Search This Blog

Friday, March 09, 2012

Knots Landing: The Desperate Housewives of the 1980s


Have you ever noticed how many television spinoffs fail after one season or less?



You see it all the time in the world of prime time television. You have a long-running sitcom that has done incredibly well in the ratings that producers seem to feel as though they could strike gold twice by taking one or more characters from the television show to create a similar one with a similar formula.



And, a lot of them end up failing. You know how successful the sitcom “Friends” was? Producers came up with the idea to give Matt LeBlanc his own spinoff based on the character he played named “Joey”. But somehow, the idea of only watching one 'Friend' didn't resonate well with viewers, and it was promptly cancelled. When “The Golden Girls” wrapped up production, the producers thought they could have another hit on their hands. After all, if it weren't for “The Golden Girls”, we wouldn't have had the sitcoms “Nurses” or “Empty Nest”. But, when producers tried to make a new sitcom after Bea Arthur's departure called “The Golden Palace”, it just didn't work as well. Not even a guest appearance by Bea could stop the sinking ship.



And that seems to be the case with a lot of spinoff programs. The original program in which the spin-off was based on would often be incredibly successful. But, take one of the characters from the original and put them in a brand new show with a brand new cast with minimal chemistry, and you have a recipe for disaster.



There are some exceptions though. After all, we have had one NCIS spinoff, two CSI spinoffs, and three Law & Order spinoffs, all of which lasted much longer than one season.



But, have you ever heard of such a situation where the spinoff program lasted LONGER than the original program? Seriously, think back throughout the 70 years or so that television has been around. Can you think of one example in which a spinoff has lasted longer than the original program that the spinoff was based off of?



I can. Although, I admit that I was a bit young to remember much of the program (hence why I ended up doing a ton of research on it by watching old clips and reading old episode summaries on TV.com), I guess the best way that I could best describe the program would be that it was a precursor to the popular ABC drama “Desperate Housewives”.



(And, no, Desperate Housewives was NOT the program that was a spinoff, although strangely enough, both shows had one actress in common.)



Like Desperate Housewives (which is set in a residential neighbourhood known as Wisteria Lane), this program takes place in a residential cul-de-sac called Seaview Circle. The main action took place on this cul-de-sac at five different houses on the street. It was your typical primetime soap opera filled with affairs, scandal, kidnapping, and murder, amongst other things. In a lot of cases, I suppose you could call the women of Seaview Circle the 'Desperate Housewives of the 1980s', because throughout the show's run, the women all got involved in almost every dangerous situation imaginable, all because they wanted to find happiness in suburbia.



And when the show debuted on CBS in the last few days of 1979, viewers immediately recognized a couple of familiar faces. Moving into 16966 Seaview Circle were Gary and Valene Ewing (who were portrayed by Ted Shackleford and Joan Van Ark), who had moved to California from the state of Texas.



Dallas, Texas, to be exact.



Yes, today's featured television show is a spinoff of the classic CBS show, “Dallas”. And, as some of you might know, “Dallas” ended up having a successful run on the network, running for thirteen seasons between 1978 and 1991.



Now, what if I told you that the sitcom that Gary and Valene Ewing moved to lasted longer than “Dallas”? Would you believe me then? Because, it happens to be true.



Today we're going to take a look back at the television show “Knots Landing”. The show debuted on December 27, 1979, and ran until May 13, 1993. That's a grand total of fourteen seasons, one more than the show it came from! It's currently tied for third place for the longest running prime-time dramatic series, right behind “Gunsmoke” and “Law & Order”. There aren't a whole lot of spinoffs that can boast that accomplishment.



And certainly, one of the main reasons why the show worked so well was because of the connection to “Dallas”...well, at least in the earliest seasons. At first, the show was a direct parallel of “Dallas”, with Gary and Val being updated on the happenings over at Southfork Ranch involving J.R., Bobby, Pam, Cliff, Sue Ellen, and Lucy (Gary and Val's daughter who stayed behind on “Dallas”). But after the wacky dream season of “Dallas”, “Knots Landing” took off in a completely different direction and became its own distinct identity (which might explain why it seemed to have a bit more staying power).



Now, here's an interesting point about the creation of “Knots Landing”. Initially, it wasn't designed to be a spinoff of “Dallas”. In fact, David Jacobs, the creator of both “Knots Landing” and “Dallas” actually created “Knots Landing” BEFORE “Dallas”. He came up with the idea for “Knots Landing” two years prior to the show debuting on television, and tried to pitch it to CBS, but the network passed on it, saying that they wanted something more saga-like. So, Jacobs went back to the drawing board and penned out the pilot script for “Dallas”, which was a project that CBS greenlighted for a 1978 release. Once “Dallas” had hit the airwaves, Jacobs went back to the “Knots Landing” script, retooled it to make it a spinoff of “Dallas”, submitted it to the network, and the show was picked up as a mid-season replacement for the 1979/1980 season.



At first, the show struggled in the ratings, especially against “Dallas”. It made sense, when you consider that the very season “Knots Landing” debuted was the same season of “Dallas” in which J.R. Ewing was shot. But, by the show's fourth season, the show increased in popularity, and by season six, it was in the Top 10 of most viewed programs. The show got so huge that it eventually out performed its parent show beginning around 1988.



So, why did the show do so well in the ratings?



Well, for one, I think it helped that “Knots Landing” didn't have such a thing as a plot device where an entire season was a dream! No such shower scenes on that show.



I think part of it could have been the fact that the show tackled a lot of serious issues. Drug abuse, mental illness, domestic abuse...the show tackled all of these issues and more during its 14-year run. And, based on the episodes that I have seen, the show didn't use kid gloves either. Take a look at a clip of an episode where the character of Olivia Cunningham is dealing with a drug addiction, and takes out her rage on her mother, Abby.



And, that was just a taste of what the show had to offer.



But, if you want my honest opinion as to why I thought the show worked, I think it had to do with the strength and chemistry that the cast shared with each other.



Specifically, the women of Knots Landing.



That's not to say that the men had their own impact on the show. Gary Ewing was involved in a lot of storylines over the series run, as were Greg Sumner (William Devane), Mack MacKenzie (Kevin Dobson), and Sid Fairgate (Don Murray). Heck, even Alec Baldwin got his big break on “Knots Landing”, playing a rather psychotic character who met a crazy end.



But, I think in the case of “Knots Landing”, the female cast members really brought the drama and the action, and the romance. Every single actress who appeared on the show had their own distinct personalities. Some were heroines. Some were trashy. Some were victims. And, some were just plain crazy. But, all of them worked on the program during the time that they appeared, and each one brought forth something that made “Knots Landing” a hit.



So, I thought that for our look back on “Knots Landing”, we'd take a look at the “Desperate Housewives of Seaview Circle”, to see who they were, who they were married to, and what their main storylines were. And, as you'll see, not everyone ended up leaving the show alive...



So, let's begin with the only cast member to appear in EVERY episode of “Knots Landing” ever made.



CHARACTER: Karen Cooper Fairgate MacKenzie
ACTRESS: Michele Lee
DURATION: 1979-1993
MARRIAGES: Sid Fairgate, Mack MacKenzie



Karen Cooper Fairgate was the first person who befriended Valene and Gary Ewing when they first moved to Seaview Circle, and she is the only character who has been in all 344 episodes of the series. She was a community activist, and a shrewd businesswoman, but also had her share of pain and heartache. Her first husband, Sid, was killed in an automobile accident, and she had a rather prickly relationship with her daughter Diana through the years. She was also shot, kidnapped, and stalked by one of the producers of the talk show that she hosted in the later seasons of the show. But, Karen was also one of the most grounded people on the show, and most of the residents of Seaview Circle saw her as a good friend and confidant. She also managed to find love once again with Mack MacKenzie.



CHARACTER: Valene “Val” Clements Ewing Ewing Gibson Waleska Ewing
ACTRESS: Joan Van Ark
DURATION: 1979-1992, 1993
MARRIAGES: Gary Ewing, Ben Gibson, Danny Waleska



Valene Ewing was also a huge character on “Knots Landing”. After all, Val was one of two characters that provided a link to “Dallas”. And, Val has been central to some of the biggest storylines that the show has ever featured.

Let's begin with the idea that Val had a total of four marriages on during the show's run. Her original marriage to Gary ended after he had an affair with another Seaview Circle resident (who is featured a little bit later in the blog entry). She ended up remarrying him a total of twice during the series, but in between she had a couple of other marriages. Her marriage to photojournalist Ben Gibson (Douglas Sheehan) was sweet, but ended when Ben disappeared in South America following a forced plot in which he plotted the murder of Greg Sumner. And, then there was her marriage to Danny Waleska (Sam Behrens), which was a disaster in the making, as he raped his previous wife, and ended up becoming a rather scary character.



As if Val didn't have enough to worry about, she had gotten pregnant with twins, and was lead to believe that her twins had died in childbirth. Ironically enough, the woman who had an affair with her husband was the very one who discovered that the children had survived, and was a key player in helping Val reunite with her son and daughter, Bobby and Betsy. She also had to deal with a colleague of Mack's who tried to drive her crazy and kill her, as well as suffering from a minor brain injury following a fall from a horse. She also was reunited with her estranged mother, Lilimae (Julie Harris), who abandoned her to become a country singer. At some point during the show's final season, Val was believed to have died in a car explosion. But by the show's final episode, it became clear that Val's death was not to be believed.



CHARACTER: Abby Fairgate Cunningham Ewing Sumner
ACTRESS: Donna Mills
DURATION: 1980-1989, 1993
MARRIAGES: Jeff Cunningham, Gary Ewing, Greg Sumner



Remember how I told you that the reason why Gary and Val divorced on "Knots Landing" the first time was because of an affair he had with a resident of Seaview Circle? Abby was the reason. This cunning and sly woman was trouble with a capital T, and she was an expert in sucking her claws into people and spitting them back out once she was finished. She was one of the main villainesses of the whole show, and she had a lot of enemies. Although she was the sister of Sid Fairgate, she never could get along with Sid's wife, Karen. After Sid's death, the relationship between Abby and Karen remained frosty. I think it's also safe to say that there was no love lost between Abby and Val either for obvious reasons. Although Abby did show that she did have SOME good in her, as Abby was the one who helped Val get her children back.



But as bad as Abby was on the show, she did have some challenges to overcome. In particular with her daughter Olivia, who developed a severe drug addiction. Abby left the series in 1989 following the bust-up of her marriage to Greg Sumner, but returned for the series finale.



But, just to show just how much of an edgy character Abby was, here's a clip above of her featuring her feud with Val Ewing.



CHARACTER: Paige Matheson
ACTRESS: Nicollette Sheridan
DURATION: 1986-1993
MARRIAGES: None, but several relationships including one with Greg Sumner



Nicollette Sheridan is the only cast member of "Knots Landing" to also have a regular role on "Desperate Housewives" (which if you've been following the news, you know that Sheridan's role on Desperate Housewives did NOT end well), but on "Knots Landing", she was the daughter of Mack MacKenzie. And, as it turned out, Paige came onto Seaview Circle with a whole lot of secrets. For one, Karen discovered that "Paige Matheson" was actually dead, but Paige told the MacKenzie's that she faked her death in order to flee her grandparents. Paige's mother, Anne (Michelle Phillips) followed suit, and Anne was just as devious as her offspring. Paige's main rival in the series was Abby, who wanted Paige to pay after she framed her daughter for the death of Peter Hollister (Hunt Block) Paige's most well-known relationship was with Greg Sumner, which kicked off after Greg's wife passed away.



CHARACTER: Laura Avery Sumner
ACTRESS: Constance McCashin
DURATION: 1979-1987
MARRIAGES: Richard Avery, Greg Sumner

Laura Avery was one of the original characters of "Knots Landing", and comparing her to such characters as Abby, Val, and Karen, Laura was a lot more plain. With good reason too. She was in a very unhappy marriage with her husband, Richard (John Pleshette). Early in the series, Laura embarked on an affair with her boss, and when Richard found out, he got violent. Complicating matters was the fact that Laura had gotten pregnant, and this prevented Laura from leaving Richard right away. She gave birth to their son, Daniel, and she tried to make the marriage work, even though Richard had suffered a nervous breakdown and attempted suicide.




Richard recovered, and opened up a restaurant named after their son, and a singer was hired to sing at the location, a young woman named Ciji (Lisa Hartman). Ciji and Laura immediately became best friends, which irked Richard, as he believed that they were having a lesbian affair. But when Ciji was murdered, Laura and Richard broke up for good after Laura refused to forgive him for his meanness towards her. Laura thought that Richard killed Ciji, but the real killer was Chip Roberts. Laura then got involved in a relationship with Greg Sumner, and she and Greg lived together relatively happy despite Ben's plot to kill Greg. Sadly, Laura ended up passing away from cancer, leaving Greg heartbroken.



TRIVIA: Lisa Hartman Black played two characters on the show...Ciji, and Cathy Geary.



CHARACTER: Jill Bennett
ACTRESS: Teri Austin
DURATION: 1985-1989




Jill Bennett started off as a sweet, if not flawed character. She was a former colleague of Mack's, and she eventually became romantically involved with Gary. Problem was that Gary was with Val after reconciling with her following Ben's disappearance. Little by little, Jill began to lose her grip on reality, and the more she lost touch, the more she wanted Val dead. The feud between Jill and Val grew quite heated and twisted with each passing moment. See what I mean below.




Jill attempted to kill Val by kidnapping her and forcing her to down an entire bottle of sleeping pills at gunpoint. At first, Jill seemed to have an alibi, but when Mack and Gary poked holes through it, a desperate Jill tried to get revenge by tying herself up inside the trunk of Gary's car, so that it would look like he tried to kill her. Unfortunately for Jill, she really DID die, and Gary was almost arrested for killing her, but he eventually was cleared of all charges.




And, those are just a FEW of the characters on this show!



You know, "Desperate Housewives" is slated to air its final episode sometime in April or May 2012 after eight seasons, and while I'm sure that a lot of people are sad to see it go (though not me as I haven't seen one episode), not even it ran as long as "Knots Landing".



Because while "Knots Landing" may have been a show that started off as a spinoff, the show was a force to be reckoned with all on its own. For fourteen years, the trials and tribulations of Seaview Circle were fascinating material to watch.



I mean, compared to all the messes that they had to go through, our lives had to be better, right?

Thursday, March 08, 2012

The Cost Of Free Speech



Free speech.

Two simple words that pack a powerful punch. Almost every single one of us believes in the idea of having free speech, but some of us don't quite understand what that right exactly is. And, don't worry, I'll be explaining that little statement a little later.

In recent events, the debates surrounding free speech have only intensified after a series of events regarding some people in the talk radio and celebrity world.



I'm sure by now we have heard all about what happened on Rush Limbaugh's radio show just recently. A woman by the name of Sandra Fluke, a law student from Georgetown University, testified before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee in support of mandated health coverage for contraceptives. Now, there are some out there who are reading that previous sentence and believing that Ms. Fluke's crusade might not be something that you would support. Some might think that it is the absolute worst idea that was ever coined. And that's fine, because the power of free speech allows us to say and think that. But there's a huge difference between disagreeing on an issue at hand and doing what Rush Limbaugh did on his radio show.



On February 29, 2012, Limbaugh heard about Sandra Fluke's tale, and immediate went on the airwaves to issue his thoughts on the matter, and let's just say that it wasn't pretty. I don't even want to repost his exact tirade on this blog because I myself find his comments to be quite vile. Though, I really don't need to, as they've been broadcast all over various media sources. If you really want to know what he said, just enter Limbaugh and Fluke in on a Google search. All should be revealed then.

But here's where the debate over free speech comes into play. Certainly, free speech is a right that many of us in the world have. If you happen to live in the United States, it is a constitutional right to have the power of free speech. And many people seem to hold onto that right the same way that a child holds on to their favourite blanket. They squeeze onto it so tightly, and are willing to fight to the death to keep that right. In most cases, I find it to be absolutely admirable. However, there is a fine line between being honourable with free speech and being shameful and hurtful. And my honest opinion is that Limbaugh was being very hurtful and very shameful, and not only crossed that line, but attached a set of explosives to that line and blew it apart into a billion pieces.

And, this leads to my tenth Thursday Confession...and it's a long and complex one.



THURSDAY CONFESSION #10: I am a firm believer in the power of free speech, and I believe that we all have the right to make our ideas and thoughts known. I also believe in using the power of free speech to challenge the ideas of others in a diplomatic and calm manner. However, I do NOT believe in using the power of free speech as an excuse to tear someone else down or make hurtful comments because I don't believe that hiding behind the phrase 'free speech' entitles anybody to act like a jerk.

Quite complex, no?

It is how I feel though. I'll try to explain my thoughts the best way that I can using the Rush Limbaugh incident.

Rush Limbaugh having a radio show allows him to have a slew of opinions. Anybody who has ever hosted a radio program such as Howard Stern, Sean Hannity, or even Rick Dees have used their programming to bring forth certain ideas and beliefs that they have. I don't have a problem with this for the most part. I might not necessarily agree with the thoughts that they have (and in the case of Limbaugh, as a largely liberal thinker, it's hard for me to find a whole lot of common ground between myself and Limbaugh), but the fact that he has them is nothing that I can change. And if Rush didn't agree with the ideas that Sandra Fluke was bringing forth to the table (which obviously he did not), all he had to do was say so. He might still have gotten some flak for having an opinion that went against what others believed, but at least it would not have caused such a kerfuffle. He could have come up with a list of facts and figures and blended it with his strong opinions to come up with a rebuttal that could have made people at least think about it in a logical way. Instead, he took the cowardly way out and responded to Fluke's plan with vulgarity and hostility.



And what did it get him in the end? It got his name being lambasted in the media, his show being dropped from some talk radio stations, and many of his advertisers pulling their sponsorship for the program. I certainly hope his comments were worth it for him in the long run.

Oh, I should also add that Limbaugh did apologize for his comments towards Fluke just a few days after saying them...but for many people, it was too little, too late. While I was never really a fan of Limbaugh in the first place, this incident kind of paints him in an even worse colour in my mind.

With Rush Limbaugh, it wasn't his strong opinions that I had a problem with. It was the way he presented them. Period.

I mean, certainly we all have had our experiences in which the opinions that we have sometimes come across the wrong way, and it ends up getting us in trouble. I've been on both sides of that. But, it's a lesson learned the hard way, and we move on. It certainly isn't the first time Limbaugh has come under fire for his opinions, and as long as his radio show is allowed to continue, it probably won't be the last.



Another person who has come under fire recently for his strong opinions is former child star, Kirk Cameron. Kirk Cameron is probably best known for his role as eldest Seaver child, Mike, on the long-running sitcom 'Growing Pains'. These days, he has become an active Christian evangelist who has starred in the various films associated with the “Left Behind” book series.

And this has lead to Cameron being on the receiving end of some controversy as well.



Certainly controversy over Kirk's beliefs seemed to begin when he was still on 'Growing Pains'. While it was never really confirmed as being true or false, reportedly he was the one who was behind the ouster of 'Growing Pains' recurring character Julie Costello (played by Julie McCullough) when he objected to her posing nude for Playboy magazine (she was the February 1986 centerfold, just in case you were wondering). But, Kirk did apologize to the other Growing Pains cast members for that time, citing a lack of maturity on his part. After all, he himself was in his late teens when the incident took place, and we all make a lot of bad judgment calls when we are teenagers. Not making excuses for him by far, but at least it seemed as though he was learning from his mistakes (although McCullough refuses to forgive Cameron for what transpired).

FUN FACT:  Kirk Cameron apparently spent the first seventeen years of his life as an atheist!



But then Cameron appeared as a guest on The Piers Morgan Show earlier this month, and once again, the concept of free speech was highly debated.

It all started when Piers Morgan asked Kirk Cameron a question about the subject of gay marriage and homosexuality. Kirk answered the question honestly, stating that according to him, homosexuality was something that he did not agree with, stating that he felt it was “unnatural, detrimental, and ultimately destructive to foundations of civilization.”

Wow. Where to start with this?

First things first, my thoughts. I have to strongly disagree with Cameron's thoughts. I don't think there is anything wrong with a person being gay, straight, bi-sexual, asexual. Not a thing wrong with it whatsoever. I am sorry that some religious people feel that homosexuality is bad, because I'm sure that a lot of people feel the same way about closed-minded religious people who claim to love everyone except when they feel the Bible informs them differently.

(Not implying that Kirk Cameron is one of those people, of course...just speaking in a general sense.)

But, do I feel that Kirk Cameron's opinions should be censored? No. Kirk Cameron can believe whatever Kirk Cameron wants to because Kirk Cameron knows what is best for Kirk Cameron and not anybody else.

Wow, how many times can I type the words Kirk Cameron in a single sentence?

I guess my feelings for Kirk Cameron's thoughts are eerily similar to Piers Morgan's. Piers commended Cameron for sticking to his beliefs and not sugar coating them (and, reluctantly, I have to agree with this because as much as I disagree with what Cameron is saying, at least he is owning up to it). Even better, Kirk Cameron, to his credit, worded and phrased his beliefs in a way that didn't have the name calling and distaste that Rush Limbaugh used in his own scandal (even though I still feel that his beliefs are very much closed-minded and not very well thought out). But, make no mistake, Piers Morgan did not agree with Kirk's opinion, and made it quite clear. I don't particularly like what Kirk had to say myself...but I'm not going to deny him the right to state what might be an unpopular opinion. Nobody has the right to do that.

Besides, if anything, Kirk Cameron's appearance on Piers Morgan beautifully illustrates the second part of my confession. I believe that we all have the right to use our power of free speech in a way to challenge the ideas put out by other people, especially if the ideas contradict or conflict with our own belief systems...provided that the forum for the conflict resolution is diplomatic and calm.

I often joke that whenever I have an opinion that is controversial and I make it public, it often ends up with all of us holding hands in a circle singing “Kumbaya”. That's because in a lot of cases, it happens to be true. My group of friends and I are such that we listen to all points of view very clearly and respectfully before forming opinions. And, yes, sometimes our opinions can clash, and we argue about it. By the end though, we manage to reach a common ground, and we 'hug it out', or something to that nature. That's not to say that we're automatically going to change our minds radically to suit the other person and vice versa...but if it means that we understand each other a lot better, I'd call it a victory. No yelling. No swearing. Just calm and rational debate. The way it should be.

Unfortunately, some people seem to believe that the right to free speech means that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and if they scream loud enough and say the most obnoxious things, they'll eventually sway people over to their side. But, in many cases, this is not the right way to go. If anything, it just makes the opposition to their cause grow even stronger. (For further reference of this point, Google the term 'Westboro Baptist Church'.)



And, in regards to Kirk Cameron's case, the reception has been about fifty-fifty. For every person who has condemned Cameron for his opinions and his thoughts on homosexuality, there's another person who has supported Cameron for standing by his own beliefs. In Cameron's case, there is a fine line that exists between tasteful and tasteless, and the way I picture it, depending on the side of the arena you are sitting on, Cameron could lean towards one way or the other. We all have the right to see it the way we want to see it. It might not be the same way somebody else views it, but as long as we hold on to our own point of view, there's nothing wrong with that.

Now picture people on both sides arming themselves with bags of rocks...and having people on both sides tossing rocks at Kirk Cameron on that tightrope, hoping to make him fall off the rope onto the side that they feel best describes him. But in the melee, the rocks that one side throws ends up striking people on the other side of the arena, hurting them. Their friends retaliate by throwing their rocks twice as hard. But instead of throwing them at Cameron, they throw the rocks at the people on the other side, and before you know it, both sides are so busy stoning the other that they have completely forgotten about the man on the tightrope dangling for dear life.

The above situation best describes some of the Internet forums and celebrity interviews that I've come across in light of the Kirk Cameron scandal, as well as some of the responses given by the general public.

Certainly in the media, there have been celebrities who have taken to Twitter to make their thoughts known about Cameron. “Modern Family” star Jesse Tyler Ferguson, “Glee” star Jane Lynch, and even two of Cameron's “Growing Pains” co-stars (Alan Thicke and Tracey Gold) have all spoke out against Cameron's comments, stating that his beliefs do not reflect theirs in any way. Cameron's comments sparked a huge on-air battle between two panelists on “The View” as the uber-conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck and the uber-liberal Joy Behar squared off against each other on the subject of free speech.

And, of course, everybody on the Internet has an opinion about what was said. But, it's how those opinions are expressed that is the issue, not the opinions themselves. Because much like the tightrope scenario that I outlined, some people use their platform of free speech to launch a few personal attacks to tear apart other people's opinions rather than strengthening their own argument. I mean, let's say that Poster A takes Kirk's argument and uses it to call him every vile name in the universe. Poster B who is opposed to such language might respond to Poster A stating that the message that Poster A is worded too strongly, and to cool it. Poster A responds to Poster B with even more venom, and suddenly Posters C and D who are on the same side as Poster A tag-teams Poster B. Then Poster E posts a generic post wondering why nobody can get along, and suddenly, Poster E is the enemy. Before long, everyone is so busy fighting and one-upping each other that they have completely forgotten what the original argument was about.

Doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun, does it?

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that when it comes to free speech, I am definitely not a huge advocate of people who try to hide behind the argument of free speech as an excuse to act like a complete and total jerk towards others. Just because one has the right to SAY whatever they want doesn't necessarily mean that people SHOULD say whatever they want. In some cases, people really should be minding their P's and Q's a lot more than perhaps they have been. Because while there is a slim chance that people might not agree with your thoughts and beliefs, there's an even bigger chance that people won't like it if you're a complete and total jerk when it comes to defending those beliefs.  While some people might do things that you might consider to be arrogant and jerky...I just don't think that we should act the same way when defending our own opinions.  You've heard the saying two wrongs don't make a right?  It's a saying that I try to live by most of the time.  It's admittedly hard to do depending on the person and the day, but I do my best, as most seem to do.  Because as much as we all believe in free speech, sometimes free speech can be quite costly.

The jury is still out on whether or not Kirk Cameron's thoughts will have any effect on him. But in the case of Rush Limbaugh, I think he's starting to understand that even something as simple as free speech can have dire consequences if it happens to be abused or taken for granted.

Just some food for thought this Thursday morning.

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

Sidewalk Talk With Shel Silverstein


There are some books that exist in this world that for whatever reason seem to stick with you in life. No matter how old you get, and no matter how many years pass, you can look back on that book and it makes you smile every time.



As it so happens, I have a story to tell you about a book from the author of which this blog entry is based upon. Oddly enough, it takes place during a year in which I did not enjoy at all.



It was when I was in the first grade, which was a year in which I was not a happy boy. I didn't like my teacher, and I always felt as though I was more of an obstacle than an asset in that whole class. It was not my happiest experience, and if I had the chance to go back in time to that year, I would have pulled my younger self out of that classroom and taken him to a different school altogether. But, unfortunately, I don't know Christopher Lloyd, and I don't have a DeLorean that can take me through time.



But, as it so happens, I can think of one pleasant memory of first grade.



The way that the classroom schedule worked (at least as far as I can remember, as it has been twenty-five years since I began first grade), was that after the lunch period, the teacher would take attendance, and then for about a half hour, we would do some sort of math lesson. Then after the math lesson (along with the classwork that we had to work on), it would be story time. All of us kids would gather around the bright blue carpet and the teacher would grab the story time chair to read us a story, do show and tell, and play classroom games like Heads Up, Seven Up' until the afternoon recess bell sounded. Most of the time, the stories would be popular books starring the Berenstain Bears, or stories that were written by Robert Munsch. Sometimes, the teachers would even swap classrooms, and we'd have the classroom teacher from the other grade one class come in to read us stories.



(For the record, I always hated it when Mrs. Bradford had to leave...I wished that she could have stayed as our teacher instead of having the teacher that I had that year.)



However, for all the dislike that I had for the teacher I was stuck with, she did make one decision that I approved of.



Whenever she was the one who read a story to the class, I remember that she would almost always grab a specific book to read. It was a very distinctive looking book. It was bright white in colour, and had cartoon drawings all over the front cover. And whenever our teacher grabbed that lovely white book, I remember my classmates and I squealing with glee. We loved that book.



The book was actually a collection of poems. But, not just your standard, run of the mill poems. I'm talking about poems that made kids laugh. They were a collection of poems that were written for a younger audience in mind, addressing many childhood problems and concerns. Each poem was absolute genius, and conveyed every possible emotion that one could feel. In fact, I'm going to post an example from this very book right now.



EIGHTEEN FLAVORS



Eighteen luscious, scrumptious flavours

Chocolate, lime, and cherry

Coffee, pumpkin, fudge banana

Caramel cream and boisenberry

Rocky road and toasted almond

Butterscotch, vanilla dip

Butter brickle, apple ripple

Coconut and mocha chip

Brandy peach and lemon custard

Each scoop lovely, smooth and round

Tallest ice cream cone in town

Lying there (sniff) on the ground



Poor guy. But, you can really see the change in emotion from the beginning to the end. At first it's a grand exhibit of all the different kinds of ice cream that the person has (and yes, there really are eighteen), and it sounds like a happy poem. But when you get to the end, and you realize that the kid has dropped his gigantic ice cream cone on the ground, you can't help but feel bad for the child. I mean, granted, having an ice cream cone with eighteen scoops on it is gluttonous, and my parents would never have allowed me to have an ice cream cone of that size, but I think we all have been in a situation where we have bought an ice cream and we accidentally drop it on the ground. It's happened to me, and one of the reasons why I love this particular poem is because it's an event that I lived. It's an event that a lot of kids experienced. I think the author really had a way with words, and really knew how to get the attention of his audience.



The poem comes from the 1974 book, “Where The Sidewalk Ends”. And the author of the above poem is the late Shel Silverstein.



Today's blog entry happens to be about Shel Silverstein.



My first experience with Silverstein's work was during those first grade story sessions. I was just so drawn to every poem and every word that he wrote. Who knows, maybe that book kind of opened up something inside my head, and made me realize that what I really wanted to do in life was write professionally.



Or, at the very least, write. The professional thing, I'm still working on.



“Where The Sidewalk Ends” was a classic collection of Shel's best works. With poems having titles like “Ridiculous Rose”, “Peanut-Butter Sandwich”, and “Sarah Cynthia Silvia Stout Would Not Take The Garbage Out”, it made millions of kids laugh and smile. The best part about the book was that each poem would be published alongside drawings and cartoons sketched by Silverstein himself. Take a look at another poem from the book to see what I mean.



Of course, cartooning wasn't anything new to Silverstein. It was after all how he got his start.



Born in Chicago in 1930, Sheldon Allen Silverstein started drawing at a very early age. When he was twelve, he was already tracing the works of Al Capp, the cartoonist behind the popular comic strip Li'l Abner. He graduated from high school in 1948, and shortly thereafter, attended the Art Institute of Chicago. He dropped out after one year, but around that time, his first sketch was published in the Roosevelt Torch (a student university at Roosevelt University). His cartoons also appeared in Pacific Stars and Stripes, and upon returning to Chicago published his first book (Take Ten), and had his work featured in such magazines as Sports Illustrated and Look. During this time, he supported himself by selling hot dogs at Chicago ballparks.



In 1957, Silverstein got a huge break when he became a leading cartoonist for Playboy Magazine. As a result of this job, Silverstein ended up journeying all over the world to create an illustrated travel journal with reports from out of the way places. The feature was called “Shel Silverstein Visits...”, and the feature took Silverstein to such locales as Mexico, Paris, Africa, Spain, Fire Island, the Chicago White Sox training camp, and even a New Jersey nudist colony! Silverstein created twenty-three of these installments, all of which were collected in the 2007 book “Playboy's Silverstein Around The World”.



Perhaps one of Silverstein's best known cartoons was printed in 1960, as the front cover of the book “Now Here's My Plan: A Book Of Futilities”. The cover depicted two prisoners chained to a wall with one of them telling the other one “Now here's my plan”. Many people thought that the image was too pessimistic, but Silverstein defended his work, saying that there can be a lot of hope that can be found in the most dire of circumstances, and he did the cartoon solely to encourage questioning and analysis.



But, the above book was one geared towards adults. How did he make the leap into children's literature?



It all began in 1964. 1964 was the year that Shel Silverstein wrote and illustrated the children's classic “The Giving Tree”. For anyone who has ever read the book, the book is about a little boy and an apple tree that the boy loves to hang around. The reason being that the tree basically provides the boy every single thing he desired. If the boy wanted a snack, the tree gave him an apple or two. If the boy wanted a swing, the tree allowed the boy to hang a swing from its branches. When the boy grew older, the tree actually allowed itself to be cut down so that the boy could build a boat! A few decades pass, and the boy, who is now an elderly man, comes back to the tree stump. At first the tree stump seems unhappy because after years of giving him everything he wanted, it feels that it has nothing left to give. But to the tree's surprise, the man smiles and tells the tree that he doesn't need much more than a quiet place to sit down and rest. The tree is happy to grant his request, and the man is just as happy to sit down beside his old friend once again.



As for me, I loved the story, and I highly recommend it to anybody. But a lot of critics attacked the story almost immediately after it was released. They claimed that the boy was acting very selfishly and that the book wasn't providing a good example for children. They claimed that the friendship between boy and tree was one-sided, and that the tree gave and gave and gave while the boy took and took and took.



The truth is, I see it differently...especially now that I can read it through adult eyes. The way I see it, the relationship between the tree and the boy mimics the exact relationship that a parent might share with their child. In the early years of childhood, parents do almost anything to make their children happy. They take them places, buy them things, make them lunches, provide them shelter...they do so much for their kids, usually not expecting anything in return. Parents often sacrifice a lot of their time and money to give their children opportunities and fun...much like the Giving Tree did with the young boy. A lot of parents do this because they have so much love and devotion for their children, and want nothing more than to see them happy. And, more often than not, one of the saddest moments that parents have to go through is letting their child go (whether it be for their first day of school to having the child move out to start their adult life). The parents naturally feel sad because they feel that they have done all they can do for their children, and they worry that the child won't need them anymore. So, when the child comes back home for a visit, their mood instantly perks up. Do you see the parallel between a parent/child relationship and the relationship between the Giving Tree and the Taking Boy? At least, that's how I see it anyway.



But I think that's what made Shel Silverstein such a success in the literary world. His writing was so poignant and captured so much emotion, but at the same time was ambiguous enough to leave the work open to several different opinions and viewpoints. It was brilliant to see, and he remains one of my all-time favourite authors as a result.



And it wasn't just the literary world that Silverstein thrived in. He also made an impact in the world of music, writing songs for some of the biggest artists of the 1960s and 1970s. Have you ever heard of the Johnny Cash classic “A Boy Named Sue?”



Silverstein wrote that song for Cash, and it became a number one hit for Cash in the summer of 1969, winning a Grammy Award in 1970. He also wrote songs for Waylon Jennings, Loretta Lynn, Gordon Lightfoot, and Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show. Many of the poems he wrote in “Where The Sidewalk Ends” were put onto an album release in 1983, with Silverstein shouting, singing, and performing the poems himself. The audio version of the book was so successful that Silverstein won another Grammy Award in 1984 for Best Recording For Children!



Shel Silverstein's professional life was filled with many highs, but his personal life was marked by a couple of tragedies. His love, Susan Hastings (mother of one of his children), passed away in 1975, just one day before their daughter's fifth birthday. Tragically, Silverstein's daughter, Shoshanna (the daughter he had with Hastings), passed away in 1982 at the age of eleven. He dedicated “A Light In The Attic” to his daughter, and the illustration next to the dedication was of a flower, as in Hebrew, Shoshanna means 'lily' or 'rose'. In 1983, his second child, Matthew, was born, and Silverstein's 1996 book “Falling Up” was dedicated to him.



Silverstein continued to write, draw, and and create new stories well into his final days, and in May 1999, Silverstein died at his home in Key West, Florida at the age of 68.



Although Silverstein is no longer on this Earth, his work will continue to live on. His books are still widely popular today, and if I ever have children of my own, I will definitely be picking up a copy of 'Where The Sidewalk Ends' so I may be able to share the poems that I loved as a kid with them. After all, people say that in life, you have to take the best things from each year and share them with others. And ultimately, Shel Silverstein's work was the best part of the entire first grade year.

Tuesday, March 06, 2012

March 6, 1912

Today’s Tuesday Timeline entry could be one of the “sweetest” entries that I have ever written.  In fact, I might have to say that the content within this blog is quite “delicious”.  But, again, it’s all a matter of personal opinion, so I won’t waste much time with writing any more cryptic clues to this entry.  Let’s get right to it.

It’s March the sixth today, and as I was doing research on various events on this date, I notice that March 6th was quite a busy day in history.  Let’s take a look back on some minor events that took place on this date.

1521 – Explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrives at Guam.

1820 – Missouri Compromise; Missouri enters Union as slave state, but the rest of the Northern part of the Louisiana Purchase is made slavery-free.

1834 – York, Upper Canada, is incorporated as Toronto.

1840 – The very first dental school, The Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, is opened.

1869 – Dmitri Mendeleev presents the first periodic table to the Russian Chemical Society.

1899 – Bayer registers aspirin as a trademark.

1951 – The trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg begins.

1957 – Ghana gains independence from Great Britain.

1981 – Walter Cronkite leaves the CBS Evening News after nearly two decades.

1992 – One of the first computer viruses, the Michelangelo virus, begins to affect computer systems worldwide.

So, as you can see, March 6th was a date that had a lot of history associated with it. 

March 6th also has a lot of celebrity birthdays associated with it.  Celebrating a birthday today are Mary Wilson (The Supremes), David Gilmour (Pink Floyd), Kiki Dee, Rob Reiner, John Stossel, Tom Arnold, D.L. Hughley, Connie Britton, Moira Kelly, Andrea Elson (from ALF), Shaquille O’Neal, Michael Finley, Bubba Sparxxx, Eli Marienthal, and Hannah Taylor-Gordon.

We also said goodbye to a few celebrities on March 6th.  Author Louisa May Alcott passed away on this date in 1888.  Composer John Philip Sousa died eighty years ago today, in 1932.  And Dana Reeve, the widow of actor Christopher Reeve, passed away on this date in 2006. 

So, what date have I decided to feature in this entry? 


March 6, 1912.  Exactly one hundred years in the past!

This is the furthest that the Tuesday Timeline has ever gone back.  But, I really wanted to make this date the subject for today, because it happens to be the date that a staple of kitchen cupboards and school lunchboxes was born.


Today we celebrate the 100th birthday of the Oreo cookie.

I love Oreo cookies.  I always have loved Oreo cookies.  I can’t remember a time in my life that I didn’t eat Oreo cookies.  I guess in some ways, Oreo cookies are a sign of weakness for me, because if there are Oreos present in any form, I usually cannot resist them.

(Well, unless they are those special edition Strawberry Milkshake Oreos which sound sort of disgusting.)

It’s hard for me to pinpoint when exactly I tasted my very first Oreo cookie, but if I had to wager an estimated guess, I would say that it was shortly after I started getting my baby teeth.  I can remember being three years old at the home of my grandparents, sitting on the outdoor wooden staircase in the backyard which was attached to the clothesline, licking the cream filling from the Oreo cookies.  I think maybe that was one of the reasons why I continue to enjoy Oreo cookies even now.  Eating those delicious chocolate cookies takes me back to a more innocent time when everybody in my immediate family was still alive (of my four grandparents, only one survives).  It’s impossible to calculate exactly how many Oreos I’ve eaten during my entire lifetime, but I reckon that it must be in the thousands.

In most current advertising campaigns (particularly the ones that aired over the last ten years or so), the Oreo cookie is deemed ‘milk’s favourite cookie’, but honestly, I didn’t even need a glass of milk to enjoy the goodness of Oreo cookies.  It was almost a rite of passage to go around with a chocolate cookie smile all day long (or so I’d like to think, anyway).


I even have managed to take my love of Oreo one step further by occasionally treating myself to Oreo themed treats.  My favourite Dairy Queen Blizzard flavour for instance?  You guessed it.  And, you know how some supermarket bakeries have those cookies and cream cakes?  If someone has one of those cakes for a birthday celebration or a party, I cannot leave until I have a piece.  Those cakes are irresistible...especially when they are garnished with Oreo pieces!

Man...I’m getting hungry just writing this blog piece.  I really should get paid (even if it is only in Oreo cookies) for providing the company free advertising.  But, you know what they say...if you love it, you have to share it with the world.

The Oreo cookie was founded on March 6, 1912 in New York City, in the Chelsea district.  Developed by Nabisco, the cookie was manufactured specifically for the British market, and the design of the cookie was much simpler than the design that is currently used.  The modern day design was created in 1952.

As far as providing a detailed history of the Oreo cookie, I admit that the information that I have doesn’t really allow me to go into much detail about the creation of the Oreo cookie.  But, I do have a ton of trivia facts that I can share with all of you.  Some of these facts, you likely already know, but there is also some information that you might actually be surprised at knowing!

1 – The original name of the Oreo cookie was the Oreo Biscuit.

2 – Although the origin of the name ‘Oreo’ has not been officially confirmed, several theories exist behind how the cookie got its name.  One theory stems from the French word for ‘gold’, which is ‘or’, because when Oreos were first packaged, the colour of the package was gold.  Another theory was that the cookie was named after the Greek word ‘oreo’, which meant beautiful or nice.

3 – Although Nabisco has distributed Oreo cookies since they were created in 1912, Canada distributes them under the Christie label.

4 – An estimated 491 billion Oreo cookies have been sold and consumed since they were created, making it the best selling cookie of the 20th century.

5 – In the 1920s, the company began selling Oreos with a lemon filling instead of the iconic cream filling, but they were discontinued just a few years later.


6 – The first Double Stuf Oreo cookie was manufactured in 1975.

7 – Count the flowers on the face of a standard Oreo cookie half.  There are a total of twelve on each face.

8 – The Oreo cookie inspired a song parody by Weird Al Yankovic, which was released in 1990 to the tune of “The Right Stuff” by the New Kids On The Block.  Listen to it below!


9 – Oreos manufactured in China have some rather unique flavours of cream filling, including mango, blueberry, and green tea!

10 – You might notice a bit of a taste difference between American Oreos and Canadian Oreos.  The reason is because in Canada, the Oreos are made with coconut oil.


11 – When the McFlurry was introduced into McDonald’s Restaurants, Oreo was one of the flagship flavours, and is still widely popular today.

12 – Oreo cookies have had dozens of advertisements that were memorable in so many ways.  The one below happens to be one of my favourites.


13 – In 1984, a Big Stuf Oreo was introduced (it was an Oreo that was several sizes larger than an average Oreo), but was discontinued seven years later.  I guess the 13 grams of fat and 316 calories per cookie was too much.

14 – A second type of Oreo (with vanilla cookies and chocolate filling) was manufactured with the name ‘Uh Oh Oreo’.  It was rebranded as the ‘Golden Oreo’ in 2007, with the traditional cream filling.


15 – Taking advantage of the neon colour phase of the early 1990s, Oreo cookies dyed the colour of the cream filling in bright shades of hot pink, day-glo yellow and electric blue during 1991 and 1992. 

16 – Oreo cookies also put out special holiday themed cookies for holidays such as Halloween and Christmas.  I particularly loved the Winter White (Oreos dipped in white chocolate), and Oreo Mint (Oreos dipped in mint chocolate) cookies the best, but all of them were quite tasty.


17 – A breakfast cereal was manufactured based on Oreo cookies called “Oreo O’s”.  Picture Cheerios cereal in the same flavour and colour as an Oreo cookie, and that was what the cereal was like.  Unfortunately, you can’t find it in stores anymore, as it was discontinued five years ago.

18 – There was at one time a National Oreo Stacking contest.

Have I bombarded you with enough Oreo trivia yet?  That’s quite a lot to digest, I know.  But, considering that the cookie only celebrates its one hundredth birthday once, this is the perfect opportunity to celebrate the popular cookie.

And, as a special treat to selected countries, Oreo has put out a special birthday themed cookie!


Beginning in February 2012 and running for a limited time only, you can pick up a golden package (or standard blue in the United States) of Birthday Cake Oreo Cookies.  The cream filling on the inside is flavoured like vanilla cake icing with bits of rainbow coloured sprinkles mixed in (and might I add that I have sampled these special celebratory cookies and they are absolutely excellent at that).  I couldn’t think of a better way for the cookie to celebrate 100 years, and I am actually recommending that you at least try them.  But, you better hurry, because they are available for just a limited amount of time.

And, so ends our look back on March 6, 1912.  Now, if you excuse me, I have to go to the store to restock my Oreo supply.