There is a posting going around Facebook which lists the twenty-one people of the mass group killed by ISIS or ISIL terrorists. The names are given for twenty of them (one is listed as worker), so that we can pray for them by name. I have done this, though I'm sure I mangled their names. But nice thing about it, God, as the trinity, will recognize them anyway.
I would like to add an extra element to that prayer which I hope Christian after Christian will add to their petitions to the Almighty.
I pray that each of the individual twenty-one people who participated in the deaths of these Christians be caught and brought to justice for this. May any individual who kills Christians anywhere be brought to this same kind of justice.
Father, I thank you in advance for your help in this matter.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
The Law and Vaccines
The handful of Americans who read my blogs are aware that I frequently write about basic human rights (Yes, I have a better audience in other countries than I have here). Remember how I explain them? Don't I always say that as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others, you don't have the right to tell me what to do? Implied in this definition of basic human rights is that I have no right to harm my neighbors and they have no right to bring harm to me and my family. Well, on what planet is it okay to expose others to killer diseases and viruses if there is a way to prevent those illnesses?
Enters the modern parent, the one who heard of a research project that suggested that the MMR vaccine might be the cause of autism. In comes the paranoid fear of all vaccines. The parent becomes so fearful that he/she/they refuse all vaccines for the children.
As in many, many situations, it would behoove all such parents to consult their elders. Take me, for example. I had measles -- two kinds, apparently. I had mumps. I had chicken pox. A friend and neighbor lived out his years in an iron lung because he contracted polio as a child. A relative had mumps as an adult and was unable to sire children afterward.
There are/were doctors who have dedicated their lives to developing vaccines to keep us from harm. They have stopped endless itching, threats to our vision, complications of fallen mumps, weeks of isolation, scars and death. But we won't realize that protection without the vaccines.
It's amazing how many families here refused the vaccines on behalf of their children's health when what they are doing is risking that health. Until recently, our country has seen few victims of these horrendous ailments, but that is changing. Indeed, we even have reason to fear that enemies may deliberately expose us to these and worse contagions.
Parents can be vehement about not wanting their children to be exposed to the risk of autism. But how are they going to feel if it is their child that is the one in a hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand that dies from an illness that a vaccine could have prevented?
Each generation becomes better informed, more savvy and more assertive about child care. We take more and more responsibility over what happens to our children. But we are not always right!
So, to our government officials, I say this. It is okay to use the law to protect the country concerning vaccines. If it were only our own lives or our children's lives we were risking, that would be one thing. But it is not okay for people to threaten the general population for any reason except for a child's preexisting medical concerns. No, not even religion should stop you in this cause.
Besides, the results of that first study have been refuted. Researcher after researcher has discovered that he/she could not replicate the results. Whether on purpose, or by accident, that doctor got the wrong results. If it were not so, other researchers would have gotten his results, too. That means MMR vaccines are not what causes autism. That cause still has not been discovered.
Enters the modern parent, the one who heard of a research project that suggested that the MMR vaccine might be the cause of autism. In comes the paranoid fear of all vaccines. The parent becomes so fearful that he/she/they refuse all vaccines for the children.
As in many, many situations, it would behoove all such parents to consult their elders. Take me, for example. I had measles -- two kinds, apparently. I had mumps. I had chicken pox. A friend and neighbor lived out his years in an iron lung because he contracted polio as a child. A relative had mumps as an adult and was unable to sire children afterward.
There are/were doctors who have dedicated their lives to developing vaccines to keep us from harm. They have stopped endless itching, threats to our vision, complications of fallen mumps, weeks of isolation, scars and death. But we won't realize that protection without the vaccines.
It's amazing how many families here refused the vaccines on behalf of their children's health when what they are doing is risking that health. Until recently, our country has seen few victims of these horrendous ailments, but that is changing. Indeed, we even have reason to fear that enemies may deliberately expose us to these and worse contagions.
Parents can be vehement about not wanting their children to be exposed to the risk of autism. But how are they going to feel if it is their child that is the one in a hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand that dies from an illness that a vaccine could have prevented?
Each generation becomes better informed, more savvy and more assertive about child care. We take more and more responsibility over what happens to our children. But we are not always right!
So, to our government officials, I say this. It is okay to use the law to protect the country concerning vaccines. If it were only our own lives or our children's lives we were risking, that would be one thing. But it is not okay for people to threaten the general population for any reason except for a child's preexisting medical concerns. No, not even religion should stop you in this cause.
Besides, the results of that first study have been refuted. Researcher after researcher has discovered that he/she could not replicate the results. Whether on purpose, or by accident, that doctor got the wrong results. If it were not so, other researchers would have gotten his results, too. That means MMR vaccines are not what causes autism. That cause still has not been discovered.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
A Cut-Throat Perspective
Deflate-gate, physically hurting our competitors, using steroids and other drugs -- all in the name of winning -- is downright disgusting! "Well, others are doing it, so I will, too." Well, others didn't get caught. You did.
The human soul is becoming totally corrupt. Everywhere we turn, sociopaths prevail. Is it in our DNA now? Has it always been? Or, has people's abuse of alcohol and other drugs spun a mutation of sorts, an error in the human genome?
Whatever the cause, the spin is out of control beginning with what we value and what we respect. However in this world did we get to the point that athletics and sports became centermost in our lives? They override Broadway, movies, television, family, church and home. Today, as "ninety-nine and forty-four one hundredths percent" of American citizens stop to view the big game, we find the sociopathic efforts to win hanging a veil of shame over the activities.
It is said that more than half the footballs used by the playoff winners were deflated, which gave them an advantage. Was it an accident? Odds are it was not, considering the number in question. Will we ever know who did it? The why is easy. To win. The how -- yes, how in this world could someone carry out such a thing after the balls were inspected? And why don't the teams use the same balls anyway?
In this never ending age of the "media pounce", it is insane to think such a thing would go unnoticed and unspoken.
Now, the team that won the playoffs will never know for sure that they really earned the right to go to the Super Bowl. Neither will the fans. Odds are they would have won without cheating, but nobody will ever know conclusively. Likewise, if they win the Super Bowl, nobody will ever know if they should have.
But the most basic question of all is, in this day of injuring our opponents to get them out of the game, what has happened to our basic value system that athletics, sports, or anything else should have become so worshipped that we would risk our very moral fiber just to win?
An underlying theme the first Rocky movie portrayed (long past forgotten), second best can sometimes feel very good. So, let's forget this everlasting cut-throat perspective and return sports to their proper place in this world. They are but a source of entertainment. It is not a basic need of mankind to win, win, win. Tainting athletics is not going to put food and water on the table or a roof over the head. It is just going to bring shame to all.
The human soul is becoming totally corrupt. Everywhere we turn, sociopaths prevail. Is it in our DNA now? Has it always been? Or, has people's abuse of alcohol and other drugs spun a mutation of sorts, an error in the human genome?
Whatever the cause, the spin is out of control beginning with what we value and what we respect. However in this world did we get to the point that athletics and sports became centermost in our lives? They override Broadway, movies, television, family, church and home. Today, as "ninety-nine and forty-four one hundredths percent" of American citizens stop to view the big game, we find the sociopathic efforts to win hanging a veil of shame over the activities.
It is said that more than half the footballs used by the playoff winners were deflated, which gave them an advantage. Was it an accident? Odds are it was not, considering the number in question. Will we ever know who did it? The why is easy. To win. The how -- yes, how in this world could someone carry out such a thing after the balls were inspected? And why don't the teams use the same balls anyway?
In this never ending age of the "media pounce", it is insane to think such a thing would go unnoticed and unspoken.
Now, the team that won the playoffs will never know for sure that they really earned the right to go to the Super Bowl. Neither will the fans. Odds are they would have won without cheating, but nobody will ever know conclusively. Likewise, if they win the Super Bowl, nobody will ever know if they should have.
But the most basic question of all is, in this day of injuring our opponents to get them out of the game, what has happened to our basic value system that athletics, sports, or anything else should have become so worshipped that we would risk our very moral fiber just to win?
An underlying theme the first Rocky movie portrayed (long past forgotten), second best can sometimes feel very good. So, let's forget this everlasting cut-throat perspective and return sports to their proper place in this world. They are but a source of entertainment. It is not a basic need of mankind to win, win, win. Tainting athletics is not going to put food and water on the table or a roof over the head. It is just going to bring shame to all.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Basic Human Rights Revisited
According to "Encore in Iowa" by Mike Sherer, Time Magazine, January 26, 2015, Mike Huckabee is running for President again. Per Sherer, he recently compared Americans with the Nazis -- the ones who abort their babies with the ones who caused the Holocaust. He stated that fifty-five million babies have been murdered in their mother's own wombs.
First, I've not had a lot of exposure to Mr. Huckabee, but up until this time, I've always been rather fond of him.
Second, I've no idea whether his figures are correct and don't intend to research it. Fifty-five million?
Third, find a new platform! I just read and heard today that Republican women are taking a stand against the Republican position on abortion. I don't know why Americans persist in telling each other what to do. It is an invasion of privacy, none of your business and extremely archaic. It's almost as radical as Muslim extremists who stone each other for adultery.
Let me go on record once more! I have never had an unwanted pregnancy. I have never had an abortion. I don't believe that any woman in my family has ever had one. I know for a fact that we would welcome any children that God gifted to us and be grateful for them. I am not a proponent of abortion, per se. I am a proponent of a woman's - a couple's -- right to choose!
You do not have the right to decide whether the Catholic couple next door to you has to keep the tenth or twelfth baby just because the rhythm method failed them. You do not have the right to tell the Baptist couple next door that they have to feed an extra mouth when they already work four jobs between them and still have to use food stamps.
The federal government has no right to tell our citizens how they should behave concerning such personal and private matters. As long as what one citizen chooses is not going to negatively impact the lives of her neighbors, nobody has a right to make his/her decisions for her.
Women do not plan on going back to the forties and fifties where unwanted pregnancies were aborted in back alleys with dirty coat hangers. They will not go back to an age where parents forced their daughters to give up their children to adoption. You have no right to tell a woman she has to see a pregnancy to the end so that someone else can rear the child. She should not have the health risks, the shortened energy, the financial and physical expense because of a mistake or failed birth control. Most especially, no man on earth has a right to tell a woman she has to have a baby she does not want. And no baby should have to enter this world to a parent who does not want it. When men start carrying the kids, then they can decide.
Over and over, power hungry individuals reach out their tentacles in an attempt to control everything and everyone within their vision. Greed for power over others is their main sin. How dare they accuse another of sin before they cast the sin from their own lives.
And no man who likens a U. S. citizen to the Nazis of World War II should ever have the right to hold the highest office in this land. Whatever are you thinking? It certainly cost you any chance you ever had at getting my vote.
This issue is not just an abortion issue. It is about who gets to be in charge of our lives and our choices. Get it yet? Duh!!!
First, I've not had a lot of exposure to Mr. Huckabee, but up until this time, I've always been rather fond of him.
Second, I've no idea whether his figures are correct and don't intend to research it. Fifty-five million?
Third, find a new platform! I just read and heard today that Republican women are taking a stand against the Republican position on abortion. I don't know why Americans persist in telling each other what to do. It is an invasion of privacy, none of your business and extremely archaic. It's almost as radical as Muslim extremists who stone each other for adultery.
Let me go on record once more! I have never had an unwanted pregnancy. I have never had an abortion. I don't believe that any woman in my family has ever had one. I know for a fact that we would welcome any children that God gifted to us and be grateful for them. I am not a proponent of abortion, per se. I am a proponent of a woman's - a couple's -- right to choose!
You do not have the right to decide whether the Catholic couple next door to you has to keep the tenth or twelfth baby just because the rhythm method failed them. You do not have the right to tell the Baptist couple next door that they have to feed an extra mouth when they already work four jobs between them and still have to use food stamps.
The federal government has no right to tell our citizens how they should behave concerning such personal and private matters. As long as what one citizen chooses is not going to negatively impact the lives of her neighbors, nobody has a right to make his/her decisions for her.
Women do not plan on going back to the forties and fifties where unwanted pregnancies were aborted in back alleys with dirty coat hangers. They will not go back to an age where parents forced their daughters to give up their children to adoption. You have no right to tell a woman she has to see a pregnancy to the end so that someone else can rear the child. She should not have the health risks, the shortened energy, the financial and physical expense because of a mistake or failed birth control. Most especially, no man on earth has a right to tell a woman she has to have a baby she does not want. And no baby should have to enter this world to a parent who does not want it. When men start carrying the kids, then they can decide.
Over and over, power hungry individuals reach out their tentacles in an attempt to control everything and everyone within their vision. Greed for power over others is their main sin. How dare they accuse another of sin before they cast the sin from their own lives.
And no man who likens a U. S. citizen to the Nazis of World War II should ever have the right to hold the highest office in this land. Whatever are you thinking? It certainly cost you any chance you ever had at getting my vote.
This issue is not just an abortion issue. It is about who gets to be in charge of our lives and our choices. Get it yet? Duh!!!
Do Us All A Favor
In the early eighties while I was working as a school psychologist, a coworker was coughing, spewing and sneezing all over us as well as complaining that she didn't really feel like being at work. I agreed she couldn't possibly and that she should have stayed at home that day. Her response? "I don't want to use my sick days for being sick." I had no response for someone that stupid.
From elementary school right on up to the present, we are all exposed to sick people who bring their germs to school and work. Even last weekend while shopping for a few food items, the cashier was hacking all over us and complaining what a horrible cold she had. We could tell.
My own mother made me go to high school one day with a fever and aches and pains. After all, the school had sent home a note stating the parents had to make sure we got there because they were administering an important test. The school apparently derived an intelligence quotient, as well as achievement results from the test. Got any idea how valid those test results were?
What is it that is wrong with people? We have the employers with no tolerance for absences. There are the employees who feel that they must never miss a day of work. There are the schools who threaten penalties for poor attendance and the illnesses that are spread more thoroughly and rapidly because of anal retentive people who must always obey the rules -- even the most idiotic ones.
There "oughta" be a law folks, that penalizes everyone who goes or sends their children out into the world while sick. There ought to at least be a sense of moral correctness pertaining to exposing others to our germs.
Next time you are ill, how about stirring up some chicken soup, turning on a movie and taking your meds in the comfort of your own homes instead of contaminating the rest of your community? We would all thank you in the long run.
From elementary school right on up to the present, we are all exposed to sick people who bring their germs to school and work. Even last weekend while shopping for a few food items, the cashier was hacking all over us and complaining what a horrible cold she had. We could tell.
My own mother made me go to high school one day with a fever and aches and pains. After all, the school had sent home a note stating the parents had to make sure we got there because they were administering an important test. The school apparently derived an intelligence quotient, as well as achievement results from the test. Got any idea how valid those test results were?
What is it that is wrong with people? We have the employers with no tolerance for absences. There are the employees who feel that they must never miss a day of work. There are the schools who threaten penalties for poor attendance and the illnesses that are spread more thoroughly and rapidly because of anal retentive people who must always obey the rules -- even the most idiotic ones.
There "oughta" be a law folks, that penalizes everyone who goes or sends their children out into the world while sick. There ought to at least be a sense of moral correctness pertaining to exposing others to our germs.
Next time you are ill, how about stirring up some chicken soup, turning on a movie and taking your meds in the comfort of your own homes instead of contaminating the rest of your community? We would all thank you in the long run.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
The Rich Get Richer
"It bothered me to think that in this rich country, there were people who still lived as they did . . ." Ruth Levinson, character in The Longest Ride, a novel by Nicholas Sparks, 2013
Ruth, a teacher, had gone to visit a student who lived in a shack and sometimes did not eat more than two or three times a week.
On the NBC nightly news, December 17, 2014, Brian Williams announced that recent information shows that the gap between the upper one per cent and the rest of the country has gotten even wider. Yes, in this great and rich country, how is it children have to live like this? Yet even today it still happens, while we send millions and billions of dollars and jobs to other countries, some who are our barely disguised covert enemies.
I've said it all in previous articles in lousissues.BlogSpot.com, lousdevotes.BlogSpot.com, and louhough.BlogSpot.com. I will let you read and reread these articles to find my views.
But permit me to ask you a few questions first.
When will enough be enough for these rich people?
What are they lacking in their lives that makes them driven to store more and more coins while their fellow men go hungry? They store coins in the same obsessive-compulsive manner that an alcoholic imbibes alcohol, trying to fill some empty hole within themselves. It seems to be some type of addictive behavior.
When they get to the pearly gates and God asks them to account for what they did with the talents and other coins with which He entrusted them, how will they answer? I bought some elections for guys I thought would help me make and keep some more coins? Or will they say, I looked for half a dozen people per year and fed, clothed, and trained them until they were able to take care of themselves? I expected nothing back for doing so.
Which answer do you think the Almighty will like the best?
Which do you think will give them the most fulfillment, perhaps enough to fill that mighty empty hole?
Ruth, a teacher, had gone to visit a student who lived in a shack and sometimes did not eat more than two or three times a week.
On the NBC nightly news, December 17, 2014, Brian Williams announced that recent information shows that the gap between the upper one per cent and the rest of the country has gotten even wider. Yes, in this great and rich country, how is it children have to live like this? Yet even today it still happens, while we send millions and billions of dollars and jobs to other countries, some who are our barely disguised covert enemies.
I've said it all in previous articles in lousissues.BlogSpot.com, lousdevotes.BlogSpot.com, and louhough.BlogSpot.com. I will let you read and reread these articles to find my views.
But permit me to ask you a few questions first.
When will enough be enough for these rich people?
What are they lacking in their lives that makes them driven to store more and more coins while their fellow men go hungry? They store coins in the same obsessive-compulsive manner that an alcoholic imbibes alcohol, trying to fill some empty hole within themselves. It seems to be some type of addictive behavior.
When they get to the pearly gates and God asks them to account for what they did with the talents and other coins with which He entrusted them, how will they answer? I bought some elections for guys I thought would help me make and keep some more coins? Or will they say, I looked for half a dozen people per year and fed, clothed, and trained them until they were able to take care of themselves? I expected nothing back for doing so.
Which answer do you think the Almighty will like the best?
Which do you think will give them the most fulfillment, perhaps enough to fill that mighty empty hole?
Friday, December 5, 2014
If I Ruled CBS!
A friend of mine once stated the obvious, that people's fantasies were determined by what they needed most. His were pretty much the same as most men's. Mine were, as always, about wealth. My income hasn't increased, so my fantasies haven't changed, except the amount I visualize has multiplied many times. And no, I want my own, I don't want to marry it.
With money comes power. Right? So, I've decided to fantasize owning CBS so I have power over their programing.
The first thing CBS needs is to eliminate all reality shows, because there isn't a single sniff of reality in any of them. In fact, one or two of them should not have gotten past the first season. I refer especially to Undercover Boss. People would have to live in a monastery not to know what's going on after one exposure to this show.
Then, there is the problem of Saturday night. CBS has cared squat about their Saturday night audience since they canceled Craig T. Nelson as a police commissioner who lived on a boat. 48 Hours Mystery is the only thing they seem to take as valuable, a very debatable opinion. They keep showing reruns of current shows (probably to hook new viewers) as though we are too stupid to already know the shows are on the air. They really ticked me off last season when they ran new Saturday segments of shows scheduled on other nights. You see, newspapers have quit running TV guide sections in their Sunday editions because cable viewers can get the information from television. The problem with that is that a lot of the CBS audience does not have cable. So, a little hard to access the schedule on television.
Then there is the new disjointed manner of showing the shows. Big Bang Theory was on Thursday, then Monday, now Thursday. There will now be four sitcoms on Monday night, so either Scorpion or NCIS Los Angeles has to give up their spot. Last year Tuesday night was perfect -- three really strong shows. So, instead of putting NCIS New Orleans on a previously weak night, they broke up a winning night to do it. Let's face it, Thursday night really needed this new hit.
Wednesday nights now scare the heck right out of me. First, there is the Survivor horror show -- what humans will do to humans for a buck. Criminal minds follows with it's usual flare for inciting fear. That wasn't enough. They then added Stalker. By the end of the evening, I, a stalking survivor, have had the bejesus scared right out of me. So, I read a lot more books now.
Thursday night starts off with a bang in Big Bang Theory and ends with Elementary. Sometimes I watch the first one, sometimes the latter. But there is no way I'm sitting through four sitcoms to get to Elementary. Another night of reading here.
I've always liked The Mentalist, but resent that one or the other of my favorite shows has to go so it can come back. (I also resent that it is being canceled after this year). What in h e double hockey sticks is wrong with putting it on Saturday night and giving us something good to watch then? In fact, how about bringing back Vegas and putting it on Saturday night? Oh, yes, I heard it would be canceled because it was popular among seniors.
Madame Secretary and The Good Wife are simply too good to axe either of them temporarily or permanently. What are you thinking? Depending on how you handle this, I could be anticipating another night of reading.
You know, my generation has always had to take a back seat to some other generation. Mostly we were ignored for what the boomers needed. Then advertisors catered to the eighteen to twenty-five crowd. But heck the college grads can't get jobs good enough for paying off their student loans right now. How can they buy anthing else? And miracle of miracles, I read somewhere recently that retirees are becoming the wealthiest generation around. My own status gives me pause about this, but wouldn't that be something if it's true? CBS and all the other networks would have to cater to my generation at long last, at least if they want their advertisers to sponsor them.
So, let me suggest to you my view of what prime time TV should be. I'm working within the current scheduling, but tweaking it a bit.
Sunday
7:00 The Mentalist
8:00 Madame Secretary
9:00 The Good Wife
Monday
7:00 Two Sitcoms
8:00 Scorpion
9:00 NCIS Los Angeles
Tuesday
7:00 NCIS
8:00 NCIS New Orleans
9:00 Person of Interest
Wednesday
7:00 Two Sitcoms
8:00 Criminal Minds
9:00 CSI
Thursday
7:00 Two Sitcoms
8:00 Stalker
9:00 Elementary
Friday
7:00 Two Sitcoms
8:00 Hawaii 5-O
9:00 Blue Bloods
Saturday
7:00 48 Hours
8:00 A Made for TV Movie
or your music specials
Of course, as we (or you)) grow tired of our favorite dramas, we will expect them to be replaced with even greater works.
And put your bloomin' sports shows on sports channels so you aren't preempting good television for obsessive-compulsive sports viewing. Why were Sports Channels developed if you aren't going to use them for the best sports?
They say a word to the wise is sufficient. I hope that's true. You better hope so, too. Because when I get all my multi billions, I'm going to make my move on you. And you don't even want me to turn my attention on daytime! You do know this, don't you?
With money comes power. Right? So, I've decided to fantasize owning CBS so I have power over their programing.
The first thing CBS needs is to eliminate all reality shows, because there isn't a single sniff of reality in any of them. In fact, one or two of them should not have gotten past the first season. I refer especially to Undercover Boss. People would have to live in a monastery not to know what's going on after one exposure to this show.
Then, there is the problem of Saturday night. CBS has cared squat about their Saturday night audience since they canceled Craig T. Nelson as a police commissioner who lived on a boat. 48 Hours Mystery is the only thing they seem to take as valuable, a very debatable opinion. They keep showing reruns of current shows (probably to hook new viewers) as though we are too stupid to already know the shows are on the air. They really ticked me off last season when they ran new Saturday segments of shows scheduled on other nights. You see, newspapers have quit running TV guide sections in their Sunday editions because cable viewers can get the information from television. The problem with that is that a lot of the CBS audience does not have cable. So, a little hard to access the schedule on television.
Then there is the new disjointed manner of showing the shows. Big Bang Theory was on Thursday, then Monday, now Thursday. There will now be four sitcoms on Monday night, so either Scorpion or NCIS Los Angeles has to give up their spot. Last year Tuesday night was perfect -- three really strong shows. So, instead of putting NCIS New Orleans on a previously weak night, they broke up a winning night to do it. Let's face it, Thursday night really needed this new hit.
Wednesday nights now scare the heck right out of me. First, there is the Survivor horror show -- what humans will do to humans for a buck. Criminal minds follows with it's usual flare for inciting fear. That wasn't enough. They then added Stalker. By the end of the evening, I, a stalking survivor, have had the bejesus scared right out of me. So, I read a lot more books now.
Thursday night starts off with a bang in Big Bang Theory and ends with Elementary. Sometimes I watch the first one, sometimes the latter. But there is no way I'm sitting through four sitcoms to get to Elementary. Another night of reading here.
I've always liked The Mentalist, but resent that one or the other of my favorite shows has to go so it can come back. (I also resent that it is being canceled after this year). What in h e double hockey sticks is wrong with putting it on Saturday night and giving us something good to watch then? In fact, how about bringing back Vegas and putting it on Saturday night? Oh, yes, I heard it would be canceled because it was popular among seniors.
Madame Secretary and The Good Wife are simply too good to axe either of them temporarily or permanently. What are you thinking? Depending on how you handle this, I could be anticipating another night of reading.
You know, my generation has always had to take a back seat to some other generation. Mostly we were ignored for what the boomers needed. Then advertisors catered to the eighteen to twenty-five crowd. But heck the college grads can't get jobs good enough for paying off their student loans right now. How can they buy anthing else? And miracle of miracles, I read somewhere recently that retirees are becoming the wealthiest generation around. My own status gives me pause about this, but wouldn't that be something if it's true? CBS and all the other networks would have to cater to my generation at long last, at least if they want their advertisers to sponsor them.
So, let me suggest to you my view of what prime time TV should be. I'm working within the current scheduling, but tweaking it a bit.
Sunday
7:00 The Mentalist
8:00 Madame Secretary
9:00 The Good Wife
Monday
7:00 Two Sitcoms
8:00 Scorpion
9:00 NCIS Los Angeles
Tuesday
7:00 NCIS
8:00 NCIS New Orleans
9:00 Person of Interest
Wednesday
7:00 Two Sitcoms
8:00 Criminal Minds
9:00 CSI
Thursday
7:00 Two Sitcoms
8:00 Stalker
9:00 Elementary
Friday
7:00 Two Sitcoms
8:00 Hawaii 5-O
9:00 Blue Bloods
Saturday
7:00 48 Hours
8:00 A Made for TV Movie
or your music specials
Of course, as we (or you)) grow tired of our favorite dramas, we will expect them to be replaced with even greater works.
And put your bloomin' sports shows on sports channels so you aren't preempting good television for obsessive-compulsive sports viewing. Why were Sports Channels developed if you aren't going to use them for the best sports?
They say a word to the wise is sufficient. I hope that's true. You better hope so, too. Because when I get all my multi billions, I'm going to make my move on you. And you don't even want me to turn my attention on daytime! You do know this, don't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)