My hottest women from TV

AOL.com just released a list of the 50 sexiest women in television of all time. As with all lists, this one will cause some debate, especially its top 10.
The AOL list got a lot of names right but they got a lot wrong - at least in my opinion.

Here is the AOL Top 10:
10. Tina Louise: Ginger from "Gilligan's Island"
9. Catherine Bach: Daisy Duke from "The Dukes of Hazzard"
8. Katherine Heigl: Izzie from "Grey's Anatomy"
7. Barbara Eden from "I Dream of Jeanie"
6. Diana Rigg from "The Avengers" (Sidenote: I can't tell you how disappointed I was as a kid to hear this show existed but did not have Captain America or Iron Man in it.)
5. Eva Longoria from "Desperate Housewives"(Seriously she is ranked way too high.)
4. Heather Locklear from all of her various television roles.
3. Lynda Carter from "Wonder Woman"
2. Farrah Fawcett from "Charlie's Angels"
1. Pam Anderson from "Baywatch"

Here is my reranking:

10. Sarah Michelle Gellar (from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"; she was ranked No. 50 on the AOL list.) I actually don't think Buffy is that hot but I had to put her on here because of Ratt. "But what about Buffy?"
9. Jessica Biel (from "Seventh Heaven"; she was ranked No. 25 on the AOL list) I never watched "Seventh Heaven." Apparently Jessica Biel was on it; apparently she grew up to be quite hot.
8. Barbara Eden (from "I Dream of Jeanie"; she was ranked No. 7 on the AOL list.) If I were a teenage boy in the 1960s and I saw Jeanie in her midriff baring outfit, I would rub my magic bottle, if you know what I am talking about.
7. Dawn Wells ( Mary-Anne from "Gilligan's Island", not "Gilligan's Bi-land" which is a far, far different form of entertainment, she was ranked No. 11 on the original AOL list.) Personally, I like Mary-Anne more than Ginger but I think overwhelming opinion would choose Ginger over Mary-Anne. Ginger was meant to be sexy, Mary-Anne just happened to end up being sexy.
6. Charisma Carpenter (from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Veronica Mars"; she was ranked No. 22 on the AOL list) She is hot! even if she does have, er... darker-colored areolas. I would rank her higher but I think this is as high I could put her for argument's sake. Not a lot of people know who Charisma Carpenter is but they should.
5. Alyssa Milano (from "Whos The Boss?" and "Charmed"; she was ranked No. 29 on the AOL list.) I am not the biggest fan of Alyssa Milano; she likes the Dodgers. I never really watched any of her two shows; still, she needs to be ranked higher than 29!!
4. Christina Applegate (from "Married with Children" and no other shows; we will pretend that "Jesse" and "Samantha Who" don't exist; ranked No. 19 on the original AOL list) Every time she appeared on "Married with Children" the audience would hoot and holler and whoop it up; if that isn't an endorsement, I don't know what is.
3. Tina Louise (from "Gilligan's Island." She played Ginger; ranked No. 10 on the AOL list.) I can't argue with Ginger being ranked this high; she was supposed to play hot and sultry and she pulled it off. Do you think she did it with the Skipper, Gilligan or the Professor? Maybe she got it on with Mary-Anne. Yummy!
2. Jennifer Aniston (from "Friends" - duh. She was ranked No. 21 on the AOL list.) She may have been overhyped as we her haircut but Jennifer Aniston is very underrated as one of the sexiest women on television. See seasons 2-3 of "Friends" for her peak.)
1. Heather Locklear (from various shows, most notably "T.J. Hooker" and "Melrose Place."; ranked No. 4 on the AOL list.) I realized I had to put Heather Locklear in this No. 1 spot; while I am not personally the biggest fan of hers, I do realize her body (ha-ha) of work on multiple shows is significant. Basically, whenever she was on a show or joined a show, she made a significant impact and was arguably the hottest woman on whatever show she joined. For example, when she had a two-episode stint on "Scrubs" she never looked better.

The AOL list is also missing some noteable names; Gillian Anderson from "The X-Files" is one name that leaps out at me.

Goodbye CW - I C(an't) W(atch) you anymore

Dear CW,

You understand that I am not going to watch CW anymore, right?

In an era of crappy reality shows and half-baked comedies, Veronica Mars was the one show I really looked forward to every week. It combination of whip-smart dialogue with layered plots made it one of the best shows on television.

It constantly made me laugh and entertained me.But deciding to not renew Veronica Mars was a mistake.

The CW has so few quality shows and you are going to let your best show die?

I am truly disappointed in your network and the state of television today.But more to the point, I am now on the warpath against CW.

(Now I know why they call it the Can't Watch network.)

While I will no longer watch the CW, I will badmouth the network every chance I get.If someone mentions Farmer Gets A Wife to me, I will say, "Oh, that's on CW isn't it? I hate that network; it's full of crap."

If CW is on somewhere, I will ask someone to turn the network off or I will leave the room.And the worst part about all of this?

You could have had me.

You could have had me and my $40,000 plus a year salary. I am the type of young influential watcher that networks want.

Now I will turn my viewing habits elsewhere, if anywhere on television at all. There is little that is entertaining on right now.

I guess that is the worst part about all of this for you, CW.

You lost a customer.

Sincerely, Joe Florkowski

He Doesn't Have the Force Anymore

This article in Daily Variety today pretty much establishes my feelings about George Lucas.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117960606.html?categoryid=1682&cs=1

Let's face it: George Lucas has lost it. Not his mind, necessarily, but his creative EDGE. And I'm not the only one who has written about this but the variety article has emphasized just out of touch he is with the rest of us here on planet Earth.

I don't dispute that George Lucas is a great storyteller but he doesn't seem as creative anymore.

There is a reason why people now walk around with shirts that say "Joss Whedon is my master now." Like George Lucas, Whedon has created a massive fantasy/sci-fi universe with "Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and to a lesser degree "Firefly."

But unlike Lucas, I don't think Whedon has let the quality slip as much. Both tell exceptional, well-done stories but when it comes to dialogue and characterization, Whedon blows Lucas away. Part of this may also have to do with the fact that Joss Whedon wrote scripts for "Roseanne" and knows something about how real people talk. George Lucas probably still tells himself "Mesa hadda good idea about Jar Jar."

It pains me to write this since the original "Star Wars" trilogy is still the greatest film accomplishment in the history of cinema, other than the "Police Academy" series. I rank "The Empire Strikes Back" as my favorite film of all time.

I am not turning my back on George Lucas. I will go see "Indiana Jones 4" when it comes out next year. And if he eventually produces a live action "Star Wars" series, I will watch that, as well. But he has to just do the storytelling on these films; no more dialogue or direction from him!

But George Lucas is seemingly getting to be more and more of an old crank; you just know that when he watches movies and television shows, he is saying to himself, "That's not how we used to do it. In our day, we used...."

And while George Lucas has embraced CGI for his three most recent films, he still seems old fashioned and out of step. He is stubborn. He should have had others direct the "Clone Wars" and "Revenge of the Sith" movies. I liked the stories in both of those films but I think the dialogue and direction left a lot to be desired.

I remember that when "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" came out in 1999, it was well hyped and everyone talked about it. But the film that more people talked about and was better received was "The Matrix." And "The Matrix" was cool, well-done, and really blew a lot of people away.

That was what George Lucas used to do.

Super Bowled Over

See the picture of the above bowl?

It may be a Stupendous Bowl, it may be a Superb Bowl, it may even be a Stupid Bowl.

But it can never be a Super Bowl.

The National Football League won't allow it. In fact, they won't allow pretty much anything to be associated with the Super Bowl unless they give their OK (i.e. figure out a way to make money from it.) Super Bowl is trademarked by the NFL and you pretty much can't use the phrase in any kind of business or moneymaking setting without the NFL's OK.

And it may get worse. But before we get into that, let's talk about what it means when you can't say Super Bowl to promote your product.

Because of this, radio stations cannot host Super Bowl parties hosted by their radio station. Well, they can but they have to call it by a different name. They can call it the big game party, the football championship party or some other innocuous sounding name. Just not Super Bowl Party.

If an electronics store wanted to announce that they had a sale on television sets on Super Bowl Sunday, they could not call it a Super Bowl Sale. It would have to be a "football sale" or "big game" sale.

Everyone who is selling or wants to sell a product on Super Bowl Sunday has to be careful because without the consent of the NFL, they could be sued if they include Super Bowl in any of their advertisements or marketing. It is for this reason that the NFL actually stopped a church from having a Super Bowl party. Or as the clever lead for the newspaper reads: "NFL 1, God 0."
You can read about that here:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/16612138.htm

I am not totally opposed to the NFL's stance on not allowing radio stations and television stores to use the "Super Bowl" name to sell their product. But suing a church seems to be going too far.

But going too far seems to be what the NFL does best because it is now looking to trademark the name "Big Game." Yes, not only has the NFL restricted the name of "Super Bowl" the league is attempting to limit the use of "Big Game" as a description.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-nfl2mar02,1,2311217.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-nfl

Apparently the NFL thinks that too many people and places are using the phrase "Big Game" on Super Bowl Sunday to promote their product or event, hence the trademark effort for "Big Game."

So if the NFL succeeds, no more "Big Game Parties" and no more "Big Game Sales."

At this rate, you or I won't be able to utter the phrase "Super Bowl" without the NFL asking you for a dollar.

I don't believe the NFL will win this trademark argument. While I understand the league's stance, I think that the trademark courts will rule against the NFL. The phrase "big game" is a generic way of saying the Super Bowl and if companies aren't allowed to say "Super Bowl" then they should at least be allowed to call it something. I think "big game" is along the lines of generic names like aspirin and cola and thus should be left alone.

My main beef with all of this is that the more we constrict and limit what is said and how we say it, the less we will be able to communicate with one another. Already we live in a society where in a restaurant, if you ask for a Coke, they have to say Pepsi and inform you what beverage you are receiving and vice versa.

Same thing for some other products; you can't write about throwing something out in a Dumpster unless you capitalize Dumpster. You can throw something out in a trash bin if you want to be generic. Same thing with making a copy; you can't write Xerox with a lower case "x" otherwise Xerox lawyers will Xerox some copies of some legal documents for you to look at.

And when your're done reading those Xeroxes, don't throw them in a Dumpster on Super Bowl Sunday.

Misfortune cookie

I have decided that I am anti-fortune cookie.

I was at Panda Express last week and they made sure to hand me a fortune cookie. But I never opened it and probably never will.

Why?

Two main reasons.

The first is taste. I've never actually eaten a fortune cookie and rubbed my belly afterwards and said "That was good. MMMMMMMMM." Fortune cookies really don't taste like anything and they often get stuck in between your teeth. I've never had a pleasant experience eating a fortune cookie.

The second reason I ignore fortune cookies is the fortune inside. Generally, the fortune inside is not tempting or thrilling enough for me to open the cookie. Often the fortune inside is rather vague or offers some kind of statement, rather than a fortune. For instance, I once had a fortune that read: "You are valued for your kind words and generosity." That is not a fortune! That is a statement. Call them statement cookies then.

I am going to open up the fortune cookie on my desk to illustrate this point. Here is what it said:

"You have a reputation for being straightforward and honest."

Again, how is that a fortune? It's basically telling you characteristics that you may or may not possess. Not a fortune!

So with that in mind, here are my ways to improve fortune cookies.

No. 1 - Let's improve the taste of fortune cookies. Make them chocolate, put cream inside, even make them rum flavored! Something can be done here; all you need is a slight tweak and the fortune cookie can be a valued dessert item again.

No. 2 - Improve the fortunes or replace them entirely. I would like to see fortune cookies forecast futures even if they are a little vague, such as "You will have a good day at work today." Who wouldn't want that fortune? Or make the fortune more specific, such as "You will find $20 today." Again, who wouldn't want a fortune like that. Even if you don't find $20, at least you had a little fun with the fortune, right?!

(Also what happened to the lucky numbers? Who wouldn't like to see the return of the lucky numbers along with the fortune?)

If you can't improve the fortunes, then I say make the cookies a little larger and start including something else inside. Like maybe a toy surprise, like Cracker Jack. Maybe a little tattoo could be included inside, like a little Chinese tattoo or something. And maybe that tattoo could mean 'He walks among us, but he is not one of us.' Or maybe not.

Anyway, those are my ideas to improve fortune cookies. The only problem I can foresee is that perhaps including more specific fortunes would spur some numbnuts to sue when he or she had a fortune that did not come true. That is possibly why the fortunes we receive now are so lame and watered down.

In case you were wondering fortune cookies were created not in China, but in either Los Angeles or San Francisco in the early 20th century, depending on whom you believe.

I don't give a damn either way.

The Road to Yuckyville - Looking Back In History

Before you dug into your Raisin Bran this morning, I hope you gave a brief pause and thought to one of the Kellogg brothers, John Harvey Kellogg.

John Harvey Kellogg would have turned 105 today which is why we mention him now. He is one of a handful of fascinating characters from the late 19th century who advocated a series of -ahem - unique health principles.

John Harvey Kellogg is probably most famous for his advocacy and production of whole grain cereals. He and his brother, Will, produced whole grain cereals as a cheaper alternative to more expensive breakfast meals consisting of meat and eggs.

However, the two brothers had a falling out and Will formed his own company. Will's company eventually became The Kellogg Company, manufacturer of such fine breakfast staples as Frosted Flakes and Raisin Bran.

But that is the boring historical stuff. The fun historical stuff is the fact that John Harvey Kellogg was a doctor who ran Battle Creek Sanitarium in Michigan. There, Kellogg advocated a number of different health practices with a particular emphasis on enemas.

According to that wonderful reference source Wikipedia, Kellogg made sure that every patient at his sanitarium had an enema. He then had each patient eat half a yogurt and administered the rest of the yogurt through - you guessed it - an enema.

If any of this at all sounds familiar, it's because T.C. Boyle wrote a book called The Road To Wellville and that was turned into a move with the same title starring Anthony Hopkins.

We're not done yet with the story of John Harvey Kellogg! He also founded the Race Betterment Foundation. Kellogg was an advocate of eugenics and did not want white people to mix with immigrants or non-whites.

So besides being a racist and favoring shooting water up your butt, Kellogg also was against masturbation!

Kellogg suggested some unusual ways to keep boys from masturbating. Some of the methods he suggested: tying a boy's hands; covering the boys junk with a cage(!) and electrical shocking(!!)

Thankfully none of Kellogg's ideas really took root and the main lasting legacy he left us with is helping to advance the cause of breakfast cereals.

So the next time you run to the bathroom after a hearty whole grain breakfast cereal, I hope you take the time to think a little about John Harvey Kellogg. I know I will.

My Academy Awards thoughts

Watched a good portion of the Academy Awards tonight. Glad to see Martin Scorcese won for "The Departed." He was starting to get to be Peyton Manning with that whole "Best Director" thing.

Anyway, here are my thoughts lifted from Instant Messenger along with things I added in retrospect.

- I just wish they could condense the Academy Awards. There is too much pomp and circumstance and I wish it could just be 2 hours without commercials. As it is the Academy Awards now consists of two hours of shots of Jack Nicholson in the crowd and then two hours of everything else.

- I do enjoy the dead people tribute part of Oscar night. C'mon, who didn't shed a tear when they saw Don Knotts? Mr. Furley?

- Sometimes I am surprised at the people who died, like Maureen Stapleton. That one was a surprise. I guess I missed that one. Also I thought Jack Palance had already died. Maybe that was his character in City Slickers 2 I am thinking of.

- I think Eddie Murphy did not win for best supporting actor because of Norbit. That's karma paying him back for that shitty movie.

- Most documentaries win for sad topics. Maybe they should just call it the "sad film" award.

- Oh look. Jerry Seinfeld is presenting an award. Why didn't they get Kramer to present an award? He's so good on stage! Especially with his ethnic jokes!

- George Lucas is at the Academy Awards tonight. I think he is still hoping for a best actor nomination for Jar Jar Binks. "Mesa would like to thanka the Acadamie."

- I had no doubt Al Gore would win for "An Inconvenient Truth." And if he didn't win, he would appeal to the Supreme Court.

- Do you think Al Gore would trade his Oscar for the Presidency? I say no. He would trade his soul.

- Ennio Morricone wins a lifetime achievement award for his musical work on numerous films like Bugsy, The Untouchables and Police Academy 4. Ok, I made that one up. But he did score Red Sonja.

- They had Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) present an award, followed by Spider-Man (Tobey McGuire). They were in their secret identities.

- I guess that "Little Miss Sunshine" will win for Best Original Screenplay. I am right.

- Queen Latifah and John Travolta present an award together. Should these two be presenting for any awards? They have made so many crappy decisions filmwise they shouldn't even be on stage! "Last Holiday"? "Battlefield Earth"?

- Melissa Etheridge wins for best song for "An Inconvenient Truth"! She thanks her far hotter wife who we see in the audience. I take is this means Melissa is the 'husband.'

- Forrest Whitaker wins for playing Idi Amin. The Academy loves it when people play historic characters; it increases your chances of winning. Never mind that nobody actually knows what Idi Amin actually was like. At least when Jamie Foxx won for his portrayal of Ray Charles, we knew what Ray Charles was like. He walked around with sunglasses and a big smile on his face and shook his head side to side.

- Helen Mirren won for The Queen. She also played a real life person who is actually still living - Queen Latifah.

- Martin Scorcese wins "Best Director" for "The Departed." I haven't seen it, nor seen a lot of his films but I imagine that he won because A) "The Departed" was the best film in a weak crop of best pictures and B) This was finally his time. I'm sure "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas" are better and the Academy was recognizing him for those works as well.

- I appreciate that when they presented Best Director, Francis Ford Coppola, Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas presented the award and Coppola and Spielberg teased Lucas about not winning an Academy Award. I'm sure that will upset Lucas when he goes home tonight to sleep on his billions of dollars and tomorrow when he swims through his Money Bin.

- The Best Picture is announced and it's... The Departed! Like I say, in a year filled with films that didn't seem to be really full of "Ooomph" "The Departed" seemed more likely to win. However, I still think it was a disservice that "Beerfest" was not nominated for "Best Picture." I cannot think of a movie from 2006 that I enjoyed more.

Well, anyway, that was the Academy Awards. My early prediction for next year? "Norbit" sweeps all the major categories. You read it here first.