I was reading a lament about modern sitcoms and the author mentioned The Brady Bunch, that iconic family sitcom of the 70s. It reminded me of a conversation I had a few days ago with some friends.

We grew up with The Brady Bunch, a blended family that managed to blend within only two episodes, and rarely if ever, had the usual problems of blended families. In fact, the natural mother of the boys and the natural father of the girls (we assumed deceased) were never mentioned except for one brief scene in the first episode. The only rivalries were between the genders, and were soon resolved – always in under 30 minutes. Of course, there was always the sibling rivalry between Jan and Marcia as Jan struggled against her perceived invisibility in the shadow of her older sister, leading to the well-known cry: “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia”.

The show was hokey, unrealistic and didn’t really try very hard to be otherwise as we watched the boys play football on the astroturf back lawn. So why is it so addictive?

The brilliance of 1995’s The Brady Bunch Movie was in placing this square 70s family in the 90s without changing a thing about them. The cast was brilliant in their portrayals of the characters and those of us who watched the original series were those who laughed the most.

It is easy now as adults to disdain the simplistic plots and innocent fun but have you ever accidentally come across the show while channel surfing? Have you noticed that you can’t seem to go any further? It’s like an obsession. For some reason you are transfixed and must watch the entire episode. I was remarking on this phenomenon to some friends, aged 50 and 55 and they both related having the same experience.

I wonder if it is a universal experience for those of our generation? We never seem to get over The Bradys. What about you?

For those who never get enough Brady Bunch, here’s a few links:

The Brady Bunch Theme Song

The Bradys sing on Amateur Night

The Brady Bunch Episode Guide

If you’re over fifty – if you’re a boomer – then you will automatically recognize the words Bigfoot, Yeti and Sasquatch.

Legends about Bigfoot go back hundreds of years into Native American history (Sasquatch is a Salish Indian word meaning “wild man”) and sightings reported in America can be traced to the 1830s but Bigfoot first stepped out of legend and into the American consciousness in a big way in 1958.

That was the year that Ray Wallace discovered Bigfoot footprints in Humboldt County, California. The find launched a half-century of interest in the hairy, humanoid creature of legend and inspired thousands of individuals to spend their lives searching for more evidence of the large ape-like creature.

Following Ray Wallace’s death in 2002, his family came forward and admitted that he had perpetrated a hoax. They claimed that Ray had made the footprints himself using 16 inch carved feet that he strapped onto his boots. The amazing thing is that this revelation made little to no difference to the true believers and the search for Sasquatch continued in earnest.

Fuel to the fire of their imaginations was the famous Patterson-Gimlin film of 1967. Shot at the Bluff Creek area of the Six Rivers National Forest in northern Californa, the film showed a large, hairy, bipedal creature as it ambulated out of view. The film was studied by experts on both sides of the question of Bigfoot’s existence, especially because it allowed study of the creature’s gait. Although questions remain, the film has never been proved to be real nor has it ever been proved to be a hoax.

Born in 1958, the year of Bigfoot’s great publicity surge, was Jeffrey Meldrum, a tenured Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology, and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. Meldrum became a believer after finding some 15″ footprints in Walla Walla, Washington. Originally assuming the footprints to be a hoax, he then noted anatomical traits he says could not be faked. Meldrum, the author of Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, has found that his belief in Sasquatch embarrasses his academic colleagues and he has become an outcast amongst the faculty at Idaho State.

Bigfoot has even made it in Hollywood, starring alongside John Lithgow in the 1987 film Harry and the Hendersons in which a family on a camping trip hits a bigfoot with their station wagon and takes him home.

Look for books on bigfoot and you will likely find them in the “paranormal” section of your local bookstore. Yet the legend continues, fueled by occasional sightings, findings of footprints or other evidence. 50 years after Bigfoot made it big, his existence is still a hotly debated issue.

More about Bigfoot:

Bigfoot at 50 – Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence

The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization

The International Bigfoot Society

A commenter here chastised me for questioning Madonna’s motives and methods in her Malawi adoption pursuit, likening it to little David Banda, the 1-year-old Malawian boy “winning the lottery”.

The comment pointed out the charity Madonna will bestow upon the impoverished area, with millions of dollars and a new orphanage.

Perhaps it doesn’t sound so bad that the orphanage will be run by Raising Malawi, a charity set up by The Kabbalah Center, or that the children who the orphanage will serve will be taught a curriculum based on Spirituality For Kids, developed by the Kabbalah Center. But how many people actually know anything about the Kaballah Center?

A BBC undercover investigation of the London branch of the Kabbalah Center found them selling bottles of magical healing water, infused with enough energy from the mediations of members to cure cancer. The water is actually bottled in Canada by a company that was investigated in 2002 as to how its water is tested. The Center answered questions about the selling of water, face creams and other products by stating a need to “fundraise” to support their charitable works.

The Kabbalah Center claims to have 40 centers worldwide but Israeli authorities cite accounting inadequacies in their refusal to give the charity a certificate of proper management and the Charity Commissioners in Britain state the charity’s accounts demonstrate “significant shortcomings in transparency”.

And while a nanny was able to whisk little David Banda through Heathrow airport despite Madonna’s having failed to follow both British and Malawian law regarding adoptions, a British nurse who is a native of Malawi faces months of investigation and a huge amount of expense that she cannot afford as she struggles to keep a promise to her dying sister – to adopt and bring to her home in Britain, her sister’s only child, a four-year-old girl who lives in poverty, orphaned by HIV-related illness.

Charity would be allowing little Erykka Mambala to leave her life of loneliness and poverty and go to live with a loving family in Britain. Charity would be aiding the impoverished nation of Malawi by funding an orphanage that doesn’t come with the requirement that the children be taught the cult religion of your choice. Charity would be giving Yohande Banda the means to raise his son, instead of taking him away in what probably was meant to be a great public relations story for Madonna.

BBC Undercover Report on the Kabbalah Centre

Nightmare of British Nurse who wants to adopt her Malawi niece…but her name’s not Madonna

Madonna faces some obstacles in her path to adopt a Malawi boy as human rights groups speak out against the adoption and file protests with the court. One group has filed for an injunction to stop the adoption that they say is not in accordance with the laws of Malawi.

The father of the 1-year-old tells us what we already knew, that he never intended to give him up forever when he placed little David in an orphanage. He simply wanted the child to be cared for until his circumstances allowed him to return for him. But Yohande Banda hasn’t tried to stop Madonna’s adoption of the little boy, he sees it as a way to get his son cared for and educated.

According to the Daily Mail, it seems Madonna may have neglected to cross her “t’s” and dot her “i’s” when it comes to British law regarding adoption, throwing another monkeywrench into the proceedings.

Yesterday Mr Banda’s cousin, Pofera Banda, said if David was eventually taken to London, the family would want to visit Madonna there to check he was being properly looked after. ‘What I want to know is that if the child is taken, as we’ve been told, when will our child be visiting us? When will we visit him? How much contact will there be between us and him?

‘If that is not going to happen then as a family we are saying the child should not go.’

Daily Mail