They're pengiuns. Penguin commandos.

I admit it. I've been watching a lot of television lately. But it's been too hot to do anything, and the teaching schedule is just so packed that I'm usually worn out on the weekends and don't want to do much.

But I do want to mention a show that I really love, that makes me laugh. It's a kid's show, it's on Nickelodeon, and it's a movie spin-off. So I think it doesn't quite get the credit it deserves.

It's called "The Penguins of Madagascar." I've never actually seen either of the Madagascar movies, but I happened to run across this one day and started watching. And it's really very funny and clever.

Part of the reason is the simple incongruity: there are four penguins, see. They live in the Central Park Zoo. They think they're commandos and they pull "raids" and do other things to fix problems...in the zoo.

Sometimes they screw up - a lot of times they misinterpret the situations. But like a lot of good comic heroes, sometimes their screw ups actually lead to success of their "mission."

That's part of the reason I like the show. But I also like the characters. It's a team of four: Skipper, who sounds a little bit like William-Shatner-as-Captain-Kirk is the leader. He's the one most likely to overreact or misinterpret a situation. Kowalski is the ideas guy, maybe a little bit like Spock to Skipper's Kirk. He also invents stuff. Some of it is kind of dumb stuff, some of it is dangerous (his living jelly cube that eats other animals). He's also the brainiac, and supposedly doesn't understand "feelings" and "emotions."

Then there's Rico. Rico is nuts, he's the demolitions guy. He's also their traveling materiel source: he can apparently regurgitate whatever is needed (a chain saw, a bomb) on Skipper's request. Rico speaks mainly in grunts and garbled monosyllables, which adds to The Crazy. (But Rico also has a soft spot: he has a fashion doll, kind of like a Malibu Barbie, of which he is very fond, and he is often seen combing its hair).

And then finally, there's Private. Private is there in part for Skipper and Kowalski to have someone to boss around. Private is very kind and sweet and probably understands animal nature better than the others. He also speaks with a British (vaguely Liverpudlian, maybe?) accent (none of the other penguins do; Skipper sounds like Kirk, Kowalski sounds like the stereotypical stern manly engineer, and Rico grunts).

So it's kind of like an action-adventure-buddy-movie thing. You can't quite map any of the existing ones on it - I tried to figure out "If this was the A-Team, who would be whom?" and couldn't get past the fact that Skipper would be Hannibal, and maybe Rico would be Maddog, but the others don't quite fit. (There is no Mr. T analogue, for example).

There are other characters. Marlene, the otter, is the token female (I'm guessing thrown in there as a sop to all the people who say "but cartoons have to have BALANCE.") But Marlene is often the voice of reason, she's often more understanding and aware of the situation.

On the other hand, there's a lemur - a self-styled King Julien of the Zoo. Like many tinpot despots, he's vain, shallow, self-absorbed, and really rather stupid. He often messes things up that the penguins have to fix. He has two minions: Maurice, who is bright enough but somewhat cynical and apathetic, and Mort, who is either stupid or crazy and has a strange love of Julien's feet. (I guess in the movie the guy who played Borat did the voice for Julien, and the voice-talent in the television show seems to capture the loopiness, strange accent, and pure self-serving blindsidedness well)

There are other, minor characters: a pugilistic kangaroo, an elephant who sounds like someone doing a bad Harry Carey impression. Most of them serve to move the plots along, to provide something for the penguins to do.

Part of my love of the show are the silly schemes - the stuff Kowalski has to build that's cobbled together out of bits and pieces and looks, really, rather LIKE something a penguin would build. (sort of like the infamous Cow Tools comic). And stuff doesn't always work. One of my favorite episodes is the one where the penguins overhear the zookeeper claiming that they have "three males and a female" and so, he builds a DNA analyzer (which uses loogies as the source of DNA). But it breaks midway through, leaving everyone to believe for most of the episode that Skipper is actually a girl. (And it's kind of a funny play on stereotypes, really.)

But I also love the "backstory" element of it. Not everything is explained. Skipper regularly refers to "Manfredi and Johnson" - two past members of the team. No one seems to quite know what happens to them. But he references them regularly: "They were cute and naive." or "They fell in love, too" (And apparently it's a Stalag 17 reference! I didn't get that until I did a Google check on the spelling of Manfredi. Awesome.)

There are also a lot of odd funny little throwaway lines. At one point, we "come in on" a conversation, and Skipper says something like "...and that's why I can never set foot in Denmark." It's those things - the ideas that these characters have fully developed backstories we're not entirely privy to - is one of the things I enjoy about the show.

The other thing I like - and the Manfredi and Johnson reference is an example of this - is that there are periodically little things tossed in to reward people who are paying attention (or adults who may be watching the show, who have more developed cultural knowledge). One that made me laugh recently involved Kowalski making a machine to make things smarter. Private gets zapped by it and he immediately spouts out: "The sum of the square root of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side." Which is very close to - if not exactly - what the Scarecrow says upon being given his "diploma" (signifying brains) in The Wizard of Oz.

And part of it is, it's just a cute and funny show - you can laugh at the penguins and their antics. And you can forget all the crazy crap going on in the world for a little while.

"Would you give McGee my hug today? He really needs one."

HA hahahaha. I love Abby (on NCIS).

If I were putting together a dinner party of television characters, she'd be on the list.

Who else? Hm. If we're talking characters, and the actor in question being living or not not being an issue, I'd also have Lenny from Law and Order. And he's not really a "character" per se, but Mike Rowe. And Paula Deen - she's bat-guano crazy, but I love watching her. And Dr. Dorian from Scrubs...or maybe Turk and Carla. And going way back, Mr. Kotter (when I was a high school kid, I watched the re-runs almost every day).

I don't know who else. My memories of television are not that strong...as a kid, I usually half-watched while building with Lego or reading a book, and even as an adult, I mostly half-watch while doing something else.

NCIS fall premier...(spoiler)

Whooo!

Leroy Jethro Gibbs, you kick SO MUCH ASS!

(ahem. That is all. I really was not looking forward to a "let's break in a new agent" season.)

The only bad thing? I sense it's going to take me a while to calm down after that episode and be able to sleep. The threat of characters I like being killed followed by bad guys going "boom" tends to raise my heart rate too much.

fans of House: huge spoiler awaits thee....

You








probably









don't














want











to












read








this if















you didn't see













the April 6 episode.
















Okay?


















SPOILER AFTER HERE




Kutner killed himself? Crap, he was the only one of the new doctors I actually LIKED. I suppose it had to happen - to give House something 'without meaning' to obsess over.

My first thought was "Damn, I wonder if this is because they're making another Harold and Kumar Wankfest movie. If he shows up in some stupid movie and that's why they killed off Kutner, I'll be pissed."

But it's not that: apparently he's working for Obama. WTF?

Some of you may know more about the actor than I do - does he really have qualifications to do this? (Has he not been paying taxes? I joked over spring break that I HAD to get my taxes finished because I didn't want the White House calling me up offering me a position).

But I'm not sure I like the turn the show has taken this season - it seems a lot more dark, a lot more melodramatic. There seems to be more "soap opera" and less "medical mystery," and the medical mysteries are why I started watching it.

Oh, and an online memorial to a dead character - tacky? I think so. (And all of the wankers who keep changing Wikipedia to claim that the actor, not the character, is dead - you are wankers.)

So I don't know. There may be one less television show I watch very soon. That will take it down to what, three? (If you count Mythbusters, which seems to be on permanent hiatus)

oh no he di'int!

Scanning a news site today, I saw mention of a "prime time presidential conference" where Obama is going to (try) to dig himself verbally out of the mess he's in.

And then I thought: wait, one of the two network shows I still watch is on tonight in prime time.

Oh no don't TELL me I'm going to see Obama when I try to tune in NCIS tonight. No no no no. They were even promising a new one!

I checked the tv listings - apparently they're going to show it, but an hour later, whew.

And I know, I know - it's maybe irresponsible of me to prefer to watch an unrealistic crime drama than to watch the Prez, but if I'm going to be partaking of bread and circuses, I prefer the kind with David McCallum, thank you very much.

I watch too much television, I guess

Because this clip



just makes me think of those creepy Michelin commercials where Bibendum (yes, that's the Michelin Man's name) is fondling the newly-made tires.

****

(I've decided part of my distress - see outbursts below - is that I am, in fact, suffering from a Ninja Cold - the cold that you don't realize you have until it's kicked your ass. The good news is it's Friday, and after a meeting [luckily not an acrimonious meeting, this one should be fairly pleasant] this afternoon I can go home and get into bed.)

"CNN Envy"?

CNN Envy: Weather Channel has it.

I don't see it on the website, but yesterday they had some promotion on the tv channel saying "First Day of Fall 2007: Live Coverage! September 23, 2007!"

Um...WTF?

Live coverage of the first day of fall?

Like, anything's actually going to HAPPEN?

What are they going to do? Put up tree-cams to watch for the first leaf turning? Monitor daylength and nightlength? Have NASA simulations showing where the Earth is in its orbit around the Sun?

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I'm so tired of the "OMG WTF Everything Must Be Huge Giant Breaking News" trend that's developed in this country.

Yes, I'm happy that fall is starting. Will it make a difference to my weather? Probably not noticeably, at least not ON the 23rd. It's process, not an event.

I wonder if the Weather Channel realizes how stupid it looks by frothing up the First Day of Fall like it's some kind of news event. Then again - maybe no one really understands what real "news" is like any more, considering the amount of OJ coverage that's been put forth the past couple days. Okay, okay, so he was arrested. Fine. Mention that. But don't spend fourteen hours in an onanistic panoply of lawyers, former judges, former sports stars and people who just want their faces on tv talking about what this "means." I can tell you what it "means" as far as MY life is concerned: nothing at all.

What does the Iraq war or chasing down and routing out Al Quaeda mean, as far as MY life is concerned: actually quite a lot, in the long run. I don't want to see the U.S. travel down the path that many European countries are. I don't want to feel unsafe in my own town because of the possibility of a terror cell setting up shop here. I don't like to think of western culture being subsumed into a caliphate. I CARE about what's going on in the middle east. I CARE about what's happening culturally in Europe. I DON'T CARE about a criminal, washed-up, bad-actor former sports star and what he's done now.

Maybe what I need to do is start up RNN: the Real News Network. Where there's no stupid celebrity news. If a celebrity dies, or is arrested, or does something heroic, it will be mentioned, but not dwelt upon. Instead, coverage will be devoted to things that matter, things that will really truly affect the lives of ordinary folks, folks who don't live in the apparently-insulated-from-reality regions like Hollywood. We'd have experts - not just people who are attractive and pushy - and there'd be an effort to get both sides time to speak. People who were rude or snarky would be dismissed and not invited back. Our tagline: News for Grown-ups.

Of course, it would probably never succeed.

We can has innovation?

I watched a little bit of "network" television (as in, ABC, CBS, NBC) last night. (I guess it was that I was watching "Finding Nemo" - that was why).

And you know? I'm glad I have cable. Because if I didn't, I would be shooting my television very soon. (And I don't currently own a gun.)

It seems as if every show that's being promoted (either for this summer or for the coming fall) fits into one of two categories:

1. Self-help for sad sacks
2. Joe or Jane Public going on television, with a very high probability of being humiliated, and a very low probability of becoming a star.

Television. Dear television. I do not want to watch shows in either of these categories. And even if I did, I do not need five or six iterations of each.

I used to look for network television for two (well, really three) things:

1. Funny comedies
2. Interesting dramas
(and 3. Local news.)

However, with the exception of some of the stuff NBC's done recently, there's no more of 1. And as for 2., it seems they've largely been wiped from the landscape thanks to the reality television craze.

(And yes, I know: "reality" television is cheap to make. You don't need to pay writers or actors. All you need is a bunch of willing loonies who want their fifteen minutes of fame, and someone who's good at editing the resulting hours of boredom creatively enough to make the show look dramatic.)

But, let me comment on each of these new trends.

First, the self-help shows. I guess we should have seen this coming, what with "What Not To Wear" and all of those de-cluttering shows on cable. (In the spirit of full disclosure: I have never watched "What Not To Wear." I just find that kind of thing squirmingly uncomfortable: "Now, Lois, we know you love to wear flats and you have a congenital knee problem. But flats are out, out, out, and they make your legs look fat. Try on these 2" heels. Oh, you'll get used to your toes being compressed into an inch-wide area in a few weeks. But be sure to wear the shoes everywhere so you learn how to walk in them!" And yes, I know, people go on that show voluntarily. But I don't like to think of these two arbiters-of-taste taking a person and going "Everything that sets you apart from the pullulating mass of humanity, you must change now, and dress as we dictate." I know that I sometimes err on the side of dowdiness in my dress, but I wouldn't want some chick and some dude I'd never met before, who don't know my life or my lifestyle, telling me what to wear).

Anyway. They're apparently carrying forward the trend of nanny shows on the networks - where they find some family that will look like a junior version of the Jerry Springer show on film (even better if they can get some random shot of the dad saying either "I didn't know it was this bad" or "I don't think it's such a problem") and then truck in some soi-disant child-rearing expert to whip the family back into shape (And these are the kind of shows for which 'creative editing' was made).

And they've got some show where Shaquille O'Neill bullyrags little fat kids into losing weight. Charming. Fat kids and an inarticulate NBA star.

And I saw one advertised recently - this wasn't on a network, it was on A and E - about some kind of relationship guru who tells people how they must change themselves (hint: everything) in order to find love, so they won't die sad and alone. Look: I don't have a problem with suggesting to someone with poor table manners that they develop the habit of sitting up straight, using a fork, and chewing with their mouth closed. But from what I saw in the adverts, it seemed much more on the order of telling a single woman to take her cats to the shelter because no man will ever love a woman who has cats. Things like that.

(And that actually gets to the heart of what I hate so about dating: "Don't show your true self lest you scare the person away!" Yes, but if it gets serious - and I, silly me, thought the goal of dating was, you know, a long-term relationship, like maybe getting married - when do you slowly sneak back those bits of your "true self"? And what does it say about our society if a person (and I'm not talking about a circus freak here; I'm talking about a fairly normal person) is told that many of the aspects of their personality are unacceptable and must be covered up in the interest of tricking their potential significant other?)

Okay. So - networks, my conclusion on "Self help for sad sacks"?

Do. Not. Want.

Look, if you're doing it for Springer reasons - so people around the country will look at these people and go, "Thank God I'm not that person," shame on you. If you're doing it because in some twisted universe you think it might actually HELP people, you're mistaken - watching little fat kids being made to do pushups isn't going to encourage people to get off their duffs and start an exercise program.

The second category - and actually, in a way, it overlaps with the first - is People Humiliating Themselves on Television.

I blame American Idol.

And I don't blame the millions of people who watch American Idol, but I do blame the low-creativity network execs who see something successful, and then order fifteen clones of it to populate the airwaves in the coming season.

Flipping around, I saw a few moments of some show - there was a guy who looked like Liberace reincarnated playing a peppy rendition of "New York, New York" on a white piano (he even had a candleabra - now that's going a bit far). And then three people evaluated him. The only one I recognized was Sharon Osbourne. And I said to myself: damn, this is just a clone of American Idol - there are people who are marginally talented up on stage, there's a snarky British guy, there's a woman who says nice things, and then there's a third guy. (Thankfully, I didn't hear the third guy use the epithet "dawg." But maybe I didn't watch long enough).

And there's apparently a show where people think they look like celebrities, so they try to sing/dance/stand around and look rich (And that, I've finally decided, is Paramis Hilamaton's "talent") like them.

And there's another one with inventors trying to promote their wacky inventions.

Look: I don't want to watch a sixteen-year-old from Cowflop, Arkansas, who thinks that the fact that she looks a little bit like Jewel (with the right makeup and in bad light) means she is entitled to fame and fortune.

And I don't want to watch some gamer who lives in his parents' basement talk about this 'great new' invention he's come up with that will do away with the need for taking bathroom breaks on long car trips.

Again: Do Not Want.

And you know? With all the faux talent shows on the air, I'm coming to wonder if this is maybe the legacy of the self-esteem movement in the schools - where little Johnny and little Janey are told that everything they ever do is great and good and wonderful, and so, ten or twelve years down the line, Johnny or Janie hop a bus for Hollywood, figuring they're so GREAT, that they can't help but become rich and famous.

And 90% of them just aren't that good. And a few of them are hideous enough that you cringe (or at least I do) to see them on television, and you ask yourself (or at least I do): don't these people have any friends? Didn't they have anyone telling them, "You know...you might want to rethink that career as a singer."

When I was in high school, I used to play the clarinet. Now, I had no illusions of ever joining the New York Philharmonic or anything like that. I knew I wasn't that good. But my orchestra teacher reinforced that; he once made a comment like, "Unless you practice twice as long in a day, and give up doing some of the things you are doing now so you have more time to practice, don't waste your time and mine; you will never be good enough to perform in public."

And you know, after that year, I put the clarinet away and never took it out again? For the longest time I thought my orchestra teacher was being unnecessarily cruel (and maybe he was to me), but if by saying to people "You will never be good enough for a large orchestra," he may have prevented the creation of more Johnnies and Janies running off to Hollywood to share their "talent" with a television audience that is more eager to laugh at them than to support them.

I don't know. I know reality shows are cheap to make, and lots of people seem to eat them up - but they just make me sad. I don't want to watch someone with a problem be cajoled into "getting over" that problem (just in time for the exciting season finale!). I don't want to watch people who really can't sing, or dance, or do much of anything it seems get up in front of a panel of judges and perform.

I want my funny comedies and interesting dramas.

And I want shows like Dirty Jobs - which, I realize, is a reality-show even though I say I hate reality-shows. But the reason I like it is this: when something humiliating happens to Mike Rowe, he bears it with generally good humor. He doesn't cry, or get angry and stomp off, or say "No one ever told me!" No, he kind of mugs at the camera and grits his teeth and goes on, and later, in the "blooper roll" they sometimes show at credits time, he says something funny about it. And besides - he makes a fair amount of money doing what he does. Not like Miss Jewel Wouldbe from Cowflop, AR - where she's competing for maybe a slim shot at a few thousand dollars.

I'll be glad when the reality show trend dies, though I have to admit a bit of apprehension about what it may be replaced by.

random

Emily - if I had been in a really snarky mood and someone pulled that "fake woman" thing on me, I'd probably have said, "Better a fake woman than a real b*tch."

And I have had the implication that I'm not a 'real woman' thrown in my direction, solely because I have not bred. People who throw that implication? I decide then and there I'm done with them. I don't need that kind of crap in my life.

***

I know some of you are getting sick of the body-image-fu on here, but right now it's working its way through my system (kind of like a virus, I just have to sweat these kind of things out). I listened to a few minutes of the Dennis Prager show today while doing some last minute house-cleaning before having a meeting here

Prager was talking about some actress (didn't catch who) that he described as "emaciated." His argument was that, to a hetero man, this is NOT sexy - that to guys who like women, curves are generally necessary for appeal. And he asked: why do women do this to themselves? Why do they get convinced that so skinny is the way to go.

And I admit, I was kinda screaming at the radio - stuff about "the Health Fascists tell you that even an extra pound on your body will kill you early and in a bad way" and "because fashion has dictated it for so many years that we have a skewed picture." (Although, yeah, I do know about the "men who prefer women generally prefer women who aren't skin and bones. And to be honest? I can totally look at women I know and go, "oh, she's way too thin" or "oh, she looks good" or "ooooh, she looked better before she lost that 15 pounds" Likewise - as a hetero woman - I look at guys and the really skinny guys or the really muscled-out guys - the ones who look like steroid abusers - just don't do it for me. Give me just an ordinary guy, with some normal muscles, maybe even a little paunch, and I'm good.)

Then a woman called in - I didn't catch her name, but when she started crying, I really started listening. She said that she'd far rather be emaciated - have people look at her and go "Oh, she's too thin" than be, as she said, "Fat and invisible." And then she started to cry. She said she was over 200 pounds (maybe she said 300? I couldn't hear her all that well at that point. But I've known very womenly women - very attractive women - who weighed in at or close to 200 pounds. It's a matter of fat distribution, muscles, and height. The problem is - in our society - 200 pounds is sort of a milestone; it's the point where if you're a woman and you hit that weight, most people assume you have stopped being a woman and started being an It. And that's not right. That kind of attitude is not going to help a person lose weight if that's what she needs to do.) and that people didn't see her as a woman. And she talked about how she had sort of fantasized about dying of cancer, because cancer makes you thin while you're dying, and then it would only take four people to carry her out of the church instead of 12 (meaning, in her coffin).

Oh man. Oh, that just hit me in the heart. I stopped cleaning and stood there and started crying myself. Because I hear her. I hear what she's saying. I know the "invisibility." I know the feeling that you'd rather be too small than too big. I even - in my younger and more screwed-up days - sort of wished for some kind of non-fatal, not-too-painful disease that would make me lose weight - just so I could go to certain relatives' houses and have them say, "Oh, my gosh! You're so thin! You need to eat something!" instead of, "Dear....why don't you go run around outside for a while?" or "Dear...why don't you leave those cookies for the boys?"

This society is far too good at screwing people up. I'm less screwed up now than I used to be but I still have buttons that can be pushed.

I'd love to say to that woman - God made you. You're beautiful. The people who make you feel sub-human because of your weight are being cruel. And I know how hard it is to try and lose weight and be surrounded by people who say, "But if you JUST TRIED." No. Been there, done that, got the XL t-shirt. Trying harder sometimes just doesn't do it.

Anyway. It broke my heart to think that someone crapped on her so much with their attitudes that she'd rather get cancer and die than go on being who she was.

***

Remember the dude I talked about who signed up for one of my classes three times, and stopped coming each time, and then e-mailed me and wanted me to help him make up the class in two weeks (an entire semester in two weeks) before the end of last semester?

Well, he took my advice, I guess, and is in my summer section of the class.

But. I also teach an arranged-time "readings" class sometimes. I am doing it this summer, as an unpaid overload, because a good former student of mine came to me and said: I need one credit to graduate. I've taken all the majors-classes I need for what I want to do with my life. Is there any way you could let me do the readings class this summer so I could get finished?

And I said, sure, no problem. And there was another person who wanted to do that - to get finished up. So I told her that that was fine (and both of them chose topics that I am very familiar with, so it's minimal extra work on my part).

Well, the other day my department chair e-mailed me. She wanted to know if "all" the students in the readings class were mine. I wondered about the 'all' because I only had spoken with the two (Remember - our summer semester is almost half over).

So I checked with the registrar (We do not get rosters for the arranged-type classes; the idea is the students are supposed to have okayed it with the prof in charge first, so the prof knows who's in his or her class.)

Well, I had two surprise students. The disappearing guy and a woman. (Both were people that I knew how to find fairly easily; they're in other classes this summer). Turns out the woman was working with another faculty member - so it is not a problem for me.

But the guy - let's call him Earl - well, he apparently just got "permission" to take the class (oh, I have to add - this is a Permission Of Instructor class, meaning, technically, we are supposed to okay people before they join the class) from someone who is Not Me.

I am not happy about this.

I am not happy about this for more than just the obvious reason - because when I asked Earl about the class, and said, "You know, you are supposed to come in during the first week of classes and discuss your study plan with the professor," he got all huffy with me.

Wrong move, Earl.

"But I didn't know who was teaching the class!" he said. "I didn't know what I was supposed to do!"

Well, duh, Earl. You are, like, 22. You know where the departmental secretary's office is. Even if my name were not listed on the course schedule you received, you could have - you SHOULD have - gone and asked her. And you signed up for the class without first requesting my permission - you should have known who the prof was BEFORE you signed up. (Oh, what if it was Tolgar the Horrible? or Dr. Purselip-who-fails-everybody? Then what? Never, never sign up for a class like this one without knowing who teaches it!)

And, even beyond that - the freaking semester is half freaking over. This is a readings class. This is not something you can freaking cram for on the last couple days of class.

I told him: You must come and speak to me during my office hours this week and plan out the program of your readings. You know my office hours; they are on the syllabus you have in your hand.

Well, he never came in to speak to me. My office hours for the week are now over. He also knows that in another two weeks, I am going to be leaving town for a week to attend meetings, and after I get back, it will be too late.

I am really done with this guy. I am really fed up with his entitled "wipe my bum for me" attitude.

Look: it is an arranged class. The point of arranged classes is that you talk to the professor ahead of time and ARRANGE what you are going to do. Waiting until the midpoint of the semester to arrange things is too late. Being rude to the professor in charge because you "didn't know who taught the class" (and apparently couldn't be arsed to go and find out) is not the way to operate.

If this guy is pathologically shy or something and it's such a problem for him to talk to someone - and I DO NOT think that is the case; the "job opportunity too good to pass up" that he needs his B.S. for is one where he's in contact with people all the time - well, then he needs to rethink how his life is going to go. If he has that much problem working up the gumption to walk in to our (extremely non-threatening looking) secretary and asking her a question, he needs medication. No, seriously. I generally rail against psychotropic meds given out like candy but if someone's so impaired that they can't function, then they need them.

And as I see it, there are three possibilities in this case:

1. The guy is impaired in some way - pathological shyness, or memory is shot, or something, and it's a medicatible condition. In that case, he needs meds.

2. He has been so coddled he can't do anything for himself. Sorry, I don't wipe bums. I don't spoon-feed. I'm not going to deal with a person who can't make an effort to do what he's supposed to. I have my own things to attend to - as well as thirty-some other students who need some appropriate attention (like, a little help on writing up a lab report) periodically.

3. He's a massive procrastinator. That is a problem he needs to get over, himself. I cannot make him get over it. Likewise, I am not going to enable him in his procrastination - if he comes in next week I am going to hand him a pre-prepared stack of readings (the easiest option for me at this point - choose something I already know so I don't have to do any extra prep) and tell him, "take this or leave this; it is too late for you to have any choice in the matter."

If he doesn't come in next week, or the week after? Tough. He's screwed. He cannot wait until the last two weeks of class and expect me to work with him. I have exams to write during that time, and papers to grade, and other students - STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN DOING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO - to help.

I just shudder to think what he'll be like in his "opportunity too good to pass up." I'm hoping all of this screwing around is some kind of massive case of senioritis and that he'll pull himself up by the bootstraps once he gets into what he regards as the "real world." Otherwise, too damn bad. Welcome to welfare, dude.

****

I get really sick of people who think of the jobs they are going into as "the real world" and college as some kind of faerieland fantasy where they can do whatever they want and get their asses saved at the last minute by a caring prof. College is supposed to be PREPARATION for the "real world" (and - for those of us who teach or do research at one, it IS the "real world"), not a way of avoiding it.

****

I am so glad for the four-day summer week here. Thursday is my Friday. Friday is my get-caught-up-on-research-you-don't-have-time-for-otherwise day. Saturday is actually a relaxation day, as is Sunday. And there are almost no meetings in the summer.

****

I don't think I've ever discussed my deep and abiding love for Mythbusters here, but I do have to say: it is one of my favorite shows, ever. Probably my favorite show on television right now.

Well, last night they did cold weather myths.

They tested, and more or less confirmed, the tongue-getting-stuck-to-a-cold-pole. You know, like in "A Christmas Story": "My tongue is not...stuck! Stuck! STUCK!"

They used a pig's tongue that had been modified so they could pipe warm water through it (to bring it up to normal tongue temperature; this was a disembodied tongue from a slaughterhouse). They stuck it - quite spectacularly - to a frozen pole. Then Tory stuck his tongue to a cold pole in Colorado (except it didn't stick quite as spectacularly; either he was more cautious or else the pole warmed up from his body heat).

I love Mythbusters because it's funny, and it features things being "hacked" (I love tinkering, I love to see people modify things to change their function). It's not perhaps AS science-y as it could be (I have some issues with their miniscule sample sizes, and with the lack of doing blind tests in a lot of situations). But it's a fun fun show, and I love it. I even love the re-runs that Discovery seems to show a lot.

Actually, I like a lot of the Discovery shows - I enjoy Dirty Jobs, though probably with more schadenfreude than is really proper. And I recently discovered "How It's Made" - which is sort of an odd show, but it endeared itself to me fast - basically, it's video of factory assembly lines for stuff - crayons and rope and car oil filters and stuff like that - with an at-times-cheesy voice-over. (I get the feeling - but haven't paid enough attention to the credits to confirm - that it was originally made somewhere else, like Japan, and then dubbed into English with a new narrator).

I tend to find video of stuff being made pretty hypnotic. There's the machinery end of it (machinery interests me. Perhaps I should have been an engineer - a career my father suggested to me - after all). There's also the calmness of it - everything works, nothing goes wrong, there's no drama. (I also enjoy the "making stuff" shows on HGTV and Food Network. Those are on a smaller scale, and there's more of the personality of the presenter being injected, but I still find them fun and interesting.

When I was a small child and used to watch Mr. Rogers, one of my favorite segments was how he's occasionally show (on "Picture-picture") video of stuff - stuff of interest to kids, like Etch-a-Sketches - being made. So I've had the fascination for a long time.