective and then in prison for 12 years, where did he suddenly develop this killer style? Did he read a lot of GQ in the slammer? Supposedly, he didn't even know cell phones had cameras but he knows the difference between a tailored suit or one bought off the rack? No. No. That doesn't ring true.
Also, the crime he was convicted of was the murder of a family. A brutal, bloody slaughter. Why would anyone think he did this? Why would everyone he knew, his partner, his wife, his fellow officers, be convinced that he would be capable of such a serial killer like crime? This has never been explained and it needs to be.
And another thing, in the first couple of episodes, he solved crimes because he saw things differently. He was like a hyper aware detective. He used his new found inner peace, to ask questions the other detectives didn't think to ask or to notice things no one else would. But lately, he just seems to be along for the ride. He and his partner stumble across clues or "get lucky." Boring. And about his partner, she was really engaging in the pilot. She's a a recovering addict being given another chance. It was also implied that she's also expected to keep an eye on Crews and report back on him, if he does anything wrong. There are people on the force that would rather he not be there. But this angle has been dropped on recent shows.
Anyway, in the pilot, there was this scene where they break into some suspects house and she gets covered in cocaine powder. She freaks and jumps in the shower and washes it off while her new partner, Charlie, watches in surprise. It was a great scene which said a lot about the character and her addiction problems. Unfortunately, we haven't really visited this subject much in recent shows. At least, not with that intensity and depth.
Now about last night's show and why I don't know if I can keep watching LIFE. The show starts with a woman, wearing angel wings, falling out of a window and hitting the roof of a car. When they get to the scene, it's pretty obvious which window she came out of,but they never discuss the fact that the woman didn't scream as she fell. Was she drugged? Was it a suicide? No, immediately they assume murder. The way they discover the identity of the woman is ridiculous. First, in Los Angeles, where I live, if a woman fell from the sky wearing angel wings, I doubt the police station would be full of weirdos claiming to know the woman. But, in this episode, their offices are full of people, all claiming to know the woman. Crews notices one meek guy allowing everyone to cut in front of him in line and of course, he's the woman's husband. What develops is a connection with the Russian Mob and the introduction of a Russian bad guy, who can't be arrested because he's an informant for our government. The Russian bad guy was the best thing in the show.
But the breaking point for me was when they were trying to get some information from a friend of the deceased Russian angel. They put this huge picture of the deceased, that they'd found in a suspect's home, on a chair directly in front of the friend. Then they left the room and monitored her reaction from the camera in the room. This woman, who was not chained to the table, just sat there staring at this picture. For hours, as the detectives just watched and waited for her to crack. Which of course, she finally did. She started crying. RIDICULOUS!!! The woman could have just turned the picture around, but no, she sits there and faces it. STUPID. STUPID. Why didn't Crews use his new Zen insight to get the information he needed that way. Instead we are forced to watch a scene where a woman stares a picture and the detectives stare at a woman staring at a picture. BORING.
At the end of the show, the Russian Mob guy calls Crewes and for some reason, gives him a clue that leads to his former partner. Gee. How convenient. Wouldn't it have been better if Crewes, because he sees things differently now, would has noticed things about his former partner that he never noticed before. And that these things would have led him to discover the clue himself? Isn't he a detective?
That's all I have to say about that. Oh, except I'll keep watching because of my aforementioned fascination with the lead actor, who by the way, is English pretending to be American. His American accent isn't very good. It sounds like he's from "Joisey." But I can put up with that. It's the bad writing and confusing characterizations that will drive me away.

Friday, October 19, 2007

How old is an "underage male?"

More on Mrs. Lindsay Roberts, the wife of Richard Roberts, Oral Robert's son. The most interesting part of this account is:

"The more detailed account alleges Richard Roberts' wife, Lindsay, spent the night in the ORU guest house with an underage male "on nine separate occasions," and was photographed 29 times with an underage male in her sports car, among other allegations.

She likes young men, but how young? "Underage," I'm assuming, is under 18.

Nothing these self-righteous types do surprises me anymore but their arrogance always does. Allegedly, this woman thought nothing of using OSU property for her trysts and felt perfectly comfortable driving around with these young men. The thought in her mind must have been, "I'm entitled to this."


Wednesday, October 10, 2007

One less thing to worry about...

"...the Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, John Tanner, contends that while it's "a shame" that elderly voters may be disenfranchised by new Photo ID restrictions at the polls because many don't have driver's licenses, minorities don't have to worry quite as much. Why? Because "minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first

As a brown person, I am concerned to find out that we minorities don't last long. I'll have to let my 85 year old Mother know she's a freak of nature.

Monday, October 08, 2007

"Mrs Roberts, are you trying to seduce me?"

My only hope is that this story leads to the destruction of the dishonest business built by Oral Roberts on the backs of little old ladies handing over their last two dollars. Oral's son, Richard, is proving himself a chip off the old block, though not as slick as his father. It seems Richard is facing a lawsuit alleging misuse of Oral Roberts University funds. But it wasn't only Richard misusing funds, it seems his wife was busy spending money on "extracurricular activities."

She is accused of dropping tens of thousands of dollars on clothes, awarding nonacademic scholarships to friends of her children and sending scores of text messages on university-issued cell phones to people described in the lawsuit as "underage males."
- A longtime maintenance employee was fired so that an underage male friend of Mrs. Roberts could have his position.
- Mrs. Roberts - who is a member of the board of regents and is referred to as ORU's "first lady" on the university's Web site - frequently had cell-phone bills of more than $800 per month, with hundreds of text messages sent between 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. to "underage males who had been provided phones at university expense."

Underage males? Hmmm. Was she counseling troubled boys struggling with their budding sexualities? Perhaps she was saving them from the evils of "homosexuality?" More things Mrs. Roberts and her husband are accused of....

- Mrs. Roberts spent more than $39,000 at one Chico's clothing store alone in less than a year, and had other accounts in Texas and California. She also repeatedly said, "As long as I wear it once on TV, we can charge it off." The document cites inconsistencies in clothing purchases and actual usage on TV.
- Mrs. Roberts was given a white Lexus SUV and a red Mercedes convertible by ministry donors.
- University and ministry employees are regularly summoned to the Roberts' home to do the daughters' homework.
- The university and ministry maintain a stable of horses for exclusive use by the Roberts' children.
- The Roberts' home has been remodeled 11 times in the past 14 years.

Tsk. Tsk. Oral Roberts claimed that Jesus spoke to him and told him to build the university. Richard Roberts now claims to receive messages from Jesus.

As Max Von Sydow said in Woody Allen's "Hannah and her Sisters,"....
"If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in His name, He'd never stop throwing up."

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Of Cowards and Betrayers....

The current Democrats in Congress are dishonorable. They are worse than Republicans. Republicans may pretend to be a lot of things (straight) but for all of their venal weaknesses and illegalities, they're not very good at hiding their motives. The Democrats, on the other hand, portray themselves as the shining knights of protection but confronted with true danger, they fold up like a damaged accordion.

I you ask me, it's a far bigger betrayal when the good guy turns out to be a coward than when the bad guy turns out to be a bad guy.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Don't Mess with Brown Texans.

Michael Chertoff, a particularly scary-looking individual, opened his big mouth and said that the borders are dirty because, basically, Mexicans are dirty.
"Illegal migrants really degrade the environment. I've seen pictures of human waste, garbage, discarded bottles and other human artifact in pristine areas," Chertoff said in a telephone interview. "And believe me, that is the worst thing you can do to the environment."

What does he think these people are doing out in the deserts? Having a picnic? They're risking their lives, pendejo! Sorry they didn't have time to properly dispose of the plastic bottle that held their last drop of water before they died of thirst out in the middle of nowhere!

Well, some border town Mayors in Texas, which are predominantly Mexican-American, are paying him back.

I'm not saying it's related but it should be.

Monday, October 01, 2007

You're bothering me, I say, you're bothering me boy....

Rush Limbaugh, after calling the troops who protest the war, "phony soldiers,", is now denying he ever said it. (That's what bullys do, once caught, they deny, deny, deny. "I didn't do it.") He says,

"He has prepared a letter to be sent to the CEO of the company that syndicates this program, and that letter he asked as many senators as possible to sign, offering them the opportunity to demand of my syndicator that I be condemned for something that I did not say, which Harry Reid knows I did not say."

In a blustering, bombastic bravado tone, rivaling only that of the legendary Foghorn Leghorn, he protested.....

"It is unconscionable for an esteemed United States senator to launch an all-out assault on a private citizen, which is a lie from front to back, in order to cover your own actions and words, which have been the true demoralization of the US military -- and if anybody owes the military of this country an apology, Senator Reid, it is you. It is Jack Murtha. It is Dick Durbin. It is any and all who have joined your effort to secure defeat of the United States and the United States military in not only Iraq, but the war on terror. Sir, have you no decency left? Have you no shame whatsoever?"

Then he said "hurumph" and scurried off in his high heels. At least Foghorn was funny. And not real.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.....

All I'm saying is, this neo-con Republican party, which is running the country into the ground, seems to be made up of a lot of people who are so full of hate and self-loathing that they dump it on others in an attempt to somehow "redeem" themselves. I think the picture of Ms. Cagan speaks for itself.