xtcian

you spelled eviscerate wrong, dear

8/29/10

All this to say: we live in terrible times. Sure, there are several things that are profoundly awesome: new technology is magical, and the culture of childhood has been quietly (or screamingly) revolutionized over the last thirty years. But there is absolutely no good news in the world, pretty much anywhere. Glaciers the size of Connecticut are cracking from the poles, our own country is caught in a political cycle of blame and lies, we swim in a culture of cruelty, there are still terrorists we can't find, diseases we can't cure, and a black cloud hangs over us.

Yet with our own children, we escape into a totally alternate universe. We count numbers, we marvel at birds, we see them make decisions between blue-green and green-blue, and we marvel at their acrobatics. Has there ever been a time in history when the world we describe for our kids - and the world as it really is - has been so mind-bendingly incongruent?

How long do you wait until you're honest about the way things really are? How old must they be? What do you tell them in the meantime when the inevitable filters through? If you feel so helpless about the world, knowing full well you have no real power to change anything about the environment, or politics, or why people are so frightened and racist, what makes you continue creating little utopias for them?

Was it always this bad? Are these the questions that every sensitive parent has asked since the ages were dark?

no hair past the collar

8/26/10

Scott asked a great CODE WORD question last time, so I'll repeat it here: "do you still feel the tension/excitement/stress building around this time of year like you did when you were in school?"

Let me be the first to say ABSOLUTELY. Whenever I see the back-to-school sales for pants at department stores, and kids at Target buying backpacks, my stomach hurts a little. I absolutely loathed school, and considered it an existential jail sentence (even if I couldn't express it as such).

I do, however, have a deep longing for stationery and art supplies, so the thought of going through the aisle that sells protractors, Trapper Keepers and Husky Pencils still turns me on. I loved the idea of having my own little plastic pencil sharpener, and can still pinpoint the smell of wood and graphite coming to a sharp point at my little desk. You?

the caves of altamira

8/24/10

Sure, there's plenty to say, but... is anyone around for the next couple of weeks what with the crazy late Labor Day, high holy days, and the fact that the joyful end of Ramadan falls on Sept. 11? Chime in if you're stuck in front of the internet instead of wallowing in summer's verdant denouement!

hope you like jammin' too

8/23/10

Oh yeah, I almost forgot! Lucy and I went out a couple of days ago and chose presents for the three tchotchke winners of the What You Hate Most About America contest. Actually, she picked out two of them, and I picked out the boob shirt, because it's hard to explain that level of irony to her.

Anyway, we have:

• for Anne, the aforementioned boob shirt, complete with the pockets peeking under the shorts, and a "Venice Beach" thigh tattoo. A perfect nightshirt to wear when you're guaranteed to be around no other humans.

• for jp, a nonsensical lotus-flower design beach towel map of California featuring its cheesiest places. Comes pre-itchy!

• and for caveman, a tie-dye 'WE BE JAMMIN' T-shirt featuring three Rastafarians about to enjoy a day riding the frigid junk surf of Venice Beach. Guaranteed to bleed in the wash, turning all other clothes a faint mulberry!

Next contest to be held soon, and happy to take suggestions. As for you three, gimme your addresses (or your clandestine Mailboxes Etc™ unmarked dropbox).

one world is enough falafal us

8/19/10

Hey, remember when I said "I don't think anything religious ought to be shadowing the WTC site"? That's because if it's truly a Freedom Tower, religious centers ought to be INSIDE the damned thing.

And so I bring you: my floor plan to the One World Trade Center tower!

click for bigger

i'm sorry, who says "po-tah-to"

8/18/10

When I write blogs, I am to some degree "myself" and to another degree a "character" that tries to be interesting every time you stop by. Some entries require a bit of passion to be, in my mind, readable. To be sure: simple, short statements with bullet points would have been more accurate, but also inherently boring and pretty much the same thing you can find on Twitter and Facebook comments. As Tessa always says when we tackle scripts, "clarity is the enemy of drama."

So when I discuss touchy subjects on here, I tend to go into character - it's a place to let old feelings and ancient biases burst to the surface, because I figured it was my little concert hall and my precious drum solos could last as long as I pleased. Lately, since about 2005 or so, I've viewed the blog more as a choir, where I sing the first verse and then you guys invent your own chorus and take it from there.

In that light, I've tried to be mindful when it comes to religion, but it remains a bugaboo. And it's impossible to describe my resentments against "organized faith" without people thinking I'm talking about them, even though I really mean "the collective influence of organized faith". I mean, I frickin' LOATHE what the Mormon Church stands for, but I absolutely adore and love love love my cousin Wendy.

I'll save that line of thinking for later. When it comes to the Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, I will have to resort to bullet points:

• Many of you are confusing the belief that it should be built with the emotion that goes with it. It's right here in the Siena poll of New Yorkers: 63% don't like the idea of the center, and 27% support it. But at the same time, 64% believe that Muslims have a Constitutional right to build the mosque and develop a community at Ground Zero (as opposed to 28% who don't). Which leads to...

• In the comments section, Scott wrote something that many people also thought: "to oppose the construction for any reason, indeed to be opposed to it at all, is a sign of internal bigotry." I agree to some extent. But the world is an analog place, not a digital one. It's messy, and we're animals, and things get complicated. You're asking someone to feel something they don't feel. That's why we have laws, to keep our demons in check, and the law (thank goodness) is clear on this one.

• I personally don't care if the Islamic center is built or not. I simply have very complicated feelings about religious institutions and very complicated feelings about 9/11. That's a personal issue that I chose to disclose on the blog for reasons stated in the first paragraph.

• To answer once-a-heel's excellent question: No. I don't think admitting that you're a dick absolves you of being a dick. To me, the proclamation is a road sign on the way to healing that part of yourself. But I openly admit that religion still fills me with anxiety and anger, and it's proving very hard.

• I'll say it again: that mosque-interfaith community center will have to have the best baba ghanouj kebabs and 3D Imax Koran experience in HISTORY to make up for all the interfaith enmity this brouhaha has caused.

though i walk through the valley of the shadow of murray st.

8/17/10

After reading all of the impassioned and amazing comments from yesterday's blog, I realized that my own take on the so-called "Mosque at Ground Zero®" was based on parts of me that I'm going to have to learn to subjugate. It's not about Muslims and it's not about 9/11, it's about two things: the national dialogue, and my problems with religion.

Do I believe they should be able to build a Muslim interfaith center two blocks from Ground Zero? I feel unqualified to answer a question so stupid. It's so obviously "yes" that to even have to say "yes" feels embarrassing. Do I think it has proven to be a good idea? Well, if the builders were trying to bridge an "understanding gap" between followers of Islam and other belief systems, it has been a devastating failure before a brick has been laid.

Akbar Ahmed, an Islamic studies professor at American University in Washington, said:

"I don't think the Muslim leadership has fully appreciated the impact of 9/11 on America. They assume Americans have forgotten 9/11 and even, in a profound way, forgiven 9/11, and that has not happened. The wounds remain largely open..."

Which I think is probably right, but it's probably right because cynical wingnuts - as well as the Bush Administration - fomented and cashed checks on those fears for seven years, and the Republican Party continues the tradition. (Yes, I know Bush spoke admirably of Islam in the days immediately following 9/11, but his regime behaved otherwise.)

Whether you like how America got bigoted or not, it's still bigoted, and in some cases, sidestepping an obvious PR disaster can pay big dividends. You can opine about the 1st Amendment, but the fact is, a lot of American idiots out there think there's going to be minarets towering over the Woolworth Building and shifty-eyed jihadis wandering around Liberty Street.

I appreciate the builders' resolve in the face of these right-wing assholes, but all things being equal, would it ultimately served their purposes better if it had been built farther away? I have to say... probably? Maybe far enough that morons couldn't say "AT Ground Zero"? You want a precise number of blocks, fine. Let's say five. I used to work three doors down from the proposed Islamic Center site, and anything north of Chambers Street would have been impossible to connect to the WTC.

View blog example wtc in a larger map

To those saying "there's already been a mosque in the neighborhood for 27 years" and "they sell falafel at the WTC site just like they always did" and "New York is a melting pot with all religions and bizarre rituals", I say sure, but that's missing the larger point. These things have always been there; the Islamic center has not. It's a new construction built near an oozing laceration in America's skull.

It's human nature to "grandfather in" the things that were always thus, which is why the other mosque doesn't bother anybody. But if you think the "newness" of this project shouldn't make a difference, you're right, but you're also being disingenuous. It's okay to have feelings about this Islamic center, given the mood and timbre of our culture. It's okay to oppose it, even against all rational discourse proving otherwise, as long as you admit you're being a dick.

My true personal feelings? I'm a dick. But I'm not a dick because I have something against Islam in particular, or because of my oft-expressed experiences around 9/11, or even because I loathe the amount of airtime this story has given to some of the worst Americans we've got. I'm a dick because I have problems with religion in general, and I don't think anything religious ought to be shadowing the WTC site. In my mind, fundamental religion is how the towers came down, and on that day, I remember thinking this is how it would all end, if not this religion, then another.

I know this lumps my cousins and some of my best friends in with the abortion doctor killers and Timothy McVeighs of the world. I know this lumps Al Qaeda in with other friends of mine, not to mention billions of peaceful followers. I know many of you profoundly hate this quality in me, and I recognize my inability to fathom religion as one of my biggest failings. My virulent, occasionally angry agnosticism has consistently separated me from people I love and has done me no favors.

And yet, like a lingering worry, it persists.

nimby pimby

8/16/10

I've been asked to put up a blog about the "mosque" (actually an Islamic Cultural Center) that's being put up (actually just proposed) at Ground Zero (actually two blocks away), and I suppose I have some fairly unpredictable feelings about it that don't normally mesh with my usual political leanings... but before I do, I'm more interested in how you, the general reading public, feels about it.

Be honest, pick an anonymous animal if that allows you to speak more freely, and bust it wide open.

shiver in my bones just thinking

8/15/10

We've got 2 or 3 more weeks of vacation left - depending how Jewish you may or may not be - so I'll try not to tax your molasses-like synapses here in the sloggy drench of late summer. I will, however, bitch and moan about something guaranteed to make you think I'm an ungrateful chucklehead.

There has essentially been NO SUMMER IN LOS ANGELES. And at the beach, where we are, it has been, on average, colder than the average temperature in January. I thought I was on crack, or perhaps not remembering previous summers here correctly - after all, I grew up in places where heat indexes of 110 degrees were quickly replaced with 6-foot snow drifts.

But then the news got official: the L.A. Times weighed in on the phenomenon (by the way, the "heat wave" in the article never materialized here), and then the National Weather Service actually issued a bulletin called WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO SUMMER IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA?

Parts of the coastline are, on average, 10 degrees below normal for the last two months, which is hard to pull off. But they don't mention the worst aspects: first of all, the marine layer moves in each night, making it colder than shit, almost getting into the 40s a few weeks ago. Then it hangs around all morning until 1pm, making it freezing, gloomy, gray, windy and miserable.

At 1pm, sometimes - sometimes - the clouds part, and it is sunny and in the lower 60s. Like clockwork, at 3pm, the marine layer moves back and the cycle repeats itself. Every fucking day since January.

Look, I know most of you are roasting under the most cruel sun imaginable, your body unable to release sweat because the air is already thick with hazy water. I know it has been the 2nd-warmest worldwide July ever, and the warmest year-to-date global temperature on record, but this is mind-boggling. I can't get any plants to grow, and it feels like we're living in the Ornkeys off the north coast of Scotland.

Okay, I said it. Now everyone else can complain about their weather.

out on the wiley, windy moors

8/12/10

I'm sorry, but how the fuck am I supposed to go on, knowing that Cathy is no longer going to be on the goddamn funny pages? I mean, come on - somebody please tell me this is a hoax. They're just screwing with us, right? There's NO WAY they're letting my Cathy off the bathroom scale of our hearts and putting her (and her enormous ass - tee hee!) out to pasture.

For 34 years she has been there for me, for you, trying on swimsuits in a cruel world, engorging on chocolate bon-bons force-fed to her by an angry patriarchy... oh Cathy, will you ever measure up? If you're not there to shed light on a woman's inability to resist blowing hundreds of dollars on dog sweaters, who will be?

The problem was Irving. What a pusillanimous twat. When you two got married in 2005 (friends kept asking: where were you when you found out?????) a little piece in all of us died - I mean, come ON, Cathy! He was clearly from Mars and had NO APPRECIATION for your Venus!

Sure, there were haters. Some said you did nothing but further stereotypes about women and their credit card debt, their complete inability to balance a checkbook, their freakish attachment to diet fads, their moronic pampering of pets, and their complete failure to behave rationally about men. You know what? They were right! But nobody's perfect, especially not a cartoon character (just ask Ziggy!)

I know we'll always have syndication, and like everyone else, a copy of Shoes: Chocolate for the Feet. But a day not spent in your chocolate shoes can only mean one thing: the universe has just let out a collective AAAAACK!

click above for the 1995 Pink House Halloween party invitation

don't hassle me with your sighs, chuck

8/10/10

This one goes out to all the ladies. Yeah... oh hell yeah... ohhh, shit yeah!

*cough, cough*

Sorry, I don't know what the hell that was. Anyway, this is a question for all the female readers, as it relates a little bit to Monday's blog - god knows I frequently attack men as a gender on these blog pages, mostly because I am one, and have a pretty good sense of what we're made of, but my perspective is for shit.

To all you women out there, whether you're an anonymous animals or not... what is your true feeling about getting older, staying attracted (or attractive) to your mate, and what's your general sense of how women are treated when they venture into their 30s and 40s?

Or if you want it put another way, does the system feel rigged and shitty? Or is it actually a lot better than you thought it'd be?

it pays my way and it corrodes my soul

8/9/10

Oh my god I am IN LOVE. Have you all heard about JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater? He might be the closest thing to a genuine hero we've got left in this wicked world.

Yesterday, his flight to NYC had just landed, and some asshole leapt up to open their overhead bin before the plane had arrived at the gate. Over the intercom, he repeatedly reminded all passengers to remain seated, but the passenger refused.

So he walked down the aisle to confront the person directly, just in time to get walloped in the SKULL with his giant hardcase luggage. Fuming, he asked for an apology, and instead this asshole started yelling, calling him a "motherfucker". And then he had that moment, the crossroads all of us have in our lives, where he could either suck it up and swallow his misery... or GO NUCLEAR, WHICH IS WHAT HE DID.

He got back on the intercom and said, "To the passenger that called me a motherfucker, FUCK YOU! I've been in the business 28 years. I've had it! That's it!" Then he grabbed two beers - opened one of them - pulled the emergency door handle that inflates the slide, and jumped out of the plane with a smile on his face. Then he got in his car, went home, and had sex with his boyfriend. As I was telling Tessa this story tonight, I was almost beset by tears of joy. We aren't the ones we've been waiting for - THIS guy is.

Steven Slater beat drug abuse and alcohol, then took care of his father, who ultimately died of ALS, and has been nursing his mother, who is in the death throes of lung cancer. If you're dealing with all this shit, then some fuckwad - in a narcissistic rush to best their fellow passengers - hits you with a suitcase and then embarrasses you in front of an entire airplane... well, sir, you have my permission to express yourself.

According to NBC, Slater is being charged with "2nd-and 4th-degree criminal mischief, 1st- and 2nd-degree reckless endangerment and criminal trespass in the 3rd degree... [facing] up to 7 years in prison if convicted." Some other choice tidbits of journalism:

"Cops found him in bed with his boyfriend when they arrived to arrest him at a beachfront home in the Rockaways with a porch overlooking the Atlantic Ocean, sources said... He was grinning as police walked him in handcuffs to a squad car. 'He left with a big smile on his face,' said neighbor Curt Karkowski."

"...the [passenger had] cursed him out, saying in effect 'go f--k yourself' and calling him a 'mo-fo,' according to law enforcement sources who are still sorting out the specifics."

"...a former flight attendant, Janet Bavasso, who lives next door to Mr. Slater in Queens, found nothing mysterious at all. 'Enough is enough -- good for him,' Ms. Bavasso said. 'If he would have called me, I would have picked him up'."

"A jetBlue co-worker who was on the flight called Slater a working-class hero. 'It's something we all fantasize about,' she said. 'But we have kids and a mortgage or are just too chicken - or sane - to go through with [it]'."

"'Chances are I am flying 35,000 feet somewhere over the rainbow on my way to some semifabulous JetBlue Airways destination!' [his] MySpace page says."

Oh my god, oh my god, it's like having Morrissey as your airline steward. And yes, I know airline companies are the worst, and they treat you like calves about to become veal, and he could have hit somebody on the tarmac with the inflatable slide, but please, people... don't harsh on my crush!

beeyotch make sandwich

8/8/10

To folks who live in the more liberal communities of America, this will come as no surprise: research is showing that many women find themselves falling in love with other women once they hit their mid-30s. Anecdotally, I feel like I've seen this phenomenon play out pretty frequently, but Lisa Diamond at the University of Utah has actually done the long-term research.

Before any of the homophobes out there start saying how this proves that sexual orientation is a choice, these "late-life lesbians" had no homosexual feelings or experiences until that one person came along in their thirties that made them feel unadulterated, innocent LOVE once again. It was not a choice, it was a change.

I'm warning you now, I'm about to devolve into a screed against Men™ that will no doubt send many of you into a defensive posture, and make me look like a self-loathing fool. It will also paint me as shapist, and absolve women of all relationship responsibility. But I've always maintained that if I were a chick, I'd be so enraged at our culture that the mere act of tolerating dudes would be a daily exercise in vessel-popping restraint..

The article at top wonders aloud about these changes in attraction: "Now the puzzle is to figure out why... and how to explain it developmentally." My response is: don't overthink this. Let's take a look at your typical male-female dynamic upon reaching the age of 40.

• Biologically, the female is entering the last stage of childbearing, or has decided to forgo the whole birthing experience. Either way, the man is no longer of imperative sexual use. We might not listen to our caveman ancestry, but our subconscious does - and early mankind rarely lived past the age of 27. A woman's subconscious at 40 is probably asking why she's still putting up with some dude.

• Around this time, men fill with water and beige-hued gelatin; their wobbly masses begin to calcify into armchairs and racism; they lose their hair and transfer it to their back and ears; they begin their journey that ends at the YMCA locker room as an 80-year-old obese, pink, distended homunculus. And what's more, they don't give a shit.

However, if the woman were to allow herself to fall into the same level of disrepair, the man - and indeed, the rest of the world - would treat her like a bubo-infested carrier of the Black Death. So she generally keeps in shape, does the small things to remain presentable, and keeps her doctor appointments.

But here's the kicker: as the man morphs into this blob, he begins to make more money and wield more power than ever. She, however, begins to lessen in earning potential and cultural influence. What part of this proposition is remotely attractive?

• The man is also beginning to become more rigid in his belief system, less flexible both physiologically and emotionally, and more prone to hang on to infantile notions of How He Thinks The World Works. Typically, the women, in Professor Diamond's words:

"...have more diverse relationships. Their life patterns change. Their careers change. They often become more expansive in their thinking, more open-minded... those sorts of things can create a context in which a woman might have always had that capacity to become attracted to women, but might never have had the opportunity until she reaches a certain stage in her life."

I mean, come on - at some point, this is just math. Guys just bring so little to the table. I'm not disregarding the nice paycheck many men bring home, and the (still inequal) partnership they provide with kids, but remember, we're talking about the love relationship between the woman and the man, the ineffable quality of a woman's heart, and the unknowable origin of our deepest desires. Given the evidence, it's kind of amazing so many women stick it out.

And yet, they do. Many do so because most of you guys are actually awesome, or because the women are just not susceptible to having their sexual orientation changed, and still genuinely love a man's body, a man's company, the smell, the rough feel. But if that infamous blog entry from a few months back is any indication, something is not working for a lot of anonymous readers.

The lesson? I dunno, maybe it's just a cautionary tale to guys. Put simply, GIVE A SHIT. Take care of yourself, stay elastic, avoid ruts and work past your resentments to find your partner again. You may be funny, and god knows that counts for a lot, but... well, never mind. If you're funny, she'll probably stick around forever.

next up for bids: the aerosol cheese ipod dock

8/5/10

Like everyone else in the Northern Hemisphere, the editors of xtcian take it easy in August, since the internet slows to a crawl. So for your Friday pleasure, here are three found objects:

FOUND TECHNOLOGY: The USB Toothbrush Sanitizer

FOUND VIDEO: The real-time Twitter moods of the USA

FOUND CARTOON: What Happens When You're 24 Years Old

i just want to be tied to the back of your car

8/4/10

Readers of this blog - which might include my grandkids if I'm lucky - will no doubt look at today's entry and think "wait, they were still worrying about homosexuals getting married back then? what the FUCK?"... however ... us progressive types are doing the best we can, here at the beginning of the 21st century. And today in the culture wars, we kicked some Neanderthal ass.

A California judge struck down the bigoted, homophobic, putrescent hunk of shame known as Proposition 8 as unconstitutional under the equal protection clause, failing "to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license".

Yes, my friends from the future, this is what we deal with. Can you and your robots imagine?

Anyway, now it'll go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which will uphold it, then on to the Supreme Court, where one Justice, a guy named Anthony Kennedy, will determine the future of gay marriage - and with it, I believe, much of the soul of America. That may sound overly emotional and dramatic, but these are the decisions that determine a nation's character, and our character has not been very kind recently.

In 1996, Anthony Kennedy himself said that any law that "classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else" was unacceptable, so here's hoping. Of course, you've got the wingnut asspants of our national dialogue already calling out the California judge as gay and of course my Mormon folk in tha' 8-0-1 are glum, but who cares? Yes, my guests from the future, us liberals have to snatch our victories when we get 'em.

regarding hiney

8/2/10

Hope you guys don't mind being lab rats for my little schemes, but I have another question to pose about your television ingestion habits. Put simply, what is your main method of seeing a TV show?

Obviously, most sports are fettered to time and channel, given how hard it is to avoid hearing the result (especially if you're in the extended Carolina family), but how about the rest of television?

If you wouldn't mind, break it down into percentages if you can, even if it's "I watch everything on the DVR long after it has aired, 100% of the time, and skip all commercials."

Sweet!

teenagers of my ilk circa 1983 will remember this kind of image - the "put the knob between two cable channels" way of watching porn

we hope you've enjoyed today's broadcast

8/1/10

Okay, so excellent work on all the responses to the quiz from yesterday - that many participants is truly a wondrous feat here in the dregs of summer. To answer the question "what was the theory?", I'd say my brother Steve's comment comes closest to the issue. Time and time again writers in Hollywood have pitched or written something fantastic, but it gets rejected because it didn't fit the network's "brand".

Which is generally fine for writers, because there's a lot of different places to go. And if you're smart, you'll know what the network is looking for in the first place and save yourself the trouble. What I'm interested in, however, is the concept of a "network brand" itself. I'm not convinced that networks need a brand at all, given the way most people under 30 get their entertainment.

Sure, people love "Mad Men", but can you quickly tell me which channel number AMC is on? Most folks search for shows by title (on iTunes, Hulu or even the TiVo) and have little regard for what corporation actually broadcasts it. In that regard, you folks did a lot better on the quiz than I thought you would - which proves that I'm either wrong, or asking the question five years too early.

I understand why "branding" is so appealing, and it's not just for execs to hang their hat on. Working at a place that has an overall ethic, or a zeitgeist about "what we do" can be emotionally focusing. Also, given the current advertising setup, the ad companies buy into the brand of the network, and set their prices accordingly (but that model obviously won't last forever).

Also, I get the idea of "branding" a particular night of the week, the way NBC used to own Thursdays, and CBS currently owns Mondays - you want someone to settle down in front of your network at 8pm and love everything until the local news.

But I'd argue that making successful television shows is so hard, and in some ways such a crapshoot, that I predict some network is going to jettison the entire concept of a brand entirely and simply focus on quality, regardless of category or theory. They will see that a nation of 18-34 year olds is no longer watching their beloved channel 254 at 10pm to see what happens to Don Draper, they are streaming it on a tablet to watch half of it on a road trip, and the other half in the bathroom. To the viewer, the show comes from Magical TV-Making Land.

By the way, I ended up sitting next to the executive producer of "True Blood" last night, and... remember when I asked why vampires and werewolves hate each other? Well, I figgered I'd ask him, and he was quite interesting about it.

First, he said it's a little like the relationship between San Francisco and Los Angeles - LA is basically okay with SF, but SF frickin' loathes LA. And with vampires, it's not a "class" issue (like I had thought) when it comes to werewolves, since vampires have their own hierarchical class system.

To him, it remained a metaphor for racism at its core: one group of people have more power, the other looks slightly different and have less. Past that, he joked, they make it up as they go along. I told him you guys liked the show, and that was very pleasing.