The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: SwoopSJ on February 26, 2011, 01:24:43 PM

Title: Channel Surfing
Post by: SwoopSJ on February 26, 2011, 01:24:43 PM

So, I was catching waves via Time Warner today when I came across a show called "Toddlers and Tiaras",  on TLC.  The show basically follows parents and their kids through the pageant circuit.  At first, I found the stupidity of the whole situation amusing, but my amusement quickly turned to "angermazement". (Yes, I just created a new word.) These pageants are essentially bratty kids being "pimped" by their idiotic parents, who've invested thousands of dollars, for what?  I guess so they'll be well prepared to assume the roll of "Ms. Teen Pregnancy", a few years down the road.  I mean, how many actually have a shot at being Miss (insert state) or Miss America, which would be the only way this experience would pay off.  I don't have kids, but I think if I had a daughter, the last thing I would want to do is cultivate a "princess" complex, paint her up like Tammy Faye Baker, and provide a thrill for the sickos out there.  Some people shake their heads and wonder how BHO and other politicians get elected.  Well, programs like this provide the answer... MASS STUPIDITY.  Okay, rant off.

Swoop



 

Title: Re: Channel Surfing
Post by: fightingquaker13 on February 26, 2011, 01:33:31 PM

Well said. But its worse than that. The idea of sexualizing little girls is just plain creepy to me. Those photos posted of Jonbenet Ramsey seemed liked some peadophile's fantasy. Little kids should be little kids, full of mud, smeared crayons and skinned knees. They shouldn't be going to stylists and makeup artists and the like. For God's sake, take your girl to tae kwando or soccer or ballet or whatever. The idea of teaching her to prance around being pretty at that young an age is creepy. Let her figure that stuff out in high school. Second rant over. ;D
FQ13

Title: Re: Channel Surfing
Post by: dipisc on February 26, 2011, 02:33:36 PM

Hi;

     Several years ago a TV story was done on this stuff. What, I got from it was it was all about the Mom's Fantasy's of being a princess. Most of the kids had reservations about the whole thing and it was Mom that was pushing the whole thing. Kids crying and just wanting to please Mom or just had no say in the matter.

     I did not see any dads at these events, and I bet dad was not there because he was headed to his 2nd or 3rd job to pay for all of the crap needed. I have 14-15 year old grandnieces and I guess I am somewhat an old fart but I do not believe in a girl wearing makeup at that age. It is just a feelling of them looking cheap.

Title: Re: Channel Surfing
Post by: Ichiban on February 26, 2011, 04:55:34 PM

So mom can live vicariously through their daughter's beauty pageants while dad lives vicariously through their son's little league or peewee football games.   :P

Title: Re: Channel Surfing
Post by: BAC on February 26, 2011, 05:50:29 PM

Glenn Beck coined the term "prostitots" to describe this.  It pretty much hits the nail on the head.  And yes, most of these children would rather be somewhere else, but they want to please big fat mommy dearest.

My little girl will never have to go through this.  I'm thinking about sparing her the anguish of dating as well.   ;D

Title: Re: Channel Surfing
Post by: SwoopSJ on February 26, 2011, 10:27:57 PM

I agree with you guys, vicarious living is the cause of most of this nonsense.  The program showed the proud mommas acting out their kids various routines from the crowd, while their children performed on stage.  Pathetic doesn't begin to describe it.

Quote from: BAC on February 26, 2011, 05:50:29 PM

My little girl will never have to go through this.  I'm thinking about sparing her the anguish of dating as well.   ;D

I don't have kids, but if I did, I would definitely be in line with your way of thinking.  My daughter would HATE me.  Right around the age of 13 or so, quality time with daddy would be spent in the visitors area of a correctional facility.  Sorry judge, but the little punk had the nerve to not only call my house, but ring my doorbell, as well.  He was askin' fer it!   >:(

Swoop

Title: Re: Channel Surfing
Post by: Timothy on February 26, 2011, 10:32:33 PM

Quote from: BAC on February 26, 2011, 05:50:29 PM

Glenn Beck coined the term "prostitots" to describe this.  It pretty much hits the nail on the head.  And yes, most of these children would rather be somewhere else, but they want to please big fat mommy dearest.

My little girl will never have to go through this.  I'm thinking about sparing her the anguish of dating as well.   ;D

I dipped my daughter in "Dip and Grip" tool handle rubberizing stuff up to her neck for 18 years.     ;D ;D

She's 25 now and no longer my problem.  She's still my little girl and always will be but time moves faster than we want sometimes!

Title: Re: Channel Surfing
Post by: pioneer on March 01, 2011, 02:13:07 PM

Does the name, "Jonbenet Ramsey," ring a bell? 

Title: Re: Channel Surfing
Post by: billt on March 02, 2011, 06:06:13 AM

In regards to the title of this thread, I cannot believe how bad cable TV is getting. I get just basic cable, no premium channels. It just keeps getting worse as they take more and more channels away. We used to get Discovery Health Channel along with TCM, (Turner Classic Movies). Both of them now require the more expensive Digital Service to receive. They bundle this crap so you have to take a ton of bad to get a few good stations. AMC, (American Movie Classics) is still avaliable, however it is saturated with commercials and edited movies so much so movies shown on that channel are almost to the point of being unwatchable. They once showed an edited version of "The Shootist" with John Wayne that only ran 90 minutes including commercials. It was unbelievable at how much of the movie they edited out! The entire story line was almost lost! The Weather Channel runs at about 65% to 70% commercials if you sit there with a stopwatch and actually time when they are actually broadcasting weather. And even then they've got banners all over the set, along with a running header at the bottom of the screen with commercial companies airing while they broadcast.

The whole concept of cable television has been lost. When it started out it's main purpose was to bring television to the very rural communities who otherwise couldn't receive it. This was long before communication satellites. Part of the allure was to offer it without any commercial interruption as a perk for having to pay for it. From there it expanded with Premium channels like HBO, TMC, Cinemax, and the like.

I first got cable back in 1980. I got all of the Premium channels and it was really nice. Different movies almost every night, then a complete new batch every month. Now I see no advantage to getting Premium channels because when I can't find anything much to watch, I look at the "Premium Lineup", and there isn't much there either. Even if I was willing to spend to the hilt to get everything, there still isn't much of anything. I'm hearing much the same from Dish Network subscribers who are paying big bucks for premium hookups.

I'm hoping this new "TV from your computer" deal will force cable TV companies to get with the program, or else go out of business. Much like labor unions they've gotten overly fat, lazy, and expensive for what they offer because they have zero competition. That, as always, needs to change before anything good will come out of it.  Bill T.

Title: Re: Channel Surfing
Post by: Timothy on March 02, 2011, 06:08:49 PM

I pay NOTHING for my cable and it still sucks.

but its priced right..