So you think you can take that bottle of water on the flight with you?

• reality tv
• post 9-11

Reality Killed the Television Star.

...Or more accurately, reality tv killed television. For me anyways. Now I may have blogged about this before but I am blogging about it again. This time because I've become even more disgusted (for lack of a better word at the moment) with the way television programming has gone downhill. Last time I blogged about reality television, I probably mentioned the fact I believed that it all started with either "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", hosted by Regis Philbin, (who once had a daytime show like Oprah or Maury) or Survivor.
I remember the initial euphoria surrounding the Millionaire phenomenon when it arrived. First showing up in two week segments before disappearing for a while, I remember it being the talk of many of my friends and others at school who quickly became attached to the show, parking themselves in front of the tv to watch it and await its return months down the road. Same thing happened with Survivor (which I think is in its 10th season, having done "specials" like All-Stars or something like that). For details about that search for the later blogs on here for that.
I'm not saying that TV has no good programming; I still think scripted non-reality tv can still be good: Sitcoms, TV-Dramas (24, House, Lost for example). Reality tv has become, IMHO, the worst thing to happen to tv. Most recently last night when I was waiting for CBC's The National to come on. I saw advertisements for two reality shows (as if there aren't enough already, "So you think you can Dance/Sing/Impress Celebrity Judges/Juggle/Eat/Run/Jump/Smile/etc...") starting in September, which indicated to me that writers want to milk Reality TV watchers' interest have also run out of ideas of what to use for Reality TV. The first one opened with a dark screen with an ominous voice telling the viewers that they live among us....and are a threat to all of us. It turns out that this is a reality show intended to showcase what the show considers to be America's Worst Drivers (or Canada's I wasn't really paying too much attention)....This is apparently the second season of the show.
The other show, was one called America's Biggest Loser. You can probably guess what they're planning to showcase on that show. But more disturbing than the fact that these two shows are still being aired is the fact that they will probably be viewed by a sizable audience. This prediction may not be true, though, as there was at least one show in the United States ("The One: Making of a Music Star") that was cancelled after two weeks due to low ratings. In Canada, the CBC, at last update, was about to move "The National" in favour of this reality show, but its current demise is now uncertain. But the two reality shows I mentioned above seem to be targeting a rather different audience than the ones that seem to be over-hyped versions of Star Search. Instead of focusing on the general abilities of the various "ordinary" people, these people are gaining their 15 minutes of fame by showing themselves as having a form of societal defiency (I can't drive, or I am a loser). This is still my opinion here, but I'm thinking that this show is designed to give the viewers a sense of satisfaction in watching these people. When watching a particularily bad driver, they'll say to themselves, "Whoa, I'm glad I'm not as bad a driver as that person" or "Haha, that person's such a loser; It's a good thing I'm not like that" as they sit on their couch, chair or whatever watching the tube. In order to appear somewhat therapeutic, the shows may offer to help these people with their problems and tell the story of their recovery (thus, becoming a more on-the-street version of Maury). Or with the way things are going with reality shows, it may hold a contest to see who is the worst of the group, with the worst being the recipient of the help they need.
Of course, all of this may be just pure speculation spewed out of the mind of a ranter who doesn't know what he's talking about; he may be completely wrong and the reality shows may turn out to be quality programming. But my experiences watching reality shows (Survivor season 1 and 2, Murder in Small Town X, Fear Factor, Millionaire, Amazing Race*, The Mole* and Big Brother [off and on]) have left me more cynical about reality shows, especially ones on tv now.

Last week, all over the news, it was found that in England somewhere, about two dozen suspects were arrested for planning to blow up planes using liquid explosives. In order to prevent such a thing from happening (just in case there are more like-minded people out there), international airports have imposed restrictions on items that can be included on a person's carry-on belongings

• all beverages, shampoo, sun tan lotion, creams, tooth paste, hair gel and other items of similar consistency
• baby formula and medicines may be allowed, but must be presented for inspection

Any medicines required to be brought on had to be accompanied by their owner and baby formulas would probably have to be demonstrated as real (partially tested by passengers).

The aftermath of these restrictions produced several shortfalls: Check-in process times increased, and the in-airport stores saw their sales drop to a point where they had to close, laying off their associated employees, possibly until the restrictions are lifted. At the risk of sounding careless or like a flamer, I think this shows an indication of an illusion of freedom shared by the dominant free world. After the tragedy of 9-11 (if you haven't heard of it, two commercial flight planes flew into New York's World Trade Towers, killing some 5,000 citizens....google for details), the United States, led by George W. Bush (Junior), declared war on who he saw as the threat to the "Free World", calling it the "War on Terror". In the time that followed up until now, Junior vowed to eliminate all threats to the free world, spouting out words that have been echoed by allies and the media: Freedom, Terror, War, Democracy, Evil, Good. While I don't know the details of the events leading up to the 9-11 attacks nor that of the war that followed (I won't cite references made in certain "documentaries" that I consider to be heavily biased), what I have noticed is certain things have become more prominent. Immediately after the attacks, men of middle-eastern descent became targets for racial abuse (I know there was verbal abuse, I can't recall any physical incidents off the top of my head).

A year later I was having a discussion about this with someone close to me and they made note that, while he isn't visibly bothered by being around anyone regardless of race, there have been a few occasions where he has seen them walking around town and felt the need for more caution around them than around others. In addition, I have also learned of other occasions where people I know have come to similar suspicions about those around them. Whether these people were right or wrong to make these types of associations I don't know; I don't form opinions on these types of things but what I have noticed, however, is that, since 9-11, people seem to live in a fragile illusion of freedom and normality (if that's word) going about their daily lives, working, going to school, paying their taxes. But once their government tells them that these lifestyles are in jeopardy they are more willing to give up some liberties in return for security, hoping to ensure that they can maintain their lifestyles. And as a result of this War on Terror, I believe that to a varying (however mildly) extent, people of middle eastern ethnicity have been villainized for some.

I dunno...maybe I'm just taking my securities and freedoms for granted. Maybe I'm ungrateful for all the liberties I enjoy. But all the current events that have been in the news still echo one question that I have posed before: How much are you willing to give up to get what you want?

/rant