No Time Like The Present

There is no time like the present. An old adage made popular by, among others, my father whenever he exhaustively tried to make me clean my room, do my homework, or generally anything else requiring me to turn off The Simpsons and actively participate in a normal lifestyle (though in retrospect, I feel The Simpsons had a far more significant impact on the course of my life than geometric proofs ever could). While my father’s intent was to make me get off my ass and do something productive, the phrase itself has vastly more philosophical implications than I feel he appreciated at the time, or perhaps he did, he has always been a lot smarter than me. Regardless, I am pretty certain that the basic philosophic principles were probably not the first things on his mind when he looked at the disaster zone known as my childhood bedroom. There truly is no time like the present. Never before has and never again will the present moment ever exist. This moment, this one right here, is now the past, and it will never happen again. The same is true for this one, and this one, etc. etc. One can and will never truly know what the future brings, and once it has past the proverbial “now” it can only be studied as history. Every moment that has ever existed is unlike every other moment and will, upon passing, never exist as anything more than a memory in the minds of the beholder. There is no time like the present because the present is unlike any other time.

This is why the song “She Blinded Me With Science” represents everything that was awful about the 1980’s. It is easy to mock the 80’s. We’ve all done it. It is easy to look back at the music, the fashion, the lifestyles, the Flock of Seagulls and laugh at ridiculousness of the culture. The sheer volume of 1980’s themed parties I've attended, comedic sitcoms, and parodies showcasing the most mockable 80’s stereotypes is staggering. It is easy to mock the past because it was a time that was unlike any other time before it and it is unlike any other time that would follow. Except that it is exactly like every time that has ever come before and it is exactly like every time that would and will follow. “She Blinded Me With Science” isn’t actually bad, embarrassing, annoying etc, it is simply 1980’s, and it was the 1980’s that was bad, embarrassing, annoying etc. “She Blinded Me With Science” is nothing more than a carbon footprint of everything that was wrong with the 1980’s.

But the 1980’s is, in a lot of ways, exactly like 2010. The only thing that really changes is, when you break it down, our vernacular. The 1980’s was not ridiculous because it was the 1980s. Instead the 1980s is ridiculous because the culture of 2010 is distinctly not the 1980’s. 2010 has evolved into something different, and our retrospective viewing of past culture makes for good comedy. Even though 2010 is a much different cultural atmosphere than 1980, in reality culture itself has not changed much at all. It brings with it its own music, fashion, lifestyles, politics, conflicts, and trends. While cultural high and low watermarks always vary, the concept of culture itself never will. Culture is constant, and culture is constantly changing.

Recently a close friend suggested that I download a particular current song which had been described to her as both “blazin” and “ballin.” My response was something to the effect of “I am pretty sure referring to a song as ‘blazin’ now is kind of like referring to a song as ‘rad’ in 1985.”

At the time this response was meant as a humorous way to impress the young lady by showcasing my rapier wit whilst deflecting a promise to listen to it without being insulting, but in the cold light of the next morning I started to actually think about my statement in the cultural sense, and realized that the implications of it extend far beyond just comic gold.

In case you weren’t aware, 2010 is the present year, but at one point in time, 1985 was the present. And, as we have already covered there is no time like the present, and that present had a distinct culture which was “rad” (for clarity’s sake, let’s assume “rad” is an abbreviation for radical even though much of the cultural advances of the time period could hardly be considered radical with a capital “R”). Much of the music in the 1980’s was rad because rad was the style. “She Blinded me With Science,” Bon Jovi’s “Livin on a Prayer,” Duran Duran’s “Hungry Like the Wolf,” Van Halen’s “Jump” all songs that could be and likely were described as rad in the 1980’s, but are no longer described as rad today. We, as a society, no longer say the word rad as a synonym of cool, good, entertaining, and/or emotionally relevant. The problem is that the songs are still rad. They will always be rad. From the moment they were recorded until the moment the final copy of the final recording is destroyed, those songs are rad. Always and forever rad. The fact that the cultural vernacular has changed has exactly zero effect on the historical significance of popular music.

Music is defined by culture, and, in many ways, culture is defined by music. Much of the music of the 1980’s was rad because the culture of the 1980’s was rad. The culture has changed over time, but the rad music has not. While every single day we as a society evolve into something new, recorded media never does. Recorded media literally cannot change. As soon as a song or a film or a television show is recorded with the ability for playback, it has a timestamp of that moment of that day of that year in history that does not change, and with it comes a veritable cornucopia of background information about culture, about art, about politics, about life in that era. Music and video is the closest thing we have to an ever-running time capsule of American culture. Recorded music of the 1980’s was not a reflection of how people made bad music for an era, music of the 1980’s was a reflection of the 1980’s. Just as Dark Side of The Moon was a reflection of the late 1970’s. Just as Nevermind was a reflection of the early 1990’s. Just as Justin Timberlake’s Justified was a reflection of the culture of the new millennium. Once recorded, the music never changes. It is constant. It does not age like fine wine, it remains the exact same age for its entire existence like Dick Clark. If recorded in the rad 1985 culture with the rad 1985 timestamp, it will remain rad unaltered for the rest of time even while culture is no longer rad. Born rad, live rad, die rad.

The same is true for any style of music. The cultural timeline is not unlike variants on musical genres. Over time the genres don’t change, only the culture surrounding them which, by extension, influence our taste in music. Put another way: music that was popular in 1985 was rad. Music that is popular now is ballin or blazin, music that was popular when I was in college was tight, clutch, or solid (though to be fair, it is possible these terms only existed within one dorm at Elon University). The only thing that really changes over time is vernacular, slang, or colloquial speech. So, by describing a song as ballin now is exactly like describing a song as tight in 2003, which is exactly like describing a song as rad in 1985 because we aren’t actually talking about the music itself, we are talking about the cultural atmosphere from which the song was created and in which the song exists. In reality Ballin, while masquerading as a slang term describing the emotional state of the listener upon hearing the song, is really more like a one-word description for exactly what a song sounds like because ballin only exists in the here and now. By telling me a song is ballin, I can, within spitting distance, imagine what the song will sound like, the style, the beat, the indescribable tone of the music, and so can you. Just like if I were to tell you a song was rad, even without knowing it, you would know exactly what I was describing. It is not that ballin or rad are styles of music, it is that ballin is today’s rad, and it doesn’t take much to figure out what is popular now, and rad is 1980’s ballin with its own inherent qualities and traits. Even though the traits are ever changing and the language is constantly evolving, the concept remains constant. Different cultural periods plant their mark on history with their own unique vernacular reflective of the cultural experience.

The humor is in progressive foresight. It is easy to laugh at rad music, and most people who listen to ballin music often do. It is considered funny, it is considered annoying, and it is certainly considered cheesy, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that before long, the world will no longer be ballin. And before long it will be easy to laugh at ballin music because ballin will go the way of the dodo. We will look back and question our own reasoning for ever listening to ballin music. While Kanye West believes himself to be a ballin cultural icon who is the voice of a generation, he will ultimately exist as little more than a footnote on the culture of the first decade of the 21st century just as “She Blinded Me With Science” exists as little more than a footnote on the culture of the early 1980’s. In reality, rad and ballin are not similar, but instead they are exactly the same thing at different points on the cultural timeline. They are simply the terms that culture has given for their respective places and times. There is no knowing what the next style will be, but it will undoubtedly emerge as culture continues to evolve, but no matter what it is, it will fall right in line with rad and ballin and will be a response to its respective cultural trends. And we will look back and laugh at ridiculousness of past music just as we do now because that was the past and there is no time like the present. Laughing at changing culture is part of who we are. Culture is constant, and culture is constantly changing.

Musicians like to wax philosophical about how they create new and original music with every recording they make and how they are going to single-handedly revolutionize the future of music and, by extension, culture (see any tweet by @kanyewest for examples), but they are wrong, dead wrong. They don’t realize, or at least they don’t want to recognize, that the music they make is merely a reflection of the world around them. And in a very Ken Keseyan sense, this means that music is actually a step behind culture rather than an influencer of culture. Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters, with the help of enough LSD to fry the brains of every man woman and child in the enlightened world, developed their own concept of the natural time-lapse: the idea that there is no such reality of being in sync with the world around you. For every moment one exists, for every word that is spoken, for every sight that is seen, there is an inherent delay between its occurrence and one’s own cognitive processing and reaction. Therefore none of us are every instantly in tune with the world around us. It is impossible. This is what the infamous “Acid Tests” were all about: a way to make everyone, at any given time “tuned in” to the world around them so that everyone can experience the world in real time with no lapse while consequently also being in full control of one’s own experience and destiny. Like I said, a lot of LSD was required.

The creation of music works the same way. It is not necessarily a driving force free of influence that evolves culture, but rather it is a cultural sponge that absorbs abstract culture and translates it to a concrete recording. There is an inherent and inescapable lapse between cultural influence and the translation to the musical end product. This is certainly not to say music can’t be revolutionary. Quite the opposite in fact as music has a tendency to absorb culture and respond to it in a way that no one ever has and can then act as a powerful source to further the cultural experience. It is, however, a way of saying that music, and all art, is created as a reaction to the cultural status quo. Granted, music can have an enormous influence on future culture (a la The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Justin Bieber, et al), but that occurs after music has been produced, and it is always originally produced as a response to status quo. Hence, music is reactionary before being visionary. In other words, before the world was captivated by “I Want to Hold Your Hand,” the song had to be written and recorded, and it couldn’t be written and recorded without the influence of the surrounding world. While it, as a musically artistic cornerstone, shaped the culture of 1964, it required the cultural landscape of 1963 in order to be created.

There really is no time like the present because the present is always new. It is not the memories of the past and it is not the mysteries of the future. It is right here, right now, and it is wholly unique. While it is connected to the past like a series of falling dominos, it is always a new experience devoid of the reasoning and analysis that is so valuable while studying past events. While the present draws a direct line to the future, it lacks the intrigue and ambiguity of the unknown. While it may not be the best time, it is certainly not the worst time, and no matter what is on the horizon or what roads we have travelled, the present is always a fresh experience unlike any other. This is the reason current music is always going to be more popular than past music. While it will not necessarily have the same staying power, and while it may not remain popular over time, and while it may not have the cultural impact of the past, current music is new, current music is fresh, current music is ballin just as current music isn’t rad, current music is present music, and there is no time like the present.

The Times They Are A-Changing... Sort Of


I am in love. I am in love with the most repulsive, most vile, most arrogant, most self-righteously shallow people who have ever appeared on television. Adultery, alcoholism, back-stabbing, blatant disregard for basic human decency: these are the things that make my heart swoon when I lose myself in the cool blue glow of my living room television set every night. I can’t help myself. I have become one with these characters, and despite their failings, I am their family. They are my brethren, and they can do no wrong. I can’t help but sympathize with them. I can’t help but want to reach out and console these people. I can’t help but long to let them know that everything is going to work out in the end. My love is unconditional. No matter how revolting or how despicable or how egotistical these people get I will still be there with my arms and heart and soul wide open longing for their tender embrace. I love them. And so does everyone else.

In 2008 when Mad Men emerged onto the scene and won Golden Globes for Best Drama Series and Best Actor and Emmys for Outstanding Drama Series and Outstanding Writing among others, my reaction was simple: “Wow, good for them, but what the hell is this show?” I simply knew nothing about it as I don’t often pay much attention to a television series on AMC, but it didn’t take me long to become hopelessly immersed in all things Mad Men and equally enthralled by the lascivious nature of the series. It is as though out of nowhere came this show that blew the roof off of the antiquated concept of the Dick Van Dyke or Mr. Ed versions of the middle of the 20th century where nothing really goes wrong and no one really gets hurt no matter how many times Van Dyke trips over the ottoman in his living room. Mad Men reminded us that while chain-smoking Luckys in the comedy writer’s room, it would have been realistically feasible for Rob Petrie to be cheating on Mary Tyler Moore with Sally Rogers while Wilbur sells Mr. Ed to the glue factory when times get tough.

The 1980’s version of the 1960’s was about Kevin Arnold coming of age in a tumultuous time known as The Wonder Years. Though Kevin was a suburban junior high/high school student living at home for the duration of the series the time period of the late 60’s and Kevin’s life were never mutually exclusive. Kevin, Wayne, Winnie, Paul, and everyone else in The Wonder Years were an inescapable product of their surroundings and acted as a microcosm of the affects of Vietnam, Nixon, Woodstock, civil rights, and Sgt Pepper getting high with a little help from his friends. Anything really bad that happened on the show (which nothing really ever did short of the pilot episode where Winnie’s brother was killed in Vietnam) was easy to justify because 1) it was kids being kids 2) the show was designed as a retrospective look at a previous period of life as narrated by Daniel Stern and 3) all the characters and situations were themselves victims of the outside world. The show was more of a critique of the affect of the outside world on suburban adolescence and the blossoming of culture along with the blossoming of the new youth generation. The Wonder Years was, more than anything else, an examination of the innocent and, by extension, ignorant youth in the turbulent, often enlightened world. Kevin, Wayne, Paul, and Winnie were Michael, Sonny, Tom Hagen, and Kay Adams respectively in the rough and tumble world of the Corleone family.

Mad Men is different. Mad Men doesn’t have the excuse of being “of the time” even though it is. It doesn’t have the excuse of offering itself as a portrayal of men who are affected by a changing world, even though they are. It doesn’t have the excuse of fictitiously portraying fictional characters and hypothetical situations even though it does. Mad Men isn’t about men in the jungles of Nam fighting a losing battle for their country. It is not about stoned hippies tuning in, turning on, or dropping out in the mud of upstate New York, and it is not about political insiders in DC as so many productions about the 1960's are. It is not about a budding culture of an evolving world or a retrospective glance at a fascinating cultural time and place. It is about men and women in an office building working for an ad agency in New York City. The way the show is produced, the outside environment has little or no affect on the inner-office life (apart from three subplots about the 1960 presidential election, the death of Marilyn Monroe, and the assassination of JFK respectively). In fact, because they are an ad agency responsible for designing, building, and selling the products that defined the time, they are responsible for impacting American culture by feeding on what the world wants and exploiting it. They are not products of the 1960’s, they are the 1960’s. And that 1960’s is one devious world.

The men on the show are truly appalling people. Chain-smoking and rampant alcoholism aside, the men are guilty of extramarital affairs, racism, homophobia, and antisemitism, but not in a devious detached sense, nor in a villainous antagonizing way, but rather in a very real, accepted, protagonist fashion. The cheating, racist, homophobic, anti-Semites are not the evil flawed rogues who were given these traits for audiences to hate, but instead they are made to be the classically cool and sophisticated central protagonists who audiences are meant to love and envy. These men are not the Grinches who stole Christmas as we should consciously think of them. They are the cool-hand Lukes, they are the James Bonds, the Han Solos, the James Deans, the George Cloonys of the world. They are the coolest guys on the planet except that they are the most repulsive men imaginable. They are the guys everyone wants to be even though they are the guys that no one would actively associate with. As much as we like to look at them as cool and sophisticated, they are in actuality shallow and socially vile by any of today’s standards. But loving them is excusable, because the times they are a-changing, and time heals all wounds.

It is acceptable to love the characters in Mad Men because we have evolved as a society, right? We no longer think, act, or live the way Don and Roger do, right? We no longer live with the same sinister mentality as was commonplace in 1960, right? We are enlightened, right? Times have changed, right? Wrong.

The characters of Mad Men are not Frank, Dean, and the Rat Pack. The cast of Mad Men are really nothing more than The Situation, Paulie D and the cast of Jersey Shore.

While Mad Men has been critically acclaimed across the board and honored by virtually every English-speaking television authority on the planet since its inception, Jersey Shore has survived a polar opposite fate, and has established itself as a cultural low-water mark by every source that has crossed paths with it. Jersey Shore has become the butt of late-night jokes, fodder for internet comedy, a dark premonition for all parents of young adult children, and has even specifically been targeted by the Governor of New Jersey. But despite being viewed as a joke within itself and an abysmal display of a severe lack of human decency, Jersey Shore remains hugely popular among America’s youth for the exact same reasons that Mad Men remains popular among affluent intellectuals.

While Mad Men is darkly sophisticated, cerebral, and intellectually taut and a brilliant critique of modern man, Jersey Shore is base, vulgar and exploits the absolute worst of youth culture. Jersey Shore is the local strip club to Mad Men’s Metropolitan Opera House. Kanye West to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Teen Beat to Time Magazine. McDonald's to Ruth’s Chris Steak House. Starbucks to good coffee. Everything that is great about Mad Men only further illustrates that which is disgusting about Jersey Shore. Yet the similarities of the two shows are hauntingly similar. Scripted television versus “reality” television aside, both represent the worst of American culture. Both rely on the dark nature of mankind. Both highlight the self-centered, egotistical, shallowness of humanity, and both stand as televised cornerstones for their respective demographics.

More haunting yet, the characters of each show are striking parallel. Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino with his leadership role despite his total lack of disregard to anyone but himself and his own success is really Roger Sterling. Snookie, the easily mocked break-out success within the show’s own reality, is really Peggy Olsen. JWoww, a strong independent woman who has no hesitation standing up to anyone regardless of consequence, is really Joan Holloway. Paulie D, consciously stylish and highly respected among the rest of the group despite his constantly answering to The Situation, is really Don Draper. Sammie, an attractive and sought after yet emotionally driven young woman with a penchant for stirring up conflict when circumstances don’t suit her, is really Betty Draper. Vinnie, with his seemingly clean-cut, intelligent, and charming exterior but who has a seedy dark side and who doesn’t appear to belong with the rest of the group, is really Ken Cosgrove. Angelina, the least respected of the group despite her naive and childish ambitions and total lack of hesitation to sell-out anyone and everyone for her own benefit, is really Pete Campbell, though I am not sure if that is a bigger insult to her or to Pete. I have a difficult time placing Ronnie in the Sterling Cooper clique, but that is mostly because I can’t get a sense of Ronnie beyond his natural ability to grossly over-compensate for his own insecurities with arrogance and thinly veiled romantic desires which I suppose makes him like Sal Romano.

As a character analysis, Jersey Shore is really Mad Men mixed with alcohol, debauchery, and an almost Godly sense of pride except that Mad Men already has alcohol, debauchery, and an almost Godly sense of pride. Jersey Shore really is Mad Men and Mad Men really is Jersey Shore. The only real difference between the two, again, apart from scripted versus “unscripted,” is that those who love Mad Men also love to hate Jersey Shore and probably vice versa. And in a rather ironic twist of fate, those who hate Jersey Shore will continue to hate it for the exact same reasons they love Mad Men. The differences are not the two shows, the differences are us, the audiences. The difference is that television that is about a destructive, disgusting, and socially challenging society from the past is only considered brilliant whereas television about a destructive, disgusting, and socially challenging society happening in the present is considered exploitation the inevitable moral decay in the fabric of American youth culture. Time makes all the difference, and time heals all wounds.

We approach the 1960’s with a certain level of learned understanding. We knew it was a troubled time, but we also like to think that it was a simpler time. The world outside was filled with unmitigated chaos with no end in sight, but the home life was dinner on the table at 6:00, manicured front lawns, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, and father always knows best. Even if we consciously know none of that is true, we still like to think of it that way. Mad Men is one of those rare shows that takes a look back at a time we thought we understood and plays Chinese ping pong with our emotions and veiled understanding. It is like the first time a 12 year old boy discovers that professional wrestling is staged; for years we believed what we saw, and we don’t like to accept our own gullibility for a false sense of reality, but as time goes on we realize that the reality is vastly more logical than the preferred fantasy. This is one of the reasons why Mad Men is so brilliant. Nothing is more intriguing than a glimpse into realism that challenges our previous perception of the past. But no matter what happens in the world of Sterling Cooper, it was the past. No matter how offensive we find it, we are naturally detached from it. No matter how vile and immoral Don Draper, Roger Sterling, and Pete Campbell appear to be, we are separated from them by 50 years so we are able to justify loving them. The times they are a-changing, and time heals all wounds.

But Jersey Shore is not the past. Jersey Shore is the present. Jersey Shore does not give us a detached glimpse into the reality of a time previously misunderstood, it instead shows us the reality of the immediate offensive present. Mad Men reminds us of how far we have come as a society, but Jersey Shore highlights our current social failings. The only problem is that when broken down to its fundamental base, we are forced to see that in reality not much really has changed. Alcoholism, womanizing, immoral behavior, violence, and general unmitigated debauchery are all phrases that perfectly describe Jersey Shore, and they are all phrases that perfectly describe Mad Men, just as they are all phrases that perfectly describe early 1960’s culture as well as perfectly describing current youth culture. The times really aren’t a-changing, and time has healed no wounds.

Yet, even though they are both vile displays of American culture, they are still loved equally by their respective demographics. It is perfectly acceptable to hate Jersey Shore as it is also perfectly acceptable to hate Mad Men. But it has become common to love Jersey Shore and it is almost expected that everyone love Mad Men. Most who have never fully immersed themselves in it probably do hate Jersey Shore just as those who have not fully immersed themselves in Mad Men feel the same way, but that is what makes these two shows challenging in their own right. Neither show would exist without the human element which is to say the success, and by extension, the existence of both shows is reliant, not only on the exploitation of their vices, but on the illustration of their humanity. From afar, it is easy to look at Don Draper as a one-dimensional character who cheats on his wife and spends his professional life duping the general public into buying products they don’t need, just as it is easy to look at Snookie as a dumb girl who only cares about drinking, clubbing, and picking up men. But television doesn’t work that way. Literature doesn’t work that way. Art doesn’t work that way. There is nothing intriguing about characters that lack depth. There is nothing interesting about watching a show with no arc. And there is certainly nothing compelling about characters for whom an audience has no sympathy. If we wanted that we would still be watching reruns of Cavemen and Theodore Rex would have swept the Oscars in 1996.

There was a moment in each show that captivated their respective audiences and earned them a place in television history; Don Draper’s Kodak Carousel pitch, and Snookie getting punched in the face by a drunk frat guy.

After 12 episodes of watching Don Draper parade around his own immoral private Idaho with little concern about the consequences of his actions on the people around him, and almost no display of the overt humanity we have come to expect from television shows masquerading as more intellectual than they are, he was presented with a new account for the Kodak Wheel. His pitch for the new product was nothing short of brilliant, and it reads as follows:


In Greek, “nostalgia” literally means “the pain from an old wound.” It’s a twinge in your heart far more powerful than memory alone. This device isn’t a spaceship, it’s a time machine. It goes backwards, forwards, takes us to a place where we ache to go again. It’s not called the wheel. It’s called the carousel. It lets us travel the way a child travels. Round and around, and back home again. To a place where we know we are loved.
All while giving this pitch Don is flipping through slides of himself with his wife and his children. It is easy to say that Don is nothing more than a salesman who knows how to sell a product with a select choice of words, but the reality is that Don wasn’t selling a product; Don was selling an emotion, a feeling, a memory, a sense of humanity because Don Draper is human. Don Draper is not a scoundrel being portrayed by Jon Hamm to the tune of a couple Screen Actors Guild awards, a Golden Globe, and a bevy of additional acting award nominations. Don Draper is humanity, not just human, but humanity. A man who spends the bulk of his time hiding his human insecurities, secrets, and weaknesses while living a sordid egocentric lifestyle until a minuscule glimmer of warmth from a yet extinguished candle lights the way in an otherwise dark cave. Don Draper doesn’t sell a slide projector; Don Draper sells his own pain. Don Draper was metaphorically punched in the face while the world watched him weep, and Kodak bought it, Sterling Cooper bought it, and television audiences bought it.

Snookie, on the other hand, was literally punched in the face and literally wept while the world watched which, like Don Draper, illustrates her own humanity. For 4 episodes, Jersey Shore was little more than a display of shallow self-righteousness from a group of easily ridiculed 20-somethings who seemed to care only about where they were getting drunk and who they were sleeping with next. They were fake, they were plastic, they were one-dimensional. The cast of Jersey Shore was in no way reflections of accepted society until the end of episode 5 when an anonymous drunk guy purposely hauled off and hit a 4’9” Italian girl in the face over a dispute for some shots of liquor while cameras were rolling. The punch heard round the world. Suddenly the show was not about fist pumps, beating the beat, GTL, or grenades. The show was about the sudden display of compassion we had for these characters who had seemed so shallow and invincible. Through Snookie’s pain, we saw Snookie’s humanity and we sympathized. Snookie’s greatest achievement was not that she sold her wild lifestyle to MTV, instead she sold her full range of emotions to the country, and we bought it.

The simple-minded sects of society would say the only selling point for the two shows is that they sell sex as that old cliche is a commonly understood television principle. But the truth about Jersey Shore and Mad Men is that they do not sell sex, alcohol, and debauchery because, contrary to popular belief, that is not what has ultimate selling power. What's more, that theory has been disproved time and time again: Law and Order, The West Wing, Meet The Press, The Simpsons, Jeopardy, Spongebob Squarepants, all shows with enormous followings that have little or nothing to do with sex of any kind. Certainly those vices capture the attention from audiences, but only a limited amount of footage from bars, nightclubs, and hot tubs can keep audiences interested. Just as audiences will only remain intrigued by a retrospective look at the past for so long. Great television is not about racy situations, great television is about characters. And characters need to be complex. They need to have depth. They need to have emotions that contradict our initial impressions of them. In Don Drapers own word: “You are the product. You feeling something, that’s what sells. Not them, not sex.” This has been true throughout the history of film and television. As sure as the sun sets in the West, and as sure as there will always be an English empire, film and television needs provocative characters. The times they aren’t a-changing, and time heals no wounds.

The Birds, The Bees, and Everyone Else


A parable: two guys walk into a bar. It is an ordinary bar with ordinary run of the mill people. Nothing special, nothing fancy, just a place to go and enjoy yourself with the surrounding company and atmosphere. The men are nice looking, well-dressed, well-groomed, dignified; not flashy, but not dingy either. They casually walk up to the bar to order their first round.
“Bartender, we’d like to order two cognacs, please” says the first man
The bartender takes a moment to look at them, smiles a little half smile then almost undetectably shakes his head as he turns to prepare their order. Upon returning to the two men, the bartender serves them two bottles of Bud Light.
“Excuse me, sir” says the first man “this is not what we ordered. We ordered two cognacs”
The bartender, a little taken aback, looks at him and his partner and says “Oh, I’m sorry, but we can’t serve you cognac, we can only serve you this” motioning to the bottles in front of the men.
The men then turn to observe the other bar patrons as the bartender goes about his business. They assume the bar is simply out of cognac, but remain confused as to why Bud Light was the instinctual second choice. Almost immediately, they see a man and a woman sitting at a table nearby slowly sipping on glasses of cognac as they chat with each other.
The second man motions to the bartender and asks “excuse me, it looks to me like those two over there” motioning to the couple at the table “are drinking cognac. I don’t mean to pry, but did they happen to get the last of it?”
The bartender again smiles a half smile and says “oh no, we have lots of that here, it is one of our more popular drinks, so we pretty much have an unlimited stock of several varieties.”
Second man then responds rather abruptly “well, now I really don’t understand, we ordered cognac, exactly like they are drinking, twice, and you explicitly told us you couldn’t serve it. So do you have any or not?”
Bartender says “yes, we have lots of cognac, but like I said I can’t serve it to you”
Looking rather insulted, but still patient for a logical explanation, the first man asks “well would you mind telling us why you can’t serve it to us?”
The bartender, sensing the men’s growing aggravation gets very serious and looks the first man in the face and says “ok, well it is pretty simple: those two over there are a man and a woman so I can serve them whatever they like. You two, however, are two men, and I can’t serve you cognac, but as a consolation I can serve you Bid Light. Do you know what I mean?”
The first man snaps back and says “Frankly, no, I don’t understand. What the hell is so special about the two of them that they can drink what they want, and we have to drink what you choose to allow us to drink?”
The bartender, not wishing to upset the men further tries to console them “Gentlemen, I am very sorry, I understand you would like cognac, but Bud Light will get you drunk too, so how about we make all of our lives a little easier and just enjoy your beer, after all the end result is the same.”
The second man, unimpressed with this response, inquires further “explain to me again why we can’t have what we ordered; I am still not understanding”
“Ok, it is like this” The bartender says becoming exasperated himself “If I serve you the same thing as those two, it cheapens the drink. Cognac is a classy drink and it is my responsibility to make sure it stays that way, but if I serve it to you it takes away from the quality of the drink as a whole and effectively keeps those two from feeling the stateliness they feel by drinking it.”
Proud of his articulate answer the bartender turns to go back to work when he is stopped by the second man again.
“So, because they are a man and a woman, they are allowed to drink it, but because we are two men, we can’t because of the value of the drink itself?”
“That’s right” says the bartender frankly “because if I serve it to you, I don’t know who else will end up drinking it; maybe kids, maybe animals, who knows where it will end up?”
“Well I don’t think that is very fair. I mean we are two grown men, we are citizens of this country, we have jobs, we pay our taxes, what is the difference?”
Wishing to appease the two men the bartender comes to a compromise “alright, how about this: I will take a quick poll of everyone in the bar tonight to see how they feel about you two drinking cognac? Does that sound fair?”

Every so often a political issue sweeps across the landscape of American popular culture that polarizes the nation with inexplicable force for inexplicable reasons. Supreme Court justices? Social Security benefits? The deficit? Gun control? None of these hold a candle to the firestorm that is the gay marriage debate. The gay marriage debate has set water-coolers boiling across the nation in the course of the last four years. It has caused turkeys, stuffing, and most-likely silverware to be hurled in frustration at Thanksgiving dinners. It has even been partly responsible for breaking-up heterosexual relationships. It is a debate that has recently taken center-stage on this country and has left its mark on every office, every home, and every school from Maine to California, and now, this blog. Let us reflect and refract as necessary.

On a personal note, I swore I would never write an article about a political issue, and in a sense, I am keeping with that promise. Every so often a political issue emerges from the woodwork that is so fraught with controversy it transcends political and social culture to become popular culture. Popular culture in the respect that it becomes a conversation piece for virtually every sect of the mass population from the obvious homosexuals to heterosexuals, from Democrats to Republicans, from students to teachers, young and old, rich and poor, every race, every creed, every one has an opinion. It is one of the few issues where it is simply impossible to not have an opinion. This is not to say that everyone thinks about gay marriage every moment of the day. In fact I suspect anyone who thinks of it or any single issue every moment of the day is critically insane. But gay marriage has been so widely reported and so widely discussed over the past four years that it is difficult to imagine anyone not having an opinion.

If you happen to be someone who voluntarily entered the Theodore Kaczynski life of luxury by shutting yourself out of society to build homemade "presents" and have somehow avoided the question, it is time to end your silence: how do you feel about the prospect of homosexuals gaining the right to marry and have their marriage recognized as equal to that of heterosexual marriage? It is simple. So simple that it is impossible to say “I don’t know” to this question. It is impossible to say “it depends” It is impossible to not know enough information to answer. It is so simple that it has to be popular culture because you don’t have to know anything to have an opinion. Either you feel that consenting homosexual adults should have the right to marry or you don’t. It couldn’t be simpler, and yet it has, as always, become far more complicated.

The debate is no longer about gay marriage, the debate is about you, it is about me, it is about “we the people,” and it is about the United States as a whole. Should there be a Constitutional law for or against it? What does gay marriage do to affect the institution of marriage? What does it do to families? Is a civil union the same thing? What does the Bible say? How would a bachelor party work? Now we have ourselves a complex debate, and complex debates are how relatively simple issues become convoluted so much that the core question no longer becomes recognized or even relevant, and the real issue becomes about two polarized stances. All of a sudden if you are in favor of gay marriage then it means you are against the Bible or you are against family values or you are against the natural order or you are in favor of pedophilia. If you are against gay marriage you are against freedom of choice or you are against love or you are against civil rights or you are for segregation. If you are opposed to gay marriage you must be a bigot and hate America. If you support gay marriage you must be gay and hate America. Gay marriage is no longer about gay marriage, gay marriage is about you and your relationship with America, and there is no right answer. But there is also no wrong answer. Everyone believes themselves to be right which means everyone else must be wrong. The debate is incredibly complex even though the debate is incredibly simple.

And the best part is this: the whole thing is utterly ridiculous, and before I die, I hope the rest of the country figures that out. In fact, I know the rest of the country will figure that out.

As I write this, the debate continues over California’s proposition 8 or the “California Marriage Protection Act” which would add to the California constitution a clause that only a marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized in the state effectively making marriage between same sex couples illegal. The act was voted for and passed in November 2008 until August 4, 2010 when Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned the act in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which is now currently pending appeal by the ninth circuit court of appeals. The amount of money spent on campaigns for and against prop 8 total $39.9 million and $43.3 million respectively as of the 2008 ballot initiative making it the highest funded campaign outside a presidential election. The debate has spawned commercial campaigns on both sides and even a mock musical. Did I say ridiculous? I meant completely insane. Let’s take a trip back, way back to a simpler time: 1920.

1920 was not that long ago. Fewer than 100 years. 12 years prior was the last time the Cubs won the World Series. Let me repeat that: 1908 was the last time, not the first time, but the last time the Chicago Cubs won the World Series. In 1920 Hitler was on the rise, the US struck down the invitation to join the League of Nations which they had created, and Warren G. Harding was elected President. Something else happened that year: The nineteenth amendment was ratified on August 26, 1920 guaranteeing women the right to vote. Again, let me repeat: in this country, the United States of America, women were not given the right to vote in an election until 1920 whereas white men had been granted the right to vote since the Constitution was adapted in 1787. That doesn’t even include the pay equity act, the right to own property, or the still un-ratified equal rights amendment. Women were not and in many was still are not treated as equal to men in this country.

What about the period of time between 1955-1968 during the American civil rights movement? What about the fact that racial segregation in all public places was the law of the land until 1954, and even since African-Americans have continued to be treated as inferior citizens?

We look back now, or at least I hope we do, and consider our nation’s past mentality as ridiculous. How did we legally treat women as inferior? How did we legally segregate races? How did we ever consider “separate but equal” status humane? More than that, how did opposition to these issues exist? The darkest secret of all is that opposition did not only exist, but opposition was the majority mentality. A majority of Americans opposed integration. A majority of Americans opposed universal suffrage. A majority of Americans believed that certain races and a certain gender were inferior and were to be treated as such by law. We’ve come a long way, baby, but we still have many rivers to cross, and one of those rivers is rainbow-colored.

It is so simple. It is so simple it is ridiculous. It is so ridiculous that it must be the kind of debate reserved for only the most incendiary and provocative of public figures to spit mouths full of gasoline into an already burning fire of American society.

Believe it or not, but homosexuality is real. People really are homosexuals and homosexuals really are people. In this country we not only have the right, but we have the responsibility to treat everyone equally, and I am yet to see any evidence that a person’s sexuality makes them any less than deserving of all of the rights and privileges guaranteed by our United States Constitution. I am yet to hear a logical argument opposing gay marriage. Opponents like to say that the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination, but the Bible also says that a women were put on Earth to serve their husbands (Genesis 3:16) and that a woman shall be summarily executed if she is not a virgin when she weds (Deuteronomy 22:20), so something tells me the Bible isn’t too tolerant as far as marriages go. Some like to say that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, but with a current divorce rate of 40%, and with fairly recent highly rated television shows like “Rock of Love with Brett Michaels” and “Joe Millionaire,” heterosexual marriage is far from sanctified. Some will say that gay marriage is a threat to the American family and family values, but I have never once witnessed the actions of a neighbor affecting my or anyone else’s family structure except perhaps the affect of helping me realize how much I hate Hispanic music at 7am on a Saturday.

A popular argument is that a civil union is comparable to marriage and available for homosexuals as an alternative, but that is the biggest load of garbage yet. As soon as you tell a person that they aren’t suitable for one option, but are qualified for another with different rights and privileges, you are immediately classifying them as inferior. It is the same flawed reasoning behind the Jim Crow laws of the first half of the 20th Century. “Separate but equal” status is inherently flawed and imbalanced as was determined in Brown v. Board of Education more than 50 years ago in 1954. Telling anyone they can’t get married but can have a union as consolation is no different from telling a person they are inferior and are not deserving of the same rights as others. Nothing could be simpler. Nothing could be more ridiculous. Yet nothing could be more convoluted or skewed.

Homosexuals will be allowed to marry in every state in the United States. Gay marriage will be nationally recognized in this country in my life-time. This is a fact that I know for sure. I know this because we progress as a society. What may be debatable today will be an unquestionable way of life in the future. We evolve. We improve. We accept and we grow. Someday, somewhere, someone in the not too distant future will write a poignant piece about our next social hurdle and they will use the gay marriage debate to illustrate our turn of the century short-sightedness. They will cite the bible debate. They will cite the family values debate. They will cite the majority opposition. They will also cite the ridiculousness of the debate as a whole.

Will homosexuals be allowed to marry? Yes. Will they endure all the difficulties inherent with sharing one's life with another? Absolutely. Will a significant percentage of homosexuals who marry end up divorcing? Of course. But will an even greater percentage survive the hysteria and spend the rest of their lives in a loving caring relationship with all the rights and privileges given to them by this great nation of ours? Damn right. I know this because love is simple. And I know this because love is complicated.

Future Sound


Who among us hasn’t dreamed of travelling through time? Who hasn’t contemplated the idea of going back in time to save lives, alter history, or gain financially? Who hasn’t wanted to seek out ourselves from an earlier stage in life to advise, instruct, or slap the living crap out of ourselves as a means of changing who we are and what we have today? Who among us hasn’t thought “if I could only go back in time…”? It is our nature. It is who we are. It is a universal desire despite being a physical impossibility, yet we still wonder. We still hope. We still yearn for the technology to alter some part of existence in ways that would mildly or drastically alter our everyday ways of life.

This is why Marty McFly is now and forever will be a cultural icon. Marty McFly experienced what each of us dream of. If not prior to, then at the very least, immediately following “Back to the Future,” Everyone wanted to travel to the past, everyone wanted to visit the future, and, quite frankly, everyone wanted a hoverboard. Marty McFly had it all, and we wanted it. We wanted it badly. Fortunately, “Back to the Future” is fiction. Doc never invented a time machine, Marty never travelled to 1955, 2015, or 1885, and the Delorian didn’t become a symbol of scientific advancement (depending on who you ask). We should all thank our lucky stars that “Back to the Future” is fiction. We should all be grateful that no such time travelling device exists. We should all breathe a sigh of relief that Marty McFly never existed because otherwise he would have ruined life as we know it, or at least a large part of it: if “Back to the Future” had been a true story, Martin McFly would have ruined rock and roll music for all time to come.

Rock and roll as we know it today would cease to exist. Certainly a variant form of rock music would have taken its place, but everything we currently know and love about rock music would not only stop existing, it never would have existed in the first place and therefore never evolved into what we now know as modern rock and roll music. We would have no concept of that which we love about it because it never would have happened. Some people fear heights, some people fear public speaking, some people fear death. I fear Marty McFly.

This, of course, is assuming that Chuck Berry is and always has been a musician with high integrity.

If you happened to be one of the three people between the ages of 5 and 105 who has not seen “Back to the Future,” or if your mind has been fried due to years of substance abuse or exposure to American politics, here is a little refresher course: At the conclusion of the primary storyline in “Back to the Future” Marvin of Marvin Berry and the Starlighters cuts his hand trying to free Marty McFly from a locked car trunk. Marvin, who is the lead guitar player and singer for the Starlighters insists that the dance has drawn to a conclusion due to his inability to play guitar with his cut hand; a detail that proves Marvin is not and never will be Pete Townshend or Jimi Hendrix. Marty begs Marvin to reconsider so that his future parents can solidify their eternal love through the magic of 1950’s Doo Wop. As a compromise, Marty, a 1980’s guitar virtuoso, agrees to fill in for Marvin for the purposes of ensuring his own future existence. So far so good.

As Marty is about to leave for his destined journey back to 1985, Marvin, the inevitable oracle says “let’s play something that really cooks.” Enter the end of rock and roll as we know it. At this point, Marty, not known for turning down an opportunity to quietly walk away from a challenge steps up to the microphone and introduces “an oldie where I come from” before launching into a blistering version of Chuck Berry’s legendary “Johnny B Goode.” Hubris never win in the end. See any piece of Ancient Greek literature for examples.

Robert Zemeckis and Steven Spielberg are a couple of jokers. While writing, developing, and producing the film, they had some fun throwing in a few timing gags. In this case timing is in reference to the cultural boundaries one would encounter by traveling to the past (different slang, lack of knowledge of future historical persons or events, etc). One of their jokes occurred during Marty’s rendition of “Johnny B Goode” in which Marvin makes a phone call to his cousin who happens to be, you guessed it, Chuck Berry; original author of “Johnny B Goode.” Marvin is seen talking into the phone saying “You know that new sound you’ve been looking for? Well listen to this…” and holds the receiver in the direction of the stage and Marty’s innovative (or innovative for 1955) guitar playing, indicating that Marty’s homage to the Chuck Berry classic is actually that which inspires Chuck Berry to author the song in the first place. Very funny, you have just ruined us forever. The problem with this is that Mr. Zemeckis and Mr. Spielberg are guilty of not taking their own advice.

Anyone who knows anything about the birth of rock and roll will tell you the same thing; Chuck Berry was one of the biggest pioneers and, by extension, most influential musicians in the history of rock and roll. Berry exploded onto the music scene in 1955 with a completely unique sound that had never been heard before. Prior to Chuck Berry, the roots of early rock and roll were set in various combinations of blues, R+B, gospel, country, and the big band jazz era as founded by artists like Elvis, Ray Charles, and Bo Diddley. But as Eric Burdon of the Animals said “I always felt that Chuck Berry was the poet laureate of America” or as Carl Perkins once said “Chuck Berry was an act you didn’t want to have to follow.” Carl Gardner of the Coasters goes so far as to call Chuck Berry and Little Richard the kings of Rock and Roll. There is no doubt that Chuck Berry’s sound would go on to either directly or indirectly influence every guitar player that would follow, but none of that could have happened had he listened to Marty McFly play his song. Again, assuming Berry was a musician with a high level of musical and innovative integrity.

Artistic pioneering does not happen by accident. Artistic pioneering does not happen by coincidence. Artistic pioneering only occurs through either an innovative mix of current or past styles, or through the full rejection of current popularity. The 1960’s psychedelic movement occurred through innovation using blues and jazz with experimental electronic influences, the punk movement occurred through a rejection of the Woodstock era, the 1970’s arena and glam rock was born out of pushing live production value to an extreme, grunge was born out of rejection hair metal, all styles evolve through pushing boundaries of musical styling or full rejection. Chuck Berry’s innovation was no different.

When Marvin calls and says “you know that new sound you’ve been looking for” he actually single-handedly eliminated the influence Berry had on the world of music. Had Berry heard Marty playing in Berry’s signature style, it would have become clear to him that that style already existed, and therefore was not new or innovative, and therefore was not a pioneering effort. If we assume that Chuck Berry is a musician of integrity, we can assume that he had no interest in attempting to re-create a pre-existing style he heard elsewhere. If we assume Berry is only interested in money and fame and not about musical innovation, we can assume that he would have heard the efforts of this no-name band playing a high school dance and considered the style a failure from the start and not worth the effort. After all, who in their right mind would want to copy a band whose ultimate achievement was playing the Hill Valley High School “Enchantment Under the Sea Dance?”

Case and point, you will notice that following Marvin holding the phone up to the stage, Marty’s guitar playing turns from a distinct Chuck Berry sound to what can only be described as electronic noise, or punk, which is really the same thing. Most would argue that the transition is the result of Marty simply becoming carried away with his live performance antics, but perhaps Zemeckis and Spielberg were acutely aware of the detrimental implications of this particular time disruption. Perhaps they recognize that upon Berry’s hearing and rejection of what would ironically go on to become his own style, the influence that travelled from 1955 through the generations to McFly in 1985 would instantaneously become irrelevant and vanish. In other words, as soon as Berry hears McFly’s “Johnny B Goode,” the song “Johnny B Goode” and musical style of Chuck Berry as a whole would no longer exist (as Berry would have no interest in copying it, as opposed to writing it originally), and instantly reduce McFly to a fumbling maniac with a guitar who has no knowledge of “Johnny B Goode.” By playing the yet-to-be-written “Johnny B Goode” to and unimpressed Chuck Berry, Marvin caused the song to be instantaneously eliminated from existence altogether. Eliminating Berry in the past would render his music non-existent in the present and future. This is my nightmare.

It is hard to say how extensive Chuck Berry’s influence in music actually is. Ray Manzarek of the Doors has said that every guitar player was in some way influenced by Chuck Berry which is certainly an indication that his sound played a large part in shaping the future of rock and roll. Obviously when playing a Green Day, Kiss, or Metallica record, one doesn’t think immediately about how closely it sounds like Berry, but influence is everything, especially when playing the six degrees of influential separation game. Musical influence is a lot like the food chain. Any biologist, chemist, or garbage collector with some common sense will tell you that if humans no longer existed, animal and plant life would flourish beyond cognitive imagination, but if microscopic plankton no longer existed, all life on this planet would cease almost immediately. Music is the same way: Take away current, high grossing musicians, and the history of music doesn’t skip a beat (no pun intended), but take away the early founders of rock music, and everything we know and love about all media as a whole changes in ways we can’t possibly fathom. Life itself changes in ways we can’t possibly fathom.

Dick Clark’s most famous quote is “Music is the soundtrack of your life.” Besides being possibly the least profound and most obvious expression anyone has ever said about music, Clark managed to actually strike a chord people up with that quote. He is right. Music is not only the soundtrack, but in a lot of ways, it is the cornerstone of a lot of our memories and experiences. Music changes people. Music leads people in different directions. Music makes people think about who they are and what they want. What would have happened if the Beatles (whose covers of “Roll Over Beethoven” and “Johnny B Goode” indicate that they too were influenced by Chuck Berry) had never made it big and played Ed Sullivan? What would have happened to the Rolling Stones who never would have had the Beatles to chase? What would have happened to countless other bands who count the Beatles or the Stones as their number one influence? What if Bob Dylan hadn’t plugged in his electric guitar at Newport in 1965 and played “Maggie’s Farm” to a sea of booing folkies? What would have happened if there were no Woodstock? No Monterey Pop Festival? No Isle of Wight? No Altamont? No Bonnaroo? What would have happened (or not happened) in countless cars at “make-out points” across the county without “Stand By Me” “When a Man Loves a Woman” or “In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida?” Maybe nothing. Maybe everything.

It is not enough to say “we would have found our way eventually” or “if Chuck Berry didn’t do it, someone would have.” That is tempting fate, which is something we certainly can’t rely on. Don’t forget, if Marty hadn’t gotten his parents back together in 1955, he would have ceased to exist, too. Relying on fate is a lot like relying on the law of large numbers: sure, maybe it would have happened eventually, but there is no telling how it would have transpired, and there certainly be no way of knowing when or by whom.

The one consolation is that had Berry not gone on to be one of the most influential musicians of all time, we would have no concept of what music would be, and more importanly, we would have no concept of what we are missing. Maybe it would have been worse, but maybe it would be vastly superior. Either way we would have no concept of it what-so-ever. Think about it this way. It is entirely possible if not probable that somewhere in history’s past, someone who could have drastically influence the future of American culture could have been stopped from doing so, but we don’t know what we would have been missing. In other words; a Chuck Berry type person with equal innovative ability very well could have existed without actually influencing anyone or anything, but we don’t feel we are missing out on anything.

There is simply no telling what implications would have happened through the course of time had Chuck Berry not pioneered his corner of the musical universe, but, unless you believe in fate (which clearly the creators of “Back to the Future” don’t), all our lives would be drastically different in some way, maybe for the better, and maybe not, and luckily, we will never know. The moral of the story is simple: If you find yourself back in 1955 and someone asks you to play a song at a high school dance, pick one from a band that doesn’t matter like Nickelback or someone.

It's Not Science, It's Love


I know exactly one universal fact that will never change: there is no logical reason for anything that happens. Broad? Yes. Concise? Absolutely. Inaccurate? Most likely, but in my experience, logic has no place in reason. Let’s take a step back: When an object is dropped, it will fall to the ground. When water becomes very cold, it will freeze. When Yo-Yo Ma picks up a cello, he will rock in a way you never thought classical music could rock. These events do not require logic.

But when trying to rationalize why LaBron James signed with the Miami Heat, or why Lady Gaga is so popular in the gay community, or why some people think Dane Cook is funny, there is simply no logical rationale. Realizing of course this is not a negative trait at all, it is simply a null set which transcends explanation. If you asked 100 gay men why they like Lady Gaga you would receive a different answer almost 100% of the time including responses along the lines of “I don’t like Lady Gaga” at least 20-30% of the time if not more. Why is this? Because there is no concrete universal answer. If you asked 100 sports analysts about LaBron’s Miami move each will give you a separate and unique reaction, but that is because there is no definitive, all encompassing explanation. This is a fact of life that has consistently proven true time and time again. There is no universal logic, so logic is null, and therefore nothing matters.

So I joined a dating website. Why? For exactly no reason what-so-ever. Literally. I am not lonely. I work in theatre and meet very attractive and usually single women on a regular basis. I have no interest in meeting any of the women I find on a dating website. I have been on the site exactly 3 times and have never contacted nor been contacted by any members. And I sure didn't pay a subscription fee. I joined a dating site for no other reason than to join a dating site; to see what the future, or at the very least, the present, of internet dating was about.

The internet age and I grew up together. I remember getting my first dial-up modem for our home computer and signing up for a subscription to America Online when I was about 10. I vividly recall the rise of the “chat room predator” paranoia among America’s parents. Every week there seemed to be new stories on the news about a 50+ man posing as someone else and luring 12 year old girls away from home. This was a time when seeing the typed phrase “I want 2 meet you” was the single most horrifying thing a parent could ever see on a computer screen. The idea that anyone would pay money to get together with other people they met on the internet was absolutely unheard of.

But as a much wiser man than I once said “The times they are a-changing.” Culture and experience evolved, and online dating became one of the biggest and most prominent online industries of the last 20 years even edging out internet pornography. Yes, Americans spend more money on virtual dating (an average of $239 per person per year) than they do on porn. Take that Dateline NBC.
In this country an estimated 40 million people are currently involved in some sort of cyber dating service. With 20 million registered members, eHarmony.com tops the list of sites. Almost 53% of online daters (who will henceforth be referred to as eDaters) are adult men, and the average age is 48.
Culture evolves just as nature evolves. What was once unknown and forbidden territory now becomes commonplace. We, as people, do not run scared from the new and unknown, we embrace it, we learn from it, we profit from it, and then we exploit it. With cultural acceptance comes cultural exploitation. Like any industry who’s success depends entirely on a nameless faceless consumer population, and especially any industry who’s end result is seeing someone else naked: we lie. We lie a lot.

It is easy to find data about the most common lies people tell about themselves on dating websites. A quick Google search with wield dozens of sites about the biggest lies told and how to spot a lie. It is as though the dishonesty of eDating is equally as accepted as eDating itself. The lies are statistically measured, and the results are to be expected: Men lie most about their age, height, and income, women lie most about their weight, physical stature, and age. It seems obvious why people would lie about themselves: the more attractive (physically or otherwise) I make myself the more messages of interest I will receive from the opposite sex. However, logic has no place in reason.

By a resounding majority, people of both sexes will say that honesty or trust is the most important part of a successful relationship. The second most important thing is communication. So let’s review: of the roughly 70% of people surveyed by Topdatingtips.com who said they would try eDating, where lying and dishonesty is an accepted practice and connections are made through individuals silently browsing two-dimensional profiles alone before sending an e-mail to a person of interest, most would count honesty and strong communication as the two most important aspects they look for when establishing a relationship. Logic has no place in reason.

Now, skipping past the obvious conclusion that any and all lies about one’s physicak appearance will be immediately debunked upon the initial meeting of the two eDaters, the stats on eRelationship successes are fascinating. It is like dating on crystal meth. eHarmony claims that connections have led to as many as 236 members being married each day (though little evidence supports this claim, looks like members aren’t the only ones lying about themselves). A recently survey found that 30% of female eDaters has slept with a man they met online on the first meeting; 80% of whom did not use any form of protection. If that sounds like a quick turn-around, how about the fact that the average eCourtship leading to marriage is approximately 18.5 months compared to 42 months for those of us who date the old-fashioned way? This all from an industry built on that which was everyone’s biggest fear 20 years ago.

There is no question that the internet has changed the way mankind communicates more than any other tool since the invention of the telephone. My generation saw the rise of AIM, e-mail, Napster, Facebook, Myspace, Facebook again, Craigslist, E-bay, YouTube, Pandora, Chatroulette, and the list goes on and on. The internet has changed the way we talk to friends and family, the way we buy and sell goods, the way we watch television and movies, the way we listen to and acquire music. why shouldn’t dating be next?

The internet has not only changed how we do things, but it changed us as well. Shy kids who were too terrified to call a member of the opposite sex (or same sex as it were) were able to freely eChat well into the night via AIM without even thinking twice. They actually became more social by sitting silently alone in a dark room at a computer. We became a more connected society, but we became a more passive society as well. Calling someone on the phone became unnecessary, even too aggressive compared to IMing someone. Why confront someone in person when you can simply send them an e-mail? Why go to the store when you can buy anything you need from Amazon.com and have it shipped right to you? And now with eDating, the biggest obstacle has been conquered. Too timid to go out and meet people? Too shy to ask someone out on a date? Just sign-up for eHarmony and your problems are solved, just let eHarmony do the heavy lifting for you. They have set up a way to passively ask out and passively accept or reject anyone you want. We are slowly moving towards a society where no one has to vocally say anything to anyone at all. The internet has managed to simultaneously bring the world together and isolate everyone who embraces it. As much as some would still caution against it, eDating is not simply a part of modern society, it IS modern society, and for no other reason than because it is there. Logic has no place in reason.

Certainly, an inescapable stigma still lingers at the idea of “meeting someone online,” and the dangers of being scammed through the written word have not, in anyway decreased (many would argue the opposite to be true), but we are different now. We are better suited to recognize how to spot potential danger online. I don’t know too many people these days who click on a pop-up ad to “win a FREE iPod” or “meet sexy singles in your area” where as 10 years ago we may have been more susceptible rather than suspect.

Recently, I had a conversation with a cousin of mine who is roughly 15 years older than I and who has 2 young children. We began discussing guarding against internet predators and how she fears that she has absolutely no way to protect her children from being lured in by someone who wants to do the unthinkable to them. This is, no doubt, still a universal fear among parents, especially parents who were not born into the internet generation the way her kids were. My immediate thinking was this: rather than banning your children from going into chat rooms and conversing with strangers, try encouraging them to. Lead that charge in protecting your loved ones by embracing culture rather than retreating from it and fearing it.

When I was a kid in the 1980’s, the golden rule was simple: don’t talk to strangers. Simple, straightforward, easy to remember. If you are a stranger I am not talking to you, period, end of story. But this reasoning is flawed. Reality is much more complex than can be summed up into a four word statement. Yes, for the most part, it is a good defense for a kid to stay away from adults they don’t know, but not always. What about strangers in uniform? What about strangers of authority? What about strangers who are there to help you rather than harm you? Children need to learn that there is a big difference between a stranger with a trench coat and a stranger with a badge. There is a big difference between a rusted out 1987 Oldsmobile and a police squad car. But mostly, children need to learn that if they are in danger, they know who they can tell, and parents and families aren’t always around when something happens, and in fact usually parents and families aren’t around when something happens. There are good strangers and there are bad strangers, and the only way a child can really learn how to differentiate between the two is by learning the tell signs.

An internet chat room is like a game of poker. You can’t see the hand anyone else is holding, but if you play the game long enough you learn that there are always telling signs to know when someone is bluffing, and by learning these signs, you have a better chance at winning. Children can easily learn what signs to look out for. They can become acutely aware of what they should avoid in order to stay out of trouble. Just as I learned how to stay clear of the wrong strangers in the outside world, children can and should learn how to steer clear of danger in the cyber world without being technologically left behind. Give them the proper tools and kids can accomplish just about anything. “Teach your children well.”

Screws fall out all of the time, the world is an imperfect place, and despite statistical analysis and public polling, no universal rationale exists in the world because outliers have always and will always exist. There is a solid guarantee that 90-99% of everyone you will find on a dating website is there for the same reason you are. They are looking for love in the final refuge of the lonely, but no place on Earth or in cyberspace is 100% safe no matter how hard you try. This is a fact that everyone already knows but no one wants to accept. We want people we meet online to be honest. We want that perfect man or woman with everything we have always desired to be there waiting to be discovered by us. Of course if they are there waiting for us, we need to look our best, so we tell little fibs. We lie about how tall we are, how much we weigh, how much we drink or smoke, our religious preferences, how much money we make because we know that when we find Mr. or Ms. Right, the lies won’t matter; they will love us regardless. So there we are, sitting alone at a computer hoping the honest, trustworthy true life soulmates will fall passioantely and helplessly in love with the dishonest image of ourselves… Logic has no place in reason.

Everything Changes, Except That Nothing Does


I love The OC. This is a fact that surprises most people who know me, myself included. As much as I try to resist, as much as I try to ignore, and as much as I try to dissuade, one haunting and beautiful fact remains: I love The OC.

What is not to love? A lonely yet naturally bright kid from a bad neighborhood finds himself in trouble for a crime he did not really commit. His good-natured, mildly self-righteous and quick witted lawyer recognizes the boy's potential, and takes him into his loving, yet oddly detached home in Newport Beach, California where he becomes the missing ingredient in the lives of the lawyer himself, his overly stressed and cynical wife, and his quirky and socially isolated son. The young man finds himself in the center of a whirlwind of Orange County's most socially elite yet emotionally, morally, and ethically broken residents and manages to, though seemingly out of his element, act as the missing and much needed ingredient in the lives of those around him. He finds love, friendship, family, direction, and passion in a world that was not meant for him.

If it weren't for the overt over-the-top use of violence, sex, drugs, scandals, and generally seedy underpinnings of a seemingly perfect world that makes The OC look like Beverly Hills 90210 on steroids, the show could follow any showing of the Charlie Brown Christmas Special every December.

Anyone unfamiliar with the show can get everything they need to know from this iconic scene.

The OC represents everything a 21st century American teen drama about an affluent society should represent all capped off with the rather clichéd and obvious theorem that a cultural outsider is never the cause of problems within a society, but rather the outsider uncovers the all too prevalent problems that the given society has become desensitized to over time. Even the most casual of observers cannot escape nor ignore this incredibly over-used and unimaginably banal of statements. But the rather primitive of cultural critiques of the depraved was not what makes me love The OC. I love The OC because every time I watch the show I think of 2 things 1) “Buffalo Bill” Cody and 2) Forrest Gump.

There are moments in American history that can profoundly affect and be affected by unknowing individuals who simply show up. One of these instances was in the late 19th century into the early 20th century, right around the time that William "Buffalo Bill" Cody made a name for himself. Famous for the traveling live spectacle known as "Buffalo Bill’s Wild West," William Cody had a much more fruitful and historically profound life in the American "old west" than most casual observers will recognize. In reality, Cody, according to various accounts, took part in just about every iconic activity commonly thought of when thinking of the turn of the century frontier. Cody was born into a family who actively protested slavery in the United States. He served as the Chief of Scouts for the Third infantry in the American Civil War where he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was a fur trapper and buffalo hunter. He was contracted by the Kansas Pacific Railroad company to serve buffalo meat he hunted to its workers during construction of the railroad. He delivered mail for the Pony Express for a time, dug for gold in Colorado, drove a stagecoach, and managed a hotel all before founding the touring live spectacle known as "Buffalo Bill's Wild West" that essentially created the American depiction of cowboys versus Indians. Despite profiting from the overly stylized and stereotypical depiction of American Indians, Cody was a staunch supporter of the turn of the century civil rights moment for women, Indians, and African Americans. William Cody is, by all accounts, the iconic frontiersman of the late 19th century, and he achieved that status simply by existing at the right time and place.

Then there was Forrest Gump, the highly fictionalized dimwit that had first-hand experience in an extraordinary number of significant events that happened in the United States from the Mid-1950's till the late 1980's. It doesn't take a whole lot of historical education to know that a lot of profound and revolutionary events occurred in the latter half of the 20th century, and it doesn't take a whole lot of complex arithmetic to figure out when a person would need to be born to experience it all, but never-the-less, the idea that a single person can exist to experience it all captivated movie audiences and a number of critics and members of the motion picture academy in 1994. It had the added bonus of making America gasp in unison and ask “what the Hell did they do to Gary Sinise’s legs?”

Here a snapshot of Forrest Gump’s cultural and historical resume: 1) teaching a young Elvis Presley to dance 2) witnessing the racial integration of the University of Alabama from directly behind George Wallace’s racist ivory tower 3) playing football for "Bear" Bryant’s Crimson Tide 4) Fighting in Vietnam where he won a Congressional Medal of Honor 6) speaking along-side Abby Hoffman in Washington DC 7) Meeting Presidents John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon 8) Witnessing and reporting the Watergate break-in 9) almost single-handedly improving relations between the US and China through the sport of ping-pong 10) Meeting John Lennon while on the Dick Cavett Show 11) Founding the Bubba-Gump shrimp corporation 12)Purchasing stock in Apple Computers when it was a young unknown company 13) and coining the expression "shit happens." Not too shabby for a kid who's measured level of intelligence is below the average standards for the Alabama public school system.

Had Forrest Gump been real, he would have been to the American experience what the Ford Model T was to the automobile industry; he would have single-handedly shaped America for all future generations. He was everywhere, yet he was nowhere at the exact same time faded into the background of photos and videos of some of the nation’s most prolific personalities. The premise for the film was simple: in the second half of the 20th century, history was taking place every moment (except for the 1980's), and a single unknown person could exist to be a part of it all without ever realizing it. Not a particularly advanced premise, but it broke box office records and swept the Academy Awards, so Robert Zemeckis is probably not too broken up about it.

The bit that made Forrest Gump fascinating, aside from the clever and tasteful use of film technology, was that he was, for lack of a better word, an idiot. A major character trait, in fact the only prominent character trait, was that Forrest had a below average IQ and didn’t seemingly possess the ability for complex and rational thought the way “normal” people do, though I suppose an argument to the contrary could be made. Forrest essentially shaped history through total and complete idled existence. His lack of activism was in itself the cause of his level of historic exposure. He simply travelled as the winds of time carried him (as referenced by the opening sequence of a feather travelling in the breeze to land at his feet), and by extension we, the audience, could very well be unknowingly living that which will be viewed as historically and culturally significant for generations to come. Again, this is a simple, clichéd, and remarkably obvious premise, but one that seems to strike a chord with anyone looking for a 20th century period piece about a man with a good, honest, and noble heart.

Forrest Gump is, without question, a fictionalized William Cody half a century later.

Which brings us to Ryan Atwood and Newport Beach circa 2003. Unlike Forrest Gump, Ryan is described as a bright kid, but like Forrest, he is the perpetual outsider. Where Forrest was limited in intelligence, Ryan is limited by his socio-economic background, but his limitation is what makes him extraordinary; at least extraordinary in the respect that his presence has a profound effect on his surrounding community.

The OC’s depiction of Newport Beach 2003 is a microcosm of the United States mid 20th century existing as its own entity with its own budding and changing cultural boundaries being exercised and challenged by those within it. Most people, of course are blind to the realities of Newport until Ryan enters the scene. He is viewed as something of a parasite at first, tainting the community with his filthy “lower class” status until eventually (though not fully realized until the final season) he truly gains the respect and admiration of everyone he encounters.

Ryan is an enigma, but he is an enigma with a remarkable propensity for bearing witness to every significant event in Newport Beach over the course of 4 years. When Kirsten’s model home burned down, Ryan was there. When Marissa overdosed on painkillers, Ryan was the one who found her. When Jimmy lost millions of his investors’ money, Ryan broke up the fist fight. When Luke’s father was discovered having an illicit affair with another man, Ryan saw them kiss. When Oliver goes crazy and tries to kidnap Marissa, Ryan was the only one to suspect and the one to save the day, and this is all just the first season. Ryan is to Newport Beach what William Cody and Forrest Gump were to America in the late 19th century and the mid-late 20th century respectively. The OC is about an affluent community that has affluent problems, but those problems were not recognized prior to the arrival of Ryan Atwood who, for all intents and purposes, had no business being there to recognize them. By Ryan being Ryan, Newport became Newport.

Everything changes, except that nothing does. The railroads would have been built, the Pony Express would have functioned, the Civil War would have been fought and won by the Union, African-Americans, women, and American Indians would have gained the same Constitutional rights as white men, and cowboys would ride off into the sunset. But then, maybe they wouldn’t.

The Civil rights movement would have prospered. The University of Alabama Crimson Tide would roll on. Vietnam would have ended in controversy. John Lennon, John Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy would have been assassinated. Nixon would have resigned amid scandal. New York City in the late 1970’s would have been a seedy, disgusting, cultural cesspool. Shit would happen. But then, maybe they wouldn’t.

Jimmy Cooper would have stolen millions of dollars. Marrissa would have overdosed in Mexico. Seth would have chosen Anna over Summer. Kirsten would have gone to AA to get sober. Julie would have slept with Luke. Caleb would have died penniless despite his affluent image. But then, maybe they wouldn’t.

Like most people, I don’t know much about chaos theory, but I do not a lot about “Back To The Future,” and as such, I know that a single, seemingly insignificant act of normal everyday life by a normal everyday person can, will, and does have a dramatic effect of future events. I know that if Marty McFly hadn’t pushed his father out of the street in 1955, his life in 1985 would have been just as he had left it assuming he had done nothing else to disrupt the space time continuum, which is, of course, impossible. Instead, Marty, who was thrust into a time and place he didn’t understand, drastically altered the course of human events in a way no one could possibly comprehend through a single act of humanitarianism. By Marty being Marty, 1985 could no longer be 1985. But all can ultimately be fixed by Chuck Berry.

So the question remains, how much of an impact did William Cody have on the shaping of human history. Would life have existed as we know it had he not reportedly hunted more bison than anyone in his immediate social circle? How would the civil rights movement have been affected had Forrest Gump (or someone else) not picked up a dropped notebook and handed it back to Vivian Malone as she entered the University of Alabama for the first time? How would the Cohen family have survived in Newport Beach had Ryan and Trey not attempted to steal a car? Would Seth and Summer ever gotten together? Would Sandy ever have started teaching? Would Kirsten ever have learned to cook? One thing that is still certain: no matter what, George Wallace would still be a dick.

Never underestimate the magnitude of impact a single person can have on any given circumstance. And do not assume that those who impact society the most are individuals already prevalent within a given society. If history (and movies) has taught us anything it is that cultural outsiders stand to shake the foundation of future events as much, if not exponentially more, than insiders for the very reason we love Forrest Gump and The OC; it takes a certain kind of fresh outsight (as opposed to insight) in order to truly see the flawed nature of being, and it is within that recognition that the most profound of changes can and will occur. Bill, Forrest, and Ryan teach us that these truths are universal. Yes, they act as the everyman’s eyes into a world we are unfamiliar with, but they also act as the nowhere man’s tool for deconstructing establishment. This is a truth that has existed throughout time and space, and will continue to exist, until someone alters that reality. Everything changes, except that nothing does.