FNL Thanksgiving

Click on the title if you're interested in an FNL recap. If you're interested, feel free to read it and comment.
The episode is entitled "Thanksgiving." I wonder what it's about.

Laboring Friday

http://www.casualhoya.com/2010/7/31/1598100/friday-night-lights-laboring-recap

This is my weekly recap of Friday Night Lights. If you like it, tell your friends. If you don't like, keep it to yourself, you big jerk.

I hope if you click on the title, it will take you to the website.

Friday Night

http://www.casualhoya.com/2010/7/24/1585571/friday-night-lights-injury-list

I found this thing I wrote earlier today, just sitting there on the Internet. It wasn't doing anything, so if you're not doing anything... maybe you can hang out with it for awhile.

It's a recap of the Friday Night Lights episode "Injury List" that aired on NBC on Friday, July 23, 2010 at 8:00 p.m. EST. Hope you enjoy.

Cheers,
ME

TV Romance

Hey folks,

Inspired by conversations with my buddy Brad, (who is mildly obsessed with the TV show Chuck and its Chuck-Sarah relationship,) as well as the mounting effects of Lost's impending demise, and a disturbing lack of my own personal life (keep reading and prepare to be unsurprised by my lack of a love life)- I decided to devise a list of the 25 most romantic TV couplings. This was no small task because while I do not watch many romance shows, I have watched hundreds of different shows in my lifetime as an avid viewer. Before you ask me: 'who cares?,' let me answer 'I don't care who cares.' I like TV, I like lists and I like romance, particularly in the context and the guise of non-romance. So, if you are interested, feel free to read on...

Before I begin, let me use Lost as my example of a non-romance romance: the love triangle/quadrangle on Lost, which is a show that can be categorized under various genres, including a sci-fi or action-type show, has several strong romance angles that might make the list. Notably this Lost romance angle reminds me a lot of the love triangle/quadrangle on Dawson's Creek (a teen angst drama.) One of the female characters dies, and the truth is revealed that it has always really been a love triangle (and in the end, two of them probably end up together while one of them has another dream fulfilled like maybe Jack gets to meet Spielberg...) Regardless, below is my list of TV show relationships with a brief explanation of each.

Additionally, while the attributes of a good romance cannot be verbally explained by a television voyeur such as myself, and it can only be determined on an ad-hoc basis ("I'll know it when I see it,") but it has to "feel real." Some core components of this 'realistic romance' include: some degree of symmetry of interest, continuing courtship, and relationship interests, concerns and chemistry that are relatable to the audience (i.e. ME) even if the circumstances surrounding the relationship are totally un-relatable.

The order is subject to review and change.

Thus, here are the top 25, in no particular order, except from 25th best to the best:

25) Dawson's Creek- love triangle-quadrangle between Dawson Leery, Joey Potter, Pacey Witter (and Jen Lindley)- As mentioned above, this is a teen drama. But, unlike Shannon Daugherty and Luke Perry, the base of this show is a series of romances between various kids and each other and kids and their dreams. I'm reluctant to put any of these individual romances on the list, but I don't mind putting all of them on as a single unit. The show had a strong first season and an... interesting ending, but fumbled with all the in-between seasons.

24) Malcolm in the Middle- Hal and Lois- From the first episode, nothing about this show was normal. It is a unique vision of the world through a child's eyes, which is demonstrated by a terrifyingly overbearing mother, an apathetic father and brothers who seemingly always have an apparently malevolent vendetta against one another. And from this child's perspective, we see the father, who is apathetic about everything else in life, has one great love, and that is his wife. He is a hapless romantic, and his romance is so overpowering that he makes his wife, the hapless unromantic, accept and appreciate romance.

23) Seinfeld- Jerry Seinfeld and Elaine Benes- I will write more about this in a future blog, but the friendship/relationship based on humor was more like the relationships I am familiar with than the others on this list.

22) Greek- Casey Cartwright and Cappie- I think of this show as a continuation of the Apatow instant classic, Freaks and Geeks and refer to this show as Geeks and Greeks. The best part of this show is the religious character Dale and how he deals with Cappie and Calvin, but again the heart of the show is a college romance. While the college experience was not like mine, the fraternities were not like mine, the pre-law experience was not like mine, and the friendships and romances were not like mine, I feel like every part of the show was mildly like my experience (only better... and more vivid.)

21) Family Matters: Carl and Harriet Winslow This was a fantastic relationship that has long been overshadowed by the Steve Urkel dynamic and the Urkel-Laura will they/won't they question. The answer was that they shouldn't, but don't be distracted by that fake romance. The parental romance was the best part of the show. Carl and Harriet really cared about each other and their kids who were always involved in Brady Bunch hi-jinx. Actually, most of the show was pretty stupid, but you could feel the love in this particular relationship, so it is list-worthy.

20) Scrubs- Dr. John "JD" Dorian and Dr. Elliot Reid- Although the best relationship on the show was JD and Turk and the most sane romance on the show was Turk and Carla, the drama of JD and Elliot was Ross and Rachel-lite. The show faltered rapidly after the first few seasons when JD was no longer self-conscious about his eccentricities, and became a caricature of himself. Nevertheless, a few seasons of strong romance compounded by a strong ending to the JD saga at Sacred Heart makes this a list-worthy romance.

19) Sex and the City- Carrie Bradshaw and Mr. Big- It was a classic romance: she was a material girl and he had mad money. Let the puns ensue. That is a gross oversimplification of the show, I know, but apart from having good chemistry and both of them being modern trendy people, what do we really know about them that would make us think this is actually a good romance? Actually, the problem is we hardly know anything about Big, other than he is rich, cheats on women and likes Carrie. But, the show does a good job of stressing the chemistry between them and I appreciate that, so it does belong on this list. The show itself was okay and it may have been great if I appreciated fashion... but I don't, so it was occasionally good and occasionally bad.

18) Californication- Hank Moody and his semi-faithful relationship with the "Karen" of his dreams- The show had a remarkably well-written first season. He adored Karen for how she made him feel about himself. He adored her because she was the dream of stability and the mother to his daughter ("baby-mama" as the show refers to it.) But after the first season, it became increasingly difficult to understand why Hank wants Karen to be his special someone. Considering he has his choice of so many other women, why choose this woman to torment him and complicate his life, as opposed to some other woman who could do so more (or less) effectively. Still the dialog is strong and Duchovny thrives in this type of role (see below, The X Files.)

17) Cheers- Sam Malone and Diane Chambers- Sam was always ribbing Diane, while Diane continued to look down at Sam, but there was usually an air of flirtation and chemistry. It was the classic modern courtship, two people meet at a bar, or at work, and after teasing each other relentlessly, they fall for each other. Classic... sort of.

16) Chuck- Chuck Bartowski and Sarah Walker- As I mentioned, my friend is mildly obsessed with the show and this relationship, and with good reason. The romance is textured and layered and hidden behind deception and/or humor. There is something special there, whether the show ends or not. Either way, I hope they can create a satisfactory resolution that rings true to the characters.

15) The X Files- Agent Dana Scully and Agent Fox Mulder- They joke about their relationship all the time and the fanboys still talk about the two of them, like the show did not end ten years ago, but there is a reason for it. Among the writers' many talents on this show, was the ability to dangle possibilities before its viewers. They dangled this one for years- very effectively.

14) The Wonder Years- Kevin Arnold and Winnie Cooper- It's a classic childhood romance. I will spare you the spoilers, but it's a classic childhood romance.

13) Big Love- Bill and Barb Hendrix- Sure, Bill is married to a lot of women, but he only has a grand romance with one of them. Without giving away too much, the premise of the show is that while Bill believes in the principle, (which is a tenet of Mormonism that includes polygamy,) he only agreed to it because on Barb's death bed, she wanted him to marry and have more children. Barb survived and the show is about them dealing with polygamy and growing family in a mature and loving way.

12) The Cosby Show- Dr. Cliff and Claire Huxtable- Similar to Roseanne, and similar to the subsequent Everybody Loves Raymond, the couple often tried to ignore the kids because of how much they care about each other. Of course a lot of the best scenes are with Cosby feigning apathy towards the kids for a laugh, but the show had a tremendous amount of heart to go along with the laughter.

11) Roseanne- Roseanne and Dan Connor- In a comedy partially written by Joss Whedon, we would expect nothing less than great romance. While the kids are often ignored, and the couple is often at odds, there is a tremendous rapport between the two and whenever the tone and volume quieted, you could almost feel real love between them. Roseanne and Sam Kennison were the anticipated leads of the show Married with Children, which would have been fascinating, but would have made us miss out on this great dynamic.

10) Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman- Lois Lane and Clark Kent- Admittedly, this show is actually a romance, so it's not totally fair to have it compete with a lot of the other shows on this list, which are mostly not romances. (Unfortunately it must have been tough to market a TV show about romance to Superman fans or a TV show about Superman to romance fans.) The show appealed to me in that I was a dorky kid (ala Clark) who always felt I had a lot to offer (ala Superman,) if I could just show what I was capable of. Clark, who is instantly enraptured by Lois, slowly tries to prove he's worthy of her without ever revealing too much of himself in order to protect himself. I also had an enormous crush on Teri Hatcher (she's still super hot, but I don't watch Desperate Housewives.)

9) Saved by the Bell- Zack Morris and Kelly Kapowski- I'm not sure anything about this romance can be referred to as true. But, Kelly is the girl next door and Zack goes out of his way, by conniving, wooing, tricking, cooing and manipulating his way into her heart. This only worked because as bad as he was, (in every episode,) not only was she equally good, but he almost always managed to legitimately atone for his deceitful antics. And plus, I watched most of this when I was young, so I feel a sense of nostalgia for this romance.

8) Six Feet Under- David Fisher and Keith Charles- In a show filled with tormented romances and torrid passion, this relationship provided a bedrock, a foundation and a shining example for all the other relationships. Their relationship was exciting because of all the outside circumstances, but it was strong because of these two mostly wholesome characters (a policeman and an altar boy.)

7) Lost- Desmond Hume and Penelope Widmore- Lost does the intense longing of love more efficiently than anyone else, see the rapid build up of Richard Alpert and wife or Hurley and Libby or Sawyer and Juliet or Faraday and Charlotte and etc... but it often has trouble with the longer term romances like Kate with anyone or Jin and Sun and their prolonged separation. The one notable exception there is consistently excellent: Desmond and Penny. It's touching that they always want to get back together, but unlike a lot of other relationships on this show and others that do the separated longing so well, you can tell how much they actually appreciate each other when they are together. In their downtime, hanging out in the apartment or their boat, or talking about daddy issues or job woes or the purpose of their lives, they connect. Tonight's episode is a Desmond and Penny episode, so you know what to expect.

6) Bones- Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan and Agent Sealy Booth- This is the most effective way to have a slow developing romance: FBI Agent who is all heart teaches scientist who is all brain how to love. Sure, the show is not a romance, per se, but if you've seen a few episodes of this show, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.

5) Friends- Ross Geller and Rachel Green- It's a classic tale of a guy loving a girl his whole life. She was the pretty girl next door who barely noticed him. When they meet again as adults, the show followed the romantic comedy formula to perfection. Guy likes girl. Girl is oblivious to guy... until guy finds other girl. Then, girl is interested, so guy drops other girl. The couple struggles through seasons of boredom and fights and crap before ending up together. What's more real than that? In all seriousness, the first few seasons of this show were legitimately very good because of the heart of the show: Ross and Rachel and I have no doubt that Ricky Gervais used this in The Office (mainly because I heard him say so in an interview.) Even though a lot of this show and their relationship and break-up and relationship was not good, this relationship is the standard bearer for modern TV comedy relationships. (P.S. People forget that Ross was not annoying in the first couple of seasons and he was in fact, my favorite character during that time span when the show was good.)

3-4) The Office- Pam Beesly and Jim Halpert and The Office- Tim Canterbury and Dawn Tinsley, which I dare say was equally good, though there was less of it. The British show mastered the art of office flirtation and longing looks of the forbidden fruit, while the American version bore out that longing to successful fruition. Basically, the American version copied the British version, but then added what the two of them are like in a relationship.

2) Pushing Daisies- A boy named Ned and a girl named Chuck- This is one of the few romances I have ever watched and it is a supernatural romance powered by a dominating romantic storyline/premise. Boy loves girl and loses girl. Boy and girl reconnect as grown-ups and fall in love, but... they can never touch (hence emotional intimacy) and tons of secrets (hence tribulations that may drive them closer together or further apart.) The show was booted too early without a satisfactory conclusion, but it was spectacularly beautiful while it lasted.

1) Friday Night Lights- Coach Eric and Tami Taylor- Even though, I'm a full season behind on this show, no show has ever created a relationship dynamic this effectively. How this couple deals with every day problems is a testament to great writing and better acting (particularly Connie Britton.) This marital relationship is the main reason this show that's not about football and is mostly a teen drama is so powerful.... (well, this relationship along occasionally powerful performances by the students.)


Additionally, here are some new shows and up and coming romances that may yet find their niche in romance.

- Modern Family- very funny and touching show, though I am not sure if romance will win the day.

- Community- very funny show, though I am not sure romance will win the day.

- Parenthood- very touching show, though I am not sure romance will win the day.

- Glee- Will and Emma might yet be a good romance like the pilot episode suggested.

- Caprica- Like its predecessor Battlestar Galactica (this show is set in the past) romance and beauty peppers the screen, but like it's predecessor, there is not one particular romance to key in on.

- Psych- Juliet and Shawn are finally finding their stride and this soon might become worthy of being on the list. However, similarly to Scrubs, the romance is a secondary relationship to Shawn's friendship relationship/dependency with Gus.

- Better Off Ted: had two fascinating relationships involving Ted that never really had a chance to blossom.

- True Blood- Sookie is played by a great actress in a sensual setting involving sensual vampires. It's a matter of time before some relationship on this show makes the list.

- My Boys- If Jordan Spiro had a leading man in the show, this would probably be on or near the list.

- Justified- If Timothy Olyphant gets a leading lady in the show, this will probably go on or near the list.

- Fringe- Peter and Olivia are a few years away from being Scully and Mulder.

- Men of a Certain Age- Andre Brauer is a great actor and he breathes life into his marital relationship.

- Sons of Tuscon- Sock is a powerful and gross mess of comedy. If the teacher thing continues, there might be a strong "screwball" romance there.

- Parks and Recreation- Part of the reason this show is the most improved show on TV is the blossoming relationship between Andy and April.

- Castle- Nick Castle and Kate Beckett- This is just a tour de force performance by Nathan Fillion where his personality overwhelms the mediocrity of the rest of the show and both the show and the romance becomes great. I expect this romance to be on the list some day soon as Beckett is slowly improving.


Honorable Mention (in no particular order)

Dexter- Dexter Morgan and his TV sister, Debra Morgan (who are married in real life) have some creepily awesome TV chemistry, and that's saying a lot considering they are not actually romantically involved in the show and that the show is crazy creepy without this non-romance angle. (Notably, the characters are not blood related in the show, and blood is key to the show.)

- Sliders- before they let Jerry O'Connell's love interest go.

- The Pretender- Jared and Parker- she chased him. He ran.

- How I Met Your Mother- Ted and ?

- House- House and Cuddy should be up there, but they downplay the relationship too much.

- It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia- if they worked at it a little, they could have 1 or 2 relationships up there. But, they don't on purpose and it works for them. In a way, this show reminds me a lot of South Park, even though it is much much less clever, but also funnier and un-animated.

- Mad Men- I want to put this on the list, but I can't. Who would I put there? Don and Betty Draper? Pass.

- Futurama- Philip Frye and Turanga Leela. Other shows animated shows like Homer and Marge or Peter and Lois have one party consistently trashing the other. Here, the romance is evident and the moments the montages are genuinely moving in an otherwise funny show. This belongs on the list if there was space. Welcome back.

- Extras- Ricky Gervais creates another American style romance with Andy and Maggie mimicking Jerry and Elaine and doing a very good job at it.

- Firefly- this show did romance very well, so it's tough to rank which is best and the multiple romances confuse the issue of which romance is best, particularly since there were so few episodes. I guess, I'd go with Mal and Inara in a classic love-hate, push/pull romance. I've watched many episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and could tell Whedon had great TV romance skills, but I didn't watch enough of it to say that Buffy and Angel or Willow and Dawn were couples that belong on this list.

Wings- Joe and Helen in a harmless comedy with lots of talent and a sweet romance.

Coupling- a poor man's Ross and Rachel, though they did the actual relationship better than Ross and Rachel did.

Sarah Connor Chronicles- John Connor and River Tam-bot. The show was cancelled, probably because the show was inexplicably expensive and the time travel/alternate reality plot-follies made the show unnecessarily onerous to follow. But, John Connor and Summer Glau as a Terminator, that was sweet.

I Love Lucy- Ricky and Lucy Ricardo. Slapstick comedian with a good straight man. On the show, he evened her out.

Gossip Girl- Chuck Bass and Blaire Waldorf. 'Nuff said.

Night Court- Judge Harry Stone and Christine made the plot compelling as well as harmlessly funny.

Arrested Development- George Michael Bluth and Maeby Funke and the forbidden comedic fruit of incestuous romance.

Then, of course, there are other relationships that could make the list if the list of acceptable romances expanded like: 24's Jack Bauer and his righteous fury or The Wire's Omar Little and his freaky whistle or MacGyver and his paper clip bombs, or Smallville's Lex Luthor and himself or similarly Big Bang Theory's Sheldon Cooper and himself. The list can go on and on. But, I'll stop right there.

I'm positive that I left TV relationships off the list, even among those that I have seen, so please feel free to comment or blurt out a tirade against me and my overly simplistic list and views.

All the best,
Papa Bear (ME)

My TV

Hi kids,

I recently counted over 36 films that I saw in movie theaters in 2009. That's 3 movies at movie theater prices each month. On the facebook movie application, I have rated (which means I have seen most of, if not all of) over 12,000 movies in my lifetime. I have a collection of movies that would impress non-movie folk, I watch movies all the time on demand on premium channels and on regular TV, and I am practically the mayor of my local Blockbuster Video.

Yet... if I had to name my hobby of choice, and I was honest with myself, I would definitely and proudly/pathetically choose television. I watch more hours of TV each week than I sleep (by a long-shot.) Many people in my predicament could point to a childhood marred by TV as a parental-substitute. Some people that watch as much TV as I do, can point to a veritable TV prohibition their youths, which led to a rebellion/binging period. I cannot blame my TV predilection on anyone but myself as my parents let me watch a normal amount of television growing up, and my addiction is a recent development.

When you hear "TV addiction," you may think: this sounds serious, he's crying out for help OR this sounds like a joke and he's mocking addictions. I intend neither and sorry if you misinterpret my meaning. In the course of my blog entry, I will delve further into my TV habit and you can judge for yourself whether I am a problem user or a lightweight complainer. However, during prime TV season, I watch about 30 hours of TV a week from my DVR alone. This does not include anything I watch live or sporting events, which I occasionally watch. I also have DVR guilt, which prevents me from ending my day until I see just about everything on my DVR. Then, of course, there is my lifelong insomnia, which I feed with crap TV and re-runs of crap-TV. If this was solely a seasonal affair, it might be a sustainable nuisance. As it is, my life has turned into a perpetual Shark Week.

Last summer, I survived a month without television to see if my problem was systemic. And no, my issue is not actually a physiological dependence on television, but rather, TV has become something of a friend to me. The show Friends, which I did not particularly like (or dislike) epitomized the notion that these characters are our friends, whether they know it or not. They do not respond to us, so it would be foolish to talk to them, but we KNOW them. We "let them into our homes" through the wonder of television. But just like any other dysfunctional relationship or friendship, it's time to cut the proverbial cord. But, I'll get to that later.

First, I'd like to examine where and when my relationship with TV transformed from a pleasant distraction away from my mundane life into a disturbing priority over my existing life. I know about the roots of the change, but let's start a little earlier to give my story some context.

When I was very little, I have feint memories of watching cartoons including He-Man, Spiderman and Thundercats. I also recall really enjoying MacGyver and looking forward to his interesting combination of nerdy-scientist and action hero. At some point, I also watched Quantum Leap with some regularity and Saved by the Bell with fervent interest because the characters helped shape my misunderstanding of what was cool.

In my early youth, a part of me actually shied away from TV because my brother and parents often watched Three's Company, which often made me feel bad for the likable Jack Tripper's constant hi-jinx. He would regularly employ deception, which I was uncomfortable with at that age and was always falling down, which made me feel bad because he was such a personable figure. I also was too young to grasp the sexual innuendo, which would probably be obvious to a modern 5 year old. Similarly, Married with Children did not appeal to me because of how mean they all were to each other. Even though, I understood it was fiction and meant for entertainment and silliness, I did not care for the coarse interactions.

In fact, I did not like comedy in general because I was a morose child. Actually, I was a badly-behaved solemn child, from getting into fights to being a spoiled brat when I was very young. By the time I was 10 years old, I was still very serious, if not outwardly misbehaved anymore. I started to excel in school and actually reached my academic peak in the 4th grade, but I still had yet to develop a well-rounded personality. I did not appreciate the lighter side of the world. One thing changed all of that for me.

Seinfeld.

My father watched the show first and really really liked it. So, the next time he saw an episode on TV, we watched it together- the episode was a late second season episode called "The Deal" about Jerry and his ex-girlfriend, Elaine, trying to take their passionate and intense friendship and add a casual sexual relationship without involving any emotional entanglements. Somehow, even as an 11 year old, I saw the humor in that. And I... was... hooked. I'm not sure how, but my whole family was all caught up in no time.

According to Wikipedia, the date was May 2, 1991 that changed my life. It seems strange that I would watch something so sexually mature with my parents (as my parents are mostly conservative with regard to child development, so this was not routine for us.) But, immediately, the Seinfeld experience became a household tradition. For much of the rest of the country, the show created a water-cooler culture, but for us, Seinfeld transformed our domestic dynamic.

Every Thursday night, (during TV seasons,) the family gathered, ordered Chinese food from Hunan Park on 72nd Street and sat in front of the TV (I would be lying down on the floor, my brother leaning against the couch and my parents alternated their spots on the couch) to laugh consistently for half an hour about "nothing." Everything about the experience became magical. The time slot made Thursday nights my favorite night of the week. Hunan Park's Kung Pao Chicken became my favorite meal of all time. Even the television itself, which mesmerized me a half hour at a time, became a uniquely social experience.

My father and I invented a new pastime, which was to recount stories from our own lives and measure whether that moment was worthy of Seinfeld comedic fodder or to determine whether a joke was Seinfeld-worthy. Even in the present, my parents and I often go out to dinner and spend hours detailing Seinfeld episode plot-lines like they were hilarious personal anecdotes.

After a youth filled with determined solemness, Seinfeld taught me to have a sense of humor about life, and now I can laugh at just about anything.

But, back to TV...

Seinfeld changed my life for the better, but it was a gateway show. The addition of other shows was actually relatively gradual, as I watched every episode of Lois and Clark and a few other notable shows in my angst-y teenage years. While I was friendly with people who went out regularly in high school, I was not "friends" with them. My friends tended to be people like myself who enjoyed grabbing a slice of pizza (or maybe going to an occasional after-school club like chess, ping pong, roller-hockey or street soccer) and then most importantly heading to the comforts and luxuries of our respective homes.

Then I went off to college, Seinfeld ended with a thud, Hunan Park closed with a bang and my parents remodeled their apartment in such a way as to inadvertently discourage lying down on the floor. The only things left from that magical Thursday night equation were: the existence of Thursday nights, (for now, Thursday nights are still intact,) my family is still awesome, (even though my brother moved a bit further away,) and my affection for television.

Over the years, my insomnia led me to read a lot of books (I was an English and history major in college and often proudly and nerdily read 3 books a week) and watch a lot of television. But, even throughout most of law school, I did not cling to steady programming. Sometime during law school, my focus shifted away from books and my home-hobby of choice became almost exclusively the television box.

Around that time, I indulged in Arrested Development, which probably garnered more laughs per episode than even Seinfeld. I also encountered the Office(s,) which merged comedy with drama (the Jim-Pam romance) more effectively than any previous show I'd watched. Even as I watched these shows, TV was merely a minor crutch for me to cope with my innate laziness, my life choices and my social phobias.

Then came 24. I had watched 2 or 3 episodes of Season 1 of 24 when it first aired and recognized its excellence, but I did not want to be bogged down with such intensity. Perchance, my brother caught a few episodes and he convinced me to catch a new episode. After I had one viewing, I proceeded to watch 4 seasons of 24 in about a week, in order to catch up. And no, I was not camped out in my apartment watching episodes of 24. I would get home and watch 24 in lieu of sleep. By the time I was caught up, I was convinced every person in the light of day was a terrorist. In retrospect, the method was not a smart idea.

After I caught up on 24, which became one of my all-time favorite shows in the span of a week, I was ready for a new show. Having caught up on 24, I gained a newfound respect for the serialized drama and so shortly after my 24 sprint/marathon, I decided I wanted another sprintathon. So, I got Lost.

I did not expect much from a show headlined by the less cool brother from Party of Five. There was a plane crash. Fine, but how could a show like that retain my interest for a season? Yet methodically, it won me over. There were major issues about the group's survival, there were character clashes and of course, there were mysteries. By the end of the 4th episode, I was sold. The show might might be a science fiction show or this might be a fantasy show or this might be a show about spiritual enlightenment, but no matter what it was, it was unbelievable.

I caught up quickly, as is my wont. But, I did something different this time. This time, I felt there was more to the show than the airing of entertainment, so I followed along with the blogs to recognize the totality and the depth of the program. And then, by the third season, (even with its notorious low-points,) the show had galvanized the entirety of my interest like no other show ever had. So, while Seinfeld guided my youth, Lost now pervaded my mind. With the onset of the 4th season, I began to blog my own thoughts on the show, trying to ascertain the hidden messages like the little kid in a Christmas Story (of course, the kid's decoder ring only told him to buy more Ovaltine, while Lost was telling me to pay attention to the world (and probably to drink more Ovaltine.)) (Also, Lost is the one show that depending on its ending might possibly dethrone Seinfeld as my favorite show of all time.)

As we approach the end of Lost, I have probably spent more time watching, reading about, writing about and thinking about Lost, then I have on any endeavor, save sleep, school and work (not necessarily in that order.) In part because of Lost, I needed other TV just as a break to ease my mind as well as to occupy my time through the rest of the week. And around this point, with the addition of other television shows, I would often prefer mundane television, which required nothing of me, rather than mundane conversation, which required little of me.

So, Lost in conjunction with the creation of DVR, made serial shows a staple of my diet and introduced me to TV fanaticism. Then, on-demand and hulu came along and made my condition more of a problem. I imagine it's like having a drug dealer that delivers to your office. Now, I can track these shows from the onset ad infinitum. I also have friends who are TV enthusiasts who have graciously contributed by lending me DVDs of TV shows or by suggesting new shows. Everyone's a pusher.

Now I can honestly say that, in my lifetime, I have watched most (often every) episode of well over 100 TV shows (and it's actually probably over 150 shows.) Most of the TV shows that I watch/watched last at least half an hour (including commercials) and most of them lasted more than one season and some of them like Jeopardy or PTI are on daily. Then, there are reruns that air regularly that I watch during my sleepless nights. And of course, there are shows like Lost, where I feel compelled to watch each episode on multiple occasions. To keep a long story from getting longer, I will spare you the details of which shows I currently watch (the number of shows have continued to grow, rather than shrink.) I finally hit rock bottom when after months of recognizing how awful the show Happy Town was going to be, I actually watched the pilot, did not like it, and then watched ANOTHER episode. Ergo, I watch a lot of TV.

So, what's my point?

My point is that I am going to use the end of Lost (and 24) as an opportunity to seize the momentum of this moment. I invite all of my TV-aholic brethren and sestren(?) out there to join me in my new endeavor: of watching much less TV. The details of my TV project are still being hashed out, but there's no need to speed through the process because I'm no hero or heroine. But, the bottom line is that I plan on cutting my series down substantially and impose my own arbitrary limits on TV intake from now until someone else can effectively boss me around. This blog entry is meant to log my journey through television: from infancy to adulthood from naivety through indulgence and finally, hopefully reaching a sense of understanding and appreciation. And now, we will try more forcefully to have a fulfilling life outside the world of television and create shows, spectacles, entertainment from our own lives.

But, mostly, I'm just sad that Lost is going byebye.

To all my adoring fan, I say, I'll probably see you later this week,
ME

PS: Despite the fact that I watched a lot of TV, I am entirely functional and have only let TV interfere with my social life and never my work-like life. Even now that I have less of a daily grind and I am at my apex of TV viewing, I still maintain a TV-free time period, to effectively structure my day to complete my personal projects. For those of you in the know: stage 1 of the project=complete- Stage 2, the editing stage, has begun. We'll see what happens next.

All Star

Hello children,

After another disappointing basketball weekend, I still contend that the basketball all star game is far more exciting and interesting than any of the other sports all star games. Football's all star game, played after the season's end, also known as the Pro Bowl is an afterthought of the football season, in large part because it comes after the sport has achieved its climax. More importantly, football, which requires a lot more team coordination (with intricate offensive and defensive tactics,) uniting a team with one week of practice is barely serviceable. Despite having great players, and nice throws, catches, runs, and hits, we will not see high quality football. In the basketball all star game, we tend to see great offensive performances with occasional bouts of defense even while there is little fluidity. Ray Allen can still hit a lot of three pointers. LeBron James can still demonstrate complete dominance over all other players, and Chris Paul and Dwight Howard can do just about everything they do in ordinary games despite not having practiced with their teams.

Baseball is another all star game where people can step into any spot in the lineup and still do there thing, but the combination of meaninglessness and lack of basketball caliber highlights make it less enticing than the basketball all star game. With low score tallies, maybe 10 runs, the game is wanting of any serious interest or intrigue. Some people like the hockey North America vs. the World format, but not me. This type of game is irrelevant, except in international competition. I'm not really cheering for the U.S. in a U.S. vs. the world format, unless, they were a real team. But, all star games are the opposite of real teams, but rather a collection of individuals who did not practice together or play together, and are almost exclusively noted for their individual efforts, rather than team sensibilities. The all star game is not international competition, but rather a formulaic individual highlight reel. Of all the sports, basketball, with frequent scoring offenses, and magnificent athleticism, is the ideal for basketball, which is why I always consider it the best, even if it is as meaningless as all the rest.

While I felt the game was a little emptier without Vince Carter and McGrady's two highlight reel dunks each, or Shaq's jovial temperament, it was still the perennial mild disappointment it usually is. The dunk competition itself was not without excitement. The blowing out the birthday cake dunk was excellent, as was the Howard non-dunk superman dunk where he threw the ball down from 5 feet away from the rim. He had some other nice slams too, but overall, the spectacle is not satisfying with so much down time. Though there was obvious creativity with the dunks, the creativity is no longer based on sheer athletic ability like the dunks used to be, which makes the dunks less impressive than the Jordan, Wilkins, Carter jams. The ability and the showmanship are still excellent, but now my interest is rapidly waning. The rest of the All Star Weekend doesn't get much hype, but I always find it interesting how someone like Jason Kapono can hit 20 of 25 3 pointers in 1 minute from all around the three-point line. It's pretty impressive.

Speaking of stars like Jason Kapono, I rewatched Terminator 2 and mega-star Arnold Schwarzenegger reanimate his terminator character, well... a happy go lucky version of his earlier Terminator character. The whole movie from CGI to the intense Hamilton performance was well crafted. It was an enjoyable, provocative movie about what humanity is, whether there is a fate, and the fascinating line between lunacy and brilliance, between madness and intensity, between craziness and supreme organization... you get it. The philosophy behind the movie makes up for where the science lacks. But, then what... What happens after Terminator 2?

Terminator 3 or Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles? Terminator 3 is a movie that is unimpressive in its graphics, mostly for its acting (highlighted by a very unimpressive female terminator), but had incredibly satisfying ending as judgment day occurs. John Connor, the person who was to lead humanity against the machines, was set aside for termination by the machines before he was born, which led to his mother's madness, which led to his preparation. Then, in Terminator 3, the plot is concluded because he had all the preparation required, and now he merely needed the opportunity to lead. At the end of Terminator 3, Connor is taken by the Terminator to a bunker in order to survive Judgment Day, and that bunker "happens to be" the hub of the remaining communication systems. So, this guy with all the preparation is able to commence leading humanity's revival.

The Sarah Connor Chronicles is the opposite of Terminator 3, because it is great in every way that Terminator 3 was bad and bad in the 1 aspect in which the movie was very good. The show is very entertaining with a great realistic, downright frightening terminator good guy (girl). Not only is it entertaining, but the characters are engaging and the show is beautifully crafted. The one pitfall is that the whole premise of the movies is slowly/quickly collapsing. John Connor in the first movie sends Kyle Reese back in time, in part to protect his mother from a terminator, and in part to sire John Connor. Now, that judgment day is delayed (which started in Terminator 2, but is substantially delayed in the TV show,) the timeline is being destroyed. If the machines don't take over for an extra 15 years, then Kyle Reese is much older and other things must have changed in the interim, but what do I know, maybe they didn't change. But, in the latest episode, the very eerie line, "sometimes they go bad" was as creepy as a TV show can get. In the meanwhile, the show is as entertaining as an action movie with some of the thrill of watching a Terminator movie. Of course, there is no Schwarzenegger, but I guess the Terminator series had enough of him and California wants more of him.

But, the political outlook appears increasingly clear as we have two genuinely different options in McCain and Obama. It might not be as civil as I originally anticipated because McCain and Obama apparently had two major spats damaging their relationship in the senate, including one involving immigration, but at least there would be no Clintons or Bushes involved this time. Yet, Obama's February charge continues and it appears as if he will continue into the March 4, Texas/Ohio primaries on a roll. And, I guess, that's how it should be, with Ohio (swing state) and the Republic of Texas deciding the fate of the democratic party. Conventional wisdom seems to indicate that if Obama wins one or the other state, he'll have locked up enough momentum and delegates to force an Obama win on the superdelegates. But, as I've said before, I imagine a knockout is necessary to beat back the Clintons. They are fighting tooth and nail and even accusing Obama of plagiarizing a friend of his. Even if he did it, don't they recycle all of their speeches? Don't they always put two of the same words together in a slightly different order anyway? For politics, how big of a deal is it if two people have the same message? Isn't that even the idea? But, regardless of the size of this stupid scandal, it's clear that the Clintons are going to go nuclear to ensure her victory. So, I stress again the importance of Obama's sweep of those two states and the appearance of a knockout.

Not that he won't do it; in fact, the polls are swinging in his favor. But the polls are deceptive, and they don't account for the hidden anti-Obama vote. So, as in Lost and the Terminator, time will tell. But, as far as I'm concerned there are only two real all stars in this presidential race, and one has his party's nomination all but wrapped up, and the other must defeat a frightening female machine before he could rise to his proper prominence. I had 100 Terminator related quips at the ready, but I used the least offensive one I could find. Jokes suffer when I hold back.

Lesson:

Don't hold back,
ME

Strike Down

Hi there folks,

I wanted to let you know my mild relief that the writer's strike is over, and it's my firm belief that everybody won. We'll forget about the loss of revenue and the families that had to suffer, but in the end, they (the writers and executives) are all friends again, and that's what's important. Plus, Heroes doesn't have an ending for the season, Scrubs doesn't have an ending for the entire series (possibly to be replaced on DVD), Lost will have 3 episodes cut down (to be replaced later), and Friday Night Lights... well, it looks like it might be cancelled forever without a proper ending, at least in part, because of the writers strike.

While, I haven't spent much time talking about Friday Night Lights, I do have a custom made Dillon Panthers T-shirt with Saracen's name and number firmly etched on the back. I did get similar shirts for my brother and his friend as a birthday gift with the names of Smash Williams and Riggins on their shirts. But, the reason I don't talk about the show much is because, although I am a major fan (and to the utmost of my voice in the wind, I demand an ending), I am never fully satiated by it. This ambivalence tears at the fabric of my very soul (or rather, it makes me highly recommend the show with mild reservations).

I will start with the overwhelming positives. Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton as the Taylors are easily the most relatable TV marriage (possibly even more so than Jim and Pam's office relationship.) Great acting, great writing, and great chemistry spark these two down-to-earth characters who play a couple you believe as a couple on-screen, and you almost hope is a couple off-screen. Kyle Chandler has been on a number of TV shows before as well as the debacle that was King Kong, and no where, other than 1 incredible performance during a bomb squad cameo on Grey's Anatomy (the Superbowl episode), did I get the impression he had this much pop. Connie Britton was in the movie version of Friday Night Lights, playing the coach's wife, and was a regular on Spin City, but again, this is just a magical moment in her career that remains largely unexpected and unfortunately largely unheralded.

Coach Taylor is a high school football coach in a Texas town devoted to its proud high school football tradition. It's more than a stereotypical Texas football town; it's also the stereotypical small town that (almost) nobody ever leaves. It's also a town that appears to be divided by seldom discussed, but ever-present issues such as race (White, Black, and this season Hispanic populations were explored), struggles between the religious and the secular, and problems with poverty. To say this town is a microcosm of the American life is overbroad and under-descriptive. The same can generally be said of any show that deals with daily issues as well as larger problems. Instead, I prefer to look at the show as addressing a nice cross-section of issues, and it deals with those issues with as much depth as the populace's attention (my attention, as I sometimes refer to myself in third person plural) span can afford. The town fits many of the stereotypes that a city kid such as myself had about small towns, and crushes other stereotypes, which makes it a fascinating setting for this group of characters.

Taylor's wife works at the school as the guidance counselor and so both of their lives are totally intertwined in the lives of the main character high school children and they become legitimate surrogate parents for these children--- some of whom have difficulties at home and others whom have difficulties relating to their parents. So, the coach who has been working as a QB coach at Dillon for a long time and his wife who has been adopted by Dillon, Texas, have to manage their uniquely un-unique family life (highlighted by great dialogue and chemistry between them), a high school depending on them to care for the children, a town demanding victories, and future clouded by human ambitions and limited room for growth. Both Taylors are seemingly normal decent people, neither of whom are unusually kind, but both of whom are more caring then not.

Taylor and his wife have one daughter at the begining of the first season, who like many teenagers is struggling to find her existence in the show. Other than being a pretty girl (and the only member of the cast remotely close to the age she plays on the show), she brings the least to the proverbial table.

Jason Street, the prototypical All-American high school QB with the promise of NFL worthy potential has new struggles to deal with daily, after his life was inexorably altered by a crippling injury that left him wheel chair bound. His character is generally melancholy (understandably) and his acting is roller coastery. Lyla is Street's girlfriend at the start of the show, but inevitably, the show veered her away from Dawson and towards Pacey, the screw-up best friend, who slowly puts the pieces of his life together, even as he longs for his best friend's soul mate. Again, her performances are often wooden, but her material is often wooden, so it's tough to blame her. Oh, and surprise, she's very attractive. Speaking of Pacey, then there is Riggins, who is more of a screw-up with his constant drinking, but with the saving grace that he has a great deal of talent compared to other high school footballers. And, during the games, he plays hard. I'm told he's attractive as well, though I'm personally upset that at times, he is inaudible. But otherwise, I have no problem with this guy and he serves his function as the misunderstood disaffected miscreant with great zeal or an appropriate lack thereof.

But, my favorite character on the show is Matt Saracen, the back up QB, who is forced into a limelight that he never anticipated and other than being an adult at the age of 15, he is also a genuinely good hearted kid. There is nothing spectacular about him, as he is about average (or below) in most every category that can be tested in football and in life, except for his giant heart (aww). It causes him to be a better football player, have a shot with the coach's daughter he pines over (and eventually woos), and to regularly make good decisions. His father, who is serving in Iraq, left him to tend to his mentally ailing grandmother by himself, while he struggles with a part time job, going to classes and doing homework, participating on the football team (as their QB1, no less), and live a relatively normal healthy life as teenager. This kid displays great acting in a part he was made for; even as he is burdened by a schedule that few could handle, emotional torment, and everyday life struggles, he not only perseveres, but he thrives with a youthful optimism (a twinkle in his eye) underneath his cynical veneer (from his sarcastic dialogue) aided in large part by bouts of stuttering, poor posture, and general meekness. Of course, a similar performance is doled out by Saracen's comedic sidekick, the smart, witty, and intense Landry, who relies on his overwhelming faith (even as he struggles with it) in both the first and second seasons to deal with his crushes and his obstacles.

Finally, there is the Smash, who plays an over the top talent with an ego to match. He is the star running back and receiver, the star trashtalker, and easily a bright star in the future, both in the story and as an actor. He captures the center of every scene and embraces the attention. The Smash is more charismatic than he is egotistical and his relationship to his strong, wise mother humanizes him even further. Even though he is ego-centric, he is the most natural hero for this show and powered by emotion and flair, Smash blazes through the small screen.

The first season is marked by great emotional highs and lows and is far stronger than the second season, which has some of the characters falling in and out of grace, more like a soap opera (in an effort to make a more grandiose plot to attract more viewers).

So, why doesn't anyone watch it? Girls (and women) are often scared away because it's about football, even though it's really not. Guys are often scared away because it's not actually about football, even though it really is. I, personally, at times very much look forward to the football portions of the show and other times, seek more answers from the non-football portions of the show. I mentioned a few of the flaws of the show as I discussed the characters, but I didn't discuss it's major flaws. It's a character based show, which means that someone needs to put in the time and energy to enjoy it, and often that time is exhausting and draining and many of the characters like in Heroes fail to capture even my interest or imagination. Another major flaw touched on earlier is that it tries too hard to be too many things: is this a Dawson's Creek, OC modeled guilty pleasure, is it a football show, or is it about a family in a small town like Picket Fences? Or is the show about people who love and devote themselves to one thing (in this case football), and how it affects the lives of others around them or like a soap opera? As an avid watcher, of this possibly cancelled show, I still enjoyed the experience immensely. But, I would be satisfied with a mere two full seasons, if I was given answers to the larger questions, and the show walked away after this season. That having been said, I want an end for the show, and I certainly want an end for the second season. Some people are passionate about this show and are demanding additional seasons. Not me.

I watch every episode and dissect each moment, even as I enjoy the banter and the increasingly outlandish plotlines (as mentioned above to try to garner additional attention). If I were to ask for anything about the recognition of this show, it would not be for more seasons, I would ask for the nominating committees watch this show and duly acknowledge the plethora of excellent performers here (as well as some of the writing). But that's why I don't respect the opinions of the academies, reviewers, or guilds, and that's why I don't think you should take my word for what kind of a show this is. You should either watch it or not watch it and live with yourself. But for the record, everybody that I know that has watched this show more than thrice is hooked. Take that for whatever it's worth, my dear reader.

Speaking of great losses, my Nets team is getting cancelled (the basketball term is "blown up"), as they are in the process of finalizing a trade that will send away their most coveted asset in exchange for benefits of the future. [Note this was written prior to the Devean George veto, which is addressed below. Further, I kept it in because from my understanding the deal is still likely to go through, and even if it is not, it is an interesting case study worth analyzing.] First of all, as I've stated many times in various science related entries, I am not sure that there is any such thing as the future. Second of all, who says this is to their benefit for the future? For those of you who don't know basketball, Jason Kidd is the Nets best player (even though he is a very poor scorer and getting worse) because he is a guy who runs the ball towards the basket, and with his combination of eyesight, angle interpretations, ball control, hustle, and moxy, he is able to get people easier shots. People have overlooked him before and he led an intriguing Dallas team, a feisty Suns team, and a running Nets team much further than people anticipated (including leading a relatively untalented Nets team to the finals twice in a row, albeit in a poor conference).

Well, why did they make this trade? First, there are the simple statisticians out there that will have you look at the scoring of Jason Kidd and the scoring of Devin Harris and label Harris the better player (see everybody who preferred Marbury to Kidd). Second, there are the more complex statisticians out there that will point to Kidd's declining abilities in the overall categories that range from his dismal shooting percentage to his declining defensive numbers and say that his days of being a star are over; while Devin Harris, an up and coming point guard is already better (see John Hollinger and his PER stats). Third, there are those that will look to the future and say the many Harris, Diop, draft picks, pieces the Nets got in the long term are preferable to Kidd's declining ability. Fourth, the Nets will save a great deal of money over the next few years by getting a number of pieces by trading Kidd's mammoth contract for Stackhouse (who they will likely buy out and return to Dallas) and others who will be off the books after this year, which saves them from having to pay the luxury tax (and allows them to have a chance at the many free agent stars in 2010 just as the Nets are returning to New York, in Brooklyn). Fifth, Kidd was unhappy in New Jersey, playing alongside Carter (who I will get to in a second), who does not fit his playing style and likely does not try as hard as Kidd does. NJ was an eighth place playoff team, basically for the last three years that overachieves in large part because of Kidd. When he's not happy (and hasn't been for years although it's gotten worse recently,) it makes it increasingly hard for him to play his best and for others to play their best for him.

So, is the trade good for the Nets? Yes and no. As constituted, the Nets are almost definitely worse off than they were yesterday. The future of the organization is still far from certain with only mediocre pieces to build around, although because of Kidd's age, it is probably good that they dealt him while he was still worth something of value. But, more importantly with Kidd gone, it is very likely the Nets will try to move Carter, who although he is prone to bouts of laziness, is still a potent offensive weapon (I'm biased for Carter), and perhaps equally importantly, a box office draw. Who is going to come see a mediocre Nets team without Carter or Kidd? The rumor is they are going to get Jermaine O'Neal for Carter, which would probably keep them around 8th place assuming JO is healthy. So, they have a team that might make the playoffs the next few years (so they probably won't get any great lottery draft picks); they probably won't be paying any luxury excise taxes for overspending, but people are going to buy less tickets, less jerseys, and watch them even less on TV (less advertising revenue), which sounds like a bad deal to me. Overall, the Kidd move as well as the probable Carter follow-up is totally understandable, and I see why they did it, but I would have tried something else, like trading Carter and pieces for Marion (to have a better version of Kenyon Martin running the floor with Kidd and Jefferson, which Carter does not do). But to be fair, considering Kidd wanted to go, this was about as much as they could get for him that would not include Bynum last year.

Why did Dallas do it? Dallas blew up their historic depth, which gave them 67 wins in the season last year. More importantly, they have a very good record this year, with a year's more experience, while all the other team's they have particular trouble with would have to adjust to seismic shifts, with Gasol, Shaq, and even Webber in Golden State (while San Antonio is roughly the same, their bit parts are even older now). In addition to the opposite of all the things said above (worse for their payroll, declining and aging Kidd, getting rid of an up and coming talented point guard, they gave up their best defensive big man, Diop, who would guard Bynum and Duncan. So, why? Oh right... Jason Kidd. Forget about the gaudy triple double numbers this year, or the past leadership experience, constantly taking teams further than anticipated including two finals appearances. Forget his on-court offensive and defensive (against bigger guards) skills or physical and mental toughness or his playoff poise and experience (which Dallas could really use after two heartbreaking series in a row), forget about additional Jason Kidd revenue from advertising and sales and fan excitement. Forget that you are getting this perennial all-star who probably has a good deal left in the tank without giving up your main piece Dirk or second piece, Josh Howard, or your next best scorer, Jason Terry (who will be needed because Kidd, as stated is not a good scorer). Well, that's an awful lot of things to forget about, and still we are left with a guy who is a valuable asset to a team, who will excite the players on Dallas, and put fear in the heart of the enemy.

We are still left with a guy who will enable the team to play a different style, more like when Nash and Don Nelson were around, as well, as their current defensive style with isolation offenses. Devin Harris and Diop are good and valuable pieces, but having Kidd gives the Mavs greater potential than they otherwise had. And with Jason Kidd excited about playing again, we might see rises in his scoring ability (in part because Dallas's variety of scorers will give him more open space than NJ did), even if we see declines in his rebounding numbers. Dallas will have a true pass first point guard that helped create the mold of Steve Nash, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and Andre Miller that we all appreciate. Those guys are more valuable than the shoot first point guards. I defy anyone to show me otherwise. (I defy myself if I point to Billups, Jason Williams (or Damon Jones), and Tony Parker as the last three starting PG for championship teams, but note that Duncan and Shaq were on two of the teams, and Detroit plays excellent team basketball on both ends of the court, second only to San Antonio). But, yes, even though they sacrifice some depth, a big guy who can guard big guys, and its future above-average point guard and it costs them money, if I'm Dallas, I definitely make this trade.

What if I'm Devean George, I don't want any part of this trade going from a potentially great team (particularly if the teams can swing the deal without giving him up) to a potentially bad team in New Jersey. He would go from playing relatively few minutes for a championship caliber team to slightly more minutes for a lottery caliber team. He also loses certain Early Bird rights that he is currently entitled to as a veteran, who has been playing with the same team for a couple of years. I'm told both teams are currently still optimistic the deal will be completed in roughly the same manner, if not the exact same manner as currently constituted, but I also recently read that Matt Geiger held up an Allen Iverson trade to Detroit and as we all know, that trade never occurred.

George was a good player, and he's not bad yet, but based on his limited basketball value, he shouldn't have the power to veto a deal like this. The basketball union is very strong, good thing they had a strike 5 years ago, to do everything in their power to prevent good basketball from taking place. Basketball sounds a lot like television, it's almost as if they are both forms of entertainment. Except, the players are more like the actors, with the coach as the director; and the writers are like the assistant coaches? I guess, its actually more like football, where assistant coaches (and coordinators) are really important designing and calling plays, but football's union isn't that strong, so it makes the comparison inapt and inept.

But, the script for the basketball world get more intriguing by the day. The West keeps getting better. Many people point to this potential Kidd move and the Shaq move as examples of desperation. I would only go so far as to say that there was an urgency about these moves, but not desperation, because these moves are risky (in comparison to the lopsided Gasol trade), but they are likely beneficial for their teams in the short run, which is all that should be considered (this year and the next year or two, without decimating the team beyond that point). Kidd and Shaq raise the ceiling of these two respective teams and raise the intensity and the stakes of the West. Overall, what was the West's response to KG and Ray Allen going East, along with the rise of King James and Dwight Howard (who might play less defense, but I still don't want to play against him) and smart minor Pistons moves? To get exponentially better and more competitive. Applause to the West for taking risks, for coughing cash, and for ever improving even when they were already far superior.

But, yes, basketball is back in style with a possible renewed LA-Boston rivalry, with the rise of young stars, and with the veritable coagulation of talent to the point of congestion. There are a lot of crappy teams out there, but now there are a lot of super teams, which like superdelegates in the Democratic Primaries, have a disproportionate amount of power and will likely determine the outcome. Okay, the analogy is terrible, but if I was going to talk about politics now, it would be an even worse segue. So, instead... Lost... SPOILERS AHEAD.

Another incredible Lost episode dominates all other TV stories. In this most recent episode (I once again point you to the fine analysis of Doc Jeff Jensen and melanism.com), Sayid goes commando and gets deeper into the new others.
If the first season was about meeting the Losties, the second was about meeting the Tailies, the third was about meeting Ben and his band of hostiles, this season is clearly about meeting Ben's nemeses (possibly Dharma or its remnants). So, what is the new relevant exciting information? Plenty.

There is some sort of war going on between Ben's Hostiles (with a name like that, I can't imagine them not being at war) and the (not) Oceanic Lawyer Abaddon's ship people. In this war, the Losties are mere pawns, and as such, Ben continues to manipulate them even long after they have left the island. Sayid is a hired gun for the consummate manipulator, Ben, who may have manipulated Sayid and the other Losties many times before, but this time Sayid is doing the right thing listening to him (?). We learned that he sold his soul to leave the Island or to protect his friends, but also that he willingly sold them out (and risked a mission he was willing to kill and die for) when he met a girl he liked. One of my friends wondered why Sayid wasn't the guy making decisions. Because as many mistakes as Jack makes, he is regularly making the more logical choice, as opposed to the passionate choice like pushing Kate away in this episode, exploiting Sawyer's position in the Locke brigade (except Jack's not so logical when he so regularly puts himself in danger). The major problem with the logical choice is that in this show, the logical choice, based on science and extrapolation, is seldom the optimal path. So, again, it is still possible Sayid is doing the right thing (?) even when he is killing for Ben.

After Sayid kills some rich guy on a golf course without much remorse, he kills some lady that works for a guy who is not an economist. Jensen does some nice economics stuff here, but I will spare you the pseudoscientific jargon (cause I don't know it). Instead, I will focus on the time lapse experiment done by Faraday. Well done on acknowledging that there is something scientifically "beyond weird" about this Island. But great question posed by melanism, asking why the radio communications can work in real time if other things (matter?) operates under a different standard. This all brings me back to the time Sayid and Hurley were sitting on the beach listening to the short wave radio and Sayid explained that the oldie playing on the radio could have been coming from pretty much anywhere and Hurley responded "or anytime" which he half laughed off. If that signal was coming from off the Island, which is a real possibility if not a likelihood, then how did it get past the Endorian under-water signal blocker (where are my cell phone experts out there? Is a cell phone signal like a radio signal or does it require two way broadcast to operate? In other words, if Ben blocked all outgoing calls/signals, would the phone itself still be able to receive communications from outside or does it require two way capability to function as a receiver?)

The lost time theme (see Mittelos from the Lost Experience), is a prevalent explanation about what is so unique about the Island and it is possible this experiment was the first step to prove not only that the Island has unique properties, but the uniqueness centers on its relation to time. For example, a possible theory is that the Island itself is the veritable Fountain of Youth (see Richard and also see Locke's and Rose's healing, which is not necessarily proof, but it's something) that is nearly impossible to discover because it is a rift in our space/time continuum, operating 5 seconds behind us (or in this case 30 minutes) see Stephen King's The Langoliers. I suppose it's also possible that time just actually goes slower or that it just doesn't operate in remotely the same way. (Side note, so because of the lost time that occurs on the Island, is it possible the Red Sox won two world series while they were on the Island for 100 days? No, because Jack was back already, but you get my meaning. They might actually have been there much longer than 100 days... maybe?)

About last week's theory about the Oceanic 6, surprise, I was wrong (I think). Because my working theory was Ben off the island as part of the Oceanic 6 (though he wasn't one of the Oceanic passengers, but as part of his escaping from Locke to regroup and then return to take back the island. Not all of that is wrong yet, but give the writers time, they prove me wrong regularly. And when they prove me wrong, they strike me down with great vengeance and furious anger.) But, Ben is off the Island and in full medical (veterinary) gear as he eerily treats Sayid's gun shot wound. But even after the hundreds of lies, I still kinda believe him. My new Oceanic 6- Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid... Claire (because of Desmond's vision with Aaron who doesn't count) and Sawyer (playing house off the Island because he's a survivor). (Another side note if the person in the coffin was a member of the Oceanic 6, wouldn't people come to his funeral as they would any pseudocelebrity's funeral? I never know whether the writers would have thought of that, captured it, or will address it in the future, but it's food for thought. Or maybe I'm wrong and people only attend actual celebrity funerals.)

But, now I want to take two steps back and deal with Locke and his search for uncle Jacob's cabin. Of course, it's weird that the ash surrounding where Jacob's cabin was, was still there, but gray now. I guess that means he's gone? He took his black smoke coat and left? To learn more about the Smoke Monster, I found the lostpedia article on Uluru rather interesting, which makes me think this Island is a burial ground fountain of youth, nexus of the universe. The Black Smoke could a ghost that haunts all those who steal the rocks from the ground. Are the rocks actual rocks or are they people or are they the secrets buried on the Island? Who is the smoke monster haunting, why did it kill the people it killed, and will it haunt the Abaddonians? Only time will tell. Time.

Your turn,
PB&J ME

Politics Lost

Hello again blog aficionados and other people who know how to spell aficionado,

So, in the world of politic, who were the big winners and losers over this past week? Overall, I guess you could say Romney did not have a good week, having lost all of the Southern states and California, the state his presidency dreams hinged upon. So, he dutifully stepped aside. I wonder how much of his personal fortune he spent? If he only had $200 million (I say "only" with tears in my eyes), and he spent $35-50 million on a failed presidential bid, he really cut into his fortune substantially. But, dropping out was a sound decision if he was going to spend that much money and more, followed by a difficult actual presidential race, where he would probably lose to whoever emerged from the Democratic Party. Smart move Mitt. And his amount is much more than Hillary is spending on her (hopefully) failed bid.

So, the remaining Republican candidates are Senator John McCain, who now has a commanding lead and Governor Mike Huckabee, who now has little competition for the social conservatives that hate McCain vote. But, in all likelihood, it is too late for Huckabee to mount a sufficient resistance to the McCain inevitability. The politicos on MSNBC, and CNN seem to think this guy is angling for the vice presidency, (and Mitt is eyeing a future presidential bid,) but there is little evidence to support that Huckabee is running for second. He's clearly running for first, he's just well behind with a race that's almost over. He'll have to dribble around some tight opposition and then throw a homerun pass to score his goal of winning the nomination. Otherwise, McCain is your next Republican candidate for president.

Obama and Hillary are stuck in limbo, and have to continue debating internally about how much to attack the other side and how much to praise the other candidate. Who won Super Tuesday? Both sides claim victory and both sides are right to do so. Obama won slightly more delegates and more states, while Hillary won more votes and larger states. More importantly though, Obama, whose fundraising and poll numbers are rising with added publicity has more time to creep up in the polls, but is it enough time and what happens if this goes to the convention undecided. (Pretty diplomatic of me, right? Stay tuned, I become less diplomatic as I get more tired.)

So, we ask, who is ahead so far? It looks like its pretty close, but counting superdelegates (Democratic bigwigs who get to vote as if they are delegates) Hillary is ahead by a little. I would take that to mean, Hillary is well ahead because in boxing, if the opponent knows the judges (and the judges owe the opponent a favor), you need a knockout to win the fight. While Obama has momentum, if he doesn't meet the number, it becomes increasingly likely that Hillary will emerge as the victor from years of being part of the circle, and being almost on top of the circle. And I bet Hillary could make some very real threats to superdelegates who don't swing her way.
For example, imaginary conversation between Hillary staffer (HS) and superdelegate (SD)...
HS- "If I were you, I wouldn't want to get on Hillary's bad side. She will probably win this election and she has a long memory for things like this. Do you really want to have Hillary on your bad side?"
SD- "But, what if Obama wins?"
HS- "He won't win, we already have the numbers, and even if he by some miracle does win, do you really think the big softie will hold a grudge? He's a big ball of happy goo made entirely of fluff. Hillary is a grudge ball, powered by unbridled fury."

Yep, if I was Obama, I would do whatever I could to get the knockout early. But, the question remains, who does the long Republican layoff help, the Democrats who are continuing to hone their skills and continuing to garner massive amounts of attention or the McCain, who will now be the solitary target of Democratic attacks and who will receive the minimal amount of positive attention as his campaign moves into stealth mode and hibernation to reemerge... more to the right? That would be unusual, but not necessarily impractical. Either way, the layoff question was part of the Rudy strategy, which he used to avoid the scathing attacks and look how well that worked for him. The debate about who the layoff helps may continue, but we may be down to 1 conference finals series.

Speaking of layoffs, how about the Shaq trade that occurred this week. Many people say that Shaq is too old, too hurt, and too fat to make any more impact in the NBA game. I don't think I was one of those people, but you never know. True, Marion is a lot to give up, such a great defender (he can almost even guard a quick point guard or a strong center, but he can definitely guard anyone in between), who makes up for some of Nash's defensive flaws, with incredible athletic skills, as he was the one who most frequently ran with Nash for easy dunks. He is also a very good rebounder and a capable shooter, though he doesn't create shots for himself. And the Suns made a very nice run last year, stopped by the Spurs, after the Spurs took a road game, taking the lead 3-2 and going home, (but with Amare and Diaw suspended for leaving the bench during an altercation, the Suns had a smaller chance to even the series). And though they were unhappy this year, the Suns are walking around with the best record in the stronger conference. Marion, who is by most accounts a very nice man, is also insecure and troubled by his lack of appreciation (3rd star status) in the Phoenix organization. Perhaps Marion doesn't recognize that he is always among the most coveted fantasy basketball players in the league, and perhaps that would sate some of his desires to be recognized.

But, even in the deal where he is likely the best player being traded, Marion is taking the second star status. Shaq is more than a powerful man with great charisma, who used to have great quickness and basketball ability. He is more than the experience, leadership, and rings he brings to the team (or even a record of consistent reform). He is a winner. He brings wins. Since 1991, Michael Jordan, Shaq, or Tim Duncan have been in EVERY single championship series, except 1 (Hakeem vs. Ewing.) That is, in 16 of the past 17 years, 1 of these 3 guys has been in the finals. I remind you Michael Jordan has long since retired (for the 3rd time, which I am told is a charm.) Oh, and in case, you were wondering, these 3 guys, never on the same team (obviously) and never against each other (less obviously) won 14 of those 17 years. So, yeah, Camby might have been a better fit with the team and for their defense in general, or maybe even Jermaine Oneill, but wouldn't you give this guy a shot?

So, you must be asking yourself, "why is Papa Bear bringing this up? Who cares if Jordan won a bunch of times around 15 years ago and Shaq won a bunch of times around 5-10 years ago. He's done now, right?" Well, historically, some centers have remained productive for a very long time, and even if he's not fully productive, and he can only be 2005 Miami Heat championship productive, wouldn't that be way more than enough to propel an excellent team to a championship. Some centers reduced their role like Kareem who was much less of a factor when the Showtime Lakers were pushing the ball up the floor. But, his presence and half court offense helped. Or what about Wilt, who totally transformed into a passer, averaging over 10 assists per game when his scoring ability declined. What about the Chief, roaming around the league giving his all and just being a steady presence in his elder years.

So, Miami is excited to get rid of Shaq's unmotivated rotund behind and move his very expensive salary for pieces that they might be able to use (by turning Marion into Pippen, except that Wade is no Jordan and Marion is no Pippen. If I were them, I would trade Marion as soon as I could for pieces that could help the team become great because they just got great value, but not sure it propelled the reeling team.) Phoenix could have just made a deal to make the team true contenders in the last few years of Nash's reign to give him the physical support to curb Duncan, Bynum, Yao, et al. So, just like everything else, time will tell, and just like the Democratic Super Tuesday results, I am not sure anyone really lost.

Speaking of Lost, as I always do, I have to admit, even though I am not that intrigued by the new characters, I am fascinated by who they are and each of their unique gifts. As always, I direct you to the definitive article on analyzing Lost, Jeff Jensen's comprehensive EW column and for your reading pleasure, www.melanism.com for more insight into the matter. But, as always, I am not about insight or incite, I am about cold hard facts, and totally random guesses.

SPOILERS BELOW if you have not seen the most recent episode, Confirmed Dead, which aired on February 7, 2008 at 9:00 p.m. EST, and don't want to have unhelpful information, which may only confuse you.

Let's start with who these fresh off the boat people are. My best guess is they are the remnants of the Dharma Initiative or some group trying to get a hand on the information that they had. Benjamin Linus was the last survivor of the Dharma project on the island, so he would have valuable information about the projects.
More importantly though, the people on the island died by a gas attack, (which they might know if they know Benjamin Linus survived), so they would be prepared both with guns and with gas masks to take on the hostiles. If they are the remnants of Dharma, they would know about the unique properties of the Island, so they would bring a physicist, some sort of either archaeologist/zookeeper/biologist, and a ghost whisperer (along with a drunk pilot who nobody would believe.)
I like the Doc Jensen proposed theory that the female on the crew, Charlotte, (not named Naomi) has been on the island before and is the daughter of Ben's old girlfriend.

Michael is a popular theory about the man on the boat, but I'm really rooting for it to be Minkowski. I hope they stop adding people though, switching Minkowski with someone else. Do, I have to get used to her voice after I had just gotten over being annoyed at his voice? I liked the reappearance of the "Oceanic attorney" as the guy in charge of the non-rescue operation, even though the drunk pilot knew that the crash was staged.

So, the next question is who staged it (assuming this is not an alternate reality or a split time scenario), and the most obvious answer is the Dharma Initiative hiding their product (the Island). The less obvious answer is Benjamin Linus who does not want people coming and going off this Island and would want an end to the search party.

What are these scientists studying? Doc Jensen says either time travel (chronoportation?) or teleportation (space travel, well from one space to another). A combination of those fits the lady's joy in seeing the polar bear in the desert, and supports why Richard (Benjamin's chief counsel and adversary among the hostiles did not age a day from the day Ben met him until the day Ben was, well... now).
But, they chose Faraday, (the real life physicist/ chemist was an electricity and magnetism specialist, while this fake one is un-pigeon-holed upon his request,) who was not a time travel person instead of making a reference to H.G. Wells or even Isaac Asimov (like Heroes did with their future specialist).

But, now that there are only at most 46 more episodes left, I hope they stop introducing new characters, and keep answering questions. But, I applaud Cuse/Lindeloff combo for making an excellent start to their journey with some answers like the boat was after Benjamin Linus, the aircraft was found with all the survivors dead, (as Naomi, who was a liar, said). And, they added bits of wonderment like seeing Ben's face when Hurley knew where the cabin was or Kate's face when Jack winked at her and then discussed the winking in front of Juliet.

But, my favorite moment of the episode was a minor one, when Sayid asked what Ben meant when he said that the boat was there to kill every last person on the Island. She turned to him and said (paraphrased,) "it means he's a liar. {Pause.} Or they are here to kill every last one of us. How many guns do you have?" It perfectly describes one of my favorite and the most intriguing characters on the show, a man who fully admits he is manipulating people, but he is able to continue to do it because of his intellect, his manner, and/or people still trusting his underlying motivations. And, even as I sit here today, I still tend to believe there is at least partial truth in just about everything this guy says. Great acting and great writing, I suppose, but don't you believe him too?

And what was your favorite allusion made by this team? Me? I always like a good versus evil allusion and always like references to a fallen Lucifer because it adds a little something to every character's wrong doing. But, their Island paradise of a few weeks earlier, well, it's los... it's done now.

I want to hear from you America, the bloglines are open,
ME, the deserted Polar Papa Bear

Super Weekend

My fellow Americans and Others,

there were three major events that occurred this weekend and they will possibly culminate in a major political event on Tuesday.

So, I will go in chronological order of my thoughts. (Sunday, Saturday, Thursday). My thoughts first turn to Sunday evening's best football game of the day, the Super Bowl (henceforth referred to as the "Superbowl".) On its own, the Bowl was an excellent game, but in context, it was a game for the ages. How many story lines could you want in one football game? 10? Let's try it out.

1) Beating of a Lifetime: this cool handsome quarterback, captain of his football team, looked more like the dork getting pummeled and wedgied in the bathroom of high schools everywhere (on TV. I was a huge dork and I was never beaten up.)

2) History Making Team, Fails to Make History: never has a team gone undefeated in a football season (and by never, I mean, since the 80's when life began.) This "best team ever" did not live up to their tremendous offensive hype, and their even greater offensive potential. Their solid, but exhausted defense failed them in the 4th quarter (including an Asante Samuel drop that would have effectively ended the game.)

3) Biggest Upset Ever: this was not the biggest upset ever, or even the biggest upset in Superbowl history, but its easily one of the great upsets of all time. The Giants played an amazing game, living up to their talent level, particularly on defense and they effectively beat a New England team that beat every major playoff team this year, (except the Favrettes,) including the Giants. What a magnificent game by the Giants defense, stopping the run entirely and hitting Brady over and over again. And, it was a very good game by the offense, producing when it mattered most. But, it's not the biggest upset ever because these were two great teams playing against each other. We did not necessarily know the Giants were a "great" team before the playoffs started, but by the Super Bowl, sorry, the Superbowl, we knew this was a team capable of competing with anyone. I still thought they would lose and thought people were naive to think the Giants would win, but they were a great team playing against a greater team (both teams were on the road) and those upsets happen all the time.

4) Manning 2- the younger, scraggly brother of last year's Superbowl champion comes out and wins the Superbowl, despite multiple seasons of doubting, and a full season's worth of detractors. He out-Brady-ed Brady, both of whom came down for late 4th quarter drives to take the lead and win the game, but of course, Manning won. He threw an interception that was not his fault, but he also threw other passes that could/should have been intercepted, so I leave the actual interception on his official and unofficial record as a fair estimate of how well he played, great at times, too loose with the ball, at other times. Overall, it was a very good game, and great day for him. He played better than Brad Johnson when he won his Superbowl, so he was more of a Manning than a Dilfer.

5) Stars Being Stars- Manning (discussed above), Brady (still had a great day despite the beat down with well over 200 yards passing and a TD, no interceptions, a fumble that meant nothing, and had a game winning drive (though not with 30 seconds left), Moss (1 TD), Plax (1 TD), Welker (11 receptions, 100 yards), Strahan, Umenyiora, Tuck (my choice for MVP of the game), Samuel, Adalius T., and many more. Notably, the running backs were weak, particularly the New England running backs (which may have contributed to the game's excitement). But, the hero of the game was... Giants wide receiver (scrub wide receiver with 4 catches this year and often plays defense), David Tyree, with the Helmet Catch. What? Wait... who?

6) The Helmet Catch- great games have defining plays, and this was it. It was 3rd and long for the Giants in their own territory with around 1 minute left in the game and a big play was required. It starts with a snap. Within moments, New England's defense had gotten through the offensive line's wall, as the Giants play, known as the Phantom begins to fall apart, and the Patriots get to Manning himself, with Adalius Thomas even grabbing a hold of the young gun slinger's jersey. Through sheer will, he tore himself from the clutches of the mighty defensive playmaker and found himself a bit of a clearing in a disintegrating pocket. Then, he waited a moment to gather himself (and possibly look downfield), before he launched what could only be referred to as a Hail Mary to Tyree, or more likely anyone who was beyond the first down marker. Already an incredible play becomes legendary as the ball hangs in the air for seconds, apparently destined for Patriot hands. But, out of nowhere, Tyree sticks his mitt in the air to try to catch it. Because the ball was out of his reach, the embattled receiver could not catch the ball with two hands, and because the ball was not thrown in a spiral, he had no chance to catch the ball in one palm (a rare feat that I have seen a select few players accomplish during a game, including Randy Moss). So, he brought the ball down with his hand and pressed it firmly against the back part of his round helmet. Did, I forget to mention that he was being hit by Rodney Harrison, one of the most feared and dirty players in the league, doing everything he could to prevent the catch. Harrison knocked Tyree flat on his back. To sum up, this guy must have reached 10 feet in the air, grabbed the ball with his outstretched hand and pushed it against his helmet, while being hit, and landing from that great leap, flat on his back. Of course he kept holding the ball long after his body collided with the floor resulting in a giant thud. If that was the go ahead touchdown play, that would perhaps be the finest moment in Superbowl history. Alas, it wasn't a touchdown, and Manning's touchdown pass to Tyree (yes, the same unheralded guy,) which occurred minutes earlier, was notable only as a good play design, a good route, and a great pass from Manning. But, the Helmet Catch will live on as the defining play of one of the greatest Superbowls ever and one of the great upsets in sports.

7) I Was Wrong: my prediction, Patriots winning by 13, was wrong, and my being wrong is rare. So savor the flavor. And it is one of the even fewer times, I am happy to be wrong, (even as a Jets fan.)

8) Coach-Off: Coughlin out-coached the man who is often considered the greatest football coach of all time*. (Asterisk refers to the 2007 cheating scandal that may extend as far back as 2002, where perhaps he cheated his way into Superbowl glory against the Rams by taping the Rams and Warner's practices.) The cheating coach and Coughlin coached together for the NY Giants under Parcells, before the New England coach landed in his current locale (and before his failed stint in Cleveland) and coached a Patriots team with very few big-named players to almost dynasty status during the age of parity and salary cap restrictions. His defensive schemes and planning are legendary, perhaps using the techniques garnered from watching the videos of the play calling. Maybe not, who knows? Coughlin, on the other hand, was on the firing block, as recently as, this year.

9) Karma Police: the Giants notably had good karma, having been mercilessly attacked for weeks on end because of coaching and QB questions, even by former running backs (see the Boston Sports Guy's (Bill Simmons's) Tiki Theory (formerly the Ewing Theory) for details about improving after the loss of a major star), but handling the questions with style and class. They played in England, sacrificing a home game this year (they were much worse at home, so it turned out to work in their favor, but that's my point). Then, of course, on Week 17, a game that meant nothing to the Giants, and risked injury to their players, they went out and fought valiantly and gave us a great show, only to fall in a shoot out to these Patriots. Additionally, New England was caught cheating, ran up the score against lesser opponents, and was generally surly towards the media. It's almost as if there is a balance in the universe that benefits the decent and the righteous.

10) Yankees-Red Sox square off again: the two most obnoxious fan bases in the nation, mainly because of their prolonged rivalry that enraptures the East Coast biased media, was set on a different stage. This game was not supposed to grow any rivalry because the Giants were not supposed to have a chance. But, guess what? They won. As a Mets/Jets fan, who bares no ill will for the fans of either fan base, I acknowledge that the rivalry between two major market teams is good for the sport and the revenue for the sport, the advertisers, and the media, ala the ulitmate sports rivalry, Bird-Magic. But, still, if you are not a fan, sometimes I am often off-put by their sense of entitlement (and long for a day when my teams are so good that I have that same sense of entitlement to championships). I often find myself cheering against both teams, but I still kinda like the Giants, and I like Jeter in the same way I like Brady, and it's tough for me to root against a New York team... unless it's the Knicks (who unceremoniously traded away all of my favorite players in Ewing, Oakley, Jackson, and then slowly declined to the depths of depravity.)

Lots of other stories arose, like might these two teams meet up in the future? But, the future is a tale for another time. So, I digress.

This Saturday, I made the novelty purchase that is the Wii. For those of you who don't know anything about it, it is a videogame system, in which instead of using your fingers to press buttons, you use your body and act out the movements as motion sensors inform the computer regarding your intentions. My friend arrived at the Wii location at 7:30 a.m. on a Saturday morning (and was 40th in line) and waited an hour and a half to acquire and obtain this system for his fiance. The company's strategy seems to be working as the system came out over a year ago, and people are still flocking at ridiculous times, for ridiculous spans to get the system. I was 97th in line, and there were only 3 systems left after I got one. The line still had 30 people who were not going to go home with a Wii that day.

The Wii experience is unique because the boxing game if played in succession is a thoroughly exhausting workout. So, of course, I played it until I couldn't move, and then I worked on my ducking. The most intense part of the boxing game is the 5 second break in between rounds. The other notable game that comes with the system, is the most popular game, as far as I can tell, tennis. It's a very solid game, that permits you to feel like you are playing tennis (even though I suspect, actual tennis form is not necessary.)

The third reason that I got the Wii is because it provided a great conversation piece at a dinner I was at, it brought over family and friend guests that have never before come to my apartment, as if the video game system, somehow gave my apartment newfound credibility and panache.

And the final Super thing from this past weekend, was the debut of Lost on Thursday. Doc Jenson pretty much explained everything I would say about the episode (and more), and www.melanism.com added incites and questions, except that I will add my favorite part of the episode was the befuddling line by Hurley in the flash forward, paraphrased, "I should have gone with you." Did that mean Jack was right to trust Naomi and the nearby vessel (it certainly doesn't appear so), or that Jack's plan was still preferable to Locke's plan, which doomed the castaways? Or did it mean something else entirely like the division of the two groups was hurt the group's chances of staying together (off the island)?

It was also a particularly creepy episode with the Oceanic flight attorney who had no business cards, (which makes him a liar,) Hurley's (hallucinatory?) visions of fish and Charlie), Jack shooting Locke sans bullets, and of course, seeing a shadowed Christian Shephard sitting in Jacob's rocking chair, with Locke's frightening eye to protect him and ward off all voyeurs.

Also, in the battle of faith versus science, is faith still in the lead? Probably, at least in part because Jack's opinion about going back to the island changes in between that Hurley visit day and bearded suicidal day in the future. What changed his mind? Was it Charlie visions? Was it Locke's/Ben's arguments? Was it me?

Who are the Oceanic 6? Kate might not count because she might have used an assumed name or snuck off somehow to avoid jailtime. Aaron might not count because he's a baby.
But, I will count, Jack (see last episode of Season 3), Hurley (first episode of Season 4), Kate, Claire (and Aaron because of Desmond's vision of Charlie dying to save Claire and Aaron), Sawyer (because he's a survivor), and Ben (who is not from the Oceanic flight, but I'm working on a theory). Your guess is better than mine.

If you can vote in the primaries/caucuses, which I rarely do and probably won't, I encourage you to vote. Since, you are voting already, you might as well vote for my candidates, McCain or Obama, because why not? Looks like these primaries are coming down to the wire like the Superbowl, with stars being stars and crushing hits. It's as exhausting as the Wii, and almost as mysterious as Lost. Yeah, generally, I don't like reality TV, but 5-10 years from now, this group of people might affect my life, unlike the Real World jerks or the dancing B list stars or the guy with gray hair who won American Idle (sic).

Hope everyone has a great Monday, followed by a Super Duper Tuesday.

Take care,
Papa Bear