They keep coming, and we can't stop it

The damn tornadoes, that's what I'm talking about. Out in Oklahoma, throughout the whole region, they just keep coming.
And there's not a damned thing anyone can do to stop them, or avoid them, or do anything but stand by helplessly while Mother Nature runs her vacuum.
Afterwards, yes, we CAN, and should, and DO rush in to help. It's what we'd hope for, were we the victims.
And we could indeed be the victims, anywhere, any time, any one of us.

Tornadoes are less a regional phenomenon than some disasters. Hurricanes hit shorelines, floods occur near rivers, mudslides are usually in hill country (slide implying gravity), forest fires happen in forests.
Tornadoes, like earthquakes, can happen anywhere.
Therefore, they can happen to you.

Now, they do have preferred playgrounds, like the Great Plains for tornadoes and the San Andreas in California, but they can happen anywhere.

The one advantage in the Plains is that usually one can see (if one is looking) from miles away and hopefully take shelter before the twister gets to you.

Last night, because of heavy rains, many, many people could not see because of the heavy rains and the preternatural darkness of the storm. Many, many people are today still shaking, still fearful, and still looking for loved ones. I hope that everyone locates one another, and that losses stay low. I wish that no one would die in these horrific storms, but that has already happened, and there's nothing I can do to change it.

I wish I could.

I haven't had a close encounter with a twister, although members of my family have. Heck, I have a brother in Kansas. My sister played tag with one last spring.(She won.)A long time ago, one collapsed my grandfather's barn. Then there was the Thanksgiving tornado, mid 90s. I went outside because it was so hot and humid, and heard the trains about a mile away, cane inside and said, "It's still and sticky, and I heard a train. Think we should hide?"
A tornado took down a garage and damaged some trees approximately a mile away.

I still shake at the memory.
The Menace that roars out of the night.
Out of the nowhere.

I can't help you, Oklahoma. Not in the preventive, sheltering, protecting ways you are so in need of.
I wish I could.
I will do what I can to help afterwards, but it will never be enough. It can never be enough.
And there's always going to be guilt that I can be so grateful it wasn't me or mine, and I feel bad about that, too.

Because I know it could have been.
May someday be.
It's good to know you will understand, if that time ever comes.

But for now, I think we would all like to put this into the past.

We are trying to help do just that.

Blacker than Friday

is 'Black Thursday'
is the early Black Friday sales.

I don't know which I despise the most.
Yes, I said despise. As in disdainfully hate, loathe, and dislike. ALL.

Years and years ago, back in the last century, Black Friday sales used to be FUN! Hurtling through the dark early morning hours to go to stores never worth going to at other times. Hitting the 4 am openers, and then the 6 am early bird stores. Buying gifts that could not be afforded otherwise.

It wasn't even too bad when the "Black Friday" thing became part of the annual routine. The sales weren't as spectacular -- usually they are ordinary mark-downs of last year's leftovers -- and the fun wasn't there because too much traffic was taking its place. Everybody that wasn't working was hitting the sales.

Even the hysteria of  'limited number of items' (because they are selling last year's no-sells) was somewhat tolerable from a distance. Stupid, but tolerable. No one should be assaulted over a toy.

Now however, the whole thing has morphed into blatant money-grubbing. The stores started opening late on Thanksgiving Day, then they started being open "All Day" on Thanksgiving Day.

This year the Black Friday sales all were 'leaked' early, and have been underway for at least a week. There's still a week before Thanksgiving.
I haven't shopped any of them, and there are stores I won't shop, even when it is actually time to do so.

These stores -- Target is one of them -- are making it mandatory for their workers to come in on the holiday day. Yeah, they'll pay time-and-a-half (maybe) but that isn't the point. To many people, especially minimum wage workers, time spent with family is more important than all the money in the world. At least for that one day that is supposed to be about appreciating who and what you have.

I have no problem with the stores being open -- if the people working there want to be there. I always wished I could go to work, maybe, after the meal and the dishes and the guests went home, and the only thing on tv is football games. I'd have volunteered.

There are people to whom Thanksgiving is yet another lonely day, and they'd work or not, however it works out.

And if a store doesn't have the staff to work that day -- that special, family holiday -- then they shouldn't open, or should perhaps only have some areas open (no coffee shop, no fresh-sliced deli, etc.) They should respect the employees who want to respect their families -- not drag them out and demand they deal kindly and patiently with rude and demanding people.

Yes, I categorize the precious customers that way, because for the most part it is going to be the greedy people out grabbing goodies. The "real" people will be at home with their families, especially during the early part of the day.

And if you do go out, after your family's festivities, please remember to thank those who serve you in any capacity. A heck of a lot of them are there because they have to be, not because they want to be, and that's just not fair.

Nick Mom? Are you kidding me?

Please say you are kidding me!
 Please say this is a tryout or a special session or something.
Please, please don't say you are seriously depriving the sleep deprived mothers of junior insomniacs the presence of Nick jr 24 hours around the clock.

And for what?
Momedies? Tearjerkers?
No!
The kids are being booted off for stand up comedians!
You have to be kidding me.

Moms all over the world are being punished for all the moms who tried the comedy gig back when Nickelodeon did the funny mom contest. Now we all have to watch all the not-quite winners while our children or grandchildren scream and howl instead of going to sleep with familiar friends luring them into slumber.

I didn't know of this horrid desecration until my granddaughter came to stay for a week. Her favorite shows, just before bedtime, have been Pocoyo and Ni Hao Kai-Lan. They come on at ten o'clock, and signal bedtime, lights out, sit down and shut up time.

That is, they did come on at ten o'clock.

Now, ten o'clock heralds the beginning of Nick Mom.

Some person (or committee -- I neither know nor care) at Nick jr decided that children go to bed by ten o'clock, and that the Moms are going to be watching tv. And instead of watching a good murder, or a good-cry movie, these moms, who have their obedient little angels all tucked in -- these women want to watch stand up comedians.

Not me. When I got my teeny tots tucked in (or should I say stuck in? Sometimes it seemed I needed strait jackets and restraints.) I had to finish dishes, fold laundry, things of that sort.

When I did get to watch tv, I wanted something that  would offer escape from the day to day being a mom -- not something that would plunge me into other mom's woes. Yes, I have stories, too. Yes, I could make them funny or dramatic. Yes, my kids are more funny/messy/silly/noisy/fussy. Let me tell you... .

But when I'm done being Mom, I want to be someone and somewhere else. Not watching endless reflections of myself  on a kiddie channel on the tv.

I don't advocate watching tv as anything but a tool to use with consideration and deliberation when raising children. But when used properly, it is useful.

As a bedtime cool down or as entertainment for a wakeful child, I guess that we, as parents and grandparents, will be turning, turning, turning away from Nick jr at night. Our children may soon find the Disney jr or Sprout characters even more endearing. Then we will no longer have to bother with Nickelodeon at all.

And their Moms can all entertain one another with one-liners all night long.

Discussing "THE" Debate

from Dictionary.com

de·bate  (d-bt)

v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates

v.intr.

1. To consider something; deliberate.

2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms atdiscuss.

4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.

v.tr.

1. To deliberate on; consider.

2. To dispute or argue about.

3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.

4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.

n.

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.

2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.

3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.

I'm beginning with the formal definition of debate here. Seems like there are many who have no comprehension of what the word means. Sadly,it is supposedly intelligent people who lack this understanding of the definition. Newscasters, reporters, editors.

There was a Presidential Debate the other night.

Not, as the name implies, a debate between presidents. Nor was it a debate about presidents, except tangentially. It is a pre-election debate for presidential candidates. One of the candidates is the current president.

A debate, as you can see from the definition, is basically a discussion -- just like the one we're having here. (Not exactly, since you lack the ability to respond as I'm speaking.)

Discussion of this, of that -- it can even be considered an argument, but that usage has, until now, meant in a formal sense. Not petty kindergarten squabbling.

This is important, at least to me, because there was very little attention paid to or reported on any actual debate topics. The debates had barely started when the media morons began trumpeting "Romney is winning!"


How the Blankety-blank blank does anyone win a discussion?

How do they win a discussion when that discussion has barely begun?


It didn't get any better, folks. I don't know what the debates were about. I don't know what subjects were introduced, what answers either candidate had, or whether either had a solution that was markedly different from the other guys.

As a matter of fact, I don't know if there were any other candidates present or if it was just the two Mr. BigBucks BigMouths running. They were the only two mentioned. There are other candidates, voters. Some of them have great ideas and reasonable policies. Look them up.


I don't know because no one reported on this. No one cared to do straight reporting for those who couldn't/didn't watch the live event.

And if it were a matter of winning -- so what? If winning a discussion means anything at all, I'm pretty sure it does NOT mean winning the election, although Mainstream Media would like you to think it's in the bag now for their guy.

Mitt Romney won the primaries because he could beat Obama -- not on issues, performance, promises, or politics -- just because he breathes higher class air, I suppose. I have yet to figure that logic. See previous blog:http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7971544013891065437#editor/target=post;postID=8130718494167114723

Now he has 'won' a debate -- what does that mean?

It means he talks faster ?

There's the solution to our problems! A slick fast-talker. He must be made to be President! He out-talked the man who was actually working at running the country (possibly badly, but trying) while he was rehearsing his party lines and preening in his mirror.

I'm saving my vote for the election. That's the only WIN that counts.

Dream it; Do it; Or Quitcher Whining.

My husband is watching yet another reality show about gold mining or fishing or deep sea ice diving (or ice driving) or whatever excuse this bunch of "men" are using as an excuse to not have to live a real life, like the rest of us have to do.

I don't know why he watches these shows. I don't know why anyone watches many of these shows. I think there's supposed to be a "Man against Nature" challenge, and we're all dreaming of ourselves as winning against the impersonal, implacable elements.

But what you hear during these programs is a lot of whining. "Oh we need 35 per yard and we're only getting six. It's all the machine's fault." "Oh no, if we don't find something, I'm going to go to jail for child support. The boss better find us a better place to work; it's his fault this isn't working." And the self sacrificing Valiant "I do this for my kids. So they'll have something. That's why I'm 2000 miles away and unavailable by telephone."

1) Take care of the machine, and don't over work it. It's a machine, dumbass.
2) If you're worried about paying support, get a real job with a regular paycheck in a regular amount.
3) Maybe, just maybe what your kids really need is a father. Ever thought they might like to see you every now and then? They might like to call you in an emergency and have you there in a half hour or two? They might even appreciate a hug or a handshake, depending on age or gender!

One of the gentlemen earlier today was talking on and on about his "Big Dream" of making "THE Big Strike." Then he'll never have to worry again.

We all have Big Dreams. Almost all of us dream of winning the lottery, especially when that old Power Ball gets way up there. We don't abandon our families to chase that dream. We don't spend money they could use for food or heat while we travel to another state to be closer to the winning-ticket-vending places, do we? And blame the machine for not printing us the winning numbers? Or the clerk for not selling us the right numbers? Because we are trying so hard to realize our dream, the failure couldn't be our fault, could it?

(Of course, that could be why we don't get made into TV shows.)

Another Big Dream of mine is to be a published, income-earning writer. If I never become that, though, it's no one's fault but mine. Yeah, there are publishers turning their backs on a good thing, and editors who don't know what they're missing -- but I'm the one who didn't write right enough to attract them. I'm the one who used the wrong approach or followed the wrong path to their doors.

I'm the one who is dreaming big and doing little.

But at least I'm not on national cable television crying and whining and telling the world that I am a big LOSER because someONE or someTHING  is stopping me. (I admit to whining about it amongst my colleagues and kinfolk, but that is a little different.)

There's nothing wrong with dreaming of a gold mine, but you take care of your family first. You handle your responsibilities first.

You get a day job, for those you love, and you pursue your dream on your own personal private time.

Or you make yourself famous for being a loser at life.

The choice is yours.

Dark Shadows. (No, not mine.)

Spent the weekend browsing the old show. YouTube has quite a bit, if you have the patience to weed out the Johnny Depp- Tim Burton overwhelming publicity. YouTube has quite a few clips from the old show, including one with the very beginning. Fan club events and interviews, from then and a few from now.

I saw a few clips that might have been from the short run evening version with Ben Cross as Barnabas. I didn't look at those.

What I did not see anything of, is the two movies they made from the show: Dark Shadows and House of Dark Shadows. Not surprising. The movies were pretty bad. By the time the movies were made, the show had lost focus and was campy. Blood and guts and 'boos' and very little story. An adventure into variations of time travel and ghosts and vampires and werewolfs and anything else 'not normal'.  It created a lifelong interest in these things for me, led me to some good reading that led to better research that led to more reading that leads to more research.

Interesting the bizarre storylines were, and even educational. Entertaining they often were not.

Over time, everyone seems to have lost sight of the fact that Dark Shadows didn't start out as a vampire-and-werewolf chiller and thriller.

It started out as a Gothic Romance.

"My name is Victoria Winters.My journey is beginning. A journey that I hope will open the doors of life to me.and link my past to my future."

Victoria Winters, you see, is an orphan. She has been pulled out of her orphanage to be a governess in a big old house by the sea. The residents of the house consist of an angry young boy, an angsty teenaged girl (and could anyone be more angsty than a teen in the late 60s?), the boy's drunken irresponsible father and the girl's mother who hasn't left the house for nearly twenty years.

Pure Gothic as far as genre goes. Nowadays cliched, but back then the genre was undergoing a revival. (Maybe as an outlet for all that built-up angst?)

It took Barnabas almost a year to appear. The first few months were dedicated to straight out mysterious events that had logical explanations. Then the supernatural began creeping in -- ghosts and premonitions and dreams.

Oh my lord, the Dream! I don't remember the details of the dream, but the storyline was that each person would have the dream, but each person added something to it. And when the next person had the dream, the last person who'd had it died. It was one of the most intricate and well developed plot arcs I have ever watched grow daily. Just seeing bits of it, and sometimes the actors, can give me thrill-chills because it was such a creepy story. (It was also a good way to kill off a bunch of characters that no longer fit, which as an author, I appreciate today and didn't realize then.)

The Barnabas-Josette- Jeremiah- Angelique story was well done as well. The ghost stepping out of her picture and opening her music box and waltzing through the big empty room. WOW! This story would be reworked over and over again throughout the show, but the first incarnation was damned good storytelling. So were a few of the others as Barnabas keeps going back to try and change the past, and Angelique or/and her cohorts follow to prevent him from doing so.

This is pretty much where the evening television remake started, and they didn't do a bad job with it. I would have continued watching. But too many people turned it off or turned away from it when it wasn't played for thrills or laughs. A common complaint was that there was too much sex.

Really? It was a soap opera. Or a Gothic Romance. Romance IS usually about sex, is it not? And exactly why was Angelique so obsessed with Barnabas? If it had just been for his money or his standing, his brother would have fit the bill just as well. No, she wanted Barnabas, and it wasn't so she'd have someone to talk to during meals.

So much good drama in there. Good plotlines, good story arcs.

It's a shame that it is being remembered as camp and memorialized for new generations as a comedy. although I don't mind the laughs. From what I've seen, they are mostly clever, if campy, laughs.

But I sure do wish they'd revive the "it was a dark and stormy night" genre of serials. The endings are so much more satisfactory than the endings to the current reality spooky shows.

Badly made by today's standards (and even their own) but entertaining and mysterious and fun.
I guess that's what most people remember -- the fun. 

TV judges and Social Security

I think they all need a crash course on Social Security laws. Of course, I also think anyone with a Social Security payout problem needs to take their case to Social Security, but there is probably a backlog, for one thing. For another, one wouldn't get to be on TV (or get paid for suing) if they handled their problems that way. I'm not real sure what the appeal is in displaying one's ignorance and stupidity (two different things) all over the world, but it seems important to many people.

And, yes, I will watch you air your dirty laundry. It helps me know how to keep mine unexposed. Judge shows are pretty good for quick character studies, and sometimes name finding.

The judges have different personalities and different agendas for their shows. The People's Court bends over backwards, usually, to apply the law of the state where the litigants live. That's a lot of work, and the result makes for educational entertainment most of the time. Judge Judy doesn't really seem to care what the law may be. Her 'courtroom' is her kingdom, and she makes all the rules -- even if they aren't the law of Anywhere Else. The other programs fall somewhere in between.

Recently there have been quite a few cases dealing with Social Security (and its affiliate programs) issues. Usually someone squabbling over who should get payee money for children, but not always.

One case was a man whose girlfriend 'stole' his payments while he was incarcerated. She used his money to maintain his apartment, buy his bills and other horrible misspending.

Prisoners are not allowed to receive Social Security payments, according to the documents my husband received. When you 'become incarcerated' your benefits are supposed to be suspended, until such time as you are no longer incarcerated. No exceptions, although there is an appeal process of some sort.

So why is the judge not educating people that this is an illegal act, if s/he must hear the case on TV?

Other cases involve payees of SS or SSI for the disabled . Now, any monies accumulated before payment is made should go to whoever is taking care of the child or person. Roof over the head, food in the mouth, entertainment, education, clothes on the back.
It is NOT for whoever takes custody later.
It is NOT to be saved up for college. In many cases, especially with SSI, if there is any 'extra' income, there will be no payments. The payments are to help support the recipient with basic payments.

Social Security can, and does, ask for an accounting. Every year there's a paper to fill out. Every now and then, the payee for the recipient has to haul off a year's worth of receipts and canceled checks and bank statements to the local office and show that the money has been used to pay the person's fair share of expenses. (In a four person family, each person can be responsible for no more than one-fourth of regular living expenses. Specific expenses for the individual for personal needs and medical expenses are handled differently.)

Whoever paid for these things during the waiting time is who should get this money. Period. The end. That, too, is spelled out in letters and forms the government sends out when there is a new judgement on receiving benefits. It doesn't belong to the recipient, unless there is leftover. It doesn't belong to the next person to take over -- except for that leftover.

Why do I know this, and so-called experts -- even ones who do detailed research -- don't?

Who educates the educators?

What's a Season? TV

What is a season on tv these days? It used to be 26 weeks, with a holiday break and a summer of reruns. Then they went to "summer replacement" shows. Then one of the new networks -- Fox or UPN or WB -- invented first run summer series with, I think, one of the teen soaps.

Since then the definition of a season has become looser to the point that it is no longer a definition.

I blame reality TV. Cable channels have flooded the market with what I call snippet shows. Operation Repo, Deputy Butterbean, Bad Girls Club. They are about something and have engaging characters (sometimes) but there are no storylines and no plots or plot development. The producers film and snip together a whole bunch of bits of this and pieces of that to fit the tome format, then release all the edited material to whatever network is airing them.

The network then begins their hype. "New Season" "Season Premiere" "New (title)"
They will show two or three or four  episodes at a time, and so three months of programming may be used up within four weeks.

Then the new season is all of a month old before it is over and back to reruns.

That's a month, not a season.

Sadly, the over-the-airwaves networks have picked up on this trend. We are currently getting a half and half mixture of old and new shows on our regular series. The networks don't seem to have recovered from the holiday break this year. I never know (until I read the Guide) whether the show I am following will be new programming, or something old and tired that has probably been on twice since Christmas.
Not an impressive build-up to season finale/cliffhangers.

Now, I don't mind that they do this. It's their programming, and their business which they can run however they want. That is their business.

But they shouldn't advertise the "all new season" as starting, show two new programs and three weeks of reruns, then two new and three old again. Even three new and one old doesn't merit being touted as an "all new season" because, you see. it isn't ALL new.

I'll just watch the shows on cable, where I already know they are ALL reruns, and no one is lying about seasons.

My Strange Addiction

A&E has been plugging a new program this weekend. My Strange Addiction, they are calling it.

Really? I haven't seen anything on the commercials that look like an addiction, except possibly the girl drinking nail polish. There's a man in love with his car to the point of intimacy with it. I call that a perversion. A woman who is 'addicxted' to her finger- and and toe- nails. How does that work? What is she addicted to about them? Does she eat them?

These things are behaviors, they are not addictions. An addiction is a bodily medical function. Yes, there;s often a psychological or mental factor, but the primary cause and cure are physical. Deviant behavior, however mild, should be treated, but should it be lionized in this fashion?

Why is A&E giving these people fame for their perversions and delusions and willful acts?

A&E has, over the year, introduced many serious problems and helped the incomprehensible be understood. Hoarders, Intervention, Scared Straight. These are all good ideas, good programs, and no doubt, in their day, they helped a few families. Maybe even more than a few.

But they -- A&E --  don't know when to stop. Intervention has become a roll-your-eyes cliche, Hoarders has become an excuse, and Scared Straight programs have been so demystified that they have now had to go Beyond Scared Straight. That helps no one.

Needless to say, I will watch none of these shows -- they've outlived their usefulness. The only reason they are on is for viewers to feel superior and/or to be titillated by how some people (of lower class, of course, live.

If you think like I do, please don't encourage this type of programming by watching this (or these) programs. It puts money in their pockets, anyway, if you watch and then write a letter of protest, and then watch again to see if your letter had any effect.

If you don't agree with the content, DON'T WATCH.

While I'm griping: What happened to scIFi?

While I'm griping, I'll move on to my other big gripe this week, or month, or season.

What in the world has happened to Syfy (once Scifi) channel? They once had some of the most interesting programming anywhere. They did a lot of their own movies (Earthsea). They picked up discontinued network shows (Firefly/Serenity) Their regular programming was a mix of reality programming (Destination Truth, Fact or Faked) and odd fiction (Eureka, Haven).

Since before Thanksgiving, they've been a faint echo of Chiller network, rehashing and rerunning, over and over again, horror movies. Did someone in their office forget to change the calendar from October?

Some of it has been fine -- nothing wrong with horror on "Friday the Thirteenth", for example. But most of it -- there's nothing original in the movies they've been constantly replaying. How many times can we watch the three versions/chapters of the Halloween series? How many times is anyone going to sit through Troy? And disasters are fine for 2012 The End of The World. Creatures are coming out of all the cracks this old world is showing as it falls apart and blows away, but can't someone please -- pleasepleaseplease -- get rid of that damned Dinocroc for once and for all?

The only original syfy programming has been Ghost Hunters and Face-Off. Ghost Hunters I watch, Face-Off I don't. Doesn't appeal to me, but it belongs in the line-up.

That is, it did, back in the day when they actually had a line-up.

The network teased us a bit back at Christmas, advertising widely that Haven, Eureka, and Warehouse 13 were all coming back brand new,

They did.

For ONE Christmas themed episode each, that was rebroadcast extensively until the aforementioned Friday the Thirteenth.

I feel cheated. I feel that Syfy has turned its back on the fans that made the network such a great place to watch original programming. Maybe they ran out of ideas. Maybe they've made enough money and just don't care anymore. Maybe they fired all the writers and no one has told them how many unemployed writers there are out there. Maybe the adventurers and skeptics all went home for very long holidays

Because I don't care any more. I'll watch my horror movies on the horror movie channel, and instead of watching TV I'll read a book.
 Or write one.

 Original ideas are out there. Someone just has to look.
It could be an adventure.

In Media Res

This is advice often given to writers these days. It's the latest publishing gimmick, and now the darned habit is bleeding over into episode tv. The shows are starting with -- say someone getting fired. Then they go back to before they got into the trouble that got them fired.
I don't like this as a regular thing. Every now and then is okay, but not two or three shows in a row, and not as even a semi regular opening. (It's okay as a tag or ad, if it's a program that has used that format regularly.
There are a couple of shows that I now turn off if the new episode starts with the story's climax.

For what it's worth, I think it's also bad writing advice, unless well done. Beginner writers often ask "Where do I start?" For years the obvious answer was to start at the beginning. It often takes a lot of writing and reading to decide when the beginning of the story is, but it's a place to start.

Notsomuch in today's publishing market. Today we are advised to start the story near the end and tell it all as a flashback. (Another style of writing that has to be well written to be readable.)

Sorry, major media. A good read or a good program has a beginning, a middle, and an end. In that order.

catching up

It's been a crazy weather week. Heck, today was a crazy weather day! We had spring warm up temperatures, ice, rain, then snow. The forecast called for two or three inches of snow, but it wouldn't accumulate. They sure called that one right! Strangest thing I've heard of for a while.

Found out that the show I was writing about, The Tudors, wasn't even an original BBC series. It was created and broadcast by Showtime. Which makes the future "premiere" of just-watched episodes more ironic.

Then there's the toilet paper commercials. The latest annoying one is the guy who stands in the hall hollering "we're out of toilet paper". Then he gets either a buzz cut or a face full of lint. Okay, where do these people keep their toilet paper? In my house, it's in the bathroom. Or at least near the bathroom. No hollering down the halls and playing catch with it here.
There has to be a better way to make their point. Unless they are trying to say stupid people use their brand.

The ads that appear here in this blog are entertaining. Some of them are obvious from my key words, but most of them are more subtle than that. I say my granddaughter had a fever, and ads appear for pediatric thermometers. I mention donating hygiene products instead of food, and offers appear for both paper towels and canned goods.

Now, if I could just convince the computer that I do NOT shop in Dayton, I'd be happy.

At least for a minute.

premiere

Two or three weekends ago, I watched a program, The Tudors, on BBCAmerica. It was ten episodes, One through ten, and it was repeated at least once. During the programs, the commercials were touting the new premiere (there's another kind?) of the series on Wednesday nights. That was interesting. The Tudors, especially wicked old Henry VIII, were interesting people, all five of them. And I was ready to take up the shows where they left off -- shortly after Anne Boleyn's execution.

Come that Wednesday night, imagine my surprise when the "new premiere" was episode 1 of the  exact same series that had been on at least twice that Sunday.

I've observed this before. The Harry Potter movies have had more premieres than they have fans, or so it seems. They have premiered on Pay TV, on cable TV, on network TV, and most recently they have premiered, individually, on this or that channel. Harry Potter has premiered on ABC Family channel about two thousand times. The 'premieres' now include a Wednesday night premiere or Sunday morning premieres.

I checked the most recent online dictionaries. Premiere is still defined as a first time appearance. Not a detailed first time appearance.

Not a synonym for rerun.

I don't watch Wednesday night premieres anymore. I've already seen the show.