The Republic of T.

Stewart's Stand

There are people who do things that amaze me. Right now, my co-worker Garrett is one of them because of something he figured out that never would have occured to me, and that I probably wouldn't have focused on long enough to figure out.

But I'll get to that in a minute.

In the past couple of days, everyone—and I mean everyone, myself included—has been talking about Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN's Crossfire. And, in fact, it was something to see.

To be honest, I don't watch Crossfire anymore. For a while, after moving to D.C. and taking my first politically oriented job, I was a Crossfire junkie. I watched it regularly for a time, but at some point my viewing fell off.

Perhaps it was due in part to some disillusionment with politics, but I know it was also due to losing patience with the show. I found that after watching it I wasn't any more informed about the issues at hand than I was before watching, but I was certainly angrier. In fact, I'd get so angry that I'd shout back at the television. It got to the point where I wasn't even listening to the show anymore.

That, it turns out, is the key. I wasn't listening.

The Debate

OK. I'm going to watch it, and even try to blog about it. It will be a sacrifice, because I normally can't stand to hear Bush speak. (Neither can the hubby. He's threatening to put the television on mute when Bush speaks, but I need to hear Bush's malapropisms in order to blog about them.)

I'm not sure if I'll give a play-by-play or wait until the end and give an overall wrap up, but I'm leaning towards the latter.

Boondocks! Yessssss!

One of my favorite comics, The Bookdocks is coming to television.

Cartoon Network has ordered 15 half-hour episodes of “Boondocks,” a series based on the popular newspaper comic strip.

Like the strip, the series will revolve around the adventures of two boys, Riley and Huey, who experience a culture clash when they move from inner-city Chicago to the suburbs to live with their grandfather.

“The goal is to make it as true to what the strip is as possible while adding the different layers that you can’t do in a strip,” said “Boondocks” creator Aaron McGruder. “Once I started writing (the scripts), I found it very liberating to have so much space to work in. You can do a lot more in 22 minutes than you can in three panels.”

You might remember that during the wave of jingoism patriotism that swept the country after 9/11 The Bookdocks — which is often critical of the current administration — was pulled from some newspapers because of its content.

I'll definitely watch. In fact, this might be what pushes me into getting Tivo. I've been holding out on adding another monthly expense, but this might change my mind.

Nightline Tonight

I get a regular email from the folks at Nightline, and this caught my eye when it landed in my inbox.

TONIGHT'S FOCUS: There are pictures from 9-11 that have never been shown. Other pictures of wars, of terrorism, are available on the Internet, but have never been shown on television. How far should we go? What should the viewer see?

There's a dirty secret that every journalist who has ever covered a war knows: it's far worse than we ever show. The real images of war, what really happens, rarely, if ever, make it back to you, the viewers or the readers. Why? We feel that some images are just too much to take. That no one would watch, that no one could bear to watch. And what to do about terrorism? None of the television networks showed those horrific tapes of hostages being beheaded. But they are available on the Internet, and by all accounts, are quite popular. Why? Why would anyone want to see something like that? Do you have to see the pictures to truly understand how horrific death is?

I've been wondering for some time why the U.S. media only shows the results of war in soft focus. If you get your news entirely from U.S. media, it's entirely possible to firmly believe that the war in Iraq has cost little or no civilian lives, because those deaths aren't reported or recorded. And, likewise, it's all too possible to still have no understanding of the anger directed at America from various places in the world, because we haven't seen the pictures and heard the stories they have. Much like the president, we get our news from sources more inclined to pitch the news according to what they think our sensibilities are.

Of course, the images are out there online for those who want to look. And, yes, I've looked. Not out of a fascination with morbidity, but because I want to see what's come of my government's actions and policies abroad. I think, as an American, I need to see those images and hear those stories to understand how the rest of the world sees us.

I'll be tuning into Nightline tonight, and I'll be interested to see just how they handle the subject, and just what they decide to show or not show.

Tempted By Tivo

I just learned via that Tivo has supposedly halved its prices in the U.S.

If this is true, I may finally go ahead and get Tivo. I've been thinking about it for a while now, and dropping prices might just be the clincher. The truth is that the television is on a lot in our house. It's a habit from my old single-and-living-alone days, when I used to turn it on as soon as I came in the door in the evenings. Not that I spend a great deal of time sitting in front of the television, it's just on as background noise while I'm doing whatever else I'm doing around the house. Besides Jay, reports that in his house they actually watch less television because of Tivo, and that what they watch is more varied.

Me, I just like the idea of being able to automatically record the things I want to see and then watching them on my own time.

Who's Getting Married on the Simpsons?

Via Rox Populi.

I've always been a fan of The Simpsons, though I find I don't watch it as often now, as it comes on during the preparations for my son's bedtime. (One more argument for getting Tivo.) But reports of an upcoming same sex marriage on the show means that I'm going to have to start taping it to watch after the kid goes to bed.

At a panel discussion during the Comic-Con International in San Diego last weekend it was revealed that an upcoming episode of “The Simpsons” will feature a same-sex marriage storyline. The creators of the animated TV hit did not reveal which character will be stepping out of the closet. Simpsons-watchers would say that odds are on Waylon Smithers, the doll-collecting toady of town mogul, Montgomery Burns. But it is possible that it could be anyone. Show creator Matt Groening even joked it would be Homer, according to the Associated Press. Other potential gay characters includes Homer’s best friend and town drunk Barney, bartender Moe, either of Marge’s sisters and many others. Some people are even starting betting pools as to which character it will be. The episode, which will most likely air in January, has the town of Springfield legalize gay marriages in order to raise money.

Smithers is already out, so that wouldn't be a big surprise, unless he were to actually, finally, marry Mr. Burns. However, Mr. Burns' heterosexuality has already been played out in a handful of episodes; the affair with a female cop, nearly marrying Marge's mother, his long lost son showing up, etc.

My vote is for Lenny and Carl, Homer's co-workers from the nuclear plant. I've just always thought that there was something going on there.

The "C" to the "H" to the "O"...

If you have the Sundance Channel, sit down, shut up, and turn it on. Tonight, it's back to back Margaret Cho. I loves, loves, loves me some Margaret Cho. The two comedy concerts on tonight, Margaret Cho's Revolution and the Notorious C.H.O., I saw when she came to D.C. (That was B.P. "Before Parenthood.") She was, to put it plainly, wet-your-pants funny. No, seriously. Ushers were handing out Depends™. OK. Not really, but she was hilarious. If you haven't seen her live, or seen her performance films, you're missing out. She's funny, fabulous, and on our side. What more could you want?

While you're at it, check out Out Loud on Showtime. There are some great links to video family albums for gay and lesbian families, and lots of other stuff.

Geez. Getting excited about spending Saturday night at home, watching TV. How old and married am I? :-)

Help A Brotha Out

Via ( a burst of light ).

Keith Boykin is in Pennsylvania, on Showtimes American Candidate, and if you're in Pennsylvania he needs your help.

I need your help again. I'm in Allentown, Pennsylvania on the Showtime reality tv show "American Candidate." I need to get as many people as possible to call 877-786-9119 by 4 p.m. on Thursday (June 17).

The call has to come from a Pennsylvania telephone number. It's toll free, and all you have to do is dial the number and the machine will tell you that your vote has been counted. Please call right now. It only takes a second. And please spread the word to everybody you know. Call 877-786-9119.

I Want My, I Want My Queer TV?

Via Queer Day

This one has been hanging out there in the ether for some time now, but MTV now says it will launch a gay television channel by 2005.

MTV, owned by Viacom Inc. (VIA.B: Research, Estimates), said the new cable network, called LOGO, will be advertiser-supported and is scheduled to make its basic cable debut in February.

Content on the new network will be comprised of about 25 percent originally developed shows, with the remainder coming from outside sources, according to Reuters.

The plan to launch the gay-themed channel had been on-again, off-again in the past two years at Viacom.

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal reported that Sumner Redstone, Viacom's chairman and CEO, made a rare confession, saying that his company made a mistake earlier by scrapping a plan to launch the first U.S. gay-themed network.

Redstone then ordered Tom Freston, chairman and chief executive of Viacom's MTV Networks, to revive the business plan.

I have mixed feelings about this. First, note that 25 percent original programming means there will be plenty of re-runs of Will & Grace, Ellen, and probably just about any television show with a regularly occuring gay or lesbian character. If they get really depserate, they could drag out Chicago Hope and ER reruns, since each show had a character come out well into the run of the show. They could even drag Love, Sidney out of mothballs, and even the Tracy Ullman show, with the skits about the girl with two gay dads. This also means there will finally be a place to see all those gay-themed mainstream and independent films that have come out.

So, OK, they might have enough to program a whole channel. But should they? I guess what bothers me about this is that I kind of like the fact that you can't turn on the television these days without seeing a gay character somewhere. I have the creeping fear that suddenly gay-themed program will get segregated off to it's own little ghetto. I think it's just better if we creep into the living rooms of Mr. and Ms. America from every available channel we can possibly fabulize.

So, we'll see. I'm not standing up and cheering for a gay channel, but I won't poo-poo it too much either. I'll just see what it has to offer. I might even subscribe.

What Speech ?

OK, I didn't watch Bush's speech. I can't stand to hear the man talk. It's painful to me, particularly as an English major. I wince when he opens his mouth. But apparently I may not have been able to find the speech on television even if I did want to watch it, sincemajor networks didn't even carry it.

The immediate reaction to the speech, which was not carried by any of the major broadcast networks, broke down largely on partisan lines.

Whoa. Wait a minute. Does that strike anyone besides me as unusual? Isn't this something the networks would usually carry? Does it mean anything when they take a pass?

Apparently it does, or at least it's highly unusual.

ABC, CBS and NBC decided not to offer live coverage of President Bush's speech about Iraq Monday, although the cable news networks planned to pre-empt their regular programming for the address.

Bush is to deliver the first in a series of speeches about the future of Iraq at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC all said they would carry the speech live.

The broadcast networks took an unusual amount of time to tell viewers their plans for Bush's speech -- ABC did not decide until Monday afternoon -- because the Bush administration did not formally request the time.

When the White House requests the networks set aside time for a presidential address, it's unusual for them to refuse.

I can imagine the NBC's reponse was "What? Pre-empt Fear Factor for this?" and ABC probably had some idea of the iron inherent in carrying the president's speech instead of the planned showing of A Beautiful Mind