Blogging The Bach: How Did We Get Here?

First, a confession: In my first Blogging The Bach post I pointed out that People used the exact same language on their Half Their Size covers two years in a row. I also described The Bachelor as "such a silly show on so many levels."  Then, as preparation for this post, I went back and re-read all of my early writing about the show back in 2009, and there it was, in a May 13, 2009 post about the upcoming season of The Bachelorette: "It's such a silly show, on so many levels." Now here I am almost six years later and you could say that I'm not even trying to come up with new language. Guilty.

Anyway, the new season of The Bachelor starts in 6 days and somewhat to my own surprise, I find myself deep in thought pondering all things Bachelor. I've blogged about show off and on since 2009, and this time around I'm thinking I might be a little more intentional about it, i.e., live-tweeting with hashtags during the show and writing a post after the show each week. Note that I probably won't do a scene-by-scene recap, there are plenty of those online already, but I'm sure I can come up with something to snark about on a weekly basis.



So who could have imagined, back on March 25, 2002, when Alex Michel hit the airwaves as the first bachelor, that 13 years later this weird little reality show would be a phenomenon, including not just The Bachelor, but 10 seasons of The Bachelorette, a couple of Bachelor Pads and this summer's Bachelor In Paradise. Yikes. Farmer Chris Soules is the 18th bachelor; can you name all 17 who came before? Me neither but according to Wikipedia, this is the list:

1. Alex Michel
2. Aaron Buerge
3. Andrew Firestone
4. Bob Guiney
5. Jesse Palmer
6. Byron Velvick
7. Charlie O'Connell
8. Travis Stork
9. Lorenzo Borghese
10. Andrew Baldwin
11. Brad Womack (the first time around)
12. Matt Grant
13. Jason Mesnick
14. Jake Pavelka
15. Brad Womack (second try) 
16. Ben Flajnik
17. Sean Lowe
18. Juan Pablo Galavais
19. Chris Soules 

My history with the show is a little spotty. I had heard about ABC's strange-sounding new dating show in the winter of 2002 but for whatever reason at the time I wasn't interested in watching. In those "olden" days the show was only an hour long, running from 8.00 to 9.00 here in the central time zone, and one night about halfway through the season I was planning to watch the show that came on right after The Bachelor. I turned the TV on a few minutes early, just in time to catch my very first rose ceremony, followed by some strange goings-on that were featured in the "Next week on The Bachelor" tease, and the rest is history. I was hooked, at least for a while. 

I watched a few seasons, including Aaron, Andrew F and first Bachelorette Trista, parts of a few more seasons, including Bob G and Byron the fisherman, then I lost interest. My personal Bachelor Dark Ages include the seasons of Jesse, Charlie, Travis, Lorenzo, Andy B and the first Brad Womack. I came back with Matt Grant's season (London Calling...) then I really entered into the whole new world of watching The Bach with Jason M's season in 2009, which I see as the starting point for Bachelor 2.0, which now includes blogs, websites and forums dedicated to following every twitch of the show, spoiler sites that claim to have advance info about what's going to happen, and an active community of tweeters on Twitter that make watching the show a truly interactive experience.

So come along for the ride, it's going to be a doozy, with Bachelor Chris Soules, aka Prince Farming, 30 crazy women, some bloggers, some tweeters and me. I'll meet you on Twitter, (#TheBachelor,) in six nights. 

Thinking About Presidents

It's nice to see the good news from Houston that former President George HW Bush has been released from the hospital. Here's hoping he continues to recover and I'd love to see another cool parachute jump when he turns 95.



At age 90 Mr. Bush is our oldest living former president; Jimmy Carter is also 90, about 3 1/2 months younger than Bush. I hope I don't sound morbid, because it's not my intent, but Mr. Bush's recent hospitalization did get me thinking. I'm interested in presidential history, and the death of any president is a milestone in our country; a time for grief and reflection, and it doesn't happen that often.

In the last 70 years, two presidents have died in office: FDR on April 12, 1945, followed by JFK on November 22, 1963. Prior to 1945, the last president to die was Calvin Coolidge, in January, 1933. After Roosevelt and Kennedy, there have been seven additional presidential deaths:

October 20, 1964:  Herbert Hoover
March 28, 1969:  Dwight Eisenhower
December 26, 1972:  Harry Truman
January 22, 1973:  Lyndon Johnson
April 22, 1994:  Richard Nixon
June 5, 2004:  Ronald Reagan
December 26, 2006:  Gerald Ford

Presidential history geeks know that eight presidents have died in office, four by assassination and four due to natural causes. In addition to John Kennedy, presidents Abraham Lincoln (1865,) James Garfield (1881) and William McKinley (1901) were assassinated; in addition to Roosevelt presidents William Henry Harrison (1841,) Zachary Taylor (1850) and Warren G. Harding (1923) died of various illnesses.

A Grimm Good-Bye

Here at Writing The World, we've been keeping an eye on Representative Michael Grimm (R/New York) all year. He first gained notoriety back in January after the State Of The Union address, when he threatened to throw a reporter off the balcony at the U.S. Capitol. Then after the November mid-terms I noted that unlike kissing congressman/caught on video Vance McAllister, Rep. Grimm did win reelection to his house seat. Shortly thereafter he got in some legal trouble:

From CNN: The Staten Island congressman was indicted in April on 20 counts relating to his health food restaurant, Healthalicious, including charges that he filed false tax returns; engaged in mail fraud, wire fraud and perjury; and knowingly hired undocumented workers.

Initially Rep. Grimm said he would not resign from Congress, even after pleading guilty to felony tax evasion. Now reality seems to have caught up with him, possibly in the person of a very pissed off House Speaker John Boehner, and Grimm has announced that after much thought and prayer, he will, in fact, step down effective Jan. 5.

A new representative will have to be either appointed or elected; whoever that ends up being, he or she can't possibly be as entertaining as soon-to-be-former Representative Michael Grimm.  

Another Royal Cover

Issue dated January 12, 2015


People's still in holiday mode, posting the new cover on Tuesday morning. I guess I'm still in holiday mode too because although I had started to ponder who might be on a Guessing Game list, I hadn't come up with any hot ideas. When I saw this cover my first thought was "slow news day," followed by "really?" Another royal cover? As I frequently say, I'm positive People doesn't have any actual details about how Will and Kate are preparing George for a sibling, because anyone close enough to them to know isn't going to be talking to a People reporter. In the article at people.com they quote a "maternity nurse who has worked with friends" of the royal couple; she spills the beans that "She [Kate] will be mindful that this will be one of the last opportunities for sole George time," a revelation that really doesn't qualify as headline news.

Blogging The Bach (SPOILERS)

Jan. 4 Update: WITH SPOILERS. If you read this post you will see spoilers. Got that? OK, here goes. 

In my regular blogging I'm not planning to write about any of the spoilers floating around, but I do have one thought I want to share before the season starts. I've read Reality Steve's blog and he says the final four women are (here come the SPOILERS) Jade, who is eliminated after hometown dates; Kaitlyn, who is sent home after the Fantasy Suite dates; Becca, who is rejected at the final rose ceremony; and Whitney, who is now engaged to Chris.

Steve's track record is pretty good, but he's been wrong about the ending three times that I can remember. (Ali's season, Brad's second season, and Des's season.) I always wonder how, exactly, he's getting his information, and in particular during Des's season, when he was adamant that Des was engaged to Brooks, when in fact she was engaged to Chris, I wondered if someone from the production company had deliberately arranged for Steve to be given incorrect information. I'm wondering if he's possibly wrong again this time and Chris is really engaged to Becca. 

The reason is that for all the articles I've read in the run-up to the show, (Chris Harrison to People magazine to Kristen Baldwin to Slate magazine and more,) not one mentions Becca. It's like she doesn't exist on the show, except for the fact that RS says she's the runner up. I can't help wonder if it's some kind of elaborate con by the producers, putting Whitney/Kaitlyn/Jade and other women out front and keeping Becca "hidden."


For what it's worth, RS insists he's right:

Now I’m going to say what I say every season in this spot. You can choose to believe this information or not. I know some of you out there are dying for me to be wrong, and pray for it every season. This is not a guess. This is not who I think Chris picked. I’m not predicting who he’s gonna pick based on tea leaves, tarot cards, or how they look together. This information has been told to me by sources. ... If you want to continue to harp on the fact I was wrong about Des’ season, that’s fine. But I nailed every detail of Juan Pablo and Andi’s seasons after that giving you both endings and the whole season within a week after filming ended. This ending I’m giving you two days after it happened, which is the quickest I’ve ever posted the ending. For the next 3 1/2 months I’m sure you will hear a bunch of rumor and innuendo about how this is wrong, or Becca was seen here, or Kaitlyn was seen there, or how I’ve been given wrong information on purpose blah blah blah. Once again, I’m never truly vindicated until the finale airs in March, but just know Chris is engaged to Whitney. Can’t be any more clear than that.

I wanted to get my thoughts on the record, just in case it turns out I'm right. Beyond that, it's time to settle in and watch the fun!  See you Monday night!  

Original post:
I'm a little late posting this new cover, which tells you how little I care about the annual "Half Their Size" story. Whether it's celebrities or regular people, whether they've gained weight or lost it, can we please just stop talking about how much anyone weighs? Plus, there's almost certainly nothing revolutionary to be learned about "what they ate to lose the weight." How much do you want to bet that it involved fruits, vegetables and lower calorie counts in general, plus some exercise? No news there.

Still, the issue must sell well because they do it every year, and as you can see on last year's cover, shown below, they're not even trying to come up with new headline language: Easy Low-Cal Recipes. How They Did It. Half Their Size! No Surgery! No Gimmicks! It's exactly the same.



I'm much more interested in Prince Farming, the new edition of The Bachelor that kicks-off one week from today. After the disaster that was Juan Pablo last time around, (remember "Juanuary?") ABC is really pushing the appeal of new Bachelor Chris Soules, describing him as "hot, rich and humble." There's even going to be a Bachelor float in the Rose Bowl parade on New Year's Day.

Blog readers know I have a love/hate relationship with The Bachelor. It's such a silly show on so many levels, but I have to confess, I do, indeed, watch it. I've also blogged about it, off and on, since starting the blog in February, 2009. My 7th post, back on Feb. 16, 2009, was about the show and how I had started to watch again after a few years away. (Read it here.)

Part of the fun of watching these days is following all the Twitter comments in real time. I'm planning to live-tweet this season, and possibly live-blog as well, so stay tuned for more, much, much more, about The Bachelor.

A Doggie Christmas

Dixon and Jade celebrating the season.

Three More Names

Lindsey Graham. Carly Fiorina. George Pataki. Could any of these three Republicans possibly be the next President of the United States? Probably not, but still. They've all been mentioned, in one way or another, as possibly getting ready to throw their hats into the ring for 2016. (The Federalist had some fun with its article about why Graham, the senior senator from South Carolina, won't actually get to be president, saying that Heather Graham, Franklin Graham, even Alexander Graham Bell are better choices. Read it here.)

In the interest of complete accuracy I'm adding these names to my on-going list of potential nominees.

Potential Republican Candidates
Sam Brownback
Dr. Ben Carson
Chris Christie
Ted Cruz
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindall
John Kasich
Rand Paul
Mike Pence
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Marco Rubio
Paul Ryan
Rick Santorum
Rick Snyder
Scott Walker

Late Adds on December 22
Carly Fiorina
Lindsey Graham
George Pataki

Announced Leadership PAC or Exploratory Committee:
Jeb Bush

Officially Not Running
Rob Portman

Days to election day: 686

An All-Girl Press Conference

Do you recognize the following names: (list from the Washington Post)

1. Carrie Budoff Brown, Politico
2. Cheryl Bolen, Bloomberg
3. Julie Pace, Associated Press
4. Lesley Clark, McClatchy
5. Roberta Rampton, Reuters
6. Colleen M. Nelson, Wall Street Journal
7. Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post
8. April Ryan, American Urban Radio

These are the reporters, the *only* reporters, who were called on at President Obama's press conference this afternoon. They're all from print, radio or on-line media (read: not television) and more interestingly, they're all women. 

As I was watching, I figured it must have been planned, which was confirmed by a tweet from CBS reporter Mark Knoller: TV reporters were advised in advance that @PressSec wanted other reporters not regularly called on to get to question the Pres.

Women really should rule the world!

The Hills Are Alive This Week-end

If you're still scratching your head over NBC's weird Peter Pan a couple of weeks ago, fear not. You can clear the weirdness out of your head not once but twice this week-end. On Saturday night, NBC is rerunning last year's The Sound of Music, not so Live! this time, then on Sunday night, ABC is showing the Julie Andrews version, with sing-along lyrics right there onscreen.

And how about this? The Sound of Music was originally released in March, 1965, which means the film is now 50 years old.

A New Issue

 

Given that last week's issue was called a "Special Double Issue" and looks back on the Best and Worst of 2014, I thought it was the last issue of the year. (In years past the year-end issue has covered a span of two weeks.) Not this time. A final issue, dated December 29, came out yesterday, with Robin Williams on the cover, along with sidebar stories about the Obamas, Drew Barrymore, Lauren Scruggs (who?) and, ick, Stephen Collins.

And if you care about such things, Adweek is out with an article about the best- and worst-selling issues of the year, which is based on newsstand sales and driven primarily by the cover story. The best in 2014? The original story about the death of Robin Williams, dated August 25. (Sales: 1,169,800 copies) The worst: Hillary Clinton, dated June 16. (503,890 copies)



The article, which you can read here, also includes best/worst data for Us Weekly, Star and In Touch. Most interesting thing about all this: Other than a couple of sidebar stories, the Kardashians are nowhere. Not on the best selling covers, and not even on the worst. How about that?

The Bush Bombshell

Did Chris Christie's head just explode? Did Marco Rubio's? Did Mitt's? Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, son of 41 and brother of 43, just announced that he is actively exploring the possibility of running for president and that he will establish a Leadership PAC in January, a pretty strong signal, just shy of an official announcement, that he's running in 2016.

This is a big surprise. One of my favorite political bloggers, Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post, announced that he was STUNNED, and yes, he meant in all caps. Conventional wisdom before this morning appeared to be that none of the potential GOP candidates would announce before the first of the year; in addition, no one was sure Jeb was even going to run. Does he have the requisite "fire in the belly"? Is his family OK with him running? (His wife is extremely private; his daughter had some drug problems while he was governor of Florida, and former First Lady Barbara Bush famously said she didn't want him to run.) Are Americans ready for another Bush presidency? Presumably his family members are now on board, whether or not Americans are ready is another question, not to mention the fact that the thought of another Bush v. Clinton just boggles the mind. (315 millions Americans and we can't find candidates not named Bush or Clinton? Just asking.)

For political geeks the two-years-out jockeying for position just got a lot more interesting. You can read Cillizza's article here; to read some of the stuff that's making opposition researchers salivate, check out Bloomberg Politics and Mother Jones.

Days to election day: 692

Updated list of potential GOP candidates:

Potential Republican Candidates
Sam Brownback
Dr. Ben Carson
Chris Christie
Ted Cruz
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindall
John Kasich
Rand Paul
Mike Pence
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Marco Rubio
Paul Ryan
Rick Santorum
Rick Snyder
Scott Walker

Announced Leadership PAC or Exploratory Committee:
Jeb Bush

Officially Not Running
Rob Portman

A New Picture Of Prince George

Sunday morning update: People has a side-by-side comparison of George and William at approximately the same age, and yes, George is definitely a chip off the old block. On the other hand, even 31 years later, little Will's outfit is way cooler than Prince George's strange getup.



Original post:


A new picture of Prince George, who's now about 17 months old. CNN notes that he's in short pants and knee socks, saying it's a look some may love and some may dismiss as rather twee. Me? Twee. Maybe it's the vest, or the socks, but to my American eyes the little prince looks a little over-dressed. Or maybe that's just how one looks when one is a little prince. Either way he's cute as can be.

Brangelina: How It Began

Seeing Angelina Jolie on the cover of People's year-end review issue got me thinking about the whole Brangelina thing, which started 10 years ago. A quick review: Brad and Angie filmed Mr. and Mrs. Smith in 2004, and although there were rumors during filming about how well the two co-stars were getting alone, in public things were officially fine between Brad and Jen. People reassured the world with a sidebar headline on the cover of the January 17, 2005 issue, announcing "Brad and Jen's Romantic Getaway" and this item inside: 

From the January 17, 2005 issue: 
If you believed the rumors, the four-year marriage of Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt was, if not on the rocks, veering dangerously close to the guardrail. There was Jen at the L.A. airport late last month—without her hubby or her diamond-studded wedding band. Earlier there she was shopping—alone again—in London, where she'd been shooting her new thriller Derailed while Brad was off promoting Ocean's Twelve. Even after her rep Stephen Huvane insisted, "Everything is fine with Jennifer and Brad," the naysayers persisted. 

The latest sighting of the couple (yes, together at last!)—in warm embrace on the Caribbean isle of Anguilla over New Year's weekend—might just change their minds. A source close to the action says Aniston, 35, and Pitt, 41, "were quite lovey-dovey, basically all over each other, hugging and kissing." The couple had been hanging out since Dec. 31 with Jen's former Friends costar Courteney Cox Arquette and husband David Arquette at a private villa. "On New Year's Day," says the source, "Brad and Jen went on a little speedboat ride with Courteney," whose daughter, 7- month-old Coco, stayed behind with a nanny. Later that day Brad was seen tooling around on a moped. Alas, by Jan. 4, the romantic reunion was over: Pitt was off to Miami to attend the Orange Bowl, while Aniston was due back in L.A. to start a new movie. 

The following week, things fell apart and the Brangelina/Jen triangle dominated pop culture for the rest of the year. Here's how it played out through the birth of daughter Shiloh on May 27, 2006, as seen through the filter of People magazine cover stories:  

January 24, 2005


January 31, 2005


April 11, 2005


May 9, 2005


June 20, 2005


July 11, 2005


July 18, 2005


August 15, 2005


September 5, 2005


October 31, 2005


December 19, 2005


December 26, 2005


January 23, 2006


January 30, 2006


February 6, 2006


June 12, 2006


June 19, 2006


Did anything else happen in 2005? Actually, yes. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes got married and had a baby; Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore got married, Charles and Camilla got married, and the first stories about Kate Middleton as a possible royal girlfriend started to appear. Johnny Carson, Peter Jennings and Pope John Paul II died and in late August, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.

25 Most Intriguing

No Guessing Game post this week, and it's time for People's end-of-the-year issue. Angelina Jolie is front and center, in a relatively unglam close-up picture and a headline that promises "The Unbroken director on her wedding, kids, and beautiful year." When I see a headline like that I'm always curious to see if she really gave an interview to People or if they're quoting other articles and "sources." When the magazine hits the stands I'll check it out.

Still Pining For Mittens?

The New York Times published an article yesterday, titled "GOP Donors Seek To Anoint A 2016 Nominee Early" which states that rich Republican donors are looking at Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Mitt Romney as potential "establishment" candidates for 2016. Bush and Christie, no surprise, but Mittens? I thought that little boomlet of nostalgia for the road not taken had come and gone.

In a fun post at The Fix, Chris Cillizza says yes, it has and no, Mitt isn't running. He compares the current longing for Mitt to getting back together with a dating partner you recently broke up with. Cillizza is also one of the authors of the top 10 list I posted on Saturday, and Mittens isn't on it.

Days until election day: 699

A New List

On Friday, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake published a new list of their rankings of the Republican politician most likely to be the 2016 nominee:

1. Rand Paul
2. Chris Christie
3. Jeb Bush
4. Marco Rubio
5. Scott Walker
6. John Kasich
7. Bobby Jindal
8. Ted Cruz
9. Mike Huckabee
10. Paul Ryan

Jonathan Bernstein pushes back against their number one pick: I remain highly skeptical and will have to see some explicit support from important party actors outside of the Paul orbit (and outside of Kentucky, where he and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have developed a working relationship). We know that Paul will have some important opponents within the party, especially on national security. He’s going to need some serious supporters to overcome that. And given the large, strong group of contenders, I just can’t imagine why any (non-libertarian) group of party actors would take on that battle.

[T]he opposition to Paul, and the policy differences between Paul and most of the party, are far deeper than was the case with Romney in 2012.  

Show me evidence Paul is attracting support from mainstream conservatives, and I’ll start believing he’s a viable nominee. Until then, he's an implausible longshot. 

Read Cillizza and Blake here, and Bernstein here.

Days until election day: 702

Peter Pan: So How Was It?

Saturday morning update: Apparently Peter Pan's ratings were about half of what The Sound of Music got last year. Still, NBC says they're committed to the live musical format, and word on the street is that The Music Man could be next year's show, which sounds good to me. It's a lot less "grown men pretending to be young boys surrounded by pirates in pantaloons" and a lot more "Let's have a parade!" And I'm team Christian Borle for Harold Hill. Seventy-six trombones, anyone?

Original post:
In a word, weird. Perhaps the show itself, with its strange combination of flying kids, pirates, native Americans and lost boys, isn't really meant to be showcased here in the 21st century. NBC tried to eliminate the worst of the racist parts, but still. It all just looked weird. As expected, Twitter was ablaze with snark, which was fun; my obsession this morning continues to be the wires. Really? They couldn't figure out a way to mask the wires?

Part of the fun with "Event Television" these days is following along on Twitter in real time (#PeterPanLive,) and there's more fun to be had as reviewers try to out-snark each other the morning after:

From Slate: The real problem for Peter Pan Live! was the source material. That is one weird musical! I grew up watching a worn-out VHS of the Mary Martin version (performed live on television in 1960), and while I recalled lots of angst about mothers and aging, I was not quite prepared for the show’s other endlessly odd innuendos. It’s not just the Lost Boys who are longing for a mother, but the grown pirates, too, who want to kidnap the teenage Wendy and make her their mother (but, you know, not in a creepy way). Peter may be a perpetual boy, but that doesn’t stop Tinkerbell, Wendy, and Tiger Lily from territorially fighting over him, a simmering subtext of nasty girl-on-girl competition over an emotionally stunted man-child. (Peter Pan only passes the Bechdel test because Peter is traditionally in drag.) There are the racial issues surrounding Tiger Lily, who in this version got a slightly updated song, but who was still surrounded by men in loincloths and convinced that the white Peter was the “sun and the moon and the stars.” And, as people on Twitter had endless fun pointing out, there was the homoerotic subtext of the Lost Boys (who share one bathtub) and the very muscular pirates, who dance with each other in pantaloons. Even the ticking crocodile, played by a person in a purple spandex suit, was suggestively slinky.

From The Daily Beast: For all of its large-scale production numbers danced expertly by an army of Lost Boy twinks and psychedelic sets designed by someone clearly flying high on some strong fairy dust, the most egregious thing about Peter Pan Live! was that it was an inexcusable bore.

For three hours. The thing was three freaking hours. ...Then there’s the fact that most of the dialogue, particularly anything uttered by a pirate, makes sense only half of the time. (Though there’s no superlative worthy of describing what it’s like to watch Walken say the line, “I’ve placed the plank on the poop.”) There are weird things about Peter Pan, the musical, that you can’t fault for Peter Pan Live!, the production, for. The script has always been a little bit batty, what with the not-so thinly veiled racism and the whole Peter calling Wendy “mother” but also so clearly wanting to bone her the whole time. And Captain Hook just basically being a bitter, vengeful drag queen.

There were, however, specific decisions made by the creative team of Peter Pan Live! And many of those decisions made no sense. Like, why were all the Lost Boys in Neverland dressed like German schoolchildren, but Peter was dressed like the fairy hobo birthed from the bushes that we all know and love? Did the producers just reuse the Von Trapp children from last year and hope that no one would notice?

From Time.com: To make up for arguing, Peter takes Wendy for a moonlit boat ride, and she shows off her vocals with a new song, “Only Pretend,” that fulfills the same function “Kiss the Girl” does inThe Little Mermaid. But it’s unlike the Disney movie in one respect: Wendy is a tween mom and Peter is played by a woman in a drag acting like a boy who won’t grow up, and who willingly answers when Wendy calls him “father” and/or treats him like a son. Peter Pan is worthy fodder for a gender studies doctoral dissertation.

Finally, a couple of thoughts about NBC's relentless and over-the-top promotion of their masterpiece, starring Brian Williams' daughter:  

From the New York Times: Most of all, Ms. Williams had to surmount the hype and overselling of NBC, a helicopter network that smothered this production with fulsome ads and in-house synergy boosts, including a promo for the NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who is the actress’s father. Mr. Williams skipped anchoring the evening news on Thursday to watch his daughter’s premiere, which is understandable. The newscast’s sizable segment about Ms. Williams and her lifelong fascination with Peter Pan was less so.  Thursday’s show couldn’t entirely live up to NBC’s puffed-up expectations, and the energy sagged halfway through. The performance was too long — it ended at 11 p.m., past the bedtime of its target audience of children and their grandparents, and it was possibly too ploddingly respectful. 

From the Washington Post: I am thoroughly exhausted by the ceaseless cross-promotion and logrolling that defines the NBCUniversal realm now. There’s a point where corporate synergy veers into an area of unseemliness. NBC crossed that line long ago, but are they ever embarrassed by it? By the constant fawning over NBC stars on NBC’s late-night talk shows? Or the vacuous nightmare that’s become the “Today” show? Or the utterly joyless, cheap ocean-cruise quality of this year’s telecasts of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade and Rockefeller Center tree lighting ceremonies, featuring NBC stars half-heartedly plugging their singing-competition shows, dramas and sitcoms? (Even they must be sick of themselves.)
And with that, I'll say so long and farewell to this year's live musical on television. I'll meet you back here next year for NBC's next live holiday extravaganza, The Music Man!

Why Is Peter Pan Always Played By A Woman?

Tonight, in what has apparently become an annual tradition, NBC presents Peter Pan, live. Although last December's The Sound Of Music Live! was not an unqualified success, at least artistically, NBC made a lot of money on it so they're trying again this year. The selection of Peter Pan seems a little strange to me. It's not nearly as well known as TSOM; in fact, after doing some googling I determined that I've never heard any of the songs in the show and I'm guessing a lot of other people haven't either. Without the built-in audience generated by 50 years of The Sound Of Music in theatres and on TV, video and DVDs, I'm curious to see what kind of audience Peter Pan actually draws.

As I was doing my research I did learn one interesting thing. The character of Peter Pan, a young boy, is almost always played by a woman. Why? Slate.com has the answer:

In his 1979 book, J.M. Barrie and the Lost Boys: The Real Story Behind Peter Pan, English writer and director Andrew Birkin recounts the backstory for the first stage productions. Broadway producer Charles Frohman enthusiastically agreed to produce the play, and he made a couple of suggestions to the author. First, that it be titled, simply, Peter Pan; Barrie’s working title was The Great White Father, which is what Barrie has the Indians call Peter. (That phrase has uncertain origins but was—and is—used by some Native Americans to refer to white leaders.) Second, Frohman asked that, in America, the starring role of Peter be played by his protégé, Maude Adams. Frohman reasoned that a man would be wrong for the part, and if they cast a boy, the other children “would have to be scaled down in proportion.” English law prohibited the use of minors under 14 on stage after 9 p.m. So a woman it was.

I'm planning to watch tonight, at least at the beginning. Last year during The Sound of Music, the most interesting part of the whole event was reading the hilarious tweets bouncing around for the duration of the program and I'm assuming it will be the same tonight. So for now, on with the show!  

True Crime

People goes with a True Crime/Dead Blonde Woman cover. Kate gets a sidebar, along with Reese Witherspoon's new movie, holiday cookies and movie stars in glam dresses.

For the record, I don't like the website redesign, although I'll probably get used to it.

Spatchcocked?

Do you know what spatchcocked means? I promise I'm not talking dirty and I didn't just insult you. Spatchcocking is a method of boning a chicken or turkey then spreading it out on a pan to cook. The meat cooks more evenly than a traditional upright bird and the skin is crispier.

I had never heard the word spatchcock until last week, then all of a sudden it was everywhere, apparently the newest and coolest way to cook a big bird. I haven't tried it yet but it sure seems like a good idea. J. Kenji Lopez-Alt at Serious Eats has the details.

The Guessing Game

Who will be on the cover of People this week? Possibilities:

Janay Rice: She's currently in the midst of a very strategic, well-orchestrated PR campaign to "rehabilitate" her husband's image so an NFL team will sign him to play. After interviews with ESPN and Matt Lauer, a People cover story would be a logical next step.
Scarlett Johansson: Got married secretly in October
Snooki: Got married last week-end
Will and Kate: Coming to America December 7-8. Prince Harry is also a possibility.
Jennifer Lawrence and/or Taylor Swift: They're inescapable. Both of them.
Christopher Walker and/or Allison Williams: Starring in NBC's live TV production of Peter Pan. The Sound of Music (Live!) was such a success last year, financially if not artistically, that NBC is doing another live musical this week. Note that Allison Williams is Brian Williams' daughter.
Kim Kardashian: Believe it or not, she "visited the troops" last week, stopping by the USS San Diego in Abu Dhabi. I've also seen a tiny little rumble suggesting that all is not well with Kimye. Apparently she spent Thanksgiving Day at Khloé's house; hubby Kanye was spotted in Paris the same day.
Elizabeth Lauten: Congressional staffer who resigned after sending out a judgmental and very unkind tweet about Malia and Sasha Obama.

Update: I just thought of another possibility: Melissa McCarthy, who recently lost some weight. I really, really hope I'm wrong, because we absolutely don't need another story celebrating a woman's thinner body.

Wednesday morning update: People.com's messing with my head this morning. They've redesigned the website and if the new cover is posted there, I can't find it. I'll keep checking.

Webb Drops In, Portman Drops Out

About a week and a half ago former senator Jim Webb, a Democrat, announced that he has formed an exploratory committee, one of the steps to running for president. Now the first possible Republican candidate has officially announced that he's not running. Ohio senator Rob Portman says he's going to run for reelection to his senate seat, because the incoming Republican majority provides a real opportunity to get things done. He also says that he can't be an effective senator and run for president at the same time.

Is he also subtly dissing Kentucky Senator Rand Paul? Paul is struggling to figure out a way to comply with his state's rule which says that you can't be on the ballot for two positions in the same election. Paul is up for reelection to the senate in 2016 and he's also almost certainly going to run for President. Just in case the presidency thing doesn't work out, he wants his name on the ballot for senator too; if Kentucky Republicans had won a majority in the state senate last month, they apparently were going to change the law for him. Alas, the Democrats retained control, so Senator Paul is looking for another solution.

I've updated my list of potential Republican candidates:

Potential Republican Candidates
Sam Brownback
Jeb Bush
Dr. Ben Carson
Chris Christie
Ted Cruz
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindall
John Kasich
Rand Paul
Mike Pence
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Marco Rubio
Paul Ryan
Rick Santorum
Rick Snyder
Scott Walker

Officially Not Running
Rob Portman

Days until election day: 706

Worship According To Their Own Beliefs, And Solve Crimes

The Jamestown, Mayflower Daughters of the American Revolution Preservation Society, I don't know, the Thanksgiving Revolutionary War Reenactment. It's a festival feast of some kind. Who cares?

Thanksgiving fun from The West Wing. Love it.

The Top Twelve

Jonathan Bernstein, who blogs at Bloomberg View, is my favorite political blogger. He's a political scientist with a doctorate and prior to his blogging gig at Bloomberg, he was a professor at the University of Texas. He's keeping a close eye on who the potential 2016 presidential candidates are and in a post today says that the Republican nominee will probably come from this list of twelve:

Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Paul Ryan
Rick Perry
John Kasich
Mike Pence
Marco Rubio
Bobby Jindal
Scott Walker
Rob Portman
Mike Huckabee
Rick Santorum

In my So Who Is Running For President In 2016 post from November 5, I had these 12 names plus six more (Sam Brownback, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, Rick Snyder) that Bernstein doesn't consider to be viable or plausible. In particular, he says that neither Rand Paul nor Ted Cruz, who are on or at the top of many of the current "possible" lists, are viable:

No, I didn't forget Senators Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. They are running serious campaigns, but I don't think they are viable nominees. Paul isn’t within the party mainstream on several issues, most importantly national security. As for Cruz, it isn't just that he has annoyed far too many party actors. The failure of the government shutdown he spearheaded in 2013 surely convinced others that he can't be trusted to look out for the Republican Party. ...[W]ith a full field of serious candidates already in place, the winnowing is probably just around the corner. Read the entire post here. 
Let the winnowing (and the announcing) begin! 
Days until election day: 714

The Cover Story

People's new cover is out early again this week, and there's Bill Cosby. In the Guessing Game post I had begun to formulate in my head, Mr. Cosby was at the top of my list of potential cover stories, although at age 77, he is way, way outside People's target demographic, not to mention that's he's now most famous for being an accused rapist. I figured it would probably be a sidebar story, but People goes for it, putting Cosby front and center. They didn't, however, use a current photo; the cover pic is from 25 years ago ("... at the height of his fame.")

As many of the current news stories have pointed out, some of these accusations have been around for years, they just didn't get traction and widespread coverage until now. In fact, People had a long article about it, titled "Bill Cosby Under Fire," in the issue dated December, 18, 2006, and a lot of it sounds very familiar:

What Cosby never mentioned [during a performance on Nov. 10, 2006] was the civil lawsuit he settled just two days earlier with Andrea Constand, 32, a former Temple University employee who claimed Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her in his Philadelphia-area mansion in 2004. Constand's lawyers Dolores Troiani and Bebe Kivitz ended up with 13 witnesses, most referred to in court documents as "Jane Does," who came forward voluntarily with strikingly similar claims of drugging and or abuse by Cosby. Terms of the settlement, reached before any of the women could testify, were not disclosed. But PEOPLE reporters have interviewed five of the women and share three of their stories now. 

But none of them stand to profit from suing Cosby for monetary damages; the statute of limitations on all their charges has expired. And their stories, which take place in several cities and span two decades, illustrate the same pattern of behavior, primarily the accusation that Cosby, then one of the most powerful entertainers alive, targeted them because they were vulnerable and gained their trust by promising to help their careers. PEOPLE contacted Cosby to get his response to the allegations; through his longtime publicist David Brokaw, Cosby said he had no comment. 

Read the entire article here.

How will this end? No way to know. As lawyers are pointing out, Cosby is almost certainly not in any legal jeopardy, and since the women are telling their stories publicly, there's no incentive for him to buy their silence. It's also unlikely that he'll submit himself to any kind of "purge and redeem" interview with Oprah, Matt Lauer or Anderson Cooper. I'm hoping that very soon he'll tell his lawyers to shut up and stop spouting nonsense, cancel his remaining "appearances" and disappear from public view. Let him spend the rest of his years quietly pondering the good, the bad, the ugly and the indefensible of his legacy.

Please Don't Go Shopping On Thanksgiving Day

I just saw a commercial for Walmart in which they promoted their Black Friday shopping deals, and in particular the fact that the deals actually start at 6.00 p.m. "Thursday." The commercial was over before I realized that although it talked about shopping on Black Friday and on "Thursday," never once did it acknowledge that the Thursday they were talking about is, in fact, Thanksgiving Day.

Please, please, please don't go shopping on Thanksgiving Day. If we all stay home, pretty soon it won't be worth it for brick-and-mortar stores to open on the holiday and all their employees will be able to celebrate Thanksgiving in whatever way they choose.

Really. Don't go shopping on Thanksgiving.

Note: this post has been corrected. In the first sentence I originally referred to "Good" Friday. I meant Black Friday, of course.

Innuendo?

Do you know what innuendo means?

From The Merriam-Webster Dictionary: by hinting. Hint, insinuation, esp a veiled reflection on character or reputation.

From Webster's New World College Dictionary: an indirect remark, gesture, or reference, usually implying something derogatory; insinuation.

From dictionary.com: an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.

I asked the question, and answered it, because apparently Bill Cosby doesn't know what innuendo means. Here's what he said Friday night, referring to the 15 or so woman who have accused him of rape or sexual assault:

"I know people are tired of me not saying anything, but a guy doesn't have to answer to innuendos," he said this weekend. "People should fact check. People shouldn't have to go through that, and shouldn't answer to innuendos."

Just to be clear, Mr. Cosby, these women are not saying that you "may have been inappropriate in possibly, maybe a sexual way." That's innuendo. 

On the contrary, Mr. Cosby, they say you drugged, raped and/or sexually assaulted them. That's not innuendo. It's not anonymous accusations and it's not extortion. These women are speaking out publicly, on the record, by name, with no hope or expectation of financial gain. If you have any hope of clearing your name against these very specific allegations, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than saying "a guy doesn't have to answer to innuendos."  

For the record, I don't think you can. 

Not Deeply Tasteful

A few posts ago I said that a full frontal naked picture is crossing a line, even for Kim Kardashian. Does Vogue editor Anna Wintour agree? No way to know for sure, but she did take a subtle shot at Kimye earlier this week. Regarding the infamous Vogue cover with Kim and Kanye in wedding clothes and the hashtag #worldsmosttalkedaboutcouple, Wintour sprang forth with this:

I think if we just remain deeply tasteful and just put deeply tasteful people on the cover, it would be a rather boring magazine! Nobody would talk about us. It's very important that people do talk about us. 

I'm not going to post the naked picture but I will re-post this one, to help you make up your mind about just how deeply tasteful Kim and Kanye really are. 

And They're Off!

The 2016 presidential race is officially underway! The first candidate in the race has announced an exploratory committee, the devil's-in-the-details first step to actually running for president. Surprisingly, it's a Democrat - Jim Webb, Vietnam-era Marine Corp veteran, former Virginia senator and Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan. Realistically, he's a long shot, even if Hillary opts not to run and an exploratory committee is slightly less official than actually saying "I declare my candidacy..." but still, it's a traditional first step and sure to be the first of many. Here's how cnn is covering it, and here's a link to Webb's on-line announcement.

Days until election day: 718

What I Know About Bill Cosby

In the early 1980s I was living in New York City and working as a flight attendant. I shared an apartment with three other flight attendants, one of whom was having an affair with Bill Cosby. I think she met him on a flight but I don't remember that part for sure. I even spoke to him on the phone once. In those pre-cell phone days, we had one landline phone and we all used the same phone number. I answered the phone one day and it was Mr. Cosby, looking for my roommate. I advised him that she wasn't home at the moment and I would give her the message. He said thank you and that was it.

Unlike rape, infidelity isn't illegal and cheating on his wife doesn't prove that he rapes women. On the other hand, when The Cosby Show hit it big in 1984 and Cosby became America's warm, wise, cuddly role model husband and father, I had personal evidence that his private life didn't match his public image.

The whole sordid Cosby story appears to have hit the "tipping point." Yesterday NBC canceled plans to make a new sitcom starring Bill Cosby. AP released the unedited version of a Nov. 6 interview with Cosby and his wife, in which he says "I don't talk about it," referring to the rape accusations, then asks the reporter to "scuttle" that part of the interview. At The Daily Beast, entertainment blogger Mark Ebner has a devastating article titled "I Warned You About Bill Cosby" that refers to a story first posted on his blog in 2007. The entire article is fascinating and horrifying; you can read it here. If you're wondering how there can be such a disconnect between a famous man's public image and his private actions, the final paragraph provides a clue:

As is equally clear from his shambolic talk-show appearances and his extemporaneous attempts at social commentary in a public forum, Bill Cosby has long existed in a bubble. You don’t create movies like Leonard, Part 6, a catastrophically conceived 1987 James Bond parody in which the comedian at one point rides an ostrich, and not be dangerously out of touch with the world around you, or protected behind layers of hierarchy and protocol. With this much darker turn into pathology and alleged predation, it appears that for the entire 45 years of his public life, Cosby has been, in Shawn Upshaw’s words, “an incurable womanizer,” adulterer, and accused serial rapist—alleged actions in which his media champions were complicit. Moreover, the duration and degree of these incidents suggest a parallel history, one that once revealed in all its explosive detail, may render what we now know so far merely the tip of the iceberg.

Read the original story from January, 2007 here.

The Sexiest Man Alive

People goes with Chris Hemsworth, who I had barely heard of before this morning. If you're in the mood for a review, here's a list of all the previous winners.

1985 Mel Gibson
1986 Mark Harmon
1987 Harry Hamlin
1988 John Kennedy, Jr.
1989 Sean Connery
1990 Tom Cruise
1991 Patrick Swayze
1992 Nick Nolte
1993 Sexiest Couple: Richard Gere and Cindy Crawford
1995 Brad Pitt
1996 Denzel Washington
1997 George Clooney
1998 Harrison Ford
1999 Richard Gere
2000 Brad Pitt
2001 Pierce Brosnan
2002 Ben Affleck
2003 Johnny Depp
2004 Jude Law
2005 Matthew McConaughey
2006 George Clooney
2007 Matt Damon
2008 Hugh Jackman
2009 Johnny Depp
2010 Ryan Reynolds
2011 Bradley Cooper
2012 Channing Tatum
2013 Adam Levine

To do some demographic sorting, two of the men on this list have died (JFK, Jr. and Patrick Swayze,) three have appeared twice (Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Johnny Depp, plus Richard Gere, once as part of a couple and once by himself,) and only one, Denzel Washington, is black. Two, Gibson and Nolte, definitely haven't aged well. You can see all the actual covers here.

If you're interested in how People decides who gets the nod each year, and how that process has evolved, check out a great article at slate.com. I love their description of current and recent winners:

The Sexiest Man Alive of this moment is reliably white, straight, mid-30s, handsome to women, relatable to men, ideally suitable for both your grandmother’s coffee table and your niece’s Tumblr, mired in no known scandals, famous enough to have starred in a blockbuster film or high-rated television show in the past year, but desperate enough to agree to subject himself to a revealing shirtless pictorial and embarrassing psycho-sexual interview in People’s pages. 

I had suggested Bill Cosby, Solange Knowles and Honey Boo Boo as possible sidebar stories, but people went with a Dead Blonde Girl, Diem Brown.

The Guessing Game

There's no suspense about the cover story this week - the so-called Sexiest Man Alive will be announced this evening on the Jimmy Kimmel show. Who will it be? Not sure. Right now Brad Pitt comes to mind, with the whole dedicated-husband-and-father thing he's got going on. Beyond that I'm not sure. I'll update this post if I think of anyone else. In the meantime, people.com has a fun retrospective about Sexiest Men past; you can read it here.

BTW, do you remember who last year's sexiest man was? Adam Levine.

There probably won't be any non-sexy sidebar stories, but if there are, Bill Cosby, Honey Boo Boo and Solange Knowles are possibilities.

Another thought: Last week, at least for a few weird moments, you'd have thought that Kim K's naked body was the most important news story on the planet. I'm happy to report that when I first starting thinking about who might be on this week's cover, my brain had repressed the whole "glazed butt/naked body" thing from last week. Now it's back and yes, People might want to jump on the bandwagon, just a few days late, and put a (probably not naked) pic of Mrs. West on the cover. We'll know soon.

A Cheeky Little Minx At The Top Of Her Game, A Beautiful Anime Character Come To Life

The title of this post refers to the woman with the butt seen 'round the world. The first part is from Piers Morgan, writing at dailymail.co.uk, with an interesting perspective on Mrs. West. Hint: he likes her. The second part is from the article at Paper magazine, almost certainly to be read by almost no one. This time it really is about the pictures.

Morgan is entitled to like her if he wants to, of course. He says he's met her several times and he perceives her to be "a warm, unpretentious, honest and rather charming young lady." (Minor quibble from me: young lady? She's 34.)

I could deconstruct the article, sentence by sentence, 'graph by 'graph, but I've reached my limit of Kardashian-think, at least for the moment. Other than one last thought, I'm going silent on the Ks for a while, with my usual caveat that if something even more outrageous happens in K-world I may once again be compelled to break out in blogging.

As for that last (multi-part) thought, here goes:

Statement from Kim, quoted by Piers: "I think I promote a healthy, natural body image." (Reminder from me: This is from long before she proved that she can balance a champagne glass on her butt.)

Then this, from Piers: She admitted to using Botox, Spanx and the odd piece of masking tape... I have studied her face up close and see nothing to contradict this; Kim's a natural beauty. (Snarky question from me: Really, Piers? Really? A natural beauty? Is it possible that while evaluating her face you were distracted by other body parts? Just asking.)

Finally, this, from the article in Paper magazine, just before they get to the part about her "two hours of hair and make-up every day": Her black hair is thicker than any you have ever seen, her lips fuller, her giant Bambi-eyes larger, their whites whiter, and the lashes that frame them longer. If some of this is the result of artificial enhancement -- does anyone else have eyelashes that resemble miniature feather dusters? -- none of it seems obviously ersatz. But that's not to say it looks real, either. She is like a beautiful anime character come to life.

Healthy, natural body image, or anime character come to life? You decide. You can read Piers' article here and the Paper article here.

Why?

I spent yesterday trying to decide if I had anything original to say about that picture of Kim Kardashian's naked backside. As the day went on I decided that I didn't. The picture had generated the full spectrum of wailing, complaining, mocking, twitter shaming, and of course, copying (yes, it's everywhere, but not here. Just go to Google.)  Then this morning people.com had a headline announcing that Mrs West had gone gone full frontal naked. Yowza.

Thoughts:

I know I'm not the prime audience for this stuff but still, I have to say that the "Kim's butt" picture just isn't that attractive. It's not sexy or even erotic and to my eyes it doesn't look natural. Brian Moyland, writing at time.com yesterday said her butt looks like a "glazed Krispy Kreme doughnut," and I agree. I also think the waist has been seriously photoshopped. The whole thing just doesn't look real to me.

Then there's the full frontal naked shot. Is this really what Kim wanted? Did she really want that picture to go public? Did Kanye? The magazine is saying that Kim was really into it during the photo shoot and that she suggested the naked shot, but the whole thing just feels off to me. The goofy expression on her face, for one thing. It doesn't even look like her. I'm also surprised that as far as I can tell, as I'm writing this at 2.00 p.m. central time, neither Kim, nor her mother nor Kanye have commented since the naked picture was released. Usually they can't take to Twitter fast enough when a new picture of Kim comes out.

Finally, at least for now, what does this do to the Kardashian brand? How does their employer, the E! network, feel about it? Is there some kind of morals clause in their contract? Kim's body has always been a big part of her public persona, and lately she's been wearing outfits that don't leave much to the imagination, especially above the waist. Do I sound like an out-of-touch old biddy if I say that even in this day and age, full frontal nakedness crosses a line and I'm wondering why, exactly, Kim did it and what she thought the benefit (to her) would be. Once the picture's out there she can't get it back and I think it's at least possible that she'll come to regret it. Stay tuned.

Brooke Shields

Brooke Shields gets the main cover story this week, as part of a PR campaign for her new book. Ebola survivor Amber Vinson is back after first appearing in a sidebar story on the Oct. 22 cover. I've never heard of Marnie the dog.