Episode 1.5- News Break, "I have a child of my own..."

This one is less along the lines of television sitcoms and more along the lines of reality, but I hate it just the same, and I don't understand why it's ok.

Unfortunately, we live in a nation that has daily tragedies befalling the arguably innocent. Even more unfortunately, we live in a country that enjoys televising the misfortunes of these people on every possible channel and outlet in order to get ratings. So every couple weeks or so, we hear about a young person, whether child or teenager, getting abducted and killed. Now, I'll say right here, it's terrible. I do feel sorry for the parents for their loss. I wish the media would leave them alone.

It's the people they interview for reaction that piss me off.

Every single time something like this happens, there's ALWAYS one person on the news saying this phrase, "It's just so sad! I have a child of my own, and I'd hate to think of what it'd be like to lose them," and everyone sympathizes with them and these folks are thought to be sympathetic figures. But let's look at this from a different angle.

I'll go a little bit personal here: My father died very suddenly about 9 months ago. The man was my hero, and losing him was devastating. He had a lot of friends, and hundreds of people showed up at his funeral. However, not one of them said, "It's just so sad, I have a dad too, and I'd hate to think about losing him." Were none of them sympathetic? No. It's just that, when you actually say that, it's not comforting. It's not a sign of sympathy. It's actually closer to rubbing someone's loss in their face.

Think about it. If you were to meet an amputee, would you say, "I'm so sorry. I have both legs, and I couldn't imagine losing them." You wouldn't, right? It's a horrible thing to say. However, whenever someone says this after a child is murdered, they're a good person? I don't understand how people can be so stupid.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Episode 1- "But I'm here now."

Alright, I'm gonna kick this off with one of my absolute pet peeves. Almost every sitcom from the 80's and 90's had this moment, in one way or another- One of the main characters, usually a parent in their middle-ages, gets a surprise visit from their mom or dad, whom they thought was either dead or who left them at a young age and never came back. All sorts of tears begin to flow, but eventually, the conversation ends up looking something like this-

Character: "I don't want to know you! I've hated you for so long."

Deadbeat Parent: "I'm sorry. I was a horrible (mother/father), but I thought about you every day."

Character: "You weren't there for us!"

Deadbeat Parent: "But I'm here now."

Character: "You're right. I love you!"

Audience: "Awwwwwwwwwwwwww."

This is the point where I call horsecrap.

What kind of garbage reasoning is, "But I'm here now." Why does every character always buy that crap? So what if their parent is there now? What difference does that make in the slightest? They've managed to miss all the hard parts of your life and now they feel bad, they're close to death, and they want, for lack of a better word, atonement for their sins. Why give it to them? They never mattered. What's wrong with these characters and writers?

My favorite example of this episode comes during Family Matters. Harriet Winslow, the mom on the show, is married to Carl, who's a policeman, has 2 teenage children, and lives in a good size house in Chicago with her sister, nephew, and mother-in-law. One day, a bum shows up, and as the episode unfolds, you find out that the bum, who's an older man, is actually Harriet's, and her sister Rachel's, father. Apparently, they thought their Dad died in the Korean War. Now they find out that he ran out on them when they were real young. His excuse? "I was a terrible father." Obviously.

So of course, at this point, both the girls are crying. They're hysterical. They tell him they don't want to know him, and of course, it leads to the aforementioned, "You were never there!" Of course, he came back with, "But I'm here now." Again, of course, they forgave him. What the hell?! So what if that guy is there now? A person needs their parents the most when they're going through the initial stages of life, not when they're grown, married, have started a family, and have pretty much made it themselves. Why should Harriet take him back? What can he possibly offer her? Fond memories? He wasn't there. Financial support? She doesn't need it? A strong man? I doubt it, he's old.

However, of course she takes him back and accepts his apology. She is a "good" character, and this a "good" decision to make. I think this is where my real issue with this sort of thing comes into play. We're supposed to take from this episode that forgiveness is the best route, and that we should always forgive people, no matter how badly they've acted, if they come looking for it. I'm ok with this idea to a certain extent, but really, for this type of situation? Hell no! If someone important to me walked out of my life today and did not show back up for 40 years, with no explanation given except for, "I was a terrible (whatever)," why should I want to have them back? Forgiveness is divine, but intentionally abandoning your family should not be so easily forgiven.

That's my opinion, anyway.

I hate that serious episode

If you watch TV as much as I do, you know that every sitcom has that serious episode. Some "sitcoms" have TONS of serious episodes. You know the one- Someone's deadbeat parent returns, someone jepordizes their scholarship, one of the kids gets caught with drugs or cancer, etc. I HATE THAT EPISODE. Not only is it usually pointless ("Lots of kids have cancer!") but, inevitably, it ends up being dumb on a purely logical level. Now, obviously, it's a sitcom. It's not meant to be deep. However, that's what they're trying to have you believe, so that's what I'm going to tear apart. Follow me on a journey that rips up those episodes!