Time to pontificate. It's all about ME ME ME ME!!!! Blogs are GREAT!

Anyway - there's an article in TIME that covers some of the new comeback and "pseudo-comeback" TV shows that are out there - as celebrities who were popular in the 80's and 90's try to do something to revitalize their careers. And there's a quote from one of them - "she tells her sitcom's producer how much better she was treated on her show 'I'm It'. 'You know what?' he says. 'you're not It anymore.'"

So many people, including moi, really worry that we become irrelevent as we age. To some extent it's true. As we get older- we are less and less the targets of the mainstream media. Part or most of that is the inherent bias of media providers - that they want to target the "elusive 19-34 year old male market". At one time in American media - this wasn't the case. I think movies, TV, etc. didn't focus on demographics to the point that demos. were the ONLY basis of entertainment production. The truth is, if only demographics had been used 40 years ago like they are today, some of the most popular shows ever, like "Bewitched" or the "Brady Bunch", would never have been made. Not that I think these are great art, but they have been influential in american culture, and something that most adults share (sick as it is) as a point of reference.

But - it's also a two-way street. As we get older, I think we're also less likely to want to keep up with mass-media anyway. I love music, but the older I get - it's not that I'm stupid or uninterested in things, I just don't care as much. My internal dialogue is much more about what's going on in my head and job, etc. rather that keeping up with the life of Britney Spears.
I have a lot less time in general, and what I do have, I want to guard jealously. It's so funny too - because when I was a kid, I didn't understand why my parents weren't just DYING to see the latest Stephen Spielberg movie or hear the latest album by the Cure, not only weren't they enthused, they didn't even seem to CARE. What was wrong with them?

So - for has-been stars that are trying to revive a career, I have to wonder what the motivation is (no pun int.). Doesn't everyone, as they get older, move into work or endeavors that and more appropriate to where they are in life? I'm probably assuming too much here, but even for people that aren't great intellectual heavyweights - who wants to be running around trying to be an action hero star at the age of 60? Even celebs like Clint Eastwood and Paul Newman, who have had very successful careers into older age have success because they are able to put some ironic perspective into what they're doing - they know they aren't young tender matinee idols out for a shot on the screen.

But - I don't think like most of the population. To me - the older and more financially secure I get, the more I want to be able to reflect and actually take my time to THINK about something and debate its merits or lack thereof in my mind. I want to do things that are less reliant on physicality. Why don't other people want this as well? I think there's a strong denial going on. People think they can go on being Tom Cruise until they're 60 - and the joke is, not even Tom Cruise can.

So - why do people care that they aren't catered to by the media? Basically, media is driven by advertising dollars, and ad-agencies know that they probably can't influence older audiences as much. Older audiences don't spend their money on the same things as young people, but are more likely to spend more money on bigger, more expensive big-ticket items. So - they do spend, and significantly so, but are more likely to buy the products they buy anyway, and probably less likely to be swayed by ads, etc. Or so the thinking goes.

The flip side of this is that marketers are selling to younger audiences likely to be swayed by ads, and thus get more bang for their advertising buck. But think about this - with such intense drive and competition to advertise products, this means that the major portion of the American advertising industry preys upon irrationality of the young. The fact that they are vulnerable and able to be influenced. And that's pretty much it.

Booyyeeee -this is an interesting article:

Bucking the Trend in the Land of the Large
Mark Graham for The New York TimesREADY TO MOVE IN: Tammy McNary and Steven Hagler outside their 2,100-square-foot house under construction in Kessler Woods.By FRED A. BERNSTEIN Published: May 22, 2005

Correction Appended
IN 2003, Matt Holley began planning a development of relatively small houses - one of them just 1,800 square feet - in Dallas. His first task was convincing potential lenders that there was a market for the compact dwellings. "Banks," he said, "like to go with a proven thing."
And big houses are the proven thing, especially in Texas, where houses of more than 4,000 square feet are common. Mr. Holley did succeed in getting bank financing, and now, the first phase of his development, called Kessler Woods, is nearing completion in the city's Oak Cliff neighborhood, which is near downtown and consists mostly of modest houses from the 1940's and 1950's. Many of them are under 2,000 square feet, and he wanted his houses to blend in - a rare gesture in an era when new houses often loom over their neighbors.
Most of his 13 houses have been sold, Mr. Holley said. And he has just closed on land for a second phase, with an additional 17 houses.
Mr. Holley seems to be benefiting from a renewed interest in modest houses. Young professional couples, he said, look at big houses, and "can't imagine furnishing, maintaining and using all that space." He believes there will be more projects like his. "I just happen to have the first one out there," he said.
Urban Reserve in North Dallas may be second. The houses being planned for that community are mostly 2,000 to 2,500 square feet. The developer, Diane Cheatham, said that she is finding potential buyers very receptive to the smaller-is-better concept.
They don't, however, always start out thinking that they want a small house. "People walk in the door and they say, 'We really need a 3,000 square-foot house,' " she said. "As we get into a conversation with them, we say to them, 'If you think you need 3,000, let's see what we might be able to do in 2,500, 2,600 square feet.' "
"We take the approach that this is a house built for you, and let's see if we can make it more efficient," Ms. Cheatham said. As an environmentalist, she said, she tells clients that if they believe in sustainability, they should consider using fewer resources to build their houses.
"If I didn't believe that," she said, "I would be doing 'big hair houses' " - a reference to the overornamented McMansions that have proliferated around Dallas.
One thing Kessler Woods and Urban Reserve have in common is that both are in a midcentury modernist style. Mr. Holley said that features like sliding glass walls, open floor plans and generous terraces make houses seem bigger than they are. "The indoor space," he said, "is extended by the possibility of outdoor living."
At Kessler Woods, he chose architects who share his enthusiasm for modernism - and what could be called modest-ism. One of them, Patrick Hammers, said his own home is 1,500 square feet. Another, Clifford Welch, has a house, from the 1950's, that is a little over 2,000 square feet. "It is as timeless and useful today as it was when it was built," he said.
More and more, he said, "I'm finding clients receptive to the idea of houses that are higher in quality, smaller in size."
Mr. Hammers agreed, saying that clients will agree to build smaller houses if they have all the "bells and whistles."
Mr. Holley said that, for houses in Kessler Woods, he is able to charge about $250 a square foot, which he said is more than $50 above the average per square foot in Dallas. That means that a typical 2,000-square-foot house in the development is $500,000. "We try to incorporate all the things that will make it, for them, a special house, using less real estate," he said.
Customers think the houses are worth it.
Tammy McNary and Steven Hagler are about to become the first residents of Kessler Woods - their house, designed by Mr. Welch, will be ready in June.
According to Mr. Hagler, 43, who works for Hewlett-Packard, when he tells people at work that he bought a house, one of the first things they ask is "How big is it?" When he tells them 2,100 square feet, they're usually surprised.
"Some of those people have built houses that are much larger," said Ms. McNary, 40. "They wonder, why, if you have an opportunity to build a house, would you build a house that small?"
The answer, Ms. McNary said, is "we want 100 percent of the space in our house to be space we use on a daily basis; we don't need space for space's sake."
Seeing the design has apparently made believers out of some of their friends who are big-house fans. But, she said, "Several of them have been to the site, and they come away impressed."
While buyers are only starting to appreciate the allure of smaller, well-designed houses, architects have been on the bandwagon for years.
Max Levy, an architect whose work has appeared in a number of national magazines and who generally designs one house at a time, said that he has a waiting list - despite the fact that he is known for talking clients into building smaller houses than they initially request.
Architecturally, he said, "going smaller always results in a better project; it's always more focused."
Mr. Levy knows how to make compact houses look substantial, by, for example, distributing rooms around courtyards. That increases the outside dimensions of the house and - as a bonus - gives each room two exposures.
Mr. Levy has sworn off the steroids of American architecture, the synthetic materials like sprayed-on stucco that enable so many houses to grow so big so quickly. Mr. Levy uses stone and plaster, telling clients that quality matters more than quantity.
Mil Bodron, a Dallas architect, sold his 2,100-square-foot house in Highland Park last month - and it wasn't even on the market. "Someone made me an offer I couldn't refuse," Mr. Bodron said. He attributes that to the luxe features he added to the midcentury house, including a brushed-aluminum Bulthaup kitchen, a computerized lighting system and high-end bathroom fixtures.
His philosophy, Mr. Bodron said, is that "you shouldn't buy a house so big that you can't afford to do it well."
"Less space," he said, "isn't as much of a problem as bad space."
Correction: May 29, 2005, Sunday:The National Perspectives article last Sunday, about the construction of small houses in Dallas, misstated the occupation of Mil Bodron and the location of his house. He is an interior designer, not an architect; the house is in Dallas, not Highland Park.

I am bored out of my mind. There is nothing to do here but sit. I'm not sure how much longer I can do this.

I need to clean up my office and rearrange things. No wonder I have gained so much weight. Arggh!

I have a ton of stuff to do at home, but nothing here. If I"m going to do stuff for myself here, I need to do it. This must be what other people with normal jobs do. I almost can't adjust! For ten years I worked my ass off! I worked so hard almost every minute of every day that I can't grasp what a lot of more "normal people" do every day. No wonder this country is so fat!-