Thursday Night Open Thread

Here's the official wedding program for William and Kate, courtesy of the Royal Family website. Kate doesn't arrive to walk down the aisle until 11:00 am, GMT. It's now 2 am in London, and 7 pm in Denver.

In Denver, PBS will be airing the BBC coverage from 1:00 am tonight until 6 am tomorrow morning. Since I have zero interest in the American media spectacle or care to listen to its chatterboxes, I'll either watch the BBC/PBS coverage or watch with the sound off. I can understand the massive coverage by British media -- it's their country and their royalty -- but I totally don't get the U.S. media's obsessive coverage and expenditure of millions of dollars to fly their anchors and teams of vacuous "know it alls" to London. Even worse are the crude attempts by U.S. businesses to cash in on the event: From Kohl's "we'll dress dress you like Kate", to Restaurant X will be serving British food, it's such a turn-off. The crass commercialization of the event has ensured that I will not watch any American network coverage.

I actually think William and Kate make a nice couple and seem to be handling the massive attention well. I'd probably watch if there was a network that had the good sense to just air the event and let us take it in for ourselves, skipping the breathless chatter of their anchors and talking heads. I'm hoping the BBC will do that, although it's probably too much to ask.

Rant over. Your turn. All topics welcome.

< DEA Raids Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Spokane | Trump Took Out Ad Seeking Death Penalty for 14 Year Old >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Tony on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 08:47:41 PM EST
    it's a pretty interesting pop culture event, but it is really weird the way it is being treated by news networks.

    Roger Stone, NY (R) hack extraordinaire (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 09:31:58 PM EST
    is now defending Donald Trump on substance on a local political program.


    hmmm, methinks my move (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 10:52:38 PM EST
    to the left (coast) may be sparing me from some of this sh*t :)

    I assume you just have different hacks (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 11:18:52 PM EST
    on your teevee.

    yeah we do (none / 0) (#11)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 11:38:16 PM EST
    so far though, it's been pretty mild on the extreme right as far as local news/shows goes. which is good, as national can make me go postal on some days :) haven't seen a lot of support/excuse for Trump, and actually, not much coverage on local.

    I am liking that I ended up with Brown over Cuomo. And I'm glad the huge a** Tea Party signs along the freeway to Mom's were a waste of money . . . .


    Stone ... heh (none / 0) (#20)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 08:49:23 AM EST
    Wonder when he'll announce his new 527 group ...

    ... "Citizens United Next to Trump.

    Hard to believe anyone other than Beck or Limbaugh has this sexist moron on the air.


    BBC (none / 0) (#4)
    by oulawdog on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 10:09:33 PM EST
    As a BBC World Service daily listener, I can only tell you that your hope resting on the BBC is not well placed hope.  

    The program (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 10:25:00 PM EST
    is pretty cute.  

    Yes. Especially the map. Any tourist (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 10:40:01 PM EST
    knows these sites.  Music is very British, some contemporary.  The congregation will sing Blake's "Jerusalem."  The bride enters to a choral introit.  Surprising.  

    Jeralyn, did I miss your rant re Trump? (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 10:44:55 PM EST

    No, I haven't ranted against (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 12:57:41 AM EST
    Trump. I don't believe he'll run or that he stands a chance of being elected. I did just write a  post blasting him for his ads in 1989 calling for the death penalty for the juveniles wrongfully accused in the Central Park Jogger case.

    Well, (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 05:02:56 AM EST
    Trump's bellowing on the subject of the birth certificate drove the media wild. It obviously got Obama's attention.

    Now, he is calling our policy in Libya incoherent.
    Now is also raising questions about our relationship with China.

    I doubt if the media is interested is such things - but it would be interesting if someone publicly called for a public airing of these issues which actually affect our lives.

    I know.
    Ain't gonna happen.


    I agree (none / 0) (#9)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 10:58:03 PM EST
    I actually think William and Kate make a nice couple and seem to be handling the massive attention well.

    they have been together for quite awhile and seem to be proceeding on their own path. I am interested in seeing her wedding dress, but that's about it. So I'm sure the AM news will suit my limited interest and I'll sleep well through the whole thing :)

    The mediacracy. (none / 0) (#15)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 04:58:10 AM EST
    I'd probably watch if there was a network that had the good sense to just air the event and let us take it in for ourselves, skipping the breathless chatter of their anchors and talking heads.

    No way.

    The media is most interested in televising themselves.
    They like to interview each other.
    They like to dress in what they consider appropriate clothing and show it to us.
    They don't care about the event.
    In fact, they usually consider the event a distraction from what they are really interested in - themselves.

    See coverage (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 11:01:16 AM EST
    and blogs about the Oscars, the Emmys, the Goldne Globes and the fashion, etc.

    At least as the future monarch, while not having the powers like a president or prime minister, William will be the Head of State, and as such, gets to do things like:  have the power to approve who becomes Prime Minister - which DOES affect global policy.

    The Oscars et al are just a bunch of self-congratulotary rich people who happen to be entertainers.


    Whether (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    the subject is royalty, monarchy, sporting events or political conventions - the focus of the media is invariably upon themselves.

    They aspire to be among the self-congratulatory rich people that they cover - and for a few days or weeks, they are. And they want us to know about it.

    That's their concept of coverage.

    Of course, nowadays, many of these hacks are millionaires as well.
    They let us know that whenever they deign to cover something that features people of average or below average means. That's when they show the thinly veiled contempt that goes along with the great wealth they have acquired for doing so little for so many.


    The coverage is sort of (none / 0) (#17)
    by scribe on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 07:28:59 AM EST
    Sex and the City fashion/romance pron on steroids - it's designed to tweak all the same feelings and fantasies that SATC did.

    Of course, it also ties in with the overly-abundant, wall-to-wall wedding/wife/kids/nesting propaganda that blankets the airwaves.  I mean, when was the last time you saw a TV program that held up a career and career success (in any field) as a goal for women to seek and achieve?  And compare that to the number of programs which explicitly or implicitly propagandize "wedding" as the ultimate goal of womens' lives.  Bridal cake decorating shows.  Bridezillas.  Shopping for wedding dresses (whole hours devoted to that and the accompanying drama, often involving sisters or mothers of the putative bride).  Home makeovers for he soon-to-arrive family.

    You get the point.  

    The thing is, though, in today's economy and especially in the economic structure we're currently saddled with now and for the foreseeable future, the single worst thing anyone can do (economically speaking) is get married and have a family.  It used to be that one could expect jobs - which support the whole family edifice - would be there in futuro and, worse come to worst if the job was lost there'd be something paying similar (or better) there to move into.  So, TPTB pitch marriage and wedding because it keeps people tied down and fearful of rocking the boat even in the slightest.

    I've lived through many royal events (none / 0) (#18)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 08:23:13 AM EST
    Over the years as my curiosity has waned my irritaion has grown. I wish this young couple much happiness....however as a little girl I found myself waiting for 10 hours to meet and curtsy for one of the "royals". We spent weeks before practicing how .....we were told we could only speak if spoken to.....at the time I  asked one of the event planners why we had to do this and her reply "dear you need to be aware of your station in life " your meeting royalty......even as an eight year old I remember thinking who the hell is this person they're no better than me !

    Your 8 year old self... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 01:07:01 PM EST
    had it exactly right:)

    It's one of the greatest scams ever run on mankind, this whole "royalty" business...right up there with organized religion.  

    "Stations" are for trains and buses, not for people.


    Speaking (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    of religion...

    There has been much stink of late about the Burqas - traditionally worn by some Muslim women.

    I was reminded of this when looking at Kate standing there, her face veiled (altho thinly) until her mate earns the right to unveil her.


    Ha!... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 01:39:46 PM EST
    Kate would be a criminal in France!

    Nice observation lentinel...that new French law is pathetic for a supposedly free country.  Bizarro Taliban.


    I saw my first (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    Quasi-burkah the other day.  Niqab?  Is that what it is with the eyes showing?

    She was very small, petite, and incredibly non-threatening.  Of course, it might have helped that the head dress she was wearing was a pastel peachy color.

    It gave me idea that maybe what they really need is a fashion makeover.  It's hard to be afraid of someone wearing pastels.  At least, I think that was the theory when they built all the new housing projects in Boston that color...


    I don't know... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 02:03:14 PM EST
    if the cops started wearing pastel uniforms, I wouldn't be any less afraid of them. Some things pastels can't brighten...like the awesome power to legally f*ck with people.

    Fear of the beekeeper suit in any color, otoh, is totally irrational.  I don't even mind the bandana face coverings popular with protestors...choice in attire has gotta be filed under inalienable right.

    Then again my inalienable file is much thicker than most:)


    I (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 04:01:43 PM EST
    saw a show on the BBC - a comedy show - and the guy hosting said that if the point was to conceal the features of the woman, instead of the threateningly black shroudy type of garment, they might consider dressing in Disney character outfits.

    Makes sense.


    Anyone remember this from almost (none / 0) (#19)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 08:29:57 AM EST
    4 years ago?:

    NASA scientists have developed a new climate model that indicates that the most violent severe storms and tornadoes may become more common as Earth's climate warms. Previous climate model studies have shown that heavy rainstorms will be more common in a warmer climate, but few global models have attempted to simulate the strength of updrafts in these storms. The model developed at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies by researchers Tony Del Genio, Mao-Sung Yao, and Jeff Jonas is the first to successfully simulate the observed difference in strength between land and ocean storms and is the first to estimate how the strength will change in a warming climate, including "severe thunderstorms" that also occur with significant wind shear and produce damaging winds at the ground. This information can be derived from the temperatures and humidities predicted by a climate computer model, according to the new study published on August 17 in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters. It predicts that in a warmer climate, stronger and more severe storms can be expected, but with fewer storms overall.

    Link to NASA

    thanks - I was wondering yesterday (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 11:06:54 AM EST
    if the weather models had predicted this, and if so, why isn't there more attention paid to the correctness of the models.

    Well I guess I know the answer to the second question. We must not emphasize any inconvenient truths.


    I remembered this from (none / 0) (#24)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 01:23:33 PM EST
    a few years ago, and I was able to find it after doing a little Googling.