The Appeal of Apple TV

How do I wish to revise thee? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
There are so many technology changes in the entertainment world, it's hard to keep them all straight. We have DVR, Tivo, Satellite, Cable pay-per-view, Dolby home entertainment systems, iPod video etc etc etc. We pretty much have a way to see anything, anywhere at our convenience.

Gadget geek and Apple fan that I am, it was a matter of time until I purchased Apple TV. Apple TV is a set top box that streams all of your iTunes media to your HDTV. This includes movies, TV shows, music, podcasts, audio books and photographs. I installed mine two days ago and have been pretty impressed by it. It was easy to install and its Airport Wireless card instantly recognized my DSL network. It beautifully renders all of my iTunes media in 1080i resolution, on my 52" Panasonic TV. It shows movie trailers as well as Top 10 clips for movies and TV shows. And, with its most recent OS update, it shows YouTube videos -- hackers in the Apple TV support forum say that Apple TV is a 'dumbed down' Mac OS computer. You can sync a computer's iTune content with Apple TV so the content is viewable w/out booting your Mac or PC computer. You can also stream media directly from a computer if it's booted and iTunes is running. The streaming works very well, with few or no hiccups from interrupts.

Now, what are my kvetches? You might know that I would have a couple. It took 14 hours to sync my iTunes library (w/ @ 20 GB of material) to the Apple TV. Granted, you only really do that once, but it's an extreme length of time. The other problem I noticed today is that it doesn't have an on/off switch. It's intended to be 'always on' with just a standby mode for energy conservation. What would Al Gore say? I guess this is for on-the-ready iTunes syncing but I sync things very infrequently. This morning after 8 hours of standby, my Apple TV was hot enough to fry an egg. The online FAQ says that that's normal and the cover is just a 'heat sink'. Well, "whatever". I'd prefer that my small appliances not be running a fever when they're not directly in use.

With software, the sky is the limit as far as what Apple TV might do. The YouTube and movie trailers already demonstrate the ability to tie into web sites and stream media files from the Internet. Here are some enhancements I'd like to see, to make the device really a must-have:

• Give us a direct access to iTunes. Don't force another computer to act as 'middle man' -- let Apple TV be your total media center and repository. Make purchases directly from the Apple TV device.
• Let Apple TV play other media formats like Windows avi files.
• Give it an optional wireless keyboard and provide an email client -- maybe even fit it out with a web browser. You could entertain yourself and process emails all in the comfort of your living room lazee boy recliner. You wouldn't want it to replace a desktop computer but the email would a nifty add-on
• YouTube is just a start; there are many other entertainment web sites -- Comedy Central, Nick at Nite and Disney to name a few. Give access to a variety of network Web sites.
• If iTunes Store is made available on Apple TV, then make its USB port recognize a connected iPod and sync up with the iPod. Currently the USB port is only for diagnostics.

Of note, Microsoft made an attempt to tap this same market 10 years ago with 'Web TV'. At that point, connections were too slow, and the hardware was too bulky for the product to fare very well. DSL, Cable modem, HDMI and a few other advances have removed most of these obstacles. The long-term repercussions are interesting. Apple already changed its name from 'Apple Computer' to 'Apple Inc' when the iPhone was announced. With Apple TV, Apple Inc. is actually venturing into Time Warner, Comcast and AT&T territory. What might they conquer next? I used to think Microsoft would insidiously take over the world. I'll have to rethink that now -- Apple is showing up in the most unusual places and doing it well.

© 2007 blogSpotter

The Problem with Third Parties

Could Bloomberg be a Spoiler? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
The whole idea behind political parties is that there is power in numbers. A band of people with similar (but by no means identical) sentiments builds a coalition based on a few common viewpoints. It would be unwieldy and unworkable to have a party to represent every distinct outlook. It would very nearly amount to the dissolution of the social contract -- cavemen had such a system. In the caveman days, official acts were finalized by clubbing someone in the head.

Now in a civilized world, we have party politics. Does a given party represent every aspect of you or me? Well no, not at all. We pick a team based on the overall temperament of a party. When I hear of a Ross Perot running for the 'Reform' Party or Ralph Nader running for the Green Party, a couple of words come to mind: spoiler and egomaniac. In such cases, the candidate would perform a far greater service stating his case in a convention, representing a wing of an established party. It is no surprise that such people are full of hubris and selfishness -- they are basically living out a fantasy. They hope that an out-of-control groundswell of grass roots passion will sweep them into office. Rather than working a one-man revolution, these men basically get their political, egomaniacal 'rocks off' at the expense of the nearest mainstream party.

Now there is talk of New York's Michael Bloomberg running as an independent. He was most recently a Republican (since 2001) but not very convincingly. He disavowed that party last week in a press conference. It's a coin flip to say which party his candidacy would hurt the most. Voters should use a probability approach to figure a voting strategy. If a candidate realistically has no chance of being elected, your vote for him will be wasted in a constructive sense. It will be damaging to the candidate in the closest party -- that will be the greatest effect of all.

Perot elected Clinton in '92 and Nader gave us Bush in '00. The people voting for 3rd Party pipe dreams can never drink away the guilt of what they did to their respective parties -- it's too monumental. When you see a man going on a third party ego trip, let him finish that ride by himself. The consequences are very real after all. Is any candidate a perfect reflection of you? Absolutely not. Is there a likely-to-be-elected candidate that you'd rather have in office? Absolutely. And the laws of probability will never give third parties credible results. Third parties just create personality cults for election-stealing, pompous fools.

© 2007 blogSpotter

The Wefare Fallacy

Chicago's Cabrini Green being Demolished -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I drove by Wycliff and Cedar Springs here in Dallas yesterday, and noticed the ramshackle apartments. There was a sign posted with some kind of zoning proposal. My hope is that the firetrap apartments will be torn down for a mixed use complex but my fear is that they could be zoned as Section 8 -- code words for 'welfare housing'. If that were to happen, you would have merchants frantically relocating and Oak Lawn neighbors up in arms. The politically incorrect, painful truth is that a housing project is far more likely to bring crime and poverty into your area. And once a property has the 'Section 8' designation, it will get nothing but tenants whose rent checks are guaranteed by the government.

My feeling is that there should be no Section 8 housing or housing projects -- anywhere. All residents should pay for their space with hard-earned money, and select their residences based on criteria other than government guarantees. You might inquire, "What of poor people who have no jobs?” The jobless condition is something which entrenches itself after so many years of welfare payouts. I have some proposals for ending this low self-esteem cycle:

• End all welfare payouts with two exceptions: short-term unemployment for anyone who has recently lost a job (and is actively job-seeking), and welfare given to extremely handicapped or impaired citizens who couldn't otherwise work.
• Provide free daycare for households with children. This would ultimately cost less than providing round-the-clock care for the entire family in the form of welfare.
• Provide adequate earned income credit for low-skill jobs, so that the employee can support a family as needed.
• Provide vocational training and tuition reimbursement; offer education (with a minimum hours requirement) as an alternative to work.
• In the unlikely event that the free market economy cannot offer a job, offer government service positions (e.g. at Post Offices or military bases) to help 'prime the pump'.

If you give people 'money for nothing', they will become utterly dependent on it. It will become a cycle that repeats itself to eternity. People need a higher goal than simply meeting a food and shelter requirement. That brings me to the next point.

In 1943, Abraham Maslow devised 'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs'. His needs from lowest to highest were:
Physiological, Safety, Love & Belonging, Esteem and Self Actualization.

Maslow felt that progression to one level could not happen unless the prior level's needs were met. In the welfare trap, project residents never make it past the 'Safety' level. They never have the esteem or actualization that comes with a job title, or from making a creative contribution. The young men are more likely to become 'gang bangers' because they seek some type of distinction. They want to declare, "I exist, I matter, and I make a difference". With the closed doors they currently face, they might feel the only outlet is through crime and gang membership.

There is a strong undercurrent of Anglo hypocrisy and racism that accompanies our welfare state. In most American cities, the ghetto is geographically distinct and separate -- usually on the other side of a river, rail yard or interstate highway. Out of site, out of mind. It's easier to pay out welfare than to deal with people individually. If we actually ended welfare we might bring true integration to our society. Despite all talk of equal opportunity and racial equality, the "isms" are alive and well.

Private companies would dislike the idea of 'pump priming'. They wouldn't want the government competing for the labor pool that we have. Agribusiness would hate losing the food stamp market. It's almost as if poverty is the “opportunity cost” that Anglo society and corporations (largely the same group) gladly pay to have exclusive use of the labor pool, and to keep minorities in their poverty-stricken Gulags. If poor people paid for an apartment or house with money earned, they would have a sense of belonging and pride – the home would be a reflection of the self. There would be far less tolerance for tag art, vandalism or violence. Eliminating welfare would turn nearly every citizen into a stakeholder to some extent. Your 'bad neighborhood' would become just your working class neighborhood if we were to eliminate the Welfare Fallacy.

© 2007 blogSpotter

The Meek Shall Inherit the Music

The browsing is good at CD World -- Picture courtesy of CD World

by blogSpotter
This week's Rolling Stone has an interesting article about the decline of the recording industry, which has happened noticeably in the last 7 years. 36% of all record stores have closed since 2000. Global music revenue is down 14% since 2000. CD sales are down markedly, and thousands of record industry employees have been laid off. The article predicts that some behemoth companies will bite the dust, while others may diversify into related areas such as concert tours, TV/movie deals and product merchandising. The article points fingers at various technological phenomena, but ultimately places blame with myopic record company execs themselves.

Interestingly enough, the wee little iPod and iTunes get nary a mention. Apparently the record industry's slide to oblivion started a little bit pre-iPod, when file sharing services such as Napster and LimeWire came on the scene. Instead of looking for cooperative solutions, record companies sought to shut down the services and enforce strict DRM (digital rights management) limits on purchased music. The end result was a losing tug-of-war where high school and college kids did easy end runs around the copyright warnings and download restrictions. Now, late in the day, the record industry is finally learning how to "make nice" with technology. Media companies like NBC are figuring out how to leverage publicity and advertising from short clips on YouTube. A lot of material is given away freely, with subliminal ads embedded.

The Rolling Stone article didn’t mention one thing that plays a part. Music sucks nowadays – maybe my half century outlook is shading my opinion. In the 80’s, we had luminaries like Prince, Madonna and Michael Jackson. We had mega-groups like Duran Duran. In the 2000’s we have anemic wannabe’s like James Blunt or Maroon 5. Music that isn’t terrible is at best, blandly derivative. My fiftyness is probably showing – I remember when old people were putting down “my generation”. Now I guess it’s my turn to be the old wind bag. Somehow, I think my complaints are more legitimate though.

Given that record stores are collapsing before our eyes, where is an honest man supposed to go for his music? I might want the Police greatest hits CD or the new Paul McCartney CD. We have several options:

Online music sites – iTunes and Rhapsody
Online stores -- Amazon.com
Big box stores – Target and Wal*Mart
Trendy cafes -- Starbucks
“Little guy” CD stores

This last category is most interesting. Here in Dallas we have such emporiums as CD World, CD Universe and Blues Records. These little shops have been around a long time – in fact some might even predate the biggies like Tower, Virgin or Sound Warehouse. In days of yore, non-name CD shops were deemed as pathetic little quasi head shops. They now are your place to go if you want something unusual, hard-to-find or merely not in the Billboard Top 50. The little guys are also more likely to have freebies of new groups and local artists. You can unload your old CD’s at some of these places, while expanding your horizons.

Ecclesiastes said, “The race is not always to the swiftest”. Well now we have the proverb played out in front of us – the tortoise has out lapped and outlasted the hare. Do I miss Tower Records? You bet – I liked the endless rows of songs I could choose from, as well as the zany people at the checkout counter. But the internet is a “virtual” record store with a gazillion aisles. Instant downloads give instant gratification if you’re willing to forego the CD case and packaging. No brick and mortar store could hope to compete. There are times when I want that really obscure song or local artist; CD World beckons. I may smell some incense and have a 60’s flashback while I browse. So be it. I’m not bothered too much – this is after all what happens when the Meek inherit the music.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Forever Tuesday

Turning on and Tuning in -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
LSD will turn 70 next year. What is LSD? It's lysergic acid diethylamide. It was invented at Sandoz Laboratories in 1938 by a research chemist named Albert Hoffman (who just turned 100 last year). Hoffman was working with a rye fungus called ergot, looking for nothing more than a headache remedy. It wasn't until five years later, 1943, that Hoffman began to suspect the mind altering qualities of LSD by accidental ingestion. He then took a deliberate dosage of 250 micrograms to verify his suspicion. That was an enormous dose by current standards -- 25 micrograms is the "norm". LSD is very potent. Hoffman then took a famous bicycle ride in which he hallucinated that trees were melting. The next day, he awoke with a sense of expanded awareness and credited LSD with his newfound wisdom.

LSD quickly garnered attention for its mind-bending effects. Sandoz gave it freely to doctors studying schizophrenia (among others) and gave it the commercial name Delysid. As it grew in popularity, some doctors actually prescribed it for depression and anxiety. In 1961, Harvard psychology professor Timothy Leary received an LSD study grant. In one of his studies, he found that 83% of LSD users had profound, beautiful insights from their drug use. LSD became the "super muse" of the art and music community. Aldous Huxley, Allen Ginsberg and Anais Nin were among its users. People claimed to feel visionary and born again under its influence. The Beatles, the Doors and the Grateful Dead were among the multitude of musicians that turned on and tuned in. Oddly, some of the most beautiful music of the 20th century ("A Day in the Life", "Tuesday Afternoon") was probably LSD-influenced.

Alas, nothing good is forever. There had to be some kind of bummer to bring everyone back down and there was. LSD caused "bad trips" where people would experience pain or ghastly imagery. It was thought to cause permanent psychosis in some users and traumatic flashbacks in others. For these reasons, it was banned in the USA in October 1966. LSD took some other bad raps at about the same time. Both the Army and the CIA had been using LSD for mind control experiments (eg, Project MKULTRA). The subjects of the experiment were soldiers and citizens unaware that they were being used as guinea pigs. Such experiments were outlawed under the Ford Administration and laws of informed consent were later enacted.

And so, what is the status of LSD today? It is alive and well in the underground recreational drug market. It's frequently dispensed on blotter paper in tiny dosages of 20 to 30 micrograms. In 2006, the British Journal of Psychiatry actually suggested that LSD might be reevaluated for its medical use. Maybe after the passage of 40 years and the reduced hysteria, the drug could be tested in a more controlled fashion. I can't imagine what illness I might have, where the antidote gives me melting trees and time dilation. But what the hey -- I've had some killer head aches. What harm is a Salvador Dali world, if I can feel good again? But maybe we should refrain.

Speaking of refrains, I'm thinking of, "I read the news today Oh boy ...” LSD gave us some bad trips and some really good music. What to make of something that has such powers? The genie needs to stay in the bottle for now. When Sandoz comes out with a version that only makes us visionary or only sends us on a good trip -- then maybe we can let the genie back out of the bottle.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Ripping his Britches?

Bush in better days -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Today's blog almost writes itself. Wasn't even going to approach the topic, but it bears some attention. President Bush has been regarded by many pundits as possibly one of our worst presidents, and his poll numbers (37%) are the lowest since Harry Truman's 2nd term (He was at 28%). The problems that liberals have with Bush are well known, but what I want to focus on here are the ways in which true conservatives may also find him objectionable:

• He raised the national debt through the roof.
• He started a new entitlement program (Medicare prescription benefits).
• With Iraq, he reawakened a Wilsonian-era idea of Democratizing the rest of the world with "good, preventive" wars.
• Borrowing from Howard Fineman, Bush is a self-described "Southwestern" conservative who believes illegal immigrants should be integrated into our society.

Now, a couple of these things above cause me no problem liberal that I am. Prescription benefits are good idea and I have no problem with amnesty for Mexican immigrants who sincerely want to become a part of American culture and society. I'm shocked however by the national debt level and Wilsonian wars should have exited when Wilson himself exited the national stage.

Now we have Howard Fineman who came out with a column this week, questioning how Bush chooses his battles. By championing amnesty for immigrants, Bush is taking on the core group of conservatives that has stood by him steadfastly up to now. Mark Davis, in today's Dallas Morning News echoes the same sentiment. He says the Bush Administration is like Cybil, with multiple personality disorder. This comment is coming from one of the staunchest, diehard Bush supporters on Earth. I'm truly amazed that Mr. Davis of all people is leveling any criticism at Bush.

Far be it from me to give advice to a failing, flailing president, but a couple of old chestnuts come to mind:

• Dance with the one who brung ya -- Don't do something deliberately antagonistic or dismissive to people who carried you thus far.
• Choose your battles -- You clearly want to salvage something from your ill-fated 96 months in the White House. Choose an issue that doesn't raise the hackles of everyone around you.

Bush would probably do well to set the issue aside -- it won't go far anyway. He can remain true to his "Southwest gentleman" values while at the same time letting the issue fade. If he presses much further, he will have earned the loathing and anger of every man, woman and child in America. Just pick a reason, any reason -- your reason won't be the same as mine but we will both find the same level of disgust with W. In contrast to Bush, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were consummate politicians who new how to finesse difficult issues like immigration and play to the crowds. Both men were actors, although Clinton never did so professionally.

Bush has been a bumbler from the word "go" and has no finesse to speak of. The Bumbler in Chief would probably do best by simply lowering his profile and planning for his new library at SMU. Eisenhower was known for playing golf through much of his presidency -- here is probably be the best president for Bush to model himself after in these final days.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Rude Rudy?

Giuliani (R) and Rumsfeld at the WTC -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
So far, out of all the candidates running for the 2008 Presidential Election I'm underwhelmed. I think both of the leading Democrats have bad Achilles' heels -- Obama has trouble recalling his childhood accurately and Hillary has all the Bill baggage. I prefer Edwards, but he has little "mo" at the moment. Of the leading Republicans, Romney misspoke about being a hunter and has flip-flopped on everything. McCain is going down with the "Stay in Iraq" ship, and that mostly leaves Giuliani as the GOP candidate du jour. I liked that Giuliani stuck to his guns on abortion rights and thought he might be a tolerable choice from the GOP.

Now Matt Taibbi, political staff writer for Rollins Stone magazine, indicates that Rudy Giuliani could be Bush III. There are several areas where Giuliani can be seen as a scary man. As mayor of New York, he had a reputation as a bully, and his bully tendencies have carried forward. He's hired Chris Henick, a Karl Rove henchman to head up his security firm. Two of Giuliani's biggest donors are T. Boone Pickens and Texas home builder Bob Perry; these two men financed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who derailed John Kerry's 2004 campaign. Last but not least, Giuliani has acquired thirty of Bush's "Pioneer" fund raisers who helped him bag copious amounts of campaign cash.

Taibbi says that Giuliani has become a 9/11 profiteer -- he's even trade-marked the name "America's Mayor". He's used the name for his law, security and investment firms; he also commands huge fees for speaking about 9/11. On a recent speaking engagement, he requested a $47,000 private jet flight, a private suite with balcony and five hotel rooms. He's used his 9/11 connection to bring in some of the world's biggest, most lucrative security contracts. Taibbi further says that Giuliani never met a lobbyist he didn't like. He’s been "in bed" with Big Oil, Big Media and Saudi Arabia among other parties. Six years ago, Giuliani received applause for not taking a donation from a Saudi royal who suggested the 9/11 attacks were somehow "justified". Well and good, but Taibbi says Giuliani has accepted donations from other unsavory types; he accepted a $2 million gift from former cocaine smuggle Hank Asher.

In the final condemnation, Taibbi says that Giuliani showed cavalier disregard for the toxins created by the debris at the World Trade Center after its collapse. He handed cleanup over to crony companies, declared "no significant problems" with WTC air, and continued to deny the problem even after hundreds of people involved in cleanup started developing unusual cancers and respiratory illnesses.

With all that has been said here, it's very disillusioning. Elections are always about lesser evils and any of the lot would be better than "W". If there is much truth to Taibbi's allegations, Giuliani is a man of great personal short-comings. Would he screw things up as badly as Bush? Surely not, but let's not set the bar that low.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Zero Sum Game

Immigration Conflagration -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I'm a bit perplexed by the intense opposition that has been stirred up around immigration recently, particularly in the Southwest Unites States. Given that the status quo has hardly changed in 100 years, cannot say why it suddenly has become such a big issue.

The anti-immigration reasons I've heard fall into categories that are sometimes economic and sometimes nationalistic:

• Illegal immigrants take jobs away from native Texans
• Native Texans must foot the tax bill for education and health care of illegal immigrants
• Illegal immigrants are taking over Anglo-American culture by insisting on bilingualism

The major player in this whole discussion is the dollar bill. If not for that, we wouldn't be having the discussion. Undocumented workers are abundantly willing to do jobs that native Texans don't want to do. Here are some of the major employers of illegals, by category:

• Building and construction -- all phases of construction trade
• Hotels and property management -- for maid service and janitorial jobs
• Restaurant industry -- cooks, chefs, servers, busboys, wait staff
• Highway and Road maintenance -- all phases of construction and maintenance
• Lawn and garden -- landscapers, gardeners, tree pruners, sprinkler installers
• Agriculture -- farmers, harvesters
• Meat industry -- all phases of cattle ranching, slaughter, preparation, transportation

Some of the biggest companies in America profit from low wage Hispanics. We are talking Marriott, Wal-Mart and Centex -- big rich and usually, ironically Republican entities. If you summarily made these companies fire all the illegals and replace them with native Texans, you would see what I call the "6 of one" effect:

• Prices on everything would go up as competitive wages would go up. Prices also would go up dramatically because in addition to higher wages, you would have introduced a labor shortage and many jobs would go begging.
• Employers would likely have to provide better health coverage and insurance to native Texans taking the vacated jobs, so health care costs would also go up.

I'll have to make some concessions here. Parkland Hospital would have a less crowded waiting room. Wouldn't directly impact most anglo Dallasites who never set foot there, to wait in its 4 hour lines. Maple Springs Elementary would conduct classes in English -- might even close its doors if the "barrio" emptied out enough. We would satisfy our xenophobic fears by stripping our city and our state of Hispanic diversity.

Welcome to Tex-land where everyone says "Howdy" and everything is predictably Anglo-American. I don't think Tex-land sounds like a very nice place. Who will they decide needs to go next? Couple of things worth noting -- Hispanic immigrants are not trying to force a culture, religion or language on us. They want some accommodation while they become naturalized. The biggest beef that anti-immigrants have should not be so much with the illegals. It should be with the Wal-marts who are offloading their labor cost to you the tax payer. In the final analysis, the immigration ban is financially a zero sum game -- six of one and half a dozen of the other. What you save in taxes will be more than gobbled by price increases. What you sacrifice in good will and diversity is irreplaceable.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Charles Nelson Reilly Remembered

Charles, 2nd from left -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Before starting on my eulogy to Charles Nelson Reilly, I'd like to make note of one thing. blogSpotter is one of the very few people on this planet you will ever meet who can segue from a blog about Natural History and 'missing links' to a show biz tribute for a campy comedian. I know a few nerds that will chow down on the evolution topic, as do I. I know an entirely different set of people who follow entertainment headlines. Yours truly is one of the few specimens who follows both and is yes -- genuinely interested. I can go from the sublime to the ridiculous and then do some circles around it all. The only topic you will not find on my 'topics index' is Sports and that is because I have no interest in that subject. For those who want to follow that, may I recommend ESPN.

Now back to Charles. Mr. Reilly basically played himself in all his TV/Cinema roles. His flamboyant character, with ascot and Elton John glasses was a hilarious presence. Charles was good friends with Paul Lynde and Dom DeLouise who, like him, pretty well played their comical ids in every role. Reilly got his start in the movies; he had small roles in Face in the Crowd as well as Bye Bye Birdie. He was a frequent guest on The Steve Lawrence Show and played Claymore Gregg on The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. In the 70's, he logged more than 90 appearances on The Johnny Carson Show.

Despite his impressive show biz resume, Charles Nelson Reilly is best remembered for his role on the Match Game series that ran in the 70's, hosted by Gene Rayburn. The show broke some ice in what had become a stale category of daytime TV entertainment. In a genre that had become gimmicky and dull, Match Game brought a much needed wit infusion. You didn't care who won the game -- you just cared about which comedian would complete the provocative sentence with the best word.

Regulars on the show were Fannie Flagg, Richard Dawson, Brett Sommers and Mr. Charles himself. Reilly would sometimes "butch it up" with a deep voice, and make a sports reference for laughs. He and Brett would trade insults back and forth; they would even violate the seating rules by getting out of their chairs usually to bash each other with a placard. The game was a bit like Mad Libs where you complete a blank at the end of a (usually provocative) sentence. "Weak Wilbur was so weak he could barely hold up his (blank)." Reilly would usually go for the obvious laugh where Dawson would politely try to match the most common, albeit not-as-funny sentence completion. Double entendres flew back and forth, much to the giggles and amusement of the audience.

In his later years, Reilly was a well-respected acting coach. Charles Nelson Reilly, we will miss you. For the uninitiated, see if you can catch some old Match Games on the Game Show network. I saw one recently and it was as fresh and funny as it was in 1977 -- well, except for the horrible 70's outfits worn by the guests.

© 2007 blogSpotter