I stumbled across the "Community Spotlight" poster for the week, Finnegan77, and read the blog posting called "Shipping News". It was all about the unnerving trend of almost all shows these days to focus on the internal romantic/sexual relationships between the main characters, to become, in essence, soap operas. The posting itself is very amusing and right on target.

 

I used to think that this need to create 'couples' was just a longing of the younger set, but since widening my horizons on this site and others, I realize that this dangerous trait infects the seeming majority of viewers of all ages! Horrors...

I don't often feel the desire to 'share' my position on other people's blogs, but this one, because of the author's ability to express himself (and me) so well, was too good to pass up. So here's my two-cents:

"Oh, young Finn, I loved this posting! And I whole-heartedly agree with you...

You could have been writing about so many shows, current and past, that have hobbled themselves and the audience by traveling down the 'shipping lane. That you were writing about "Without a Trace" reminded me of why I no longer ever feel the urge to tune in on this show that I once found so riveting. (and to learn from your posting that it has degraded even further is disheartening.)

It does seem to me that the great majority of the viewing public cannot live without our wonderfully developing characters smearing the story lines with deep romantic entanglements or just plain lust running rampant. Their fantasies sprung to life on the tube, I guess. To me, this indulgence by the writers just seems like lazy writing and it's very limiting; it has moved me away from many a show.

I liked the days when all this wishing and hoping about bone jumping and drooling only took place in the fan fiction and on message boards. 'Cause then it didn't have to be a part of my experience. And good shows didn't have to be ruined. Further, I say this is a life lesson: too many people ruin perfectly good relationships by assuming that just because you have a 'connection' with someone, it means you have to start bedding one another; and guess what? you really don't... I repeat-- "very limiting", children.

Nice, well-written stuff to read in your blog, Finnegan77. Thanks for writing! "

This lovely photo of zebras was once the photo of the week at photo.net; composed by Marina Cano, it shows an amazing use of light. I love B&W photography, and this is exemplary!

See the full sized photo at the link below.



http://photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=4538871

What in the world is "Experience Shopping?" I love reading the New York Times for just such information.

Apparently, "experience shopping" is what I call "just looking". You know, you wander about, try everything out, ask a thousand questions, and walk out of the store empty-handed, but satisfied. 'Cause now you have really narrowed down your buying choices to a reasonable short list.

Well, it seems that lots of the electronics purveyors are putting up stores for  those of us who're just looking, in the hopes that if they seriously cater to us and our need to see, touch and feel our product before we buy it, we will spend our money (and more of it) with them. Works for me…

This is the article that runs it all down:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/weekinreview/18barbaro.html

Internet dating/matching services have popped up everywhere, and I can barely surf the net or watch television without being bombarded by ads for places like Match.com and eHarmony. All the ads I've seen, read, or heard profess to have the most superior technology for finding just the right person for each of us. I personally have always had an inherent distrust of such purveyors. This may surely be rooted in the fact that I watch entirely too much teevee, and mostly these services are either presented poorly, or someone gets killed, kidnapped, or otherwise harmed as a result. But, I have friends who utilize the matching services all the time, and have no qualms about it.

Now, here's a service I had not heard about before today: True.com; this article from the New York Times gives us more of the lowdown on True.com:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/technology/19true.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Rudy Giuliani, former Prince of my former fair city, is dancing around announcing candidacy for president in the 2008 elections. He's a Republican, and while his version of liberal Republicanism might have worked for liberal New York City, he may not be Repbulican enough for the whole country. So Rudy's been stomping around the country trying to downplay his very publically declared positions on support for gay rights and abortion. Since our current administration has made such a very big deal out of support for these issues being somehow unAmerican, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Some political advocates who are much better at articulating this can be found at the following links:

http://www.draftrudygiuliani.com/read_article.php?id=763

http://www.draftrudygiuliani.com/read_article.php?id=761

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/rudolph_w_giuliani/index.html?inline=nyt-per