Willing Warriors; Tantalizing TV or Anachronistic Anti-Humans?

Of the dichotomous populace of TV watchers, I belong to the half that (generally) likes reality TV. Why? Well, I enjoy experiencing real emotion from real people... from my real couch.

One of my surprise favorite reality shows from last year was The Deadliest Catch.

In a nutshell, the show follows a handful of Alaskan crab fishermen as they risk life and limb to make a LOT of money in a short amount of time, catching crab by using very heavy and dangerous equipment on rocky boats navigating through rough seas full of water so cold that if you aren't wearing a survival suit, (which is so beefy it makes you look like a 4 year old on a snow day; so they can't work in them) and you aren't rescued within a couple of minutes, you're dead.

And oh yeah, they use Bon Jovi music and the whole thing is narrated by the guy from Dirty Jobs who has that awesome voice.

The new season of TDC premiered last night; and despite what I had heard at the end of the previous season about a major change in the format, I was brimming with anticipation.

I'm witholding final judgment for now, but initial signs aren't good.

Why? Well, as I made allusions to, there's a major change in the format... and in the process of considering that, I really have to question my thoughts about TV vis a vis my moral compass. You see, there's a bit of The Running Man appeal in TDC.

Aside: The Running Man, a story by Stephen King, and later a movie starring our favorite Californian Governator, is a game show set in the future that shows a potential culmination to the Reality TV phenomenon; where contestants fight to the death for the amusement of the mob. It's the Gladiators of Rome all over again. This idea has seen many incarnations; in videogames and movies. Sometimes the "gladiators" are prisoners being forced to fight, sometimes it's voluntary and you can win lots of money and prizes, etc.

(SmashTV is one of my favorite games of all time; I'm always a big fan of breakneck-paced action, fighting to survive against endless hordes of mindless enemies.)

So, how does this apply to TDC?

Well, deep sea fishing in freezing waters requires strategy, luck, physical and mental toughness, and it is VERY dangerous.

And the money is very real. The deck hands usually make around $30,000-$40,000, and on up the ladder to the captains, who often make 6 figures. And that's for ONE TRIP; less than a week!! With several crab "seasons" a year; it's a very lucrative business.

Finally, getting to the reason why my moral compass is put into question; the danger and death is very real too. LOTS of things can go wrong out there, 50+ miles from shore, and a lot of them lead to you being dead. If you watched the first season, you saw what I'm talking about. They earn their money.

Now, I know I don't like people dying; I get no pleasure out of that... but I'm questioning myself now... do I like this show because people might die?? I have to admit, the danger and urgency is a necessary catalyst for the subsequent bravery and comraderie displayed on the show to come through; and that's a lot of what makes it appealing.

And this brings me to my point.

Up until this past season, crab fishing in Alaska has been "derby style" fishing.

What this means is, the US Department of Fish and Game decides exactly when the 'season' on a certain crab starts, and how many crab (and of what size) can be caught for this season. Every boat must report all that they catch in real time; so that when the quota is close to being reached, the Fish & Game people put a firm deadline announcement out to end the 'season,' and no crab can be caught after that. There are tamper-proof cameras on each boat that track and record what they catch and when, so no one can cheat.

What does this mean? Well, it means that if you're a crab fisherman, and you're getting paid $7-10 a pound for crab, you want to catch as much crab as possible, as quickly as possible, so that when the horn sounds ending the end of the season, your contribution to the quota will be bigger than anyone else's, and therefore, you can sell more than anyone else. And because no one really knows exactly where the large nomadic biomasses of crab are; that means from the moment the 'season' opens, you're working as much as you possibly can, and that means sleeping the least you possibly can.

And as any cold/flu medication bottle will tell you; you should NOT be operating heavy machinery when drowsy. How about when you've had about 6 hours of sleep over 3 days, and you're on a boat in the Bering Sea with rocky waves crashing over the boat; there are 40mph winds with sleet, and you need to navigate 800lb steel crab traps with a giant hydraulic crane on a slippery deck dotted with deck hands trying to do all manner of baiting, pulling, sorting, etc.

The result of this, in spite (because?) of the danger and the fact that people do get hurt and occasionally die, is some very good television. Depression and elation come and go just like the waves. When a boat has been unlucky, the season is half over, and they all of a sudden hit massive amounts of crab; it's really good stuff.

Or should I say... was good stuff.

Like I said before... the derby fishing was "up until last season." The Department of Fish and Game decided to do away with that style; and is enforcing a system where each boat is only allowed to catch "their share" of the season's quota for that crab; and of course that's all they can sell. The urgency, the volatility, the powerful emotion swings... gone.

This system is much safer; no more sleep deprivation, no more risks, no more back-breaking work at a breakneck pace. Everyone catches what they're allowed to catch, no more.

It's still dangerous to fish for crab; that's for sure... but it's a lot less exciting now.

Now, before you take a look at that comment and start questioning my aforementioned morality; consider this.

EVERY Captain of the crab boats they talked to was upset that Fish & Game was doing this. As dangerous as it was, they ALL lived for the rush of the derby style fishing. It meant that depending on your strategy, effort, and luck; you could strike it rich, or barely cover your costs.

It was a gamble; their very lives and livelihood were on the line as they depended on each other and the hand of cards that the seas dealt them; and they loved it.

In the opener to this season, all the captains featured in the show are at a bar talking about the season, and they raise their glasses in a surly and sarcastic toast to Fish & Game.

If these men WANT to do it; if they want the risk; if they want the competition; if they want capitalism over communism... why should the government get in the way??

They know the risks better than anyone, and they choose to do it regardless. Not everyone has that pioneer spirit in them that almost needs the danger and risk, and while, in general, humans don't need that anymore... I don't think it should be discouraged. That spirit was what carved out a chunk of our land; and that shouldn't be forgotten and abandoned.

Now, am I saying this because I believe it, or because I want the show to "matter" again?

I'm not sure, definitely some of both.

But considering that it's so dangerous, I start to think about some of the other shows I like to watch where there's a lot of danger.

For example, I really like MMA, or Mixed Martial Arts; and this is just about as gladiator as you can get. I first fell in love with MMA when The Ultimate Fighting Championship was born back in 1993. They got together all sorts of expert martial artists to see who would win in a tournament with VERY few rules. (no biting, no eye-gouging) It was barbaric, sure, but it was riveting, and slowly but surely, some insights to some really long unanswered questions, like which martial art is the best in a real fight against someone who knows how to fight?

The sport evolved and eventually tried to become legitimate. (With a lot of success; UFC events are finally now on regular cable instead of pay-per-view; thanks to the SpikeTV reality show, The Ultimate Fighter) Now, there are a LOT of rules in the UFC to protect fighters, and it's become clear as to which styles "work." While the whole "Kumite" appeal is pretty much gone now, the spectacle has evolved into a sport.

Now, that sport is dangerous, obviously, and people DEFINITELY get hurt. But it's very unlikely that someone's going to die in UFC, and again, all of these guys WANT to do this.

Shouldn't people be allowed to do these things if they want to? And, well, shouldn't people like me be able to watch and be entranced and maybe a little envious of their ability to throw caution to the wind?

Well, since it's been over a year...

I guess I should start sprucing up the place.

I threw a couple links on the sidebar there, and I'm going to get my grubby mitts on a digital camera so you all can see my ugly mug.

And despite the fact that I get paid for my Graphic Design skills; I sadly am not "joe html" so unless I break out Dreamweaver or Pagemaker; I'm going to have to teach myself how to make this place look nicer.

Frange Rants Part Deux; Can I really hate anyone?

I hope this post doesn't come off too much in the Captain Obvious vein of "mean people suck," and I know I've sort of hit on this note once before in my postings, but after watching more episodes of Intervention (and The First 48) I feel compelled to sound off on just how difficult it is to see what some people are capable of, and the consequences it brings.

In Intervention, they basically ask an addict to participate in a documentary about addiction, and neglect to tell them that they will face an Intervention by their family and friends at the end of the documentary filming.

I don't watch this show for the "train wreck" factor of seeing how some people destroy themselves and react negatively to an Intervention, though I could see how that might be entertaining to some. But, at least for me, the show does way too good of a job making you understand and feel for these people, and by the end of the show when they have the Intervention, I'm just really hoping that they can see past their pride and/or their psychological barriers, and realize that they really really need help, and they're past the point of being able to do it on their own.

Now, it's important to note that I said, "by the end of the show" because lots of times, when you first meet these people, you really can't stand them. I've seen a lot of these addicts be really horrible people to get what they need. Nearly all of them lie to, steal from, and abuse their family and friends, and lots of them then have the nerve to be furious when they find out that their family kept the Intervention a secret from them until they got them there.

So what happens during the course of the show that makes me sympathize with these addicts?

Well, a lot, but to boil it down, every show has what I've come to call, "baby picture time." This is when they have a montage of pictures of the addict when they were a kid growing up, and the addict's family is talking about how great of a kid they were, how much promise they had, and how "full of life" the addict once was.

Then they do this thing where the screen fades to black, and white text comes up on the screen that says something like this,

"When she was 6, Annie was molested by a close family friend."

And you're like, ".....damn... Goddamn.. that sucks."

And then they talk about how she just wasn't happy anymore, and how things just sort of changed... and then they hit you with the hammer...

"When she was 17, Annie was raped by a co-worker."

And you just hang your head, you can't even fathom what that would do to you... and it just all sort of makes sense.

Again, I apologize for ranting and not offering any sort of analysis or intelligent commentary, but how the hell can people do this to someone else?!

It's so horrible, so unbelievably selfish; and in the case of rape and molestation, which is far too common, it's destroying another person's entire life for mere minutes of depraved pleasure. I'm fortunate to have never endured such horror, but it's plainly obvious that it's impossible to ever be the same as you once were. The way you look at humanity in general changes; you've seen the very worst of a person's potential, and that just doesn't go away.

The problem is, as much as I think every rapist and molester should never be able to walk the streets again; I don't think that stiffer penalties, even the threat of the death penalty, would stop the people that do this from doing this. That's not to say that I think that a rapist or molester should ever be allowed to go free, but I just think that it's disheartening that harsher consequences probably wouldn't be an effective deterrent.

It's a sickness. No one aspires to be a sociopath. It takes a certain (mis)wiring of the brain to be capable of causing such damage to someone, either physically or emotionally.

And that gets me thinking. I can see how horrible the addicts are, especially those who scream at their families at the Intervention, claiming they've been betrayed, but yet I sympathize for them when I see the demons they wrestle with inside... can the same be said about the molesters and rapists? Can I sympathize for them, too?

I'm really not sure, and it would be a case-by-case thing, but I really don't think so.

There are fundamental differences; I mean, an addict, while they're abusive and cause pain to their families and friends, it's almost entirely because of their self-destruction, not because the addict is purposefully hurting their loved ones.

I'm of the opinion that everyone is fundamentally good, and those that do evil fall into several categories:

First, there's the ones that truly believe that what they're doing isn't evil or wrong. This could be a matter of interpretation, delusion, or the ability to compartmentalize and see an action as each small part rather than the sum and the consequences.

Second, there are those who know what they're doing is wrong and evil, but feels justified or that his or her action are necessary. This includes the guy who steals so he can eat, the soldier that kills on the battlefield, the vigilante mentality of eye-for-an-eye or the righteous smiting the wicked.

Third, there's those who know what they're doing is wrong, don't feel justified, but still do it because they can't face the consequences of not doing it. This is where the addicts come in. The addict that steals her mom's TV to sell it for meth hates that she does it, but she can't face not having meth, so it's almost a lesser of two evils to them. You can actually sort of trace this back to see that in many of these cases, the decision to become an addict in the first place falls in this same category. Rather than face what they feel they can't face, namely the horrible things that have been done to them, they block it out with dependency and self-destruction.

Finally, there are those who know what they're doing is wrong, but it just doesn't matter to them. The "rules" of what's right and wrong aren't their rules, and they might know them, but the real reasons why they're in place eludes them. These are the sociopaths.

It's never like it is in the cartoons or the storybooks. The villian never really is the villian, but a sociopath is about as close as you get.

Aside: Speaking of villians, one of my favorite villian debates is whether Gargamel wanted to eat the Smurfs, or turn them into Gold. After several heated discussions, I believe I've found the definitive answer.

Both.

(A lot of people say that the original motivation for the start of the series was turning them into gold, and only Azrael wanted to eat the Smurfs, but after ratings dropped, the producers decided to have Gargamel want to eat them too.)

Anyways, it's hard to get back into talking seriously about such things after going on a damn Smurfs tangent; though, actually, if you hadn't heard, Unicef made a Smurfs video that's really pretty disturbing:

http://media.putfile.com/end_of_smurfs

So.. end of rant.

More to come later, I have a bunch to say... but in the meantime; when I went to tvguide.com to see if someone was running an "Oh yeah, just in case you aren't an elephant and don't remember what happened twenty years ago when The Sopranos were last on" special prelude to tonight's new episode (I think "The TV Guide Channel" has something); I happened upon this:

The Cutting Edge. Two.

Made for TV... ABC Family.... sigh.

They, ahem, turn the original story on its head by featuring Christy Carlson Romano (Belle in Broadway's Beauty and the Beast, and the voice of TV's "Kim Possible") as Jackie Dorsey, apparently the eventual offspring of the D.B. Sweeney and Moira Kelly characters from the first movie.

"Jackie" (sorry, but that's such a stretch it's Reed Richards esque) is a champion figure skater, but of course, everything changes when she ends up with a new partner, derp!

Now... you know the knuckleheads who made this movie couldn't have just gotten another ice skater. No. So what other sport has crossover potential? Yes, you guessed it....

Roller Blading.

This is a direct quote from the movie's webpage: "Ross Thomas is Alex Harrison, a champion in-line skater with attitude to spare. He's got the moves on land but can he cut it on the ice? And when it comes to being Jackie's partner, does he have what it takes to melt an ice princess' heart?"

Now, I know, my love for The Cutting Edge is strange. But this is just wrong. This is The Next Karate Kid all over again, and somehow I don't think Ms. Carlson Romano, or Mr. Harrison, are going to break out and win an academy award someday.

Enough with the shitting on the bad movies that were suprisingly good by making another bad movie on the same premise that accomplishes nothing other than showing how bad the first bad movie could've been had it not had something save it from being bad.

Frange Rants; Why a car built by reject kids can do 0 to 60 in 4 seconds, 50 mpg, on <$2.00/gal soybean biodiesel; and won't hit the marketplace.

Mandatory Preamble: I'm loath to talk about politics or economics on here; that is not for what I intended this space, and there are few areas colored more gray than which political or economic view is "right." However, as my last post on diamonds will attest, there are stories I read from time to time that cause such a sufficiently incendiary reaction in me; I must breach protocol and speak out.

So apologies for two posts in a row without your expected fare of meaty retrospective self-analysis seasoned with several tablespoons of popular media.

But, to get things started, just so you aren't totally left in want for silly movie references; I'll quote just about my favorite dialogue exchange for starting a duel, from The Princess Bride:

Inigo: "So you're ready then?"

Westley: "Whether I am or not, you've been more than fair."

Inigo: "You seem a decent fellow, I hate to kill you..."

Westley: "You seem a decent fellow, I hate to die..."

Inigo: "Begin..."

I think that, (and don't go all Mr. Miyagi on me and tell me that staying in the middle-of-the-road will get me "squashed like grape") in just about any conflict worth fighting for, both sides are right, certainly from their point of view, but often objectively as well.

(Insert obligatory Star Wars reference about Luke Skywalker getting upset about learning that Obi-Wan lied to him about what happened to his father; then backtracked by saying that what he said was true, "From a certain point of view..." Okay, so the post isn't completely without it's pop culture crap; I can't help it.)

During one of my Philosophy classes in college, I argued that quite possibly the number one determinant for one's stance on any number of "hotbed" world issues is Geography. Of course, geography influences so many other factors that are the "real" reasons, but consider this: If I were born in, say, Kabul, Afganistan; my opinions on "The War on Terror" would almost certainly be different from, and likely at odds with, most people in America. But would I be wrong?

Judging someone or something that we don't understand, is, in my opinion, mankind's greatest folly. If anything is going to lead to the end of the human race and/or the planet Earth, I'm guessing it could all be traced back to a misinformed decision. If anything is holding us back from true peace and happiness as a people, it's prejudice and jealousy; it's a lack of understanding, a resultant erroneous emotion, and an irrational reaction.

In the race of life, I often think the Republican "hands off" approach is a good idea; if people can sprint, let them sprint. But when I see that those hands could be picking up runners who have fallen, or clearly gotten tripped or pushed, maybe even by one of those sprinters, and it wasn't their fault; well, then I start to question myself. Maybe the Democrat's way of having a few policemen stopping traffic now and again isn't so bad. Sure, you can't go as fast as you want, but a lot less people get hurt, and at least the people in the back have a chance. But then I start to think again about the people in the back that are only there because they're lazy, and they know that eventually someone will give them a hand; and the people in front will have to wait for them, and that's not fair.

The fact is, it's not cut-and-dry, and while I respect people for taking a side and defending it, because I really can't do it and keep a straight face when someone points out a clear deficiency; there's a reason why politics and economics can be argued till the cows come home without a clear "winner."

So, all that said; I'm usually all for capitalism and the free market, it tends to be able to regulate itself out of problems with competition and innovation, but every once in a while, I'm reminded of the dark side; the occasional occurrence where the greed and power of the few results in stymied growth of technology and effeciency, and that affects all of us.

My favorite story to tell on this subject used to be how a couple of MIT grad students designed a car battery that ran on 5 pounds of sugar, never needed replacing (except the sugar), was environmentally friendly, and was just as reliable and powerful as your normal acid battery. GM approached the guys and offered to buy their idea outright for a lump sum; the kids agreed, and the sugar battery was buried.

Lately, the whole DRM (Digital Rights Management) and HDCP (Hardware Data Copy Protection) thing has been my favorite, with the MPAA, Hollywood, Microsoft, Intel, and others obviously trying to hold back and hamstring new technologies so they can try and make more money for longer, despite the historical precedent (set from audio and video cassette recorders), that eventually, we'll probably just be able to record whatever the hell we want.

Well, here's my new favorite:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/eveningnews/main1329941.shtml

The fact that we've heard all about hybrids and even to some extent, Hydrogen-Cell powered cars; why hasn't biodiesel gotten the same cred?

I mean, who's the #1 producer (and exporter) of Soybeans in the WORLD??? Uh.. I dunno... US?

I really hope there's something behind this story that was conveniently left out; something that "breaks" the viability of this technology. Because if a car built by highschool dropouts and dysfunctional kids who were, "rummaging for parts, configuring wires and learning as they went" can have that kind of performance, using that fuel; I really see no reason why this tech has been left in the cold, other than the greed of the auto industry and oil companies.

I'm no expert, but if oil-lovin' Bush is going to get up during the State of the Union Address and start talking (ahem) seriously about really using alternative energy, then I'd assume he's willing to make the necessary infrastructure changes (and probably tax breaks) so alternative fuels are accessible and affordable to people who choose to go with Hydrogen, Ethanol, or Biodiesel. And if the fuel can be made accessible, I don't really see why biodiesel can't be at least part of the solution to start cutting back our oil imports. (BTW, Ethanol can be made from Corn, and we grow plenty of that too...)

I mean, given that we tend to regularly go about sippin' the Haterade on a bunch of countries, including Venezuela, (who jumped into third place in December on our crude import list past Saudi Arabia, behind only Canada and Mexico;) well, maybe we should have a plan if Chavez decides to stop playing the role of the South Park "Heeeey Guy" nice-guy Saddam, and starts talking to OPEC about hitting us with the oil price stick.