$15 a gallon gas

This would be an excellent time to invest in oil because as gas prices increase so do profits, and I've seen estimates that gas will reach $15 a gallon come September. The oil companies insist that they are not price gouging and claim that their profits are so high because they are investing profits elsewhere. The problem, as I see it, is not  the price of gas but the refusal of our government to invest in alternate energy sources. Fossil fuels are finite. We can despoil every single protected wild life area and we will still run out of gas. That's the reality. Gas prices have increased 100% (and maybe more) since we occupied Iraq. We are told that prices are tied to increasing demands from China and India, which, I assume, will continue. Meanwhile, the current administration does nothing to improve supplies, to seek alternatives, or in any way to stop or slow down the predatory practices of oil companies. And good conservation gets us no where, because prices increase whether or not we use fossil fuel in our cars or to heat our homes. I don't see any end in sight unless people rise up and say, "Enough." Food shortages may be the catalyst we need to demand that someone in power place public good before private profit. There's no reason why we can't have affordable electric powered vehicles, if there is a will to do so. Maybe we can start by rationing gas, but we have to do something yesterday because it's already too late to save the economy. It seems that our government is tied to the oil industry and unless we, the people, do something to cut those ties, $15 a gallon will seem like a bargain. 

Sex and the City

Although I'm not a die-hard Sex and the City fan, I will go see the movie, but I have always been mystified by the story line. Here you have three with-it ladies living in New York and making enough money to buy every fashion victim style that came down the pike (not to mention all those shoes) and what do they obsess about? Men. Getting men. Keeping men. Marrying men. All that money and all those shoes and all our gals want is a wedding ring. So, the series ends with Sarah Jessica Parker being saved from her own mistake, and another bad boyfriend, by Big, who is wealthy, handsome, and willing to wed. The wedding, I guess from the coming attractions, is the point of the movie. I'm sure there are some booby traps into which Sarah will fall on her way up the aisle, but it seems she gets her man and closet space to die for. I haven't seen the movie yet, but  think I have a better idea than a rice filled ending. How about this: Sarah gets to the church on time but Big is a no show. Or, Big has a fatal heart attack as he runs up the church steps (it has to be him because we need her for the sequel). Or, they both decide at the last minute that marriage is not for them, well, not now anyway. You get my drift. In the real world, few people get the great job, the great guy, and the great closet space. Usually you get one, maybe two, but never all three. Some how I always felt a little cheated by the series, which seems to celebrate the single life, in which women mistake meaningless sex for a relationship, but really what the gals want is their guy with a ring on his finger and a kid in the oven (and great closet space). I suppose the sequel will be devoted to the trials and tribulations of getting their little off-spring into the right school.

And it always ends in tears

On Top Chef this week (5/13), Lisa, who was given a pass for not including a key ingredient, makes sure that the judges are aware that another contestant, the always annoying Andrew, failed to include a key ingredient in his losing lunch box menu. Lisa and Andrew, but mostly Lisa, are examples of what happens when a good idea runs out of steam.

My minor reality show addiction was given impetus during the writer's strike, which introduced me to Roto Rooter ghost hunting plumbers, a family of  twins and four-year-old sextuplets, and little people in a big world. Normally, my reality limit was Top Chef and Project Runway. When the strike ended, I was frequently confronted with the decision as to whether to return to Eight and a half men, and whatever reality series was running against it. 

But what I've noticed is that Top Chef, and other contestant shows, suffer after a time because of the type of personalities who apply for participation. They are less about  the process and more about winning, like the Jag debacle on Food Network. What used to be interesting is watching talented people find ways to reinvent what they do within the parameters of the challenge becomes an ego fueled brawl between mean-spirited Tiffani and egoist Stephan on Top Chef, and the whole process becomes less interesting.

How do you know when an entire genre jumps the shark? When something called Groomer Has It shows up on your basic cable. Animal Plant, which I love, entered the competition sweepstakes with its own game show pitting dog groomers against each other on a low budget competition for the title of Groomer of the Year and $50,000. Everything about it has to be seen to be believed.

In addition to over-the-top, often  bottom feeder contestants, is the alarming number of weeping losers. Not content with a teary-eyed farewell, these losers blubber and wail their way out the door--and this is across the board. One wonders what kind of border line personality puts all of his or her eggs in a game show basket. It's like the people on Survivor who express surprise and outrage when thrown under the bus by a campfire pal. There can only be one winner and very few contestants are able to suppress their own competitiveness or trust their own creativity. If given the chance, contestants such as Lisa will be sure that the judges know that Andrew failed to include a grain in his already questionable box lunch. Had I been the judge who had already given Lisa a pass for failing to include the main ingredient in a dish, I'd have bounced her for a poor dish that matched poor sportsmanship. But that's not how these things are done because in the end these are game shows that are only loosely based on skills or talents.

So, who is the moron in this scenario? Surely not the producers who have found a way to present cheap entertainment for which they can charge top advertising dollars--which leaves the viewer sucked in by this crap. Marcel almost did it for me on Top Chef and now Lisa may have completed the process in the same way Project Runway did me in by giving Christian Siriano top honors. The problem, of course, is that the Animal Planet's Groomer Has It is so awful on so many levels that I may be permanently hooked on a genre, the high point of which may have been the first season of Survivor.