"House" philosophies and House blogger discrimination

I am semi-watching "House" and really hate it when sitcom writers try to be philosophers and marriage counselors.

There was this section where the one doctor asks this woman why she and her husband had 3somes and did it get that boring (marriage). The woman says, in an authoritative tone, sort of mentor to "student" (because I guess the theme, from the married sitcom writers, is that single people are so stupid they think married life is something from Mars), she says marriages don't fail because they get boring.

Generalization. Sure. That's why men have mid-age crisis and think their spouse is boring and feel they are boring too. Of course some marriage fail due to boredom. If a couple is not matched intellectually they are going to be bored with eachother.

So the "expert" married woman says marriages fail because people act one way before they're married and then another way after they're married. This is true. I believe MANY people treat even long term relationships with extreme care, putting best foot forward, maybe women esp., until they are married and then feel secure to "be themselves" and surprise.

THEN, the woman says "people don't change". I have heard this before, and those who make this claim are the type that WILL NEVER CHANGE and believe everyone else is as stagnant as they are. There are some traits which don't go away, such as the most basic personality composites, but people change all the time and in major ways. There are the spouses who separate because one "changes" and turns into a huge religious fanatic with beliefs that the other spouse doesn't share. Did he marry that person? no, she changed and he didn't want to change with her. There are spouses who separate because one turned into a porn addict late in life. He changed, or something effected a change. Some couples separate after a major tragedy and the stress and inability to understand how the other deals with it. They might lose a baby or have problems having a baby and he may want to move on and she is determined to conceive, hell or high water, and becomes totally obsessed with babies and pregnancy. She changed. Some personality types even shift a little in age. A shy person becomes a raging extrovert and feels this was their true type but was repressed. An extrovert becomes an introvert out of protective measures. Someone who was life of the party, a Wallis Simpson even, who went out with her husband to parties all the time, becomes a recluse after his death. People CHANGE and if they DON'T, that is the strange thing. The tricky part is being accomodating and encouraging change and development in a partner. Either one can live with the changes or they can't. Waiting for someone to change depends on a lot of things. It depends on what it is one thinks might change. If it's circumstantial, or involves others, this kind of thing is possible to change. If it's an addiction, this is possible to change. If it is personality type and dreams and main motivators, this is more difficult to change. If it's an ongoing habit of unfaithfulness or many partners, this is difficult to change unless someone is in counseling or dislikes this about themself or becomes religious and decides it's sin--a habit of wanting many and several partners is going to be difficult to change. Maybe not impossible, like alcohol or drugs, but as a lifestyle, more difficult. Someone's career or job or education--these are things which can change. As for outlook on life and perspective, and willingness to change--I think this correlates highly to personality type to begin with.. Some personality types are more open to change and adaptation and others are more resistant. Neither is "better"--one is more free-spirited and the other type is seen as more stable and grounded (but perhaps more boring as well or resistant to change).

So these little philosophical maxims are not a public service. Some people take this stuff in like it's church.

Some people also use their sitcoms to send a neat message to a faithful watcher. It's not an accident when sitcom writers discover certain persons watch their show and then alter it to deliver little hand-tailored dillemnas and wonderfully proposed solutions. Some writers preach to the choir and some to the most distinguished person in their audience. Then you have a few who have some integrity and actually just write whatever they want and for themselves and not to manipulate others or to make a better buck because some group behind the writer or the media wants to move things in a direction they prefer themselves.

I just looked up "House" and who is behind the program and what the last episodes have been about. In the last few episodes, they have had TWO in quick succession, trying to make BLOGGERS sound like a social and medical problem. What idiots.

You know what, coming from a combo of media or politics and medical professionals, I'm not surprised. I knew I sniffed something out. Any show that tries to make blogging out to be a medical illness and bases an entire episode on it has an agenda. I am seriously wondering who the House fans are that House is trying to influence with social messages.

I think this will be the last House I ever watch.

I cannot, in good conscience, ever be supportive of any show that attacks and discriminates against writers and makes them out to be some kind of nut, simply bc they're a journalist online of their own life or the lives of others and don't have an AP stamp. I don't respect those who have no respect for free speech and try to make liberty and the freedom that the internet provides, a bad thing.

What is troubling to the mass media and those who pulls strings, is that it's harder to contain when there are bloggers who will be independent and write about things no one else would write and who are not under the censorship of even an editor. There are a LOT of people who despise this and feel it is a threat. It is one of the most amazing and wonderful things the internet provides: forum for the commoners and individual voice. It means not just the popular or socially approved have their say and are published, but anyone and everyone and this is a fundamental right and the coverage which is available, to anyone, no matter who they are, is astounding.

To make this into something that is undesirable is an attempt to keep "writers" within a formally accepted establishment, where one must, no doubt, pay dues to be in. Some want to be the deciders of what will be written and who is investigated or questioned.

People are finally able to take a little bit of control over even their own medical problems, because of information on the internet. They are partners in managing their own health. They can ask questions in a private (not really but we like to think so) manner, about health or other issues which could be embarrassing.

It is also the CHOICE of readers, to engage in reading something if they don't want to read it. Which is why Judge Nakata should not have claimed a blog is "harassment" when it's not. Harassment necessitates that someone goes out of their way to be in another person's "space" and a blog is something that one CHOOSES to read and must seek out to find. Defamation is still wrong and should always be wrong, as well as incitement to harassment or hatred. I think there is a line there. Someone who deliberately tries to get others to hate someone and torturre or torment them, and is lying about the person as well, to get this effect, should be held accountable. But writing things which one may not like, thiings which may be offensive to some, are not harassing and it's also an abuse of the law to attempt to censor a blog.

So all of that to say I am not a fan of shows which might try to make bloggers or online journalists appear to be abberants or socially abberrant, because society NEEDs these people and should always encourage free expression within bounds of the law, and not attempt to deter others from trying it out, and should not encourage ostracization of those who do practice their right to free speech.

We now have the ability to question the standard "story" that might get passed down. We're able to compare it to a firsthand account or to other evidence or testimonies. We're able to discover more about even criminal cases as reported by the press, and ask, online even, why something doesn't add up right and wonder aloud. We are encouraging discussion and accountability in an age when the mass media no longer feels obligated to print only the truth and does little by way of restraction and correction. We are able to attempt to defend ourselves even.

I Love Free Speech!

I am The Last Unicorn!

Err...Well, anyway. I was telling my housemate the other night, "All this time I thought I was trying to find the "rainbow pony" and I realized I'M THE FUCKIN' RAINBOUW POUNY and they all want to ride ME!"

I was joking but it made him laugh. I'm still joking a little bit, about the unicorn stuff at least. But I'm not joking about how I'm chagrined over attacks on "bloggers".

Bloggers cannot be good mothers is what I've been told, simply because they "Blog". Of course I never blogged like this when I had my son bc I didn't have time and only did it when he was napping or asleep, but this is message I've received--that "You had better take down your blog" or "You will never get your son back."

Is this America or where the hell AM I?

It is a very sick sign on the health thermometer to have a mother lose her child over a blog, in America where we claim to encourage free speech. It's free as long as it doesn't cost someone else their job, reputation, or standing because they cannot stand to be scrutinized or written about. It's free as long as you blog about "them" and not about "us". It's free as long as one doesn't praise the ideologies which one might not realize are connected to politics and could fuel discontent and uprising or a questionaire about who is in charge and how a poor or middle class person are even able to protect their civil rights anymore, if they are attacked by a larger mob, which is championed by those who want to make fun of activists and keep the status quo.