The Freckled Diaries

Hooray for Librarians

To me, this post is less about She Who Must Not Be Named's attempt at banning books from her feifdom's Wasilla's library and more about the great comments of people's love and realization that really, librarians along with journalists are on the front lines of the fight for the First Amendment.

And for the record: just....ick.  It's one thing to have some local crazies band together to burn copies of Harry Potter, or to try to get Our Bodies, Ourselves ripped from the shelves of the local library but it's entirely another for the mayor of a town to unilaterally attempt to do the same (and, possibly, fire the librarian for refusing to comply although that part is unclear).

I'm all for age-appropriate reading materials here, and take serious issue with publishers marketing certain series to audiences which are far too young, even younger than the author intended, but that doesn't mean it needs to be removed from existence!  It just means that parents and guardians have to be as involved in their children's reading materials as they are in their television, movie and internet usage (and if that's "none", well then you get what you get).

Freckles

"Four be the things I'd been better without: love, curiosity, freckles and doubt"

I heard this yesterday and loved it.  I believe it's satirical in nature, playing on what a woman was "supposed" to be like but of course you're better off having love, curiosity and a bit of doubt.  And freckles, apparently, according to Ms. Dorothy Parker.

And thus continues my lifelong love/hate relationship with those mysterious (and kind of annoying) brown spots.

Leaving for the airport in an hour or so--wish me luck!

Who Deserves What?

I listen to a lot of public radio. Beyond Morning Edition, All Things Considered or Marketplace (or whatever else  happens to be on when I'm in the car), I specifically I listen to a lot of public radio programs like Radio Lab (science), This American Life (sort stories, generally non-fiction), A Prairie Home Companion (variety/comedy) etc.  I generally get these in their podcast form thanks to the almighty iTunes.

It's This American Life which has me thinking today.  I've got this nagging question that I think would be great if it were explored by the likes of them but I don't have a full "story idea" at all.  For those who don't know This American Life, it is an hour long show that has a different theme every week and 3 or 4 "acts"--stories that relate to that theme.  They are stories from or about all different sorts of people or events--some very funny, or sad or insightful, or touching.  It's just great.

Anyway, onto my nagging question....who deserves what, and why? I often catch "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" because I'm generally home on Sunday nights and there's not much else on then (prime example of why I don't read as much as I wish I did--gotta work on that).  If you don't know THAT show, basically ABC picks what they term a "deserving family" and basically knock down their old house and put up an insanely amazing house in it's place in a week.  Even to a total cynic it can be a bit of a tearjerker, even with the knowledge that it's basically an hour-long commercial for Disney and Sears. Anyway, I really think that in the show's intro every week they really say "deserving families" but if they don't, that term is used a few dozen times in the hour--the host, the designers, the builders etc.   

Now, before I look like a monster, just about all of these families really need the help.  Most are in dire financial straits due to the untimely death of a parent, or the serious illness of a child or because of a disaster such as a house fire or flood. All of the houses need some very serious work and some are total disasters--unlivable and dangerous. Some would lose the house, period, without ABC's intervention and many more would lose the house if they spent the money to fix its many problems.  More and more the show has been helping families who have in some way done something big for their community--running after school programs, soup kitchens, therapy for the disabled etc. Regardless of their situation in life, how they got into that situation or if they are a "giver" (as the show puts it) they are all called "deserving".

Now, this bugs me on many levels.  First of all, I just don't see the contractors on the show (they always use local contractors) doing this without the cameras running.  Not that they should be expected to do otherwise--it's just a little harder for me to appreciate charity done for profit as much as charity for charity's sake.  This really is only a minor issue for me because I understand enough about business economics to get it--I just don't like how these guys (and that includes Sears and Disney too) are turned into heroes for doing something that they are obviously getting something tangible out of.  Maybe if it was more of a celebration of the greatness of the symbiotic relationship, but I don't see that happening. 

Second, I don't know much about building costs (or exactly how much of the supplies/labor the contractors provide for free) and filming costs etc (though I bet that host, Ty Pennington, makes at least $1M/year) but I'd think that the amount of money that goes into each show could probably build at least 4 moderate homes, therefore helping 4 families.  It's especially difficult when, like last week, they are building in an area hit by a natural disaster (a flood).  On the show, they showed another home building charity which was about to begin helping the community--Extreme Makeover's family had been first on the list but now the next people down got their house earlier than expected.  Weirder still was they went and filmed the family being surprised by the news that they were getting their house that day.  I bet they confused that family quite a bit it was done on camera with the Extreme Makeover host there--I think they thought they were getting an Extreme Makeover house.   But no, they were getting a  nice, modest prefab house that they brought in on a truck on camera.  Either way, I just kept thinking how strange it was that they were building this VERY nice house for one family while they could afford one of these for everyone in town.  Why did that family "deserve" it more? My guess is that the financial situation was a lot tighter--they hadn't even KNOWN that homeowners' insurance doesn't cover flooding--and they had 4 or 5 boys under 13.  That makes for much more interesting television, designing and decorating lots of different rooms etc.

Also, some (note I said SOME, by no means all) of these families are in the situations they're in due to some very poor planning, often surrounding insurance (life, homeowners', flood, etc).  If not, they're living in houses they inherited (therefore only needing to pay utilities, upkeep and taxes on the property--no mortgage) and still the place is in shambles.  Even more, sometimes the place isn't so bad at all but the family has a very sad story, and/or the families are very active in their communities. I'm not saying that these situations are necessarily their fault or that they don't need/"deserve"  help, or a nice house--not at all--I just wonder what makes someone more "deserving" than others or really if anyone can really deserve charity (let alone a luxury home full of plasma televisions) at all.

 

At first, I kind of just figured they were using the term "deserve" as a euphemism for "need"--sort of a way of saving face for the family as most people don't like to think of themselves as "needy" or a "charity case" but I think there's more to it than that. A large part is who makes good television. Now, I can't say anything for certain because I don't watch it all the time, but I'll just go with what I've seen/remember.  These are always families with children--usually young children but I've seen one or two with teenagers.  There are lots of single parents, but usually single due to death or to a lesser extent due to divorce. I can't recall ever seeing one of the "welfare mothers" certain political parties in this country like to use as scapegoats for everything that's wrong with America.  Of course that could be because you have to be a homeowner in the first place to qualify, but still it's strange and I really don't remember ever seeing a single mother who wasn't a divorcee or widow.  I've never seen a childless or elderly couple and it is very rare that any of these builds are done in any urban centers--it's always suburban or rural. 

I think a lot of this has to do with the advertising demographics of who's watching this family show at 8pm on Sundays.  This, combined with the liberal use of the term "deserving" (and because of the limited supply of Extreme Makeover homes more "deserving" than others) makes it seem as though ABC considers you deserving of their help and a luxury house if you fit the demographic of who ABC's advertisers want to sell things to. It's sad to think about all those out there in as bad of situations, or worse, as these families who won't get this help just because they don't make good television, or they don't fit into the advertising demographic.  They don't deserve ABC's help because they can't help ABC.