The Good and the Bad of HGTV

Sara watches pretty much just two channels: TLC and HGTV. Sometimes she wanders over to Discovery Health, but that's about it. And since I spend lots of time watching MLBTV on weeknights, I try to give her some space. Basically, I can't stand anything that I've ever seen on TLC (The Learning Channel, btw. Good luck "learning" anything while watching numbing reality crap about little people or prodigiously fertile familes), and most of the junk on HGTV is hardly better.
BUT--I've got to say that the block of homebuying/renting shows that air most weeknights from 8-11pm or so have got me a little bit hooked. Most of it is the timeliness of my own relatively recent decision to purchase a condo next summer upon our expected move to Chicago. Watching people look at houses (they even have one called "Property Virgins," which is what it sounds like and naturally a good fit for me), and seeing the way they approach the lending process, is quite informative. One big complaint I have is that, in an attempt to keep engaged a larger audience, they don't do a very good job of reminding viewers where their Virgins or Hunters are lookng. It's great for me to see that the house they are touring costs $195,000, but it makes a giant difference if that house is in Arkansas or Connecticut. You more or less have to take their $$ with a grain of salt.
Outside of the actual informative value of these shows, it's fun, and sometimes maddening, to watch the prospective buyers. For one thing, I love to see the idiots hone in on totally inconsequential things like the paint color or the carpet, or to be excited about the furniture. You're making a $200k+ investment so please don't focus on $500 worth of paint or multi-thousand dollars worth of furniture that doesn't actually come with the house. Unbelievable. There was one couple that was looking in the $500K range in suburban Atlanta that was completely and totally consumed with a "formal dining room." It was the first thing they asked for and the first thing they commented on in each house. If a single--and let's face it, stupid--issue is that important to you, you're probably not qualified to be signing away half a million dollars that you don't have. Which leads me to my next troubling observation: no one understands how mortgages work as they relate to down payments. No one. Even the most seemingly intelligent, prepared, and thoughtful people on these shows will never put more than about 12% down on their purchases. I've seen numerous people buy places for over $200k with zero down payment. It's particularly troubling/amusing to know that most of those shows were filmed in early 2008 or before, and that all these idiots and the banks that loaned to them were partially responsible for the collapse of the US economy. Thanks, folks.

So anyway (poor segue), what I started off intending to talk about was design shows that HGTV sometimes sneaks into their evening homebuyers lineup. Last night I was treated to one of these. Correction: I was subjected to one of these.
Right up front I should say to all of those people out there who actually subsist as "designers:" congratulations. I'm going to say wholly disrespectful things about your profession, but at the same time I can totally respect a good con artist. So, bravo.
I've long been mystified by the whole field of design. No, not the whole field of design but more the idea of re-design that manages to sell many magazines and fill many TV hours. (People who actually initially make something functional from abstract ideas, or who figure out how best to put something together I admire greatly. Whoever was responsible for making a fan's blades in just the right shape and tilt scores big points from me. Same for the person who came up with the famous London subway map.) What drives me nuts are the personal or home "designers." They are full of shit, basically.

Last night, some relatively attractive woman (that's her to the left) who is no doubt full of herself and her "talent" was charged with redecorating another woman's bedroom. Basically what she did was spend some money to buy new things and also add a few pretentious flourishes, most onerous was the creation of a "sitting area" where previously the owner had a dresser and a TV. The "designer" was extremely proud of herself with this change, but she never really mentioned what she did with the dresser or the TV. I guess the owner will just have to find some other place to keep her clothes, but hey, at least she has a nice place to formally sit down and read the paper--in her bedroom. Also, I guess she won't be watching HGTV's design shows from the comfort of her bed anymore.
The "designer" also described the room before as a style-less "mishmash" of "hand-me-down" items. After she had finished working her magic, she described the room as an "eclectic" combination of pieces that she had "re-used" (this last bit was to brag about how she saved money).
Let's take the SATs -- ECLECTIC:MISHMASH::RE-USED:___________.
Give up yet? How about "HAND-ME-DOWN"? Yeah I think that would work well there. Hey designer lady: go fuck yourself. You're full of shit. Apparently all it takes to become a "designer" is a thesaurus. I don't know why this stuff bothers me, but it does.

1. Ok. It was a long time coming this year, but I'm finally and legitimately excited for the OSU-Michigan game tomorrow. Michigan's pathetic 3-8 is still not enough to taint what is the most anticipated football game for me every year The only exceptions to this would be if the Steelers were playing in the AFC Championship game or of course the Super Bowl. All other games of any level or importance would be secondary, even, believe it or not, an OSU national title game appearance (though I'm sure this opinion is colored by semi-recent events). So it will be fun tomorrow, and I'm semi-confident that the game might itself be interesting for quite a while, or at least long enough to give Michigan a victory against the historically-high 20.5 point spread.
After our game at noon, what I think might be the biggest game of the year is at 8:00 with Texas Tech and Oklahoma. TT is good and all, but I think a lot of people are forgetting how ridiculous Oklahoma is. I think they're going to put the hurt on Texas Tech, and I think they ought to get into the title game over Texas, even though they lost head-to-head.
This is a small digression, but this would be a great year for a playoff, maybe the best yet. I'm fairly certain there will be no major unbeatens (sorry Alabama), and at least 6-8 legitimately good teams to duke it out, in order of quality: Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Texas, Alabama, Texas Tech, Penn State. Add to that potentially-undefeated Utah and you've got a nice playoff lineup (first-round games: OU-Utah, Florida-Penn St, USC-TT, Texas-Bama. Excellent).

2. There has been a minor controversy online regarding a guy trying to use shady means to prove his theory that Obama was elected because the media covered the race unfairly. First, know that the guy at the center of this, John Ziegler, used to be a conservative talk-radio host, which really is about all you need to know about him. This guy cooked up a survey to show that Obama voters absorbed slanderous news about McCain/Palin better than about Obama/Biden, and that this obviously means that the liberal media played up the Republicans' faults while obscuring the Democrats'. Never mind that Obama is black and therefore belongs to a minority group that hasn't ever been portrayed remotely fairly by any form of media, or the fact that it would take some impressive kind of conspiracy in 2008 to effectively filter info.
Anyhow, I'm not as interested in that part of the debate. I'd like to look at a couple examples of why Ziegler/conservatives are angry about the media's treatment of the election, as found through his survey. People were much more likely to know that Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter and received $150,000 worth of clothes than they were to know about Obama's (out of context and misquoted) comment about the coal industry or Biden's past plagiarism. To any observer, partisan or not, this should come as no surprise. Even accepting Ziegler's general assumption--that this is because the media focused on the former stories and ignored the latter--should not be at all debatable. He--we--everyone, unfortunately--is assuming the media is operating with any kind of journalistic standards in mind, that the media is concerned with reporting honest stories and presenting honest pertinent information. Maybe it's archaic, but the major TV and radio networks are subject to federal oversight because they were originally intended to be responsible guardians of the public's information absorption. This has gone by the wayside, and is only really ever expected out of PBS anymore.
Instead, what we have now in almost all media outlets (and throughout all entertainment in fact) is a constant pandering to a least-common-denominator. The media doesn't give us what we ought to know, they give us what they think we want to know. We're interested in trivial scandal and personal details about politicians, cause lord knows those are the things that affect a person's governance (sometimes I know, they do, but you know what I mean).
I've criticized news and entertainment industries about this stuff before but so many people seem unfazed by this that it bears repeating. Our culture is different now, and not for the better. I don't care that Sarah Palin's daughter doesn't use contraception, I don't care that Eliot Spitzer sees prostitutes, I don't care that Bill Clinton got a hummer in the White House. I care that it's perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people, I care that U.S. leaders don't need to adhere to the same standards we hold to the rest of the world, I care that this country isn't remotely solvent.

3. The other day, I received an email from my good friend David Plouffe asking me for money again. (A reminder, Plouffe was Obama's campaign manager.) It was more or less your standard request for donation, this time to help fund the transition effort, except I noticed a couple lines that hint at something I find--at the risk of sounding naive--wholly remarkable and admirable:

For the first time, transition efforts won't be financed with donations from Washington lobbyists and PACs -- which means we'll need to keep asking for your help. Your generosity during the campaign helped get us here, but building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people to do this the right way.

First, the theme is the same as always, the same as it was since the day Obama rejected public financing and instead decided to raise all his money on his own. Through these constant emails from them, the campaign has been consistently proud of this fact. Although it sets a dangerous precedent toward ever-escalating money spent on political campaigns, I'm inclined to agree with their pride. Why not be supported quite literally from your supporters, and not some taxpayer funds or professional lobbyists? I know my ignorance on this forces such simplicity, but it makes sense. Again, I'd be worried about the path this could lead us down, but in this moment, I like it.
The much more interesting part of the quoted paragraph, though, is this: "building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people."
Obama has found himself in a difficult position after managing to somewhat transcend some of the usual politics in the eyes of millions of people. It's a corny cliche word here, but he's given hope that he might be different or run things differently than we're used to. In this task, and given these expectations, he will of course fail. He's a politician after all. He might represent better things to people but in the end he's one of them.
Nonetheless, if there is one thing that I've sorta noticed about how Obama and his people have gone about things, it's that he seems to genuinely be making an effort at transparency and accountability. Of course, after 8 horribly secretive Bush years, this is politically fruitful, but it seems more of an institutional mandate for the future from the future Prez himself, rather than a comment on the past. I'm too lazy to provide specific examples here from his campaign or the last couple weeks, but I'm happy to say that it seems to me at least that he's trying to deliver on a pretty important bit of promise that his victory represents. So good for him. But don't fuck it up.

The Big Republican Problem

This ought to be the last political post for a while, or at least the last one focused mainly on politics. They're fun in doses, and I'm sure I will have had my fill soon enough.

During the last several weeks as I've habitually politics-loaded, I've tried to make sure I get a little of both sides. The problem with internet surfing for legit but opinionated information is that similar-minded sites tend to link to each other but not as much to dissenting ones. To get around this, you have to follow a link where a liberal is making fun of what a conservative is saying, and then once at the other site, to browse around rather than simply read what was linked. For your information, one site that's dedicated to conservative thinking (and no I'm not using that phrase ironically. I think it's terribly stupid when liberals (or any group that might ever drift toward elitism) act like it's impossible to find extremely intelligent arguments from the other side. No one has a monopoly on good ideas.) which I have found to contain plenty of smart, readable content is nextright.com. There are many others but my laziness has limited me mostly to revisiting this one.
Anyhow, in reading some of these Republican sites, I can't help but notice some of the comments to articles. As with any site, the comments are on another planet than the articles, quality-wise, but since I don't have as many righty friends anymore, and I don't see many here in Manhattan, it can be slightly if curiously informative. Being from Eastern Ohio, and raised in a somewhat culturally conservative household, I have some experience with both sides of the political debate. Of course over time I have tended to the left in my own thinking but I can certainly respect and often agree with either side.
Now, there are a lot of conservatives lamenting their performance Tuesday, for good reason, but there may be even more (the more ambitious or enthusiastic at least) that are attempting to lay out how to regain traction and eventually return to national power. Many of the excuses/ideas offered are reasonable, but I've found that my own personal feeling regarding the biggest Republican problem has gone laregly unmentioned.
Somewhere along the line (I'll leave others to decide when exactly), Republicans made a decision that, sure, it's ok if a large portion of our base consists of bigoted, ignorant, uninformed, and homogenous individuals. By letting too many of these types of voters run amok as a big chunk of their base, the Republicans took up residence on the wrong side of history. By consistently doing this, they ensured that no matter what else happened in the present, sooner or later, they were going to fall. I talked about this is my gay marriage post a few back, but it's a guarantee that fairness and virtue will win out in this country in the long run (And let's pause here to note that no matter the flaws of the country or its people, this fact stands high as evidence of its true greatness).
You could probably trace today's versions of the Democratic and Republican parties directly to the civil rights era, when Lyndon Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act changed the south from a Democratic stronghold to the Republican one it has remained to this day. Starting there, they fell behind (in many cases, to say they "fell behind" is very generous, more descriptive to say they "vigorously opposed.") on racism, abortion, guns, the environment, anything science-related, homosexuality, and pretty much any other progressive social/cultural issue. They took the easy road and pandered to the ignorances, fears, and insecurities of the present, somehow not noticing that the supporters of intolerance would shrink as the years went on and people naturally became more accepting of others' differences. They somehow didn't notice that the national share of white males was diminishing every year as this country continued it's centuries-old tradition of receiving immigrants in high numbers (I don't have a source handy, but it's estimated that in the not-too-distant future, there will be no more majority race).
Of course, not all Republicans favor oppression and intolerance. Most of the leaders of the party and a great percentage of its members nationwide are personally appalled at that behavior. But too many of their base is not, and because it's "the base," Republican leaders have gone to great lengths not to alienate it.
The Democrats are imminently capable of screwing up their current majority (also let's not overlook the poorly educated sections of their party) and they might sometimes consider themselves lucky to have stumbled into their preferred socially progressive positions, but assuming they steer the ship reasonably enough, I predict that the Republicans as we know them will never become a majority national party again until they've accepted this as ground zero and simply cast off their lot of ignorant fools. In consecutive national elections, this base has proven utterly futile, so what good is it to them? They need to rework the party from the bottom up. If their various strategists and thinkers can't see that their uneducated and intolerant base is nothing but a huge albatross, then they don't deserve the status as anything more than a minor third-party. Let their factions form their own parties: the Racist Party, the Homophobic Party, the Creationist Party, the Guns Don't Kill People I Kill People Party. What would be left of the Republicans would be absolutely certain to peel off lots of the not-yet-entrenched newly moderate part of the Democratic party. If they were somehow able to commit to their policy issues in any kind of big-tent way, they would probably stand a great chance to defeat the Democrats again.
But this kind of eschewing of their embarrassing base would take time and result in many failures in the near future, so they are sure not to heed it. It's the easy way out, and it's what got them into this mess 40-some years ago.

Finally, from a personal standpoint, can you imagine this country with the various intolerant groups having been marginalized politically? I'd say that's as close as a large society like the US could get to eutopia.