So, yeah, I know I said a long time ago that I didn’t care one bit about Sarah Palin, and was annoyed that the media gave her so much attention.

But when she keeps announcing herself, loudly and clearly, as a moron, well, I just can’t myself.

Have you seen this yet? Probably, but it’s worth sharing again. During a sit-down “interview” at the Tea Party Convention (do you think Lipton’s got the sponsorship deal there?), she stopped and looked at her hand for a moment. And what was on her hand? TALKING POINTS. Specifically, energy, tax, and lift American spirits. Watch for yourself, and marvel that this woman who was almost thisclose to the Presidency, CAN’T REMEMBER THREE WORDS when she’s talking.

Oh yeah, I may be meeting the former sportscaster herself on Sunday. She’ll be at the Daytona 500. So will I. I’m hoping she gets to be the starter, so I can watch her look down at her hand when she yells “Start, your … wait, wait, it’s coming to me, hang on … ENGINES!”

**So I’m one of the few people in America who hated “Everybody Loves Raymond.” I just thought it wasn’t funny, and as a sportswriter, I wondered how come, in the few episodes I ever watched, Ray Barone never actually did any work.

Ray Romano never did it for me; never thought his stand-up was all that funny, either. So when I heard he had a new show on TNT called “Men of A Certain Age,” I ignored it. Then three people whose TV opinion I trust told me it was really, really good.

So I’ve been catching up on Hulu. And I must admit, this show is fantastic. Andre Braugher and Scott Bakula play Romano’s friends, and the series explores the friendship of these 40-something guys. It’s funny, it’s so smartly written, and has a lot more heart than I would’ve expected. The scene in Episode 4 where Braugher’s character wins a battle with City Hall, then jumps around outside on the steps of the government building, with the “Rocky” music playing? Brilliant.

Check it on TNT or Hulu. It’s totally turned me around on Ray Romano, and it’s damn entertaining television.

Not as entertaining as laughing at Sarah Palin, but come on, that’s a pretty high bar to leap over.

As a CIA officer, Evelyn Salt (Jolie) swore an oath to duty, honor and country. Her loyalty will be tested when a defector accuses her of being a Russian spy. Salt goes on the run, using all her skills and years of experience as a covert operative to elude capture. Salt’s efforts to prove her innocence only serve to cast doubt on her motives, as the hunt to uncover the truth behind her identity continues and the question remains: “Who Is Salt?” The version available for download of this 1080p movie trailer has been auto converted from 2D to Stereoscopic 3D in a side-by-side format!!!

Genre: Thriller
Director: Phillip Noyce
Cast: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Andre Braugher
In theaters: July 23, 2010

- Download Salt Stereoscopic 3D Full HD Trailer
- Salt Stereoscopic 3D Full HD Trailer (mirror 1)
- Salt Stereoscopic 3D Full HD Trailer (mirror 2)
- Salt Stereoscopic 3D Full HD Trailer (mirror 3)

Anne Hathaway figures out that Columbia has buried her movie.

(Columbia) Anne Hathaway, Patrick Wilson, David Morse, Andre Braugher, Clea DuVall, Dianne Wiest, William B. Davis, Ryan Robbins, Don Thompson. Directed by Rodrigo Garcia

If we’re going to properly deal with life, we also must learn how to deal with death. Every so often, we experience an event in which death stares us right in the face. How we react to that can be a life-defining moment – or a life-destroying one.

Claire (Hathaway) is a grief counselor and budding psychiatrist who is assigned to work with the few survivors of a horrific commercial airline crash. Her group contains the suspicious and skeptical Shannon (DuVall), the paranoid Norman (Thompson) and the euphoric stockbroker Eric (Wilson) whose brush with death has turned him into a type “A” personality.

Soon, the passengers begin to assert that contrary to the official report (which blamed the crash on pilot error), there had been an explosion in the main cabin. Arkin (Morse), an airline executive, begins to lurk around Claire’s patients and sessions, and as the survivors begin to disappear one by one, Claire begins to suspect that a conspiracy is afoot.

When she reports her suspicions to her boss (Braugher), she is met with some skepticism but as the coincidences begin to mount, even he starts to admit there might be something to her fears. In the meantime, she has become more and more attracted to Eric who is encouraging her to cross ethical lines (or as she incorrectly puts it in the dialogue, unethical lines). Soon, Claire herself finds that she may be in danger of joining the list of victims of the crash.

This movie was shelved several times from the Sony release schedule, eventually receiving a modest and somewhat begrudging limited run with a minimum of publicity behind it. This is what is known as burying a film, and that’s just what happened to Passengers. Generally, that means the film is truly awful and the studio is only releasing it to make back a modicum of its cost; generally execs will view the buried film as a kind of tax write-off.

I was expecting the worst when I saw this and was surprised to find that it wasn’t truly bad. Hathaway is an engaging performer and even if there were a few wrong notes hit for her as a psychiatrist, she makes up for it by being sympathetic (other than the ethical violation thing) and interesting. While the subplot with her sister seemed a bit forced, still Hathaway is one of the better things in the movie.

The script definitely has a “Twilight Zone” feel to it and while I think they would have benefitted with the input of a Rod Serling or a Richard Matheson, director Garcia and writer Ronnie Christensen have managed to create a nice, unsettling atmosphere with some legitimate spine-tingling moments. Unfortunately, much of the good will is undone with the ending, which is borrowed from a recent classic and brings the movie screeching to a halt. It’s not so much the concept I had problems with but with the execution, which felt a little too close to the way the twist was revealed in the other movie I referred to.

This is one of those movies that is certainly flawed but has enough going for it to get a mild recommendation. Those who like those old TV shows like “The Outer Limits” and of course “The Twilight Zone” might get a kick out of this. Those who like Anne Hathaway will certainly enjoy this since she’s in virtually every scene. This isn’t a hidden gem so much as a hidden rhinestone; still, it is much better than I expected it to be.

WHY RENT THIS: Hathaway is becoming one of the most compelling actresses in Hollywood. Some seriously good moments in the thriller vein, especially if you’re a fan of “The Twilight Zone.”

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: The “twist” ending has been done before and much better; savvy moviegoers will be able to suss it out pretty quickly.

FAMILY VALUES: A few decent scares and some sensuality make this suitable for older teens.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Eric tells Claire he’s a vice-president at the brokerage firm Kahane-Drake. Nathan Kahane and Joe Drake are the executive producers on the film.

NOTABLE DVD EXTRAS: A feature about the staging of the plane crash is relatively interesting, but most of the features are the usual standards.

FINAL RATING: 5/10

TOMORROW: Charlie Bartlett

Men of a Certain Age got renewed for a second season (yay!). I’m watching it a week behind online, since we don’t have cable. Reactions now that I’m a few more shows in …

They’re continuing the contrast between fit Terry and Owen’s middle aged physical shlubbiness. This continues to be a little weird for me, since Andre Braugher’s the one of the three actors that I’ve always found sexy, but I suppose I’ll get used to it. “Powerless” had Owen waking with some odd contraption on his nose (before shifting to Terry waking with a hottie); it’s a nose that, without the contraption, I personally find one of the best looking noses on TV.

On the other hand, Owen’s been given a beautiful, loving wife who still thinks he’s sexy. The Owen/Terry contrast seems more about relaxed married life vs. a single man on the prowl than anything else. There’s a scene in “Go With the Flow,” where Owen and his wife help Joe get ready for his date, that had a nice shift between a very married sort of teasing (“What do you know about high maintenance women?”, “I, uh, dated a few before I met you”), to Owen’s wife boosting his friend’s confidence by pointing to several features that Owen doesn’t have (flat abs, hair, owning his own business), to a close that suggests that, flat abs or no, he’ll be getting sex shortly from a wife who still finds him hot (which in fact he still is, even with the extra weight).

Besides, to me the worst thing you could do with Andre Braugher is not give him enough to act, and that mistake Men of a Certain Age emphatically doesn’t make. (One of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ commenters praises the part because “Andre Braugher isn’t the other two main characters’ Black Friend. He’s just their friend.“) Owen’s my favorite character, believably rounded, with an interesting set of relationships with friends, wife, father, and rival at the car dealership, and some of the best lines. And I loved his small moment of triumph at the end of “Powerless.”

Slutty Terry is the character I at first though might prove weakest and most two dimensional, but I think they’re avoiding that trap, and he’s coming across as a bit feckless and perhaps less mature than the others, but a slut with a conscience (don’t sleep with the engaged woman, do allow yourself to be admonished that leaving yourself free of commitment to any one woman doesn’t mean you get to slack off on being on time for the one you’re with now), who at times proves right (such as when making sure returning to dating Joe supplies himself with condoms, and not taking any excuses from Joe).

Actually, the one of the three friends I find least sympathetic is Joe (the nominal lead, since Ray Romano’s the one who put the show together); he can be a bit passive in his worried neurosis. What saves him, from a sympathy point of view, is his relationship with his kids; when it comes to their problems, this divorced father doesn’t stay passive. Whether it’s a perhaps misguided attempt to shelter a middle school aged son with a pack of phobias, or a moment of telling off an ex-wife who suggests she’s going to shut him out of what’s happening with the kids, or the mix of sympathy and firmness with which he confronts the ex who’s been giving his teenaged daughter trouble, you can see that the one thing in his life he’s not going to let slide is his relationship with his kids. It’s a good thing, as far as I’m concerned, that they did the teenage daughter being stalked show right before the very Joe-focused return to dating show, since it gave me a lot more sympathy for Joe.

The obvious Sex and the City comparison is made at the Modesto Bee.

And one of the three guys is played by Andre Braugher, an amazing actor you might remember best from the superb TV drama “Homicide: Life on the Street.” Braugher’s character is overweight, in shaky health and under the thumb of his tyrannical father, who owns the car dealership where he works.

He’s also the cynical one, the one who talks logic. (He’s Miranda, for you “Sex in the City” aficionados.)

The other two are played by Scott Bakula, as an aging actor with the overblown libido (read Samantha), and Ray Romano as a party store owner with a gambling habit and a marriage that’s crumbled. (He’s kind of the Carrie in the bunch, in that he’s the funniest and the one with the relationship that’s most out of whack … but that may be a stretch).

I suppose Miranda was my favorite Sex and the City character, too. I like this show better, though.

Other stuff:

My husband made the top ten bipolar blogs. Yay! Go, Joel! Of the others, I’ve read and liked Crazy Tracy for years (and it’s good to see her now on the mend again).

Your Brain Can’t Handle Your Facebook Friends.

Paul Krugman on Bernanke:

The pro case is obvious: Ben Bernanke is a great economist, whose work on monetary economics has been a crucial guide to action in this crisis, and he applied his academic insights forcefully in 2008 and early 2009, helping pull the world back from the brink.

Against that are two factors. One is that he completely failed to see the trouble building as the housing bubble inflated — and no, it wasn’t one of those things nobody could have predicted, since a lot of reputable economists were warning almost frantically about the bubble….

One of the things that’s weird to me, post-bubble, is discovering that some people with much more understanding of economics under their belt than me seem to have been much more surprised about the bubble. It’s not that I was sharp enough to have been among those anticipating the collapse of the bubble – I wasn’t – but I do remember the possibility as having been in the back of my mind, when I passed on offers of home equity loans. I thought, well, housing prices generally trend up, but they still have business cycles, and so what’s soaring now may yet fall, and better then not to have used all the equity and find myself under water. And then, post crash, I read people talking as if people who ought to have been much smarter about such things just assumed there couldn’t be any fall in sight. I guess even very accomplished economists sometimes see what they want to see.

Eve Tushnet argues for a Catholic Church acceptance of “some, though as I said above not all, forms of transgendered identity.” Interesting to me because it’s a pro-transgender (or at least pro some transgender) argument coming from someone who has accepted a conservative Catholic position that she herself needs to refrain from acting on her attractions to women (even though they are, by her account, stronger than her attractions to men).

Harry at Crooked Timber helps me understand Thomson’s violinist: what is the point of thought experiments in moral philosophy?

First of all, it should be obvious that the violinist case does not establish the permissibility of abortion even in the case of rape. In fact, I would say that the focus on the permissibility of abortion (which Thomson encourages, not least by her title) is a bit misleading. Every semester a very small number of my students say that they do not think it is permissible to unplug oneself from the violinist. Not a single sentence in the article speaks to them: they can get off before even getting on (interestingly, every now and then a student (usually they turn out to be some sort of lefty) who thinks there is a right to abortion thinks it is impermissible to unplug oneself, because one has extensive and stringent duties to aid stranger in need)….

Ah, this is exactly the problem I’ve always had with Thomson’s violinist. I’ve always seen the example pulled out to justify a right to abortion, and my reaction has always been a mystified “huh?” because I’m in exactly that set of people who finds it crystal clear obvious that of course I wouldn’t have a right to unplug myself from the violinist, but finds a right to abortion much more plausible. I’m surprised that position’s so rare, actually, and surprised that students who don’t think they have the right to unplug themselves from the violinist are such a minority.

Caveats: There are some duties that you expect to just do, with no fanfare, and others that, even if they’re really not optional, are strenuous enough that you expect a certain amount of extra praise and support for the people doing them. If I find several thousand dollars, or a diamond ring, lost by a stranger, of course I should turn it in, but newspapers carry stories praising people who do this, and the person who gets the property back is likely to give a reward. If I were plugged to that violinist, I’d expect people to rally around me, offer me whatever support and help they could, and praise me for my act of sacrifice as I left him plugged in. But I’d still be obliged to leave him plugged in, even if I got all the costs of the action, none of the praise I deserved for it, and it just wasn’t fair that I’d been plugged to him in the first place.

But the thing is, abortion’s way more understandable than unplugging the violinist precisely because the fetus doesn’t appear to be sentient until well into the pregnancy (no brain waves), and because it’s hard for me to imagine personhood without at least the possibility of sentience. So dragging the violinist into the argument feels to me like an argument against a right to abortion rather than an argument for a right to abortion. Apparently, though, the opposite is true for some people reacting to Thomson’s violinist:

… So what does the example establish?

It seems to me that it establishes two things. First consider a combination of views that is widespread among American conservatives (and that Thomson must have encountered a thousand times): that there is no right to abortion, and that we do not have extensive and demanding enforceable obligations to strangers. People who hold that combination of views ought to be deeply discomforted by the violinist example (and by the people seeds example that follows). Neither example PROVES that this combination is inconsistent, but both examples press the person who adheres to it to give us more explanation of the differences between the cases. The second thing that the example establishes is that for many opponents of abortion (all those who say it is ok to unplug oneself from the violinist) the right to life of the fetus plays only a small background role in their justification of abortion’s impermissibility; of course, if the fetus did not have a right to life then abortion would be permissible, but these people believe that it is permissible to kill innocent beings which have a right to life in circumstances very like the circumstances of the fetus growing inside the pregnant mother. They need to offer an explanation of the difference.

Odd to me. It never occurred to me that anyone would actually hold the combination of views, “no abortion, but I’d feel justified in cutting the violinist loose.”

Stentor on The environmental implications of border-drawing.

Bond, who is butch and doesn’t find her own gender fluid at all, writes about how Gender Is Not Fluid. It occurs to me that, for those of us whose gender is more fluid than Bond’s (if not altogether fluid), it may be partly because there’s something else that we’re consistent about, that sometimes shows as being more feminine and sometimes as being more masculine. For instance, I, personally, consistently don’t want to spend much time fussing with my appearance. If I can avoid shopping by wearing my mother-in-law’s hand-me-downs, I will, and whether the particular hand-me-downs I’m wearing are more or less girly doesn’t make too much difference, as long as they’re comfortable and don’t restrict my movement. When I’ve run short on socks, I’ve gone around in skirts (preferably long ones, so I don’t have to worry about unshaven legs), and when instead I decide that my hiking boots are more comfortable than the shoes (even sensible ones) that I get to wear with skirts, I shift to pants. So my gender presentation is a little fluid, but with an underlying consistency of not wanting to spend much time on my looks (an “unfeminine” trait in itself, but one that lets me cheerfully prefer looking either “feminine” or not to spending any more time than I have to looking for the right outfit).

Leading health care experts ask House to pass the Senate bill.

E.J. Dionne on How the Democrats may solve their health-care problem.

Andželīna Džolija un Breds Pits kā ziņo PEOPLE.com ziedojuši 1 milj. ASV dolāru Haiti zemestīcē cietušo cilvēku glābšanai un medicīniskai aprūpei.

Haiti postošajā 7.3 balles stiprajā zemestīcē bojā gājušo skaits var sasniegt pat 100 000. Postījumi ir ievērojami, izdzīvojušie ir palikuši bez mājām un liela daļa radinieku ir bez vēsts pazuduši, vietējie galvaspilsētas Portoprensas iedzīvotāji paši saviem spēkiem mēģina glābt zem gruvešiem palikušos cilvēkus.

Liela daļa pasaules lielvalstu jau ir nosūtījuši savas glābēju un mediķu komandas, piešķirti arī ievērojami līdzekļi glābšanas operāciju organizēšanai. Arī septiņkārtējas “Tour de France” velobrauciena uzvarētājs Lenss Ārmstrongs ziedojis 250 000 ASV dolāru zemestrīces upuriem, informē aģentūra AP.

Atgiežoties pie slavenās aktrises Andželīnas Džolijas, šogad vasarā, kopš viņas pēdējās lomas 2008. gada Timura Bekmambetova režisētajā filmā Wanted (“Meklēšanā”), uz kinoekrāniem gaidāms spriedzes trilleris Salt (“Specaģente Sāls”). Pēc Kurta Vimmera stāsta motīviem un Braiena Helgelanda scenārija, režisora Filipa Noisa filmā Salt, Džoulija atveido CIA specaģenti Evelīnu Saltu. Spriedzes pilns trilleris par slepenajiem dienestiem un valsts mēroga diversiju.

Salt

Režisors: Phillip Noyce

Scenārijs: Kurt Wimmer, Brian Helgeland

Producenti: Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Sunil Perkash u.c.

Lomās: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Andre Braugher

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . autors: Arturs Smits, kinomanija.tv

Television of a Certain Quality: TNT’s Men of a Certain Age

January 3rd, 2010

As we enter a new decade, there is no question that time and age become important questions. On New Year’s, there was a twitter meme of “10 Years Ago,” which is not only prompting us to remember what we were doing at the dawn of Y2K (Hint: not recovering from a massive technological crisis) but also prompting us to compare where we are now to where we were then. And while this might not be a particularly meaningful exercise for me (considering that I was in eighth grade ten years ago, I don’t have too much to compare), the ruminations on age and life trajectory are probably more meaningful for people who were actually living lives (middle school doesn’t count) in the year 2000.

I raise this point not to try to make those older than me feel older, but rather as a nice excuse to finally write something about TNT’s Men of a Certain Age, a show that I had no expectations of enjoying but which has become a nice piece of consistency during this off-time for the bulk of my favourite series. I believe it was James Poniewozik who suggested that Men of a Certain Age is the male equivalent of The Good Wife, a show for which you have very limited expectations but that surprises you with a subtlety and a focus on execution, and I buy that (I’ve blogged about The Good Wife a heck of a lot more than I expected, after all). I expected the show to be something very different than what it is, but I’ve enjoyed its subtle approach to its storylines and its ability to find both humour and tragedy in legitimate and believable places in the lives of its characters.

And while I like James’ comparison, what really sets this show apart is that unlike The Good Wife – which had lowered expectations based primarily on the network and its penchant for procedurals – Men of a Certain Age faces an even more significant challenge: convincing a cynical audience that Ray Romano is capable of taking himself seriously.

While it might not seem fair, the show lives or dies on this question, and that it has felt so dramatically satisfying is a testament to his work here.

If we consider James’ comparison in terms of premise, the shows are very much in the same position: The Good Wife is a very female-centric take on the world of politics and the workplace, while Men of a Certain Age is a very male-centric perspective on middle age. And although both shows features engaging characters of the opposite sex from their protagonists (Josh Charles and Chris Noth on The Good Wife, Lisa Gay Hamilton on Men of a Certain Age), they are never the focus of the show’s narrative, which can offer the impression that the shows are about one particular gender and its position vis-a-vis the other in various different settings.

This is, of course, a reductive reading of both series, considering that Hamilton’s Melissa is probably my favourite supporting player on Men and that Charles is integral to selling the legal elements of The Good Wife, but I make the comparison to note that face similar challenges in terms of appealing to wider audiences on the level of their respective premises. However, if we were to extend the comparison to the extra-textual elements of each series, things become more uneven. While The Good Wife faces the expectation from critical types that CBS series are by default less interesting than more ambitious serialized dramas on other networks (which is far more potent within this community than anywhere else), Men of a Certain Age has to overcome the fact that Ray Romano is anything but beloved by a large swath of the population.

In many of my conversations with Todd VanDerWerff, he has gone on the record as a defender of Everybody Loves Raymond, even placing it quite high on TV on the Internet’s list of the Top Comedies of the decade. And there’s every possibility that he’s right, that the show has many redeeming qualities and was at its best a fine piece of comedy, but I am part of a generation who wants nothing to do with Everybody Loves Raymond. It’s a generation that found The Office (both of them, in fact) and Arrested Development at the same time Romano was dominating the sitcom game, and it’s the same generation that sees Raymond as the spiritual predecessor of Two and a Half Men (even if that comparison is not fair considering how different the two shows really are).

It’s a generation that has associated Romano with “unfunny,” which is perhaps an unfair label but one that from my limited exposure to Everybody Loves Raymond is something I would probably have conceded as of a few months ago. At some point, it became a general consensus that Ray Romano was neither talented as a writer or as an actor, not based on any empirical evidence but rather based on a cultural backlash against a show which unfortunately bears his name (I’d contend that if his character had been named something other than Ray, he might not be as maligned as he is today – ditto for the overly bold claim in the show’s title inspiring contrarianism). And while the show will always have its fans amongst those who watched it, those who avoided it have made it a point to pre-judge anything Romano does…which, if you think about it, is only Men of a Certain Age, which is now bearing the brunt of the pent-up anger at the show which everybody, it seems, does not love after all.

So while The Good Wife deserves credit for transcending expectations for CBS shows to fall into procedural traps and fail to present an accurate depiction of characters or a nuanced portrayal of the legal profession, Men of a Certain Age deserves even more credit for Romano’s confident and subtle negotiation of his reputation. Joe, as a character, is a flawed man struggling with a pending divorce and a gambling addiction that sustains him during the separation even while he acknowledges it was likely its cause. It is a character crippled by bouts of anxiety, terrified of the same problem tormenting his teenage son, and so unwilling to accept his divorce that he’s been living in a hotel for months. It is a character that could easily be the star of a sitcom if played solely for comedy, which is what makes the subtlety on display in both the writing and Romano’s performance so much more impressive and, perhaps more importantly, contrary to our expectations.

The show loves to zig when we expect it to zag, both in Joe’s character (in terms of our expectations that Romano will fall into “unfunny” territory) and in Scott Bakula’s Terry, who seems like a sitcom waiting to happen on paper until each of his stories seems to resolve itself with a realization that he may not be the guy he wants people to see him as. Terry is perhaps the show’s weak link, which is less a comment on Bakula’s performance and more on the fact that Terry is the show’s broadest character (washed up former actor who womanizes while working as a temp) and thus seems the most forced in terms of emphasizing the show’s theme of confronting the realities of middle age. There can only be so many role-playing scenarios and red light decisions before the character needs to start changing his lifestyle, and because Bakula is alone in those stories they have a tendency to seem repetitive.

But at the heart of this show is Andre Braugher’s Owen, which is both an enormously well-written character and a great piece of both casting and acting. Braugher has a presence which implies power and authority, and yet he has absolutely none: he is a man with a college degree working for his father’s car dealership as a low-level salesman at a very late age to be struggling to gain his father’s respect. It’s a situation one normally associates with younger characters (those just starting their lives and feeling as if their decisions are driven out of a desire to gain their parents’ approval), which helps present another great bit of playing against our expectations. Braugher’s intimidating size has become a symptom of diabetes and the overeating which seems to be its root cause, and his age has become a source of disappointment rather than knowledge or observation.

The show excels, however, in taking these characters and their mid-life disappointment and managing to find both humour and humanity in their situations. Braugher is getting the show’s best material as Owen, balancing a demanding (and loving) wife with a job that he wants to love (as seen in the episode where he decided he wanted to make people happy by offering them great deals) but that he’s only keeping because he needs the money to support his family and feels he needs to prove his father wrong. And the show works because it not only finds the humour in his situation, but it also allows him to find the same humour – the show’s characters are not entirely delusional, more resistant than ignorant, and it’s given the show an ideal viewpoint into this particular stage in a man’s life. These men are acutely aware of the period of transition they find themselves in, and the show works because that awareness resists both parody and melodrama to deliver something which feels honest first and foremost.

Perhaps Romano’s problem is that he keeps creating shows with titles designed for snarky responses: everybody did not, in fact, love Raymond, and a some people who aren’t of a “certain” age might resist a show which seems to limit its audience in its title. But as someone who may well be amongst the youngest people watching the show, I appreciate it because it goes beyond its premise to deliver a drama series which is unafraid to confront reality at a realistic pace: scenes which could be large confrontations become awkward conversations, and scenes which could be melodramatic arguments become small actions which speak louder than words. The show is like the middle-aged Entourage, where a group of guys hanging out and spending time with one another is surrounded by a culture of uncertainty and change as opposed to fame and opulence – and while it might make me criminally unhip with my own generation, I’d much rather hang out with Joe, Terry and Owen than with Vince, Eric and Drama, Ray Romano notwithstanding.

And, well, I didn’t expect that.

Cultural Observations

• The show’s ratings haven’t been particularly great, and TNT is setting the show up to fall by offering it a Closer lead-in for December and then abandoning it on its own. I really hope that the show can stabilize and find an audience, because there’s some great stuff going on here.
• The show’s proven very effective at constructing worlds around each character that sustain them on their own (Joe’s bookie, Owen’s wife, Terry’s job), and the real test will be how those worlds begin to collide. Last week’s episode, where Owen had to learn that Joe’s wife has been seeing someone else for over a year, was a nice piece of subtle connection in that it was never played as explosive or volatile, but then Terry’s involvement in the story (serving as auctioneer) felt like a distraction by comparison. It’s a tough balance to be able to handle, so I’ll be curious to see how it goes in the weeks ahead.
• I’ll let NeoGAF user chalkitdown1 close us out with his thoughts on the show: “I f**king love it. And this is from someone who usually hates anything with Ray Romano’s name all over it.” I bet TNT never thought they’d get that review.

Every now and then I’m reminded that I’m not 27 anymore.  Or 37.  Or 47.  (We’ll stop there.)

Today that came in triplicate, starting with Courant rock critic Eric Danton’s top ten albums of the year.   Of the 10 albums, I’ve only heard of 3 of the artists, never mind their music.  Today I am my father.

Then I saw the obituaries of two of my babysitters, staples of ’50s and ’60s television.

Alan Young & Connie Hines

Connie Hines played Carol, Wilbur Post’s wife on “Mr. Ed.”  Did any actor have less to do on any program than she did?  Co-star Alan Young remembers:  “She was a girl married to a fellow listening to a horse. Her biggest line was ‘lunch is ready.’”  But we remember her, which is the ultimate compliment.

Top Cat & Arnold Stang

And we remember Arnold Stang.  He co-starred with Sinatra in Otto Preminger’s “The Man With The Golden Arm.”  But we remember him as the voice of “Top Cat.”  And we remember him even better as the nerdy guy who told us you have to, “Open wide for Chunky.”

These reminders come a couple of days after I saw TNT’s new drama, “Men of A Certain Age.” We men of a certain age are not the most heavily-pursued demographic by advertisers, so there must be a wider audience for this program.  And there is.

Braugher, Romano, Bakula

Ray Romano can actually act.  Scott Bakula is a reliable and amiable presence.  And Andre Braugher lends the gravitas that the others can’t.  While their characters’ circumstances are not mine, I did sit there and relate to their aches and pains, and their concerns as they cross the threshold into “late youth.”  I will watch this show.

And you know what?  This “certain age?”  It’s not so bad.  As a matter of fact, it’s never been better.

What Alan Watching?: Men of a Certain Age review – Sepinwall on TV
Im sure its tempting to look at the cast of Men of a Certain Age a new series Romano created with fellow Raymond writer Mike Royce about three friends in their late 40s and say Romano has no business acting in a drama opposite …

Men of a Certain Age With Ray Romano, Co-Creator Mike Royce …
Mike Royce talks about Men of a Certain Age, the new show he co-created with Ray Romano.

Men Of A Certain Age
Latest News updates Men Of A Certain Age ray romano, scott bakula, men of a certain age tnt, ray romano new show, scott bakula imdb Ray Romano is follow…

Review: Men of a Certain Age – Pilot (series premiere) – TV Squad
Ray Romano joined forced with one of his Everybody Loves Raymond cohorts, Mike Royce, to write and develop Men of a Certain Age. As if that wasnt a strong enough pedigree, he got the likes of Andre Braugher and Scott Bakula to join him …

Men.Of.A.Certain.Age.S01E01.HDTV.XviD-RED Men.Of.A.Certain.Age …
XviD-RED Men.Of.A.Certain.Age.S01E01.720p.HDTV.x264-RED torrents, subtitles, samples, NFO, quality, free download, links, Rapidshare, megaupload, megashare, netload, filefactory, keygen, crack, serial, game requirements or anything …

TV Tonight: Men of a Certain Age – Tuned In – TIME.com
I took some ribbing from some female associates when I reviewed The Good Wife earlier this season and said the show turned out to be much, much better than I thought it would be.

TNT Men of a Certain Age debuting Dec. 7: Interviews with Ray …<br/>
Atlanta-based TNT has had its biggest success with dramas featuring doctors, lawyers and cops, be it repeats of Law Order or originals such as The.

On TV: Men of a Certain Age | Movieline
TNT knows its demographic: the older male whos been ditching Holly Hunters chump-snapping thighs for the USA network. In an attempt to reclaim some over-40 glory, Ted Turners channel premieres its garishly titled dramedy Men of a …

What Alan Watching?: Men of a Certain Age, Pilot: A crease too far
I reviewed TNTs Men of a Certain Age in this mornings column, so go read that if you havent already, and then I have a few specific thoughts on the pilot coming up just as soon as I dick around with karma. …

Do most atheists accept unfounded theories of Earths age and evolution to argue with the Bible?
one of my associates is 18 and has started dating a 38 year old man. He oldest child is a year or two older than her. They met while working in the school system ( i think they were both janitors) theyve been together for like two weeks and she seems to be happy. She recently got out a three month relationship last month, and has started having unprotected sex with the 38 year old man. Everytime she gets with a guy she wants to have a baby, but this man already has like 3 kids and he doesnt want a child right now, he told her he wants her to get on birth control. But he had unprotected sex with her. She thought she was pregnant becasue her period didnt come on in November but it came on in December. I think she might have a std and I think she needs to be careful. He doesnt want a child with her, and this makes the third person I know about her having unprotected sex with (and they havent even been together a good 6 months). Sometimes I want to give her advice and tell her that she shouldnt get so wrapped around guys, but she will get mad and think Im judging her. So I have to listen to her when she calls and it gets annoying. He took her to golden corral and that really got her in love( thats a buffet restaurant). When Im 38 I dont see how I could be interested in someone around the same age as my youngest child, and still living with there parent. The reason I dont think he could be interested in her is because my ex-associate was 18 and went with a 33 year old married man and he kept saying he would leave his wife, she slept with him and hes with his wife to this day. That was a year ago and I dont even think they still talk. Is this man really intested in her or is he using her? Girls let things like dates and money being put on there cell phones(minutes) go to there heads, but guys that much older are so much more mature than them, and know how to easily persuade them to think a certain way.

Can he be serious about her?
I have Aspergers Syndrome( a certain form of mild autism). I am in 8th grade and am 13 and will be 14 on January 2nd. A lot of the time I have anxiety over schoolwork and me making friends, etc. I started taking pills, though. Those pills have SOMEWHAT helped my anxiety. It seems like ever since I turned 13 me and my family members have been getting into on and off fights about serious subjects. Those usually have to do with me wanting to act like my brother and sister, though. My sister is 16 and in 11th grade and my brother is 18 and about to start college.
For my sister, she dates and the problem is that the people in my school date and I dont know if I want to start dating to. I also dont know whether or not I want to have sex yet, just to try it out. My aunt says that its immature of me to want to have sex at this age and that I should wait until a few years after college when Im actually in love. My mom tells me to masturbate in the shower, but it doesnt seem to work and its not the same. I havent even kissed for the first time yet.
As for my brother, its just as serious. He thinks that I should already know what I want to do with the rest of my life. He also thinks that I rely to much on others. I also think that it seems like hes a young man and Im just a boy.
I also have problems with my understanding of the world in general. I am a Christian. I go to this thing called C-groups that my church has. But still, the things of the world that I dont understand is that their is so much gratutious sex, rape, slavery, starvation, etc. Sometimes I think that if I was God I would make the world end because the world doesnt deserve to exist if the world would let itself come to this.
Another subject is with my parents. I dont know whether or not they still have sex and I think that I have a RIGHT to know whether or not they have sex. Also, Im worried that my mom could lose her job.
The second to last subject is maturity. I have no idea what that word really means because everyone else has a different opinion. I think that making sex jokes and drug jokes are immature, so I dont make jokes about them. But people keep saying to me, including the counselors I go to, that its immature that I obsess and stress out about sex.
The last subject is my self worth. Im pretty good at playing my violin and I get mostly As and maybe a B here and there in school.
I just dont know what to do with my life. And I have no idea whether or not I am growing up too fast. How am I suppose to get and see past all of this?
I know that this question might have a lot of rambling in it, but I couldnt find a way to organize it anymore.I have no priest because I go to a normal Christian church and I live in California.
Also, I do have attractions to people. There are a couple people at the school I go to that have a crush on me, and Im flattered by that. I just am not sure if I want to date them.

How am I suppose to get past this?
****If youre not going to read this, dont bother on answering. I consider it spamming.*****

Get ready for a long reading because I have a lot to say to unbelievers and believers a like. Both negative and positive statements to each side.

Let me just start off by saying, that I personally am a 17 year old atheist; raised Baptist until the age of 15. I do good things because I enjoy helping people even if its small things such as giving a few bucks to a homeless person so he could eat a meal for the day or helping a friend with a loss; I strive to become a doctor. And if Im going to hell for not believing in a certain Deity, at least Ill be happy roasting knowing I did some good in my earthly life.

Now that thats over, lets continue. The more Im on R&S , the more it seems like an internet war between atheists and Christians. The only time I see Muslims/Pagans/Wiccans post a question is when theyre asking for help with their OWN religion which the question is then swarmed by atheists making witty (sarcasm there if you didnt know) jokes about there not being a God; or by Christians trying to convert them. And Im not generalizing or saying that everyone does this, but I have seen a lot of it around here and its sickening.

Atheists let me lecture you for a minute on this subject; you dont have to ridicule them about it. Im pretty sure most of us atheists believe religions death is detrimental to the advancement of the human race, but the more you ridicule someone about how their beliefs are wrong, the more their heart hardens to change. Let them discover their own journey to atheism they way we did. The witty jokes need to stop and even to Christians. If the question isnt addressed to you, answer honestly or dont answer at all. Another thing that bugs me is you guys are just WAITING to jump on someone to correct them. Like someone trying to call atheism a kind of organization, which is then followed by 17-18 atheists screaming that its a disbelief in God. Yes, Im sure everyone knows its a disbelief in God, thats why its called A – THEISM. Let me finish off on this note for atheists; just because someone has a belief in a deity, doesnt mean its an excuse to ridicule their beliefs/faith. Flying Spaghetti Monster be with you guys.

Christians, its your turn now. I dont know about most of you, but the times I went to church, our church constantly encouraged us to spread our faith. Think about this for a minute, a real good long minute. A lot of people find it offensive or plain annoying (I dont really mind one way or another) when their questions about their own beliefs are bombarded by things such as Allah isnt the one you need, start praying for Jesus love and maybe youll find results or Wicca is dark stuff honey. Dont let the devil grasp you. Pray to Jesus. (And yes, those are real answers Ive seen). Like I said earlier, Im not generalizing, but if its not directed to you or your faith; 90% of the time you shouldnt answer at all because Im pretty sure your God doesnt really care how many points you have on Yahoo Answers. The point is, keep your faith to yourself. Whatever has happened to you in your life thats convinced you of Gods existence is yours and yours alone and should be kept that way. Jesus/Yahweh be with you guys.

Muslims; I really dont see many Muslims harassing R&S which has also shown that Islam sometimes is a religion of peace besides all the extremists attitudes. But this is only what I have seen so I dont know the full story. Allah be with you guys.

Now back onto the topic of the advancement of the human race. I believe unity of different beliefs/races should be established before (remember Im an atheist and I really dont mean to offend anyone here) religions downfall. Instead of ridiculing each other, why dont we at least try to be kind to each other. Im sure everyone has heard the quote United we stand, divided we fall.? Yeah, lets get working on that guys.

Even though were just a very small online community, were people of all kinds of different faiths, but the one thing we all have in common is were all just human beings and should be treated as such: Respect, Honesty, and Friendliness. The one thing I believe the Bible got right: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 7:1

Have a good day everyone.@Dass: Oops, forgot to change it.

@ large block of texts: Thats not spamming, thats using an argument to prove my point.

Spiritually speaking, What do you think about my observation?
hey, I know last night was tough for you with you getting the same old stick from your parents every so often and i guess thats down to me. On top of all that i have been distant with you the last 48 hours, i havnt been feeling myself and thats not due to anything but my soul feelings. I prayed for you last night, i can clearly see that i dont make you truelly happy wether its our age. circumstances or our personal problems im not sure. I want to see you happy with or without me, i dont wana be dead meat u drag along and worry about so i am going to look aftermyself then look after you in time if your still by me. I need to change my whole mind-set. certain words u said to me have been haunting me at night, i will never be considerd a girl in a relationship.. if thats all u see in me and u always stress how u need a real man then we cant be anymore, never will another girl that crosses my path think of me in that way. I want to make things right with you cause your the love of my life and its a shame i cant keep you satisfied nd happy in all aspects of life. i will blame myself if we end but neither of us shall drown on it but learn from it. I want u for a life time. i hope ur feeling better today

My boyfriend sent me this after me breaking down last night, he acts really distant , doesnt give me presents or anything and doesnt appriciate when i give it to him. Its like i give him 90% love and he gives me 10%. I dont know what to reply back to this email… it seems like he thinks we should break up but still wants to be with me……. weve been together for about 3 years, and im constantly unhapy and crying to him cos i feel he doesnt show me enough, doesnt treat me like a princess and just acts distance… what should i reply?

what should i reply back to my boyfriend?
How do you utilize this cheat? It doesnt work for me, I try to sell the Blood Dragon Armor yet nothing happens. Is there a certain part where the cheat can be used? I am a little past Redcliff. Man cmon! I need this!

Dragon Age Origins: Money Cheat (Xbox 360)?
The one from men of a certain age? I wish that i knew what i know now when i was younger

whats the song called?
In this essay, I will explain why the phrase thats what she said is neither funny nor mature. To start with, I will talk about what the phrase actually means, and about its origins.

The phrase is a joke used after certain phrases, which could be perceived as innuendos, euphemisms and double entendres, to change their meaning. For example, one might say thats what she said after another had said that was amazing, or make sure its really hard, where the phrase thats what she said would change the meaning of the other sentences from a perfectly innocent meaning, to a meaning of a sexual nature. The she referenced in the phrase is proverbial, signifying, usually, a woman indulging in some kind of sexual activity (for instance, the first example I gave, that was amazing, could have been used to describe anything, from an enjoyable meal to a good film, but by saying thats what she said, it would now presumably mean she was saying that the sex she had just had was amazing). The joke is an American one, but is actually based on an old British joke, of a very similar nature, said the actress to the bishop, which means pretty much the same thing, but was used much earlier, possibly as early as Edwardian Times*. The phrase thats what she said as it is used now was most likely first used in the American comedy film Waynes World, which was made in 1992, and also popularised the phrase. It is now commonly used in mainstream American Sitcoms, such as the American version of Ricky Gervais The Office, Scrubs and Two and a Half Men, and also by immature adolescent teenagers, in both America and Britain in social situations, or at school.

Due to its aforementioned common use in mainstream comedy in the USA, the phrase is now extremely well known and popular, and it is, as I said, most commonly used among teenagers, as is another popular joke, the your mum insult. The phrases popularity is demonstrated in particular on the Internet; there are many groups and pages on the increasingly popular social-networking website, Facebook, lauding the joke, one of which has over 135,000 members worldwide, which although being less than a thousandth of the total amount of users on Facebook, is still an impressive amount. The phrase is, seemingly, so popular that if one types in the title of this essay, Why Thats What She Said is Both Unfunny and Immature, into Google, the popular internet-based search engine, virtually no relevant results are attained.

However, the phrases popularity does not, in fact, make it funny (similar to the way certain musical acts are popular, but really arent that great, e.g. Spice Girls). Many who are aware of the phrase actually think far to the contrary; that the joke is actually rather immature and unfunny. There are several reasons.

First (though not foremost), the joke has been used and overused so much that any humour that may have been gleaned from it when it was originally coined has vanished through overuse; it may have been funny before, but after repeated use, it has actually become rather annoying. Some, after almost every other sentence that leaves anothers lips, regardless of relevance, and at times literally for the purpose of being annoying, use the phrase. After repeated hearings and usage of the phrase, it becomes apparent that the punch line is actually rather feeble, and not as funny as one may originally think.
Another flaw in the joke is that saying thats what she said actually requires very little wit indeed, as anyone can insert the phrase at the end of a sentence in the hope of a cheap laugh, and, equally, anyone can think up sentences with which they think may easily set up this joke. This detracts from any impact or originality the joke may have once had, and so firmly places it in the category of unfunny jokes which contains the likes of the aforementioned your mum phrase, and maybe even puts on a level with sarcasm, which many consider the lowest form of wit.

The age group of the target audience, and those who generally use the phrase outside of television programs and the media, so primarily youths and adolescents hungry for cheap humour, and with little regard for true wit, also demonstrates how immature the joke is. At the age of about twelve to about eighteen, an age where one is just mature enough to comprehend jokes of a sexual nature, and adult humour in general, but still immature enough to be unrestrained in their use of them, many use jokes like this just because they provide a cheap laugh, and because its to do with sex, which they find, for some perverse reason, amusing. One with a more mature and refined sense of humour (so, ironically, the adults the humour was initially intended for, at least publicly) would probably not find the joke, or others of its nature, funny in the slightest.

Last, but most certainly not least, the joke could be seen as crass, or, indeed, downright offensive and sexi

What do you think of my thats what she said essay?
13. In I heard a Fly buzzwhen I died, why is there a stillness in the room?
(1 point)
The people in the room have stopped talking in order to listen to the fly.
The people in the room are waiting for the speaker to make her will.
The people in the room are waiting for the speakers final moment.
The storm outdoors has momentarily ceased its heaves.

14. In the following stanza from I heard a Fly buzzwhen I died, which words create slant rhyme?

I heard a Fly buzzwhen I died / The Stillness in the Room / Was like the Stillness in the Air / Between the Heaves of Storm
(1 point)
Air and Storm
Room and Storm
died and Room
died and Air

15. Which of the following images is the central image in Because I could not stop for Death?
(1 point)
a carriage ride
the horses heads
children playing
the setting sun

16. To which senses do the images in the stanza appeal?

Theres a certain Slant of light, / Winter Afternoons / That oppresses, like the Heft / Of Cathedral Tunes
(1 point)
sight, sound, and touch
sight, sound, and smell
sight, smell, and taste
sound, smell, and touch

17. Based on the following passage from the preface to the 1855 edition of Leaves of Grass, what can you infer about Whitmans attitude toward the past?

America does not repel the past or what it has produced under its forms or amid other politics or the idea of castes or the old religions accepts the lesson with calmness is not so impatient as has been supposed that the slough still sticks to opinions and manners and literature while the life which served its requirements has passed into the new life of the new forms.
(1 point)
Whitman does not think Americans have anything to learn from the past.
Whitman thinks Americans should study the past for its own sake.
Whitman wishes Americans would follow past traditions more carefully.
Whitman is pleased Americans learn from the past while making a new way of life.

18. What can you infer about the poets attitude from these lines in Song of Myself ?

These are really the thoughts of all men in all ages and lands, they are not original with me, / If they are not yours as much as mine they are nothing, or next to nothing .
(1 point)
Whitman is pleased to acknowledge that he borrowed ideas in Song of Myself from another poet.
Whitman believes that his observations are, in some sense, universally shared.
Whitman believes that he can predict what people who read his poetry in the future will think.
Whitman thinks that his poetry is worthless if readers disagree with him.

19. The phrase barbaric yawp in Song of Myself is an example of Whitmans
(1 point)
pessimism.
love of nature.
informality.
British roots as a poet.

20. Based on the details in Song of Myself and I Hear America Singing, what can you infer about Whitmans attitude toward other people?
(1 point)
He feels affectionate toward other people.
He does not like to be around people.
He is bossy and likes to control the people around him.
He thinks that most people are very foolish.
Vocabulary and Grammar

21. When the Devil says You shall extort bonds, what is the meaning of the word extort?
(1 point)
to write in legal language
to sell by auction
to break, unlink, or untie
to obtain by threat or violence

22. Which pair of words expresses a relationship that is most similar to the relationship of these words in capital letters?

SUN : RADIANT ::
(1 point)
warm : hot
glowing : moon
star : small
perfume : fragrant

23. Writers vary sentence lengths primarily to
(1 point)
increase the pleasure they take in writing.
sustain reader interest.
cut down on time spent in keyboarding.
maintain a steady, monotonous rhythm.

24. Which of these sentences contains an infinitive or an infinitive phrase used as a noun?
(1 point)
Thoreau went to the woods.
Thoreau wanted to live deliberately.
By simplifying his life, Thoreau concentrated on important ideas.
To simplify his life, Thoreau concentrated on important ideas.

25. How is the gerund used in the following sentence?

Rushing through the hall, Meena feared being late to class.
(1 point)
as the subject of the sentence
as the direct object of a verb
as a predicate nominative
as the object of a preposition

26. Which is the adjective clause in this sentence?

His reputation for a ready-moneyed man, who would lend money out for good consideration, soon spread abroad.
(1 point)
his reputation for a ready-moneyed man
for good consideration
who would lend money out for good consideration
soon spread abroad

27. Which words in this phrase are coordinate adjectives?

And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
(1 point)
silken and sad only
sad and uncertain only
silken, sad, and uncertain only
silken, sad, uncertain, and purple

Connections Academy????????????
I know—My fiance who is 22 yrs older than me, who has been so perfect, and Ive been divorced waiting for the wonderful guy like him before marrying to come into my life, and then he came and he is wonderful, but now Im not so sure. Yes, hes older, retired, but still works, but doesnt make much money, so Im not in it for the money, I make more than him, but have bad credit and have defaulted on student loans which have been discharged, because I went on disability due to a life and death car accident years ago, but still have the interest. But he kept telling me when I asked about setting the date for our wedding, which by the way, he was the one, not me that wanted to get engaged so quickly, well, we have been dating a year and half, but all of a sudden my girls dad and me were finally on good terms and talking and then he wants to get engaged, and I hesitated after being on my own for 20 yrs, but took the plunge and then now he wont set the date. Kept making excuses his son needed to finish his house, who is a grown man, then little things came out, like you have the school loans, interest, your kids need to get into grad school and graduate, they are seniors, his house, which I told him I wouldnt live in that we needed to start fresh as his wife of thirty something years died there and also still has pictures up and wont take down, and he says its for his son, whom comes home twice a year, lives in another state, right. Plus, the neighborhood is going down fast, not safe, I just refuse to live there, and I live and work where I live so its kinda cramped for the two of us, took this job when my kids went to college. So, now Im starting to get kinda mad, hes making things up, because hes trying to save the house for his son, the money he has in savings for his son, oh yeah, he also said, since Ive met you, Ive spent over 10,000 dollars, which Im like it hasnt been on me, I picked the engagement ring out and picked a small one out Im kinda embarrassed of as he said not to spend much and gave me a certain amount I could spend, I mean I love it, but I would have rather had a really nice one like I had when I married my girls dad and we had nothing back then. Then I go tell him lets get married Christmas, he says thats too soon, so his kids could be there, he also has a daughter one yr younger than me by another wife,whom he isnt even thinking about her in his will, so they would be there as he has said, his family wont be there as they dont put much into marraige after the first, and I said what, your kids wont be there, its a big deal for me, after 20 yrs waiting, to find someone, I mean Ive been engaged before, but found out it wasnt right and just knew he was wonderful, my family loves him, my children love him, hes so nice, he puts me up on a pedestool, but now little things are coming out, and he doesnt realize that I pay attention to what he says and remember them, and its just building inside me, and Im about to the point I think Im going to set him down and say, you know you said, its YOUR house, your worried about my school loans, you want to wait for my kids to graduate grad school, which will be 4-5 years from now, drs, and lawyers, his kids are a housekeeper and cant figure out what his son does yet but feeds horses, and gets paid under the table, at least my kids are going places, hes 67, Im 46, dont look my age, could get a 30 something if I wanted, and he wants me to wait. I told him Im not waiting to marry a 70 yr old, and get this, he keeps telling me Im, meaning him..am fit as a fiddle, dr.says Im going to live to be a hundred, my family we dont get sick and die, we just have heart attacks and die, but you, meaning me probably will go before me. He also has said, Im going to get a policy on you in case something happens and put it in my name and then your girls in case something happens to you, talking like a 10,000 so it wont be a burden on me or the girls if something happens to you. That gave me the creeps. Am I being naive, or is he just trying to keep me around so no one else can have me. He has always been the controller in his family, and one thing he knows he cant do with me, and I will tell him in a heart beat, I just have to make sure Im right, I will tell him the way it is, Im too independent, not like his wife he had that depended on him for everything, which I dont depend on him for anything and told him I plan on staying that way. He wants me to give up my married name when we marry, and I told him I will still carry that name because of my children but add his to the end but wont cut it off, he didnt like that either. Hes not used to a woman telling him things, but he doesnt get angry, Ill give him that..so am I being used, taken, what? What should I do, because Im starting to get angry and call this whole thing off and dont want to do something stupid. I usually am not the type of person to get angry, I

Learned fiance has been lying 2 me as to why he wont set the date for our wedd ng though he doesnt know?
Genesis 34:9
And make marriages with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters to yourselves.
Genesis 34:8-10 (in Context) Genesis 34 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 21:10
If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights.
Exodus 21:9-11 (in Context) Exodus 21 (Whole Chapter)
Numbers 36:1
[ Marriage of Female Heirs ] Now the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near and spoke before Moses and before the leaders, the chief fathers of the children of Israel.
Numbers 36:1-3 (in Context) Numbers 36 (Whole Chapter)
Deuteronomy 7:3
Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son.
Deuteronomy 7:2-4 (in Context) Deuteronomy 7 (Whole Chapter)
Deuteronomy 25:5
[ Marriage Duty of the Surviving Brother ] If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husbands brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husbands brother to her.
Deuteronomy 25:4-6 (in Context) Deuteronomy 25 (Whole Chapter)
Joshua 23:12
Or else, if indeed you do go back, and cling to the remnant of these nationsthese that remain among youand make marriages with them, and go in to them and they to you,
Joshua 23:11-13 (in Context) Joshua 23 (Whole Chapter)
Judges 12:9
He had thirty sons. And he gave away thirty daughters in marriage, and brought in thirty daughters from elsewhere for his sons. He judged Israel seven years.
Judges 12:8-10 (in Context) Judges 12 (Whole Chapter)
2 Chronicles 18:1
[ Micaiah Warns Ahab ] Jehoshaphat had riches and honor in abundance; and by marriage he allied himself with Ahab.
2 Chronicles 18:1-3 (in Context) 2 Chronicles 18 (Whole Chapter)
Ezra 9:14
should we again break Your commandments, and join in marriage with the people committing these abominations? Would You not be angry with us until You had consumed us, so that there would be no remnant or survivor?
Ezra 9:13-15 (in Context) Ezra 9 (Whole Chapter)
Ezra 10:1
[ Confession of Improper Marriages ] Now while Ezra was praying, and while he was confessing, weeping, and bowing down before the house of God, a very large assembly of men, women, and children gathered to him from Israel; for the people wept very bitterly.
Ezra 10:1-3 (in Context) Ezra 10 (Whole Chapter)
Psalm 78:63
The fire consumed their young men,And their maidens were not given in marriage.
Psalm 78:62-64 (in Context) Psalm 78 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 5:31
[ Marriage Is Sacred and Binding ] Furthermore it has been said, Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.
Matthew 5:30-32 (in Context) Matthew 5 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 19:1
[ Marriage and Divorce ] Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.
Matthew 19:1-3 (in Context) Matthew 19 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 22:2
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son,
Matthew 22:1-3 (in Context) Matthew 22 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
Matthew 22:29-31 (in Context) Matthew 22 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 24:38
For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
Matthew 24:37-39 (in Context) Matthew 24 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 10:1
[ Marriage and Divorce ] Then He arose from there and came to the region of Judea by the other side of the Jordan. And multitudes gathered to Him again, and as He was accustomed, He taught them again.
Mark 10:1-3 (in Context) Mark 10 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 12:25
For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Mark 12:24-26 (in Context) Mark 12 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 17:27
They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:26-28 (in Context) Luke 17 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 20:34
Jesus answered and said to them, The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage.
Luke 20:33-35 (in Context) Luke 20 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 20:35
But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;
Luke 20:34-36 (in Context) Luke 20 (Whole Chapter)
1 Corinthians 7:1
[ Principles of Marriage ] Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1 Corinthians 7:1-3 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 7 (Whole Chapter)
1 Corinthians 7:10
[ Keep Your Marriage Vows ] Now to the married I command, yet

Ray Romano, Scott Bakula, TNT, Owen, Andre Braugher, TV show, Photo Gallery, Facebook, Episode Guide, characters, television series, handsome actor, pilot, neurotic, Terry Elliott, Elbow Room Leeds

I was letdown last night. I had looked forward with great anticipation to the new TNT television show Men of a Certain Age.  I had look forward to this show becuase I am  a man of a certain age.  I also looked forward to it because of the actors. I was hooked on Homicide: Life in the Street, where Andre Braugher was powerful and commanding. I did not watch the Scott Bakula series Quantam Leap, but did enjoy Necessary Roughness and other films he was in. I have never watched Everybody Loves Raymond, but had heard that everyone did indeed love the show. So I eagerly awaited a show with three great actors, about 3 men who were in the same stages of life as I am, or so I thought.

What let me down the most, I guess, was the plot line. Here were three middle-aged men. Braugher is 48 and still trying to please his father. He is happily married, (and for that I am thankful) a father of two small boys (why a 48 y/o has children that young, we are not told. I am 44 and have 19; 15; and 12 y/o), diabetic, and severly out of shape. Ramano is seperated from his wife, can’t communicate with her or his two children, both teenagers, and can’t stop looking at the ladies. Bakula is an aging, skirt chasing, out of work actor, who is either divorced or never married, we are not told which. He eventually asks the college girl in the coffee shop for a date at the end of the show.

Are all middle-aged men this pathetic? Is every family out there dysfunctional? Is  TNT trying to imitate life with art? Thankfully no. Many of the men I know my age are good, faithful husbands, are able to communicate with their children, and have good relationships with their parents. Why can’t TNT, or any other network, show the good side of being middle-aged: the maturity, the security of a good marriage, the delights of having good relationships with your parents and children? Did the desire to see/produce this in a show go out with the Cosby Show? Are these things so scarce in our society that they seem odd; or in our day of “Reality” shows, are they too dull for network tv?

There were some redeeming moments in the show. Ramano does quit gambling and pays off his bookie. Braugher does start to get into shape (although that causes him a diabetic attack) and show some aggression on the showroom floor of his father’s car dealership. Bakula does go and audition for a part that he turned down beforehand because of pride.

I hope that this is not art imitating life for all the middle-aged men out there. I hope the show gets better. I am getting tired of NCIS reruns.

Each of the actors in Men of a Certain Age have had notable career sucess on their own. So my hopes for the new TNT original series were admittedly high with Ray Romano (Everybody Loves Raymond), Andre Braugher (Homicide: Life on the Street) and Scott Bakula (Quantum Leap) teaming up for this men’s mid life dramedy about three longtime friends.

Braugher plays Owen, a car salesman working at his dad’s car dealership. Romano is Joe, a separated dad with a gambling problem who runs a party supply store. And Bakula is Terry, a playboy and out of work actor.

Sadly the most interesting part of Men of a Certain Age was the press screener packaging that the thumbdrive (complete with rock mix tape) arrived in.

I lost interest in episode one (after sitting through a predictable roadkill scene) and while that was the only episode provided to me I didnt think I’d necessarily give Men of a Certain Age a second try unless episode two aired while the other shows I usually watched on Mondays were in repeats.

Men of a Certain Age needs better material for these three fine actors.

Men of a Certain Age premieres tonight on TNT at 10 PM EST. I wasn’t a fan of what I watched in the first episode but you be able to watch a few episodes before you decide.

Starts tonight! TNT at 10pm! (11 here in AZ) Can’t wait! Or rather, will tape; can’t wait until tomorrow!

(Your fault, TNT, for scheduling it so late!)

[ shortlink: http://wp.me/paweu-45X ]

WORD

popinjay [pop-in-jey] n. 1. a person given to vain, pretentious displays and empty chatter; coxcomb; fop 2. British Dialect. a woodpecker, esp. the green woodpecker 3. Archaic. the figure of a parrot usually fixed on a pole and used as a target in archery and gun shooting 4. Archaic. a parrot

BIRTHDAY

Richard Sears (1863), Louis Prima (1910), Eli Wallach (1915), Ted Knight (1923), Noam Chomsky (1928), Ellen Burstyn (1932), Harry Chapin (1942), Johnny Bench (1947), Tom Waits (1949), Priscilla Barnes (1955), Larry Bird (1956), Tim Butler (1958), Rick Rude (1958), Peter Laviolette (1964), C. Thomas Howell (1966), Terrell Owens (1973), Damien Rice (1973)

STANDPOINT

Today, instead of spouting off about this thing or that, I’m putting the ball in your court.

I’ve been considering a particular scenario. I’ve proposed it to a few of my close friends and they all agree it’s an interesting situation to ponder. So I thought I’d offer it all of you.

Here it is: Due to some kind of crazy set of circumstances, you find yourself in a room with nine strangers. A man (or woman) enters the room and delivers the following set of instructions:

1. Everyone in the room will be granted five picks. Each pick will be a particular music act you can completely remove from the face of the Earth, including any memory of their existence.

2. However, there’s a possibility one of the other nine in the room could choose to obliterate a music act you hold near and dear. So, instead of using all your picks to erase music acts you despise, you’re free to use some, or all, of them to protect music acts you feel you can’t live without.

Here’s what I’m wondering: When confronted with this kind of choice, do you opt to banish or preserve? Would you see to it you never again hear the music you hate the most? Or would you safeguard the music you love the most?

Think about it. I’m still unsure of what I’d do.

QUOTATION

I think you should be a child for as long as you can. I have been successful for 74 years being able to do that. Don’t rush into adulthood, it isn’t all that much fun. → Bob Newhart

TUNE

 So this past Saturday night, I’m hanging out with my kind of people, meaning a bunch of people who know a lot about good music. I was playing some stuff off of my iTunes and Pete Townshend’s “Let My Love Open The Door” comes on. All present agreed it was a solid tune. I agreed but asked everyone how they felt about the slow version – “Let My Love Open The Door (E. Cola Mix)” – off the Grosse Pointe Blank soundtrack. No one had heard it before. Which I thought was weird but not altogether impossible. There’s a shitload of music out there.

GALLIMAUFRY

→ Dude. When it comes to hockey, I’m all for a guy dropping the gloves and participating in a little hand-to-hand combat to try to motivate his team. But Philadelphia Flyers’ winger, Daniel Carcillo, experienced a severe lack of judgement when he almost knocked out Washington Capitals’ winger, Matt Bradley, late in the first period. It was awfully stupid because (a) Bradley had barely shook off his gloves (if he did at all) before Carcillo popped him, (b) it was the first game for new Flyers’ coach Peter Laviolette (who’s probably half-heartedly celebrating his birthday today), and (c) he gave the Capitals an unheard of nine-minute power play that turned a close game into a 8-2 loss for his team. He’s been suspended for four games and with the Flyers currently in a mid-season freefall, I wouldn’t be surprised if we’d seen the last of “Car-Bomb.”

→ Looking for a new blog to follow? (Don’t answer that. I know you are.) Check out PhilaLawyer.net. Also, I’ve just started reading his book, Happy Hour Is For Amateurs. And you should, too.

→ Tonight, at 10pm, I’ll be watching the new TNT “serious comedy” Men of a Certain Age. Ray Romano, Scott Bakula and Andre Braugher. Yep, that’s pretty much all I need to become intrigued. Sad? No, not at all.  

When I first received the screener to Men of a Certain Age, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. I wasn’t a fan of Everybody Loves Raymond, but Ray Romano is clearly very talented. Romano and his creative team decided to do a darker comedy this time. Men of a Certain Age centers around a group of friends who have known each other for 30 years, and their lives, relationships and ups and downs. I was pleasantly surprised by the first few episodes. It’s darker than I would have expected, but the plot intrigues me enough to tune in for more. It has incredibly strong leads with different backgrounds in Andre Braugher (who is known for Homicide: Life On The Street) and Scott Bakula (who is known for Star Trek), and of course the aforementioned Romano. I recently had a chance participate in a Q&A with all three stars of the show. Here is what Andre Braugher (Owen) had to say about the show, being in a comedy, and getting into his character’s mindset.

What brought you to this particular show? 
Well you know I was – it was suggested to me that Ray and Mike were doing a single camera show and that there might be a role that I would be interested in and so I read the pilot script and thought it was terrific and thought that all of things that made “Everybody Loves Raymond” were still intact – “Everybody Loves Raymond” a hit were still intact you know what I mean? The carefully observed human comedy is there and I really dug this character and I dug the fact that you know he’s struggling for competence and not succeeding.  And then I said to myself I really want to be a part of this.  I mean there’s always you know I’ve always been interested in new challenges, but I’ve also always been interested in being an excellent comedian. And it takes really studying with a master you know to get a part of that and I so I felt like you know I got that with Ray.  I wanted to be a part of this show from the very beginning.  You know people were skeptical that you know either I was right or that I would be interested but from the very beginning I knew that I was both right and interested and that this thing will work out. And so it’s only a matter of working hard to convince people you know to let them know that this is going to work out for all of us.

You are known for your dramatic roles. Is being in a comedy a challenge?
Well you know it’s not all those things that I imagined you know when I first you know tried to wrap my head around comedy you know about timing and you know gags and which way do you look with your eyes and that sort of – I guess my new show it’s really about playing the emotional stakes of the scene for what’s there, you know what I mean?  Here’s a guy who wants to be very good. He wants to earn his father’s respect, you know what I mean?  But he’s falling short in every dimension, you know what I mean?  And absolutely love and adores and respects his father, but can’t get the kind of you know attention and respect that he wants, you know?  But I think I knew from the very beginning that it was about the – the fundamentally loving relationship was at the bottom of it. And that if I skipped over that, if I missed that, then I missed all the richness of the comedy, so the same thing that makes drama compelling is the same thing that makes comedy compelling which is to understand what the stakes are and to commit to them.

How do you personally relate to your character?
Well I mean in a lot of different ways.  I mean I’m involved in the same stuff that Owen is which is that you know I got two living parents and a bunch of wild boys at home and you know a wife and crazy co-workers and you know best friends and I love them all but they drive me absolutely up the wall, you know? And I think that’s the thing that everyone can relate to about these families is that, boy, they love each other to death but they’re driving each other absolutely crazy.  I mean Joe and Owen and Terry have known each other for 30 years and we give each other a lot of shit but – and we complain, you know what I mean?  But nobody ever changes, you know what I mean? We argue over the most ridiculous things but that’s how we relate and I think people can understand that and see that they’re quite truthful and well observed and consequently something that’s worth watching, you know what I’m saying?  This is true and these relationships have consequences, so I liked that about this show.

Do you have a group of friends like your character does?
Oh absolutely, guys that I’ve known since I was kid.  Yes.  We’re still tight, you know what I mean?  We pick right off where we left off you know.  We have the same complaints about the challenges that this stage of life has brought, you know?  We imagined you know that when we got to be this age we’d have it made but you know what that’s a fantasy, you know what I mean? We struggle at this age and we’re going to be struggling 20 years from now but that’s just life, period you know?  I find this show to be you know right on the mark in terms of what everybody’s trying to do and how frustrating it is and funny you know?  I mean we’re cry about it on Monday but we’re laughing about it on Friday and it’s just you know that’s how life is.  It’s good in that way.

What’s it like getting into your character’s mindset?
You know it’s not so different.  I mean all of these characters are struggling for competency you know and it’s true when you think about Ben Gideon and Frank Pembleton, I mean they’re hyper confident, without a doubt. But things are falling apart in other realms you know?  I think what (forms) all these characters is that everybody wants to have it all, you know what I mean?  And the farther we get in life is we realize you can’t have it all but you know that doesn’t stop us from struggling for it you know? So Owen is looking for professional competence, you know what I mean?  And he’s looking for respect, you know what I mean?  And he’s falling short of that sort of stuff, buy you know he’s obviously at loving relationships in every direction. I mean you know he’s got two best friends and you got to consider that to be the wealth of a lifetime to have two close friends in the course of a lifetime (that you’re) still seeing, you know what I mean?  A loving wife and healthy kids and – you know what I mean?  An overbearing father and all that sort of stuff and crazy co-workers, but that’s the way it goes. So I have to say I think all of these guys are basically struggling for the same thing, you know what I mean, which is to have it all.  And it wasn’t difficult to get into the mindset at all, you know what I mean?  What Mike Royce and Ray Romano had created here I think is a very specific kind of group of truthful relationships, and so consequently it’s easy to play and pretty straightforward.

And he’s going to get a win at some point?
Yes.  He’s going to sell more cars, you know what I mean?  He’s going to be forced to become a more competent car salesman, but you know it’s not a – there’s not a bed of roses, you know what I’m saying? So you know what I mean, I got a wife who knows it all, you know what I’m saying?  And a father who’s proven that he can do in one lifetime twice as much as I failed to do once you know what I’m saying?  And that’s a source of frustration, but you know there’s no doubt that I love all of these people you know what I mean?  And we’re going to make it work out. I mean that’s the thing about families.  I mean they’re – if we didn’t love them to death, we wouldn’t put up with that stuff you know.  We wouldn’t put up with that craziness.  And so that’s what it’s all about.

Be sure to tune in on Monday at 10 pm on TNT for the series premiere of Men of a Certain Age. TNT has some quality programming (see: The Closer), and I have hopes that this series will fit right in. Also, look out on Monday for my interviews with Scott Bakula and Ray Romano!

Entertainment Weekly sent me a nifty screener on a mixtape-shaped USB drive. Sadly, it only contained the first half of the pilot. Happily, it was a swift, immersive twenty minutes.

At first I had trouble shaking my Ray Barone image off creator Ray Romano’s potrayal of Joe, one of a trio of college buddies now staring middle age in the mirror. But once I let go of that, I was intrigued with these characters.

Joe and his wife are separated; he spends his days putting and playing classic rock on the jukebox at the party store he owns. Andre Braugher is Owen, married with children and heir apparent to his father’s car dealership. As Terry, Scott Bakula is beginning to resemble a live-action Muppet. Terry is a stock character from the perpetually single cad with no discernible career ambitions.

I am not as well-versed in TNT originals; it is sort of the basic-cable HBO to USA’s Showtime, if you were to ask my couch. It is surely quality programming, but I tend to be ambivalent about it. Men does a nice job of maintaining a mood through this first few acts. I’m curious to see where the pilot leads these characters, though I’m not sure how interested I’d be in watching every week. I’d be more comfortable committing to a limited series run, like the original plan for The Starter Wife. It’s a thoughtful approach, however, to a premise we’ve heard before. Perhaps this time, amid the flotsam and reruns of the broadcast holiday hiatus, it’ll take hold.

Men of a Certain Age premieres Monday, December 7 at 10p/9c on TNT.

So with nothing better to do today then to watch movies, I found PASSENGERS on Stars On Demand and OMG.. it was GREAT!

I know.. a movie I actually liked, right?

This one has a cast of great actors: Anne Hathaway, Patrick Wilson, Andre Braugher and David Morse to name a few.

Anne Hathaway is a therapist who is assigned to council a handful of plane crash survivors.

One survivor, Patrick Wilson, seems to be in deep denial and of course… being the little hottie that he is.. becomes more then just a patient :: wink wink :: ..

I’m not going to tell you anything more about the plot because there are twists :: some, ok, are a little far fetched :: and I really don’t want to spoil it if you get the opportunity to watch it.

A quick search on the internet looks like I’m probably the only one who actually LIKED this movie.. but I did.

Let me know if you do..

Passengers – Mistero ad altra quota è un film del 2008 interpretato da Anne Hathaway e Patrick Wilson, e diretto da Rodrigo Garcia.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Rodrigo García | Anne Hathaway | Patrick Wilson | Andre Braugher

I was coming downtown yesterday and saw an ad on top of a taxi for the new show, Men of a Certain Age, with Ray Romano, Scott Bakula, and Andre Braugher (who was just so good on House — you wish he could be a regular). Let’s put aside for the moment that my son has no memory of Quantum Leap….makes sense but still you forget how fleeting pop cultural is from generation to generation.

The date for the show is December 7th. So?  You know,  the date that “will live in infamy”.

Of course this is the day that our nation was brought into World War II with the attack on Pearl Harbor…but the meaning of that date seems to have been lost. It certainly wasn’t in the discussion at the marketing department at TNT.

Can you imagine a big show being launched on September 11th?

Even though I was an American History major–I didn’t understand the extreme upset when I told my parents and in-laws that my older son’s due date was going to be December 7th.  “Change it!” they all shouted at once.  It wasn’t until we lived through the horror of 9/11 in the nyc that I really understood their collective upset.  December 7th was a day that forever changed their childhoods.

I wonder how long it will be before September 11th fades as a “date” that makes us all sigh and remember where we were.

So?