Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Your Adequate Guide to Weekend Television

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 08, 2002
Welcome to another installment of the adequate guide to weekend television. This weekend's programming looks to be at least a million-billion times better than last week's, so let's get right into it. (All times are EST, because every other timezone sucks.)

More stories about Arts
Thomas Kinkade brings art back to the people
Review: Fred Fortin, 'Le Plancher des Vaches'
Review: Willie Col?n, `Lo Mato'
Anthrax - Please, PLEASE change your name.
Kill Yr Idols: Kurt Cobain
Anthrax - Some factual corrections, but no apology.
This week's top-selling music releases
Music Review: Britney
Some help for all you aspiring Santas.
Fuck Cunt Shit Piss Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits
Classic rerelases: Caf? Tacuba, Les Cowboys Fringants
The Semiotics of modern 'Popular' music - Symbolism and Discourse
George Harrison Dead: The World Mourns
Review: Saint Luke's Christmas Eve Candlelight Service
Britney Spears' Six-Inch Secret
Reexamining the Recording Industry
Hey Kids! Need a Band Name? Then Check This Out!
An Adequate Guide to This Weekend in Television
The History of Rap.
Theater Review: My Fair Lady
World Music Review: Ozomatli, `Embrace the Chaos'

More stories by
Joe Blow

An Adequate Guide to This Weekend in Television
The Drug Underground Comes Online

Weekend Musts:

Wall $treet Week With Louis Rukeyser - PBS - 12:30pm Sat
As someone who values their investments, this is one of the ways I keep the pulse of Wall Street and learn who's moving and shaking in the weeks to come. It's especially entertaining as it appears to be hosted by a man who's not only about 150 years old, but appears to have died at least 80 years ago. Regardless of it appearing at first glance to be a finance-oriented Tales from the Crypt, the information presented is always useful and timely. This week, Morgan Stanley will be profiled. Or should I say "was profiled" as this week is a rerun.

Queer as Folk - Showtime - 10:00pm Sun
This is a great series about three completely different gay men, different ages, different social strata, and different stages of "coming out." You thought Three's Company was funny? Well, get rid of the chicks and add two more gay men, and you've obviously got 200% more fun! Gayety even. Three strapping fellows with one thing in common: they like to jam their penises into other men's bungholes. What a great show. It should come as no surprise that it's a British show. Does any man live in Britain who isn't half a fag? Generations of inbreeding must lead one to want to stick their wang up the dirt chute, I can think of no other explanation. What a fraud the whole thing is. These deviants should be locked up in some special prison just for queers, but here they get their own goddamned TV show, the point of which is not to just ridicule fags relentlessly. Honestly, the concept of "Gay Pride" is the most idiotic concept I think I've ever run across. How can somebody be proud of liking to stick his penis in the orifice God designated for the expulsion of waste? And their paltry, putrid excuses for their behavior, "It's genetic, we were born this way." Shut up, Mary, nobody's born gay. That "genetic problem" would be self-correcting, as you homos wouldn't be able to reproduce. "God loves everybody" yeah sure right. It says right in the Bible that he hates you guys, because you're sick. You are proof that God makes mistakes and doesn't clean up after himself, you filthy degenerates. The clearest proof that you guys know what you're doing is wrong is the over-representation of homosexual men in the categories of "drug abuser" and "child molester." You can't be happy ramming your member up somebody's ass, you have to diddle kids, too, don't you? You sick bastards. I'm looking forward to the episode of this show where they all get AIDS and give it to the rest of you fags.

Weekend Miss:

XIX Winter Olympics - NBC - 8:00PM Sat/Sun
Speaking of filthy homos, this weekend's Olympic games are polluted by figure skating. Now, if you believe half of what classic literature tells us about the Greeks (and even believing half is difficult) they were a pretty queer bunch themselves. But they at least had contests that had something to do with athletics, such as javelin throwing, boxing, chariot races, and running. This figure skating crap is the biggest disgrace in the current perversion of athletic contests that the UN tries to pass off as "the Olympic games." Any fey French asshole can strap on a pair of skates and flit around like a jackass on ice, and if you can stomach watching, you see that many of them do. You Nancies already got your "Gay Games," please stop fagging up real athletics.

Until next week, remember: if it's worth watching, I'll let you know.


I see homophobia is alive and well (nt) (3.00 / 2) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 05:47:35 PM PST

So? (3.66 / 3) (#2)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 10:18:31 PM PST
You should be tolerant towards all walks and persuasions of life. The poor man probably cannot help himself -- his homophobia is most likely genetic. You should love and counsel him. Spread some love and tolerance around, OK?

Peace and much love...

I believe... (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 03:35:27 AM PST
that recent advances in the pharmacutical industry has brought about medical treatments available to cure homophobia and bigotry.

This is a great relief to bigots who have, for years, been praying to God daily, begging Him to make them politically correct.

Are *you* still here? (3.00 / 2) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 10:24:49 PM PST
Once again, your cultural imperialism is on display (together, this time, with some utter flamebait which I'll ignore).

Do Usians not realise that the rest of the world has its own television schedules? Some of us can even watch locally-made TV as an antidote to the mountains of yank crap you try to foist on us.

You should title your review a "... Guide to Weekend Television in the USA" and post it on one of the many sites that exist specifically to serve your unfortunate, ignorant, benighted land.

This site, as far as I'm aware, is read internationally, you stupid seppo.


Two points (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 10:32:14 PM PST
America produces television of a quality far superior to that produced anywhere else in the world. As a result, our shows dominate foreign media to the extent that foreign TV schedules are almost indistinguishable from domestic ones.

Also, we do not "foist" our product onto you. You come looking for it. Your TV networks pay tens of millions for it, because viewers flock to it in the hundreds of millions. If you have a problem with watching entertainment produced in America, I suggest you stop watching it. If you have a problem with other foreign nationals watching it, you should take this up with them. The USA doesn't care, because it isn't our fault.

On the contrary... (3.00 / 1) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 8th, 2002 at 10:44:59 PM PST
US TV producers notoriously "dump" their less-popular shows onto Australian commercial TV networks by insisting that those networks take several dogs along with each crowd-pleaser.

As for the relative quality of US television, as you are being so polite and reasonable I will concede that this is a matter of individual taste.


By taking our table scraps (none / 0) (#7)
by John Wainright on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 02:55:13 AM PST
You basically admit that there is a lack of talent and creativity in Australia to produce quality shows of your own.
All these comments from people living in backwater countries, complaining about the quality of American Television, leads one to wonder if their minds are growing to maturity. It is well known that poor diet and disease cause atrophy of the mind. Perhaps an aid program for these unfortunates is needed.
It seems that this is another feather in the cap of the superiority of the American system.

O Superior Ones... (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 04:34:50 AM PST
We want your tablescraps. We will eat anything, if it is you who feed it to us.

We sit here wide-eyed, mute and worshipful, awe-struck by the magnificance of your cultural treasure trove.

All we want is to be like you. All we want is to be with you.

So, please stop bombing us, OK?


No! (none / 0) (#11)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 04:09:00 AM PST
Only after you passed your course of democratic reeducation.

Peace and much love...

apart from game shows - (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 06:00:06 AM PST
"Who Wants To Ba A Millionare" and "The Weakest Link" are rather popular in the US I believe.

Bet you can't wait for "Pop Idol", suckers!

popular = good? (2.00 / 1) (#22)
by Nobody on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 06:39:44 AM PST
Just because American shows have inflitrated everybody else's television schedules, does not mean they are good. It just means that they appeal the masses - the lowest common denominator. I.e. They are accessible to stupid people.

It's like chart music - just because the Backpassage Boys consistently sell records, does not mean that their music has any artistic merit. Nobody with a serious interest in music would take any interest in the pap with which they invade the airwaves.

Let us take, as examples, two of the US's prime TV exports: Jerry Springer and Friends. The Springer show: mindless, formulaic, trailer trash nonsense. The most stimulating material on offer is some gratuitous swearing and nudity. And as for Friends, well blow me down if this isn't the most tedious, bland comedy in history. Six good-looking, heterosexual caucasians who are, er, friends. A few reasonable one-liners do not good entertainment make - where are the interesting characters, the conflict, the gritty realism, the irony...

It may be that in Britain we are less embarrassed to admit that there are a few gays amongst us (there are probably just as many in the US, but a greater proportion of them are closet homosexuals because of ranting homophobic bigots like Joe Blow). However at least we have mastered the art of comedy.

Cultural Elitist (none / 0) (#32)
by randimp on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 12:01:16 PM PST
So sorry Mr. Nobody for your most likely public-school educated, queen's english speaking, pompous self's offense at U.S. television that panders to the masses (the lowest common denominator). Maybe you've forgotten, but in our newly democratized world, the masses get to decide what is meritorious, not the elitist, well-educated aristocracy of the Old World. So if the masses like cheap sex and violence, then Democratic American Entertainment gives it to them in heaps and the commonfolk of the world drink it up happily. For better or worse, Matthew Arnold's worst nightmares have come true and capitalism has allowed the uproarious, hedonistic middle-class to hijack society from the aristocrats and spread their barbarism around the world.

I almost bought it until... (none / 0) (#33)
by nathan on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 02:04:44 PM PST
the uproarious, hedonistic middle-class...

So, that would be the XIXth-century bourgeoisie, living riotously in comparison to the debauched, pox-rotten aristocracy? What country is this, anyway?

I think you're mixing two ideas here. The XIXth-century lower classes became today's lower middle classes, by and large. Arnold might have been afraid of the lower classes, but he belonged firmly to the middle class of his own day.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

What I find most amusing... (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 03:25:38 AM PST
is that the majority of this article is given over to an impassioned rant about Queer as Folk. It simply must be watched.

Queer as Folk is, of course, British. As are all the other quality programs on American TV - e.g. The Teletubbies, Trainspotting, The League of Gentlemen, Blackadder, etc. In fact, this entire website owes it's existance to the British invention of irony.

So, to summarise the article, watch high-quality, controversial British TV programs. Don't watch that yank crap.

One note: (none / 0) (#23)
by nx01 on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 09:06:56 AM PST
The only reason we send you our "yank crap" is that you continue to eat it up and ask for seconds.


"Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
-- James Gosling

Winter Olympics? Feh! (none / 0) (#9)
by pyramid termite on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 04:34:56 PM PST
They're never going to be worth a damn until they include drunken snowmobiling as a sport.
He who hides his madman, dies voiceless - Henri Michaux

The olympics isn't about hot gay sex... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by excromancer on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 11:55:57 PM PST
...its about hot, nubile 15 years olds in oh-so-tight spandex unitards.

The olympics is like Jpop without the annoying singing.

Amen (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 10:38:45 AM PST

Plenty of non-Gay sports (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by jvance on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 08:28:56 AM PST
There are loads of wholesome, non-Gay events in the Winter Olympics. Like Women's Hockey, for example.

Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Funny.... (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 03:44:08 PM PST
tkatchev... That's a very amusing point, but you miss something very important: homosexuals aren't harming anyone by being homosexual. Individuals like the author of this article ARE harming others by being homophobic. Genetic or not, there is a clear difference.

of course (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 04:00:56 PM PST
The transmission of STDs and the downbreaking of society's morals pale in comparison to words written on a webpage. How right you are!

How exactly? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 09:28:02 PM PST
How exactly are homophobes harming anyone? They have a right to insult anybody; in fact, in a democracy, any person has the right to insult any other person.

Homophobes, regardless of anti-homophobe prejudice, are actually fairly reasonable, normal human beings. Just because they have an irrational fear of homosexuality doesn't automatically make them homocidal maniacs.

Please be more considerate next time. The prejudice inherrent in your words in appalling. Some of my best friends are homophobes.

Peace and much love...

Yes they are harming others... (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 08:25:37 PM PST
They themselves may not be homocidal maniacs, but they create homocidal maniacs, opression, and public prejeduce. Do you expect me to be tolorant towards those that aren't? I admit, your views are very interesting and thought-provoking, but I still disagree.

You are clearly misguided. (none / 0) (#29)
by tkatchev on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 09:00:35 PM PST
Look, oppression and violence is wrong, and in a democratic society should be prosecuted. The sexual orientation of the perpetrator doesn't matter in this case.

What you are doing, essentially, is persecuting people for nothing but a "thoughtcrime". In a free society, people have the right to hold any wacky opinion they want. You can only prosecute actual misdeeds, not "intent to commit a crime".

It's as if I said that all communists should be put in jail, because clearly they "create anti-american maniacs and promote the overthrow of the government".

What you say is just wrong. You cannot punish people for holding an opinion, even if that opinion greatly offends you!

Peace and much love...

baffling (none / 0) (#30)
by nathan on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 09:19:19 PM PST
Mr or Ms AR:

The first time I skimmed this exchange, I just assumed that you were a rightist writing against gay immorality. The rhetoric is depressingly symmetrical.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

think harder (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 04:11:24 PM PST
The transmission of STDs occurs in both homosexuals and heterosexuals, and as for the breakdown of morals, that's a matter of opinion. Considerably fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals will force their preferences on you. Just look at the number of domestic rape cases in the past, say, 10 years - there are far more heterosexual rape cases than homosexual ones. If homosexuality is the breakdown of morals, than sexuality in general does far more damage to the moral standard of the human race (and some will argue that that's true). And yes, words written on a webpage are FAR worse. You have no idea how much worse...

Go do some reading before you think any harder (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 04:36:50 PM PST
Considerably fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals will force their preferences on you

Nonsense. There are far more cases on record of heterosexual rape because there are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals out there in the first place, and because homosexuals (male and female) are far less likely to report rape. The evidence available does not suggest that heterosexual men are any more or less likely to commit rape than homosexual men (though women of either orientation are in fact less likely than men).

Furthermore, unprotected anal sex is, in fact, much more likely to transmit disease than unprotected vaginal sex. Some heterosexuals do engage in anal sex, and some homosexual men do not, but on average, the sexual behavior of homosexual men is more likely to transmit disease than that of heterosexual people or homosexual women.

These facts do not fit well with standard liberalist propaganda, so it is not surprising that you are unaware of them, but any serious study of rape or venereal disease does acknowledge them.

Next time, do your homework before you tell others to "think harder."

Liberalist propoganda? (2.00 / 1) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 08:13:18 PM PST
If there is any propoganda out there, it's homophobic in nature. That being said, here we go again:
Yes, I agree about the fact that homosexual sex is probably more likely to transmit disease, but the difference is not so great that it really makes a difference. If someone chooses to smoke or drink, it's their choice. If they choose to smoke or drink with someone else, it's their choice as well. Yes, you'll say it spreads dangerous deceases. They will be spread otherwise. If there were no homosexuals in the world, they would still spread.
As for the homosexual/heterosexual rape issue, please do show me where you get your facts. I would like to see them. I know that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, and I kept that in mind when I wrote my post. Still, I would like to see where you got your information from, as it seems like you have some solid facts behind your arguement.
Still, don't miss the main point of my arguement, which is that homosexuals do not harm the rest of the population by being homosexuals any more than they would by being heterosexuals.

Dear reactionary ignorant hatemonger: (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by RobotSlave on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 03:58:15 AM PST
I see you are ever so adamant in demanding sources for the facts that I cite, yet you offer not even a hint of a source of your own to counter my assertions.

Go, then, if you will, and find examples that counter the factual presentations offered by Susan Brownmiller, Robin Warshaw, Timothy Beneke, and Allan Brandt. I can easily list a dozen more. Can you list even four for your case?

I do apologize for forcing you to wade through nigh unto a thousand pages of carefully researched and densely written historical scholarship, but if you want to know "where I get my facts," then you had damned well better be prepared to do the reading necessary to appreciate the salient information for yourself.

This isn't about some little pissant op-ed web-page screed you've read somewhere. This is about real scholarship, in the real scholarly world, where the tripe you've read on Salon isn't worth the paper it was written on.

Now then.

Do homosexuals harm the rest of the population by simply by being homosexuals? Of course not. You defend nothing but a tautology. Do homosexuals pose a greater risk of disease to the population at large by consistently engaging in more dangerous sexual activity (with homosexuals, bisexuals, and non-consenting heterosexuals)? Of course they do. Any honest epidemiologist will tell you this. But can you accept it? Are you willing to submit your ideology to statistical evidence? Of course not. That would be too much to ask, wouldn't it?

You are, in the smallest words available, a bigot. You are incapable of viewing the debate over sexually transmitted diseases in any terms other that those imposed by your received liberalist ideology of sexuality.

Your moronic rejection of the part that homosexuals play in contemporary epidemiology does far more, in the long run, to hurt the acceptance of homosexuality, than it does in the short run to assuage the consciences of those homosexuals who continue to conduct their sexuality in a manner that is, from a medical viewpoint, utterly and completely callous and irresponsible (and believe me, fuckwit, such homosexuals do exist).

Anal sex is, in fact, far more likely to transmit disease than vaginal sex. This most certainly does "make a difference," no matter how much you might wish it didn't.

The fact that you believe that the only propaganda existent is "homophobic" in nature is laughable on its face. What of "queer nation?" What to make of the practice of "outing?" Is Tom Cruise gay? Why isn't there more criticism of "transgendered" persons?

You haven't spent fifteen minutes reading the history of the ideology that you defend. Heterosexuals do harm to society, to be sure, but homosexuals, and those who blindly defend them, are doing harm as well; harm of a unique nature; harm that they are all too often utterly unwilling to examine.

You believe, in your heart, that you are the "underdog" in the "culture wars." Nothing could be further from the truth. The sooner you embark on something resembling a real understanding of history, the sooner you will be able to admit your ignorance, and the harm done by it, and to atone for it, and to begin to rise above the pale, fact-poor propaganda that you presently accept as "history." We'll be waiting for you, up here in the clear light, where things look a little more complicated, and a lot more interesting.

You have a lot of difficult reading ahead of you.

Hey-- I've got a neat idea: why don't you accuse me of being some sort of ignorant conservative, rather than address the criticisms I've offered you? It will be much easier, I assure you. Blindly assuming that your opponent is an "ignorant conservative" is much, much easier than taking an honest look at any valid criticism of your dogmatic liberalism, I'm sure.

So go on. Tell me how happy I'd be to champion Enron, re-elect W., or make Christianity the state religion. I'd be glad to spit it back in your face, after I've had a good laugh, you sheeplike dogmatic liberalist.

You do more harm in your effort to perceive yourself as a "good person" than you can presently imagine.

You are fucking with:

© 2002, RobotSlave

You do not have permission to reproduce this comment, in whole or in part, without written permission of the author.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

I'm so EXCITED!!! (none / 0) (#24)
by nx01 on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 09:12:36 AM PST
The Olympics are here, the Winter Olympics are here, the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City are here, oh heavenly joy upon rejoicing upon ecstacy!

You know why I'm excited? Do you know why? I bet you don't! I'll tell you why...



La dee da dee da dee da hooray!

"Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
-- James Gosling

Scotland's frozen tundra (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 09:30:50 AM PST
Curling. A national sport we're actually good at(apart from tossing our cabers). And so economical! It only requires two brooms, and a few lumps of granite - basically free to anyone who lives near Kemnay. Of course, to anyone outside Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen city, granite is fantastically expensive...

Wall Street Week (none / 0) (#26)
by Richard C Suquer on Mon Feb 11th, 2002 at 11:34:33 AM PST
Wall Street Tip of the Day

As a wise investor, I always keep my eye on the market. Recent announcements lead me to believe that this company is going to be raking in profits any day now. I suggest you all buy before the share price reaches a new record high!

I know there are some skeptics in the audience.. some might say "free software is incompatible with wealth" -- to those individuals I suggest reading this essay, which is PROOF that free software is the key to wealth and fame!

Now is not the time to be timid! As a wealthy leftist I personally have invested over $100,000.00 in LNUX! If you want to be rich, I advise you to do the same!!!!!! Once I have made millions I plan on moving to the sunny island nation of Cuba to work in the cigar industry and advance the noble cause of socialism. What will YOU do with your newfound wealth?

Revolution from Below! GPL the Constitution!


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to