Something on my Mind: An Election in the Air? (1)

There's something in the air these days, and I'm just not clear what it is—a new pig farm around the corner? Or could it be a provincial election?

I partially jest: There's no pig farm within miles. So that odour must be the smell of another political fight—the whole gamut of feisty political bickering.

I should be happy that there will likely be a provincial election called sometime in March, with the big day sometime in May. I say, "Bring it on": I have strong political interests, and a deep concern for the state of affairs here in Alberta. I have expressed my views on occasion in this space, and I am sincerely glad I still have the freedom to do so.

Even if you don't agree with me on every point, I have no problem with healthy, civil discussion. It's one of the hallmarks of a democratic society, and long may it last.

Unfortunately, I am finding that healthy discussion both stateside and provinceside (not a word, but quippy nonetheless) is hitting some troubling times these days.

It's the "healthy" part that concerns me.

So when I say "healthy," I mean concerns that are well-thought out, thinking that is constructively critical, the absence of mudslinging, and the right to disagree without lying. I think that covers all the bases.

A case in point is the government shutdown in that large country just south of us (commonly know as the "United States of America." Maybe they should be called the "Divided States of America.) It is unfathomable how badly things are going down there. We certainly don't want to head that way ourselves, do we ?

When I hear the venom, vulgarity, and vitriol, and the threats, tripe, and taunts, I shudder. These are the leaders of one of the greatest countries and this is how they treat each other in public? Oh my, what do they say to each other in private? No wonder there is a complete disrespect for the political process. No wonder we are losing a lost generation of voters.

I trust, as we slink into a provincial election, that those vying for office won't stoop to that behaviour. If they do, that is part of "stench" I referred to earlier.

We need government, but from my vantage point, just a lot less of it. We have currently far more ministries than necessary. I trust that if a different party wins, one of the first things they do will be to reduce the cabinet.

Another thing I trust they will do is to be answerable to the people. Granted, every whim of every citizen cannot be met, but I would like to see some attempt at least in listening to those they represent. This could come in the form of a townhall meetings. After all, the word "minister" actually means to be a "servant " to the people, something that has been lost in the expression of leadership.

Even as I write, a number of promises have been made, along with a number of fabrications about the other party. How true is each one? That's really up to the discerning voter. I won't say who said what, but I'm only working with the real contenders, namely, the NDP and the UCP.

My greatest concern at this stage of the unofficial race—and it's going to get worse once the election gets some traction and desperation takes over—is the blatant animosity that will mark and (ultimately) mar the race. I've used a bunch of words about five paragraphs ago that would describe it, so I don't want to use them again.

The question begs: Why?

It's not only Left vs. Right...NDP vs UCP...Albertans vs. Albertans. No, it's every every political stripe, every jurisdiction, every country. It's not just Alberta nor even Canada, either. It seems worldwide.

It's down and dirty from the get-go, sad to say. Just watch the legislature channel sometime. That channel should be censored, so your kids don't see how our leaders treat each other.

It's just too bad when an election gets confused with a pig farm.

Something on my Mind: I Love Lucy...and Mary...Bob Newhart (2)

Now where are we? Oh right, snuggled up on a couch, watching Ralph Kramden threatening to send Alice to the moon...

Here are further reasons why getting old DVDs from the local library is a great past-time.

4. real lifestyle This reason is the most serious of them all. There are a number of other series from that era (mid-'50s to mid-'70s) that don't cut it for me. Either they are too racy, at least by the time they get into the '70s, or they're too lame, as in sterile and stereotypical. You can pick your own examples.

I have been amazed at the real life issues that have come up in each of these sitcoms I've mentioned. Money matters, employment challenges, inter-personal misunderstandings, health setbacks, or tensions in the home and the workplace, are often covered.

Sounds like a dose of real life to me, unlike the so-called reality shows of today.

The two extremes I hate about the other types of sitcoms are: 1. there's nothing more important than sex; and 2. life is wonderful, easy, and problem-free. Nothing could be further from the truth in either case, these days more than ever.

I think these oldies but goodies nail it, namely, playing out life in a balanced, realistic yet humourous manner.

5. inexpensive entertainment I don't know how important inexpensive (or even free) entertainment is to you, but it is to me. I don't do many movies in any given year, but considering I am  almost an hour from a theatre,  it can be an expensive evening. There's the ticket(s), popcorn and drink (not for me, but maybe for the kids, if they're with me). Then maybe a coffee and snack afterwards. I will likely have to pick up the tab for any kid that comes along with. And did anyone consider the extra gas?

On the other hand, the advantage of staying home with a good comedy is multi-fold:

    a. there's a savings in time: no hours taken up with driving there, watching, eating out, then driving home;

    b. there's a savings in energy: all that effort in getting dressed up, even casually (we do that still) is replaced by dressing down. After all, a movie night routine isn't complete unless one is in one's "jammers" (funny talk for                         pyjamas);

    c. there's a savings in money: I already mentioned the cost of snacks, gas, and wear and tear on your real fine "409";

    d and there's a savings in food: if you go out to a movie, you can can have popcorn or...popcorn. At home, you can still have popcorn, but you can have so much more, if you so desire. I don't "so desire," so this savings is lost on me.

6. free therapy Maybe "therapy" sounds too heavy a reason for watching a DVD at night, but it is true. Call it what you like, but it is a nice change of pace, a break from the norm, something different, or a place to take your mind off the usual routine.

They don't call it "amusement" for nothing: To "muse" means to think or ponder; put the negative prefix ("a") in front of it, and it means "to not think or ponder"--hence, amusement, amusing, or even amusement park. So if someone finds you "amusing," that actually may not be a compliment.

Consider movie watching a place to put your thinking on hold, to have a mind fast, if you will.

Obviously, too much of anything is still too much, and that even includes pizza—although I am not sure how you can ever have too much pizza.

Being consumed with too many movies over too many nights with too many mindless plots, gratuitous sex or violence is just, well, too much. Nothing--I repeat, nothing—good comes from that.

Here's to a night out (by staying in), stimulating entertainment (yet it's free), and a break from the routine (without going anywhere).

Happy brain fast.

Something on my Mind: I Love Lucy...and Mary...and Bob Newhart (1)

The Christmas break (which is when I am writing this) is the best time of the year for me to catch up on watching really old television shows, via a DVD here, a DVD there. I indulge a little (30 to 60 minutes, every few days) just before I go to bed. It's nice to fall asleep with a laugh track ringing in my ears.

A little background is in order, though.

I was born and raised in the '50s and '60s, respectively, and by the mid- '70s, I was off to university. The point being, I was raised without a boob tube in the house. I finally got around to getting one for my family about ten years into our marriage (early '90s). I dropped cable after a little while, but hung on to the box. So as you can tell, I have had very little exposure to television, even as an adult, the odd hotel stay notwithstanding.

I guess it's a coincidence, but the DVDs that generally come out of the '50s and '60s, with the early '70s thrown in. It seems I can relate to that era, even though I was never exposed to television while I was being raised then.

The afore-mentioned box allows me choose what I watch, which is the basis for today's column. And all my DVDs come from the public library. It's actually quite a broad and safe selection. And it's free: But that doesn't mean I'm cheap, just frugal.

Back to the Dark Ages, my kidhood (not a word, Maurice) for a moment: I really believe that the absence of a television in my formative years has been instrumental in framing my rational and creative mental processes--a stark contrast to many children who have been dumbed-down by sitting in front of a screen during their early years.

No offence or bragging; just a passing observation.

However, there are studies to prove that statement, but I want the next two columns to be light and winsome, not heavy and ponderous. If you're interested, you can google it.

But having one's thinking, outlook, and applied intelligence diminished by a small or large screen is an unfortunate way to be raised, isn't it? Occasionally, maybe; regularly, not so good.

Where was I? Right, watching goofy sitcoms in my old age, or more precisely, explaining the value and pleasure of doing such. And why do I find watching Dick, Morey, Rose, and Mary (their real names), followed by Mary, Ed, Gavin, and Ted, then by Lucy and her gang, so enjoyable? And I can't forget Jackie and Art with their television wives, either.

Glad you asked. Let me count the ways:

1. clean humour They provide safe time and place to wind the day down, without being insulted and assaulted with crude, toilet humour. I don't need the innuendos nor the blatant, in-your-face garbage that is passed off as humour.

I have found that in "I Love Lucy" (most of the '50s), "The Honeymooners" (one season in the '50s), "The Dick van Dyke Show" (early '60s), and "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" (most of the '70s), the quips were short, obvious, well-timed, and clean...for the most part.

I'd be remiss to leave the two memorable series with Bob Newhart, one as a psychologist and the second one as an innkeeper. There are others (eg., "Get Smart"), but I'll stop right there.

It's noteworthy that as these shows moved further and further into the '70s (including "Hogan's Heroes"), the jokes got cruder and cruder, and more sex-related ones popped up. By the time the '80s rolled around, it was an unfortunate display of both lame and dirty jokes.

2. clever script Believe it or not, I really enjoy the dialogue for these shows. I just appreciate great gags and witty repartee anytime. There have been many very clever and refreshing exchanges that I enjoy and finme them amazingly crafted.

3. family affair The various sitcoms are very family-friendly. That means that it's safe for my kids to sit with me and watch them, without any fear on my part that something shady or suggestive, or more blatant than that, could show up unannounced.

Of course, my kids wouldn't be caught dead doing that with me for a host of reasons.

I've got a couple more reasons next week. In the meantime, why don't you dash down to your local library...for a laugh?