babbling blue

In the “strange coincidences” category, the day after my post on “Match Game” I played Trivial Pursuit Pop Culture Edition. There was a question to which the answer was “Match Game” referring, of course, to the very game show I was just writing about. I got it right and got a piece of the pie for it!

In other strange coincidences. . . I have two half brothers. One from my mom and one from my dad. They are very close in age and build, despite not being related to each other. In fact, I don’t recall them ever having met each other. If they did, it was many years ago. I saw them both over Christmas and was struck by not only their similar size, but that they both have long hair and goatees.

Anyway, I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas or is enjoying a festive Chanukah or just enjoyed their time off or holiday pay. I took the whole week off to be extra lazy.

I’ve decided to try to make this blog a little more personal and to lighten the tone a bit, which has been very serious lately.

So I’m going to do a series of posts about some of my favorite things. They won’t be in any particular order. I’m just going to post them as they come to me (spread out over time). I’ll be adding a new category to hold these. Anyway, with no further ado, the first of my favorite things:

I like game shows. In particular, I like the “Match Game,” the best game show of all time, bar none. While the show went through numerous incarnations, the best and most popular (and the only ones you can see today) were hosted by Gene Rayburn. While nowhere near as prolific as such game show host greats as Bert Convey, Bill Cullen or Chuck Woolery, Gene was loveable, quick-witted and had an excellent rapport with both contestants and celebrity panelists.

The show originally aired from 1962 to 1969 on NBC. Apparently few of these episodes remain (one source says only 11 out of 1,760–which is very sad), and they are not seen at all today. When the show reappeared in 1973 on CBS, the rules changed a great deal. These episodes starting in 1973 are the ones that are showed today on GSN. There was also a “Match Game PM” version, similar to the daytime version, also hosted by Rayburn. In fact, after the original version in the 60’s, there were three Rayburn-hosted versions, all similar. One from 73-79, called “Match Game ‘73″ (or whatever the year was) on CBS (over 1,400 episodes!), the syndicated “PM” version which ran at night from 75-81 and the syndicated daytime show simply called “Match Game” from 79-82.

The basic premise of the show is that contestants (regular people) try to match answers with a panel of six celebrities on fil in the blank questions. To really appreciate the show, one has to watch it. The show’s regular celebrities were Brett Somers, Charles Nelson Reilly and Richard Dawson. But there were many others that made frequent appearances, including Betty White, Bill Daily and Vicki Lawrence. The interaction among Gene and the celebs and the humor that often ensued, especially from questions designed to be potentially racy, was priceless.

Another version of the show also aired, though I’ve never seen it. It was “The Match Game-Hollywood Squares Hours” from 83-84 hosted half by Gene Rayburn and half by Jon Bauman. It obviously combined “Match Game” with “Hollywood Squares”. Two unsuccessful revivals were attempted in the 90’s, one hosted by Ross Shafer and the other by Michael Burger. None of these still air, though I would like to see them (as well as the original 60’s version) for myself to see how they compare to the others.

Sadly, a revival of the show which might have succeeded was scrapped before it happened. Everything was set to go in 1987 to start the show up again, with Gene Rayburn as the host. But an episode of “Entertainment Tonight” aired before the show started taping which reported Rayburn’s true age as 70, instead of the early-to-mid-sixties that the producers had believed. The version was scrapped, as it was believed that Rayburn was “too old.” A lost golden opportunity. Ah well.

This concludes my first “Favorite Things” post. I hope you enjoyed. If you get GSN watch the “Match Game”. Tell ‘em Josh sent you!

Match Game links:
Match Game.org (watch out for pop-up ads)
Match Game ‘75/Match Game PM

Congratulations to my hog-riding lesbian sisters out there!

My Way News

City Council snuffs out cigarettes

Yesterday, the Chicago City Council finally passed a ban on smoking in indoor public spaces. This is good news, but the big kicker is that the places where the ban is needed most don’t need to comply with it for 2.5 years. Taverns and restaurant bars are exempt from the new law until July 1, 2008! There is no real reason for such a long phase-in. It’s not like ADA-compliance, which could entail significant remodeling to allow wheelchair accessibility. This is just a matter of beginning enforcement. The only “reason” for the delay (an anagram for “Daley”, strangely enough) was that it was necessary to get those aldermen who didn’t want the ban to apply to bars to vote for the law. My guess is that they’re hoping they’ll be able to somehow overturn or weaken the law before it really takes effect. Or they’re waiting for a mircale. Miracle technology that is.

They also painstakingly settled on final language that will allow smoking to continue after July 1, 2008, if “air filtration or purification devices” are developed and installed that remove carcinogens from the air. Those technologies must “render the exposure to secondhand smoke” in the bar or tavern “equivalent to exposure to secondhand smoke in the ambient outdoor air surrounding the establishment.”

This worries me a bit. While I can’t imagine any technology that could possibly accomplish such a thing–if you’re standing next to someone with a lit cigarette, you’re going to be breathing smoke regardless of how good the ventilation or air filtration systems are–I can foresee scenarios (especially in Chicago) where compliance would be rigged. There’s too much left open to interpretation.

There are, of course, those who bemoan the existence of such a law. They say this is “government interference”. That government shouldn’t be telling people how to run their private businesses. That it’s infringing on people’s rights.

Pshaw! The books are full of laws regulating private business. Lack of proper regulation and/or enforcement of business leads to things like Enron, with thousands of innocent people losing their retirement plans. Money many of them worked a lifetime to earn. And how long would it have taken the country to rid itself of racially segregated private businesses if strong anti-discrimination laws hadn’t been passed?

And someone’s right to engage in a legal behavior ends when it begins to have a negative physical effect on someone else. There’s an old saying “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” You can’t even compare cigarettes to alcohol. The simple act of ingesting alcohol doesn’t physically effect anyone but the drinker. The same is not true of smoking. In terms of infringing on people’s rights, this law makes more sense than a seatbelt law. But look at how many places you can get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

Well this was longer than I intended, so I’ll shut up. While it’s not the giant stride I would have liked to see, Chicago has at least made a step in the right direction. I’ll be watching what happens over the next few years with great interest.

This Saturday, I went to a fundraiser for (and featuring) Hillary Rodham Clinton at Crobar in Chicago. When we arrived, there were a couple dozen protesters across the street. They had banners and were chanting various things, such as “Out of Iraq NOW!” and something about Hillary being anti-women (huh?) and it was clear they were liberals. So the following is a response to them and their kind.

My fellow liberal Americans, I recently witnessed some of us taking part in an important part of the democratic process, a protest. I have no problem with protesting. It’s the American way, and a powerful way to speak out against those things we disagree with. I don’t even find fault with protesting those who are supposedly on the same side of the aisle as us. Just because someone brands themself a Democrat doesn’t mean they always do what they should to represent liberal interests; if our own people screw up they should be called on it.

However, I must confess to being a bit baffled on some of the points you guys were trying to make this past Saturday when protesting Hillary Clinton in Chicago. There were signs complaining about healthcare and you were chanting that Hillary is anti-women (which then changed to anti-human). I don’t know where those criticisms came from. Mrs. Clinton crusaded for healthcare reform when her husband was president. It’s not an easy issue to tackle. She’s made some small accomplishments in the Senate, but broad and meaningful reform is elusive. She’s only one Senator out of 100. I also don’t know what anti-women (or human) stances Hillary has taken. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

What I really have a problem with are the demands that we (the U.S.) withdraw from Iraq immediately, and the criticism of anyone that refuses to join in those demands. That kind of thinking is short-sighted and irresponsible. A complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq at this point isn’t in anyone’s best interest. While we should probably have never invaded Iraq in the first place, we can’t unring a bell. Right or wrong, good or bad, it’s been done. And we have to see it through. To do otherwise creates a massive risk of destabilizing the region much more than it is now.

We went in to a country and toppled its government. That isn’t something that can be fixed over night. Removing our presence prematurely could lead to a civil war, with many more people dying than there are now. It could allow Iran (a country which is probably more a threat to us after being included on the foolish “Axis of Evil” than it was before) to exert great influence on Iraq. Certainly the area could become more of a staging ground and safe haven for terrorists than it ever was under Saddam.

America owes it to the Iraqi people to ensure the government we leave behind can protect them. We owe it to our soldiers, over 2000 of whom gave their lives for this already, to finish what we started. What we need, and what Senator Clinton and others are calling for, is a plan to transition military control of the country to the Iraqi people and gradually shrink our own presence there.

Going to Iraq in the first place was probably the wrong thing to do. But the cliche “Two wrongs don’t make a right” that you probably heard from your parents as a child rings true in this case. We can’t right our initial wrong by doing another one.

So to all of you liberals who like to protest against and attack liberals: if you’re going to continue to do so, you should really have a legitimate point or two. I know I neither heard nor read any at your protest this past Saturday.

Sincerely,
Josh V

It’s snowing in Chicago. This is our first snow of the season. Whoopee! But it’s dang cold outside!

ATLANTA (Reuters) - A pregnant 37-year-old Georgia woman who eloped with a 15-year-old boy was in jail on charges of child molestation, authorities in the southern state said on Tuesday.

Lisa Lynnette Clark was arrested last week in Hall County, Georgia a day after a judge married her and the unidentified teenager. Clark was being jailed in Gainesville, about 50 miles northeast of Atlanta.

Clark and the teen had a sexual relationship, perhaps for as long as two years, according to the Hall County Sheriff’s Department, which is investigating the case. Clark’s marriage to the boy does not protect her from prosecution, police said.

Under Georgia law, teenagers may marry as long as they are at least 16 and have the permission of a parent or guardian. Those restrictions are waived, however, when a female applicant is pregnant.

In a statement, the judge who issued the marriage license said she had complied with state law.

There are so many things wrong with this, where does one start?

First, this woman has apparently been having sex with this boy since he was 13. Eww.

Second, it’s ok to bypass teenage marriage restrictions as long as the woman is knocked up? Perfect. But in Georgia (at least as of 2002, I’m too busy/lazy to look up new information now) it was illegal to have sex outside of marriage. And the age of consent is 16. So you can break a couple laws in order to bypass another.

I hope they throw the book at this woman. As long as they aim for her head, and not her pregnant belly.

One things conservatives do particularly well (better than liberals, who do it also) is demonizing things that don’t fall into their narrow view of how the world should be. Either they smear an organization or idea so much that its name becomes a dirty word, or they just “re-brand” the concept for their own purposes. The re-branding is often highly inaccurate.

Let’s look at some examples.

ACLU
This is a favorite target among social conservatives in particular. They can’t say “ACLU” without sneering (or maybe even spitting). To them, it’s the enemy of the people. And they bash it so much that those who are inclined to listen–like many Fox (Faux) News viewers–think of it as a terrorist organization. Many of them probably don’t even know what “ACLU” stands for. It is, of course, the American Civil Liberties Union. According to their website:

The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? Of course you can’t go by a blurb on an organization’s own website. But I’m not; I know what they stand for and what they do. And while I don’t agree with every position they take or jump onto their every cause (you have to choose your battles), in general I think they work for the greater good. If “liberty” is going to become a dirty word, then we have some monuments to rename and some major historical documents to edit.

Pro Choice (Pro abortion)
When the appropriate term for something sounds too harmless to properly slander, the right will simply give it a new name more evocative of the evil they claim it represents. Take the abortion debate. “Pro Choice” doesn’t sound bad. So the right invented the totally inaccurate term “pro abortion” to describe that position. It implies Pro-Choicers are somehow in favor of abortions. That we go around looking for pregnant women and ask them “Pardon me miss. I see you’re with child. Have you considered aborting it?” The idea that we like or encourage abortions is insulting. Pro-Choicers believe exactly what the correct term implies: a woman has the right to choose what is best for her.

The concept of abortions is something I personally struggle with. I consider myself Pro Choice, but I don’t like the idea of abortions being done as some sort of substitute for other forms of birth control. It’s not something I think should be done lightly. It’s also not something I’d ever presume to tell a woman what she can or cannot do about it.

Estate Tax (Death Tax)
Another example of rebranding is with the estate tax, which conservatives have dubbed the “death tax”. In this case, the new name is largely a method to mislead those who don’t really understand the issue. No one thinks it’s fair to get taxed for passing away. Of course, if you’re dead, what do you care? You don’t own anything any more. But that’s beside the point, because the tax is levied against your heirs on their inheritance from you. It’s not levied against your corpse. It’s not a death tax.

What most people fail to realize is that the federal estate tax applies to only to about 2% of American families. That’s the richest 2%. The current law exempts $1.5 million per person or $3.0 million per couple and that amount is set to gradually increase to $3.5/$7.0 million by 2009. Oh, and money that goes to spouses or charitable organizations are also exempt. That means if you inherit $10,000 from Grandma when she passes on, the tax collector will not be knocking on your door. But if you’re Paris Hilton and mumsy leaves you a $500 million when she checks into that great luxury hotel in the sky, you have to pay up. Oh boo hoo, how unfair! How will you survive?!

The estate tax is not a death tax, and it doesn’t affect any but the richest people in America. And it produces important revenue that the government desperately needs. The idea that small businesses and family farms are destroyed by this is mostly a myth; they can be further protected by reforming the law instead of repealling it. But of course, no one wants to get taxed for dying.

Reported by Princess:

Legislative Stunt of Epic Proportions
There’s a long history in Congress of coming up with creative names for pieces of legislation, and many of them even catch on–like the No Child Left Behind Act. But I think a proposal by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. to rename the budget reconciliation bill currently under debate in the Senate isn’t likely to gain much support, especially from his colleagues in the Republican majority. Lautenberg wants to call the measure the Moral Disaster of Monumental Proportion Reconciliation Act.

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2005B03A53.html

Minutes ago, Dubya Bush nominated 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court.

I haven’t had time for much research, and I’m about to head out to the airport, but it looks like Bush’s “conservative base” is getting exactly what they want. Another Antonin Scalia.

So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed “Scalito” or “Scalia-lite” by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. But while Scalia is outspoken and is known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered.

My Way News

So he’s Scalia’s clone, but he’s friendlier. God (Intelligent Designer) help us all.

More later, when I have time. Off to Florida (for work, not play).