?

Log in

No account? Create an account
My Two Cents, No. 1 - Sauce1977 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Sauce1977

[ Userinfo | Sauce1977 Userinfo ]
[ Archive | Sauce1977 Archive ]

My Two Cents, No. 1 [Aug. 9th, 2005|11:00 pm]
Sauce1977
[Tags|, , ]
[Special Music |Carly Simon - You're So Vain]



Here's some change for you, MTV.

Heavy promotion of a band that calls themselves the "Motion City Soundtrack" is not one of your better choices.

How can a band be a soundtrack? Is this "ha ha, funny, I get it, ironic" like the Electric Light Orchestra?

For that matter, my girlfriend likes their "70s House." What the fuck, MTV? I happened to flip through channels and catch that whiff. Do you find the dumbest motherfucking kids you can find in order to make every sensitive teenager feel better about themselves with some simple consolation, like knowing that no matter how many pimples you have on your face, despite flunking math, you're still smarter than they are?


Andrew, one of the dumb motherfuckers on '70s House.'


When I was a child and a teenager, TV told kids what to desire, and all that shit was adult-themed. All of my childhood was basically spent with shit on TV that wasn't speaking to me, it was telling me about adult life and all kinds of other shit that I couldn't do because I was a kid.

Today, all this fucking shit is aimed toward kids, relating to kids, featuring kids, all about kids. History is stupid, forget about everything but right now. The best shit that ever happened was yesterday, and tomorrow will top yesterday.

Or course, not all kids are dumb, but if I happen to catch some show, why do I have to see the dumbest ones? I fucking hate dumb!

Stop being fucking stupid, television! Stop it!

linkReply

Comments:
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 03:23 am (UTC)

TV

That's been lowering IQs since the late 1940s, Hollie.

I think the question which goes unanswered . . . why was my generation always skipped over in attention?

Why are the current crop of 28-year-olds always being told about some other generation, and their own generation is never really celebrated or written about with any positive assessment?

Are all those born in the late 1970s doomed to a life of being the forgotten and overlooked generation?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 03:38 am (UTC)

Re: Good Television

Then I hate Stephen A. Smith, but damn, his show is so fucking good.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 03:45 am (UTC)

Re: Good Television

He's also enthusiastic about it. It's not canned, like Jim Rome. That's just Stephen A. being Stephen A. Jim Rome, I suspect, is some other guy. We don't get Jim Rome. I never really cared that much, save for when he'd piss people off.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 03:50 am (UTC)

The Good Life?

If only we all had jobs waiting for us to keep busy after we retire with millions of dollars invested and residual checks covering everything and then some.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pierce
2005-08-10 05:37 am (UTC)

Re: Good Television

smith reminds me of howard cosell.
er, in a good way that is.

an hour is a bit long for me though.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 06:09 am (UTC)

Re: Good Television

I tune in for the interesting names.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 04:05 am (UTC)
Thanks.

I found it somewhere online. It was the best evil monkey that I could find.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: etre
2005-08-10 04:41 am (UTC)
whats great is one of those kids is from my town/ highschool.

they dont realize how lucky they are to be in a 70s house, anyway.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 04:51 am (UTC)
If they're that concerned about not having HDTV and PS2, then maybe they should go back to their stupid lives.

Oh, but wait . . . there's stuff to be won!

I can imagine those fuckers sitting there, telling everyone they know how much it sucked being 'stuck in the 70s.'

That one girl didn't know when recent wars took place. I mean, that's pretty bad. I'd only expect an immigrant to get those things mixed up.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: etre
2005-08-10 09:24 am (UTC)
ive always had this weird love for the 70's, and a strong belief that i should have been alive at that time.

as much as i loathe them all, i cant help but watch. let's play a 70's gameshow style elimination game!!! the prize is...... a digital camera that holds mp3s and wipes your ass for you. um, that wasnt around in the 70's. they needa win bottles of dippity do or something.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 02:24 pm (UTC)
I was waiting for them to win those old-school appliances and vintage collector's items from the 1970s.

That show is a better idea with adults on a network. Although, I really can't watch too much TV . . . I prefer a story, with professional actors, to watching the untrained masses whore themselves in a Warhol nightmare.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: fruitpunch76
2005-08-10 12:03 pm (UTC)
Need I clarify to you AGAIN that I like the concept of the show...and the game shows are hilarious......I don't care much for the people on there either........
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 02:29 pm (UTC)
I just used you to mention that I had a reason to stop and dwell on that show, given the fact that you liked whatever about it, and we did the exact same thing a handful of nights in the past, to which I responded in the way that is demonstrated above us in this post.

Words right out of my mouth have varying levels of urine.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: fruitpunch76
2005-08-10 03:48 pm (UTC)
Yeah, yeah I know. I actually like the VH1 stuff better...the I love the 80's and whatnot.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: hulagalinthesky
2005-08-10 12:27 pm (UTC)
Indeed. I am often shocked at some of the shows on TV; particularly the MTV show about sweet 16s with rich debutantes speaking disrespectfully to their parents.

I do admit to liking Laguna Beach, but that's laced with fiction more than most of these other shows we are seeing.

I generally opt for Food Network or OLN instead.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 02:32 pm (UTC)

New Species of Human.

I have something to say about Orange-County-raised children who are doing well in that part of the country.

If they are successful, raised in Orange County, and are generally happy, then they are true rarities of nature. Those young adults will never find a better place in the United States to conduct their lives.

Unfortunately, Americans are notorious for poor geography and language ability, so there is little chance that such Orange County natives will ever truly leave their homeland.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kweston
2005-08-10 12:49 pm (UTC)

Have to agree...

The whole "10-spot drop" thing only convinces me to change the channel, i'm not impressed.

And...the 70's house? Sorry not interested.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 02:35 pm (UTC)

Re: Have to agree...

It stopped interesting me when Kurt Cobain died. I realized that they were passing "The Presidents of the United States of America" or whatever band was on at the time as the same as Nirvana, and I really couldn't get with the processed, marketed, tailored, and dropped-age level that they went with in the mid-late 1990s.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-10 04:30 pm (UTC)
Elequant, my friend, yet venomous. I've done a lot of thought on the topic myself (believe me I couldn't agree more /w your take on MTV and its effects), but I've come to see that the tv news (mainstream, FOX News, MSNBC, CNN, etc.) tends to make people stupid and complacent also.

It's a hard line of thought to follow sometimes, but I can't stand to watch the tv news for more than a min without praying for mass genocide.

The news in Europe is defintely different than over here to say the least.

MTV has the most brainless evil corporate fucks known to man working on their exuctive board, granted. Bands are now soundtracks. Dear god. Where is Bill Hicks when you need him.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 05:28 pm (UTC)
Well, the BBC and NPR carry the style of news that should be applied by all institutions. They often dissect a report and consider all sides of the report, going for the logic behind the sentiments expressed, rather than hitting with emotions.

Most news operate with a heavy devotion to the sales. It's obvious that the organizations like CNN and Fox, MSNBC and CBS, ABC and the like need money to operate. It's a difficult situation to present educated and multiple viewpoints on a subject, but really, still capture the ratings and ad dollars associated with them.

What I find funny, on a similar note, are the advertisements from businesses on the internet.

There would be great money to the wealthy and organized companies who come out with a bona-fide tracking system that rates just how powerful a web page can be for exposure.

What I'm talking about . . . let's say Joe's Shitass Freelance News Agency Website stays afloat with ads. What his 'agency' is, in reality . . . a glorified blog which often regurgitates Associated Press reports, plus his own Shitass Freelance Two Cents.

Hey, it works for the recognized media, right?

Well, Joe's Shitass Agency gets maybe 400 hits from legitimate IP addresses each month.

Take CNN. I have no idea what their main page gets in terms of unique hits, minus all the repeat hits from news junkies that hit the main page 40 times a day.

Let's say CNN gets 1,500,000 legitimate unique hits a week.

Who's got better ad exposure? In this case, CNN, of course.

Well then, why the fuck is a company like Intel interested in advertising with Joe's Shitass?

My point is that I see an awful lot of ad-supported woodwork websites that feature big-time companies in their banners and other ad styles. What a waste of money for those poor businesses!

A company that came out with a dynamic traffic tracker with information sold specifically to businesses for the cheap would help them market themselves on the right websites.

I'd welcome this option. It wouldn't be intrusive . . . if someone hit the site, the site would capture any and all data on that IP address, plain and simple. All they really need are small sampling collections, anyway. They can do the rest with statistics to simulate the entire body of people, much like they do with the political polls.

That would do away with the need to install cookies, since every computer is supposed to have a unique IP, I believe. It's like a telephone number or a street address, in theory.

It's a long oblivion into this tangent, but kudos to you if you got this far.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-10 05:50 pm (UTC)
Tangents tend to be my speciality from now to then, don't worry about that one. Yes, that really is a very interesting idea for dealing with that.

I could only see one down side as of now. Understandly, of course, those poor companies that invest in Joe Shitass of which you speak desperately need some tracker of the like in order to better judge investments in these...well, shitty Joe Shitass sites that are essentially glorified blogs that reggurgitate AP reports as you said.

However, I'd think the last thing we'd need is for that technology to get into the hands of the mass media. They've been looking for an opening into the "Blogosphere" (excuse the MSNBC termonology here, I believe) since the 04 election and that stupid Dan Rather leak.

Worse, let this get into the hands of politicians and we only further the classless act they love to pull.....over and over...of course segregating people into anything and everything that divides them.

As if it doesn't happen already. That would however be a great tool for the private sector.

What can I say,
It belongs to a friend of a friend.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-10 05:51 pm (UTC)
And mind me asking what the fuck this "70's House" is on MTV? I've got a visual picture. But I'm almost scared to know.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 06:07 pm (UTC)
Non-'Reality' TV, yet again.

Anything that takes regular people and puts them together for whatever reason in a season-format, to the public, is considered a 'reality' television series. Even MTV debunked the idea of reality when they exposed their own "Real World" in their ever-pressing need to call even more attention to themselves . . . all reality television outfits tend to take the choicest material for blend of melodrama. It's like cutting baking powder with sawdust, if you will, in my opinion. That, however, gets the ratings, which off-hand proves in a lame-brained way that the people love to eat their own feces.

Anyway, "70s House" is another one of those 'reality' shows, but it's got that one aspect which makes me denounce it as a 'true' reality show. They compete among each other, "Survivor"-style. "Survivor," by the way, is the show that I attribute to the degradation of 'reality' television. By entering the game-show in with the melodrama, one has none of the reality and all of the ratings.

Why I hate 'reality' television . . . due to its popularity, it has swamped all media outfits and caused the mass blink-out of jobs for actual writers and directors. TV was always viewed as a training ground, like ad agencies, for Hollywood. With credit given to the 'reality' shows, the writers did do this to themselves . . . how many times were the public really going to sit down with a sitcom that is forever a variant of "Leave it to Beaver," anyway?

Still . . . there can be wonderous new shows that can be devised by writers, yet businesses do what they do with any trend. As long as the trend makes money, they will run with it. Sitcoms just don't do as well, and then you have the specialty sitcoms that run on pay-cable that don't have regulations and give more artistic freedom to their writers, so you have a lot of competition that wasn't there.

I think I dislike the people the most . . . for demanding more 'reality' television.

BTW, there's another show, "Trailer Fabulous," that runs on the MTV. In it, they remake the trailer homes of the blue-collar white people.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-10 10:30 pm (UTC)
"Trailer Fabulous," Wow thats great. I've long wondered what kind of mentality it took for one to want to degrade themselves in such a way by goin on these kinds of shows.

Surviver was the nail in the coffin. It's all been down hill from there. And worse still, every network feels its the best idea to clone the exact same reality show on one channel to theirs (i.e. every home makeover reality show, dance show, singing show etc.)

No originality whatsoever. Not that tv ever really bred origniality in the first place.

Lucifers dream box if you ask me.
Watching tv in general is kind of like taking black spray paint to your third eye. It's a truely stupifying experience at times.

"People eat their own feces." At times, it seems so I believe. The bottom line however is that the people choose to watch this shite night after night like mindless drooling zombies, so it's there choice.

Or is it? How much of it is just sheer frustration and unwillingness to change the channel and search for another show? How much of it is total unwillingness to do anything remotely involoving literature.

Which BTW, is very alarming to me how it seems as though the youth today are TOTALLY adverse to literature in every sense of the word. It's as though satan has replicated himself as words on a page and people are totally repelled by it.

"Why read a book when ya can just flip on the tube?"
That's truely the most disturbing outcome of the whole "MTV Generation" to me. A whole group of nigh illiterate kids who are repelled by the word "Book" it seems. A side affect of the shortened attention spam maybe?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 11:08 pm (UTC)

SATAN

Lucifers dream box if you ask me.
Watching tv in general is kind of like taking black spray paint to your third eye. It's a truely stupifying experience at times.


My mother's a teacher.

She claims that the ability for her children, to read, has degraded slightly as a percentage over the course of her multiple-decade career.

However, it is obvious to me that the illiteracy, in comparison to earlier ages (where only the wealthy afforded the time and money to learn) makes me distance from any master plan of evil.

I find it ironic that technology still makes for difficult jobs, while the fruits of the labor tend to make for lazier customers.

Take TV, for instance, the magical moving image. A lot of difficult work is put forth by a team of individuals on every show. For all the man hours, with technicians to operate the cameras, directors to visualize the desired scene, actors and actresses to portray the human element and be the story, producers to figure out the budgets and casting, plus schedules, technicians of every sort in costume, makeup, editing, sound, every detail, you name it, there's someone on it . . .

And yet, we sit here, watch a few seconds, decide internally, unspoken, it's not for me, and flip to the next channel . . .

And countless others like us who write in anger of 'terrible shows,' 'wastes of time' like the entire production took a few seconds to compile . . .

The TV programs do captivate, mesmerize, and satiate, but who is at fault? Are the television teams the ones to blame for catering all too well to people who probably should not be targeted, or are the customers/viewers/citizens to blame for lack of imagination, desire, energy, and ambition?

Why watch a shitty program? Why desire to see people just like you on a show, doing things that you could also be doing, if you weren't watching them?

I'm not really sure.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-11 05:41 pm (UTC)

Re: SATAN

Very good point however, I realize that television is a product of our capatalistic society (which I am a full fledged Libertarian, so don't have anything angainst that) and that we choose to eat it up.

On the one hand, I also don't think anything is as simple as a lame-brained conspiracy to cause illiteracy. Very true, that more people can read and write today than have ever in the history of man and quicker to boot. I was refferring to the blatant refusal of the youth today to even pick up a book outside of what they have to do in school. And to do what instead? Watch more television. Where they see all day...Eat M'Ms, Snickers, Coke, Dr. Pepper, chocking chicks and sodomy, sex, violence...totally false realities fed to them by advertisers in blatant and also subversive ways all day long. Sponsered by....The product in the shows. Subversive tactics to subdue the nation like dogs.

Now you see this line of thinking causes a real strain with my libertarianism. But, I do not budge on either line because I know the last thing that would ever solve anything is getting the government involved. Of course, cencorship exists in all forms. I'm not saying tv should go by any means...it's peoples choices.

But I don't think they even have their eyes open to what the hells being fed to them without them even knowing. Like slaves in a prison you can't feel, taste, touch, or see. The Matrix? Nah, not that easy either. It's a variety of colliding factors that must be assembled for anything to be solved.

Ultimate example, I had my father (college education) tell me a little while back (While watching NASCAR) that he Hates capitalism and it's never done any good for no one. NASCAR. Watching it. As what flashes by his screen faster than a speeding bullet over and over and over again? Sprite, Mellow Yellow, BUSCH, Marlboro...

Drink beer, smoke ciggarettes, eat chips and beef.
Stay fat stupid and drunk you fucking morons.
Here's some more American Gladiators.


I have no answers. Only questions. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong direction?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-11 05:52 pm (UTC)

Hmmm . . .

Very true, that more people can read and write today than have ever in the history of man and quicker to boot. I was refferring to the blatant refusal of the youth today to even pick up a book outside of what they have to do in school.

Don't forget the tendencies of certain professionals when thinking of the world.

Many engineers do well in math and science, but they are very unwilling to digest a piece of fictional literature.

What you may refer to might be the stereotype of the fat American cowboy, the one who does not know anything about most everything. The stereotype often includes bravado to go along with the lack of education. Such folks do not excel, in this typecast, in any field of study. They are completely hands-on, and they tend to be mixed with the 'blue-collar' class.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-11 06:11 pm (UTC)

Re: Hmmm . . .

Oh my god, I just heard president Bush say...
"There is a Matrix."
It may be out of context, but oh my god.
I knew it!

Very true though, the brain works in funny ways. I did overlook that for a minute. The left-right brain anamoly. Oh how we marvel.

Maybe I'm around too many of these sterotypical fat American cowboys. Gotta get away Gotta get away.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-11 06:26 pm (UTC)

Re: Hmmm . . .

Well, Detroit is one of the fattest cities. So is Houston.

I'd imagine that there are more than a few lethargic states along the Heat Belt.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-11 06:31 pm (UTC)

Re: Hmmm . . .

Is there any way to petition people for this "Trailer Fabulous" show?

I got a few people I'd like to see on there.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-11 06:33 pm (UTC)

Re: Hmmm . . .

Google it. I am sure they have a website.

There has to be a submissions form. There's no way MTV crew-members go hunting for these people. They're everywhere, and MTV is huge.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-11 06:39 pm (UTC)

Re: Hmmm . . .

Now that's a show within itself.

The search for these people has gotta be at least every bit as interesting as their trailers.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 05:57 pm (UTC)
True on the extended segregation of the population, especially with regard to online activity.

Still . . . why should they attack blogs with negative opinions, if they were not concerned that their own media is not differentiated enough in the eye of the public?

I'm looking for quality news from a large media body. I don't want to have to wade through major amounts of money for a subscription, and I don't want to have to sort out some asshole's opinion in the body of the story.

I would like to see news agencies use such technology because it would help them to compete among themselves, as well as keep them off the backs of the freelancers and the bloggers.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-10 10:39 pm (UTC)
Good point, I think HST had a good point when he said its the whole idea of objective journalism that has caused so many problems in the media.

Now to even get an idea of the 'reality' of a story it seems as though you must sift through endless sources to get any topical information.

How media's become more disorganized since WWII and the age of computers I have no idea. Its the result of an vast amounts of information vs. a limited number of ways to access it. I really don't know.

Like stabbing at something in the dark.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-10 10:58 pm (UTC)
The technology and resources make time to print on a faster scale than ever dreamed.

For instance, I am only limited in the time it takes to type out each one of these characters, up to the time I finish, when I hit the post button.

The time to print, given the token era of 1776, would have been far greater. Guttenberg's printer was a rare commodity for only the wealthiest bodies.

Even if we penned by quill and ink well, it would take as many days as the horse would carry the rider who picked up the letter. Even then, if you lived in a remote section only travelled every so often, it could take more than a few weeks. Then there's the little matter of finding you.

Can you imagine any of us today, trying to find someone else to deliver something . . . with no zip code (1960s invention), maybe not an actual address, just a city, and a name?

The thought makes me smile. Hell, I'm laughing.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-11 05:45 pm (UTC)

Now that's funny

Hell, imagine if we all had to hunt and gather our food like the original people who crossed the Bering Straight into North America had to.

People chasing their Snickers for a week.
Then the bloody kill.

Solve the weight problem right there.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-11 05:53 pm (UTC)

Re: Now that's funny

Competition for snacks.

Fight in Aisle 7 for the Doritos.

Battle of the Soda Aisle.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-11 06:13 pm (UTC)

Re: Now that's funny

Don't forget the annual "Homeless Beer Brawl."

It's a hoot.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-11 06:27 pm (UTC)

Re: Now that's funny

I wonder if it would be as celebrated as the Iron Bowl.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-11 06:33 pm (UTC)

Re: Now that's funny

That could be the National's. The true Beer Brawlers.

You could always get the sleezy Beer Brawls on the local level.

Hell, make the trip to the liquor store more interesting.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)