Technological advances have now stretched so far as to convert even the most steadfast of bibliophiles. The great strides made in ebook technology now have even those lovers of the printed page turning to ebook readers and devices to delve into the depths of their most cherished of novels. Ebook readers, like the Kindle, allow reading junkies the ability to carry not just a few of their favorite tomes with them, but all of them, in one small, portable device. Access to an entire library of books at their fingertips can turn even the most dedicated of readers from the printed novel to the electronic format. And with the most recent advances in technology, there are now not just a few limited choices of device.

Sony’s eReader has a portable device, as well as their larger device which is still briefcase friendly for the business traveler who prefers the larger screen. Sony’s device has a touch format which allows you to turn pages with a flick, mimicking the traditional page turn. And now with their new wireless device, they are finally catching up with the meteoric rise of Amazon’s Kindle.

The Amazon Kindle, available in two sizes, is a godsend to readers. With its small trade paperback size to it’s larger DX model more suited toward magazine and newspaper views, with a simple click you can purchase and download a plethora of books, magazines, newspapers, globally. And now, with the new Nook by Barnes & Noble, Apple’s new iPad and mobile devices like the Blackberry and iPhone with eReader apps, as well as PC and Mac reader capabilities, your library can go with you, on almost any of your devices, without having to choose what books or publications to bring with you at any given time.

Publisher’s on the other hand (and certain authors like J.K. Rowling) just don’t realize that these advances in technology are actually helping, and not harming the industry. Authors such as Ms. Rowling prefer readers to experience the page-turn capability and heft of a good book. That may make sense, as people still do like to look around their rooms and be surrounded by their novels. Books have been ingrained in some to provide a sense of comfort. After all, if you weren’t surrounded by your books how would people truly know you are a reader?

But, for those young readers who aren’t avid book readers, the electronic reading devices may actually encourage reading. And perhaps if someone doesn’t want to be seen with or have to tote an 800 page novel, they can discretely carry that book with them on their computer or other device. The stigma of being a bookworm for those younger readers would be eliminated.

But the publishing industry — for shame. Publishers have been complaining about the great tragedy of these ebook readers. They have stated that these readers are causing the industry to lose money. In articles in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times last December a number of publishers announced that they were delaying release dates on many new books in electronic format as the e-format was causing a loss of sales for their hard cover novels. They called them “bargain” priced.  And that the rates are “cut rate.”

(See Jeffrey Trachtenberg’s two articles for The Journal and The New York Times blog:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704825504574584372263227740.html and

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704825504574586291583582158.html and

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/publishers-delay-e-book-releases/)

Creating these delays in eformat releases would only serve to lose sales. Publishers are upset that hardcover sales are dropping and thus the publisher is losing money. However, is this really true? The cost of preparing an ebook, in whatever format, has to be far less than that of the hardcover novel. Distribution and retailing overhead alone for a hardcover novel has to reduce profits significantly. An ebook takes limited digital space, is almost a one time cost to actually create the edocument. Publishers are saying that the $9.99 price that new ebooks are selling for are “cut rate.” But a new hardcover novel can range anywhere from $17.99 to $27.99 for the typical fiction novel. If the new release is popular, it is typically offered at a New York Times Bestseller discount of 40-50% - ebooks do not offer such discounts. Additionally, most booksellers offer 20-30% off coupons each and every week for their members, and Barnes & Noble and Borders each offer a 10% off for members for every book purchased, on top of any other coupons offered.

Add to this the costs of typesetting, printing, paper, binding, trucking, retail space, and then the loss of money for any unsold books. An ebook is one file, sold or unsold, and therefore doesn’t create the extreme losses or waste of the printed novel. Never will an ebook sit in a pile of other unsold books on a bargain shelf getting banged up. Furthermore, with the use and abuse of a book at a bookstore, those over-perused copies will not be sold and simply be left as waste.

And do publishers not care for the environment? Think of all the green issues involved: From the inks and dyes used, to the iron/steel used for the typesetting, to the paper mills and pulp, to the polluted rivers, the decimated forests, to the glues for the binding, to the gas for the trucks and planes, to the landfill or recycling for the unsold books.

With all these factors and costs, a $9.99 price-tag certainly offers publishers a higher profit margin on each book alone.

Let’s add to this the fact that with an electronic book, the likelihood of buying in quantity is far greater. Walking into a bookstore and walking out with more than three books is not common. Either one wouldn’t want to carry all those books or it would be hard to justify the money to expend on multiple books that only might be read in future. There is nothing like seeing a stack of books on your shelf or table that haven’t been read giving you a sense of obligation. However, with the electronic book and a simple click, the reader can buy a book and another and another and another without feeling that loss of funds and are therefore more likely to buy the several books they are potentially interested in. And without that visual reminder of monies spent on the unread books collecting dust, the consumer is more likely to spend again - sooner.

Also with booksellers such as Amazon offering wireless purchasing, and the oneclick pay option the reader doesn’t really notice that they are clicking away multiples of $9.99. And for those books that are series, they can buy one after another and complete the series. Traditional bookstores rarely carry all books in a series due to limitations of shelf space. Once again authors and publishers win out with the ebook. And with ebooks closer in price to paperback novels, the profits on those must be through the roof compared to their printed counterparts. Also, the reader doesn’t have to wait until something is in stock. If a Stephen King novel at Border’s is out of stock, you can be sure that it won’t be out of stock at any of the eSellers.

Even for eresellers like Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Border’s who sell traditional book formats with deep discounts, it’s still that much faster to buy the electronic version and read now. And easier to get all books that relate to an author.

If publishers don’t see the change in the market or read the writing on the wall, they are going to miss the boat. Young readers and old alike prefer not to have the bulk of carrying a stack of hard cover novels around. Summer reading has traditionally been for paperbacks – who wants to carry a stack of hardcovers with them on vacation – well now the industry has an entire new season/market they can explore for new releases. With the electronic reader they can simply buy those new releases and take as many of them with them on vacation as they choose, without worrying about carrying space.

Yes, it may cause the traditional bookstore or airport newsstand to lose sales. But even without the huge growth in electronic readers, have you walked into a Border’s lately? They are gasping for air. The typical entry is now almost barren. The only display of note is the young adult section – and that is muddied up with key-chains, stuffed animals, Twilight memorabilia, Robert Pattinson posters and life-size cutouts. But the remainder of the store is filled with calendars, DVD’s, stationery supplies, Beatles memorabilia, a coffee house, candy, a small section for the Sony eReader, and magazine racks. Trying to find a book in Border’s these days is like trying to find that proverbial needle in a haystack.

Even Barnes & Noble has an entire first floor dedicated to DVD’s and Blu-Ray movies. And with the closing of Circuit City, they have added in video games. And now they have an in-store Nook display at their front entrance. Their coffee house takes up another chuck of space. But at least they have a large section, which Border’s typically does not, of art books and other items that might not be ideal on an electronic device. But they are guilty too - they do also sell their fair share of calendars, coffee mugs, puzzles, games, yoga mats and stabilization balls. So the term bookseller may not be quite as appropriate as it used to. Their online site also sells furniture and housewares, and Border’s online store offers perks with other sellers like Dell, HP, and other companies.

The ebook is the way of the future. And the booksellers know this. The publishing industry is sorely behind the times thinking that this format is actually harmful to the industry. If they truly looked at the number of sales versus sales numbers for hardcover book formats, they would see the incredible growth for what it is – a real advantage and cash cow for them. And David Young, CEO of Hachette’s comment in The Wall Street Journal that - “We’re doing this to preserve our industry. I can’t sit back and watch years of building authors sold off at bargain-basement prices. It’s about the future of the business.” - is so out of touch with the reality of future of the industry. This old school way of thinking will only serve to hurt both the publishers and the authors that are bound to them, as well as any new upcoming writers.

What “future” is in keeping back the tide of advance? Trying at every avenue to stop the ebook from flourishing to preserve a way of life that many do not want preserved? Trying to line the pockets of the executives while the author suffers from these battles? The bell is tolling on these traditional formats that make everyone but the author rich and everyone but the consumer happy. Hello publishers, can you hear it? “That is the sound of inevitability.” (Morpheus, The Matrix.) Times are changing. These antiquated and inaccurate statements that come from fear are just as unfounded as statements that the world is flat. Talking about how authors may now not be discovered as the industry won’t have the funds to promote new writers is ridiculous. There is no better way to get someone to explore a new writer than to give them that free esample download or to release a chapter on an author’s site. Even book trailers are far better promotions than newspaper ads for new novels.

Delaying the books aren’t going to boost the sales. It just takes one person to scan in the hardcover and viral it all over the net for the torrents to have available to download. And further, as Amazon stated in The Times article, “Authors get the most publicity at launch and need to strike while the iron is hot. If readers can’t get their preferred format at that moment, they may buy a different book or just not buy a book at all.” Delaying the ebook would not guarantee that someone is going to purchase the hardcover book versus waiting for the up to four month delay. It may just guarantee that a new author loses sales. It is taking quite a gamble with an authors profitability and success.

The ebook will probably never, in this authors lifetime, completely replace the printed word, but it has become such a great advance that it is near impossible to ignore the change…for the better.

And just a note regarding the Amazon v. MacMillan saga - good for Amazon to stand firm on pricing. The $9.99 price-point is fair and reasonable. There may be many complaints out there about Amazon’s pulling MacMillan’s books but if the readers really think about it, would they be so happy paying $15 for the same ebook that is really only worth the $9.99. That same hardcover - which is far more expensive to produce - sells for about that price after all discounts are taken.  Simply because Apple has thrown their hat in the ring and lured the publishers in with more favorable pricing, doesn’t mean that sales are going to continue at the same rate that Amazon’s sales have been for their ebooks. Apple may soon realize that Amazon had it right, that consumers aren’t willing, for a fiction or non-fiction versus a business book or textbook, to pay the equivalent price to that of a physical book. And publisher’s beware, once all the ebookstores come to those same conclusions, there just might not be any more options for you!

Driving around the Mecca that is Los Angeles, one can’t seem to go two feet without being bombarded by mass advertisements on giant billboards. Furthermore, there seems to be an overwhelming proportion dedicated to HBO’s various television series. It may be the same in other metropolitan or suburban areas, at bus stops, on taxi cabs, trains, buses and subways. However, none of these advertising mediums are quite as in-your-face as being confronted by larger than life images on billboards or painted onto the side of a building. When these ads are simply studio movie posters with date of release, although distracting, they are not quite as attention grabbing as HBO’s television series ads.

It may be HBO’s intention to grab you with their “catchy” advertisements, but they are not always intriguing, and more often than not they are simply off-putting.

HBO’s jumped on the vampire craze that began, once again, with Stephenie Meyers’ Twilight book series. Their True Blood series poster attempts to lure you to the show with a vampiress licking the blood from her lips - a much more sensual image than the actual actors in the show put forth. They may be hitting their target mark with that one, but a big miss is their ad for Hung.

Perhaps trying to cash in on their version of Weeds, HBO pairs up a seemingly innocuous looking pair of individuals, and reverses their roles - a woman pimp and a male prostitute. Their poster tries to drill this in by placing, in large letters, the words “Ho” and “Pimp” over each. Viewing these two actors on a small jpeg image on the computer is one thing, but the towering vision of them as you are driving down the road is actually very unpleasant. In grand scale, Thomas Jane looks old and worn, and poor mousy Jane Adams looks crazed and masculine with cleft chin and an unusually wide neck. The grey undertones add to the sad misery, that is this poster, targeting who again? The plus 50 white, suburban crowd? Not sure it’s going to grab the attention of those 20-somethings that jumped on the Weeds bandwagon with its “off-the-wall” idea of a middle-aged suburban housewife selling marijuana, simply because an older white man is prostituting himself. This shows appeal is less edgy, and more sad, and if picturing visually, “ew gross” or “tmi” might come to mind for the younger crowd.

But, speaking of gross, this brings up the point of this post - Piven. As HBO gears up for its new season of Entourage, one can’t avoid, no matter how hard they do try, to see the umpteen billboards of Jeremy Piven. Mr. Piven was a highly entertaining actor throughout the 1980’s, and who, it seems has an overwhelming fondness for appearing in his good friend John Cusack’s films - One Crazy Summer, Say Anything, The Grifters, Grosse Pointe Blank, Serendipity, Runaway Jury, just to name a few. His quirky style and goofy attitude worked well to back the leading actors. Even his roles on television cast him in either a comedic, jerky or spineless light. This seemed to suit him quite well - it was really the Piven we all got to know and love so much over the decades.

This new, reinvented, image-driven, “cool” Piven…. not so sure…. It is one thing to put on an image for a role. His role in Entourage, as a slick agent, demands that he be tanned, trim and touped. And it is understandable to some degree how this image needs to carry over in his publicity efforts. However, on every interview, in every commercial, on every sky-high billboard, Piven is sporting his little-something-extra. On good days, hardly noticeable, on bad days…well…someone forgot to bathe the chihuahua. Surprisingly, there are many people out there who have no idea that Mr. Piven was follically-challenged. Is it shame? Delusion?

There are so many great actors who do not feel the need to deceive themselves or their audiences once they leave the silver screen - Ed Harris, Bruce Willis, Sean Connery, Jack Nicholson, Ben Kingsley, just to name a very few. It’s not as if Piven is in his twenties, trying to newly establish himself. He’s 44, has been in the business for decades. This new public image actually takes away from the fact that Piven is, and has been, a talented stage and screen actor. Is it truly his fear that the high school/college-age crowds might lose the love? Or is Piven making the statement, by refusing to appear au naturel, that hair loss is equivalent to loser status in the eyes of his younger audience? Will the Hollywood hot spots refuse him entry if he showed up lacking his image-maker? (Somehow I doubt Bruce Willis or Jason Statham are being turned away at any door.) Sporting his new little friend, is he now too edgy to work with his old buddy John Cusack?

Each time he presents himself in his “natural” state with freshly coiffed toupe, you just have wondering what he’s thinking and who he thinks he’s fooling. Or is it he who is the fool? So… Does his hairpiece make him cool, or does it mark him the fool?

Ever since Tivo came up with a way to record, pause and fast-forward television broadcasts, advertisers have been running scared. When the cable-box DVR began being offered by cable companies to more and more viewers, scared turned into petrified. After all, who is going to pay the umpteen dollars for an ad slot that is most likely to be skipped by viewers? With this technology, the only possibly decent spot would be the one just before the show returns - as users would most likely rewind and catch a glimpse of the ad so they don’t miss one second of their program. Advertisers used to have to only contend with the fact that viewers used commercial interruptions as snack breaks or bathroom breaks, but not every commercial would be missed. And, if the show was important enough, viewers would remain glued to their sets, hoping not to miss a single moment, thus absorbing each and every advertisement.

When the VCR became a household item, the issue was raised, but people still, in general, wanted to see their shows real-time. And, the difficulty and inconvenience of setting a program to record, and the inflexibility of this technology, made watching recorded television the exception, not the norm. Who hasn’t had the experience of coming home to watch the pivotal episode of a favorite program to find out your VCR clock was set to AM instead of PM or that the tape ran out before it reached the end of the broadcast?

The DVD recorder has never reached the popularity of the VCR, so ad agencies didn’t have to contend with adjusting their campaigns. But with the Digital Video Recorder, the flexibility of being able to watch a program pre-recorded while recording another program, or two, makes creative departments work late into the night to strategize just how to get someone to watch their ads. Granted, this has caused some advertisers to step up and produce humorous and highly entertaining commercials that we wouldn’t necessarily mind watching. And, as consumers, we really do want to be sold, just perhaps not to be interrupted. Hulu.com, an online site where one can watch various television and video programs, offers viewers the choice of being interrupted by commercials throughout the program, for shorter intervals, or at the beginning with a longer ~60 second ad. How nice! Not commercial-free, but at least there’s a choice.

Advertisers do get their shot, where people want to see their ads. The hype for Super Bowl advertising attracts sports viewers and non-sports viewers alike to the channel simply to watch these commercials. They are talked about around the water cooler the Monday following the Super Bowl. People visit YouTube just to see the ads they might have missed, or to watch them again and again. There are even shows every-so-often showing “best of” commercials or shows asking if you “remember that ad for Charmin.” Some ads use clever, catchy songs that people run out and download from iTunes or Amazon.com after hearing them. This is fine. This is expected. This is what advertisers are supposed to do to help their clients sell their products.

But, advertisers have begun to move beyond this. They have their slot, between television segments, but that isn’t enough - especially since fewer and fewer people are sitting through the commercial breaks.

One of their recent “brilliant” ideas includes advertisements at the movies. Instead of just seeing those individual slides prior to the show for local sporting goods stores, real estate agents, and restaurants, the viewer now gets to pay their $6-$12 per ticket to sit through at least five minutes of commercials prior to movie trailers. Being trap-tivated by the commercial is NOT the same as captivated no matter how clever the ad. Being forced to pay for commercials doesn’t seem like the best way to endear someone to buy a particular product. Boycott comes to mind instead.

Another “gem” includes having still image ads while fast-forwarding. Tivo viewers get to enjoy a still image of the product being advertised as they fast-forward over the commercial for said product. The genius that came up with that one must still be patting himself or herself on the back. A commercial you didn’t want to watch in the first place is now reminding you EXACTLY why you didn’t want to see it. Aw snap!

A third “winner” - not yet in effect - would be to not allow fast-forwarding. Advertisers are angry at losing money so have been trying to eliminate the ability for viewers to skip the commercials. If/when this comes to pass, it will be very interesting just how quietly this intrusion will be accepted. (Envisioning a surge like that at Walmart on Black Friday.)

And, although each of these methods of getting ads placed in front of viewers is annoying, it’s still not quite as bad as the underhanded methods now being used. One of the more subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) and sinister ways advertisers are trying to reach viewers is by having networks extend their program times. By networks over-running the timeslot or starting their programs just after the hour, and staggering the start times for each network, it blocks the ability of the DVR to record the programs as planned. If NBC starts their show from 8:30-9:01, you can’t then record two programs on a different network at 9 p.m. Further, many of the DVR’s that exist allow you to extend your record time, but not shorten it, without tremendous hassle. Therefore, you are still left high-and-dry. You may wonder what this has to do with advertising? Well, if you can’t rely on your DVR, you will resort to watching your television live. If you can’t record two programs due to staggering, you’ll watch one live, while the other records. And of course, watching live tv includes watching commercials.

Advertisers have, for a long time, used product placement to sell a product. After all, if Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson and Paula Abdul are drinking Coca-Cola, then why shouldn’t you? Or if the Top Chef contestants are visiting Whole Foods, and being driven away in their roomy Toyota Rav-4, then how could you not want one? (And, to be certain you didn’t miss the fact that it was a Rav-4, the close-up shot of the car logo/decal should give you a hint!) But, the use of product placement has gone a step beyond - way beyond.

Where you could once expect to see a cereal box that just happens to be facing your way, while other food labels are turned around backwards, in a tv show, you can now typically see your favorite character putting down the product (and adjusting its placement) so that it clearly shows that that product is the one being sold. You can also turn on your favorite reality show and watch the “actors” sell the products for you. “Hand me that T-Mobile sidekick so that I can call home.” Or, on NBC’s The Biggest Loser, you can sit through one or two such “ads” per show while the contestants discuss with each other just how much they enjoy Jennie-O light turkey, or Extra sugar free gum. Unscripted? Ha! It sounds exactly like those commercials where the ladies sit around discussing the merits of Yaz! Although trying to appear to be a natural conversation, at least we know it’s a paid-for advertisement. After all, don’t you walk into the kitchen and say to your spouse/friend/sibling/child, “Hey, let me take out that Hickory Farm Smoked Sausage that is low in fat and preservatives and cook that for you in my rubbermaid re-usable containers. Why don’t you grab the Brita water filter and pour me a glass as it’s good for the environment - not having those disposable water bottles. While dinner is cooking, why don’t we chew a stick of Extra, it’s sugar free, no calories, really curbs the appetite, and cleans my teeth too!” You don’t? Shocking. Absolutely shocking.

It’s gotten to the point where we now have to fast-forward over segments of the actual program in order to avoid a commercial by a show’s participant. This is bad enough when it’s reality television. But when the advertising permeates a fictional drama, it seems that much worse. After all, aren’t the actors already paid for participation?

Watching F/X’s Damages is like sitting through a very long Cadillac Escalade commercial. And for each segment where you see the Escalade, you get to enjoy the full-blown version of the ad during the commercial break - just in case you didn’t get enough during the show, or couldn’t make the connection. And you thought you could avoid those ads by pre-recording and fast-forwarding. Taking that one step further are AMC’s Mad Men and TNT’s Trust Me - both shows about ad agencies. The viewer typically gets to enjoy a campaign being created for a particular product on the show, then watching the actual commercial for that product during the break. Therefore, if you, the viewer, does like to skip ads, you really can’t miss it during the show. Perhaps it’s more subtle with Mad Men as it’s set in a different era, but sitting through the creation of an ad campaign for Dove Shampoo on Trust Me, and then catching the actual commercial not 30 seconds later is so disturbing, it’s almost indecent. One might say, “But the show is about advertising.” And yes, that’s what fictional products and campaigns are for. Even the occasional real-life product would be fine, if the advertiser wasn’t also paying for a segment-break ad moments after the fact. Greedy much?

The worst culprit, which we can only hope doesn’t become a new trend, is the fictional character selling a product in a non-ad related program. Just this week, in Fox’s Bones episode, “The Bones That Foam.” The setting: Booth and Brennan enter a car dealership. A fictional saleswoman asks if they are looking for a new car, and Bones points to Agent Booth’s vehicle, which the camera then follows. Bones states that Booth already has a very nice car. The saleswoman “notices” that it’s a Toyota Sequoia, that it’s a “honey,” that it’s “roomy” and one could have a “Super Bowl party” in the back. She points out that it has GPS, side airbags and has such great gas mileage and is a “can-do machine.” Wow! Really? Free advertising? Doubtful. How much do you suppose that Toyota paid for all that? With that kind of in-show advertising who needs commercials?

If this continues we can soon expect to see all our favorite characters, or perhaps simply extras brought in at less cost-per-line, to sell a product or products, each week. The scene: Hiro Nakamura rushes to save Claire the Cheerleader from the all-powerful Sylar. Hiro, about to blink them to another place, is stopped by Claire who shouts that she cannot leave without her Dooney & Bourke handbag. After all, the handbag is roomy - she can carry a week’s worth of clothing in it - especially convenient when she is stabbed, cut, or mangled and needs a quick-change. It’s sturdy and can withstand time and space travel. It’s fashion forward and yet a timeless classic - so won’t look out of place no matter where they land. Sound like the next phase in advertising? Forget about commercials, have the actors sell the product like Lucille Ball did for Marlboro during the 1950’s only interwoven into the script and thus virtually unavoidable. Forget product placement - having Chuck Bartowski using an iPhone isn’t enough. An even more perfect setup - he works for an electronics store. Each week he can, in some scripted fashion or other, sell us, the viewer, a new product. If it’s not a tech product, agent Sarah Walker can change the venue she works at - hot dog shop one week, fro yo store the next, CVS pharmacy the week following, wholesale jeweler the week thereafter. The possibilities for advertisers are endless! “Quick, Chuck, throw me your iPhone - in its iSkin case it’s virtually indestructible. With it’s GPS capabilities and AT&T sim card, I can find you anywhere. With the thousands of apps that I can download from the app store, we should be able to work our way out of this week’s tight spot.” “Yes, Sarah, and with AT&T’s great service, I can get five bars even in the elevator, so let’s go catch those bad guys.”

With advertisers crossing the line - from interruption/nuisance, to bold, brazen and shamefully pushy - turning favorite characters into product spokespersons - where oh where has the commercial appeal gone?

The rise in popularity of the reality television show has given us a new perspective on what “real” is. Even those programs that are not truly considered “reality” such as home improvement shows on HGTV, cooking shows on the Food Network, or docudrama-style programs on TLC, like Miami Ink or Jon and Kate plus 8, or on The Discovery Channel, like Deadliest Catch or Dirty Jobs, still are a skewed version of “real” as seen by the directors and editors that put out these shows.

For those growing up with these programs virtually replacing the sitcom from yesteryear, not to mention the lack in popularity for the documentary/informational programming on such networks as PBS, some of the good messaging in television is no longer being given to the youth of today.

Without a keen awareness that what you are viewing is in actuality a false reality, especially on what seems like a truly informational program, your viewpoint and the way you perceive the world is incorrect. At least the true “reality” TV shows like, The Bachelor, Project Runway, American Idol, Top Chef, The Amazing Race, Dancing with the Stars, and on, are so blatantly staged or edited, that the viewer is aware that what they are watching is only a glimpse of something true to life. (Although it did taking quite the set of cojones for the editors of Shear Genius to cut from one shot of the contestant, Nichole, walking onto a photo shoot in a black dress, to seconds later wearing a checked dress, and back to wearing said black dress without us noticing anything. Just because the dresses were identical in style, how can the eye truly miss a solid color to a checked color?)

However, we hold the seemingly informational programs on The Learning Channel, Discovery Channel and Home and Garden Television to a higher standard of reality - after all the network names should speak for their programming. (No comment on Bravo!’s complete change of programming which should have come with a network name change. Although Encore may seem like the perfect choice for this network, as the amount of times a program is re-aired is truly amazing, it was already taken. But perhaps they do deserve a “Bravo!” for their push programming. After all, you are bound to get hooked when you can’t miss seeing at least one their marathon of repeats.)

It is to be expected, of course, that these programs are edited for time. No one truly believes that you can put a tray of muffins in the oven and less than two seconds later they come out a nice golden brown - that is the “magic of television.” And we don’t really want to see (or do we?) the chef accidentally burning the meal or dropping a plate of food, if that in fact happened on the set. But that doesn’t mean that something should appear to be easy to do-it-yourself when in actuality it takes a trained professional 40 takes to get it right. This only causes us to self-doubt our abilities when we try and try to repeat what looks like the easiest task in the world and come up short.

A few of the most truly shameless programs on these networks include:

• HOUSE HUNTERS tops the list. Yes, they edit certain things out, like the people looking at 300 homes versus the three choices we are expected to believe they are making their final decision  upon. However, the “reality” here is that in many instances the house hunters have already, in fact, bought the home and closed the deal, and that there really isn’t any hunting going on. They dummy up the listings to make it look good. And, the editors aren’t as clever as they should be in deceiving us, the viewer. In some cases you will notice the new homeowners television sitting in the garage on a house they are “just considering” adding to their list. In others you will notice them putting in an offer on a home but you will see one of their vintage chairs in the background. Coincidence that the previous homeowner has the exact same chair or television in a box? I think not. On some episodes you will see a “sold” sign in front of the house as they walk in. If the house hunter isn’t truly looking for a home, and has already bought said property, shouldn’t they not make the cut? Isn’t the title of the show self explanatory? If they are already homeowners how can they be house hunters? And, if they are trying to convince us that all this is “real” shouldn’t the editors be less lazy? Are we really duped that easily?
• PROPERTY LADDER follows as a close second. Yes, perhaps this one is more a “reality” show than an informational program, but aren’t we watching “The Learning Channel” so we must be learning something, right? It is truly hard to believe that each home flipper is really setting the shortest of deadlines for their flip - isn’t it more likely that the show is building in these short timelines to create drama? Early on, the show used to have people who were either professional flippers or had at least some knowledge of home improvement or house flipping. As the show grew in popularity, it seems now a slapstick comedy, more than an informational program on how to flip a house should you be so inclined. (Seems like you have to turn in and watch Flip That House or is it Flip This House - whichever one didn’t turn itself into a reality-based competition - in order to see a true house being flipped by a pro.)With that lovely cat-scratch, saw blade, needle over the record sound effect, and the camera pan-back to Kirsten (the host) giving a look of concern, we can watch the drama unfold with people who have never seen the inside of a home improvement store, or never owned a home, or never did hard labor in their lives. That eyebrow-raised look of hers is often edited throughout the program, so the question is, when did she actually give the flippers that look? Was it truly in response to what the person just said, or was it added in as a great suspense building or an “Oooh, no you didn’t!” moment? The casting call for the show must be priceless - throw away requests for people who have: a. knowledge of home ownership, b. knowledge of finance, c. good relationships with their business partners, d. intelligence. Now we have a show!
• DEADLIEST CATCH rounds off this list at number three. While the camera does catch some fantastic, true shots of the fishing, the men working under extreme conditions at their tasks, and some frightening moments where mother nature is at her worst, it seems that both the host, Mike Rowe, and the editors are always trying to create extreme drama where there might be none. Many of the shows hearken back to shots of previous episodes where the Coast Guard is airlifting someone to safety, or a ship sinking or someone going overboard. Even on After the Catch, Mike often rehashes and rehashes moments of “extreme calamity” with the fishermen, who often brush it off as no big deal. Or they will bring in someone who survived an incident three decades hence so that our favorite cast of characters (Phil, Jonathan and Sig) can meet this person and relive their experience right along with them. Isn’t the task of catching these crab in the rough conditions that these men face drama enough? Do we need to add in the false suspense? Are these men, while captaining their vessels really not focusing on their jobs, but rather thinking back to the time when another ship sank? And are they really remembering all this in a kind of black and white or dull-tinted color as the editors would like us to believe, when splicing back the footage of a previous incident? Is it only the death or survival of another human being that makes this show interesting?

Aren’t the realities of these shows interesting enough? Apparently not. Or at least according to the gospel of the shows’ producers and editors. Do they conduct polls or surveys with the viewers who say, “Yeah, Deadliest Catch is really boring, but when you throw in a dead guy, now that’s a show!”? Do we really only want to see those heart-palpitating programs where someone’s life is on the line or someone is on the verge of total failure? Do we only want to see people being tattooed that have had loved ones die, that have survived cancer, or had some other tragedy? Or, as in the case of Dirty Jobs, do we only want to see the most disgusting of occupations as dramatically edited by television? (Would smell-o-vision change our mind as regards this type of programming, or would it just further touch that base and perverse instinct we have as human beings?) Don’t we get enough of this uber-drama from shows that are categorized as “reality” programming?

On the true reality shows, where time is a factor, one of the most obvious edits in order to create the most drama is the countdown. It is hard to believe that with the final seconds ticking off the clock, everyone manages to finish whatever project they are working on - be it Top Chef, or Design Star, or Project Runway, or Shear Genius, are each of the contestants really that close to the deadline, or do they in fact have hours to go? But, because it makes for better “reality” to have everyone running around like a chicken with their head cut off, the editors show that bright digital clock face counting down to zero, interspersed with shots of uncooked meals, unstyled hair, unpainted rooms. (Hint: You can generally tell if the drama unfolding  in those last seconds/minutes isn’t in fact happening by checking out what tasks are left to accomplish that are completed in that unrealistic time frame by the judging segment - and also by keeping close watch on what’s going on in the background while the contestant in the shot is talking, i.e., if you see a completed project that later is shown as incomplete.) If you see a wall painted earlier in the program, but in the sped-up, drama-induced version you see that wall still to be painted, chances are the editors threw that shot in just to create that frenzied, break-neck pace. Or, if you see someone with dripping wet hair, and only 30 seconds to spare, and the person has nicely dried and styled hair in front of the judges, it’s doubtful that miracle happened in that time frame. Same is true of raw chicken being miraculously cooked with only minutes on the clock, or an unsewn garment tailored to perfection.

But in all these instances, what we, the viewer, are being subjected to, is a heightened state of drama involving all things “real.” What gets left on the editing room floor, like the hour lunchbreak that the contestants get, or the day or two in-between projects where the contestants get a chance to rest and recoup only further give us that skewed vision on just what human beings can be pushed to do. After all, if a contestant can be subjected to that inhuman pace day after day to face these intensive and near impossible challenges - like designing and creating a wardrobe or a room in just a few short hours or racing around the world in pursuit of a lump sum of cash - then how can we not expect the same of ourselves? And, because we are looking at real people and not actors, we are already feeling more connected to the characters and the show, feeling that in some way this is real, like our own lives. But, the larger problem, of course, is that reality and not “reality” has its slow pace, lack of drama, and even monotony. Not every moment has a countdown, or causes the pulse to race. With all these edited realities being presented to us, how can we avoid becoming adrenaline junkies? And, without this excitement in our day-to-day lives, aren’t we then going to become bored and unsatisfied with our jobs, our friends, our loved ones? Isn’t this in fact worse than the kids that leave an action/adventure film or play a violent video game and end up injuring someone? Those tend to be isolated incidents, this seems more like the editors are creating a large-scale unrest….Oh what power they have!

Have you ever wondered whether there is really any benefit to going low flow? With so much talk about going green, saving the planet, and conserving our natural resources, we all feel some level of guilt when we toss those wasted sheets of paper that print with our web coupons, or dispose of those oversized carrier bags which say “please reuse.” But with all the concerns for the environment, does it really make sense for us to ditch our high pressure showerheads, sink faucets and toilets?

According to the statistics from sites like Treehugger.com and Greenyour.com the average household uses more than 260 gallons of water per day and that by replacing faucets and showerheads with low flow fixtures you can cut about 45 gallons/day. Treehugger.com goes on to say that in the U.S. an average of 2.5 gallons of water per minute of shower is used. They claim that if a low flow shower is installed, it can result in a water savings of 50%. (Low flow showerheads use 2.5 gallons of water per minute or fewer, whereas standard showerheads use 3 gallons/minute and more.) Greenyour.com adds that reducing the water temperature by 10% will lead to a reduction in energy costs of 3-5%. And to just briefly talk toilets (which are required by law to be low flow), Managemyhome.com states that prior to 1992, the standard toilet used from 3.5 to 7 gallons of water/flush whereas the low flow toilets use only 1.6 gallons of water.

First, just how environmentally conscientious are you if you are disposing of a perfectly good working showerhead, faucet, or toilet in favor of replacing it with a new one? It seems this act of waste alone would be less than “green” behavior. Perhaps if the previously mentioned accoutrements were at end-of-life, it might be slightly beneficial to go with something more environmentally friendly. But there are still arguments to be made in favor of keeping those high pressure fixtures.

Although it may be true that energy would be saved by keeping your water temperature lower and as an added benefit, less water would be consumed (due to a much shorter shower - a direct result from the chilling effect of a less than comfortable shower), but on those below freezing mornings, what is the appeal of stepping into a tepid dribble of water? Can it be believed that even those more devout environmentalists, after a grueling day planting trees, erecting parks, and cleansing the ozone layer, would prefer to step into a cool and measly shower, rather than be pummeled by a downpour of hot, steamy water? How can it be expected that the exhausted mom, after chasing after her pre-school-aged children, or the city sewer worker, toe the line for the good of the planet, when all they really want is to wash off the grime from their less than pampered day of labor? And just how clean are you getting when washing off the filth - whether it be you, your dishes or your clothing - in a cooler water temperature? Soap may help, but doesn’t the idea of that scalding hot water leave you with a reassured feeling of cleanliness?

Second, although low pressure showers/sinks/toilets may seem like they are saving you water and money by outputting less water per minute, are they really? Setting aside the fact that low flow systems in homes that have small water heaters can actually cost more money, due to the fact that the hot water will run out before the individual finishes their shower or washes their dishes, thus causing the energy bill and the usage time to increase, there are still drawbacks.

With a standard or higher pressure system, it would take far less time to complete your ablutions. Using a low flow showerhead, to wash your hair, rinse, condition, rinse, to wash yourself, rinse, and perhaps shave, could take more than twice the time depending on quantity of hair on head or body. To truly remove all soap, shampoo, and conditioner in a low flow environment is a real accomplishment worthy of praise, and the sudsy feeling (as spoofed on TV’s Seinfeld, “The Shower Head”) that remains with you after said shower leaves you feeling less than clean - thus defeating the purpose of a shower. And, do we really want low flow faucets in the public restrooms? Judging by the length of time that the average person spends at the sink “washing” their hands after using the facilities, wouldn’t it be preferable for that high pressure flow to douse their hands, rather than a trickle barely moistening the skin?

Finally, going by the statistics above, with the vast decrease in gallons per flush from 3.5-to-7 gallons to the 1.6 gallon norm today, just how much is being flushed with that minimal amount of water? Trying the Kleenex test, some of those low flow bowls can barely drag that wispy piece of tissue into the complex series of twists and turns that make up the commode. Further, with so little water and pressure, there has been quite the increase in plumbing pipe blockages in high-rise apartment buildings - perhaps due to the fact that some tenants opt to use the toilet as a garbarge disposal for books, toys, etc. - but if a simple facial tissue can’t make the journey with 1.6 gallons of water, how can anything more substantial expect to venture forth with just one flush?

If one wants to be truly environmentally friendly, trade in the Hummer or wash it less frequently - after all, does one truly need to bathe their cars’ exterior every other day? Yes, you may have paid that quarter of a million for your Bentley, but it is still a car, and can probably take a weeks’ worth of dust before its next pampering. Turn off the garden hose before running inside to get that phone call from Ed McMahon, swap out the sod for pebbles in your Las Vegas desert oasis, or downsize your three person household from your 6,600 s.f. McMansion to a more appropriately sized 4 bedroom 2,800 s.f. home. But to say that the low flow shower, sink, and toilet are saving the planet’s water resources is doubtful at best, it is more likely that these fixtures are draining our reservoirs dry.

There are many viewpoints out there on what constitutes a cappuccino versus a latte. The general consensus is, however, that a cappuccino is an espresso with steamed milk and a thick layer of foam at the top and a latte consists of espresso, steamed milk, and a thin layer of foam. Why is it then, that Starbucks, America’s most prevalent coffee house, can’t get it right?

It seems, you have to ask for a latte, without foam, in order to get your coffee foam-free. When questioning the “barista” they cannot tell you the difference between a cappuccino or a latte, which is why they prepare the drinks identically. So, Starbucks, why a difference in name? Why not dispense with the charade of the cappuccino and simply offer a foam or no-foam latte?

Part of the enjoyment of the latte is the immense quantity of steamed milk mixed with espresso that comes in the tall/grande/venti-sized beverages. That being said, for the outrageous prices, you would anticipate that your order would be: a. correct, and b. the size you requested. Each of Starbucks coffee’s cups come complete with boxes for the employees to mark off what you’d like, and further, pour marks to determine how much espresso and how much milk are needed for each drink. And yet, with all this information, the overworked/underpaid coffee servers can’t seem to correctly put forth a drink order.

Even with the notations “NF” (no-foam) and “F” with a line through it or “S” (fat-free) not one of the Starbucks stores has been consistently accurate. How much easier or clearer can it be? The only capabilities needed are to match the coffee quantity with a line and to read the labels on the side of a jug of milk. You’d think it would be pretty straightforward, even given the busy queue that is ever-constant at the local cafe. but you couldn’t be more wrong. Eight times out of ten, when walking out of the store, and lifting the lid, the 3 inch foam topping on your no-foam latte has begun to disperse and you are left with, not a venti (20 oz.) coffee beverage, but rather something similar to a tall, making you question why you spent the extra dollar for half a coffee.

Typically you can tell, by weight, when you lift something that should approximate a bottle of soda but feels instead like lifting a sheet of paper, that something is definitely wrong with your order. However, many times, when going on a coffee run for the office, for friends, it is easy to miss the fact that several of the beverages are not quite what you thought they would be. When you do catch the error, and ask for the coffee you in fact ordered, you are typically met with a disapproving glare, and spend the remainder of your time praying all you get is a replacement coffee, without that little something extra that a minimum-wage employee might give to a complaining customer.

Starbucks has now completely revamped their coffee line, going back to their “old school” coffee beans and trying to re-create their image with new cups and a new attitude/atmosphere, to make up for their loss in profits due to their too-rapid growth. (In cities, you can typically count at least five locations within walking distance.) Instead of trying to replace their previously bitter brew with a much more acidic one, perhaps spending a tad more time training and screening their employees, managing their local shops, and providing better customer service, would be more effective and cost-saving for the brand.

You know that things are bad when coupons for free coffee due to customer complaints are printed on card stock, with catchy phrases and colorful cut-outs. Ironic, then, that their “coupons” should state that “a cup should never be half empty” when that is exactly the very root of their problem.

Have you ever heard a song on the radio, a TV show, commercial or movie, and thought, “Hey, I like that song” and then hopped onto iTunes or Amazon to download, and after searching through the large selection of similarly named tunes you can’t seem to find what you thought you were looking for?

You then say to yourself, let’s see if some of these other artists who cover it are just as good as the version you heard - after all, listening to an alternate version of the song is better than nothing. And, after clicking for the 30 second segment, you realize that what you are hearing is the version you wanted but can’t believe it to be true? You start to think that maybe the music store got it wrong, because you knew for sure you were listening to the dulcet tones of a female vocalist. Well…they weren’t wrong. Surprise, it’s a man, baby!

Yes, there have been many male singers who use falsetto notes, approaching the highest of highs. But upon returning to their normal key, there is no confusion that you are listening to a male vocalist. However, there are those specially gifted individuals, that could fool even the keenest of ears.

The top five, in order of excellence, are below, with links to their videos on YouTube. However, it may be best to first hear them on iTunes/Amazon or other music listening station of choice, before viewing, to be truly amazed at the fact that no, it is not a girl.

Topping the list at number one is Wayne Newton for “Danke Schoen,” seen here in a SIMS version (unfortunately there isn’t a good video version for this one) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXbrjFuyL3o

A very close second is the one-hit-wonder, Nick Gilder for “Hot Child in the City” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El6iQ2_dvlc

Coming in at number three is Daniel Bedingfield (a.k.a. Fiona Apple), brother of pop singer Natasha Bedingfield (who sings in a lower key, with a slightly more masculine vocal), for “If You’re Not the One” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b9Vn6WkjPs or “Never Gonna Leave Your Side” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqUs2yRN5o0

Fourth on the list is the young offspring of singers Gloria Loring and Alan Thicke, Robin Thicke (sounds just like Mom, but a tad higher - see Gloria’s “Friends and Lovers”), for “Lost Without You” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOM215SM8UU

And finally, at number five is James Blunt (Cher sound-a-like - and yes perhaps Cher is a tad masculine, but still…) for “Same Mistake” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3c32wBYdU0

Although not making the top five, special mention should go out to Robby of Menudo for “If You’re Not Here” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7lrsF2SMAw&feature=related - not added to the list, as pre-pubescent boys can often sound feminine, but this particular song is just too similar in sound to Klymaxx’s (a female band) “I Miss You” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z55cQEe38TM&feature=related to not give it the kudos it deserves.

So, here’s to the guys that want to keep us thinking they’re girls, whatever their reasons. Rock on!

Have you ever seen a movie or TV show where its best feature was the soundtrack? Take In Good Company, Wicker Park, Great Expectations, The Last Kiss, Dragonheart, Across the Universe. Although some may disagree as to the quality of the aforementioned movies, undoubtedly none of these films would be nearly as good had they not had the right soundtrack to carry you through and help mold the stories.

There are some films in which the only redeeming feature is the soundtrack, and where the sales of the soundtrack far outnumber movie ticket sales. At present, Amazon.com is pushing the soundtrack to Once each time you click on their music section. Apparently, Once did win an award at Sundance, but there are no quick links to sales of the DVD, only the soundtrack. And where some movies haven’t drawn large audiences, the popularity of the soundtrack is leveraged and heavily marketed in order to boost either ticket sales or DVD sales/rentals.

Another thing that studios often do to reel in potential viewers is release the soundtrack well in advance of the movie, in the hopes that because the soundtrack is so great, the movie must be. These moviemakers/marketers often sign well-known recording artists who will then release a music video interwoven with scenes from the movie. There are genre-oriented recording artists that immediately tell you that it’s either a “chick flick” (Norah Jones, Sheryl Crow, Alanis Morisette) or a guy movie (Coldplay, Snow Patrol, Metallica, Guns N’ Roses). And, there is even genre specific music - techno or rap for the action-adventure film, 70’s rock for the guy coming-of-age movie, alternative for the indie/dysfunctional family flicks, rock/metal for the military/war picture, pop for the pre-teen/teeny-bopper flick, to name a few.

The soundtrack can often become more important to the moviegoer than the actual film. Long after the viewer has tired of seeing Billy Crudup scream, “I am a golden god!” or watching Sean Penn make a valiant attempt at becoming a barista they are still humming along to the tunes on the Almost Famous and I Am Sam OSTs. Soundtracks play such an important roll that sites such as www.imdb.com have links and information for music tracks for a particular film, even songs that haven’t made the cut to the CD.

The popularity of music in movies has also carried over to television. This has become such a lucrative business that now TV shows help to captivate their audiences with meaningful/soulful/catchy music peppered throughout each episode. It is so popular that there are websites dedicated to identifying the song listings in each episode for shows like Cold Case, October Road, Crossing Jordan, and Scrubs, to name just a few. (See www.tunefind.com.) Some sites even offer links to either itunes.com or amazon.com so you can immediately download the song onto your mp3 player.

Often, the music from a certain film is so memorable and powerful it is used in movie trailers to advertise a completely different film. As you sit in the theatre watching this ad, you begin to feel a connection to this new film, but it is really only your emotional connection to the original film and the power its music had over you. The advertisers are betting that you have this strong attachment and will simply transfer that attachment to their film without consciously being aware of this fact. The scores from Dances with Wolves, Dragonheart, A River Runs Through It, have been used countless times to create a bond with an as yet unreleased film. Countless blogs and newsgroup have posts asking for help in identifying songs used in various trailers. Soundtrack.net has an entire section on “trailer music” just so us poor saps can identify with whatever grabbed us in those 30 minute pre-show advertisements.

In order grasp just how important these soundtracks/scores are in our moviegoing/TV watching lives, try imagining your favorite movie or show without any type of background music. (After all, the actors don’t get help from a soundtrack to create their scenes.) Just how exciting would that car chase be if all you could hear were the tires screeching, horns blaring and the cars turn signal constantly announcing a left? How suspenseful would that slasher film be if the camera simply cut from the intended victim making their breakfast to a shot of the killer hanging out on their front porch? How devastating would that goodbye kiss be if all you could hear were the slurpy sound of the lovers lips meeting and the background noises of the airport personnel announcing the latest arrivals? Just how bittersweet would that memory montage be if accompanied only by silence? And, would Katie and Hubbell’s final meeting be truly as memorable without “misty water-colored memories of the way [they] were”?

What a wonderful world this would be if people spent even one iota of the amount of time currently used in creating their myspace pages, linked-in profiles, changing images for their IM buddy list, programming ring tones on their cell phones, et cetera, in bettering themselves, bettering the planet, helping others, being productive at work, or contributing to a greater good.

Instead of thinking up more ways to make money, new ways to help the environment, aid those less fortunate, or more efficient ways to get our work completed, we are uploading funny videos on youtube.com, downloading illegal mp3’s to fill our 160 gig iPod’s and trashing our friends on our personal websites and blogs.

It seems that although we have new technologies that will save us time, that technology has actually back-fired and we now spend more and more time delving into this technological wasteland called the Internet. The amount of information that can be gained, learned, and used to improve our knowledge, expand our horizons, is more often being used to find “the stupidest,” “the funniest,” “the most awful,” links to things you can think of that you can pass on, in bulk to your friends, classmates, co-workers, family.

And, it’s not to say that all these things out there are bad and worthless. In fact, some of these postings/uploads are quite amusing, and can break up the monotony in any given day. But when you spend your day checking out the hilarious personal ads on Craig’s list rather than taking your child out for a walk, or ignoring your spouse in favor of hooking up at the local bar in Second Life, aren’t you missing something? Isn’t your child, significant other, family member, friend, missing out on something?

Take this video, from youtube, for example, that was email forwarded just shortly after the Giants vs. Green Bay game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP-f7XbCtRY. Funny? Yes. Oddly coincidental? Yes. Creative? Absolutely. But in order for this video to appear, someone had to recall the movie, track down the footage, add in their titles and graphics, and post. Instead of using their creativity or their steel-trap memory to advance themselves, or do their homework assignments, or create something new, they’ve spent all that time posting that video. And then we, the viewer, spend time emailing the link to friends, family, fellow students, co-workers, or online pals instead of focusing on our work, our family, our friendships and the life that is moving on, rapidly, right in front of our eyes as we are glued to a computer screen.

And, so as not to point fingers, take this blog. It’s just wasted ideaz, rattling around in the brain’s wasted spacez. Cure for cancer? Certainly not. Helping those less fortunate? Not in the slightest. Contributing toward the betterment of society, the planet? Not a chance. Which is why, collectively, if spare time and energies were spent in coming up with ways to improve, ways to better, or new creations, what a wonderful world this would be.

As we bid farewell to the year gone by, we shouldn’t forget to give a final shout out to just a few of our famous, and infamous, friends who have left us this year. Just a few of people that may have touched our lives in one way or another are listed below.
Famous:

1. Ernest AND Julio Gallo - vintners extraordinaire
2. Yvonne de Carlo - Lily Munster
3. Robert Goulet - actor, and most recent Emerald Nut Superbowl commercial actor
4. Lady Bird Johnson - former first lady
5. Stu Nahan - sportcaster and actor, Rocky +++, Fast Times at Ridgemont High
6. Dan Fogelberg - singer
7. Denny Doherty - Mamas and the Papas
8. Sidney Sheldon - TV Producer, author and playwright
9. Billy Henderson - The Spinners
10. Ingmar Bergman - director
11. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. - author, historian
12. Brad Delp - Boston
13. Richard Jeni - comedian
14. Dick Wilson - actor, esp. Mr. Whipple of “Don’t squeeze the Charmin” fame
15. Larry “Bud” Melman - comedian
16. Mr. Vincent Sardi, Jr. - Sardi’s restaurant, NYC.
17. Kurt Vonnegut - author
18. Liz Claiborne - fashion maven
19. Don Ho - singer
20. Boris Yeltsin - President of Russian Federation
21. Tom Poston - Newhart
22. Beverly Sills - opera diva
23. Luciano Pavarotti - opera tenor
24. Tom Snyder - TV host
25. Merv Griffin - TV host
26. Charles Nelson Reilly - comedian, TV host
27. Don Herbert - “Mr. Wizard”
28. Joel Siegel - film critic
29. Norman Mailer - author
30. Marcel Marceau - Mime
31. Phil Rizzuto - former Yankee, Money Store spokesperson, broadcaster
32. Jane Wyman - actress, Ronnie Reagan’s first wife
33. Alice Ghostley - Bewitched
34. Kevin DuBrow - Quiet Riot
35. Evel Knievel - daredevil

Infamous:

1. Leona Helmsley - hotel billionairess
2. Anna Nichole Smith - “actress” and Playboy Playmate
3. Tammy Faye Bakker - televangelist
4. Chris Benoit - pro wrestler, murder-suicide
5. Richard Jewell - security guard falseley accused of 1996 Atlanta bombing
6. Ike Turner - singer, wife-beater
7. Jerry Falwell - televangelist
8. Brian Sean Griffith - bodyguard for Tonya Harding, attacker of Nancy Kerrigan

Why wait for the partial slideshow shown to us at the Academy Awards on Feb. 24? If it’s the tearful music you miss, then, while drinking your toast and tipping your cap to those gone by, simply play Auld Lang Syne or some other fond farewell song - Memories? The Way We Were? Fade to Black?

If you feel anyone of import was missed, or if you think there just might be someone else but you can’t think of whom, simply check Wikipedia or check out the celebrity death lists for 2007 for a more comprehensive overview.

Happy New Year!

Have you ever been a fan of a television show and have it suddenly disappear from the weekly lineup? This is pretty common among new shows that just don’t make the network’s cut, but has this ever happened to a long-standing show you’ve been fond of? Have you sat back and tried to guess as to the reason why it was dropped and not come up with any logical explanation? Maybe it is the fact that the cast has grown tired of their roles, maybe the writers have come up dry, or maybe these reasons just don’t seem to satisfy.

Perhaps there is another reason…a better reason. TV show creators often bring on guest stars to either add interest, or to revive a lagging show. Sometimes a complete cast overhaul is in order. But, sometimes this can backfire. Even with the most talented of guest actors, sometimes their presence just spells demise to a show. Whether it’s a one-time appearance or a repeat performance, certain actors seem to just put the kibosh on your beloved program.

Don’t believe it? Just take a look back at some of your old favorites and you might notice a certain actor or actress, or a toxic combination, that just keep popping up in shows that seem to get cancelled before their natural end.

Some of our favorite show killers include:

1. Jay Thomas - for Mork and Mindy, Cheers, Murphy Brown, Love & War
2. Ted McGinley - for Happy Days, The Love Boat, Married with Children, Sports Night, Dream On
3. Mark Harmon - for Moonlighting
4. George Clooney - for The Facts of Life
5. Chad Lowe - for Life Goes On
6. Leonardo di Caprio - for Growing Pains
7. Dixie Carter - for Diff’rent Strokes
8. Charlie Sheen and Jennifer Esposito - for Spin City
9. Heather Locklear - for Dynasty, Spin City, Ally McBeal
10. Lauren Holly - for Chicago Hope
11. Debi Mazar and Joanna Cassidy - for L.A. Law
12. Scott Valentine - for Family Ties
13. Hank Azaria - for Mad About You
14. Mark-Paul Gosselaar, Henry Simmons and Rick Schroeder - for NYPD Blue
15. Tia Texada - for Third Watch
16. Shawn Michael Howard - for The Single Guy
17. Ken Hudson Campbell - for  The Practice, Caroline in the City 
18. Kristy Swanson - for Early Edition
19. Thomas Vincent Kelly - for JAG, Early Edition
20. Gary Cole - for The Practice, Arrested Development
21. Wendie Malick - for Kate & Allie, Frasier
22. Edie McClurg - for The Jeffersons, Caroline in the City, Married with Children, Empty Nest, The Golden Girls, L.A. Law
23. Katherine Hellmond - for Coach, Everybody Loves Raymond
24. Stephen Shortridge - for Welcome Back Kotter
25. Jenilee Harrison and Priscilla Barnes - for Three’s Company 
26. And, of course, we all can’t forget TV’s most famous show killer: Robbie Rist (as Cousin Oliver) - for The Brady Bunch

 Shows to keep an eye on due to potential show killers:

1. Heroes and Boston Legal - Joanna Cassidy 
2. CSI-NY - Kerr Smith (potential cause of early death to Justice)
3. Men in Trees and Ugly Betty - Annie Potts (potential contributor to death of Love & War)
4. Shark - Henry Simmons, Gary Cole
5. Monk - Gary Cole
6. The Closer - Thomas Vincent Kelly
7. Law & Order: Criminal Intent - Eric Bogosian (potential contributing c.o.d. for Miami Vice, Crime Story, Third Watch)
8. Samantha Who? - Jennifer Esposito
9. October Road - Penny Johnson (potential c.o.d. for The X Files, Frasier, Touched by an Angel, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: The Next Generation
10. Without a Trace - Bodhi Elfman (potential c.o.d. for Veronica’s Closet, Providence, Dharma & Greg

We may have a great fondness for some, or several of the above-named actors and actresses, and even cheer when we see them on our favorite shows, but their appearance may not always be such a good thing. For, if we truly love our programs, do we want to risk their early demise due to even one small appearance from a potential show-stopper? For if the simple addition of a “lovable” kid like Oliver can halt a long-running, well-loved sitcom like The Brady Bunch, imagine what this can do to a budding new or sophomore show. And although this may be less of a risk for the television writers, creators and producers than “jumping the shark,”… Beware the Show Killers!

The term “restaurant chain” often has negative connotations. “Chain” somehow brings to mind low-priced, low-quality eating establishments, where the food is served by pimple-faced teens who care little for the products they are selling. They are the restaurants at rest-stops, in malls, at gas stations, offering drive through windows and combo orders at discounted prices, served up in a greasy sack or bucket. You often feel lucky when napkins are included!

At one time, these franchised eateries were considered a godsend to the busy housewife, a nutritious family meal, but are now seen as a cause for obesity and the lazy homemakers cop-out. What was once a weekly treat for the family, has now become a daily pit-stop for the overworked and the underpaid. It’s no wonder we hate these chains as much as we love them.

These days, however, there are far more eating establishments becoming franchises, and not just the fast-food variety of old. The chain restaurant just may be getting an undeserved bad rap. Yes, there are still many fast-food chains throughout the nation and world, but there are now many family eateries of a slightly better caliber. Even if not the most health conscious, there are now many restaurants catering to the family - where a family can sit down to enjoy a meal together in a pleasant and clean setting, with table service. These mid-priced chains are popping up with growing frequency and popularity. Eateries such as Applebee’s, California Pizza Kitchen, Outback Steakhouse, Chevy’s, Ruby Tuesday, Cracker Barrel, Olive Garden, and Romano’s Macaroni Grill provide a certain comfort and familiarity, with the knowledge that if you find one across the country from where you live, you will receive the same service, food and environment as your local establishment. And, although you may be in a strange place, far from home, things aren’t so different. Homogenization - maybe. Comforting - undeniable.

Even several higher-priced eating establishments are franchising. Surely a “chain” can’t be all bad when you are paying upwards of $25 for an entree?

Some of the best higher-end (or higher-cost if you’d like) chains, in no particular order, include:

1. The Daily Grill (CA, DC, MD, OR, TN, TX, VA, WA)
2. Il Fornaio (CA, CO, VA, WA, NV)
3. Sarabeth’s Kitchen (NYC - several locations)
4. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro (in all but 9 states - MT, WY, ND, SD, WV, VT, NH, ME, DE)
5. The Cheesecake Factory (34 states +DC)
6. Roy’s Hawaiian Fusion (AZ, CA, FL, GA, HI, IL, MD, NV, NY, PA, TX)
7. The Farm of Beverly Hills (CA - a few locations)
8. Wolfgang Puck Cafe/Wolfgang Puck Bistro (CA, FL, Toronto CN, NC)
9. Redstone American Grill (MN, IL, NJ)
10. Houston’s (CA, AZ, LA, TX, FL, NY, NJ, GA, TN, MO, DC, MA)

As we move farther up the food chain, the chain starts looking pretty good. Happy eating!

The writer’s strike has really put a damper on the remainder of this television season. In a season already riddled with its share of let-down programming, adding the writer’s strike to the mix spells disaster… or does it? Perhaps this “cooling-off” period will give the writers a revitalization, a renewed passion for their work. Maybe just stepping away for awhile will allow them to think, “Oh my God, did I really write that crap?!? When was my last original idea?” We, as television viewers, can only hope.

There have already been at least two different programs, on different networks, that have used the virtual world as the theme for their episodes. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit aired their virtual episode, “Avatar,” on October 2nd on NBC, and CSI: NY aired their episode, “Down the Rabbit Hole,” on October 24th (CBS).

An even more common episode on this years’ television shows has been about the ultimate fighter. CBS’s Shark aired, “No Holds Barred” on September 28th; NBC’s Law & Order: Special Victims Unit aired the episode entitled “Blinded” on November 13th; and CBS’s Without a Trace aired their version, “Fight/Flight” on November 22nd.

Even with the growing popularity of the ultimate fighter, three programs on two networks in one season? All have aired in close proximity to one another, on similar themed programming - the crime drama - on only two networks - CBS and NBC. Again, how can we as viewers not come to the collusion conclusion?

Has there been even one program this season with an original idea? Before the previously written shows run out, can we anticipate seeing a few more similarities? Maybe the next great, novel idea for the crime dramas will be to introduce a nemesis who will push the investigator/detective to their limits? Oh, sorry. Been there. Done that. (Law & Order: Criminal Intent - Nicole Wallace vs. Robert Goren; Crime Scene Investigation - Miniature Killer vs. Gil Grissom; CSI: NY - 333 Stalker vs. Mac Taylor; Bones - Gormagon vs. Bones and Booth.)In anticipation of the strike, have the writers simply been passing their outlines around to writers on other networks to copy? Could it be that this writer’s strike is simply a cover up for writer’s block?

Maybe it is us, the TV viewers, that should go on strike?

Have you ever felt that going to the movies is akin to preparing for battle? Here are just some of the necessary steps to take and pitfalls to be aware of when heading to the front lines.

First you must develop your plan of attack. Whether due to the popularity of the movie or the limited selection of theatres or films, the key is to get there early. You can opt to purchase your tickets in advance by phone or Internet, or even stop by the theatre earlier in the day or week so as to avoid any advance ticketing fees. But that’s not enough.

You then have to time your arrival at the theatre very carefully. For many films, the lines start to form often as early as an hour before showtime - and that’s the ticket holders line. Sometimes simply arriving 30 minutes early is not enough as you find yourself so far back in the line that you can’t hope to get your seat of choice. Furthermore, if you are far back in the queue, you may be susceptible to that group of moviegoers that arrive just as the line is starting to move, when seating begins, and who manage to integrate themselves into the forward moving mass and get in well ahead of you. Leading to frustration and anger. Not a good way to start your evening of entertainment.

Another tack, of course, is to try and be a part of that last minute arrival group. This is tricky, and you must know your theatre, the disposition of the ushers, and of course you must try and predict the temperament of the people you are trying to cut in front of. Alarm bells are not what’s needed at this juncture. To aid in this plan of attack, it is often helpful to linger/loiter near the entryway, as if waiting for someone, so as not to arouse suspicion, then casually walk past as if you are trying to get beyond the line of people and quickly change directions and head straight for the theatre entrance. If there are two or more of you going to see the film, one can always wait on the line, in the event you don’t get in, while the other tries the sneak attack. Or you can all wait on the line, then one or two of you jump out under the guise of having to go to the bathroom or concession stand, then on the way back just join in toward the front of the moving line as it heads in.

You must next pre-plan the art of finding your perfect seat. If you are going solo, you can only make the mad dash into the theatre, making sure you have quick reflexes so as to avoid those indecisive folks that stand and point at random seats, unable to make a decision, blocking your way. However, if you have more than one person joining you, the key is to split up into two, or more, groups and each make a beeline toward a pre-arranged aisle to try and get to the chosen spot the quickest.

For some reason the middle seats about 3/4 of the way toward the back are the most coveted, so if that is your preference, you must have a rock-solid game plan or you will have to accept less. And, always be prepared with a second, third, or even fourth choice. For if you aren’t, you can waste valuable time in deciding where to go should your first choice be taken, and thus lose any or all of your next best selections. If you are a fan of the aisle seat you generally have a bit more breathing room, and if you get there within the first five minutes of seating, depending upon theatre size and popularity of film, you can often find a decent seat.

However, if it is not a stadium seating theatre, there are four aisle seats that are the most coveted of all - those behind the wheelchair spots. Yes, some movie houses locate these spots in the back, but many times they are located midway back on both outside aisles. These treasured seats offer a less obstructed view and more legroom and are therefore the most popular for the non-stadium seating theatres. The wheelchair spot is rarely taken, but knowledge of your theatre and its frequent guests is always a plus, as these seats can be the most obstructed should the wheelchair spots become occupied.

If finding a seat were the only challenge to going to the movies, it wouldn’t be too horrible, as once a seat was obtained you could simply relax and enjoy the show. If only…

If going solo, you will, of course, have had to obtain all refreshments prior to seating, and cannot hope to visit the restroom during your entire stay lest you come back to find out you are now being relocated to the front row.

If you are with at least one other person you have someone to hold your seat should you need to leave, or vice versa. The only drawback is having to save the seat during the prime seating rush. As difficult as it is to hold one seat, it’s that much more difficult the more seats you are saving. If you have landed the choice seats, you will have to defend these with all your might. Leaving coats, bags, or even refreshments in the seats will not always be sufficient to keeping other moviegoers from trying to take those seats for themselves. These tenacious individuals have been known to go as far as moving your belongings off the seat and onto the floor. That includes your $10 bag of popcorn. Keeping up a constant guard is key.

Once everyone in your party has been seated, you still can’t just sit back and relax. You will often have to move your parcels, or stand up, to accommodate those guests who frequently like to leave their seats for one reason or another. Those that feel that they aren’t quite ready to be “settled” and will repeatedly pop up and leave the theatre and return at their whim or those who are indecisive about seating selection who move to a different seat and then come back once realizing the original angle/distance to the screen was more preferable. You will also often be inconvenienced by another kind of moviewatcher who will stand up, move halfway down the aisle, and stop, of course, directly in front of you, turn back to their husband/wife/friend, and proceed to converse with them about what they may/may not want from the concession stand.

If this weren’t bad enough, you then have to deal with the seat kickers, the cell phone users, the talkers - and there are three classes of Chatty Cathies: those that talk loud prior to the show, those that talk during the previews, and then those that converse on and off throughout the entire picture. The third group is the worst, and are seemingly put there solely to test the limits of your patience. From personal conversations (why did they opt to see a film in the first place?) to those that just can’t quite grab that oh-so-complicated plot and feel the need to get the recap moments afterward (how about waiting for the dvd with the pause and replay option?) to those that feel that their added commentary is truly appreciated by all (the dvd standard is to keep director audio commentary off, why would anyone want the amateur viewpoint?).

You also have to contend with those individuals commonly known as the last minute arrival. These are the individuals who arrive at the theatre during, or just prior to the start of, the previews. They whisk in, having pre-purchased their tickets, and expect to find a plethora of seating available for their choosing, looking absolutely shocked and devastated when they see a crowded theatre. Even after discovering that nearly all the seats are occupied, except those in the first few rows, they still suspend reality and proceed to question each and every moviegoer on the aisles and several seats in, as to whether an empty seat next to them is in fact occupied. They wander up and down the aisles in the vain hope that somehow a seat will miraculously appear, that all those who timed their arrivals early to get their preferred seats, will suddenly arise, en masse, and the two/four/six seats they just knew had to be there, will in fact be available to them. After all, aren’t they entitled to the best seats in the house? They did arrive prior to the start of the movie.

And then there are the Crackberry addicts. Prior to the film, the theatre owners often broadcast a “please refrain from using your cell phone” message, but that doesn’t seem to apply to those cult-like worshipers of the Blackberry. The makers of the Blackberry must have known that their users can’t exist without using this most precious device no matter where they might be, and thus have made the screen bright enough to use in very dark locations like a movie theatre. As if all the other disturbances weren’t bad enough, the brightness of the device is so intense it is vying for attention from the movie itself.

So from the start, trying to make it to, and through, a movie in the theatres requires great planning, skill, and extreme patience. It isn’t any wonder that movie companies are losing money when the moviegoing experience isn’t very enjoyable, and the only two reasons to see the movie in the theatre are the immediate gratification factor and the concession stand. And with movies going to dvd sooner (and often in High Definition), home theatre/television prices decreasing, and with the ease and convenience of a Netflix, the balance is tipping more and more in favor of just waiting for the dvd. Plus, movie candy and popcorn by the bucket are available in stores such as Circuit City or Blockbuster, and at a fraction of the cost of those sold at the movies.

The at home movie, the flat screen television, the pause and rewind button, the quiet enjoyment…Ahhh!…Now that’s entertainment!

As people age they tend to grow sentimental over times past, friends lost, moments never to be recaptured. Today, with all the technology available to us, each moment can be caught on digital video, to preserve these memories for years to come. And they are. Literally thousands of gigabytes in storage space are already housing each and every second of our/our childrens/pets/family/friends lives. Fortunately digital storage is getting smaller and smaller, thus eliminating the need for a storage facility to house the hundreds of hard drives storing tens of thousands of photos and videos we have amassed and will probably never look at again in our lifetime.

As has been the norm for quite some time, when looking back on a childhood memory of a family trip, school sporting event, or graduation, more times than not we remember Dad or Mom glued to the camera, never partaking in our revelry, just watching, coaxing, and guiding our fun into a happy and well documented video. And now as we age, we, too, often remember things only as seen from behind the lens of a camera, thus distancing ourselves from actually being a part of our own lives.

And when do we have time to comb through these hours upon hours of moments and memories that we so urgently needed to capture? We are so busy catching each new minute on “film” that we don’t have the time to pore through what we’ve previously recorded. Even if we had the time to sit down to watch each and every second, editing down our lives to distinct moments can be tricky, if not downright painful. Cutting out that five minute segment of a slightly blurry Junior chasing the cat would be like cutting Junior out of our lives. It’s like a stake through the heart.

And so is born the personal historian. These individuals or companies are there to assist you in creating a story, book, audiotape or video of your life - preserving your memories for the ages. And yes, there is even an Association of Personal Historians, to which you too, for a price, can become a member. These folks will dredge through all your personal collections, family stories and images for those that best show who you are, where you come from, and how you’ve lived. And who better to know the real you but a person you found in the yellow pages?

The need for these services generally takes on a level of urgency only as we realize we are closer to the end of this journey called life than toward the beginning, or when we’ve lost more friends and loved ones than those that remain. But as we dig up all of these items from our past to create a video of the story of our lives and who we are, do we stop to think that maybe, just maybe, hiring an outsider isn’t going to give us the truest picture of ourselves?

And do we think about who our audience is? After all, are we going to sit down and repeatedly watch a short video which is supposedly encapsulating our entire existence? Or is this just for those we leave behind, such as our children or grandchildren? And what level of honestly are we really being put forth? Do we include a slideshow of our fun but drunken college excursions? Or how about that time we were caught on tape singing off key in the shower? Do we include the footage of the time we missed the catch that would have won us the championship game? Where we lost out on becoming prom queen to Ashley B.? A video of us taking our vows…for our first marriage? It’s these times, and all the other not-so-perfect bits, that make us who we are but would probably hit the cutting-room floor when deciding on what makes the grade for our life story.

Now, not all personal historians are bad, or their services unnecessary. There are many who are capable of seeing us for just who we really are, and can tell our story better than we do. But, there are personal historians that offer their services and state that they can create a life video that ranges from 5-30 minutes. That’s right: f-i-v-e to t-h-i-r-t-y minutes. Just what kind of accurate life history can be created in just 5 short minutes? Perhaps if you have lived under a rock, without human contact for the past 75 years, you might have lost the gift for gab and have very little you, or anyone else, can say about you. And, if that is the case, why create the video?

These are people we are handing over the task of taking our thousands of hours of digital footage, and countless photos and scrapbooks, and creating a story. How much trust can we have in them when they offer to contain our existence in a few minutes, and act as if this is completely normal? Are they saying that the countless hours of our lives we spent taking the videos and pictures, and the time we spent meticulously creating and organizing our scrapbooks, and writing our memoirs boils down to just five minutes? That all that time we spent was worth nothing?

Just remember, this is your life…aren’t you the best person to tell the story?

There are many celebrities today who are virtual doppelgangers of other stars or performers. But there are a select few who have a striking resemblance to stars in their younger days.

The top 5 celebrity young-alikes are:

1. Josh Hartnett as a young Tommy Lee Jones

2. Leelee Sobieski as a young Helen Hunt (the most commonly compared)

3. Kim Myers as a young Meryl Streep

4. Kelly Smith as a young Cynthia Nixon

5. Jeff Newburg as a young Clark Brandon - sorry, no current pix of Clark!

It’s truly a dog’s world. The fascination humans have with dogs is abundantly clear - all one needs to do is look around. They are “man’s best friend” and frequently humanized on television and in the movies. It is often said that master and dog look alike, shown in side-by-side photos as proof, with umpteen pet lookalike contests, (see http://www.tanmonkey.com/fun/dog-looks-like-owner.php), or discussed in articles, “Does Your Dog Look Like You?” CBSNews.com. Even the human male species has often compared to dogs - the “pack mentality” with the alpha dog leader has often been used as a model for the behavior of the modern male. The need to be compared with our four-legged friends even makes it as far as the bedroom - “Let’s do it ‘doggie-style’.”

Countless phrases have been created using the word dog, to once again incorporate our furry friends into our everyday life. From the derogatory - “She is a real dog!” or “What a dogface!” (looks), “Sister, that man is a dog!” (personality) - to the ordinary - “I’m dog-tired!” (exhausted), “My dogs are barking!” (hurt feet), “It’s all gone to the dogs!” (ruined), “That man belongs in the doghouse!” (being in trouble).

Modern “dog” definitions have been created to describe behavior. “Prairie dogging” is the term used to describe, in offices, when a loud noise is heard, the act of popping ones head above ones cubicle to see what’s going on. And, there even are dog phrases with multiple definitions, such as”Salty dog” which can mean either an experienced sailor, or a cocktail made from vodka and grapefruit juice. (Words of warning: In a bar near the docks be careful what you ask for!)

The dog popularity has even caught on in modern slang phrases, from “Doggin’ it,” (sluggish, lackadaisical) to “Doggie Mama” (a +40 woman who thinks her dog is her baby). And it dates back to the 1800’s in the United States in phrases such as, “I’ve got to see a man about a dog!” (an excuse to absent oneself, most often to use the toilet), and yes, has been used interchangeably with horse. And dating back as far as ancient Rome with “caniculares dies” or “dog days” or “dog days of summer” (hot and humid days summer, period of stagnation).

There have even been personality quizzes asking, “What Breed of Dog Are You?” (at web.tickle.com/dog/ or http://www.gotoquiz.com/what_breed_of_dog_are_you, among many others, and cited in the Time article of the same name.)

Dog’s, too, are not attributed with such awful phrases like, “There’s room to swing a cat”, “I am so mad I could kick the cat!”, or “Dumb as an Ox.”

But the gold star goes to the Brits for their most amusing usage of dogs in phrases. There are several, but the award winners include, “dogs breakfast” or “dogs dinner” which are somewhat interchangeably used to describe something which has been made a complete mess of. (Do the British really feed their dogs so poorly?). And the ever popular “dogs bollocks” which is used to describe something good - “Now, that’s the dogs bollocks!” Also used are “the pooches privates” or “the mutts nuts.” (Do the British really think that highly of their canine friends testicles?)

Our fascination and love of dogs includes many international competitions for the best looking dogs, the strongest breeds. There are dog competitions that require both trainer and dog to run obstacle courses, dig holes in search for objects, or jump the farthest ending with a water landing. The U.S. even has a National Dog Day. Songs, books and poems have been written about them. Debates have raged on which is the most violent breed, the smartest, etc. And, even our competitive nature gets attributed to our canine friends, for it’s a dog eat dog world!

Classic lines can come in many forms, from a dress, to a car, to a face…to a phrase. Although there are a multitude to choose from, here are just a few of the greatest classic lines of all time:

1. “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV.” - as popularized by Peter Bergman, playing a doctor, Vicks Formula 44 commercial

2. “You hear that, Elizabeth?! I’m coming to join you, honey!” - Redd Foxx, as Fred Sanford, Sanford and Son

3. “I was Ponyboy, dude.” - C. Thomas Howell, playing himself, as said to Judd Nelson, Far Out Man

4. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!” - Jerry Seinfeld, as himself, and Jason Alexander, as George Costanza, Seinfeld

5. “There ain’t no f**kin’ Thelma here!” - Arsenio Hall, apartment victim, Amazon Women on the Moon

6. “Put that cookie down! Now!“- Arnold Schwarzenegger, as Howard Langston, Jingle All the Way

7. “There are several sacred things in this world that you don’t ever mess with. One of them happens to be another man’s fries. Now, you remember that, and you will live a long and healthy life.“- Keith David, as Louis Fedders, Men at Work

8. “Gee, I’m real sorry your mom blew up, Ricky. Guess she won’t be able to eat any spicy foods for awhile.” - John Cusack, as Lane Meyer, Better Off Dead

9. “The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.” - Michael Douglas, as Gordon Gekko, Wall Street

10. “Turns out there is something scarier than a clown.” - As narrated by Sarah Jessica Parker, as Carrie Bradshaw, Sex in the City, in response to Kim Catrall’s “I’m Bozo the bush.”

11. “Sometimes you gotta say ‘What the F**k’, make your move.” - Curtis Armstrong, as Miles , Risky Business

12. “The people have a right to know.” - Harvey Flaxman, reporter, Grizzly

13. “No man wants to f**k grandma’s pussy!” - Kim Catrall, as Samantha Jones, Sex and the City

14. “Does Barry Manilow know you raid his wardrobe?” - Judd Nelson, as John Bender, The Breakfast Club

15. “Go that way. Really fast. If something gets in your way, turn.“- Curtis Armstrong, as Charles De Mar, Better Off Dead

16. “Au naturalle baby. Swing low, sweet chariots.” - Creed Bratton, as Creed, The Office

17. “I’ll be back.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger, as the Terminator, The Terminator

18. “For one dollar I’ll guess your weight, your height, or your sex.” - Steve Martin, as Navin Johnson, The Jerk

19. “F**k you, you f**king f**k!” - Dennis Hopper, as Frank Booth, Blue Velvet

20. “How ’bout a nice greasy pork sandwich served in a dirty ashtray?” - Bill Paxton, as Chet, Weird Science

21. “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.” - Harry Dean Stanton, as Bud, Repo Man

22. “So you hired a dick to find an a**hole?” - Mickey Rourke, as Henry Chinaski, Barfly

23. “Charlie! They took my thumb!” - Eric Roberts, as Paulie, The Pope of Greenwich Village

24. “Bring us a pitcher of beer every seven minutes until somebody passes out. And then bring one every ten minutes.” - Rodney Dangerfield, as Thornton “Thorny” Melon, Back to School

25. “You have to stop the Q-Tip when there’s resistance.” - Matthew Perry, as Chandler Bing, Friends

26. “Now that’s gotta hurt!”

Honorable mentions go to:

1. “Can I call you Dad?” - Taylor Negron, as Julio, Easy Money

2. “What’s happenin’ hot stuff?” - Gedde Watanabe, as Long Duk Dong, Sixteen Candles

3. “I gave her my heart, she gave me a pen.” - John Cusack, as Lloyd Dobler, Say Anything

4. “There is no spoon.” - Rowan Witt, as Spoon Boy, The Matrix

5. “It’s got raisins in it. You like raisins.” - Kim Darby, as Jenny Meyer, Better Off Dead

6. “Otherwise it’s just malfeasance for malfeasance’s sake.” - Rainn Wilson, as Dwight K. Schrute, The Office

7. “Stay close to the candles. The stairway can be… treacherous.” - Cloris Leachman (carrying an unlit candelabra), as Frau Blucher, Young Frankenstein

8. “Yippee-ki-yay, motherf**ker.” - Bruce Willis, as John McClane, Die Hard

9. “You son of a motherless goat!” - Steve Martin, as Lucky Day, The Three Amigos

10. “Better her than me.” - Harrison Ford, as Han Solo, Star Wars

11. “A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.” - Anthony Hopkins, as Hannibal Lechter, Silence of the Lambs

Yet another lazy day in Hollywood. With this season premiers hitting on TV this week, you would think that the industry would put their best foot forward - that the new programming would be exciting, and original. Aside from the aforementioned Los Angeles for New York issues - are there really palm trees in Philadelphia? (Cold Case premier) - Hollywood has once again gone to sleep on the job.

So far this season, in two of the premier efforts the same guest actors have been used. And we’re not talking mainstream guest stars. Furthermore, it’s not just about one guest star being used in two shows - this would be the same two guest stars in two separate premiers, on two different networks, playing rather noticeable roles:

In the Cold Case season 5 opener, entitled “Thrill Kill” (airdate 9/23/07), actor Raphael Sbarge played Henry Raymes, the father of a deceased boy, and actor Andrew James Allen played Teddy Nimmo, an accused killer.

In the Bones season 3 opener, “The Widow’s Son in the Windshield” (airdate 9/25/07), actor Raphael Sbarge played Doug Doyley, an investigator, and actor Andrew James Allen played cannibal Jason Harkness.

Come on Hollywood, it’s not like either actor, pictured above, is so bland in appearance that this faux pas wouldn’t be noticed, nor is it like the shows are from two completely different genres (both crime dramas) that there would be little chance in viewer overlap. And for those who are fans of the old classic, Risky Business, they would certainly remember the talented Mr. Sbarge.

And speaking of Risky Business…A less obvious, although by now pretty common theme for the Law & Order family of shows, is re-using actors at least two, but sometimes three or more, times in their shows as different characters. The Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season 9 opener, “Alternate” (airdate 9/25/07) utilized actor Bronson Pinchot (Perfect Strangers, Risky Business) as Dr. Henry Carlise, who had also appeared in a Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode entitled “Beast,” in 2005, as Dr. Greg Ross.

Even some of Law & Order’s district attorney’s and officers have made guest appearances on the show prior to being added to the cast, including: Annie Parisse as A.D.A. Alexandra Borgia (2005-2006) and Jasmine Blake (2002); Diane Neal as A.D.A. Casey Novak (2003-present) and Amelia Chase (2001); Milena Govich as Det. Nina Cassidy (2006-2007) and Geneva (2005); Tamara Tunie as Dr. Melinda Warner (2000-present) and Caroline Bennett (1996); and, Courtney B. Vance as A.D.A. Ron Carver (2001-2006), Mayor’s Aide (1990) and Benjamin ‘Bud’ Greer (1995).

Some (and by no means all) other notable actor vuja de’s in the Law & Order group of shows, include: Lauren Ambrose as Jessica (1992), Maureen McKinnon (1993), Valerie Maxwell (1998); Eddie Kaye Thomas as Chad Markham (1996) and Ethan Vance (1999); Jay O. Sanders as Nick Taska/Bill Fallon (1999), Harry Rowan (2002), Alan Fenwick (2002); Michael O’Keefe as Eli Rush (1996), Father Michael McShale (2001), Cally Lonegan/Prof. Donald Lonegan (2001); and, Sam Rockwell as Randy Borland (1992) and Weddeker (1993).

With all the actors striving to make it/be discovered/find their “big break,” the task seems daunting when those that make the decisions opt to not only play it safe by using the same people over, over, and over again, but also appear to check the cast lists for other shows and copy them for theirs. Or maybe there is only one casting agency left in Hollywood? All that’s left to ask is: Who’s hiring the hirers?