Looking to TV for Cues; Priestly King?; Script Art; Name You, Claim You; Lucian

1.  Zosia Zaks, Life and Love: Positive Strategies for Autistic Adults, page 277:

I hear over and over again from autistic people that they have taken cues from TV and movies, especially when it comes to romance and dating.  It is true that certain TV shows and certain movies can provide you with useful social information and visual examples of how people interact in different scenarios.  But to somebody with a literal mind, concrete thinking, an inability to generalize, and trouble with abstraction, TV is just about the worst place imaginable to pick up your dating lessons.  People on TV have affairs, lie, and hurt each other all the time—sometimes with no consequences.  Love on TV seems so easy—meet, fall in love, live happily ever after.  Romance is exciting and dramatic.  Family life is condensed and simple.  Nothing on TV can really prepare someone for the reality of dating, relationships, and family responsibilities.

I think TV and the movies can be a little more nuanced than that, for characters do struggle with their relationships.  That’s the stuff of comedy and drama!  But, granted, real life is more complicated than an hour or two-hour story.  Plus, there are probably fewer happy endings in real life than on television.  (I should point out, though, that Frasier almost always had an unhappy ending in terms of his romantic life!)

2.  Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought, pages 442-444:

A few believe that the king was actually considered the high priest, and others that he received cultic functions by virtue of his position as head of state.  Yet the book of Chronicles reserves the right to perform ritual tasks for the priests and excludes the king from this right.  His exclusion is declared outright in the story of Uzziah’s leprosy (2 Chr 26:16-21): “It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD, but for the priests the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense (v. 18).  The Chronicler transmits the general principle found in Numbers [18:1-7]—”any outsider…who enroaches shall be put to death”—by means of a story.  In his version, the king is also considered an “outsider”…

According to Japhet, there are places in which the Chronicler lessens the king’s priestly role.  II Samuel 6 presents David dancing in a linen ephod, offering sacrifices, and blessing the people.  I Chronicles 15, by contrast, states that David wore a robe (instead of an ephod) of fine linen, and that “they” (not “David”) sacrificed.  II Chronicles 7 also deletes Solomon’s blessing at the end of his prayer for the Temple (I Kings 8:54-55).

Yet, Japhet states that the Chronicler’s ideological recasting of the Deuteronomistic History is incomplete, for I Chronicles 15:27 says that David wore a linen ephod, and I Chronicles 16:2 affirms that David offered sacrifices and blessed the people.  Did the Chronicler change his mind about conforming DtrH to his own view that the king was a king only and not a priest?  Japhet says that the Chronicler may have understood the sacrifices to be offered in the king’s name, “not actually sacrificed by the king…”

I’d have to do more study on this when I feel up to it, but Leviticus 1:3 states that the worshipper is the one offering the sacrifice.  Sure, the priests burn it on the altar and scatter its blood, but the worshipper is the one who is said to offer it.  So was the king believed to perform a priestly role, just because he is said to offer a sacrifice?

3.  R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, page 24:

In the archaic period which followed the epic age the Greeks’ first aim was at beauty of script; for evidence we have only to look at the early inscriptions on stone still preserved.

I don’t think too often about how a script looks, though I will say that I prefer Times New Roman to block script or script that looks like it came from an old typewriter (the script of some of the dissertations I read—not Japhet’s, though).  My second grade teacher was once going on about different Cinderella books, and she said that one may have print that makes our imagination go wild.  Interesting thought.

4.  R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event, page 206:

‘”Name”,’ [Origen] says, ‘is a summary title of the very nature of the person named.’  One of the objections to the theory that John the Baptist was a re-incarnation of Elijah was, in Origen’s eyes, the fact that this would have involved a change of name given to the same soul, yet no reason for this change is given in Scripture, as it is in the cases of Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, and Peter.

That sounds somewhat superstitious—your name determines the type of person you are or will be.  Is it biblical?  Esau in Genesis 27:6 says that Jacob is rightly named Jacob (supplanter), for Jacob took away Esau’s birthright and blessing.  In I Samuel 25:25, Abigail says that her husband Nabal acts according to his name: foolish. 

But this may not mean that everyone named Jacob is going to supplant.  The Bible may just be saying that, in some cases, a person lives up (or down, as the case may be) to his name.

But God did give people new names, not so much according to their internal nature, but according to his plan for them.  God planned for Abraham to be a father of many nations, so God called him “Abraham.”  The same was true with Sarah, and Peter.

Or God may change a person’s name according to something that person has done.  Jacob struggled with God, and so God called him “Israel.”

Joel Osteen once gave a sermon about a man named “Joe.”  Joe’s wife couldn’t have children (I think), so Joe told all his friends and family to call him “Joseph,” which means “he will add.”  By walking around with the name of “Joseph,” Joe was expressing his faith that God would add to his family, by enabling his wife to have a child.  And that’s what happened. 

The Gospel of “Name it, claim it” or “Word of Faith” may not always work, but there are biblical passages that talk about God rewarding faith.  And one act of faith—of acknowledging the reality of a blessing that is not-yet—is to name yourself according to what God promises.

Of course, I don’t plan to change my name, which (like Jacob) means “supplanter.”  The apostle James had it, and he was a decent guy!  One thing many people do is to get an Internet name according to how they see themselves, or what they want to be.

5.  N.F. Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, page 223:

Lucian was born in Samasota in Syria c. 250 CE…[F]or reasons that are not quite clear he was for many years in the shade, cut off from Church communion…[H]e took Arius as one of his disciples.  In his final years he returned to the Church and died a martyr under the emperor Maximian (311-12).

On Sunday, I’ll be reading more about his recension.  But, as a teaser, here’s what wikipedia says:

Lucian is also commonly credited with a critical recension of the text of the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, which was later used by Chrysostom and the later Greek fathers, and which lies at the basis of the textus receptus.^[7]

Jerome mentions that copies were known in his day as “exemplaria Lucianea” but in other places he speaks rather disparagingly of the texts of Lucian.^[8] In the absence of definite information it is impossible to decide the merits of his critical labors.^[9]

He believed in the literal sense of the biblical text and thus laid stress on the need of textual accuracy. He undertook to revise the Septuagint based on the original Hebrew.

Father’s Day 2009

Tomorrow is Father’s Day, but I’ll be doing my “Top 10 TV Dads” today. (Actually, it’s 11, but I combined two of them, since I admire them for the same reason).

1. Ed Conner (Roseanne) and Martin Crane (Frasier): Both lied to their kids to protect their mother’s reputation, thereby placing their own reputation on the line. Ed did not tell his son Dan about his mom’s long mental illness, taking Dan’s put-downs when Dan blamed him. And Martin told his sons he had an affair, when actually their mom Hester was the one who cheated on him! Martin knew they were closer to their late mother than to him, so he wanted to protect her memory.

2. Jack Arnold (Wonder Years): I once read in TV Guide that Jack Arnold was probably the most realistic dad on television. He was moody. He hated his job. He wasn’t always the most communicative person in the world. But we learn in the course of the series that Jack had his own hopes and dreams, which he fulfilled when he started a hardware store. And there was an especially tender moment between him and his son Kevin. After Winnie had dumped Kevin, Jack gave him a big hug and told him that thing’s wouldn’t get easier, but he’d make it. But Jack could also be tough. After Kevin falsely told his friends that he’d slept with Winnie, he informed his dad about it, expecting Jack’s sympathy as a fellow male. Instead, Jack replied, “Get on your bike and apologize to her right now.” “But what if she doesn’t forgive me?,” Kevin asked. “I wouldn’t,” Jack said.

3. President Jed Bartlett (West Wing): Jed was always closer to his daughters Zoe and Liz than to his other daughter, Eleanor, a medical student who took more after her mother. Eleanor usually avoided the limelight as the President’s daughter, until she told a newspaper that her father would never fire the Surgeon General, her godmother, who had recently promoted the legalization of marijuana. Jed was upset with his daughter, and he reflected on their tense relationship. “Why does she hate me so much?,” he asked the Surgeon General. Later in the conversation, he remarked, “She said I’d never fire the Surgeon General. That’s probably the nicest thing she’s ever said about me.”

When he came face-to-face with his own favoritism to his other daughters, he made an effort to reconcile with Eleanor. He joked with her about her medical studies, and he said, “You know, I don’t want you to be something you’re not. I just wish you visited every once in a while.” He let her know that he loved her and that she was welcome.

4. Maude’s father (Maude): There was an episode in which Maude talks to a therapist, and she tells him about her life growing up. She has bad memories about her father, claiming that he never did anything for her. Suddenly, she remembers that he once waited in the rain so he could give his daughter her prom dress (or something like that). “How could I forget that?,” Maude lamented.

5. Andy Taylor (Andy Griffith Show): One episode that comes to mind is the one in which Opie’s date to a party dumps him for someone else. Opie had a crush on this girl for a long time, and he’s reluctant to go to the party. But Andy tells Opie (in his usual folksy manner) what he did when he was younger and a girl did the same thing to him: he went to the party and had a good time. Andy was helping his son with his own life experience.

6. Cliff Huxtable (Cosby Show): I always liked the way he used humor when he lectured his kids. Even his kids got a kick out of his lectures, although he was joking at their expense! And they got new ways of looking at their situation.

7. Ward Cleaver (Leave It to Beaver): he was loving, wise, fair, and he dressed like a million bucks! There are two daddy moments that come to my mind. In one episode, little Beaver is kissed by an attractive neighbor lady, and Eddie Haskell tells Beaver that the lady’s husband will want to kill him for that. When the lady and her husband visit the Cleaver’s, Beaver defiantly says that he won’t go down to say “hi” to them. Ward at first commands Beaver to go, but, once he sees the intensity of Beaver’s defiance, he says, “Beaver, I’m not going to make you do something you don’t want to do!” He tries to get to the bottom of why Beaver won’t go down.

In another episode, Beaver tells his dad that he didn’t think parents made mistakes. Ward assures his son that parents are learning just like everyone else.

8. John Camden (7th Heaven): John wasn’t the best father to his kids Eric and Julie, but he thought he was doing the right thing. A colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps, he ran his household like it was the armed services. He was tough and gruff, and he didn’t help Eric get through college, thinking Eric would build character by paying his own way. When Julie drank heavily, John remarked that her alcoholism was a result of her “poor character.”

But he and his wife become close to an orphan boy, George, and they adopt him. John resolves not to make the same mistakes with him that he made with Eric and Julie.

9. Tom Baldwin (The 4400): I can’t really pin-point why I like Joel Gretsch as a father, especially when he was so terrible at it in Stephen Spielberg’s Taken! In the 4400, he and his son are not particularly close, but he still cares about his son’s well-being and is always willing to listen when his son has something to tell him.

10. Noah Bennett (Heroes): Noah is a cold employee of the Company, which searches for mutants in order to keep track of them, sometimes killing them. But he has a soft spot for his adopted daughter, Claire, who is herself a mutant. He was reluctant to adopt her at first, since he wasn’t sure that he’d make a good father. But he turned out to be an excellent dad: one who cared for his daughter’s safety above all else, listened to his daughter’s concerns, etc. Although Claire was mad at her dad on a number of occasions, she always respected his authority, at least to his face. This, even though he wasn’t her biological father!

Have a happy Father’s Day tomorrow!

Skepticism

G. Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy: The Schools of the Imperial Age, trans. John R. Catan (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990) 111.

Reale discusses Aenesidemus, whom he dates to the first century B.C.E. Aenesidemus was a significant figure in the rebirth of Pyrrhonism, which is a form of skepticism. Thus, Aenesidemus appears in Reale’s section on Neo-Skepticism.

Here is a quote:

…in the same individual not only are the structures of the senses different but so are the dispositions, conditions, states of mind different and changeable, all of which consequently condition the representations. It all verifies the conclusion that our representations differ according to whether we are happy or ill, young or old, in our right mind or out of it, happy or unhappy and thus as a consequence, for this reason as well, we must suspend judgment.

How well can human beings understand and conceptualize the outside world? We look at this world from our own perspectives, and our conclusions about what we see can be different. Some people notice one detail, while others observe another. And then there is the question about whether people are interpreting the detail that they see in a correct manner.

Memory can also be flawed. I once saw an episode of Frasier in which Frasier and Niles remembered an event quite differently. The event was this: Niles said that he was content as he put his arm around Daphne, and Martin said he was too as he put his arm around Ronnie (Martin’s girlfriend, aka Nina on Just Shoot Me). And, in Nile’s recollection, he and Martin made those remarks in a normal voice. But Frasier remembered them saying it in a snide manner, as if they were bragging about their own success in love as compared to Frasier’s failure. Frasier heard “Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah” in his recollection. There’s one event, but two different recollections.

It often baffles me how I can mis-remember things that I see and hear. When I watch something on TV, I remember what I see in a specific way: this person said this in this manner as he was standing here, looking like this. Then, I watch the same scene months or years later, and what I see is not what I remember. You’d expect the pictures in my head to be accurate, but that’s not always the case!

In my understanding, post-modernism says that we can’t objectively know the outside world, since we look at it through our own culture, biases, etc. I do not consider myself to be a hard post-modernist, for I agree with something that Jon Levenson said when I was at Harvard: Sure, there is subjectivity, but that doesn’t mean that there’s nothing but subjectivity. We can know some things with a degree of accuracy, even if our knowledge is not perfect.

At the same time, there is a lot of subjectivity! Academia, for example, has a great deal of group think. One reason that people like the New Perspective on Paul and Judaism (i.e., the view that Judaism was not legalistic) is that they want to avoid Christian supersessionism, which led to the Holocaust. But the scholars before them had the opposite kind of group think: they were influenced by the New Testament to view Judaism as legalistic, a religion that promoted a works-based salvation, in contrast to Paul’s emphasis on God’s love and grace. One idea is the fad now, whereas another idea was the fad not that long ago.

I’ve heard scholars of Judaism claim that you can’t use the Mishnah to understand the first century Pharisees, since the Mishnah is a later document. In a class I once took, a student tried to understand the Gospel story of the disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath in light of the Mishnah’s rule prohibiting harvesting on that day, and the professor criticized him for that. “The Mishnah was later than the New Testament.” But I’ve often seen scholars use later sources to understand earlier ones. Both are from the ancient world, so, with the Mishnah and the New Testament, why can’t a person use one source (the Mishnah) to understand another source that was written only slightly earlier (the New Testament)? The answer: academia has its fads that we’re supposed to honor (for whatever reason)! We’re told that scholarship is all about finding an objective truth, but academia is conditioned by its own culture, perspectives, group think, etc.

But that’s just my view, based on my own experiences. Others may argue that reality is more complex than that!

Mother’s Day 2009

For Mother’s Day this year, I want to list ten of my favorite television mothers. In many respects, they resemble my own mom in that they love their kids. Enjoy!

1. Annie Camden (7th Heaven): She is feisty and firm in her beliefs, but she has a strong moral center and tries to teach her kids to do the right thing.

2. Caroline Ingalls (Little House on the Prairie): She has a sweet motherly demeanor, and she always tries to make her kids feel better, or at least to give them another way of looking at things. Sometimes, her advice can be tough, as when she told Laura to act like an adult after Charles called her a “little girl” in front of Almonzo.

3. Olivia Walton (The Waltons): She’s often busy with the housework, but she’s always there for her kids when they have problems.

4. Martha Kent (Smallville): She’d give her life for her son, Clark! She had always wanted a baby but was not able to have one (or so we thought until Season 2). Adopting Clark brought a lot of risks and perils, including the death of her husband, Jonathan. But she still loved her son.

5. Lara (Smallville): Lara is Clark’s biological mother who lived on Krypton. Although she realized that she had to send Clark to earth because Krypton was falling apart around her, she wondered if the people on earth would take care of him. That’s a sign of a good mother: she thinks about the well-being of her kids even when they are far away.

6. Nora Walker (Brothers and Sisters): I’ve only watched the first four episodes of this series, but she’s probably the most realistic mom I’ve seen on television! She loves her kids, yet she is estranged from her ultra-conservative daughter Kitty, as both try to build bridges with one another. She blames others a lot and isn’t always willing to acknowledge her own role in the family’s problems, but she usually seeks to change when someone confronts her with something she’s done wrong. She tends to nag, but that’s what moms do, I guess! It shows that they care.

7. Pauline (“Posey”) Benetto (Mitch Albom’s For One More Day): This book was made into a movie in 2007, and it’s about a man who was estranged from his mother, yet was blessed to spend one more day with her years after her death. Posey loved her son, even though he tended to prefer his father. When her son was a little boy, and the librarian only allowed him to check out children’s books, she marched right into the library and told the librarian never to limit her son! She also tried to make a home for her kids after their father left them, as when she dressed up like Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.

8. Mrs. Kovic (Born on the Fourth of July): Born on the Fourth of July was an Oliver Stone movie about Vietnam veteran and anti-war activist, Ron Kovic. Kovic’s mother had a sense of destiny about her son, presumably because he was born on the fourth of July. When the family was gathering around the television set watching JFK’s inauguration, she said she had a dream in which her son was speaking before a lot of people, saying great things. She still faced challenges, though, especially when her son came back from Vietnam and was disrupting the family’s life!

9. Hester Crane (Frasier): She was the mother of Frasier and Niles and the wife of Martin. She was a rather complex character. Her husband remembers her as someone who always looked for the best in people, and she accepted her gay friend in a time when homosexuality was a lot less accepted by society. Yet, she came across as cold and manipulative on Cheers, since she didn’t care much for Diane, Frasier’s fiancee. Maybe she was looking out for her son!

10. Lynette Scavo (Desperate Housewives): I think about this one story-line this season, in which Lynette is chatting with her son on the Internet, but he doesn’t know that the person he’s chatting with is his mother. He thinks it’s a girl his own age! The two really bond, but he gets mad when he finds out that he was talking to his mother the whole time. After he leaves the room, his mom says that she’ll miss the talks. Like a lot of moms, she enjoyed getting to know her son and learning about who he was as a person.

On that note, have a happy Mother’s Day!

Frasier: Tool Time, Memory

Yesterday, I watched two episodes of Frasier that got me thinking and not just laughing!

1. Frasier is on a date with a woman, and Niles and Daphne are tagging along. (This is when they’re a couple.) Frasier’s car breaks down, and he doesn’t know how to fix it. Daphne solves the problem, and Frasier’s date doesn’t want anything more to do with him. Frasier concludes that women like men who can fix things.

As a result, Frasier and Niles decide to take an auto-mechanics class. At first, they suck up to their instructor, Randy. But they get discouraged when they find that they have no interest or aptitude in auto-mechanics. Even a woman who knew nothing about cars is progressing faster than they are! When Randy tells Frasier and Niles to come in early the next morning so they can be his “special project,” they take offense at the implication that they are remedials. Frasier went to Harvard, and Niles went to Yale, after all!

Daphne and Marty (the father of Frasier and Niles) really want them to get their certificate, so Niles and Frasier plug along in order to impress them. When Roz tells them that they only have to pass to get the diploma, they decide to become underachieving class clowns, writing each other notes in French. Frasier and Niles are then kicked out of the class, and they go to a local Kinko’s (or something like that) to get fake diplomas.

This got me thinking about how many of us flinch at being labeled “remedial.” Frasier and Niles could have learned more about auto-mechanics had their pride not gotten in the way. Sure, they’d have to put up with the indignity of being Randy’s “special project,” but at least they would have learned. And, while Randy was clearly annoyed with Frasier and Niles, he was kind enough to take time out of his schedule to help them.

Another point: Even if Frasier and Niles had gotten their certificate, what use would it have been if they still couldn’t fix a car? I was expecting the end of the story to be that Frasier and Niles would get their certificates and then find themselves in a position where they’d have to apply their newfound knowledge, which didn’t exist because they just “coasted.” This reminds me of a point Robert Kiyosaki made in Rich Brother Rich Sister: Many of us tend to focus a lot on grades or credentials, when we should be concentrating on learning. That’s a challenge to me!

2. Frasier is at a science fiction convention, and he sees an actor (Jackson) who inspired his and Nile’s interest in Shakespeare when they were kids. The actor now plays a legendary android in a popular science fiction series. Outraged that a great man has been reduced to this level, Frasier and Niles decide to put on a show in which the actor displays his Shakespearean talent.

When they see that the guy stinks, they conclude that he must be rusty, since he hasn’t done Shakespeare in years. Niles then brings an old tape of his acting when Frasier and Niles were kids, and he stinks there too! “He has no instinct–just stink,” Frasier remarks. Frasier and Niles remembered him as impressive, but their impression is different now that they see him with adult eyes, after years of exposure to finer actors.

There’s some deep lesson in this, but I can’t pin down what. What’s this say about our memory or our growth? There are probably things that used to impress me that don’t really anymore. I still think I should honor them in some fashion. I wish that Frasier gave a little speech that at least recognized that Jackson inspired their interest in drama, and he deserved their gratitude for that accomplishment.

Milk

I just saw Milk. Remember–I get a discount on Tuesdays! I had a long day, so I’m not going to write about the ins-and-outs of my reaction to the movie. To be honest, I’m still not sure what all of my reactions are! But here are some thoughts and musings, or ramblings (for my WordPress readers).

There was some tension within me as I watched this movie, with one exception: I turned my head or covered my eyes when men were kissing each other. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t look right to me! I’m somewhat used to seeing gay couples on TV (e.g., Desperate Housewives), but seeing men kissing or in bed together does not rub me the right way.

Okay, so where was the tension? Part of me really likes Anita Bryant, since she was a celebrity who took a bold, unpopular stand for her Christian values. (I even read The Anita Bryant Story several years ago!) But when she said that her win in Dade County was a victory for “normal people,” I flinched. As a person with Asperger’s, I’d like for society to be open and accepting of all sorts of people, even those not considered “normal.” Sure, I had a hard time identifying with the gay characters, and Sean Penn’s effeminate mannerisms somewhat annoyed me. But a huge part of me doesn’t want to reject someone for being different.

I had mixed feelings on some of the anti-gay legislation in the movie, with the balance going in a negative direction. Personally, I don’t mind working with homosexuals, and I don’t think they should be fired for their lifestyle choice. At the same time, I can understand why people opposed the lifestyle in the 1970′s, since they believed acceptance of homosexuality undermined America’s commitment to Judeo-Christian values and the traditional family. If homosexuality is accepted, can that lead to a slippery slope, as other standards are undermined? Yet, many of these homosexuals didn’t ask for their sexual inclination. They just had it, and my heart had to go out to those who were suicidal because society rejected them.

One powerful part of the movie was when Milk was encouraging his allies to come out of the closet to their family and friends. They were fighting Proposition 6, a measure that would fire homosexual teachers and their supporters. “If they realize they know one of us, then they’ll be more likely to vote with us,” Milk said. That’s a possibility. But the opposite can also be the case, since Milk’s lover said that his father beat him when he found he was gay. And there are homosexuals who have been thrown out of the house because of their lifestyle or orientation, which is why the gay community is so tight-knit and mutually supportive. If a homosexual is thrown out by his parents, other homosexuals are there to take him in.

I’m glad that the movie pointed out that Ronald Reagan was an opponent of Proposition 6. When the movie showed Reagan accepting Anita Bryant’s oranges, I thought it would try to polarize the left and the right. I wish it had depicted Reagan dramatically speaking out against the measure, but at least it mentioned that he opposed it.

I liked seeing Victor Garber. I missed him from Eli Stone! I saw him on Frasier a few days ago.

I thought the campaign manager was cute.

That young guy with the thick curley hair and glasses–that’s Sedgewick from The Emperor’s Club! Apparently, the actor can play a variety of roles: a popular football player who loves the ladies, and a quirky gay activist. (He’s quirky not because he was gay, but because he was just quirky. Even Milk told him he was a prick, but he should be a prick on Milk’s side.)

I admired Milk going to ultra-conservative Orange County to debate John Briggs, the author of Prop 6. Sure, Briggs was courageous to debate Milk in the liberal areas, but it was actually Milk’s idea to debate in Orange County!

There was actually a soft spot in my heart for Dan White, for whatever reason. Maybe it was because he was a conservative, but he had a fairly good relationship with Harvey Milk (until he shot Milk, of course). I also didn’t know that the twinkie defense originated with his trial!

I can probably say more, but I’ll stop here. I may write more about Milk in the future, if I feel a need to.

Have a nice day!

Frasier Links

I’m putting this here so I’ll have ready access to it anytime I want a laugh! Frasier is asked to write a jingle for his radio show, and he goes overboard by hiring a full orchestra!

YouTube – Frasier Orchestra Theme Tune Sing Along

Here’s another link for Frasier fans. On Frasier, John Mahoney plays Frasier’s dad, Martin Crane. But he appeared on Cheers some years before…playing someone other than Frasier’s dad! Frasier even has a little interaction with him on that particular Cheers episode!

John Mahoney on Cheers

Enjoy!