Rebuttal
The only good reason I can think of for paying for cable is Jon Stewart. Everything else that's worth watching we can get on DVD, but I do miss The Daily Show.
The thing you notice about television when you've been away from it for awhile is, basically, it sucks. Even the stuff that's supposed to be good is crap. I was in a hotel flipping channels a couple months ago and stopped on Everybody Loves Raymond - a show I liked in my pre-cable-free days - and I couldn't help noticing that, while the acting was great and there were some undeniably funny moments, you had to sit through a whole lot of predictable set-ups to get to the punchlines: Crap! A few weeks back, we rented the first season of Desperate Housewives, because we'd heard so many good things about it, and even grading it on a curve to allow for the camp-factor, it was still: CRAP!
The bar is very, very low, people.
(Meanwhile the shows that are worthwhile - Arrested Development and Firefly come to mind - get shuffled from one time slot to the next till they're cancelled.)
Here's the scary part: even though we knew each episode of DH could harbor it's own brand of badness, we kept going back to video store until we'd seen all 22-odd episodes. Why? Because even more than gambling or drinking or black tar crack, TV is and addiction. When we did have cable, I could watch it for hours, even if there was nothing on I wanted to watch, because there was always potential, and if I just flipped around the horn once more, by the time I determined that there was nothing but crap featured on all 200 channels, there might be something good on TBS. There never was, of course, but that's entirely beside the point.
So it's nice to have my life back, not to mention the brain space that was formerly occupied by probing questions like who was going to be The Next American Idol. The other thing I've noticed is that without TV and tabloids (I do most of my grocery shopping at Trader Joe's and Whole Foods, whose magazine racks are filled with Mother Jones and the Utne Reader,) I'm blissfully ignorant of what Julia Roberts is up to.
All that for the low low price of NO dollars? Sign me up!
posted by judybat at 5:06 PM
14 Comments:
What I like most about not watching TV is that it leaves me lots and lots of time to surf the internet, clicking from blog to blog, looking to see if anyone has posted anything new... maybe there's something on BoingBoing... no? MetaFilter? Hmm. Well, I'll just surf on over to Flickr and see if I've got any new comments. Oh hey, look, there's one in Swedish! Hmm, does Babelfish translate Swedish to English? Guess not. Whoa, is that the time? I'd better go to bed. Unless maybe there's something new on BoingBoing... (ad infinitum ;-)
cast ye nonbeliever in to the firey depths of.. of.. intellectualism?
/i got nuthin
On my good days, I'm with Judybat on this one. Unfortunately, I love me some Comedy Central and Lisa digs Law & Order reruns. We're living without those right now, but I can hear cable's siren call, and I'm sure we'll return to her someday.
I am pretty much a person who hates the current lineup (why has Will and Grace been on for 19,348 years?), and I hate shows like Desperate Housewives and Sex and the City (ok, not current, but still watched). Those shows about are about one thing: DISGRACE. Who sleeps around that much without getting a disease? Raunchy trollops, that's who. To me, a little conservative, those shows are about people who have no respect for themselves or for their bodies. I don't mean to sound like fire and brimstone, but isn't it a little gross to have that much "interaction" with other people? Will and Grace is just stupid, predictable and boring. Thank God for House, M.D. That show is the best! Seriously, check it out. It will have you thinking and going "I can't believe he SAID that!" Plus, I have a thing for grizzled older men.
not to give you more pop culture time-wastin' options, but we don't have cable either and it doesn't keep us from our crush on Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee.....
Not to belabor the point at all Vanessa, but I believe that the promiscuity of characters in shows like sex in the city is meant as a point that these women are empowered by not feeling the need to adhere classical standards set for women by society where women who embrace their sexual drive are labeled as "raunchy trollops" for enjoying sex as much as their male counterparts. Certainly from what I have seen there is an emphasis on safe sex, and the point seems to be that these individuals can act in accordance with their own desires, do that in a safe way, and at the end of the day redefine the notion as to who controls their own sexual destiny and erase the stigma that so often applies to women for doing so.
/my $.02
But then there's the sports.
Last night the No. 2 Duke women's hoopsters beat the ever living crap out of No. 1 Tennessee, and it was so amazing it was horrible.
On Sunday, they take on No. 3 Carolina, and I fear (and cheer) for the Lady Tar Heels.
I don't see how it could be safe to have sex with that many strangers, letting them into your house and all. I know it's just a SHOW, but still. You could get into real trouble by being so cavalier with who you let into your life,home and body. I don't see how that is "safe," no matter how empowered you may feel. I may seem a little old fashioned,and judgmental but I think that sex is something special. It disturbs me to hear 16 year old girls talking about this show. I do think it is raunchy , and I think it sends a confusing message to young women.
Plus, I think a person can embrace his/her sexual drive without being so promiscuous. One can likewise embrace his/her urge to eat well without making oneself a glutton.
1 number for you:
"24"
Good TV. Good ANYTHING. And with that sucker, you snooze, you lose, so I unabashedly say "Cable Up, Family!" It's even on a network.
As a (former, I got bored) longtime subscriber, I can report that "24" beats The Utne Reader any 'ol day.
Modern Marvels is my new obsession(the one about salt mines is really good). However, I know I am in trouble if I start to watch Mail Call.
The point I was trying to make Vanessa is that the show is empowering insomuch as it addresses the fact that labels are typically applied to women who are promiscuous and that those labels are not equally applied to their male counterparts. Young men are heralded for the sexual conquests whereas women are often labeled as sluts or in this case raunchy trollops for the very same actions. Two adults participating in consensual activity should not be labeled differently because of their gender.
The idea that allowing people in to your life and home is an unsafe practice severely limits your ability to, say, throw a cocktail party, and I can’t assume you’re saying that’s an unsafe practice. As that is the case it seems that your argument is one more of morals than of safety. Personally I find the message that women have to be the ones saying no - as men aren’t supposed to - an equally confusing message and the standard that message sets is one of inequality. I think that setting such a standard is not only unsafe to the individuals involved, but to society as a whole.
ok sorry about that.. that made my head hurt. who's down for some aqua teen hunger force?
I'll make Judybat's point for her: Anything we really want/need to see, we can eventually see on DVD.
And dude, I watched 10 minutes of 24 the other night while awaiting my beloved's arrival in the TV room, and it sort of kind of bit. Maybe I need to appreciate it from the beginning, but it seemed so . . . wooden, I guess is the best word.
Besides, now that we're done with "Firefly," we're taking a TV hiatus. At least until the first season of "Lost" is free at our video store.
I felt the same way about 24 and then I started the second episode of season 1. Before i knew it the weekend was over.
Post a Comment
<< Home