Patrick McGoohan of British TV’s The Prisoner is dead at 80. He was not a number, he was a free man. (I learned that from Iron Maiden.)
Also, Ricardo Montalban has passed away at 88. He made some great prank phone calls to George Takei. Oh, wait, I don’t believe that was Ricardo Montalban. (click!)
I was at Ron & Tamryn’s house last night when I was reminded of an earlier conversation with them. We were talking about punishment for the most heinous of crimes, such as rape and murder. While I’m very liberal on many subjects, when it comes to crime, the liberal description doesn’t fit me.
Some people feel that rape is worse than murder. I think murder is very final. Someone who is raped can at least rebuild a life (in many cases). However, for the sake of this post, we can make the punishment equivalent. When we’re talking about murder, we’re not talking about the guy who accidentally killed his wife with a BB gun. When we’re talking about rape, we’re not talking about statutory rape between an 18- and 16-year-old. We’re talking about clear-cut crimes against humanity. My friend Jess says there are a lot of cases where the wrong person is convicted, so we’ll deal with that at the end of this post too.
My idea is to build a giant microwave, put the criminal in, and set it to “popcorn”. To make it more interesting, we could make it a turntable microwave. Anyone who survives this punishment (impossible) would be set free.
Tamryn’s idea was to use the criminals instead of animals for laboratory testing. Cosmetics, for example, are tested on rabbits. Rabbits have no tear ducts, so putting cosmetics on their eyes is particularly cruel. Use the criminals instead. Test new drugs as well as cosmetics. We’ve solved the whole animal cruelty issue.
I don’t like the idea of people being wrongly convicted and then being sent to the microwave-chamber. In our system, people are supposedly presumed innocent. However, prosecutors and the police are both rewarded for successful prosecutions. How about an incentive to exhonerate the innocent? That might go a long way towards reducing police intimidation and prosecutor misconduct. Also, stiff penalties for the aforementioned misbehavior might work.
Until next time.
… Patrick Dempsey and AVON for Unscripted. I know I may be late on this one, but I see the Patrick Dempsey cover of the AVON catalog in my bathroom every morning. (On the cover, it looks like old Patrick is also thinking about going to the bathroom.) Let’s see if we can follow the “creative process” for coming up with the name. Patrick Dempsey is an actor -> Actors work from scripts -> Patrick Dempsey is a particularly bad actor who never seems to be working off a good script -> Unscripted! Somewhere, there’s an ad agency that should be out of work right about now.
I have to be honest, I have no idea what this fragrance smells like. On the AVON site there are comments like “My husband smells great!” and “Made for a HOT MAN!!! This is not a cologne you would buy for your DAD!” But then, these people are commenting on a cologne on the AVON site, so how can we trust them?
There’s a cologne sample in the AVON catalog, which my wife picked up at the local Panera Bread (did you know they actually sell bread there???), but I’ve been afraid to try it so far. After all, it could negatively affect my acting ability, and I need those skills for work. How else would I get myself out of the holes I dig for myself every day? One spritz of Unscripted and I could be out on the street. In today’s economy, that’s a risk I can’t afford to take.
So I can’t really critique the cologne. All I can say is that the name is as unimaginative as any of Patrick Demsey’s roles over the years. I mean seriously — Made of Honor? If you thought that was a good movie, you probably shouldn’t be reading this blog. (I have an excuse for seeing Made of Honor — I snuck into the theater after seeing a good movie I actually paid for.) No, I’ve never watched Grey’s Anatomy, sorry. Is he good in it? Or is he just in it?
Here’s what Patrick has to say about the fragrance that bears his name:
At the heart of Unscripted is the idea of living your life on your own terms, and not by a written script. It’s about loving what you do, and doing it in your own unique way, rather than being defined by rules.”
—PATRICK DEMPSEY Award-winning actor
Yes, rules for acting are so boooring. Why bother learning to emote when you can simply be cast in lackluster roles like Patrick here? (The award-winning they are talking about is obviously a reference to the award I bestowed upon him for the fragrance name. It’s obviously not an award he’s too proud of, or they’d actually say the name of the award. Academy Awards, for instance, seem prestigious and recognizable. Also, if he’d been knighted by the Queen of England, they might have noted that as well.) Patrick, if you haven’t done so already, having your own AVON cologne is automatic jumping the shark.
An honorable-mention award, while we’re talking about entertainment, goes to Jennifer Aniston for Most Overexposed Celebrity of 2008. She should have her own AVON fragrance with an almost-naked picture on it and they could actually call it Overexposed. I mean, I love Jennifer Aniston (and want to have her baby, even though that’d be physically impossible), but she’s everywhere I look and Friends isn’t even on the air anymore. The cover of People magazine says “The star talks about marriage, men and Marley & Me.” How about talking about divorce, swearing off men & maybe that’s why you’re holding a dog (instead of a man) in the cover shot. It’d be a lot more honest & interesting. Jen, when you are this overexposed, you really can’t blame Harry Smith of The Early Show for this disturbing interview. You’ve come a long way since hawking NutriSystem diet products on The Howard Stern Show, but maybe you could have picked up a thing or two from Howard about limiting your exposure. People get tired quickly, even the ones (like me) who think you are hot.
By the way, in “related news”, Jennifer Aniston’s on the cover of People’s Best (and Worst!) of 2008, and Patrick Dempsey was the cover-boy for 2007’s issue. Just a happy little coincidence for my first entertainment article.
For the last few years, I’ve been obsessing about the time 12:34. This is because probably 50% of the time I check my watch or glance at any clock, the time displayed is 12:34. For various reasons having to do with when this started, I see 12:34 as a bad omen. I suppose another way to look at it would be just as a curiosity or amusement.
Typically something significant happens right before I see the 12:34. If I spend the night driving home, pull into the driveway and glance at the clock before turning the key to the off position, the time on the car’s clock is 12:34. I’ve gone to lunch numerous times when either the phone call to plan lunch ends at 12:34 (these usually do not end up being good lunches) or I get receipts from the lunch place that are stamped with 12:34. Last night I took an Ambien right before going to bed, and glanced at the microwave — 12:34.
So far nothing terrible (to me) has happened around 12:34, but that doesn’t dampen my sense of impending doom.
I suppose I should take a step back and look at this scientifically. How often does 12:34 appear in the set of times that I see on any clock during the day? That would help me determine whether I am taking special notice of this “special” time or whether it’s truly appearing with greater frequency. However, the Heisenberg uncertainly principle probably applies here. Trying to observe the results will most likely affect the outcome. How many times will I glance at my watch after telling myself “don’t glance at your watch”? How many times will I purposely try to look at the clock around 12:34?
There is something to be said about the internal clock we all have, which tends to be highly accurate. It’s possible I am purposely looking at the clock at 12:34, while not being aware of it on a conscious level.
I’d love to hear what others think. Does anyone else have a similar (near-) obsession? How do you reconcile it with what is likely (as it has been explained to us) reality? For now, I will try to attach a more positive association to 12:34. We’ll see how well that works.
