Letterman Lunacy

I am amazed at the power and influence this blog wields. No sooner had I written about Talk Show Memories in my previous blog entry than this controversy about David Letterman makes headlines. :)

The thing that sticks out in my mind is, why have so many people turned it into a political issue? I read through several blogs and comments about it, and was amazed at how many people - both liberal and conservative - have referred to one or the other as "typical" of their "side" of the political road. Dave Letterman has been called perverted, and a vile, narcissistic fool "like most leftists." Sarah Palin has been called opportunistic and hypocritical, "like most rightists." But wait, didn't she already lose the election?

For anybody that hasn't followed the brouhaha (Brouhaha? Ha ha ha!) let me recap. It all started with three admittedly (by Letterman) tasteless jokes. Here is TV Guide's summary:

On Monday's Palin-themed Top Ten list, Letterman joked that the governor went to Bloomingdales' to buy makeup to "update her 'slutty flight attendant' look." Then, on Tuesday, he joked about the Palins keeping their daughter away from Eliot Spitzer. And then there was this, about the family's visit to a Yankees game: "There was one awkward moment during the seventh-inning stretch when her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez," he said.

The biggest reason for the uproar was that it was actually Sarah Palin's 14-year-old daughter, Willow, who had attended the game, not 18-year-old Bristol. However, many people who heard the jokes understood them to be references to Bristol, who was in the news during the campaign precisely because she was an unwed pregnant teenager. But if you look at it, the jokes were more about Spitzer's and Rodriguez's reputations than they were about Bristol (or Willow) Palin.

Sarah and Todd Palin both issued statements:

From Todd Palin: "Any 'jokes' about raping my 14-year-old are despicable. Alaskans know it and I believe the rest of the world knows it, too."

From Gov. Sarah Palin: "Concerning Letterman's comments about my young daughter (and I doubt he'd ever dare make such comments about anyone else's daughter): 'Laughter incited by sexually perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is not only disgusting, but it reminds us some Hollywood/NY entertainers have a long way to go in understanding what the rest of America understands — that acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.'"

Letterman read these statements on the air, and responded that the jokes were not intended to refer to 14-year-old daughter Willow, as the above statements seemed to indicate, but rather to 18-year-old Bristol, who, as Letterman pointed out, "was knocked up." Apparently his source had not made it clear which Palin daughter had attended the game with her mother. Still, Letterman admitted that the jokes themselves could not be defended.

"Were the jokes in question in questionable taste? Of course they were," Letterman said. "Would I do anything to advocate or contribute to underage sexual abuse or misconduct? Absolutely not, not in a thousand years."

Of course there are those who claim that the age difference doesn't matter, the jokes were still in poor taste. Letterman admitted they were. There are also those who have said, "He never would have made such remarks about the Obamas' daughters." That's quite true. Because the Obamas' daughters were not presented onstage with the announcement of their unwed pregnancy.

I'm not passing judgment on Bristol for that, but at the time the Palins defended her by saying that everybody makes mistakes. Has Sarah similarly allowed Dave to "make mistakes" in judgment about his material? Not at first. After his on-air clarification, Dave invited her to come on his show and talk it out. She issued the following statement through her spokeswoman, Meg Stapleton:

"The Palins have no intention of providing a ratings boost for David Letterman by appearing on his show. Plus, it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman."

Afterward, Sarah herself was interviewed by Matt Lauer on The Today Show, who gave her the chance to clarify the statement.

Lauer: I'd like you to explain what that meant. Are you suggesting that David Letterman can't be trusted around a 14-year old girl?

Palin: Hey, take it however you want to take it.

Of course, Letterman has since offered a complete and unmitigated apology, which Palin has accepted. But has she offered an apology for her not-so-veiled implication that he was a pedophile?

But the stupidest part of the matter is the sheep on both sides of the political fence who have turned the issue into a political arena. Rightists act like Letterman is a political figure who speaks for The Left and represents All That is Wrong With Our Country Today, while leftists use it as another excuse to portray anyone who says they have values as a hypocrite. Granted the timing of this mess does seem like a rather convenient opportunity for Sarah Palin to get back in the spotlight, especially since many more similar jokes (and worse) were made about Bristol during the campaign, without comment or response. Why make such a fuss now? Then again, it may turn out to be good for Letterman's ratings too, so it's kind of a win-win situation.

Nevertheless, there are leftists questioning whether Sarah Palin is qualified for public office, and rightists clamoring for David Letterman to be fired, if not burned in effigy. (This is another reason why I am staunchly apolitical.) If it were a matter of national policy or anything relating to political issues, I could perhaps understand the outrage. After all, politics and talk shows make strange bedfellows. But for goodness sake, it was a few lousy jokes out of thousands of lousy jokes (in his own estimation) that he has told over the years. Let it go, people. Have you nothing better to argue about? I'm sure you could come up with something if you tried!

Talk Show Memories

With the recent passing of the Tonight Show torch from Jay Leno to Conan O'Brien, I have been thinking about talk shows in general, especially those I grew up with. For years Leno and Letterman have been running pretty much neck and neck, and I liked both. But there will never be another Johnny Carson. Nor will there be another Steve Allen.

Johnny Carson did it for thirty years and was the undisputed king of late night. Several contenders tried to compete but ended up falling by the wayside (I did enjoy Dick Cavett at times though). Not only was he the best at what he did, but the caliber of celebrities from those days is a thing of the past. I was recently watching old episodes and clips from those days on YouTube, and enjoyed nostalgic reminders of the old greats like Jack Benny, George Burns, Bob Hope, Dean Martin, George Gobel, Don Rickles, Rodney Dangerfield, and so many others. They just don't make them like that any more.

In addition to the guests, I liked his style of humor, as seen in sketches like the Tea Time Movie with Art Fern, and Carnac the Magnificent. He had a playful style and a mischievous streak that allowed him to get away with comments like when he told Dolly Parton, "I have certain guidelines, but I would give about a year's pay to peek under there." But he also was a great host, and knew how to put his guests at ease and allowed them to shine without needing to top them. Many current big names got their start on his show.

Before Carson inherited it, the Tonight Show was created by Steve Allen. Most of the usual trappings that are associated with talk shows were invented by him, such as the opening monologue, interviews at the desk, banter with the band leader, audience participation segments, and so forth. Even bits where they take the camera outside and interact with people on the street, that David Letterman does so well now, were first done by Steve Allen way back then.

I was only a year old when Steve Allen quit the Tonight Show so I never saw it, but I do remember him well from a daytime talk show he did in the late '60s. It was that show that first introduced me to him, and I credit it with having a permanent influence on my own style of humor. His quips and ad lib responses to ordinary questions still reside in my memory and I find his unique style of word play leaping out unexpectedly on numerous occasions. To this day I still use his classic responses: "Good to see you!" - "Thank you, it's good to be seen." Or, "Great having you here" - "Thanks, it's great being had here."

A psychologist on his show once said that the only two fears a child is naturally born with are fear of loud noises and fear of falling. Steve quipped, "I've always been afraid of making a loud noise while falling."

It wasn't until years later that I learned how much influence he had on the whole genre of TV talk shows. Nearly everything that they do today was done by him originally. He even had a character called The Question Man, who gave the answer to a question first and then the question, which Carson adapted in his Carnac routine. And he was innovative and original, never satisfied with doing the same thing over and over.

Many people have commented that David Letterman's show was the closest in style to Steve Allen's old show (at least back when he was on NBC), and Letterman himself has credited Allen with being a big influence. His older "stunt" oriented bits (like the Velcro suit and the Alka-Seltzer suit) and things like Stupid Pet Tricks and its spin-off, Stupid Human Tricks, hearkened back to the old Steve Allen shows. In addition, Johnny Carson made it known that Letterman would have been his choice to replace him, despite NBC's choice of Leno. He drove that point home by making a couple of brief appearances on Letterman after his retirement, but none on Leno.

Jay Leno is a good stand up comic, and I've enjoyed both him and Letterman off and on over the years. But both of them have seemed more "conventional" in recent years. Conan O'Brien took some getting used to at first, but he is more apt to break with convention, and I find him quite funny now. Nevertheless, I don't know how well he'll do against Letterman.

Craig Ferguson, who comes on after Letterman, is probably the most innovative of the current bunch. He's dispensed with many of the formulaic aspects - no "banter" with announcer or bandleader (in fact, no band), and his monologue is more improvised, and not limited to just the first segment of the show. He seems to enjoy tweaking the usual format, such as having a cold opening segment followed by a commercial break and then the opening titles. His humor is totally off the wall too, and I love his Scottish accent.

I almost feel sorry for Jimmy Fallon, who's opposite Craig Ferguson, in Conan's old slot. Although he's a likeable enough guy, he seems nervous and not well suited to monologues or interviewing. But he's had some good guests and may grow into it. Conan was very awkward at first, too.

But fortunately these days I can catch all the shows on line, so I don't really have to choose. And that's good because it's silly to say, "unless we're number one there's no point in doing it at all." Where does it say there can only be one late night talk show?

In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference at all, of course. They're just TV shows. But I do have many fond memories of Allen and Carson, and I hope their memories are preserved and their standards upheld in whatever shows continue to be broadcast.

Religion and Politics

Religion and politics have long been seen as the subjects to avoid if you want a peaceful conversation. Both seem to ignite passion, and often anger, when one person questions or contradicts another's beliefs. There is a saying among many young Christians these days, abbreviated WWJD: What Would Jesus Do?

Would Jesus have argued politics? In the Bible, the only political statements he ever made involved his declaration that the Kingdom of God was near, and that he would rule the Kingdom, offering a part in that rule to his followers. He didn't get involved in debates over which politician had the better agenda, mainly because he knew that when he returned all agendas would be changed.

Granted, in those days there wasn't the freedom to question authorities as we have today. But he told his followers to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. He never encouraged them to get involved in politics or social programs to try to "make the world a better place." That's because the world will be made a better place when he returns to inaugurate the Kingdom of God. The Christian Church's job is to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, not to change the world with religion.

For many years I, like many other Christians, tended to equate religion with right-wing political views. Before that I had tended to lean more to the left, as many young people do. Today I realize that politics is not the answer, and neither the right-wing nor the left have "the right idea." That's why I have said before that I am not so much "middle of the road" as "off-road." I am apolitical by choice, not by lack of choice.

One of the first steps in that direction was when I took a class in college on ethics back in the mid-90's. The biggest thing I learned from that class is that there are no simple answers to the big social questions we face. The textbook we used, and the class discussions, showed the valid points of both sides of hot-button issues like abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality, gun control, civil rights, social injustice, etc. I realized then that the reason arguments continue about these things is that there really is no one simple answer, and anyone on either side who thinks there is hasn't considered all the factors. The root cause of these problems is the fallen nature of man, which won't be solved until the Lord returns.

That is not to say that Christians should do nothing. We are expected to do our best to live up to God's moral standards. But expecting those who don't hold to those standards to live up to them just because we think it's right is unrealistic. And history has shown that trying to legislate morality doesn't work. Some people are just going to do what they want to do. There have been many attempts to make things better, but none of them is perfect. At best the world has argued over which is the lesser of two evils.

This is why I believe in the separation of Church and State. Many anti-religious people say it is to protect government from religion, but it works both ways. We don't need government influencing religion either. But the biggest thing is that the Church needs to do is to stop politicizing moral issues. God sees all sin equally, and is prepared to forgive all sin by the blood of His Son. But those who don't accept that are still going to live in this world. The governments of this world have to make decisions that are fair to everyone for now. It's a completely different arena, an entirely different context, in which Christians and non-Christians have to live peaceably together, as much as possible ("If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." - Rom. 12:18)

If Christians are going to reach the hearts of the people they seek to convert, they have to be willing to see life from those people's viewpoint. Compassion was one of the big keys that Jesus spoke about. It doesn't do any good to say, "You're a sinner and you'll go to hell if you don't stop." (For one thing, the term "hell" is almost always misinterpreted; see my website for more about that.) Compassion demands that we understand why people do what they do and share with them the solutions God offers. There's a reason why the stereotype Christian in the world's media is portrayed as being self-righteous and judgmental. Far too many are that way (though certainly not all of them). But sadly the ones that are give the rest of Christianity a bad name.

In addition, I see many instances of politically biased arguments using twisted facts to prove their "side" while at the same time accusing the other side of doing the same thing. It happens on both sides - conservatives and liberals are equally guilty of it. I would expect it of the world, but when Christians get into such arguments, misrepresenting what the others say, and demonizing opposing viewpoints without really understanding them, it causes unnecessary division. The "us-versus-them" mentality that has divided this country does no one any good. God has the only perfect solutions, and He will bring them to pass eventually. And while I believe there is a source of truth and right when it comes to what God has made known through His Son, I don't believe that there is a definitive solution IN THIS LIFE for many of the political issues that divide people. So, yeah, I'll discuss religion with people, but I try to avoid politics.


(An old favorite from Dr. Demento!)

You Don't Know

"You Don't Know"
by Cyndi Lauper

You don't know where you belong ...
You just need to belong somehow.

Relying on rhetoric ...
Not well versed on topics ...
Any idea what you're talking about ?
Revisions of history
Fair well in some company
But don't shove that bullshit down my throat

You don't know where you belong ...
You should be more careful
As you follow blindly along ...
You just need to belong somehow.

Left suppresses right
Right suppresses left
So what's the left, and what's right ?
You're told what to wear,
You're told what to like
It'd be nice if you'd think for yourself sometime,
But you don't.

Now you don't know where you belong ...
You should be more careful
As you follow blindly along ...
You just need to belong somehow.
You just need to belong somehow.

So life turns up empty
And you're so dissatisfied
Who are you blaming this time ?
Don't you know ?

Now you don't know where you belong ...
You should be more careful
As you follow blindly along ...
To find something to swear to ...
Till you don't know what's right from wrong
You just need to belong somehow.
You just need to belong somehow.

See Video Here

A Few Laffs

I haven't updated this in a while. Not much new going on. I'm still working on my technical writing class, and also revising some writings for my web site.

So here are a couple of samples of my weird sense of humor, that I did with image editing software.





And here are a few comic strips that I got a chuckle out of. Click on each one to see it full size.

SHOE

ZIPPY THE PINHEAD

ZIPPY THE PINHEAD

BREWSTER ROCKIT

CALVIN AND HOBBES

PEANUTS

OVER THE HEDGE

BREWSTER ROCKIT

THE ACADEMIA WALTZ

New Horizons

Back in the '90s I got a degree in computers from New England Institute of Technology. I've had a few computer jobs since then, but have never been able to break into programming, which is what I thought I wanted to do. Everywhere I went I was told that programmers are hired from within a company and they start out doing something else. I did get a temp job at one point where they allowed me to learn MS Access on my own, and then design a database for their parts.

After several years of various jobs (some not even computer related) I finally got hired at Carrols Corporation in Syracuse, where I stayed for six years. The job was as a Help Desk Analyst, but there was a possibility that I could move into programming at some point. I developed a few small applications in MS Access, and when they started having their own parts depot I worked on a database to keep track of inventory and shipment of parts. I worked on it, as a side project, for several months, and pretty much stretched the limits of Access. It really needed a standalone application. The company must have realized that too, and also that I was limited in my ability, so they gave the project to their IT department. Later I helped develop a few other small applications in Access, but never got the opportunity to do any "real" programming,even though I took a couple of classes in Visual Basic.

In the last couple of years at Carrols, I wasn't even sure if programming was what I wanted to do. As I have written previously, I thought I wanted to be a pastor and went to Atlanta Bible College in '07. I couldn't find work there and eventually ran out of money and ended up here in Seattle (previous blog entries explain all that). Since I've been in Seattle I have found that even Help Desk positions were looking for experience and skills in things that I didn't know or only dabbled in at Carrols. And I wasn't all that crazy about Help Desk anyway - I hate phones - although I enjoyed my time at Carrols for the most part.

I was looking at an article on Yahoo about the hot fields that are still growing in spite of the poor economy. One of them was Technical Writing. I'd heard about that because my sister does it. I have done a lot of writing on my own (mostly theological) and enjoyed it. And at Carrols I also wrote procedures as well as user guides for the Access applications I'd developed. So I had kind of done it a bit already. I began researching to find out how to get into the field and found a site with online training courses. It's called Online-Learning.com and is accredited by Ohio University. They have a course specifically in Technical Writing, which I started today.

I have always loved words and enjoyed manipulating them to say things in just the right way. And I have often been frustrated by technical manuals that weren't clear, so I recognize how important good tech writing is. I am looking forward to this course, and getting into a field that I really think I will enjoy. And having a job I enjoy is important to me. I've done my share of crappy jobs in the gotta-make-a-living-somehow field, and it will be great to actually enjoy something again. From what I've read the pay's not bad either, but honestly that has always been of secondary importance to doing something I like doing. There's nothing worse than having to drag yourself every day to a job you hate. Things are starting to look up.

Christmas Balance

I've been back and forth over the years on the issue of Christmas. I think I'm finally finding the balance.

As a child, it was a wonderful, magical time. Memories of Christmas trees and presents and holiday music and food make me wax nostalgic. I'll never forget Dad pulling us on sleds to church one year. I also have fond memories of picking out the tree each year, and of Mom working endlessly to decorate the house and prepare for the various festivities. And we would stretch the holiday out over a week or more by visiting different relatives and exchanging gifts each time.

As I got older the "magic" kind of wore off, but not long after, I began learning more about Jesus and what it really meant to be a Christian. The celebration of his birth gave the season a whole new meaning that was awe inspiring. We had a big lit-up nativity set on our lawn in those days (including a make-shift stable that I helped Dad build). I believed and proclaimed that Jesus was the Reason for the Season. But that was not to last.

When I got involved with The Way, I learned that Jesus wasn't really born on December 25th. I was also taught that most of the traditions and customs of the holiday season were "pagan" in origin. Putting Christ back in Christmas was not possible, we said, because he was never there to begin with. Nevertheless, in The Way we allowed for celebrating the holidays as a time for family and togetherness.

Years passed, I moved to different areas and my siblings moved in different directions with their own families. And the "household" that had been The Way disintegrated. For a few years there was a small group of us in Rhode Island that were family-like, and it was our custom that anyone who had nothing else to do gathered at one house or another. It was fun, but I still saw Christmas largely as a worldly, secular custom that I just put up with every year.

After moving again and eventually getting kicked out of the group I was with in Syracuse, NY, I pretty much ignored Christmas. There seemed little reason for celebration, and there was now nothing to counterbalance the crass commercialism and drunken revelry that typified most of the world's holiday festivities.

While most scholars know that December 25th is almost certainly not the birth of Christ (for one thing the shepherds would not have had their flocks in the field at night in December), the consensus seems to be that we don't really know when he was born. (Dr. Ernest L. Martin made a good case for it having been on September 11, 3BC. They had adopted this idea in The Way, but I have since found the book where they got it from, The Star That Astonished the World. If you're interested, check out Dr. Martin's web site.)

But I learned something this year. It had been said that since we don't know when Jesus was born, December 25th is as good a time as any to celebrate it. But I still couldn't see going along with what I thought was the "white-washing" of pagan rituals. However I recently found out that many of the claims about the pagan origins of Christmas are not historically accurate.

While there are similarities between our Christmas customs and those the Romans had in celebrating Saturnalia, there is no evidence that one developed from the other. To be sure, many pagan customs have been mixed with the celebration of the birth of Christ. But there is evidence to show that Christmas was established on December 25th, not to "compromise" by adapting the pagan holiday to Christianity, but to present an alternative to the pagan holiday, so that Christians would have something to celebrate that wasn't idolatrous.

There are a couple of good online articles about this, by Dr. Richard P. Bucher. If you're interested, check out Christmas is Not Pagan, and The Origin and Meaning of the Christmas Tree.

Besides, even if Christmas customs did have pagan origins, they no longer hold that meaning today, for the most part. There isn't any Biblical reference to celebrating the birth of Christ, but there isn't anything forbidding it either. The Bible says that nothing is unclean of itself. It's what we do with it that makes it good or evil. If someone feels that it's pagan to decorate a tree, then they shouldn't do it. But if someone wants to celebrate Christ's birth with a pure heart, as many Christians have done for a few hundred years, there is certainly nothing wrong with it.

After several years of rethinking my beliefs, I have a renewed understanding and appreciation of Jesus Christ, whom I believe to be the promised Messiah, the coming King foretold by the Prophets. And after reading about the historic Christian symbolism of the Christmas tree in the above referenced articles, I can again enjoy Christmas, with the knowledge that those who say "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" may not have been duped after all.

(P.S. - I wrote a little Grinch parody called, "How The Way Stole Christmas." It's posted on the Grease-Spot Cafe, a forum for ex-members of The Way.)