This is My Blog, Get Your Own by Mark "Papa Bear" Ellis

FNL Thanksgiving

2010-08-06T23:39:00.003-04:00

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

2010-07-31T09:35:00.004-04:00

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

2010-07-24T02:59:00.005-04:00

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

Dream Team?

2010-07-09T13:43:00.003-04:00

Dear reader,

I am surprised by LeBron's choice to go to Miami. I previously explained my take on his different options. After hearing his Decision, even after ESPN's warning, my first thought was how horrible this ordeal was for the city of Cleveland. My next thought was that LeBron was foregoing a potential legacy as a top 5 player of all time in exchange to play a super-charged Scottie Pippen to Dwayne Wade's lesser Michael Jordan. I went through the stages of grieving even though nobody died, nobody was gone forever and heck, I'm not even a Cavs fan. I can only imagine what Cleveland was going through. The only thing I lost was-some degree of respect for a young man I greatly appreciated. But now, with some time to process most of my feelings on the matter, I sought an outlet to relay some of my racing thoughts.

In Defense of LeBron James:
Let's start with the fact that LeBron raised millions of dollars for charity. Sure, he created a spectacle that was the height of hubris, but he channeled that spectacle for a good cause. Let's not forget this act of charity, even in the darkest corners of our minds.

Further, despite the fury directed towards LeBron, he committed no crime. He was accused of committing no crime. Nothing he did was against the law, nor was it against some societal norm. There was no accusation that he cheated on his wife like many other athletes have, even if Cleveland fans feel cheated. He violated no contract; his contract expired and he decided to take a different job. Gosh-darned it, he didn't even lie about any of it. At no point did he make any commitment to his fans that he would play the rest of his career in Cleveland. At most, he said he would like to or love to finish his career in Cleveland, but he always qualified those statements with his primary goal of winning championships... but we'll get to that soon enough.

He forfeited money to play in Miami. A rough estimate is that LeBron could have made a salary of $125 million to sign with Cleveland than any other team. To sign anywhere else, the maximum salary he could make is $30 million less (with one less year.) That's $30 million in guaranteed money. By playing in Miami, alongside Wade and Bosh, he has to take even more of a pay cut, at least another $5 million off the amount they could pay him... $35 million less guaranteed salary than he could make in Cleveland. As I mentioned in my previous post, there are caveats to these salary estimates.

1) LeBron will likely play more than 5 years at a very high level and thus that 6th (extra) year he will likely be paid by some team, an amount around $20 million, which would offset his $35 million lost potential income. 2) Florida does not have income tax, which would save LeBron close to $7 million over the course of the deal. (I'm not counting income tax over the course of future contracts because (a) he may leave Florida after the contract expires and (b) because there is a great chance if he decided to stay in Cleveland, he would leave Cleveland after the 6 year-contract was up, particularly because he might be hungry for titles.) 3) A new collective bargaining agreement will be harsher on players, including lower increases in the maximum salary he could earn as well as a lower salary cap, making it harder for him to earn money in the future. So, that sixth year and beyond, he will likely earn less money over the course of future contracts. 4) That 6th year will be the base amount for his next contract, which will be over $2 million lower than he could have had if he resigned with Cleveland. That means every year of his future contracts, his salary can only increase by a fixed percentage from one year to the next, and he's losing out on more than $2 million per year. So, after this contract, if he signs for 5 more years, he probably loses another $10-12 million on his next contract alone because of signing with the Heat now. (i.e. if the maximum he could get paid on a year by year basis increases something like Yr. 1: $17M- Yr. 2: $18M- Yr. 3: $19M- Yr. 4: $20M- Yr. 5: $21- Yr. 6: $22M in Cleveland vs. Yr. 1: $15M- Yr. 2: $16M- Yr. 3: $17M- Yr. 4: $18M- Yr. 5: $19M in Miami. Then if he signs with Miami, his next contract will start at $20M in his 6th year and proceed $2M lower each year from then on. Additionally, because these numbers operate on percentage growth not $1M per year increases, the amount in prospective losses, increases marginally every year.

So, by my non-scientific estimate, based on the facts and figures and patchwork, if he plays less than 5 years, he lost $28 million in extra salary income. If he plays more than 5 years, he gets paid for that 6th year now, so that offsets most of his losses. But after that 6th year, the longer his career, the more he lost/loses in prospective income (just by signing this current lesser deal with the Heat.) Hence, assuming he plays for 10 years, which is fairly conservative, then my guess is he loses about $15 million. You may be saying, that's nothing, but tens of millions of dollars is not nothing. $10 million could buy him or his family something important to them or it could go to charity or it could be used to hire more people to assist him and give people jobs OR as savvy business people know, every dollar is a potential investment into something much more lucrative.

[Update: New reports indicate that both Cleveland and Toronto made the smart business decision and agreed to sign and trade deals to get trade exceptions for themselves, but also permitted LeBron, Bosh (and Wade) more money under the Collective Bargaining Agreement Rules. They are accepting a 6-year $110 million dollar salary. This means that the 6th year issue is no longer in play. So, LeBron is turning down $15 million in guaranteed money, though $7 million would be paid for Ohio State taxes, for a total net loss of $8 million guaranteed money. The calculation of losses from future contracts continues to be a loss of over $2 million per year for the reasons stated above. Thus, if he is still playing at a very high level at age 31 and signs one single 5 year contract. (Again taxes on that contract do not come into play because we do not know where he will sign or where he would have signed had he been playing for Cleveland.) The signing of this contract would lose him over $10 million off the maximum salary he could earn in that next future contract. So, other than his loss of guaranteed money, the rest of the calculations of his losses remain the same; over the course of his career, he is likely to lose over $15 million by signing this contract with the Heat.]

Some of you are saying, he can make this up in endorsements by going to Miami. Maybe... if he had gone to New York, the biggest market or if he had gone to New Jersey in the presence of an international billionaire and rap mogul who could advertise the heck out of him with unlimited resources... maybe if he had gone to Chicago, he could have won a few championships on a good team and marketed himself as the leader of a championship team. He would bring Jordanesque excitement to a major market (Jordan's market, which made Jordan the most financially successful player ever) and earn more than in Cleveland because the team, unlike Cleveland, was good and could brand him as a champion.

What about Miami? Presumably, he has an even better chance to win in Miami than Chicago, but as Russian billionaire Nets owner pointed out in his notes, playing alongside a superstar of Wade's caliber would tarnish LeBron's brand. I agree with Prokhorov, but I'll start with my limited counter-argument. My favorite economic theory is the principle of minimum differentiation. It's the reason Starbucks always puts a Starbucks right next to another Starbucks. Dunkin Donuts does the same thing. McDonald's and Burger King are often located very near each other. Why? Because when these similar brands and companies are located near each other, that spot becomes the place to go for McDonald's. You want Chinese food? Go to Chinatown. You put similar powerful brands next to each other and that becomes the place to go for that specific commodity. Hence, Miami will be that for basketball, along with L.A. and a few other places. The idea is that if you put a really good player like Gasol next to a great player like Kobe, both players get more out of it. And think of jersey sales. Similarly, consumers buy the jerseys of winners in part because the NBA markets them more. Imagine how much the basketball world will revolve around Miami if these entertaining players win championships together.

Despite my disfigured version of my favorite economic theory, I still think Prokhorov is right. If they don't win titles, they don't market LeBron alone. And more likely, when they do win championships, THEY DON'T MARKET LEBRON ALONE. So, if Chicago won the title with LeBron on the team, they market LeBron's shoes and his gatorade and his sandwiches. If Miami wins, the message is diluted, buy LeBron's shoes and Wade's gatorade and Bosh's sandwiches.

But, my point here is... LeBron knowingly "sacrificed" money in favor of an increased likelihood of winning championships, definitely from salary and almost definitely from endorsements.

But, that's not the only thing he gave up. In order to play with Dwayne Wade, he had to give up part of his ego. Sure, he made a spectacle of himself the last few days and distinguished himself from Wade and Bosh by placing himself in the spotlight over the two of them, but that's the last time he's going to be doing that for awhile. His Decision, like his play on the court, was unselfish.

1) Wade is a Miami hero, who brought the team a title already. 2) He was a Finals MVP. 3) Then Wade decided to return out of a sense of loyalty. 3) He also demonstrated his leadership by bringing LeBron with him. 4) It's very likely Wade will be the leading scorer on the team, as a former scoring champion and factoring LeBron's somewhat superior skills as a passer. 5) As a person with championship experience (and who is slightly older,) Wade will likely by the team leader in the huddles because he has successfully acted in that role before. 6) Wade will very likely get more of the clutch shots because while LeBron is good at those shots, Wade is better. 7) And this is all assuming no one gets injured or perhaps almost as bad, that no one gets jealous.

LeBron is not a fool, despite your current opinion of him. He recognizes at least most of these things above and he's doing the best to spin it in a way that makes it sound humbling without harming his brand as a powerful individual force. But, he must know that some people perceive that he has accepted the role of Scottie Pippen in this scenario. So, however formidable his ego may be, as evidenced by The Decision, he is foregoing some of that ego for championships.

Maybe most importantly though, LeBron likes to play basketball, as evidenced by his exuberance, his powder throwing and his dancing on the court. Moreover, he loves to play basketball alongside great players. It must feel like something special for a great player to play with another great player. In the recent Magic Johnson-Larry Bird HBO documentary, the two of them discussed how in their youth, they played together one time and they remembered that game until today. The two of them barely talked, but watching the two or three clips of them on the court together exchanging incredible passes, probably made basketball seem, not like a job, but like a fun game. The bottom line is, LeBron loves playing with these guys and he likes these guys personally. (I always thought he was closer to Chris Paul and Carmelo Anthony, but he made a decision to play ball with these friends.) LeBron did not owe his career to Cleveland and leaving Cleveland was a smart basketball move. He is also going to a party town with nice weather to play basketball with his close friends and probably win many championships. How do you fault someone for that?

As for non-LeBron matters... this is a basketball experiment as well as a phenomenon. The two best basketball players on the same team (Wade may well be third best, but the point is just about the same.) How good can they be? You can make a case that the two best basketball players were on the Celtics or Lakers in the 50's or 60's, but I'd argue against it, without knowing enough about it. You could argue for Kareem and Magic, but by the time Magic was the best player, Kareem was past his prime and just a very good to great player. You could argue Shaq-Kobe, but that would be foolhardy because you would be forgetting how great Duncan was (and a handful of other people) before Kobe became a top 5 level player. They also have Bosh who is a top 10 player and it seems like they will soon have Mike Miller a very good player (excellent shooter.) So, it's not exactly crap around these two. But, it's built like Jordan-Pippen... with Wade not as good as Jordan and LeBron better than Pippen. Either of them could play point-guard, and either of them can guard a couple of different positions. So, they are very flexible as well as being great talents. They both claim to value team efforts and demonstrate it by averaging a large number of assists for non-point guards. So, the predictions for a team like this will vary from winning 5 straight championships to winning 0 championships because there will be so much junk around them and/or there is only one ball etc. (My guess is 3 championships over the 5 year contract.)

They have created a mega-team where there was not one before. People loved the 80's Celtics or Lakers. People loved or hated the 90's Bulls or the Shaq Lakers. It garners interest in the NBA. The fact that LeBron left the Cavs further helps the business everywhere but Cleveland (though it's devastating in Cleveland.) Maybe the Lakers-Heat will be a rivalry or Orlando-Heat will be a rivalry or... well you get the picture. The Decision created a lot of grudges, but also brought a lot of attention. People that don't care about basketball were riveted by this decision, for no discernible reason other than this was good television. The fact that it seemed like such a big deal made it a very big deal. That's art for you.

The MVP vote is up for grabs. LeBron and Wade will probably cancel each other out in the voting. Front-runners include Dwight Howard, Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony. If LeBron stayed in Cleveland, kept winning 60+ games without any other stars on his team, it would be utterly unfair to hand the trophy to anyone else. Now, it's a game again.

The experience has demonstrated Wade's awesome leadership skills. He had already won a championship with Shaq past his prime, the relics of Gary Payton and Antoine Walker and several role players, but now he pulled some major voodoo to lead the best player in the world to his team and accept Wade's dominion. People may credit Riley, but really Wade made this seem like a fun idea for LeBron.

To conclude this argument in defense of LeBron, I'd like to compare LeBron to the elder statesmen to whom he is often compared, Kobe Bryant. The following are not knocks on Kobe, but correcting the record, which has been unfairly stacked against LeBron. Dan Gilbert's insane tirade said that LeBron quit on his team against the Celtics. Kobe, the ultimate competitor would NEVER quit on his team. Wrong. Kobe quit on his team in an elimination game against the Suns only a few years ago because he was tired of criticisms that he was shooting too much. He decided to show his critics and his teammates just how valuable he was on offense by not participating AT ALL on offense. They lost a winnable series.

Kobe stuck out through some hard times and was rewarded for his faith in the team-owners and teammates and remained loyal to the Lakers. Wrong. In June 2007, Kobe demanded a trade and suggested a burgeoning Bulls team as the primary location for the trade. He reiterated the trade demand and met with Jerry Buss to facilitate the trade. Kobe bad-mouthed his teammates behind their backs, which further threatened his relationship with the Lakers. Buss knew he would not get value, so Kobe had to wait until his contract expired before he would leave. By that time, the Lakers were better because of LA's resources (including weather and glamor that Cleveland lacks) and front-office competence (that Cleveland lacks) and Kobe decided to stay. By the way, 2007 was about 3 years after Kobe's ego (as well as Shaq's ego) was the reason they were not competing for a title in 2007 because Kobe did not want Shaq on the team (and vice versa.)

Kobe, a staunch personality, would not accept being second fiddle to anyone. Sure, that's true now and for the last 8 years... but Kobe happily accepted the three titles he won as second fiddle to the best player on the planet at that time. Now, he tries not to make a big deal about it other than saying, he has 5 rings, he never includes a caveat that he was the second best player on the first three titles. Almost half the commentators in the world, mostly ignorant commentators, compare Kobe's career favorably to Shaq's career because he has 1 more ring than Shaq. So, by that same logic, if LeBron won 6 rings as a superstar on Wade's team, wouldn't that put him above Kobe? For those morons, it would. More sensible people would consider titles as a factor, but also consider a person's career as a whole to determine a player's historical legacy.

I'm barely going to mention any of the other extra-curricular activities that have garnered Kobe negative attention over the years. The allegations of rape, the admission of infidelity, telling police about Shaq's sexual predilections to get out of jail, publicly deriding his teammates, etc. Nothing suggests that LeBron has gotten involved in any of that, and hopefully has and will continue to steer clear.

(I am not sure why people forget allegations so serious, particularly as quickly as they have with Ben Roethlisburger. Just because it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, does not mean he did not commit the atrocious act. Roethlisburger's allegations seems even worse because it came with a limited admission that he needs to be more careful about his partying. This is no admission of guilt, but it certainly leaves me suspicious of what he considers partying... (e.g. the attempted rape scene by a football player early in The Last Boyscout. Is that what he meant? That's downright evil.) I'm not saying he did it because I have no idea, but the Kobe allegation led to fan torment for years, while Roethlisburger's main problem right now is proving to his teammates he's committed to football and avoiding riding a motorcycle. The reason it lasted so long against Kobe may be because of race, but- isn't the appropriate response... that the derision should last longer against Roethlisburger and not shorter against Kobe?

But the point is, as a person, as a teammate, and by any other measure, LeBron compares favorably to Kobe, especially when Kobe was at this stage in his career (except for the 3 championships he had, and which LeBron is working on.) LeBron did not owe Cleveland a basketball life sentence. He played 7 magnificent transcendent years there, where he dazzled with individual entertainment feats and by carrying an otherwise unworthy team to the brink of a championship year after year. Instead of being thankful for those years and hopeful that LeBron returns 5 years from now, a few championships richer with championship mettle to take his home town team to the top, they react with fury. They burn his jersey in effigy and the owner, for whom LeBron has earned a great deal of money, lambastes LeBron in crayon to the Cavs audience like a petulant child. If I were LeBron, I would not return. If I were a free agent, I would not want to go to a place where I'm not likely to win championships and when I leave, I am likely to be unappreciated and scorned.

I'm not saying Cleveland did not have a right to be angry. It's a free country and you don't need my permission. Moreover, Cleveland has valid reasons to be upset, but... Cleveland lost the moral high ground and if it's between Cleveland and LeBron, I am on Team LeBron-because if I were LeBron, I would not want to play in a place that hated me so willingly. But, I'm a part of the rest of the country, that believes that even though LeBron is setting a great example by sharing the spotlight and the money, blah blah blah, ultimately, he was wrong.

In Attack of LeBron James:
Let's start with the Cavs organization. He may have had problems with them from Dan Gilbert to Mike Brown to the players, but he played for them for several years and he owed it to them to call them in advance and tell them as soon as he knew he was not returning. Over the course of LeBron's reign, the Cavs tried. In various misguided efforts, they brought "help" for LeBron and tried in bumbling fashion, over and over again, to improve the team. It's not like he owed it to them legally or contractually. He owed it to them as a matter of common courtesy and as a mutually beneficial business-partner for several years. He should have called them up and told them, 'Sorry fellas, you guys are great, but I'm not coming back.'

Second, the Cavs fans. The same thing applies. Even though, he is from Ohio, he did not owe Cleveland his career. He brought a minor business boom to the town for a few years and that boom leaves with him. People will lose jobs, businesses will fold, but it's not his fault... and this would happen whenever he left, whether it was now, 6 years from now or when he retired. LeBron, native son or not, is under no obligation at all to maintain these businesses. He has also done a lot for these communities in the forms of charitable works, contributions and garnering attention, but... despite all that, he could have given them a heads up. If he wanted to continue with the Decision debacle, he should have issued a press-release in advance, so that the Cavs fans could have heard something addressed directly to them. Something like... "While I love the city and the people of Cleveland, my future lies elsewhere. I have not determined where yet, but I had to make the extremely tough decision about whether or not to leave my home, my family's home and my town before I could decide where I will go. Cleveland is great and I hope to someday return, but I feel the urge to win and I don't think I can accomplish that here now. Hopefully, for all our sakes, I can come back here in a few years, with a few championships and a lot more experience and then bring some titles home." Something like that... and I was just spit-balling. The fans would have been pissed about him leaving and they still would have been upset about the attention he was getting for The Decision, but at least, they would not be forced to watch the show and/or could have watched it out of curiosity rather than a remote hope to be quashed.

I do not think LeBron wronged anyone else. He made promises to nobody and nobody made a more attractive offer to him than Miami. So, nobody else should be "angry" at him. But two other things were rather irksome... the overblown spectacle he made of himself with the Decision and the disappointing lack of confidence he had in his own basketball ability.

The spectacle was ludicrous. Why didn't he just have a press conference? Why didn't he release a statement? Why didn't he put it on his new twitter account like the admirable Kevin Durant, who spent the day cheering on Oklahoma City's rookies in a summer league game? He did not have to do any of those things, but this was staged like a bad reality show and it was frustrating. The whole hour was dedicated as a LeBron-love-fest hosted by slobbering ESPN... his immense talents, the great reasons why he would go to Miami, etc. Sports journalism is a joke, but I guess in comparison with political journalism, it's right on par.

I don't blame him for the nicknames of King James or the Chosen One; those monikers were created by others and he uses them for fun as well as marketing. But, he said he was going to South Beach, not to Miami. He's going to the Heat to party and he's promoting the party and self-promoting himself at the party. Before this debacle, his popularity was very high throughout the country and the Decision increased attention to his brand, but to do that, he made himself detested in Cleveland... and he appeared like the prototypical basketball egoist.

But, he's not exactly an egoist, because if he was, he would believe in his ability to lead a team to a championship. Maybe he knew he couldn't win in Cleveland, which I believe, but he could have built a team around himself in New York or New Jersey. He could have walked in and lead a team to a championship in Chicago. But in Miami, he admitted defeat. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. That's what he did.

People will say Magic played with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and no one thought less of him. But, Magic was drafted by the Lakers. He did not choose the Lakers because Abdul Jabbar was there. At the later stages of their careers, it's common for players to sacrifice egos like Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to go to Paul Pierce's team as they are more desperate to win a championship. But, to do that at the age of 25, when the expectations from that 25 year old are legendary amounts to a practical admission that he cannot live up to expectations. He's admitting defeat, admitting failure without having reached his peak yet. Again, I only partially believe this defeat theory because I also believe as I mentioned above, that he enjoys playing with his friends, but I still partially believe his admission of defeat.

(Barkley came out with a statement saying that if he was 25, he would want to be "the guy." Barkley is a terrible example for LeBron because we know what happened with Barkley. He was "the guy" and he lost... over and over again. He got to the finals once, and he lost. LeBron matched that by age 22. Now, LeBron wants to win. Later in his career, Barkley tried pairing with a team that had just won two championships, Olajuwon's Rockets (with Drexler who was on the second championship...) but he failed. That tells us, that if your top priority is not winning championships until you are older, then you may, and are actually likely to, fail. I don't entirely disagree with Barkley's point, but Barkley's career is the counter-example.)

It's admirable that LeBron wants to win above all else, but he's going with the easy way out. He doesn't want to try to beat the best, he wants to join the best. Maybe, they can get more superstars. Maybe the whole team can be an all-star team. Is it exciting? Is it competitive? Does it allow each of them to shine? I don't know, but I would have preferred some awesome duo rivalries: Kobe-Gasol, Wade-Bosh, LeBron-Amar'e, Durant- Westbrook?, Melo-? Howard-? Chris Paul-? DeRon Williams-? etc... Very exciting match-ups, but now, most of these teams must scramble to compete.

The Dream Team:
The Dream Team changed basketball. Watching so many great players playing beautifully, increased the attention of the NBA around the world. Basketball throughout the world improved. We see that at international competitions, we see that with an increased international presence in the NBA and we see that with continued interest (merchandising) around the world. We've known all this for many years. People talk about how Magic-Bird saved the NBA and Michael Jordan with his individual style (skill) and marketing changed the NBA. Well, they were all on one team. And they changed basketball in more than one way.

The Dream Team did something else. It started a precedent that great players join future "Dream Teams." These often great players play together, train together and become friends. Magic and Bird were fierce rivals until the Dream Team. LeBron and Wade became much better players after watching Kobe's intensity during the practices and games. But, more importantly, it's probably so fun playing with great players who are exactly where they are supposed to be... or who are good enough to cover for minor mistakes. Playing with people who are that good makes basketball easy and fun. How do you go from playing on Team USA to playing on a bad Cleveland team or a bad Toronto team? Why would you want to? So, you bring your friends from the Dream Team, play with the best driver in Wade, a top-notch post presence in Bosh and a top shooter in Mike Miller. You played with all of these guys on Team USA, you trust them and you like them.

Good for Basketball, Bad for LeBron:
All in all, these super teams are good for basketball. As I keep mentioning, these mega-teams garner massive amounts of attention beyond casual basketball fans. Some will tune in to appreciate the greatness of the two best players in basketball who are as unselfish as they are athletic, while others will tune in to root against this practically unfair pairing. Moreover, other teams will have to find ways to respond by creating their own interesting mega-teams.

As for LeBron, people often have short memories about these types of debacles. Cleveland will probably stay angry at him forever. Even though feelings will linger, as long as he changes the subject of the discussion, everyone else will forgive (and probably forget) the massive spectacle he made of himself. How do you change the subject? Win championships. It works for just about everyone. Some people will hate him for a long time, but championships are forgiving. Basically, if LeBron does not want to be hated, he has just about no room for failure. It's a tough situation to be in, but he placed himself in that situation.

Am I going to be rooting for Miami? Probably not. Am I going to be rooting for LeBron? Probably not anymore. But, am I going to be fascinated? Most definitely.

Hope you are too,
ME

Free Agents

2010-07-05T00:11:00.006-04:00

Happy July 4th kids,

I hope you have been enjoying the most entertaining off-season in the history of sports (as far as I can tell) and are thanking two specific players. These two basketball superstars have indicated their willingness to leave their teams. In basketball, more than any other team sport, an individual is able to influence a team's success. Not that one person can win a championship, he can't... but one person makes an enormous impact. Two great players surrounded by several solid players are very capable of winning a championship. Three very good players surrounded by good players can win a championship. There are occasional years when a defense will be totally dominant with a competent offense allowing teams to win (like the Detroit Pistons in 2004, Duncan's 2000 trio, Olajuwon's 1st championship or the Bad Boys 2 championships.) But most of the time, teams have 2-3 great players and complementary players (Malone-Erving, Bird-McHale-Parish, Magic-Abdul Jabbar-Worthy, Jordan-Pippen, Olajuwon-Drexler, Duncan-Robinson, Shaq-Kobe, Wade-Shaq, Pierce-Garnett-Allen, Kobe-Gasol.)

It's clear there is no formula for championships, but it's also clear that having a cast of two to three great players and a solid supporting cast places a team in the best situation to win. So, if I was a general manager, I would move heaven and earth to land LeBron. A few stragglers were so disappointed by LeBron's Game 5 performance against the Celtics where it appeared he was not even trying that they are down on King James... but many great players have games like this. Kobe has had games like this in the past including one where he was tired of being criticized for shooting too much and decided to show his value by not participating in the offense, in an elimination play-off game against Phoenix a few years ago. He's human. So, is LeBron. Thus, moving heaven and earth seems like a small price to pay for such a young talent.

I'd argue that LeBron is the best player in basketball and Wade is the 2nd or third best player in basketball, but for the purposes of my discussion the exact placement is irrelevant as long as everyone is willing to concede that LeBron and Wade are 2 of the 5 best players in basketball. LeBron has 30 teams to choose from, 5 of which are in realistic contention: Cleveland, Chicago, New Jersey, Miami, New York. If all the basketball teams were exactly the same, he would certainly opt to play either in his home state of Ohio or the massive market of New York, but basketball-wise not all things are equal.

I think when a basketball player of LeBron's magnitude is considering a basketball destination, there are 3 primary concerns percolating through his mind. (1) What is best for him and the people he cares about (which is often just the player himself,) but players often consider where they can get the most money, big cities vs. suburbs, comfort level with a location, whether his family is settled, whether he likes or dislikes people in an organization, the weather... etc.? (2) where can he win the most championships, which relates to players, owners and coaching and (3) where can he best serve his legacy, whether he is beloved by his fans or hated by his fans and whether he is appreciated as a leader of a team and perhaps most importantly whether LeBron who has the talent to be regarded as a top 5 player of all time is regarded as such? (For example, if LeBron plays the rest of his career on Cleveland and never gets help and never wins a championship, and would go down in history as the best player to never win a championship and as merely a super-charged Dominique Wilkins. If he wins on a team with Wade and for some reason Wade is considered better historically, which is not likely but plausible, then he would go down as a super-charged Scottie Pippen. Neither of those scenarios would give his legacy the full appreciation of his natural ability, so optimally, he would win championships on a team with one or more other stars, which would make him more like Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson... as Magic played many of his years with Kareem Abdul Jabbar slightly past his dominant prime.)

Okay, let's start with money... because when anyone considers a job offer, that is usually at the top of the wish-list. Because of the collective bargaining agreement between the league owners and the players union, Cleveland can provide him with the highest salary, but not by as much as you think. There is an estimate that LeBron can be paid roughly $30 million more by Cleveland than any other team, but that is not accurate. There are two aspects to Cleveland's advantage (a) Cleveland can pay him a higher year to year percentage increase in salary. Over 5 years, this amounts to roughly $5 million. (b) Cleveland can sign him for an extra year, and if he is earning the maximum increase every year, than that last year would amount to something akin to $25 million.

The caveat to part (b) is that LeBron is young enough that he is likely to continue playing 5 years from now and he is good enough that he is likely to receive the maximum at that time under whatever contract he signs then... so he would be likely earn over $20 million that year anyway. Thus, the only major advantage of the $25 million is that it's guaranteed money, even though he is likely to earn most of that money anyway. The caveats to part (a) are that his salary increases in his next contract will use his current contract as a base and the year-to-year percentage increase will start from there, so if he leaves Cleveland, he will make less money in subsequent contracts. Additionally, the next collective bargaining agreement is likely to be harsher on player's salaries, so every year he has with this contract is a boon as opposed to his next contract. Basically, if he plays less than or equal to 5 years, then by signing with Cleveland he earned an extra $30 million, but if he plays more than 5 years at a high level, it's more likely that by signing with Cleveland now, he earns an extra $10-15 million over the duration of his career because his year-to-year salary increases would be larger if he signs with Cleveland now. I think the strategy of asking the best player in basketball to take less money than the maximum he can be paid shows hubris on the part of the Knicks or any organization that asked this on behalf of LeBron. People do not tend to give up free money. If he is willing to forego some of a max salary, like Tim Duncan did, that's considerate of him, but money is money whether it is his 2nd million or his 391st million. That extra million could go towards a charity of his choosing or a slightly nicer house or among the uber wealthy, each million is capable of earning many more millions. So, LeBron may choose to earn less than the max, but for an organization trying to earn billions of dollars off of him, to attempt to shame him into taking less than the maximum allotted salary is at best hypocritical.

But basketball players make a substantial portion of their income from endorsements, particularly a player as entertaining and charismatic as LeBron. According to Forbes magazine, if he came to New York, he would make a substantial amount more than he would if he went to any other location. However, the highest earning basketball players are the ones that the NBA endorses all year round, are superstars that win championships (and are supremely entertaining.) Michael Jordan was in the 3rd biggest market, but he earned the most money... even more than anyone from New York or Los Angeles because titles (and pizazz) garner attention. Being the superstar on a championship team is more valuable than being a superstar on a flailing failing New York Knicks. The Nets offer a counter-point that playing for a man who has international credentials would earn him more international money has some validity, but championships=international money, so championships come over expected endorsement money.

So, where does LeBron have the best opportunity to win championships? I would guess his best opportunity to win championships would be to play with Wade+Bosh and a collection of veterans and rookies who would want to play for a team with that core. The only recent comparison to a team like that is the Lakers 2000 three-peat. Shaq was the best player in basketball then and one could possibly argue that Kobe was a top 5 player maybe in the last year of that three peat, but their third best player was no where near as good a player as Bosh. Of course, LeBron-Wade-Bosh does not guarantee a championship, especially since the rest of the team would likely be spare parts (unlike those Lakers teams,) but that trio is certainly a championship caliber team. (Bosh could be replaced with Stoudemire with similar affect.)

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the three of them played together for 10 years and won seven championships together. (1) If it's in Miami, Wade is already the hero that brought them a championship and will be the hero that brought LeBron to Miami. (2) Wade will probably have one extra championship at the end of their respective careers. (3) It is very possible because of LeBron's unselfish play that Wade is the high scorer on the team at least some, if not most, of the 10 year time span, (4) during the end of games, it is very plausible that Wade will be the guy who takes many, if not most, of the last minute clutch shots. (5) Wade is the elder statesman with championship experience, while LeBron would be an added piece to the puzzle. All of these are arguments that would make it possible for Wade supporters, LeBron haters and to a much lesser extent, neutral fans to claim that Wade was the better player on the team and hence, LeBron was a super-charged Scottie Pippen to Wade's Jordan. I probably wouldn't agree with that, but does LeBron want even his best case scenario to be thus marred? If I had LeBron's talent, I wouldn't.

If I were LeBron, I would want to play alongside Carmelo Anthony, or Melo, as he is known because while Wade is better, and even Chris Paul is probably better, Melo complements LeBron's skill set better. Melo is a guy who, like Wade, could relieve some of the pressure off LeBron by driving and creating his own offense. But, he could also hit outside shots, which Wade is not very good at, so they could not leave him alone... which would mean that the floor would be spaced for LeBron's drives (if LeBron and Wade were on the same team, opposing teams should expend most of their energy guarding the basket and leave LeBron and Wade to shoot relatively uncontested outside jump shots.) James, Melo and Bosh might not be as talented as the Wade combo, but it might work better. So, if I were James, I would watch to see if any of the teams traded for Melo.

But, of the current teams as they now stand, Chicago is the best basketball situation, where he has a solid chance to win a championship without being overshadowed by another player. Wade's interest in Chicago has complicated the Chicago situation because Derrick Rose, Wade and LeBron all play the same way and all require the ball to drive. Further, I am not sure LeBron wants Chicago enough to screw over his friend Wade's chance to play near his children. Thus, if I were LeBron, the other situation I would consider (barring trades) is signing in New Jersey, provided they can woo Bosh or Stoudemire as well. Harris drives, Lee is an athletic shooter and Lopez is a center who has solid defense and a strong offense. Those are decent complementary players provided they have LeBron and another star to propel all of them to another level.

If the Knicks sign Stoudemire or Bosh and trade for Melo or Chris Paul, they would enter the conversation as well, but currently the Knicks do not have much to work with, other than Lee who would probably be the subject of a trade if he doesn't leave in free agency and Gallinari, who is very young and may or may not turn out to be a quality player (and also may be the subject of a trade.) As constructed, Cleveland is better than that.

But, legacy is not all about basketball. LeBron has an affinity for Cleveland. They also have been trying (poorly) to give him complementary players, but have been sparing no expense in their misguided efforts. They finally got rid of their limited coach and hired the best coach available who is also the best coach of this group of LeBron-eligible teams (aside from Riley, who is rumored to take over the coaching job in Miami if LeBron comes to town.) Cleveland may hate him if he leaves. He may hate himself if he leaves. He might rather be Dirk Nowitzki, a great player who elevates his team to championship caliber level rather than Pau Gasol, a great player whose legacy is failure on one team followed by success on another. Not to mention, Cleveland could pay more, as discussed above. AND... if he can take Cleveland and turn this bunch of scraps into champions, which is not likely but not impossible, then he would immediately belong among the greats of all time... even if he just won 1 or 2 titles.

So, honestly, if I were LeBron in the current situation, I would stay in Cleveland or go to Chicago. Similarly, Wade is trapped by loyalty to his team and a family situation in Chicago. That sounds like a much tougher situation, even though the pressure on him is not nearly as great (because he is not regarded as a basketball city savior like LeBron AND he already has a championship.) If I were Bosh, I would follow LeBron unless he stays in Cleveland, then I would follow Wade, unless neither is possible, in which case... I guess I would entertain the Houston idea, favored by some analysts, which relies on Yao and Bosh crowding the lane or Bosh to replace Ming's chronic injury issues. Stoudemire is a little more complicated than Bosh because, if I were him, I would follow LeBron or Wade... whoever Bosh does not follow. But, Stoudemire has always craved first billing after spending his entire career overshadowed by Nash. So, Stat apparently wants to sign with the Knicks and then recruit quality teammates in an effort to demonstrate leadership (e.g. Melo and Tony Parker to New York to play alongside him.) But, a guy who plays little defense like Stoudemire is not an ideal candidate for team leadership.

But, back to LeBron... before the end of the season, I thought he would stay with Cleveland. I actually thought if he won a championship, he would have a clear conscience to leave after bringing a long-awaited championship to Cleveland. If he lost in the finals, he would have motivation to stay at least another year or two to accept a conquerable challenge... but the way the Cavs lost made me think he had to leave, for basketball reasons. He had to leave because the other players on the team were bad. Mo Williams did virtually nothing on offense and made Rajon Rondo, a good player, look like a wizard with Mo's donut defense. Jamison, similarly shrunk from the moment and Shaq showed his age. In short, if James wants a title with this team, he would have to do it himself. I was under the naive view that LeBron was so good that he could do it himself, but he can't and it will take me another year to forget that fact again. So, I thought LeBron was out of the Cleve... but now, having seen how torn he is, and the complexities of the Chicago situation, which I would have otherwise considered Plan A, Cleveland does not seem so bad... or more accurately, leaving Cleveland seems kinda wrong.

What about the other guys? Boozer might end up in Miami or on 1 of these LeBron suitors, but he's not that big enough of a difference maker to make a difference. David Lee is in the same boat except he is even worse on defense. Ray Allen, JJ Reddick or some other shooter are powerful additions that could spread the floor for LeBron, Wade or Rose, possibly in a trade for a quality player like Deng.

Now, a few words on the greatest players of all time. The way I have always judged the greatest players of all time, knowing what you know about a player's skill level, effort level, longevity and ability to lead championships, contribute to championships, which player(s) would you choose first. (It's not just championships, as I'd much rather have Nash's career than Kerr's career on my team, but championships factor in because I'd rather have Isaiah Thomas than John Stockton, though not by much.) I think it's foolhardy to choose anyone but Jordan first. Then, there is probably some combination of Magic Johnson, Abdul Jabbar, Bird, Chamberlain and Russell in the next tier of players. Then, there is another tier of players with Olajuwon, Duncan, Robertson, Oneal, West and now Kobe. I have previously argued that Kobe doesn't belong in the same category with Jordan, but if he keeps winning, he may belong in the same category with Magic. He had a good finals series, despite having poor fourth quarters and a sub-par Game 7, but his team picked up the slack and he won his 5th championship and 2nd Finals MVP. But, to his defense, Boston has an excellent defense. If he wins 1 more finals MVPs with another championship or 2, his case against Magic increases, though he wouldn't match him unless his peak extends several years longer and/or he continues winning championships. So, Kobe is about the 10th best player in basketball history... even now, but I don't imagine him jumping much even if he wins another championship because as great as he is, his next championship would only be his 3rd as the best player on his team.

(Let's say Kobe and Shaq retire now with Kobe having an extra championship ring and an equal number of MVP trophies. Trying to take their careers independently, Kobe was a top 5 player for about 8-10 years, probably for about 2 of those years between Duncan and LeBron, he was the best player in basketball. Pair him with a very good cast and he could win you many championships (paired with a not good cast and he could miss the playoffs.) Shaq had 3 years when he was utterly dominant and paired with a good cast, he could win championships. He also had about 7 other years when he was a top 5 player. If I want any championships, I certainly pick Shaq... and if I want multiple championships, I certainly pick Shaq. But, assuming that the life span of my team, the quality of my team will vacillate, if I have a very good team for many of those years, Kobe could be the best player on that team that wins many championships. So, this is where Kobe's potential longevity might give Kobe the edge in the end over Shaq. If he has 2 more years as a top 5 player and than 3-4 more years as a very good player, then I could legitimately see a team building around Kobe's extended greatness over Shaq's fleeting dominance. It would probably take more than 1 additional championship to vault him over Shaq though, in my mind. This is particularly true because of Shaq's dominance in some finals series, while Kobe has yet to demonstrate such dominance. Either way, this championship put Kobe into (or perhaps just below) the top 10 greatest players ever, but 1 more probably won't make a huge dent, though 2 more... just might.)

What of LeBron? If LeBron retires now, he would not have a championship, but he would have been the best player in basketball for 2-3 years now and a great player for 4 other years, so he's already more than a regular hall of famer. Many more years of this without a championship and he keeps jumping to the top of the heap... but, all of the top 10 players I mentioned won at least one championship. Similarly, if LeBron won a single championship, particularly with a sub-par team, I think he jumps onto or adds to that list of top 10 players. The problem is that a player of LeBron's skill-level is not aiming to match the lower end of this list, he should end his career near the top of list. Some have suggested that he plays with Wade for a few years, tries to accumulate championships and then return to Cleveland to try to rebuild. It's not ridiculous, but if he wants to stay in Cleveland, he should do so and if he is concerned about winning, he could find a team with enough parts to win. But at age 25, I am not sure he should enter panic mode and lower his expectations to being Scottie Pippen 2.0 just yet. But, he's a great player and I'm not worried about him wherever he ends up.

On another note, congratulations to all the teams I was rooting for in the World Cup. You all failed me, starting with the United States, then Argentina, Argentina's Messi, Ghana, Brazil, etc... I guess, I'm now rooting for whoever emerges from Uruguay-Holland match, though reluctantly and begrudgingly.

Congratulations to Nadal for getting his 8th Grand Slam title. I have the same qualm with him as I do with Federer, he won his championships in an era of limited competition. The Connors-Borg-McEnroe era leaked into the Becker-Edberg-Lendl era. That was followed by the Sampras-Agassi era, except that Becker, Edberg and Lendl were still around and had to be overcome by their younger counterparts. Then, there were people like Courier who came along and played with dominance for awhile. By the time Federer was winning titles, Sampras was done and Agassi was... done. So, he had to beat lesser competition like Hewitt until Nadal came along. Nadal and Federer are dominant and consistent, but their strongest competition is Andy Roddick, who at best is a... Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Djokovic has not come into his own and may yet become better than a Jim Courier, but as of yet, not so much. Federer reminds me a lot of Lendl, a better version of Lendl, but I still contend that Sampras was better than that. And from what I understand, Nadal is not quite as good as Borg was, but he's young, so we'll see.

We'll see. I guess that's the theme of this blog post. I talk a lot of smack, but in the end, I barely have guesses, let alone predictions. But-I'll guess anyway. My guess: Nadal finishes with 13 grand slam titles to Federer's 17. Holland uses it's semi-home field (I'm not sure if Boers are loved, hated or irrelevant) to win it all over Spain with Germany taking 3rd. LeBron stays in Cleveland. Wade stays in Miami and brings Chris Bosh. Stoudemire goes to New York and gets Parker as a start to a NY team, but ultimately a lame off-season for them. Boozer goes to Chicago and they acquire a shooter as well. New Jersey trades for somebody to stay relevant. But, I have no inside information and a very limited understanding of the wants of these players. So, my thoughts are uneducated guesses merely to record my notions for posterity and to measure my prophetic ability. Thus, spoke Zarathustra.

Hope you enjoyed this nonsense,
ME

NBA 2010

2010-06-03T13:37:00.003-04:00

On the eve of basketball playoffs, it's time to make predictions and take stock of the season. So, below, feel free to peruse some inane NBA discussion or skip it and wait for my next rant.

Before I get into the finals, I want to discuss the fall of some of the best players (and then some of my favorite players.)

LeBron James- is the best basketball player in the world. Kobe Bryant is better in some ways including: Kobe is a more well-rounded scorer, he's more maniacally competitive and despite what the statistics might say, he is a better closer. However, LeBron's height, strength, speed and willingness to share the ball make him a better player. I have little doubt that if LeBron were on the current Lakers in place of Kobe, the Lakers would be in the same position right now (and they would be favored in the finals.) If Kobe were on the current Cavs, I believe that Cavs team would have a worse regular season record and would have lost in the first or second round.

The LeBrons had a great regular season for the second year in a row, so expectations from LeBron's Cavs were at an all time high. But... the coaching for the Cavs was bad because even though Mike Brown is a good defensive coach, he has yet to manage an effective offensive scheme. Moreover, the acquisition of Jamison was over-hyped. When Kobe's Lakers got Pau Gasol for nothing, the Lakers got the best player on a bad team. When the LeBrons got Jamison for nothing, they got arguably the third best player from a terrible team. I like Jamison for his quick release post-up shot, but... he's a liability on defense and more importantly terribly overrated as a long-range shooter. And he shoots from long range a LOT of the time. Essentially, he's a much more likable version of Antoine Walker. It did not help that Jamison declined in the playoffs. Similarly Mo Williams, who is touted as an all star, is a streaky (but good) outside shooter with little other discernible basketball ability. It didn't help that he had maybe 1 decent game in the Celtics series and was eaten alive by Rondo. Moreover, Shaq and Ilgauskas are basketball-old, Varejao is a very limited player, Hickson is just not that good yet and whomever the LeBrons started at shooting guard, Parker or West, was ostensibly a bench player.

These are all excuses I am making because I like LeBron, but they are very convincing excuses. And the only reason they had 60 wins and had ridiculously high expectations is because people, including me, continue to believe that LeBron James is an exception to traditional basketball rules. Michael Jordan broke the mold with his stellar play and even he had Scottie Pippen, an all time great player by his side. Further, LeBron's ability to get his teammates to play together because of his point-forward role, his cavalier demeanor and his glee at playing basketball is only part of great basketball chemistry. Part of team chemistry is that sharing a love of the game, but the far more important part of it, is seizing the moment because of a shared will to win. LeBron has not consistently shown that yet. I suspect that if LeBron can manage to win a first championship, a big if, then he will add this final addition to his arsenal (a post-game would be helpful, but is not necessary.)

(Speaking of Michael Jordan, people are starting the Kobe-Jordan comparisons again and still they are ludicrous. Let's start with Kobe's positives: he's a prolific scorer, a ferocious defender, has developed into a solid, though not, affable team leader, he has multiple scoring titles, an MVP, many other years high in the running for MVP, he has seven championship appearances and by the end of this year, he will have either four or FIVE championship rings. It seems to stack up very well against anyone including Jordan, EXCEPT that Jordan has six championships and on EACH of them he was the team's best player, while Bryant was only the best player for ONE championship so far (along with the two championship series losses.) Kobe is a great scorer, but Jordan's LIFETIME field goal percentage teetered around 50% (Kobe had 1 season that high) and that is only because Jordan's percentage dropped to Kobe levels in the two years he returned to basketball for the Wizards after his second retirement in his late 30's. Jordan's substantially higher shooting percentage occurred in an era that permitted hand-checking and very rough fouls at the basket.

Kobe was probably the best player in basketball for a few assorted years of his career, not including a patch when O'neal was better, another patch when Duncan was better and a recent patch when LeBron was better. Jordan was the best player in basketball for most of his career, probably even in the late 80's when he took on great teams pretty much on his own: including the Celtics, a team filled with legends and the Pistons, a team uniquely constructed to physically beat Jordan into submission. As for the '90s, any argument that a player was better for any given year (or got an MVP award) was merely conciliatory. Whether it was Drexler, Malone, Robinson, Barkley, Olajuwon or Payton, no player was better any year that Jordan played for a whole year. Then, there's the playoffs, where Jordan somehow managed to improve dramatically. Kobe historically, has remained around the same in the playoffs as he is in the season, with highs and lows (more highs recently than lows.)

All of these factors are discounting team leadership, which is difficult if not impossible to quantify, but an area that Kobe took over 10 years to develop. Kobe's team in what should have been the prime of his career missed the playoffs in a year Kobe was fully healthy. I can't imagine Jordan doing the same. Furthermore, while Kobe is one of the best, if not the best player today in closing situations, Jordan was at least as good. Statistically, Kobe is only average with the ball in his hands late in close games, but that belies his excellence. Still Jordan was the same type of player and either way, if I am an opponent, I would still rather Kobe or even Jordan shoot with the game on the line than Reggie Miller or Robert Horry in each of their respective primes. That doesn't make them better than Kobe or Jordan.

I'm not saying Jordan will never ever be surpassed. I'm also not saying that Kobe won't be the guy to do it, but if Kobe does do it, he will have to either improve his game over the next 5-10 years so much that he spends the next several years as the unquestionably most dominant player in basketball or he could pile on statistics and championships so high that the accumulation would make him some hybrid of Russell's championships and Kareem's accumulated statistics. The reason I occasionally argued that LeBron had Jordan potential is because he plays a somewhat different brand of basketball than Kobe and Jordan, and along with his unique combination of height, speed, strength and court vision (as discussed above,) he could circumvent Jordan's shadow rather than hoping to topple it like Kobe has tried to do and, as of yet, has fallen woefully short of doing.

Instead, Kobe is really aiming at a slightly less distant goal of catching Magic Johnson as the best Laker of all time. If he wins this year, he matches the championships and his teams have never been as amazing as those Showtime Lakers. If he wins this one and one more, i think Kobe will have a case against Magic. I'd probably still pick Magic, but if Kobe ends his career with 6 rings, which is possible, that will be a realistic question. Though, as I mentioned above, Kobe plays a similar brand of basketball to Jordan, while LeBron plays more like Magic.)

Thus, we saw LeBron play against the Celtics and basically shut down Pierce, the Celtics most versatile weapon (forcing Rondo and Allen to beat them.) James played several regal games and one cosmic stinker (where he didn't seem to try, but that's not terribly uncommon even among basketball's mega-stars, see Kobe Bryant Phoenix a few years ago.) They lost to a great team. The defeat itself is no great shame, but the shame is in the cumulative post-season results of his first 7 years in the league and more specifically viewing the decline of his team's playoff performance over the past three years.

But, if LeBron plays for another two years either with Cleveland or somewhere else, at his current level of excellence, without winning a title, it will create an interesting situation. He will be a 27-year old with the moniker of the Greatest Player of All Time to Not Have a Championship. It's a terrible moniker, so he should really try to win a championship soon.

So, where should he go? Personally, I have been sad for all the Cleveland fans who have practically been crying in the street for the last month for financial reasons as well as an emotional attachment to a home-grown hero. Though, even if they get Bosh, I'm not sure how much better the Cavs would be with this poorly-constructed team. James is concerned about his legacy, which is why I think going to Miami would be a mistake. If he went to Miami, he might be perceived as Scottie Pippen to an already-titled Wade (if they both went to a neutral location together, it would probably be different because they would be starting relatively fresh.) He might go to Chicago, but even if they get Bosh to add post-play, there is no outside shooter to space the floor and teams could guard them by packing the inside. He might go to New York, but only if Wade came OR if Bosh+Joe Johnson joined him, otherwise there is just not enough talent to legitimately compete for a championship. Ditto for New Jersey who have a talented, but totally ineffective core as of now. Here are some other alternatives though: how about Dallas which is a major city with an owner willing to spend crazy amounts of money to promote LeBron endlessly and where the team has a passing point guard, outside shooting and size. He could play particularly well alongside Dirk Nowitzki who could play inside or out, especially if they import another veteran player to add toughness. How about Orlando though? James could play alongside Dwight Howard and have an all-time great defensive team+if the Magic did not have to mortgage their whole team to get him, they would also have outside shooting and a deep bench. Those are just some ideas. I'm sure he'll be fine either way.

Dwayne Wade- plays more like Jordan than anyone in the game today with his relentless driving to the hoop. I have Wade as the only other player in the James, Kobe discussion for the best player in the game. I got the sense that Wade will stay in Miami, particularly if the Heat pulled a major acquisition or two, such as Bosh or Boozer or both.

(By the way, I really like the idea of the best players having a summit to discuss how to carve out the NBA empire over the next few years. If LeBron, Wade, Johnson, Bosh and Stoudemire pooled their resources and started a team together as co-owners, took minimal salaries and recruited a few role players... it could be the best team of all time or an epic, albeit entertaining disaster.)

The current Miami team needs help, but if they trade away Beasley to get one great player in return, it's almost certainly not enough for this porous team to compete for a championship. Besides I still think Beasley could be a really good third best player on a team.

Dwight Howard- is a defensive force to be reckoned with. Look at the rest of Orlando. Jameer Nelson, Vince Carter and Rashard Lewis are all roughly average defenders and yet the team is one of the two or three best defensive teams in basketball. Some people underrate the power of the blocked shot by pointing out that there is often no change of possession, but a blocked shot is a powerful psychological tool that prevents people from driving the lane and alters future shots. As Howard's offensive game improves and the rest of the team gels, this team's potential continues to grow.

Chris Bosh, A'mare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson and Carlos Boozer are all probably going to change teams. If Wade stays in Miami, one of the big guys will probably meet him there. Another of the big guys will probably go with LeBron, wherever he ends up. While Bosh and Stat are all-stars, neither of them can carry a team, so it would behoove them to go to established teams. The only other team I'd like to see with one of these players is Chris Paul's Hornets if just to see what he can do with the slightly over-rated West and another quality player.

Now, to my favorite players:

Vince Carter- people always ask me why he's my favorite player. Well, the easy answer is as a Knicks fan prior to the team's early post-Ewing implosion, when they got rid of all of my favorite players, I followed my previous favorite player, Charles Oakley to Toronto. Carter was a physical marvel with incredible athleticism and a great outside shot. I was sold though with a rumor I heard that during his rookie year, Carter apparently prayed during the Star-Spangled Banner every game, but not for a win... instead he prayed that everyone would make it through the game without harm. It's not the most competitive prayer, but by all accounts, he is a good guy and I root for good guys. At that point, he was beloved because of his dunking ability, but he got his first bout of major criticisms when in the conference semi-finals, game 7, he decided to attend his college graduation before his finals game, which required travel. It was a momentous event and a grand opportunity to show the importance of education to all his children admirers. I can understand why people could be upset that he valued something over his job, especially a job that so many people are so passionate about, but I cannot understand the vitriol over the decision to be a positive role model.

The next dose of criticism was that he was soft and did not want to get hit driving down the lane (thus limiting the value of amazing athleticism,) and this is true. But this is not new. There are a few brave souls that drove the lane with regularity like Jordan and Kobe and Wade, but for every one of those courageous pioneers that succeeded, there were scores of them that spent their careers with frequent injuries like Mark Price, Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill. It's not a great excuse, but Carter's outside shot was really good, so it was often easy, if not ideal, for him to opt to avoid injury to his brittle body. And even though he did not drive as often as Kobe, McGrady or Pierce, his field goal percentage was always around the same as his competition because his outside shot was so good, and he also managed to get to the free throw line almost as frequently as the others did and had just about as many assists as they did too. With the exception of his last year in Toronto, his poor teams always over-performed and never under-performed.

He spent years dedicating himself to Toronto basketball and the Toronto community including starting a charitable organization there, but when the team failed to support him with additional players, he had a natural reaction. He slacked off. It's lame, but again, it's natural. In fact, it would be unnatural to keep putting your body on the line for an organization that does not support you. So, Carter got traded and his honesty about slacking off made him the most hated man in Toronto. He then spent a few years playing for a mediocre Nets team, which totally fell apart the second he left.

What about Orlando? Are they better off with Turkoglu than Carter? Not this year. Turkoglu was terrible in Toronto, far worse than Carter this year and 1000 times worse than Carter when he was in Toronto. Besides, Turkoglu quit on the Raptors much much worse than Carter ever did, but there has been no stink about that. AND they very narrowly missed the playoffs, meaning if he was just average, they would almost certainly have made the playoffs. Orlando was missing some height advantages that they would have had with Turkoglu, which could have helped them against the Celtics, BUT they barely won a 7 game series against the Celtics last year and Garnett was not even available in that series. Now, despite the record, with the way the Celtics were playing, Orlando was not the favorite, considering Garnett was back, the whole team relatively healthy and they acquired Rasheed Wallace, who had a terrible season, but is an excellent Dwight Howard stopper (who would relieve Perkins, maybe the only other 1 on 1 Howard stoppers in the league.) So, Orlando was not winning this series with Turkoglu or without him. Another fallacy about Carter is that he shrinks from the pressure. He made my case harder by missing two key free throws this year that could have put them closer to winning game 2 of the Celtics series, but historically, he is a better than average clutch player. He is also not reluctant to take the shot and frequently took over games for Orlando during the regular season. Moreover, he has not shrunk from playoffs in the past, including some dominant post-season games in Toronto.

He's older now, so while he's still dangerous, he's more limited and streaky. Despite the decline, he's at least as good as Turkoglu was the prior year. His defense is also better than Turkoglu's defense. So, Orlando made the right move getting Carter and would not have a better result had they kept Turkoglu. But, don't get me wrong, as much as I like Carter, I'm not saying he's a Hall of Famer. However, if he was a major contributor on a championship team, I think that would solidify his case.

Tim Duncan- was the best player in basketball for a long time. He was the best defender in the league for a long time. He is the best power-forward in NBA history. He won 4 championships as the best player on his team, but he has declined. His defense has lost a step. He can still have a dominant performance, but without any regularity. I just don't think the Spurs as constituted are good enough to win a championship with someone other than Duncan as their best player. They could use a major acquisition.

Lakers vs. Celtics- is a classic match-up with lots of bad blood, both historically and between the individuals on those two teams. Russell vs. Chamberlain, Bird vs. Magic and now umm Kobe vs. Celtics... makes it the best rivalry in basketball history and one of the best rivalries in sports history. They both have good chemistry and championship poise; they both play good defense and have multiple offensive weapons.

Both teams have reasons to be confident. The Lakers are the defending champions. The Celtics lost last year, almost entirely because Garnett was out, but he's back now (and have not lost a series with this starting 5.) Lakers have home-court advantage and are undefeated at home this playoffs. The Celtics are the only team with a better road record than home record. The Lakers now have Artest to guard Pierce who crushed them two years ago. Celtics, Rondo has improved. Rondo is mildly hurt. Sheed is playing well. Sheed is hurting. Nate Robinson had a good game. Bynum is playing. Bynum is hurt. Odom is the best 6th man in the series. Boston has a deeper bench. Kobe is 1 of the best players in the game today and the best player in the series + Gasol is one of the best big men in basketball. The Celtics have 4 future hall-of-famers and all of them are still really good on both offense and defense (including a slasher/distributor, a shooter, a slasher/shooter and post-play.) Both teams have 2 closers, Fisher, Pierce, and perhaps the two most clutch players in the game, Kobe and Ray Allen.

What about outside factors? Phil Jackson is Phil Jackson. Doc Rivers has long been an underrated coach. The 3 games in a row is tough for a road team, but less travel helps the older team. At the end of the day, I have no idea. I usually have a good sense of these things and I'm right like 75% of the time. That's not great, but basketball usually has a favorite and/or match-up favorites. But, here the teams are 1-1 in the regular season and neither of them had a particularly difficult road to the finals. So, what else is there? I have no clue. This could be a 5-game blow-out either way or a 7 game squeaker... either way.

Now, onto my biases, while I admire Kobe, I root against him. And while I like Ray Allen, Boston is probably the dirtiest, whiniest team in basketball. So... these are two of my least favorite teams in the NBA. I guess I'm rooting for the Celtics, but my bias is really against both teams.

I'm going to guess Celtics in 6, but that's more of a gut-feeling based on 2008's results.

The World Cup is coming up and I have even fewer predictions in that, though I hear Spain is a force, so I'm blindly guessing they will win (and guessing the Spanish Nadal wins the French Open in a surprising twist.) Though I read somewhere that there is a bizarre Northern vs. Southern hemispherical home-field-esque advantage (maybe because of weather patterns or something,) so I am probably wrong. Though, I also predict Messi will have an awesome cup, or at least I'm hoping he will because I like when people live up to expectations and really dislike when people choke. But, most importantly, I'm going to call that the US makes it to the quarter-finals.

That's all the sports I've got right now,
ME

PS: The only reason I have any interest at all in seeing The Karate Kid is because a song from the trailer is the one that serves as the pump-up song for EA Sports, NBA Live 2006. Even so, I am not going to see it.

Deconstructing Lost

2010-05-24T14:55:00.004-04:00

Hello Lost fans,
SPOILER ALERT for the ENTIRE series of LOST:

Perhaps my favorite show of all time, ended last night and it's time to figure out what the heck happened. So below is my attempt at explaining the six seasons in some semblance of a coherent fashion. This endeavor is designed, in large part, to help convince myself of what I watched. So, please feel free to disagree, but try to back up your disagreements with legitimate arguments. Previously, I have talked a lot about how Lost can mean different things to different people and specific theories I have about overarching themes, but now let's start with my theory about the actual events that occurred. Keep in mind, that in my interpretation, their entire existence ON the Island actually occurred and was not some representation of purgatory AND keep in mind, that these facts within the context of a science fiction show allow for some people to have special gifts without requiring a great deal of explanation (e.g. Walt.)

The best way to tell a coherent tale is chronologically, but unfortunately, because time travel is involved in the show and there are so many different important characters, a chronological explanation would vary depending on whose experience we are recounting. So, let's start from the earliest point in time, one of the last episodes (which was not one of my favorites, but essential for the purposes of a coherent explanation.)

Thousands of years ago, an unnamed woman, whom we shall call Eve, (played by Allison Janney,) was given the duty of protecting an Island endowed with a unique spiritual essence. That essence was represented by a bright light emanating from the earth. Beneath the Island, there were malevolent forces, partially explained scientifically by powerful electro-magnetism, that if freed, would cause the destruction of the Island and may have been powerful enough to spread throughout the earth and destroy the earth, as if the Island were a "hellmouth" (Buffy the Vampire Slayer term about the location of the opening to hell) or perhaps more appropriately, "Armageddon" (based on the Hebrew translation Mount Megidon, the location of the beginning of mankind's potential apocalypse.) Anyway, Eve was given various divine gifts, (including immortality until she found a suitable replacement,) to empower her to protect the Island. Eve decided it was time to pass the mantle to the next generation, so using her divine gift for manipulating events (symbolized by the loom,) she brought a pregnant woman to the Island, helped her deliver twins, Jacob and an unnamed second child, whom we shall call Adam.

She preferred Adam because he was naturally creative, with an innate ability to deceive just like Eve. Unfortunately, Adam was special with more than just his creativity; he was also special in his curiosity AND more importantly his ability to commune with the dead (which led to his revelation that Eve was not his biological mother.) Adam wanted off the Island and joined a group of stranded Romans in their efforts to escape. However, Eve would not let anyone leave. So, she killed the Romans and destroyed much of the great progress they had made at harnessing the power of the Island. She also recognized that Jacob was her rightful successor as demi-god, not Adam, and thus bestowed the powers onto Jacob. After she did that, Adam killed her. After a long, lonely life, she was relieved by her own death and thanked Adam for his violence. Jacob, infuriated, broke one of the few constant rules on the Island... not to send people to the heart of the Island, which was a fate worse than death. Adam's body died that day and was buried alongside Eve, but his tortured spirit lived on- intent on escaping the Island.

Jacob, as demigod of the Island, had supernatural gifts including immortality, the ability to dictate almost all of the rules of the Island, the ability to bestow supernatural abilities onto others and the ability to manipulate events (hence the looming.) Meanwhile, Adam's restless spirit was reanimated as an invincible cloud of black smoke that was able to embody corpses on the Island as human vessels for his malevolent residue. Adam continued to yearn for escape from the Island, but because of Jacob's mistake, Adam's being had merged with the Island's powerful core, which presented a terrible danger to the rest of the world.

Jacob recognized his horrible mistake of transforming "Adam" into "Smokey" and accepted the blame for his error in addition to additional responsibilities to mitigate damages for his crime. While Eve's sole responsibility was to protect the Island from outsiders, Jacob now had the additional responsibility of maintaining a prison for a supernatural entity that schemed to break free. In the meanwhile, Jacob also sought to rehabilitate Smokey by persuading him of the virtues of the human race, perhaps in the hopes that Smokey would not want to inflict upon humanity the devastating destruction his escape would cause. So, Jacob would bring people to the Island, in part to search for potential successors to his throne and in part to convince Smokey that the human race is worth saving. Probably, about 2000 years after Jacob's reign began, Jacob chose Richard Alpert to begin a non-denominational church on the Island to teach people the benefits of morality and the basic construct of Jacob’s rules of the Island (in which Richard would serve as counsel to whoever was chosen leader.) Other than bringing troubled, lonely souls in need of redemption to the Island, Jacob rarely intervened in human affairs, opting for a system that valued human's free will. Smokey, who recognized he needed to kill Jacob in order to escape also realized that the only way to kill Jacob was within the context of the rules Jacob established, i.e. a loophole that would allow the immortal Jacob to die.

Smokey found the loophole because, as part of the rules of Jacob's church, he conferred powers onto the chosen leader of the church of Jacob (which makes sense in the context of a modern belief that man can kill God by virtue of failing to believe in God.) So, Smokey went to work manipulate events to implant an unworthy Island leader whom he could control with greed and ambition.

Other noteworthy events include that the Island was about to be used as a nuclear testing facility, but the Church managed to fight off the military and confiscate the leaky bomb called Jughead. Then, came the Dharma Initiative, which was a relatively idealistic scientific group that studied supernatural phenomenon, including specific locations around the world with high degrees of electro-magnetism, the most powerful of which was the Island. They tapped into the same resources Romans had thousands of years earlier, but with greater degree of control because of scientific advancement. But still Dharma did not understand fully what they were studying and there was an Incident, in which electro-magnetism was leaked. Dharma built one of their many stations in response to this leak to slowly relieve the electro-magnetic tension in small bursts every 108 minutes, rather than letting the damn burst. They also installed a fail safe of turning a key to "blow the dam" in case they could not meet the 108 minute deadline.

However, the Incident probably convinced Jacob and his followers ("the hostiles") who were led by Charles Widmore (or Eloise Hawking) that Dharma had to be eliminated. With the help of an unsatisfied and ambitious Dharma worker mole, Ben Linus, the Jacobite church eliminated almost the entire Dharma Initiative Island presence, which crippled the Dharma Initiative. Still, two-men remained in the electro-magnetism station pressing a sequence of buttons to periodically release the dangerous energy (with pre-scheduled food drops.)

Ben Linus, had a rocky relationship with Island leader Charles Widmore (because Widmore ordered Linus to kill a baby, who Linus instead adopted.) So Linus, a master manipulator, took advantage of a situation when he found Widmore was cheating on the Island because Widmore fell in love with a woman off the Island (and was raising his second child Penelope off-Island.) Jacob liked Linus and his manipulative management style even less than Widmore’s sinful ways. Jacob punished the inhabitants of the Island (and followers of Linus) by killing all late-term pregnant women, which was a punishment befitting Linus who suffered doubly from this same fate (his mother died during his premature birth and his father spent his whole life blaming him for his mother's death.) (This is also a possible reason that the Others kidnapped children, as a method of recruiting and getting to children early, while another possible reason includes that they were trying to protect the children, whereas they did not care as much about protecting adults.) So, where Jacob was absent with Island leadership, Smokey stepped in and manipulated Linus's regime.

Despite Jacob's disapproval of Linus, Jacob's rule was deist in nature, so he did not interfere with the Island leadership process of his church. Still, Jacob occasionally made off-Island appearances to entice troubled souls to come to the Island and serve in the protection of the Island and for the eventuality of his own demise. He made a trip to recruit Island priest, Dogen to entice him to sacrifice his life in exchange for his sons. He also visited Jacobian guard Ilana, probably more than once. And he eventually met with Widmore too. But, back to the story at hand...

Finally, we get to the Survivors of Oceanic 815, of which there are only a few characters critical to understanding the underlying overarching story, all of whom were touched by Jacob and given the ability to survive their troubles and reach the Island.

Jack Shephard was a relentless fixer to the point of addiction. Jack brought his severe "daddy issues" to the Island literally because his constantly disapproving father’s corpse was cargo on the plane. Jack was a reluctant leader to the survivors because his good intentions, willingness to devote himself to others and height/medical knowledge deemed him worthy of respect, which made him an ideal candidate for the job opening as successor to Jacob.

John Locke was a traveler who had picked up countless useful skills, while trying to find his place in the world. After having been rendered paraplegic by his con-man father, dumped by his great love, reduced to a cubicle job where he spent every day amidst ridicule and finally being denied a life-long desired spiritual reawakening walk-about, he landed on the Island. His immediate connection with the Island, his faith in its supernatural wonder and Jacob's church's high opinion of him made him an ideal candidate for the job as successor to Jacob.

Hugo "Hurley" Reyes was a decent, charming individual with a soothing temperament. Hurley went crazy after his excessive weight caused a fatal accident and that was before he used a sequence of cursed numbers to win the lottery. He felt that his newfound fortune led to a series of catastrophes. His sunny disposition along with his supernatural ability to commune with the dead made him an ideal candidate for the job as successor to Jacob.

I could talk about Sawyer, who was a rich textured character that slowly evolved into a rugged hero in the manner of Han Solo. I could talk about Kate, who had to make the romantic choice of the good provider, Jack or the reformed bad-boy Sawyer; and that decision was a prime-mover of the series (she went Jack.) I could talk about Sayid, a magnificent character because his plentiful skills are exceeded only by his ability to be manipulated by authority figures including Smokey, Linus, the US government, and the Iraqi government. I could talk about Jin and Sun who formed a powerful tandem, but whose rocky relationship was based in large part on their failure to keep outside influences from repeatedly changing their attitudes towards each other. I could talk about Michael and Walt and how the one person on the Island who was attempting to be a good parent to his child ended up making him the most surprising villain and trapped him on the Island amid the whispers of regret (or for Walt, I could talk about how the show depicted some people as having innate supernatural gifts.) Or I could talk about Charlie, who was a drug-addict that asked all the meaningful questions upon arriving on the Island and then heroically gave his life to try to precipitate his friends' rescue. The most amazing thing about LOST is how every one of these characters and several others were chosen by Jacob (and in reality, created by the writers) were wonderfully flawed and ALL of them went through individual hero trials.

The LOST story ark begins with crash of Oceanic flight 815 on September 22, 2004. Season 1’s overarching story entailed the difficulties of a group of plane crash survivors stranded on an Island and hoping for rescue (they were not rescued because they were off course.) They also wondered why they could not use their communications equipment (first, because of another more powerful signal that would not let them transmit at all, Rousseau’s distress call, and then later because of an underwater signal blocker.) They struggle to deal with common island survival issues, such as a group of strangers forced to live together and discover and share limited resources like water, food and shelter. There were also additional Island-specific issues including finding a crazy woman who had been on the Island for 16 years who espoused the notion that the Island had a contagious disease, an Other group of Island inhabitants intent on infiltrating and disrupting activity, (the Jacobites,) a polar bear, (Dharma research animal that broke free after Dharma was destroyed,) and the terrifying smoke monster that kills at will (unless you surround yourself with sonic fences or ash blessed by a Jacobite priest that is powered by self-sacrifice) as they tried to figure out ways they can expedite rescue. Of course, there is the other reason they were not rescued because the Island is a space-time anomaly that can only be seen, reached or exited by following a precise directional bearing, but we don't learn that until the latter seasons. The final plotline of the season is the group bonding over the building of raft, except for John who delves further into the Island to try to open a mysterious hatch.

The second season tells us that Desmond Hume is inside the hatch, which is the Dharma bunker charged with relieving the Island's electro-magnetism every 108 minutes by pressing Hurley's cursed buttons into an old computer. We also find out that on the day of the Oceanic crash, Desmond was late to press the button, causing the crash. Outside the hatch, the Jacobites intercept the raft and kidnap Walt. The rafters land on the other side of the Island to find other Oceanic "tailie" survivors. Michael promptly kills off two of the prominent tailies as part of a plan to appease the Jacobites, which is Linus's long-con to get Jack to perform surgery on him. Step 1 of that plan was Linus got captured and stirred strife in group leadership as he was imprisoned and tortured. Step 2 was having Michael free him (when Michael killed the two people.) Step 3 is have Michael convince a specific listed group, to seek calculated revenge on the Jacobites ("the Others.") Step 4 (from Season 3) would be to imprison Kate and Sawyer in adjacent cells to precipitate a budding attraction. Step 5 would be to show Jack that he was alone on the Island and use Jack's seemingly unrequited feelings for Kate to get him to hastily accept a deal to perform Linus's necessary surgery. It worked with the minor caveat that Jack double-crossed Linus while he was on the operating table, to enable his friends' escape. The end of Season 2 was marked by the completion of Linus's Step 3 along with John Locke's crisis of faith that led to him and Desmond purposefully not pushing the button (against the resistance of a fascinating and short-lived spiritual character, Eko.) As time passed and no one pressed the button to release the pressure, the electro-magnetic force increased dangerously until Desmond turned the failsafe key, which exploded a bomb and burned up the electromagnetic energy, resulting in a purple sky.

Desmond Hume is the other key character in the overarching story because by turning the failsafe key, he got inoculated to the Island's powerful electro-magnetic energy (and overly exposed to the unique properties of the Island (that I foolishly refer to as the Island’s time midichlorians.) Desmond’s love story with Penelope Widmore, (Widmore's daughter,) loosely based off of The Odyssey is one of my favorite romances in television history, but aside from that, he becomes a critical character on the Island. He himself becomes an anomaly within the anomaly that is the Island, which in a weird way, makes him a constant (that explanation does not work exactly, but I'm getting tired.) More interestingly, his conscious mind travels through time where he is told by Eloise Hawking, (a former Jacobite leader with profound insight based on spiritual awareness as well as advanced scientific acumen,) that even though he is practically tim-traveling, he cannot change the timeline because the universe course corrects to follow a set path (this includes seeing the future to Charlie's death.)

The predominant plotline of the end of Season 3 is about the arrival of Widmore's ship, which provides the promise of rescue.

After Jack arrived on the Island, his immediate heroics put him in position to make decisions, but his decisions were often made hastily and adamantly, even when they were wrong. He was also reckless with his own health and safety. In Season 3, Jack forged a plan to use his newfound relationship with Juliet, a reluctant Jacobian church-member to disable the transmission jammer to enable communication and lead the group to a satellite tower to send outgoing transmissions (with some people staying behind as a diversionary and stall tactic.) Jack's plan worked because of Charlie's sacrifice, despite Linus and John's attempts to sabotage the plan. The season ends with the offshore communication with a freighter off the coast of the Island.

The other unique thing about the end of Season 3 was a major change in the standard story-telling device of LOST. Until that point, the Island story would be told and whenever a character had a major decision to make in an episode, we would be treated to "flashbacks" or small glimpses at pivotal moments in a character's history that guided how the character analyzed the current Island decision (though the best part of the flashbacks were often unexpected connections between the characters.) At the end of Season 3, the show surprised its viewers by having "flash-forwards" that showed us what life was like after the character left the Island and how, in this case Jack, was affected and haunted by his experiences on the Island.

Season 4 was marked by a few interweaving stories. The survivors divided into two groups, Jack's group, which was heading off the Island and John's group, who were intent on staying either because they believed as John did that the Island was special or because they did not trust the freighter who were working for Widmore. In turn, Widmore's motivation was to kill Linus, but Widmore’s people ended up killing his adopted daughter instead. Widmore was prepared to burn down the Island to kill Linus. (There were also a few notable freighter characters including Daniel Faraday, son of Widmore AND Hawking who is a brilliant scientist who is in love with another scientist Charlotte Lewis. Miles Straume is a snarky communer with the dead. Frank Lapidus is a sarcastic pilot and Martin Keamy is a monstrous mercenary.)

Widmore's group of scientists were withholding information and the non-scientists proved more untrustworthy, as they went on a killing spree of John's Oceanic followers. In the commotion, both Jack's group and John's group splintered and Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sawyer, Jin and Aaron ended up on Widmore's helicopter that crash landed and was rescued. The other major twist at the end of Season 4 was that Locke communicated with Smokey who told him to move the Island, which actually meant moving it in space-time. Linus helped Locke perform the task of moving the Roman-built donkey wheel (which was created by the Romans to harness the energy of the Island, which was reminiscent of the Tower of Babel.)

Season 5 started to get very complicated with the introduction of the traditional concept of time-travel. Ben turned the donkey wheel and ended up leaving the Island, but the survivors got transported through time at periodic, unpredictable intervals, at first to various important moments in the Island's history, but the transportation caused the time travelers to develop nose bleeds and die (somewhat akin to a disease that affects consciousness time-travelers (like Minkowski) when they do not have a constant (someone to ground them to a specific chronology of events like Penelope and Desmond.)) The group traveled to 1954 where John convinces Richard Alpert that he will be the leader and thus, like John Connor, by virtue of traveling back in time effectively making himself retroactively special. It worked too, because by the time he arrived, his existence was foretold and the Jacobites empowered him by believing in him.

After many spontaneous time-shifts, Locke goes and fixed the donkey wheel by adjusting it and he leapt forward in time off the Island. The survivors end up stuck in 1974 and have to live among the Dharma Initiative for three years, as they searched the Island for traces of their friends. The six people that got onto a helicopter were referred to as the Oceanic Six and earned immediate fame and fortune for the harrowing ordeal they survived (mostly a rather tame lie to protect their friends from Widmore, who would to attack if he thought they were still alive.) Jack and Kate got engaged with Kate raising Claire's baby (Claire is Jack's half sister, unbeknownst to him until Season 5. But, the Oceanic 6 are unhappy and unfulfilled, and drawn to return to the Island by mysterious forces such as guilt and probably Jacob. John tried to get them all to come back, but could not get a single recruit. Instead, Linus saved John from suicide to extract information from him and then killed John to retain power and use John's death a tool to galvanize interest in an Island return.

Eloise Hawking used Dharma science to predict where the Island would be at a specific time and used her spiritual awareness to inform the survivors that they needed the Ajira flight to have the same conditions as the Oceanic flight, including a substitute dead body in place of Christian Shephard. Linus and Eloise's plan worked, but only Linus and a few other Ajira survivors landed normally, while Jack, Sayid, Hurley and Kate were transported to 1977 among the Dharma folk and the other Oceanic survivors who had lived with the Dharma Initiative for three years. Jack was noticeably subdued as he tried to accept fate, while Sawyer lead the group from one situation to another. Faraday returned from the mainland, after having spent 3 years working on a solution to their time travel dilemma. He came to the conclusion that detonating the conveniently located nuclear bomb, Jughead at the precise time of the incident by the area of the leak could change things so substantially that their lives would be different and the Oceanic flight would never have crashed. Adult Faraday gets killed by his young, Island leader mother, Eloise Hawking before he is born (in a tragic cycle that Eloise Hawking and Widmore are aware of, but bound to repeat.) So, Jack decides that he should take up Faraday's mantle with a new faith in the cause of preventing the Oceanic crash. With the help of young Eloise Hawking, he detonated the bomb.

Meanwhile, 30 years later, Smokey mimics the body of John Locke, which prevented him from ever inhabiting a corpse again. He used Locke's status as leader of the Jacobites to gain access to see Jacob. He made the executive decision to bring Linus to see Jacob, who is jealous of the attention Jacob was willing to pay to Locke. Then Smokey, who is now Fake Locke or Flocke, successfully completes his decade-long con to urge Linus to stab Jacob. We find out that while Jacob was prepared for the eventuality that Linus would stab him, he hoped Linus would not follow through with it.

Season 6 started out seeming the most complicated because instead of a flash-forward device (or the standard flashback device,) Lost employed a new device referred to as a flash sideways, which appeared to be the successful explosion of the nuclear bomb, which would have caused all subsequent events after 1977, some minor changes like character changes and some major change to people who were more impacted by the Island. Additionally, the Oceanic crash, never would have had occasion to occur, but because of fate's tendency for course correction, the lives of the castaways seemed to intertwine, despite the lack of a crash. However, this device turned out to be a giant ruse.

In actuality, the detonation of the nuclear bomb was partially successful in that it sent everyone back to their proper place in the timeline (sent the Dharma-trapped Oceanic survivors from 1977 to 2007) and it did not directly kill anyone (though Juliet was mortally wounded from beams falling on her.) For Jack and the other castaways, it was a failure in the sense that history was not altered and they could not prevent the Oceanic crash. Whatever happened, happened.

Now, that Jacob was dead and Smokey was corporeal again in Flocke, Flocke went on a rampage. The survivors tried to save themselves by fleeing to the temple, which was the Jacobites safe zone, but it no longer afforded protection, so Smokey slaughtered the Jacobites that wouldn't convert (not to Smokeyism, but rather convert to the notion of leaving the Island with Smokey.) Meanwhile, Smokey couldn't kill the candidates to replace Jacob because of the Island’s established rules. Jacob assigned all the candidates numbers, including 6 numbers that represented the finalists for the position, which gave the numbers a supernatural significance to these characters and to the Island. Those were the numbers that haunted Hurley.

Smokey concocted a long con to convince Sawyer to lead the others to escape by submarine by saving them from explosives on the Ajira airplane. Smokey, who could not directly kill them, made it look like they were trapped on a submarine with a bomb about to explode, to get someone, notably Sawyer to meddle. Jack, in a moment of pure faith, which would have paid off, trusted that the bomb planted by Flocke was powerless unless they acted. Sawyer’s attempt to save them from the (momentarily impotent) bomb despite Jack's pleas, caused the bomb to activate (and tick faster) meddle, which caused the bomb to explode killing Sayid, (who died heroically after having been poisoned by the an evil tainted pool that resurrected him with greater malevolence and apathy,) Sun and Jin (who chose to die romantically despite having a 2 year old child back home.)

Of course, before Jacob died, he appeared to Widmore and told him that he could atone for his sins if he brought Desmond back to the Island, which he did. Jacob planned that Desmond was the Island failsafe because of his resistance to electro-magnetism (if they could not find another way to kill Smokey, which they couldn't.) Finally, using an ash burning ritual, Jacob made one final appearance to choose his successor and pass along his abilities to that candidate. Jacob asked for a volunteer, and Jack accepted the burden of attempting to kill Smokey. Jack did not have a plan, but trusted that Jacob had a plan with Desmond.

So, Flocke and Jack agree to test their respective theories by taking Desmond to the heart of the Island and having him remove the cork blocking the hellmouth. Flocke believed Desmond would destroy the Island by walking through electro-magnetism to remove the cork, while Jack believed that the proceedings would kill Smokey. It had both affects as the Island started to fall apart by earthquake, but, Flocke also became mortal. Jack fought John, and with help from Kate, Jack emerged victorious, but only after he was dealt a fatal blow. After saying tearful goodbyes to his friends and the love of his life, Kate, Jack went back to the hellmouth to recork the hellmouth and restore the Island, as he left Hurley in charge (after a no-frills ceremony that notably passed on less spiritual knowledge… which is in stark contrast to the increasing scientific knowledge that is passed down through generations.) Jack restored the Island as he slowly died. But, before he died, he watched a plane carrying Lapidus, Kate, Sawyer, Miles, Richard Alpert and his stir-crazy half-sister Claire fly off the Island safely. Hurley remained in charge of the Island for an indeterminate period of time, opting for a lighter touch than Jacob, presumably allowing Desmond to leave without consequence and having Linus, the redeemed and reformed former mass murderer help rule the Island by his side.

The Sideways story that is revealed throughout Season 6 is more open to multiple interpretations, but my understanding is a mixture of Defending Your Life and The Matrix. After all of those characters died, they were sent to an in-between world similar to limbo, but without the consequences of traditional purgatory. Instead, it’s a place where the deceased and the people that are most connected to the deceased wait for eachother in a timless vacuum to remember the entirety of their lives and the significance of their connections. (Like in the Matrix, they are a artificial projection of their mental selves and they play out their lives mostly as they lived it, but they were able to change or correct somethings that were important to them.) The Oceanic survivors, by virtue of shared experiences including a supernatural adventure, meeting lifelong loves and the various traumatic deaths formed a bond with each other that superceded the human lifespan. So, even though they all died at different times, (because the afterlife does not measure time the same way life does,) they waited for each other to plug into the afterlife (or more appropriately unplug into the afterlife) before they moved onto whatever's next, which is demonstrated by a door to the most brilliant light anyone has ever seen, the light that Jack saved by saving the Island. So, Jack and Jacob and the others might not have saved the world... he might have saved the after-world where you reconnect with the people you know and love. In essence, the show did harken to Paradise Lost, but in a stranger way than I expected, but still greatly appreciate. The castaways were fighting in the real albeit supernatural world to preserve heaven from the forces of malevolence.

The waiting area itself is a created construct (place) with only the limits and parameters established by the interconnected souls in order that they would reconnect and self-actualize together. So, the setting is the pivotal fake landing of Flight 815, as the characters struggle to remember their pasts to become enlightened. The lack of limitations makes it unsurprising that Jack imagined that he had a kid and connected with the child the way he wanted his father to connect with him (or that Sawyer became a cop to seek justice or that Kate did not actually kill anyone.) It's not an entirely positive world, but rather it's a world based largely on reality that is designed to collapse as the deceased understands life and accepts death and whatever follows. Charlie, with a near death experience, was the first to have an epiphany. But, Desmond was the first to figure out what the epiphany meant, which is that these people were dead and needed to connect with each other in order to move forward. One of the mottos of the show was: "if we don't live together, we're gonna die alone." After redemption and atonement for every one of these characters, they lived together and even though they died in different places around the world and at different times, (like Boone before Jack… or Hurley, probably long long after Jack,) they died together too.

So, what's it all about? Lost is a show about rich, textured characters in supernatural circumstances that afforded each character a chance at redemption for their previously downtrodden hollow lives. Lost is about how there is plenty of room in our modern technology-oriented, scientific-minded world for a life-guiding faith, though that faith is often misappropriated. Lost is about the existence of destiny within our free will choices. Lost is about how we are the collection of our individual and collective memories. And Lost is about the existence of good and evil in a complicated world of limited resources (from limited space to limited control to limited time) and how important it is that despite these limitations, we make the right choice and connect with each other because those choices and connections define us.

There were individual episodes I didn't like (the tattoo episode) or individual characters (Nikki and Paolo) and individual moments that disappointed me, but for the most part, I can only bestow boundless compliments on the show. Through six stellar seasons, I thoroughly relished every aspect of this show: the macro and micro-stories and plotlines, the themes, the dialogue, the acting, the sound track, the score, the cinematography, the direction, the sub-textual religious, philosophical, scientific, literary and pop-culture references, the inside jokes for people who followed what was going on with the production, the genre bending, the action, the comedy and the romance, but... before I sign off Lost, I just want to reiterate, I can't imagine a TV show depicting character this vividly ever again.

So, most of you will tell me to let it go because it’s just a silly show. Don't tell me what I can't do. Lost washed over me like a rain, and I can’t help but feel gratitude for every single moment of Lost’s stupid little life. (And yes, while I had mixed feelings about the ruse of the sideways story, the whole post-death perspective reminded me of American Beauty, my favorite movie of all time.)

See you when you get a life brothah,
ME (The Papa Bear)

TV Romance

2010-04-06T12:16:00.008-04:00

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

2010-03-29T00:45:00.002-04:00

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.

Lost Theories

2010-03-24T02:07:00.002-04:00

Hello Lost fans,
SPOILER ALERT for Lost: after Ab Aeterno.

Inspired by extensive conversations with my brother, Doc Jensen's recent articles and a podcast conversation between Bill Simmons and (more importantly) Chuck Klosterman, I have decided to put together a compendium of my Lost information and theories in the hopes of finding a unifying theory of Lost. Previously, I have talked a lot about how Lost can mean different things to different people and specific theories I have about overarching themes, but now I'd like to focus more on what the heck is going on.

To do this, I'd like to start by (relatively) quickly summarizing the show to the best of my understanding including some of the major mysteries and how they can be grasped in context. (For now, this leaves off issues that appear somewhat thematically unrelated to the grand context like how Walt appears to be special.)

The show is about a group of people who survive a plane crash in a remote Pacific Ocean island. On the Island, they immediately find out two pertinent facts that cause growing divergence within the camps: (1) because of a series of circumstances, they are not close to being rescued and (2) the Island is more dangerous than they anticipated because of normal island peril along with rogue polar bears, an inexplicable smoke-like monster and other potential human inhabitants. As these characters make decisions, whether every-day decisions or survival decisions, they are forced to confront their pasts, through memories of their own mistakes, the struggles of their lives prior to arriving on the island, and visions of people/ghosts who affected their lives.

The characters find out more about the island's history, when they discover a hatch that leads to a person who has been living underground for years pressing a sequence of numbers (with a larger significance) that appears to release tension from some powerful electro-magnetic device, (in which the occupant believes he is saving the world.)

We then learn that there were multiple "others" on the island who appear to be from all over the world and different times in history. The current group of others appear as a number of rustic individuals of indeterminate origin that are a spiritual people religiously obeying the words of a mystical figure, Jacob, and his human emissaries (Richard and the various leaders who somewhat blindly follow Jacob's will). While the group appears as natives, few of them were born on the island, but rather most joined this religious sect from when their various groups encountered the island (including Richard Alpert's origin, 1800's Spain, possibly World War II era soldiers like Widmore (maybe?), members of a scientific team that was studying the unique properties of the Island like Ben Linus, survivors of the plane crash and assorted others. The religious sect exiled (e.g. Widmore) or killed (e.g. the Purge) all of the people who refused to join, although it remains unclear whether that was actually Jacob's will.

The exiled people sought to return to the island igniting a war that involved quasi-religious rules. This battle caused at least two major occurrences. In an effort to protect the island and its inhabitants, the leader(s) decided to "move" the island using its unique time properties, (guided by a higher power, possibly Jacob or more likely The Man in Black,) making the island and some of its dwellers shift through time, (at first seemingly randomly and then eventually settling on a specific time in which the others were unhappily co-habiting the island with the group of scientists studying the island.) The other major occurrence from the battle between the exiled party and the current leader is that six of the plane crash survivors were able to escape the island. Those six returned to find fame, fortune and misfortune. Three years after their rescue, the 5 adults used the help of both the exiled party and the island leadership to return to the island because of survivor's guilt, a mystic belief in the island's alluring powers or by force of will.

Upon the return to the island, some of the members landed safely in an airport constructed by the others in part using the forced labor of the prior plane crash survivors (Sawyer and Kate.) Other plane crash survivors found themselves in 1977 with the island dwellers who time-traveled (3 years earlier.) It appears they do not substantially alter the historical timeline, as even an attempt to murder a future leader results in the future leader being saved nearly miraculously in some apparent effort for fate to course-correct. But finally, the time-travelers decide to irrevocably alter history with the help of advanced scientists and religious sect members by exploding a nuclear weapon during a unique moment in the history of the island in 1977, (the Incident,) which highlighted the mystical elements of the Island.

The result of the explosion creates two separate realities. In one reality, everyone in the world lives out a timeline as if a bomb went off on the island in 1977 (meaning most people had substantially similar lives and problems as we had been shown with subtle differences, while a few people who were more connected to the island and its inhabitants had their lives play out in vastly different ways.) However, in this "Sideways" reality, because the time travelers never crashed on the island and thus never went back in time, so they never went back to 1950's when Locke spoke to Richard Alpert. Therefore, things in this reality were likely different even prior to 1977, but even moreso after 1977. But even in this reality, it still appears that there is some supernatural pull between the characters that were connected on the island. The time travelers in particular, have some degree of physical and subconscious memory of the events that exist in the other "Island timeline".

Speaking of that other timeline, it must have existed because otherwise that bomb would never have exploded in 1977. So, two realities were created, one where the bomb went off in 1977 and where the world exists as such and one where the bomb did not go off, so a rift was created. However, in this Island reality, the time travelers were transported from 1977 back to the present day to end their time traveling escapades.

The time travelers arrived at the reality where one of the opposing god-like figures of the island had just made a major move. The Smoke-like monster (who is able to shape-shift) had been struggling for centuries to find a loop-hole to kill the otherwise immortal Jacob and he finally found a way to accomplish the task. To gain access to Jacob, he assumed the body of a person the island inhabitants knew to be a leader/emissary (Locke), though that leader/emissary (Locke) was killed by a former leader/emissary (Linus). Then, the smoke monster, in the assumed body, convinced the same former leader/leader-killer (Linus) to kill Jacob. Although the as-of-yet unnamed smoke monster's plan was successful, Jacob seems to have been prepared for this specific eventuality for years, including the manipulation of the lives of the island inhabitants and searching for candidates who are supposed to take some sort of responsibility with regard to the island in his stead. (Jacob apparently used the special sequence of numbers to identify the potential candidates.)

The Smoke Monster's stated goal is to leave the island after years of being trapped and his next step was to recruit followers throughout the island, particularly Jacob's followers, but even more particularly, the candidates (and to purge all those who oppose him.) Jacob's plan meanwhile slowly manifests itself through various tasks he assigned/assigns to the candidates and other calculations (like Widmore reaching the Island with a stated goal of eradicating the Smoke Monster. It's still unclear whether Widmore is pro-Jacob because Bram, who worked with Ilana as part of Jacob's guard, told Miles that Widmore was on the wrong side. It is possible that Jacob does not want to kill Smokey, but rather is trying to prove to Smokey that human beings can be good in an effort to rehabilitate Smokey. "They come, fight- they destroy- they corrupt. It always ends the same." He has thus far been unsuccessful.)

I am not sure how much we will ever learn about Jacob or the Man in Black because if they are deities, than there is a limited amount we could learn about them. But, there is something special about the island that in the hands of the right protector, allows it to imprison the powerful Smoke Monster. Jacob the Jailer and others imprisons Smokey on the island using quasi-scientific, quasi-paranormal and religious/spiritual methods (island's special qualities including the islands time midi-chlorians, the much maligned Star Wars quasi-scientific explanation for the force, located on the island.)

Unfortunately, science and pure reason cannot answer all of our questions, so we have to turn towards more philosophical, spiritual and religious explanations to understand the Lost world.

So, who are they?
Theory 1: Clash of the Titans
Jacob and Smokey are gods (in the polytheist sense of the word.) Since we're starting simple, let's play on a simple good and evil level. Smokey is bad and was imprisoned on this island on the fringes of time to prevent Doomsday. Jacob is his jailer, who may do almost anything, including lie, kill or even affect human affairs (blasphemous) to keep Smokey safely locked away. In order to keep Smokey locked up, Jacob uses selected humans to perform specific tasks required to maintain an effective jail. Certain things keep Smokey at bay, including scientifically created sonic fences and ash that may be powered by a unique spiritual conviction created by an individual's redemption (Dogen, the temple master seems to have been powering the ash that protected the temple after he made a deal with Jacob that would bring his son back to life to redeem his car accident (though he would never be enable him to see his son again) in exchange for loyal devoted service and faith.)

A similar theory would be that they are gods, but not gods of good and evil, but are rather slightly more specific gods, like Jacob may be the god (or the titan) of time and weaving and lists (and optimism or maybe the god of balance?), while Smokey is the god of destruction and smoke and imbalance (and truth? Nah.) (While Jacob may not be the devil per se, he may be some type of incarnation of the devil. What? If Smokey is evil incarnate and is imprisoned in this type of separate, "under" world, then Jacob is some type of keeper of this underworld, something akin to the devil, though more like Hades.)

For many people these lines of inquiry and this theory is too simple and result in a deus ex machina wherein all of the unsolved mysteries are unsubtly explained as the will of the gods. And even though I think a lot can be garnered from this explanation alone, I tend to agree with those people. Thus...

Theory 2: Paradise Lost
Jacob is some version of God and Smokey is some version of the devil (though not actually god and the devil because under most Judeo-Christian-Muslim incarnations of god and the devil, neither ate.) Since the final episode of Season 5, this has been my favorite theory, even if it is the most obvious theory. God establishes a set of rules that the inhabitants must obey, but the devil, who was more spectacular and special than any other follower, refuses to obey because he thinks all others are lowly inferior malleable beings, that are given substantial leeway on the rules that apply to him. And yet, the devil who yearns to return to the comfort of heaven (or in this case the splendor of earth,) commits to foiling god's plans whether that means to lead people to evil, commit massive destruction of god's creations or declare war on god itself. However, depending on how you choose this theory, god may have wanted a foil to test humanity in the face of evil, to make humanity appreciate goodness and/or to demonstrate that what god truly values is humanity making choices for goodness with the free will to choose "other".

These two entities are mostly able to civilly interact and weigh souls like Job's because Lucifer is not powerful enough to really kill god and god does not want to kill Lucifer because Lucifer is part of its plan.

In this scenario, each human being is left to his/her own devices and is presented a framework of the world. In that world, there are oft-occurring miracles like birth and myriads of unexplained phenomena, for which a person could develop a certain degree of faith in god and obedience to god. On the other hand, there is plenty of obvious carnage, destruction and tragedy in the world that would make people stray from god, to believe that god is either so tolerant of horrifying things like death as to appear pro-evil or more commonly in the modern context, god is non-existent.

In other words, the good God as the three monotheist religions have come to perceive it, is now absolutely hidden. The only proof that god exists in the world today is by pointing to existence itself and saying... "See!" So, our current understanding of god is not only saddled with mystery, but fraught with half truths (not lies, but half-truths and half-mysteries.)

On the other hand, the devil as popularly perceived, is more blunt and easier to detect. Through tragedies, such as death, one can point to the devil for partial credit, but the devil can also just ruin your day. So, what's appealing about the devil? Why do people like the bad boy? First of all, the devil is the underdog against a more powerful and more obvious god. Second of all, the devil has come to symbolize free will. He doesn't care about anything, he does what he wants. (I'm not sure of the origins of the "devil-may-care attitude.") Third of all, in the face of god's reliance on faith and half-mysteries, Satan is notoriously good with his tongue. In other words, while god is silent, Satan is talking and purportedly telling half-truths and half-lies. And thus, the devil cannot on his own, kill god, but man, through a (collective) loss of faith, can kill god.

Theory 3: The Phantom Zone
In the Superman mythology, (Superman being an alien from the planet Krypton, which had advanced seemingly ethereal technology,) Jor El, Superman's birth father, imprisons Zod (and others). The place in which he imprisons Zod is called the Phantom Zone. The Phantom Zone is a veritable inescapable island where criminals are kept until they learn their lesson. Let's keep it going. (Richard, Dogen, Locke, Kate, Sawyer, Ben, Jin... and others appear to be obvious criminals. And all of the others on the island appear to at least require redemption.) In various incarnations of the comic world, the Phantom Zone appears like hell filled wit dangerous criminals and spirits, while in others it is a place that freezes time and is lost in space in order to rehabilitate the criminals.

You may say that this is all fine, but who cares and how does this help? The Island is not actually the Phantom Zone, just like it's not actually ancient Atlantis, or Mount Olympus or purgatory, nor is it the Heart of Darkness. Viewing it as such merely provides context for understanding what the heck is going on here.

Learning about the philosophy and the science, the literature and the pop-cultural reference of Lost makes the experience more fun and more provocative. The fact that someone has the name Locke or Faraday or a deity named Jacob and another powerful entity known as the Man in Black (whether his actual name is Esau or Fake Locke, Flocke, or B-Locke, Un-Locke or whatever.) But, this is just the B story. The A story is what the heck is actually happening and how does it fit into the context of the plans of Jacob and the Man in Black.

Let's amass our knowledge of the island's two deities. Smokey may have had a crazy mother (like John Locke did.) Jacob purportedly took Smokey's body and imprisoned him on the Island. Both Jacob and Smokey can be very persuasive (tends to be used in a passionate context)/convincing (tends to be a more reasoned context) and can manipulate people and circumstances to their own ends. It is very likely that Jacob weaved all of these characters onto the Island. If Jacob is the god-like character, then he tasked Richard to be his presence on earth, which in Catholicism (Richard's religion,) would make him the church. But, it is very possible that in Jacob's absence, Smokey started influencing the leaders with lies and promises starting with Ben and Locke (or maybe Widmore or Hawking). It may have been Smokey's plan that the time traveling would occur enabling a specific circumstance that would allow for the loophole in which Jacob could be killed.

But, Jacob was possibly prepared for Smokey's plan, but rather than affecting Smokey's plans to alter history, he made alternate arrangements using other humans to create an anomaly in order to protect the island prison and contain Smokey by creating a greater anomaly that destroys the Island in one world and protects his successor in another world. I don't get it yet, but there is something there.

So, where does that leave us in Lost? Well, if we want it to have global implications, we revert to the theory above about how if the Smokey devil is released, he would unleash hell upon the world, but God wants man to redeem himself and fight certain seemingly human impulses, like Jack's pride (as a man of science, he thinks he can solve every problem himself) or Sawyer's wrath (from season 1 re: parents and season 6 re: Juliet.) These chosen people must extol virtues such as self-sacrifice in order to keep the devil at bay or teach the devil a lesson. In this theory, one of the candidates may be required to forfeit his/her life and potentially his/her eternity in order to maintain the wondrous island prison.

Theory 4: The Balancing Game
This is not only the title of an unpublished manuscript that my father wrote (and I co-authored with my minor contributions,) but it is also an accurate description of the sets of scales that have been discussed. This is not a specifically religious theory, but is rather a more spiritual theory. Not only do various Eastern religions revere such balances, but so does Star Wars and so does The Matrix and various other more modern science fiction.

In fact, the Lost theories that rely on balance can be divided into several sub-theories depending on whether you believe Jacob is good, evil or the referee who is in charge of the game AND whether you believe the balance is between goodness and evil or between free will and fate or some combination of both. It's pretty awesome, in that these two supernatural figures are duking out mankind's great philosophical questions on a backgammon board of the island. So, what kind of game is it? It's a little like chess because there are pawns and important people to protect, but one thing is for sure. It's a lot better game than checkers.

Some of the above theories can be adjusted if we find out that Jacob is the objectively worse character of the two, which is possible given that he may or may not have caused the purge and often deliberately hides information and may be kidnapping Smokey's body to maintain his own importance.

Then, the trickle down theories include how the deities machinations impacted the battles between Dharma and the hostiles, between Widmore and Ben, between Jack and Locke. It's also important to note that Jacob, while obviously special dies (and fights Richard and eats fish) and is fungible or at least replaceable. This may be why the man in black still cannot leave. He may need permission from the new keeper of the Lost world or he may have to kill that protector. (Or of course, the protector may not have Jacob's abilities and may be tasked with destroying the Island ala exploding a nuclear weapon on the Island in the present day, but that seems less likely now.)

Theory 5: Nonsense
None of it makes any sense... just like life. Enjoy the ride, figure out what's right for yourself and enjoy the haunting love stories of The Constant, Lafleur and Ab Aeterno. I know I will.

What an amazing show and there's only half a season to go. And if you don't stop to appreciate the beauty and the tapestry, then you might miss it or we might all go to hell.

Some of the things I said make sense, some of it doesn't. But it's all there.
Enjoy,
ME (The Papa Bear)

Substitute World

2010-02-16T22:39:00.004-05:00

SPOILERS AHEAD

Last week, I didn't blog about Lost because the episode "What Kate Does" was a predominantly emotional journey. I'm not looking for 16 episodes of just answers because frankly, I need the downtime. Lost connects with its audience, including me, through emotion. As the plot-lines grow stranger, the show's humanity keeps the viewer engaged and grounded. People were disappointed with the episode, but I appreciate many of the sentimentality episodes, including this Kate-centric episode. Besides, Sayid getting tortured is must see TV.

Before I move onto this week's episode, there are a few things I'd like to discuss from last week... things I found interesting, relevant or notable. Let's start with the theme of the episode as stated by Jin, "who do you care about?" Jin's question reminded me of what Charlie Kaufman kindof told himself in Adaptation, "you are what you love, not what loves you." While Jin was posing the question to Kate, he was stating a fundamental question both on the show. He might as well have been asking the viewer that question.

But, he was blatantly asking Kate who has been torn between Jack and Sawyer (and to a lesser extent, Aaron,) who she chooses. So far, it seems that she cares about whichever one of them she is not with. Sawyer and Kate's complicated relationship is bound to get more complicated with Sawyer becoming newly single and more ornery than ever (and Kate really liking that quality in a man.)

Sure, some of these questions (about who cares about who) were obvious like Jin cares about Sun and Sawyer cares about Juliet, but what about Sayid? Sayid stressed he does not care about who saved him, but rather cares about whom he trusts. And after three years following Jack around, with Jack's countless flubs and missteps, he trusts Jack. And while Jack loves Kate, Sayid knows that Jack cares about everyone too much (or at least he cares about his role in their lives and his responsibility to them.) So, Sayid cares about Jack. And once someone believed in him again, Jack was rose to the occasion. As one of my favorite characters, it's great to see him heroic again for the first time since Season 3.

The other thing that I thought was fascinating in last week's episode was how the Japanese leader, Dogen, was using a typewriter and (I believe) in another scene he was dipping a quill pen in ink (and he used a mortar and pestle.) While they are in the middle of a jungle on an island in the middle of nowhere and in an ancient temple, it's still noteworthy that Dogen made such an effort to demonstrate the antiquity of the temple. I am not sure what to make of the antiques, except that there is something about nostalgia (see also America's pasttime, baseball,) but there also may be some importance about the theme about the juxtaposition of civilization versus the wild.

In "The Subsitute" there was a lot more of the dichotomy of civilization versus the wild. Lots of other recurring themes were discussed, like free will versus fate, and of course, "should I stay or should I go?" And is Sawyer more popular without a shirt or without pants? But, my favorite line in the episode was uttered by Locke to Sawyer in Sawyer's request for answers to his questions. Sawyer is considering shooting Fake Locke, who has long been the show's symbol of the supernatural elements of the show ever since "Walkabout" in Season 1. Fake Locke responds to Sawyer and to all the viewers who are losing patience with the show's complexity and with its supernatural qualities simultaneously: "but you are so close. It would be such a shame to turn back now." Listen folks, after 5 seasons, the ride is almost over, just hang on a little longer and get answers.

What answers did Sawyer get? Not much. He was brought to a cave with some etchings on the wall with the names of the survivors. And that was pretty much all the evidence Fake Locke presented and he weaved a tale about the etchings. That's not much. But, for the viewers, it was much more because we have seen Jacob loom destiny in this lair and we know how Jacob loves making lists (and we get the inside joke about one side is light and one side is dark and tossing the white stone in the water.) We also know that the numbers are important: 4 (Locke), 8 (Hurley), 15 (Sawyer), 16 (Sayid), 23 (Jack), 42 (Kwons). (Why not Kate? That seems kind of sexist.)

Fake Locke's story seems to make sense because we know that Jacob's guards like Bram and Ilana were talking about candidates. So, Fake Locke's story about Jacob's search for candidates to protect of the island holds water. The theory that Jacob wants to keep people on the island makes sense too because well, that's been the point of the Hostiles (the Others) for years. They are trying to protect and preserve the island by maintaining the Island's traffic in a state of inertia, keeping people away, but when they do get on, keeping them on the Island. The one thing that's kind of distressing is that The Man in Black may just be the original Jack, who is trying to lead everyone from his group off the island. (The Man in Black explains that he was human once and complains that he also knows feelings.)

There are a few other notable matters: Fake Locke re-repeated the phrase "Don't tell me what I can't do." (So Fake Locke has more in common with Locke than just Locke's memories and how the real Locke sometimes falls down.) Meanwhile real Locke is happily engaged, but with otherwise similar problems that he had prior to his Australian adventure, like a crappy boss on the verge of being fired, struggling with his limitations and dealing with a crisis of faith (although he has some mysterious relationship with his father.) In that world, Jack (and Helen) represents the magic of miracles, while Rose who was the woman of faith on the island, off the island, brings John back down to earth. (As an aside, Hurley is even more awesome off the Island where he has his stuff together.)

But, what's going on with Alpert? He's lost his cool entirely. Sure, he's been serving a deity who just died and he found out that deity was keeping things from him, another powerful force whom he considers to be evil incarnate has just beaten the crap out of him and he's running terrified, but still... throw some manscara on or some guyliner and put yourself together.

So, Alpert does not seem to know about candidates, but does he know about the rules? In Season 4: "He broke the rules." Ben said that about Widmore when Keamy the mercenary killed Alex (Ben's adopted daughter.) Who made that rule? But, now, a young guy who looks like Jacob has a new rule, "you can't kill him." Who is him? Jacob? Sawyer? Alpert? Who? And who made this rule?

Notably, in the alternate world, the survivors are connected to each other and to the Island. Locke plays the same role he played before his Island adventure, as the fearful doubter even when he pretends to know what he's doing. They are all connecting, but also Locke was teaching reproduction, which is a major problem on the island. Ben was teaching European history, which could help him explain the Black Rock. Though, this would have been an opportune time to bring in science teacher Arzt.

Back to the people I care about: what about Ben? Is Ben a different guy now that he killed Jacob? Ben admitted killing Locke as he eugogolized Locke and apparently regrets killing John... for a moment, I thought Ben was going to cry and realize that John was the closest thing to a friend he's had since Annie, when he was a little kid. So Ben's honest now? Nope, he lied about killing Jacob. It's nice to know that Ben is not changing and he's the still the weaselly liar we all know and love.

It's also notable that Locke episodes tend to be the ones with the best acting. So, Ben and Locke dominated the screen (and Sawyer has gotten a lot better as an actor since the first season too, which is good.)

One final issue from the episode: the title "The Substitute" is probably not a reference to the Tom Berenger action movie, but how cool would that be. More likely, there is the obvious reference to Locke as a substitute teacher and probably as the Man in Black as a substitute power to the power that Jacob wielded. There is also a play on how one of these worlds is a substitute for another. An alternate reality is a substitute reality (and season 5 was about changing history, which is another way of saying, substituting history.)

This was not as thorough as many of my prior analyses, but nonetheless I have deemed it sufficient to post. And so far, unlike some other viewers, I am very pleased with the final season and I'm eagerly anticipating next week's episode and answers to questions. But am I ready to leave the Island with Fake Locke? Heck no. What do you think America?

Crazy Lost

2010-02-03T00:00:00.006-05:00

LOST SPOILERS AHEAD

Over 5 seasons ago, Lost exploded onto our televisions. There was a crash, there was mass panic and there was death, but it was all conventional- entertaining, but conventional. We met ten ordinary characters struggling to survive extraordinary circumstances, but realistically imaginable extraordinary circumstances. Jack Shephard, a willing hero yet reluctant leader, was unofficially tasked to lead a group of frightened plane crash survivors until rescue. Considering everyone watching the pilot knew they would be stuck on the island during the course of the series, no one was surprised that intrigue surrounded the plane crash that would prevent a rapid salvation. Immediately, mysteries manifested (e.g. what caused the plane crash, what was the giant beastly noisemaker in the forest tearing down trees and dismantling pilots, and why in the heck was a polar doing on an island in the middle of the South Pacific, oh and how did 50 people survive a plane crash littered about the island.)

But even though there were undercurrents of the supernatural, the show lured us in with characters. These characters were complicated and flawed. Interestingly, they were all liars, and not just liars who deceived to protect themselves, but rather they were all incredibly illogical almost pathological liars. They didn't discuss the mysteries, which was an obvious story-telling device to reel in viewers for longer periods of time... but it worked. We got to know the people. There were comfortable archetypes and predictable defiances of those archetypes. We learned their histories from flashbacks and how their past circumstances affected their current lives on the island. We reveled in the beauty of the island's newest inhabitants, even as there was more to the show.

By the fourth episode, we already started to appreciate the foibles of the characters and their very human plights. In episode 4, the series took its first major leap into the supernatural. That was before the show dropped the hammer on us and revealed Locke's secret. Locke was already a mysterious character because of his sparse cryptic conversations, but the revelation of the secret confirmed that the show was a fantasy or at the very least had an air of the supernatural. Other mysteries surfaced from the unique mental abilities of Walt to the powers of the numbers, but the show was fueled by characters who loved and lost and loved again and stories of small victories of island survival.

The second season started by introducing us to Dharma's contribution to the island. Dharma magically transformed the show from a fantasy Island to a science fiction Island (i.e. science principle X can explain these unusual phenomena) and brought the Island into a larger history. After a season of watching human flashbacks, the viewers longed for island flashbacks, so we could learn about what these scientists discovered researching the hatch (and as we subsequently learned, studying polar bears.)

Season 3 brought us into the world of the island's natives, referred to as "hostiles" who purged Dharma off the island. The magnificent trick of the third season was that by introducing a larger corporate war between Ben the tyrannical manipulator and Widmore the ruthless executive, the show was able to maneuver its mysteries into new themes. In the third season, many people, including myself, thought Lost had some of its worst episodes as the show floundered grasping for purpose. Yet it kept me riveted with its magnificent gobbledygook array of references, from religion to philosophy to science, from literature to film to pop-culture.

I was also able to postulate that although there were a litany of themes, (free will vs. destiny, good vs. evil, science vs. faith, civilization vs. wild,) the predominant theme was that everyone is bad and we all rationalize by thinking we are the good guys just doing what is necessary because we had to, because we were told to, (by our religion, by our politicians, by our superior officers, by our bosses,) because preserving an island's miraculous resources is good, because harnessing an island's natural resources is good. So, I saw Ben as something of a Kurtz going into the Heart of Darkness.

Season Four started by introducing us to our beloved characters off the island. We also meet a slew of new recruits who are Widmore's people chosen to cleanse the island. None of this did anything to dispel my theory of an overarching war between treacherous murderous protectors of the sanctity of the Island sanctuary and exploitative imperialists seeking to share the island's bounty with the world.

Season 5 was the enigma because the creators made the show extremely difficult for casual watchers to follow. After years of masking the geeky sci-fi fantasy elements of the show under the guise of relative realism, the show unveiled itself. The underbelly or the veneer was exposed as the ultimate nerd-fest melding fantasy supernatural with high tech science mumbo-jumbo (a technical term).
For years, the show played with its location in time and space, whether it was flashbacks, flashforwards, different locations around the world, but now the premise of the entire show was time travel. And the power behind the island was unveiled as a pseudo religious-pseudo spiritual weaver.

Season 5 made my head hurt (not just because of the flashing bright light) because after 5 seasons, after getting to know about 50 (FIFTY) important characters (including new 1970's Dharma scientists and Jacob's body guards,) with varied yet occasionally intermingling story-lines, some of whom died, but none of whom ever lose their relevance, (particularly because of how the show manipulates time,) with various personal issues, interpersonal rivalries, group struggles, international intrigue, supernatural and sci-fi storylines*, the show then ALSO played on multiple time lines where each one affects the others. It's like Back to the Future times fifty (times fifty).

Now, we come to Season 6, and do we return to the character roots so we could get some individual ark payoffs? Nope, it looks like they took the sci-fi fantasy angle to the next level by depicting... alternate realities (ala Fringe.) Now, in addition to keeping track of how these character's prior-Island decisions affected their present disposition, we also have to keep track of how their past selves in alternate existences affected their current disposition. Let's say Alterna-Kate decides to knock out the U.S. Marshall, is it because our Kate has a propensity for flight (as does Alterna-Kate) or is it because Alterna-Kate remembers our Kate giving Sawyer the gun to kill the Marshall or is it because Alterna-Kate has a separate history of running or a distinct alterna-Kate memory of the Marshall's cruelty?

Then of course, Season Six has Fake Locke and now probably Fake Sayid, so who knows who is possessed by spirit demons and who is still themselves? (Christian Shephard is notably missing on all time lines.) And then there are the characters themselves that are so torn apart from their suffering and the constant reliving of their own mistakes that they do not remotely resemble the people we met in Season 1. So, who should Kate choose, broken down Jack or broken down Sawyer?

And of course, there are new characters, the temple-dwellers who appear to be in league with Richard Alpert, (the ageless wonder or the mascara man,) who was once in chains (on the Black Rock?). The temple leader is some sort of a martial artist who undervalues the English language and who is unnecessarily quick with the trigger... (By the way, I think the symbol in the guitar case was an ankh, which according to Logan's Run is an Egyptian symbol meaning sanctuary. If so, interesting on many levels, on the staying power of the Egyptian religion theme, on the relevant meanings of sanctuary, on the possible film reference to Logan's Run, on the show's running theme of hiding materials inside religious relics like heroin in the Mary statues, which is packed filled with philosophical and psychological implications regarding Carlton and Cuse.)

But the new (fascinating) overarching rivalry is grander than Jack and Sawyer or Jack and Locke or Jack and Ben or Ben and Locke or Ben and Widmore, but rather, now it's Jacob and the Man in Black (presumably Fake Locke who is Smokey the Monster.) So how big is this fight? Is it good versus evil as the light and dark shirts would have you believe? Or is it fate versus free will as their conversation would have you believe? Are these gods, angels and demons, spirits, metaphors? And who do we root for? Sure Smokey killed Islanders and manipulated Jacob's death and killed his body guards, but he just wants to go home. Isn't that what most of the Islanders want, particularly Juliet (and didn't he save the Islanders from Keamy and Widmore's boat)? That doesn't sound too evil. But, I guess, throughout much of Judeo-Christian lore, the Satan's goal is to return home- to heaven after being banished for questioning God's plan for favoring the humans because of free will. For a guy that may not be evil, he sure did some bad things and happens to resemble Lucifer. The contempt that the Man in Black felt in Jacob's presence reminds of my favorite lines (which happens to be from Paradise Lost and was quoted in The Crow): "Abash'd the Devil stood, And felt how awful goodness is" (and continues "and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely").

Oh and by the way, it appears, Jack and Faraday were right. Their plan to nuke the island worked, but so what? A new timeline may have formed, but a Jack and a Sawyer still exist on the island. Those Islanders still have to suffer the indignities of the Island even if other versions of themselves are free to roam about the country.

*If someone told you 5 seasons ago that a show with storylines including a smoke monster, an island with miraculous healing powers, a boy with mind control, two people who commune with the dead, magic numbers, psychics, ghosts, shape-shifters, bodily possession, time traveling, alternate realities, would any non-X-Files fans be watching? Probably not, right? But you're stuck now because you care about these people and you need a resolution. Back to the fishing analogy: Lost lured us in with character, it reeled us in with story and now, with their introduction of crazy, we're wriggling and flailing in all directions.

But, as for me, I'm not just trapped, I'm in. I'm all in. Whatever they sell, I'll buy. Whatever they pedal, I'll hawk. I am stuck in a cycle of appreciation- not only because Lost took me on a magnificent journey, not only because I can't imagine a scenario where I am sufficiently let down as to be disappointed, (not even the cop out that is alternate realities,) but also because I am now living and reliving the show in my own mind to the point that if I don't like the ending, I would only be disappointing myself.

Years of thought, years of imagining, years of connecting, of interpreting, of analyzing, pouring over scenes and dialog and data and examining and studying references and principles over and over again--- I've created a mental map in my mind so intricate that it would easily cover the floor, ceiling and padded walls of a roomy cell. It's no wonder that the show's most relatable characters, Hurley and Libby, were both inmates at an insane asylum. So while I was utterly confused by the initial episodes of the sixth season, I was riveted through every scene and I am eagerly anticipating every crazy moment of Lost. I hate that it's ending, but it has to end.

Status ME

2009-12-21T14:45:00.007-05:00

Hey folks,
I saw that a few of my friends did a collage of their facebook statuses/stati/states from 2009 as sort of a retrospective.
Like my blog, my facebook status is usually an attempt to be funny (when it is not a veiled or unveiled reference to something I am obsessed with (like Lost.))
So, I wanted to see what my status told me about my years in reverse order... so behold: (and below that are some friendster info and twitter comments just in case those sites decide to erase them.)

Facebook status messages:

2010 Resolved: 10) Take better care of myself; 9) Make a grown man cry; 8) Use my dancing skills to solve a medical mystery; 7) Finish something; 6) Spend less money; 5) Keep resolutions 4 and 5; 4) I can't think of a 4th resolution; 3) Let certain people know how amazing they are; 2) Watch more commercials; 1) Believe in myself.

"I wonder if your talents might be better unappreciated elsewhere." {Misquoting myself.} "Oh, and Happy New Year." {Directly quoting myself.}

Merry Christmas everyone. I hope you all get that new bicycle under the tree... unless you're naughty, then I just hope you don't steal that bicycle from the nice kid.

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty- that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. Oh and Hostess Cupcakes are delicious." John Keats II, CEO of Hostess Cupcakes from the seventh annual Chocolate Obeisance Convention, Saturday, May 8, 1819.

Hey everyone with over 500 facebook friends, when I get to 500 friends, will they send me a coupon for my free taco or do they actually mail me the taco (cause that could be messy)? 10 friends to go and I already taste the guacamole (but that could be from earlier today.)

With the holiday season upon us, I would like to take this opportunity (1) to sincerely apologize in advance to all of my fellow Jews and non-Christian friends for all the Christmas songs that I'll sing over the next few weeks and (2) to sarcastically apologize to all my Christian friends for butchering those songs. I'm sooo sorry. Happy holidays.

I'm in the process of selecting a nemesis. Open applications, so inquire within. Preferably, this person is (1) very different than me, or (2) very similar to me, or (3) both... (also not looking for a long-distance nemesis, though open to a short term arch-rivalry).

So, it's decided. I'm going to start and end my world tour in NYC. That's pretty exciting, except the entire middle of my world tour also takes place in NYC. Oh, and there will be no touring. So, I guess it's not that exciting.

I hope everyone took a moment to appreciate every great thing in their life... and if you did that, thank you for thinking of me. I thought of you too... unless you didn't think of me, then I didn't think of you first.

It's amazing how I can live (or at least imagine) a lifetime in the blink of an eye... but it takes me two hours to decide what to eat for breakfast.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone: please say what you are thankful for: I will start. I'm thankful for roses that you can smell without stopping specifically just to smell them: so essentially, I'm thankful for drive-by rose smellings.

The heart wants what the heart wants, and right now, what the heart wants is a sandwich.

going to take a(nother) break from facebook and the like- please know that this is not your fault... not at all... unless you use the Internet, which I guess you do, in which case, it's like 10% your fault.

How many times can I watch Glee's "Defying Gravity" in a row before it's classified as a dangerous illness? 4? 8? 15? It's contagious, so keep your distance.

Relatively true story: a team of scientists, lawyers, doctors, academics and college students took hours discussing, dissecting and deciphering this "joke" by Abed from Community: "My room has a bunk bed, which is kind of a misnomer, because it's the real deal." You get it, right?

The way I see it- yesterday was the final day of our last non-voting season and tomorrow is the first day of our next non-voting season. Today is the in-between time.

The earth travels at roughly 19 miles per second. So, basically, while I wrote this crappy message, I traveled the distance of 20 marathons. Congratulations runners, and no, I'm not jealous. (That is code for me being jealous. Seriously awesome accomplishment.)

Being selfless is a full-time job. Being selfish is more of a full-time hobby.

I just realized I forgot to issue a 'thank you' to all of the people who wished me a 'happy birthday" via facebook in March 2008. So, thank you facebook friends. I can't really remember it, but you made that birthday unforgettable. Sorry, that it's belated, but I got hung up on something else.

I'm looking for someone to blame for the health care fiasco: my doctor just tried to postpone my appointment for over two months. Democrats or Republicans? My fury can cover all parties, but I like to stay focused.

wishes all 11 of his friends a happy new year. And if he didn't wish you a happy new year, there is probably a reason. 1 of the possible reasons is that he actually doesn't wish you a happy new year. But, Happy New Year anyway.

If I can score tickets tomorrow, would anyone be down for a classy evening show of "The Nightman Cometh" at the Beacon Theater on September 16? I probably won't get tix if no one's in or if there's no seats available or if I forget or if I lose interest or if I'm still writing this status message tomorrow.

is starting to scare away his friends, and no it's not his obsession with wearing neon tube tops.

It's not always about you; it's sometimes about you... but, it's always about me.

Let the "summer of sitting down often" commence. Well, technically, it's set to drop on July 2, but until then, don't be surprised to look down and see me sitting, as I'm going to need a lot of practice.

thinks the grass IS greener on the other side. Always.

walking through central park listening to Mozart then bone thugs n harmony, then REM. Shuffling is magical. You had to be there, but you failed to be there.

is oddly looking forward to The Hangover and Drag Me to Hell, which coincidentally sound like companion films.

thinks "being himself" is a full-time job. Actually, it's more like a career because of the hours, but really it's more like an unpaid internship because of the lack of pay.

thinks if he could beat a talented 11-year old at 1 on 1 basketball (handily), then with 8 years of proper training, maybe he could go pro. What do you think? Should he scrap the plan or start packing for draft day 2017, (which is probably in NY, so he'd probably just pack a light lunch)

Y'aint never gonna take Bear Mountain (on Saturday). Who's with me?

has not had his phone since Thursday and probably will not have a new one until Thursday, so if you have called/texted or planned on calling/texting in that time frame, I will probably never get the message. After Thursday, resume not contacting me for your usual reasons

is finally sick of diet coke. So, he'll just have 3 more today, and then no more until the end of the day.

is done slouching to make you feel comfortable around him. Now, he's going to start slouching because he's just too darned lazy to fix his posture.

is thinking about purchasing his first (non-free) iphone application (against his better judgment) because local NY anchorman, Canadian Pat Kiernan, reported the app. is "awesome"

is a Mets fan who actually kind of likes the Yankees. It's the Yankee fans who are the problem... almost on the awful level of Red Sox or Phillies fans.

is thinking he could really use a cut of 3-4 fb friends. He needs those spots for other people. Anyone want to volunteer? It's kind of an honor taking one for the team.

is having trouble finding his way home, he needs a yellow brick road or preferably a golden ticket. Oh and Houston stinks.

wishes everyone a happy passover and/or easter, but only if the sentiment is returned. If not, you can go to hell. Have a great day.

is a song and dance man. He's got the Suzzy hip-hop dance lesson, followed by the Ryan karaoke fest. He's exhausted just thinking about it... so no more thinking.

wishes he could meet himself at age 9 and warn himself about all that's happened to him along the way... like the Brad-Jennifer split, followed by Brangelina, and the plot to the remake of the movie, Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Little Mark would then be so much more prepared

wonders if The Wire's theme song's "keep the devil down in the hole" derives from Boccaccio's The Decameron's "put the devil into hell". Am I overthinking it or is the show a Lost-level TV show? Overthinking it, I'm pretty sure. What do you think America?

thanks everyone for mucking up his otherwise pristine fb wall. But, more importantly, he sincerely thanks his friends, for making it appear as if he has friends

thinks it's time to stop focusing on his own petty problems and time to start focusing on the world's petty problems

lost his voice or as he likes to refer to it, his moneymaker,... so no, ladies, he's sorry, but he cannot shake it for you today

will respond to Duane E. Baum's shout, "MARK ELLIS, WE NEED YOU!" with a whispered, "no" or "maybe later" or "be more specific: who needs me for what?" or "yes"

has had it with initiating conversations. He tried it for over 27 years and he feels like it's time to try something else. Your turn, everyone else.

is taking a break from this site, after facebook-stalking himself for the last week. Feel free to email or call

is wondering... if he threw a party, and invited everyone he knew, what would he see? Who would the biggest gift be from? And what would the attached card say?

thinks if Jack Bauer tortured the Lost Island and threatened its sister Islands, it would reveal all its secrets within 24 hours

should stop punishing himself with cookies and instead start consoling himself with cookies and/or resume rewarding himself with cookies

is laughing at the naysayers who wouldn't hold their breaths at the chances of How We Met Your Mother making the playoffs. Ha, y'all wasted so many breaths

just thought of 4 decent jokes melding the stimulus package and "He's Just Not That Into You," how many have jokes you got?

needs to improve his eating habits if he hopes to live forever

reread his status messages from early last year and is saddened that his dream of becoming the former second president of the United States has yet to come true

is blaming his fever for his latest obsession... and no it's not the macarena, that was his obsession from the 90's and 2004... through 2007

doesn't understand people at all... well, except you. He understands you... and he's not impressed

has finally designed his 137 year plan to take over the world. Now all he needs is patience, rubber bands, and a light blue dry erase marker

dreams of a world where the snooze button lasts an hour, but 7 minutes later, reality frightfully awakens him to this world's ugly truth: snooze is an illusion

is semi-officially running for mayor. Someone's got to take this tyrant down. He fought against soda, trans-fat, sugar, and now SALT? Why does he hate me?!?

doesn't need your validation at all. Right?

is about 48.1% great at math, 51.6% okay at math and 2.342% bad at math. {You're totally thinking... finally, a math status update}

is disappointed that the Oscar nominations are out, and Lost didn't get one nomination

lives by the credo, "Be excellent to each other," attributed to Ted "Theodore" Logan, but actually first stated by Bill S. Preston, Esq. of the Wyld Stallyns

thinks we should find some artificial way to warm the globe, but until people have that kind of power, maybe we could just burn some rainforest to keep us warm

"wonders whether anyone notices when he quotes himself. Maybe he should use some symbols to indicate when he does it."*

wonders whether anyone notices when he quotes himself. Maybe he should use some symbols to indicate when he does it.

is willing to ghost write your status messages (for a fee), but to do that he will have to know more about you and more about ghosts

is always pleasantly surprised when you want to hang out with him, but he's downright shocked whenever you assume he wants to hang out with you

is glad to be playing football again after his extended hiatus to repair his bruised ego. Now he's back to perfection

has reverted to wearing his glasses because the world does not deserve to see the wonder in his eyes... and he likes his new frames

is wishing everyone an incredibly happy new year... except for you. He has never cared for your shenanigans

is disheartened by the Jets season, but would like to thank the choking Mets for preparing him for moments like these {tear}

is picking a cabinet to help him run his life. Sec. of State? Defense? Treasury? Etc. any takers? No pay, but feel free to put it on your resume

is picking a cabinet to help him run his life. Sec. of State? Defense? Treasury? Etc. any takers? No pay, but feel free to put it on your resume

has been wary of snowfall ever since the snow killed his first pet... a goldfish. Who knew the snow + a 30 foot drop/toss would kill it? 2007 taught Mark a lot

likes that N.Y. State is thinning the herd with a tax on non-diet soda, so we'll look like we're in a stereotypical economic depression, not a psychological one

is resolving in this coming new year to... start cussing for real, at appropriate times, and give up on words like: fudge, frack, ship, crud, dang, dagnabit...

should stop rewarding himself with cookies. Instead, he should start punishing himself with cookies

almost rashly ended his relationship with Time Warner last night because she wouldn't fix his cable issues On Demand, but then he remembered the Good Times

was engulfed by an overwhelming sense of doom when (1) Pushing Daisies was cancelled (b) 8 days later, out of office diet coke (3) what terror awaits us next?!?

is extremely disappointed to learn that each tic tac is not less than one calorie, but rather... less than two calories, so he has to start cutting them in half

is trying to develop an addiction to orange flavored tic tacs

finished watching a movie marathon, featuring six time Acadamy Award winner, Kirk Lazarus, and MTV Movie Award "Best Kiss" winner, WALL-E

is going to construct his own political party and name it the Bull-Moose Party because those are his 12th and 27th favorite animals, respectively

finally got to know his neighbors yesterday (after 33 months); he learned their jobs, likes, dislikes, how they live... pretty much everything but their names

thinks you're so vain, I bet you think this status message is about you. Don't you? Well it is, but you're still so vain for thinking it

thinks you're so vain, I bet you think this status message is about you. Don't you? Well it is, but you're still so vain for thinking it

thinks that now that the country is united again, he can resume campaigning for 2020's presidency with the principle theme of reuniting the country

thinks that his two pledged votes for the 2020 presidency is a mandate, so as soon as he takes office, he's implementing his controversial "fig newton" policy

is missing one of his 309 facebook friends and can only hope that whoever it is that left Mark doesn't turn to crack to solve his/her obvious personal problems

is temporarily suspending his 2020 presidential candidacy to support our new president, to unite the country, and to pursue personal stuff (see upcoming stati)

is declaring his candidacy for the 2020 presidential election because at that time, we could use change. As your future pres., he commands you to vote today

knows that to reach that upper level, his mind, body and soul must be one

suspects that you would be impressed with how smart he thinks he is... very impressed

thinks you should trust him, because since you barely know him, he's never lied to you yet

is hoping Hamlet 2 helps him decide who to vote for; the original Hamlet led him to vote for Ross "Pelonious" Perot

is stunned how quickly things change in politics: 2 weeks ago he liked both candidates, now, he's thinking of better ways to show disappointment than not voting

dreamt of the best profile status last night, then all he remembered upon awakening, was the word "carpet" was somehow involved

has finally, after years of trying to convince doctors, been diagnosed with hypochondria... by webmd

needs only eight more gold medals to finally get his eighth gold medal

is hoping that Brett Favre can pull off wearing green

Mark is disappointed that he did not fulfill his dream of becoming former second president of the United States.

Mark is not special in anyway, except that he killed Voldemort a few times.

Mark is recognizing that his "days of not taking you seriously have come to a middle."

Mark is serving his country by answering the call of duty: jury duty. He braves the dangerous element of boredom, so justice may prevail and so he doesn't get fined.

Mark is wondering how many true friends he has, that would donate both kidneys to him, while loaning him money, and cutting the crusts off his sandwiches. Maybe 6 tops.

Mark is one and a half times the man you are, on average. Try looking yourself in the mirror knowing that.

Mark plans on becoming the former second president of the United States.

Mark is bounded in a nutshell. Nevertheless, when he is awake, he still considers himself king of infinite space.

Mark is krumping to some John Tesh.

Mark is avoiding you and your stupid face. Actually, he thinks you're a prize pig and a sharp tool.

For some reason, Facebook erased the first year of my status messages, which included some of my finest states of being. I joined in 2007, and Facebook remembers me from August 2008.
(Also note that the older ones require reading Mark or Mark Ellis before the start of the sentence.)

Twitter:

I was so cold I considered burning body parts to stay warm.

"I can't go out that night. I have to wash my hair," quoting myself.

I asked someone to be my second wheel yesterday- she said no, which is good? Cause I didn't know what it meant anyway (it sounds offensive.)

Working at 30 Rock makes me feel like I'm cheating at foursquare

Can't believe I just walked out of a movie. "Nine" is that bad.

Left in the middle of the movie Nine to tweet this... Yes, that bad.

Today, I finally use my new video-camera (for good instead of evil). Going to record my grandfather's life story... and action

Just saw Avatar, and while I liked the Smurfs, was totally rooting for the humans over the trees and the dinosaurs.

Just figured out who I am. The guy a girl talks too and can't wait to hang out with again... three months from now.

I can't go that night because "I have to return some videotapes."

I can't believe it's not New Year's yet. This year already had a couple of punctuation marks.

I just changed my 15 year plan to include: opening a restaurant: or a diner by a gas station.

1st book I read= Freaky Friday. I was 6+ it took me 6 months to read. Just watched recent movie and I forgot so much- like who's this Lohan.

Cancelled my cable. In the last ten minutes, it has barely affected my life. But, now, I'm living my life ten minutes at a time.

I finally feel healthy enough to rejoin my gym. Now, if I only feel healthy enough to get off my couch, I'm in business.

Happy Hannukah folks. Enjoy the miracle of how 1 day's worth of oil, lasted 8 days, then turn that into a car commercial.

Christmas-time in Rockefeller Center. You know what that means? Germans. Lots and lots of Germans. So, if you like Germans, come on down.

Studies show what women look for most in men: is sense of humor. I have like three senses of humor. I'm living proof- studying doesn't work.

I never know quite how much to panic, so I tend to settle for an average amount.

Thursday. Biggest tease of the week.

Stupidly asked a girl to "hang out"- a date or not a date. This is the question- clarify beforehand or leave it ambiguous? Twitter decide.

Congratulations to you for being such a unique combination of shapes and sounds... and odors.

Happy Thanksgiving. I'm thankful for gratitude, without which I would be mostly unappreciative and probably partially unappreciated.

I think I am more excited about my robo-followers, then my regular followers because they are more powerful and I don't have to impress them

I like to think of myself as "a tall drink of water" even if none of that statement is true.

Stay-at-home weekend made me long to get out of the apartment, Monday is reminding me why to stay home.

I just compared hanging out with me to an awesome chore, like making your bed, but while you are flying.

exhausted after a long night of TV... someone needs a life. Yes, I'm talking about you and all your caring about what I was doing last night

celebs=vampires- my twitter feed is filled with friends and celebs and I want to get rid of the celebs, before I remember I invited them in

Did facebook delete all of my old status messages? I wanted to make a collage out of them and give it to my grandkids.

ME stat of the day: of the last 20 IM conversations I've had: I initiated 15: 4 of the others were requests.

People don't need my meddling, no matter how flavorful it is.

wants to spend more time with himself and is flabbergasted that other people don't want to spend more time with him.

I think, after 10 or so years of existence, it is time to retire my friendster account.

100th tweet. Suck it facebook status messages.

Florida, here I come... in a week or 2

just got my NikeID sneakers, which are not as cool as I anticipated, which is exactly what I expected.

wishes all his Jew friends a happy new year, and wishes all his non-Jew friends, nothing... a happy nothing, but that's still nothing.

I can't believe it's only Wednesday; on the other hand, I can't believe it's already September. Time is the worst.

When'll googletranslate include the language of binary code? Gotta start expressing myself numerically, instead of through song.

First foray into the world of yogurt: Dannon Light & Fit, strawberry tastes like a unique combination of flouride, pepto bismo and pink

1 ME: 3 billion women in the world, and yet I'd still definitely bet against ME

The rain is an excellent way to test the mettle of new clothes. My new ties are not handling the pressure too well.

dropped like a hot potato or more accurately... something else that's not quite so hot... so actually... dropped like a very cold potato.

can't believe Maxim robbed Megan Fox of hottest woman of the year, is Maxim trying to be the 90's NBA and not give Jordan MVP every year?

Weekend's over and countdown to the weekend begins

Can't wait for the weekend... where mistakes belong.

doesn't have time to be sick, but he has all the other requirements.

over 5 years after finishing college and I'm still trying to build my extracurriculars to get into a good college.

I was named the "Susan Boyle" of the wedding. Best insult/compliment/neg I've had in awhile.

didn't drink much this weekend, so for once... the Red Cross did not take blood from him that was 5% alcohol, but it was still 7% chocolate

My casual obsession with twitter is rapidly becoming a fervent disinterest.

is debating the ethics of not following someone who is following you just to maintain a high ratio of followers to following: opinions?

Awkwardness is my defining characteristic, but believe it or not... it's also what makes me better than you. So there! I think.

is wondering whether relationships should have a safe word, like "popcorn", for when things move too fast. Also did if I heard that before?

celebrated Earth Day by finally turning off his faucet before leaving home. Next year, oven? Don't say I never did anything for you earth!

don't really appreciate the twitter term "followers". Makes me feel like I'm in the Cult of Oprah Winfrey or that Andy Samberg is my leader.

says we stretch the 5-day work week to 7 days, but stretch a week to 14 days. This way, we accomplish more each week and add free time.

is going bowling tonight, for the first time in 5 years, except if you count wii bowling. Expect me to bowl either a 60 or a 190.

Spent last night in and out of consciousness starting at 9. Kept waking up in different TV shows like John Ritter in Stay Tuned.

Did you ask me if I held an alligator by the throat today? Why yes I did.

about to pop into New Orleans for a bite to eat. Anyone interested?

just joined twitter in the never-ending pursuit of being cool. This didn't work either, did it?

I started tweeting April 2009.

How about friendster?
About Me:
I am about 5 feet 8 inches tall and built like a rock, a jagged round rock. I have wavy (curly), dark black hair that is beginning to go, and I have penetrating brown eyes that hypnotize me (or so I like to think as I stare into mirrors for twenty minutes at a time).
People tell me I have the looks to be a film star and act in such movies as Planet of the Apes or Planet of the Apes Part 2, probably because of my acting range.

I usually chew things on the left side of my mouth. Then, I sometimes move the food to the right side, so that I feel symmetrical, but I'm not. I like chocolate and ketchup on everything except each other, unless they're in a sandwich. I haven't done a cartwheel since I was ten. I want to own an apartment before owning a house. I've done more stupid things in my life than I would care to admit, but if asked properly, i would admit them. I plan to do three more stupid things.

I worship movies, I adore TV, I like sports, I tolerate books (Sports: the Jets, the football team, not the singing-dancing-finger snapping street gang, the Mets, and the Nets, Rangers when they are good. My favorite athletes of all time are Vince Carter, Michael Chang, Kevin McReynolds, Charles Oakley, and Mark Messier. I care about people and stories much more than I care about teams, which might be why I don't care about college sports at all.)

I spend my days looking over NY and overlooking NY. I've never owned a car, but I've seen many of them.

I would probably kill; correction, by the time you read this, I may have already killed FOR my family. I believe in God, but I never let that affect my day.

Overall, I guess I am pretty typical, probably even a stereotype, Jewish lawyer from a close first generation family, living in my one bedroom shoebox apt. on the upper East side of New York. (Please send all complaints to the address not listed above.)

How much more me may I reveal without squandering my sex appeal?

o Who I Want to Meet:

I would like to meet someone who is not fake at all and laughs at all my jokes, but if my jokes are not funny, she laughs anyway.

This person must also not be averse to holding hands with strangers she meets in an alley and not against wearing cotton T Shirts.

Really, I would like to meet someone with a vision, or multiple visions, like a prophet, but not a prophet because I am easily intimidated.

If possible, I would like this person to have a special power like superstrength, superspeed, or exceptional hearing, so that she would be fun at even the lamest of parties.
To sum up, I would like to meet someone who laughs hysterically, has visions, and hears things.

Is there any normal person out there that fits that description?

But, since I have found from various messages (and therapists) that no one does meet that description, I would settle for old friends, new friends, acquaintances who I don't care for, and strangers who want a piece of this.

Hopefully, you all learned something from this. I didn't.

Best,
Papa Bear

Zeroes Entertainment

2009-12-10T10:59:00.007-05:00

The unnamed decade is coming to an end. (Though technically, this is a multi-named decade: the Zeroes, the Nothings, the Aughts, the Oughts. And technically, the decade ends next year, but for convenience I'll ignore these issues.) Inspired by my buddy melanism, my favorite list blogger, who recently created the decades top 50 TV shows, albums and movies, (and entertainment weekly who makes infuriating lists regularly,) I endeavor to undergo an attempt to try to create my own list of the top TV shows and movies, in order (no music, I just don't know it well enough to judge). So, peruse it or skip it at your leisure.

No more ado.

Movies of the Decade:

1) Gladiator
2) The Matrix
3) Garden State
4) Serenity
5) The Dark Knight
6) Little Miss Sunshine
7) Big Fish
8) Love Actually
9) Juno
10) The Ring
11) Batman Begins
12) Slumdog Millionaire
13) The Girl Next Door
14) Yes Man
15) The 40 Year Old Virgin
16) Spider-Man
17) Lars and the Real Girl
18) (500) Days of Summer
19) Wall-E
20) Win a Date with Tad Hamilton
21) X-Men
22) About a Boy
23) Away We Go
24) American Gangster
25) Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith
26) Superbad
27) The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
28) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
29) Remember the Titans
30) Iron Man
31) Amelie
32) Zoolander
33) Taken
34) Tropic Thunder
35) Definitely Maybe
36) Forgetting Sarah Marshall
37) Hotel Rwanda
38) Old School
39) Watchmen
40) Napoleon Dynamite
41) Saw
42) Moulin Rouge
43) Star Trek
44) Shaun of the Dead
45) Waitress
46) Hamlet 2
47) Memento
48) Adaptation
49) Mr. and Mrs. Smith
50) The Hangover

TV Shows of the Decade: (started this decade)
1) Lost
2) Arrested Development
3) 24
4) The Office (American version)
5) Firefly
6) Scrubs
7) The Wire
8) Glee
9) Pushing Daisies
10) Freaks and Geeks
11) Dexter
12) Mad Men
13) Chuck
14) Friday Night Lights
15) How I Met Your Mother
16) The Big Bang Theory
17) Bones
18) It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
19) House
20) Battlestar Galactica
21) Psych
22) Smallville
23) Pardon the Interruption
24) Modern Family
25) Monk
26) Community
27) Castle
28) Better Off Ted
29) Burn Notice
30) Gossip Girl
31) The Office (UK version)
32) Fringe
33) True Blood
34) Big Love
35) Heroes
36) Flight of the Conchords
37) Dirty Sexy Money
38) Greek
39) My Boys
40) Coupling
41) Eureka
42) 30 Rock
43) The Chapelle Show
44) Jericho
45) Late Night with Craig Ferguson
46) The Colbert Report
47) The Daily Show with Jon StewartReno 911
48) Breaking Bad
49) The Sarah Connor Chronicles
50) Extras

I put a high premium on entertainment... because it's fun. Additionally, a movie (or a TV show) is not good unless it's entertaining, while it can still be good even if it's missing another key component like if it is not intellectually provocative or emotionally evocative. Ideally, it's got all 3. But, at least, it must be entertaining.

I reserve the right to make changes for errors or omissions or because I was totally wrong, but this is pretty much it.

I apologize for those of you who prefer my long-winded rants, but I'm saving my blabbering for another venue and another time.

Yours, etc.
Papa Bear

Home Stories

2009-11-29T14:45:00.008-05:00

Yo,
I've lived in New York all of my life. Sure, I spent 3 1/2 years in Philadelphia, but I was home over the summers and never changed my permanent address away from my city. (You could make an argument that I spent over a year of my life in Spain, but that is scattered through about 7 different summers, so that does not count either.)
Over the course of my 30 years on this planet, I have encountered a few moments in time that captured a spirit of New York that I have grown to loath and appreciate simultaneously. Below are three stories that are unique to NY's melting pot. Two of them are tales of the homeless, but that is because the first tale I tell is from about a month ago and it haunts me still.

1) The Cautionary Tale

Before I get into the story itself, let me tell you a lot about my neighborhood of the past four years, Manhattan's Upper East Side. Once a bastion of blue-blooded wealth and power, it is now a haven for several distinct sectors of society. There are still the Gossip Girl elite who reside in the area, but feel the need to commute to other locales to be "spotted". The neighborhood has diversified by adding a number of projects and a series of frat bars. It's like an episode of The Real World from ten years ago, when it was a social experiment, rather than what it now, a faux drama.

My particular place in the neighborhood is less pronounced and is related to a prominent hospital/medical school in the neighborhood. I have an uncle and aunt who live a half a block from me and are part of this hospital's wide net. When I was finding my place to live was that when I was looking for a place to live, I was crazy busy at work and so I hired a broker to try to find cheap apartments to rent. The broker described the Upper East Side as "the best bang for your buck". Of course, the deciding factor was that my brother was about to be brought into the same hospital area for his new job. With my brother about to move in, close family nearby and the best bang for your buck, I made the easy choice.

1) The Cautionary Tale: Take 2

On my way home from work, I am walking by one of the popular frat bars in my neighborhood and see two people making out. The girl is aggressively pushing the willing man into the glass window. Her face repeatedly lunges at his face and neck. Upon first glance, I couldn't care less, but my interest piques when I see the fascination of the people around the bar. It's like the first time they had ever seen a public display of affection.

So, I started unwittingly rubbernecking to figure out what great mystery was taking place outside the bar. Was one of them a celebrity? Finally, the moment of truth arrives. In one of her breaks for air, I looked at the girl, who was dressed for a night on the town, with a short skirt and she appeared to be under 30 (I'm bad with age). She was neither particularly attractive nor particularly unattractive, so I looked at the guy. I recognized him. No, he's not a celebrity, nor is he a friend. He is one of our neighborhood homeless and yes, he meets the stereotype by sporting fewer than 10 teeth and smelling like a foot sandwich.

Party girl was totally making out with a homeless guy. And those people in the bar gawking at her seemed to know her. Some were even laughing, while others had sheer disgust on their faces. I have no reason to doubt that she was drunk and frankly I kindof assumed she was. But, there you go. That's New York.

Some of you are thinking: hey Papa Bear, why didn't you stop this travesty? I have been known to get involved in the lives of strangers, but two consenting adults can mostly do what they please. And I did consider getting involved, but only for a split second before I took into consideration that she was the person that was all over him. (He was not unwilling, but she was clearly the aggressor.) Would I have done anything if it was the other way around? Honestly, I have no idea and I doubt it, but I did not have to make that decision.

Some of you are thinking: hey Papa Bear, it's classist for you to think this is disgusting (maybe racist too, as they were of different races). Oh, I thought of that too... one of my initial thoughts were, "everybody's got a type". While I don't know much about evaluating the relative attractiveness of men, some women prefer a grungier look. And his style was straight out of Derelicte (Zoolander reference). Maybe I was a little too disturbed by the image, but I thought it was noteworthy and as I mentioned, it continues to weigh on me a month later. Maybe the part that got me was the possibility that this guy who does not groom himself, has no home, makes no effort still does much better with women than I do, or maybe I was just totally totally grossed out. He is homeless, but he might have had a place to stay that night. Hey, it's New York.

2) Subway Business

I figured I would tell you a second homeless person story, just so you get the full gamut of New York life. Again, I was just an observer, but the story struck a chord within me and I hope it does the same for you.

About a year ago, I was riding the subway to get from work to home, which is about a ten minute ride, and a man gets on the train with me. There are many other people on the train, but it is not crowded. The man sprawls out and makes a two person seat his own. I remember wondering whether the man was homeless, given that he was haggard with an unkempt blondish-brown beard and was wearing very ragged military garb. And while his elbows were leaning on his knees, he was poised and he could have just been exhibiting the common symptoms of a long day of hard work... or he could have been hunkering down for the night and establishing his rest stop. (I was standing opposite him, leaning on the subway door, probably because we've been told not to lean on the doors in both English and Spanish and I'm a rebel in both English and Spanish.) For the purposes of the story, I'll call the guy The Vet because of his clothes, not based on any additional information.

At the next stop, another man comes in who is far more haggard than the man sitting down and he quickly establishes his homelessness presence by beginning his routine requesting change (this guy was totally out of it, so his routine was weak.) As the homeless guy was passing, the Vet takes a dollar out of his pocket and puts it into the homeless guy's cup. I vaguely remember the Vet wishing the man luck, but that could be memory's natural hyperbole. This should resolve the question about whether the Vet is homeless, right? As the train pulls into the next station, another man enters the car and he also appears unnaturally weathered by life. This man goes straight into his financial request without any routine. But I will call him The Talker.

Right away, the Talker confronts the Vet and asks him for money. Rather than deny him outright, the Vet explains that he can't give out money because he just gave another homeless man a dollar. The Talker does a quick double take and re-asks the Vet if he could also have a dollar considering the Vet gave the other man a dollar. The Vet responds that he was out of money because he too "works the trains." The Talker becomes intrigued (as do I). The Vet responds to the unasked question, and I'll paraphrase "this morning, a woman opened up her wallet to me and just gave me everything in it. It was $73 and I shared it with whoever asked. Now, I'm out." The Talker befuddled, responds "if it were me, I would keep it." The Vet explains, "I had to share it cause if I didn't, I would use it on my vices."

Let that sink in. "I had to share it cause if I didn't, I would use it on my vices."

The Talker continues to question the Vet, but I could not hear all of their conversation because of the roar of the trains, but I did get to see the Talker display his interest in the Vet's tale by swinging back and forth on a pole; it was more of a sway, then a dance, but it was certainly elaborate.

Then... I heard the following,
The Talker: "where do you stay?"
The Vet: "St. [gargled] Place. The people are good over there."
The Talker: "I'm there too."
The Vet: "You probably know my wife, Margaret, dirty blonde hair..." [Not sure it was Margaret, but it was something like Margaret.]
The Talker interrupts: "Sure I know her, she's so nice."
The Vet: "Yeah, she's friendly. She's actually working this train two cars down."
The Talker is baffled, probably putting the sorted pieces together as quickly as I am, that this guy is giving away his money, while his wife is collecting money, but ignores it.
The Talker: "Cool. I'll say hi to her when I work my way over there."
The Vet: "Yeah, we really have to spread out more because some of these trains are too crowded with us and others lines don't have any of us working."

It was at this point, that I had to leave the train, even though I was riveted by the conversation and fascinated by the social dynamics of the situation. I wanted to stay on or at least give the guy a $20 to see what he would do, but alas I did not. I played my part and I heard the tale and then I moved on affected, but unaltered. I have not seen either of those two guys since then, so I can make lots of assumptions about what happened to them, but I suppose the most logical assumption would be that he took his own advice and spread to a train line with less competition. So, that too is New York.

3) The Villain

My third and final New York tale for the day is a sordid one, and in this story, I am not a fly on the wall, but rather I am the villain. I was about 13 years old and had lived half of my life in Queens and the second half of my life on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. For those of you who don't know, NYC was salvaged by the 90's (I give a lot of credit to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, even if you don't.) By 1993 the Upper West Side (at least the part near me) was part strong growth potential with Central Park and Lincoln Center and part deserted wasteland, which was everything else. But, since then, (and even today,) that portion of the Upper West Side was a place known for Bohemian middle class families who appreciate the finer Bohemian things. And one of the staples of the community is a grocery store that totally fits in with the neighborhood and possibly, (along with the aforementioned landmarks,) helped shape the neighborhood. That place is Fairway.

The prices are much better than those anywhere nearby and the quality of the food is good, but there is something sinister to Fairway. There is an undertone of cut-throated competitiveness. Even walking by the place during peak hours can put a person on edge. It is filled with people who want their high quality low-priced food so badly they would kill for it. Case in point: ME.

3) The Villain: Take 2

So, again, I am 13 years old and it is the first time I entered Fairway in years. I am with an uncle of mine who appreciates Fairway as much as anyone and once he entered the store ran towards the fish counter in the back of the store. I was more tentative. I was an awkward 13 year old and the unnecessary pressure of this atmosphere made me even more timid. So, people were cutting me left and right. I would not be exaggerating if I told you within one minute of being in that wretched haven, 20 people bumped into me hard, with reckless abandon and without remorse.

I tried to avoid people on my way to the back, but that did not work. By the time, I got there, my nerves were totally on edge, but still I tried to find a spot out of harm's way (and out of anyone's way.) There was no such spot. So, people pushed me and pulled me and bumped me, until my uncle was finally at the front of the line reading his rather large order.

I turned around and my turn knocked an old lady down.

The lady looked at me with disgust, but surprisingly nobody else missed a beat. Bystanders stepped over her with supernatural dexterity and unparalleled determination. As the lady worked her way back up to try to cut me in the fish line, (which I was not even on,) only one thought ran through my head...

"And stay down!"

I did not say it, but I definitely thought it. She was spry and was on her feet in no time, before I could fight my way through five inches worth of people to get to her. Obviously she was much more upset about having to wait an extra 30 seconds on line, then the fact that she was knocked down. She lost that battle with me and that pissed her off even more at herself (and me). I, on the other hand, for a moment, remembered that I was not actually in a human jungle and announced to my uncle, "I'll wait outside."

So that's Fairway- the top quality product, but you have to fight tooth and nail for anything, but that's New York.

As an epilogue to that story, my cousin, the son of that uncle wrote a short story for school as if he was the person who knocked the old lady down. I believe his story was more graphic, but mine happened to me. But, it's Fairway and it would not surprise if this sort of thing happened every week or if he just liked the story and used it. But, that's New York too, people take everything from you here.

So, what have we learned from this blog post?
A) I weave myself into all of my stories.
B) NY is filled with homeless people.
C) Segments of the homeless populace live full lives whether it's making out with girls at bars or having a wife and a panhandling business plan.
D) NY can make you cold and unfeeling.
E) NY is very concerned with the state of itself. Philadelphia and Boston have inferiority complexes. They think: "See we are better than NY at [insert something here.]"
But NY does not care about those cities, and instead looks at a mirror and thinks, "I guess I could use a Walmart, but would it make me look fat?"

Alas, I'm probably going to live here for the rest of my life or at least until I move out of here.

Don't get me wrong. I love NY, my parents are here, my grandfather is here, my aunts and uncles and cousins are here, most of my friends are here, my life is here, but I got to get out of this town. If only I could live on a farm (without any of those pesky animals or plants)... in the middle of Manhattan. Despite these tales of woe, the depravity, the vermin, the assorted odors, the lack of space, the over-crowding, the noise pollution, the pollution pollution, the crazies and some really bad things, it's the best goshdarn town in the whole world.

Hope you enjoyed our tour of my homeland,
The Papa Bear (ME)

Image Everything

2009-11-10T14:10:00.015-05:00

About a year ago, I bought my first camera. It was a canon. About 2 months ago, I lost that camera and bought a new camera. It was a canon. I asked the people at the counter at the Best Buy for which product was best, but really, I watch a tremendous amount of TV and I am an advertisers dream. I buy products I've heard of. I buy products I remember - I'd heard of kodak and I know some other companies that make cameras, but don't specialize in them, so I opted for the one whose slogan I remembered from 10 years ago.

Image is everything.

About 4 months ago, I quoted the same slogan in my best man toast at my brother's wedding. Image is everything. As far as I can tell, it worked with my theme, it worked for my brother and it connected with the audience.

Why did I remember this? Because as far as I can tell, Agassi did to Canon what Jordan did to Nike. He took a solid company and by virtue of one celebrity's image transformed it into a dominant company in the industry. He was that powerful a sports figure, even though he only played tennis, not one of the big 4 sports in the United States and not even soccer. Frankly, tennis does not have close to the financial impact that golf does, as suggested by the yearly salaries of Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson. And it does not have the same mass appeal that driving fast does in the United States or abroad. He played tennis.

We all know from his recent retirement that Agassi has done a lot of good important philanthropic work over the past 15 years. We all know that he was married to Brooke Shields and after they got divorced he wed tennis overlord Steffie Graff. We all know that he started off as a "rebel" with incredible tennis skill and then went through a slump, and just when the last of his supporters was beginning to think his career had winded down, he transformed into the hardest working gritty tennis player around and made a legendary resurgence. We all know that he had a storied rivalry with fellow U.S. tennis superstar and his seeming opposite Pete Sampras. But, what we did not know could fill a frighteningly large book.

So, he wrote it. People talk about the drugs and the hair and the depression and the lifts and the tennis-hatred, but they are missing the point... the drugs. Okay, so they are not missing the point. But, to be fair, it kind of all makes sense- mostly. Here's a guy who hates tennis, so he defies it. He keeps hating tennis, so he turns to drugs. He hates the attention, but he coddles it by marrying a star. He is incredibly insecure, so he embraces youth conventions. It does not make total sense, but it's not far-fetched either.

Do I believe it? Absolutely. It's pretty self-incriminating and self-deprecating without being funny at all. The better question is why did he tell it and the better question is what reaction did he expect?

Let's start with the better question. Does Agassi need the money? It's possible that years of living like a rock star on an athlete's salary (which was not a salary and was sizeable plus endorsements) for so many years has left him without funds to amply support his growing family. But, Graff made some loot too. Is it possible that his charitable works, in particular his Vegas school project has tapped him dry? Doubtful, but possible. Is it possible that it is an elaborate ploy to make more money, with which he can contribute to his charities? Yes. But, there had to be an easier way.

So, while the money probably contributed to his decision, the fact that he could have made the same amount of money from going around the country giving speeches, it was probably not the prime mover. There are a myriad of possibilities, but in my head, I have narrowed down my search into three main categories: inspiration, catharsis and vanity.

I'd like to rule out inspiration because while he may have inspired drug addicts, he simultaneously may have lost a tremendous amount of fans who are disillusioned by the drug use. He is no longer the story about what you can achieve if you work hard, his is the story about what you can achieve if you don't care. And even though I will discuss that Agassi had drastically underestimated the impact of his revelations, he is not stupid and he must have understood that the narrative would change. He must have understood that not only would his name be associated with tennis legend, Gen X hero, comeback story, celebrity prince, but he would also be crystal meth user. Parents don't tell your kids the tale of Andre Agassi, it's no Grimm's Fairy Tale, cause this is real and scary. So, while the thought of inspiring young drug addicts probably entered his head, he probably did not write this book primarily for them.

I'd like to rule out catharsis too because he basically made his death bed confessions in the prime of his life while he is seemingly happily married and enjoying his family and his place in the world, but I can't do that. I would have to know more about him or at least read the book to figure out how much of what he did was for his own spiritual gratification. They say the truth shall set you free. And while, sometimes that is more than true, sometimes the truth can get you thrown in jail (by the way, I am not taking a position about whether or not there is a criminal culpability here, despite my legal knowledge because I do not know where he committed these actions and while the statute of limitations surely passed, there are potential tolling based on extra-jurisdictional exceptions (i.e. when you are outside of a state, the clock on the statute of limitations may temporarily stop.) And, I'm not going to make this into a political policy decision about whether we should lighten the criminality of drug-use, which can alternately be characterized as a personal weakness, an addiction, a disease, a symptom of a disease, etc.) Moreover, the truth can imprison others. That is why when a person commits a single marital indiscretion, they are often counseled by their spouse's loved ones not to reveal their error. Agassi was cheating on us... with drugs. Maybe he shouldn't have told us. (I take no position on this issue either.) And while the truth shall set you free, ignorance is bliss.

So again, I can't really speak to how cathartic the experience was for the man, not only sharing his intimate flaws with his loved ones, but sharing it with the whole world. So, I will discount the theory not based on my understanding, but based on convenience because it does not serve my purposes.

So, that only leaves one possibility. Vanity. How can it be vain for a person to confess his insecurities about his baldness, his height, his hard-drug use when his image is at its apex and it will obviously diminish from these stories. Vanity. Agassi has a complex relationship with the media and with his celebrity. He often shuns it, but he often nurtures it. Agassi like many celebrities does not want to be hounded about his daily bowel movements, but nor does he want to be irrelevant or a relic. Ad Agassi is famously good at adapting his celebrity from his choice of partners, to his stylistic flair to his extravagant hairstyles and even to his level of effort on the tennis court. And now, Agassi has adapted.

He adapted from his youth to his adulthood with his change of hairstyle. He adapted from his immaturity to his maturity with his change of wife (no disrespect to Shields, but that marriage from my limited understanding seemed like a bit of a PR stunt). And now, he's adapting from old to new celebrity by moving from the 90's maverick to the 00's reality star. People want to see the foibles of their new celebrities and Agassi is willing be the much maligned Jon or Kate to be relevant. He is willing to be Puck to be important. He is willing to be the vilified Richard Hatch and bare it all to be the celebrity Survivor (how about those dated references). So, Agassi, who was about to settle into a relatively quiet life in Nevada made a comeback... yet again.

Well, this brings us to our second question- what did he expect? Sure, Martina Navratilova's reaction that Agassi is like Clemens is not only bizarre, but also inaccurate. Crystal meth is by my understanding, not a performance enhancing drug like steroids or speed or cocaine. Those drugs allow you to train harder, build muscle mass, or in the case of Lawrence Taylor frighten the adversary into the fetal position. From my understanding, a drug like crystal meth is more along the lines of heroin (from watching Breaking Bad,) which gives you the added ability to pass out while pissing yourself. Not so heroic now, are you Andre? But, now instead of heroism or achievement making you a celebrity, becoming a celebrity makes you a hero and the act of becoming a celebrity is the achievement. Agassi gets it. He was a hero back in the day by defying the man and still winning. Then, he became an adult hero by showing up to work every day, working hard and triumphing over the odds and over the younger crowd. Now, he is becoming the newer kind of hero because he is staying famous and he will soil his name however he has to make it so. But, I digress.

Okay, so he could not have expected people to compare him to Clemens (it's also funny that comparing an athlete to one of the greatest pitchers of all time is an insult). And though she tried to make the issue about lying, lying to a sporting body is hardly a high crime. Moreover, most people tell white lies all the time. It is more than likely that closeted athletes are even until this day lying to the general public about their sexual exploits for fear of the truth's unfortunate reprisals. So, Martina, was it because it was an official response, was it because of the nature of the lie or was it because of something I'm missing. An official response theory makes some sense because when caught we want people to fall on their swords. But, that is not what happens. In fact, in probably near half the criminal cases in the country, people begin by pleading not guilty, then if they are placed into a tight corner, they change their plea. That is not what happened here. Here, he pled not guilty, he was exonerated and then he confessed (possibly out of feeling guilty or remorse (unless it was out of gloating, but that does not seem to be the case)). While, it is not as honorable as never having committed the crime and not even as honorable as falling on his sword (which would probably have resulted in a suspension, a slap on the wrist and/or rehab/testing out of concern for Agassi's well being), it is more honorable than getting away with it (and not feeling remorse) or changing your story when you have no choice. However you feel about it, he could have handled it in a worse way, so he's not evil for his lying. As discussed above, the nature of the lie was about a drug that was harmful to himself and not particularly harmful to others (unless you consider the wider effects of drugs in our culture) and did not help him in tennis. So, I must be missing something.

But, what about Federer or Nadal or Safin? Could he have expected that there would be calls that he should give back his money and his titles? Yes. He didn't, but he should have considered a legitimate possibility. These are intensely competitive people in a field where Agassi was glorified for almost everything he did. They are trying to protect the integrity of a sport that is dogged by shocking scandals and a filthy lint-filled, puss-infected underbelly, which most casual fans remain blissfully ignorant of (including throwing games, gambling, mafia involvement to say the least.) Tennis is like the boxing of sports (that did not come out right.) Sure, they are overreacting, but it's not unexpected that some people would overreact.

What is more surprising is Agassi's rebuttal, which Katie Couric's softball questions laid bare. It's unclear whether it was Agassi's expectation or his hope, but Agassi asked for compassion. That's not how compassion works. It's not delivered upon request. If he had fallen on his sword in full remorse, there would have been a large group of people who leant out their hands. Instead, he kept stressing that it was a "recreational drug" like it's a drug you might use while playing tennis. He said, have compassion for me cause I had problems. He wanted sympathy. He wanted the world to feel sorry for him. I understand, Andre, you had a rough childhood, you worked really hard, you hated your job and you were in an unhappy marriage. We all get it. Most people have some if not all of these problems and still most people avoid crystal meth. People make mistakes and other people are more than willing to forgive those mistakes, but don't ask me for compassion. You're akin to the homeless guy that asks you for money and tries to make you feel bad that you didn't give it. It's my compassion and I get to dole it out as I please. I worked hard for this compassion.

But, the truth is, the guy was my brother's idol growing up and while I was a Michael Chang man in tennis (and preferred Pete Sampras,) my brother's adoration had a profound impact on me. I admired his life change ten years ago and I now acknowledge that his change is all the greater in that he also secretly gave up drugs to make his first comeback. And this is hard for me to say because I'm incredibly self-righteous and judgmental, (just ask anyone that knows me,) I also acknowledge that I'm incredibly flawed and make countless mistakes for which I could use forgiveness, so I am in no position to judge. Thus, while I might not give Agassi all the compassion he is looking for, I do give him some spare compassion.

After all, he is the one that brought me and my camera together. And in the last year or so, I have taken something like 3000 pictures, so that I can document my own life and my own faults. And I put my life on facebook and blogs without a thousandth of the candidness that Agassi probably did. But, to be fair, I'm heeding Agassi's immortal advice and I'm crafting my own image. So, thank you Andre Agassi and for what it's worth, I don't think they should strip you of your winnings or your titles, but I do think this has done a substantial amount to strip you of your dignity. And from what I gathered so far, this book is really another unbelievable return.

Don't call it a comeback,
The Papa Bear

ME Unlisted

2009-08-12T13:30:00.011-04:00

Dear Sir or Madam,

Since the year is about to end and I am reserving my creativity for another time, rather than write entirely new entries, I am editing and reformatting some interesting things that I have never posted on my blog, but clearly belong on my blog (because they have nowhere else to go.)

A few months ago, when prompted by facebook friends' notes, I created a list of 25 things, which I aired exclusively on facebook. The first draft of this list was much more detailed than the final product, which was heavily edited/butchered because the list was meant to be a quick pithy project and not a diatribe. I remember thinking to myself that I should publish the longer list on my blog... but I was not employing my blog at that time, so I air the longer version of the list in its entirety (and below that, find the facebook list of 25 things as it was originally published.) Truthfully, given the depth and sometimes disjointed nature of each "thing," it's actually more like a 100 things about me, which would copy my buddy melanism's personal lists. Instead, I've cleverly disguised, combined and manipulated my list to "narrow it down" to 25 things.

To those of you who read my posted list, this might give you added incite into me, not just into these particular facts, but also how I chose what to remove.

So, first, you will see my way too long version of 25 things about me, then you will see the facebook list.

Take 1: Full Version (for facebook version- see below)

1. I love lists. I make lists out of everything I can, even lists that don't make sense, possibly because lists give me a false sense of organization and control in this chaotic world or probably because I really like counting.

2. My family means the world to me. I know everyone has problems with their family, but I tend to identify more with people who pride themselves on their families rather than their jobs or even their friends.

3. I never stop thinking. I can't shut my brain off, so I have some serious problems sleeping and am almost always tired. But because of the thinking and the time, I am generally prepared or at least not surprised by most outcomes as I've usually considered that particular scenario. Thus, when people think I'm sharp or quick or clever, it's not true, I actually just deduced in advance what you were going to say and was totally prepared for it. In other words, I'm not clever, you're just predictable.

4. I am not as normal as some people think I am, but I'm not half as weird or crazy as other people think. Basically, every one of you is wrong about me; and I'm right. Is that the definition of crazy; or is it the sign of genius? I would say, neither, but I know me better than you know me, which I guess makes me pretty normal.

5. I used to not like talking about myself, which created some problems when I was in therapy during college, but as you can see, now I can go on and on about me and how great I am.

6. I am great. I have doubts about this one, but I've thought about it a lot. I care about people, I make efforts to at least try to do the right thing, to be there when it's important and I almost never lose my temper. When motivated I have a fierce will power (though I'm almost never motivated). I have an above-average intelligence that sparks brightly from time to time. When I care about something, I devote myself entirely to it. Also, I can be awfully funny.

7. I am awful. I flake out on my friends all the time. I'm self-conscious about my appearance and about my impact on the world. I should work harder at all the things I don't care about. I forget names all the time. I have a terrible sense of time and direction. I never know where I was, the name of the place, the location, or when I was there. I'm messy. I can't multitask. I usually know what the best thing to do is, but I often avoid doing it anyway and make things harder on myself.

8. I cry regularly during movies, but just about never in real life. In a related matter, I love movies and TV. I'm not a huge music or art fan, and I rarely like anything live or reality-based.

9. I'm a sports fan, but I'm not a huge sports fan. I tend to root for certain players and I like a couple of teams, but I only occasionally like watching sports. Mainly, I watched sports when I was younger to identify with my father and brother and now, I watch football on Sundays because I get to watch it with my grandfather, so I became a fan artificially, rather than naturally. I don't like college sports or as I call them, little league.

10. I like playing sports. I like competing. I don't care too much about winning, but I hate losing. So, generally, if I win, you'll see me pretty stoic or moving on to the next thing, but if I lose, you'll see me sulking for awhile.

11. I ran track in high school. I was pretty fast and would win all the races in my gym classes, but on the track team, the coach (who was fired shortly after I left) made me run distance because of his penchant for seniority (and I'm short). Since I was never good at running long distances, I disliked it and dropped it relatively quickly. I'm still quicker than I look, but I am older and weigh a lot more than I did then, so... not so fast. For some reason, I'm still quite strong even though I don't go to the gym, but I guess it's genetic as both my parents are extremely athletic.

12. For work, I wear suits and ties, but outside of work, I used to subconsciously dress like Superman (blue and red shirts), but now I consciously dress like Superman.

13. I'm scared of everything: loud noises... things coming at me quickly... being rejected... being accepted... change... things staying the same... so, really, this should have gone in the section about how great I am, in that I overcome all of these things and I'm still somewhat functional.

14. I am awkward. If I have a superpower, this is it. Physically, I am sometimes awkward, my sentence structures are awkward and overly verbose, but most importantly, if I try, (and sometimes even without trying,) I can make just about anyone feel awkward without doing much at all. Seriously, I'm capable of projecting awkwardness. I have come to think about it as a plus, even though most people don't see it that way.

15. Socializing is work for me... sometimes dreadful tedious work. Sometimes, I have fun, but I almost never look forward to it. After seeing Yes Man, a movie that made my form of existence seem rather pathetic, I have been making more of an effort to be socially active. Effort helps.

16. I used to fight a lot when I was little (and generally I'd win, in fact I don't remember ever losing, but that's probably repression because I hate losing). When I was 14, I went through a pacifist phase (which was after my mafia phase) and didn't see the point of fighting. I fought only once since then, if you could call it a fight; in college, I was drunk and some other drunk guy was hassling a summer housemate; he threw a punch, then I threw one and decked him. After 5 seconds, I helped him up, and the three of us went to a party and got some beers. {I'm not counting the couple of times here and there, where I was involved in some good natured competitive wrestling or great natured, hall brawls.}

17. Aside from the therapy, I think what helped me open up most was starting a blog. Even though nobody reads it, it's cathartic to know something I created is out there, open to anyone who is willing to look for it. It was even a good fun blog at first, before I got bogged down in Lost.

18. I can rarely tell when I'm joking, when I'm being serious or when I'm flat out lying. Though, I rarely lie about anything, I joke about things all the time. I tend to think random is funny and self-depricating is funny. I'm pretty self-indulgent and self-centered and self-righteous, so it works out for me.

19. I love politics. I like lecturing about it, I like arguing about it, I like listening to it and I like thinking about it. If I wasn't afraid of losing, I might run for office. Though, members of my party don't generally win NYC elections. {I'm a Republican, not the bible thumping kind, but the tax-lowering, war-mongering kind.} But, I genuinely believe that just about everyone has valid thoughtful reasons for believing what they believe and, so I like active, live healthy discussions, and detest smear tactics.

20. I take everything personally. It might be too sensitive of me, but I have developed a pretty thick skin about it, so now, whether someone specifically is trying to be mean to me, which rarely happens, or whether someone is "unintentionally" mean or neglectful of me, I take it as an insult, but try to find some rationalization or justification for why I would deserve it, and then I try to brush it off either way.

21. I'm a huge fan of kids and I have no idea if I'd be half as good of a parent as mine are, but I think I'd be an excellent grandfather.

22. 22 is my favorite number. Some other favorites include- ice cream: vanilla, color: black, meal: Hunan Park's Kung Pao Chicken, movie: American Beauty, book (play): Romeo and Juliet, sport: football (though I follow basketball), dance: the Robot, song: varies depending on mood, but huge fan of "Man in the Mirror", painter: Chagall, TV show: current is Lost, all time it would be Seinfeld, Lost or Arrested Development; favorite country: USA, favorite city: NYC. I hate a few things like the Nazis, the beach and dental floss, but I have a special and unique hatred in my heart for vinegar.

23. I go through phases: most notably, at the end of college, I spent over a year sober just to prove to myself that I could (actually just about 18 months). In middle school, I ran a fake mafia (that earned me a lot of money by selling overpriced contraband, things my strict school would not allow like candy, soda, etc., complete with buyers, sellers, collection thugs, loans and even mechanisms for laundering the money through a shelter tutoring business), I've also spent weeks in high school where I emulated The Professional tending to a plant (that part lasted only a week) and drinking glasses of milk... a year when I ate pizza every single school day, a month as a vegetarian, a month without caffeine (that was hard) a month without IM, 5 years without medication of any kind, 5 days without sleep in college, 7 days without food in college. Other noteworthy things about me along the same vein: I have never taken any form of illegal drugs or even smoked a cigarette. I've smoked less than 10 cigars, but I don't care for them, and I've thought about having a pipe, but mainly for show.

24. I spend way more time thinking about good and evil and God and religion, philosophy and science, our place in the universe and my place in the world, then, I would care to admit, but I'm willing to admit it as generally as this.

25. I have great difficulty finishing things... like the novel, I started writing in law school, got halfway through and then bailed on (maybe it's because I've never owned a car... until this year, at the age of 29, when I kindof got my brother's hand-me-down car, then I temporarily owned a car.) But, I finished this list.

Take 2: Below are my facebook answers for anyone who cares to see the butchered/edited version of the above 25.

1. I like lists.
2. I'm a family-oriented person.
3. I think about stuff all the time, at the expense of sleep.
4. I'm in between normal and weird.
5. I used to feel uncomfortable talking about myself.
6. I have positive qualities like the fact that I just about never lose my temper.
7. I have negative qualities like I can't multitask.
8. I cry in movies.
9. I like sports, but not that much.
10. I like competing, hate losing, but don't care about winning (tying is losing).
11. I ran track in high school, but if we held try-outs today, I wouldn't make the team.
12. I knowingly dress in Superman colors.
13. I'm scared of lots of mundane things.
14. My superpower is awkwardness. I can project it onto others.
15. I much prefer staying in to going out. Going out is hard work for me.
16. I used to fight a lot when I was a kid.
17. My blog helped me.
18. I'm an entertainer of the bored, if they have time.
19. I care about politics.
20. I take everything personally.
21. I might make an excellent grandfather.
22. is my favorite number. I have a few other favorites things. I hate vinegar.
23. I test myself from time to time.
24. I think about big issues much more than I talk about them.
25. I have trouble finishing things, including a half of a novel I wrote in law school.

STET(ish)

I edited them both a tiny bit to make them up to date, but kept most of the mistakes as they were.

Thank you for reading, your welcome for caring,
Papa Bear (ME)

Blog Two

2009-07-10T10:59:00.010-04:00

BEHOLD!

I present you with the same old blog. Yet, I feel the need to relaunch the site and revive it with a familiar attitude, but mostly new-sounding invigorating old-school words like "behold" and the alternate title to this entry, "Blog Two: The Revenge". Why? Because after a year without blogging, I missed you. You who? You, the invisible masses that read my blog? I don't kid myself... consciously. Well, I'm not delusional, thinking that there are hoards of people out there reading this masterfully-crafted trash. I guess I just miss the opportunity to talk to myself. (See, I told you, I'm not delusional.) So, really, I missed myself, and you are irrelevant to this particular equation. But, think about it. Who could blame me? In my unbiased opinion, I'm somewhat more awesome than you are. And, if you're not convinced, you are reading my work, so you are in my world with my rules and you ought to trust me.

So, you might be new here, but I, on the other hand, am one year older. I am one year older than when you last left me, and a lot has happened to me in the past year, which you can discover in my upcoming blog entry to be entitled Yes Man. But, before I delve into my yearly activities, I wanted to post one blog entry to remind you ("me") of why you ("I") loved me (still "me" this time) and why you should continue to love me. I wanted to earn your trust again. I wanted to be great again. In short, you ("I") make me (“me”) want to be a better man. (One more and then I'll stop: You ("I") complete me.)

So, yes, I'm still snarky and smarmy. Yes, I still like word play and making up words. Yes, I still crack stupid (dry-witted) jokes at the invisible, often non-existent reader's expense, which are actually usually intended as loosely veiled backhanded self-compliments/insults (“self-negs”). Yes, I will still throw in some serious content, so I feel socially significant. I will also continue my pop-culture references, usually regarding a movie, a sporting event or a TV episode I've seen recently (and it's always safe to assume that I've seen an episode of "Lost" recently.) Yes, I'll still lavish false praise on myself. Yes, I'll still hyperbolically denigrate myself. Yes, I still won't mean either my self-aggrandizement or my self-deprecation. But, I'm still a law-man at the same firm, plugging away to the best of my ability. Yes, I'm still a hairy balding Jewish NYer that has a great deal of fatty-muscle. Yes, I still prize my family above all else. Yes, I still live in the same hallway-shaped, hallway-sized one-bedroom apartment that reminds me of something hallway-sh... probably a hallway. I'm still a hapless, clueless romantic single. Still dreadfully addicted to diet coke. Still secretly laugh at all my own jokes. Still openly willing to laugh at yours, should you ever say anything funny. Still spend sleepless nights pining over sleepful ones. And yes, I too still have got love for the streets.

So, what's new with the blog? Well, this time, it will have a lot of the same stuff, my thoughts, feelings, analyses, jokes, musings, concerns in the forms of reviews, stories, anecdotes, antidotes, tales, legends, notes, stream-of-consciousness non-sense, but this time... it might actually have have fake interviews with real celebrities or real or fake answers to your real or fake problems and emails. But in essence, it is the mental projection of my digital self, so it will only go as far as I can take it. But, in this blog, I am five inches taller than I am in real life, just like an actor or a basketball player, and I can work miracles with those five inches.

So, what can I add to this new blog? Well, aside from being one year wiser and three years more devilishly handsome, I'm also one year more experienced in the ways of the world, so I can nurture and provide for the blog, in ways that the younger me would not even fathom. What an idiot that guy was.
That guy predicted the wrong outcome in the Oscars (best actor), TV shows (ending of the Lost season), sports titles (bball championships), gave you bad life advice (go swimming on a full stomach), he left you hanging(he asked you to wait on-line and he never came back) and was just generally a misguided individual. As your unofficial blog of 2009, I can promise you, nay, I can guarantee you that I will henceforth get all of my predictions precisely accurate and... my devoted viewer, I will never lie to you again. And most importantly, I will never leave you again... until later today. And even if nothing I say is true or accurate or real or relevant or meaningful, know this, have faith in this one truth... I am here now.

So, with these few words, I beg you to take me back. Accept me for who I am, a filthy liar without any hope of reform, a foolishly horrible prognosticator of this predictable world, a shameless proselytizer of my own demented agenda and a human man with no discernible flaws. Sometimes my verbal grace seems heavenly or even ethereal, my knowledge base feels robotically and relentlessly mechanical, my writing style sounds primal and animalistically natural, my syntax looks otherworldly in its originality... but yes, I'm just a flawed man-boy, sent here with a higher calling... to please you... lingually.

In the one-year-interim, I wrote some political pieces about Obama-McCain that will never be relevant again (or ever seen at all) until I magically recycle it into something valuable. I almost started blogging again about Lost when I thought of an interesting religion/philosophy angle I should have exploited. I wanted to write an entry about Michael Jackson and how "Man in the Mirror" deeply affected my life when I finally paid attention to the lyrics for the first time (three years ago), but I'm opting against it. Ultimately, I've been busier socially, then I was last year and since I won't blog at work, and I still have my home routines, I am somewhat reluctant to get back into blogging on any steady basis. But, I am here now.

Essentially, when I'm here and writing, be here. Because I can make my words dance and make your mind sing my thoughts. And the least you can do for me, is give the site one hit... per hour... everyday... for the rest of your preter-naturally long life. I will try to update this blog from time to time, but if I don’t, baby, it’s not because I don’t care about you. It’s just because I care about something else more. Wait… that didn’t come out right. All I really mean is: I'm reaching through the wireless connections of the Internet and firmly grabbing a hold of a few moments of your time, but my meaningful/less and notably harmless rants are mere attempts to entertain myself and by extension, the person I care about most… you.

Yours always,
Mark "Papa Bear" Ellis

P.S. I encourage comments because I am self-indulgent and self-centered, but selflessly so.

P.P.S. If you would like to get a taste of my delicious blog, I recommend you start with "First Blog" (which is chronologically first from roughly October 2007ish) and follow it up by choosing a topic that interests you. Sometimes the post will be intended to be whimsical like this one, while other times, it may be satirical or emotionally evocative or intellectually provocative, but you'll get the idea and you'll judge it accordingly.
And may G-d bless all of you jerks.

Dark Knighted

2008-07-15T17:36:00.006-04:00

Hello beautiful,

Those of you who know me can be quite certain, that when I tell you that I started writing this piece well before I saw the movie the Dark Knight, that I did indeed start writing it then (today is Tuesday, July 15, 2008). Having seen a few clips of the movie, some trailers, some TV spots, and an HBO special, I am convinced that I know the plot, and have seen sufficient amounts of acting and directing to make categorical judgments on all of the film maker's choices. I was right (or wrong. Actually I'm writing this paragraph on Tuesday evening before I'm supposed to watch the film this coming Friday). Eat my shorts Lost; watch me play games with time in real life. I will supplement my work with additional information because I intend this to be an actual review.

I will limit the spoilers to the parts of the movie that are available in the trailers, previews, and TV spots, which are numerous.

Let me start with the best part of the movie. Ledger's Joker is exactly the maniac he is supposed to be. Perfect. If I were giving out Oscars, I'd give him one for best supporting actor and if possible best actor (as well). In his masterful portrayal, he allows his character's free spirit to maniacally control his body, his faculties, and his mannerisms. And when Ledger was in the war paint clown make-up, he simply seemed at home. A common theme in superhero movies is: which is the real personality and which is the disguise: who is the superhero really? Batman asked the question in Batman Begins and expounded upon it further in the Dark Knight. But, for a super villain, and for the Joker in particular, there can be no question. He essentially has no identity other than the one in decaying clown make-up. He looked like and probably smelled like a rotten egg and his facial ticks are reminiscent of hungry lizard.

The schizophrenic acting was perfect, stressing different intonations, varying his cadence, laying out several minimally different accents in one continuous chord, and manipulating the pitch and volume of his voice as if each sentence were relaying a carnival of emotions. Speaking of emotions, the Joker would jump from a jokester to a sad clown, to the monster from It all within one sentence. Watch him tell a random party-goer that he reminds him of his father.

Unfortunately for Jack Nicholson, his Joker has to be compared to this great performance, much in the same way that Steven Weber has to be compared to Nicholson's Shining character. It's not to say Nicholson did a bad job. He was silly, he was cooky, he was wild, he was angry, and he was whiny, just like he is at every Lakers game. Burton's adaptation, which was beautiful in its own right mixes Caesar Romero's prankster with a classic mafia don who has no compunction about killing. Of course, Jack, being Jack, he made it a bit more gritty, and Burton being Burton, he gave the joker some artistry. But, essentially, Nicholson was just Jack Nicholson with some neat paint on his face who occasionally did a dance to pretend he was still spry and agile, which he wasn't.

But, then came The Joker in Heath Ledger. It was a veritable clinic of mania. And that is the perfect joker for our time. His voice and mannerisms would vary from Daniel Plainview's megalomaniac, to Hannibal Lecter's snooty carnivore, to orange Alex's violent sexual predator, to Jack Torrance's unbridled fury, to Agent Stansfield's explosive professionalism, and of course, he mixed in some 70's mafia dons to even it all out. And as a result, we get a character who does not want to rule the world, but who wants to utterly deface it and revel in its destruction. He's introduced to us as a serial mass murderer, a serial killer who kills many people each outing just for the joy of bringing terror to the world. (I was having a reasoned and logical debate about what constitutes the greatest form of evil, about whether Lex Luthor from the most recent incantations of Superman, an uber-powerful man, who thinks at least in part, what he is doing good, warding off an alien superhuman, but is really doing a bad thing is worse than the Joker, who presumably knows what he is doing is wrong. You got lots of evil tyrants on the Lex Luthor side and then a bunch of Charles Manson types on the other. Practically, Lex Luthor is more dangerous because his greed, ambition, and subtlety allow him to do more damage in our world, but theoretically, one joker who could achieve Luthor type power could end the world.)

So, under what circumstances can such a person take over, even a crime syndicate, in an organizational capacity? Well, if there are a lot of unemployed criminals looking for a boss, they might just turn to someone they don't understand. On what planet would they follow a guy who was not only crazy, but also wearing face make up? If they are terrified by a guy dressed as a bat, perhaps they could be soothed by a guy dressed as a clown. Sun Tzu makes it very clear; never push your enemy in a corner because when desperate, they are particularly deadly. Even when you win in those situations, it will often be a pyrrhic victory.

(As I was watching this movie, I didn't once remember that this actor, totally immersed in the role was no longer with us. I don't care what James McAvoy says, if you're a great actor, or probably even a good actor, you could take all the commercialization, all of the paparazzi attention, and all the late night wise-cracks, and make people forget that celebrity for the entirety of a movie. McAvoy is famed for vocally refusing to take spots in advertisements because movie goers would not be able differentiate his selling image from his characters. I have an idea that will resolve this for McAvoy... act. Act differently in Wanted than you did in Atonement or Last King of Scotland or Penelope. Or maybe, take that one facial expression of being overwhelmed by a stronger character, and try putting it into being overwhelmed by the sheer power of an Audi or a Prius or whatever foreign-Hollywood douchebags drive.)

But, back to the movie, the post-Joker Gotham was the darkest setting I've seen since Sin City, which was the most atrociously shocking urban sprawl I have ever had the revolting privilege of viewing. Gotham-Chicago, works less well than Gotham-NY, but is still very strongly up to the task.

My favorite part of analyzing The Joker in this movie is trying to characterize his type of criminal activity and villainy. Is he a terrorist? Certainly, he is blowing up people and buildings for a political message of anarchy and opposition to the Batman. Is he a mobster? He sure is, given that he controls the mob and gets them all kinds of money. Is he a serial killer? I would say yes (see above). An assassin? That's kind of his thing. Spree killer? Watch the movie. Arsonist? Sure. Armed robber? Of course. Kidnapper? No question. Turf gangster? No doubt. Pirate? Watch him try to get into an armored car at high speeds. Torturer? Tyrant? Sexual predator? Maybe not, but his intro to Rachel Dawes character certainly ranks among his creepier moments. You name a kind of villainy and this guy seems up to the task.

The Batman has to contend with this, and as we have found out from the Beginning and even more in this film, the Batman is extremely logical, an unmatched adept fighter, with seemingly infinite financial resources and thus access to countless gadgets and information. And, as we know from the commercials and previews, the Batman will have to make a judgment about how evil he must become to rid the world of this potentially ultimate evil. Further, he must determine how many bad things he can do before he himself is not a good person anymore. Theatrics and deception? What about straight up lying, what about bringing about escalation of violence, what about scaring innocent people, what about hurting bad people, what about killing evil people, what about...? Well, you get it. And his answer to that is Harvey Dent, the clean cut prosecutor who uses the laws in the slightly reformed and improved Gotham judicial system to begin punishing the crime lords.

Bale brings a similar intensity to this role that he did in the first, and though his competition outshines him, there is nothing wrong with that. Eckhart is truly excellent in his role as he transforms from a person the viewer and the public believes in to the person the viewer half understands. The others are quite good as well. I was bothered a bit that Katie Holmes (who was notably weak) was simply replaced by the Secretary, but it didn't ruin much for me.

The beginning of the movie is a bit choppy and chaotic as Nolan and his brother try desperately to tell us where we are now, but the plot and the story are otherwise crisp. The dialogue varies from good to great, and almost every one of the soliloquies is valuable, informative, and entertaining. Some of the action was downright spectacular and some of the comedic moments will fill you with tense laughter.

I talked about the Joker more than I should have, but he embodies this most excellent movie. I'm not a big Batman person, so the fact that I think this was one of the best performances I have ever seen is noteworthy. I avoided tour de force or electric or brilliant or genius because they are either over used not the proper word for his performance. But, I recommend the movie to all movie goers as a movie event whether you like Batman, comics, super natural, action, horror, or whatever. See the movie and make your own judgment.

As for the Joker, who I haven't discussed enough: he is a man of simple tastes, but is he a planner? Are the extent of his plans just disruption? His tactics seem genius and lucky, and his strategies are confusing with or without the whole picture. Is he a performance artist setting Gotham as his stage, is he making a socio-economic-political statement, is he trying to capitalize on a vacuum at the higher levels of power, is he making a religious/philosophical insights into the hearts and minds of mankind, or is he just having sadistic and masochistic fun competing against the Batman for sport? It's likely that there are elements of all of these things, but it's also likely that on the first viewing, you will only notice 1 or 2 of them because you will be enraptured by the sparkling brilliance of his cracked shell. What was Nolan thinking when he unleashed Ledger on this extraordinarily well written role? Well, we don't know for sure, but we can only guess that it was all part of the plan.

Sleep well,
Papa Bear

Post Script: I wrote about half the review before seeing the movie, changing two major errors, but refusing to change typographical errors or opinions. I took out one paragraph because my guess was too close to being right. But, the rest was written subsequently. I interspersed today's paragraphs with last Tuesdays to make it more fun for me. Feel free to guess which paragraphs were written before and which were written after. It makes the entry a bit chaotic, but that seems apt given the subject matter.

Mark's Oscars

2008-07-11T18:13:00.006-04:00

Hello reader,

In response to my buddy at http://www.melanism.com blog's challenge to his readers, I have pain-stakingly gone through wikipedia's list of movies every year since the year of my birth, 1980 and used several of my fingers to type out my favorite movie from each year. This is a very frustrating process that takes longer than you might expect, except, if you're like me, and strangely have a favorite movie every goshdarn year. There are a few notable exceptions: Lean on Me couldn't edge out Say Anything in the 80's; Mumford had no chance against American Beauty in the 90's, and nobody this year, not Wall-E's beautifully simple romance or the forceful fun of Iron Man holds a candle to a movie I am going to see within one week.

Additionally, if you want to know my evaluation process and methodolgy: I grade movies based upon 1) entertainment value (whether it's fun to watch or funny), 2) emotional evocativeness (whether the movie connected with me on a personal visceral level or inspired me/got me bawling), 3) intellectual provocativity (whether the movie was thoughtfully prepared or the movie left me pondering/not wondering).

I take into account the plot, the story, the dialogue, the acting, the chemistry, the audio-visual splendor, the directing, and probably a few more things (and mostly in that order). For the purposes of this list, I evaluated how much I appreciated the movie at the first time I saw it, how rewatchable it was over time, and how much I appreciate the movie now. But, mainly, there is a strong emphasis on now.

Then, after evaluating all of those things in depth, I toss them out the window and just make decisions.

You'll notice that very few of these movies correspond with Oscar winners; though, I'm more surprised that some of them do, which proves that even the Oscars get it right some years. To be fair to all of the movies I listed below, I'm totally ashamed for listing every one of them for reasons varying from their sentimentality, their silliness, their cliched-ness, or their utter lack of realism, and yet simultaneously I'm unabashedly proud (except for the aforementioned shame) of these choices as well because these are movies, and there is no such thing as a real movie, or a truly original movie that is not overly sentimental or silly. They are movies, and even accurately depicted unedited documentaries are never wholly precise. The movies below as well as movies in general are simple in their complexity and that is what makes them awesome. So, deal with it.

Incidentally, melanism also has a list of favorite albums by year as well, but I don't know enough about music to make informed decisions.

Let's see... is there any other way to stall and buy me more time to think over my list? I guess not.

So...

Here goes...

I guess...

Mark's Favorite Movies By Year: Starting in 1980

1980- Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
1981- Superman II
1982- Gandhi
1983- Trading Places
1984- The Terminator
1985- Rocky 4
1986- Ferris Bueller's Day Off
1987- Evil Dead 2
1988- Die Hard
1989- Say Anything
1990- Edward Scissorhands
1991- Silence of the Lambs
1992- Bram Stoker's Dracula
1993- The Fugitive
1994- Ace Ventura: Pet Detective*
1995- Tommy Boy*
1996- Independence Day
1997- L.A. Confidential
1998- The Zero Effect
1999- American Beauty
2000- Gladiator
2001- Amelie
2002- About a Boy
2003- Big Fish
2004- Garden State
2005- Serenity
2006- Little Miss Sunshine
2007- Juno
2008- Dark Knight (as long as it doesn't suck)

It's a fun activity. But, clear a little time.
What's your list America? And, feel free to chime in, rest of the world.

Great big hug,
-The Papa Bear

* I made an error on the years and had to make a correction: I reluctantly erased Forrest Gump from my list, because I found out that possibly my favorite comedy of all time was actually a 1994 release (and not 1995). Also, I missed that Garden State was released in 2004, so I replaced Win a Date with Tad Hamilton. On the plus side, I was able to insert the most excellent Tommy Boy into the list. Enjoy.

Home Stretch

2008-05-30T16:52:00.004-04:00

Dear Lost-fans,

this past Thursday, the final episode of Lost's 4th season aired, and it will probably be at least 6 months before I delve deeply into the topic again. So, I now present you with my final Lost blog of the season and as always,

SPOILER ALERT if you have not yet watched the entirety of the 4th season.

"So?"

Overall, it was a solid set of episodes, but, largely because of the unmatched excitement of last season's finale, I felt unfulfilled by the conclusions drawn out by the Lost folk.

Let's start with the thing that upset me most (and I will get to the things I appreciated as I move forward).

The lie...
Jack is utterly convinced, in part by Locke, in part by delusion, and in part by confusion, that lying is the right thing to do. But, as a viewer, I'm not that convinced. After, having extensive brainstorm sessions, I have concluded that it is feasible for Jack and the other five to believe that lying would protect those left on the island, but not the logical conclusion.

Why? Here are the facts
1) Charles Widmore knows about the Island's existence.
2) The Oceanic 6 do not know where the Island is.
3) No one who has the actual motivation of rescuing the Islanders knows about the existence of the Island.
4) Those potential rescuers have almost no chance of finding the Island and saving the Islanders.
5) Those potential rescuers would possibly have a slightly higher chance of finding the Islanders if they suspected they were alive and resumed searching.
6) Widmore is actively searching for the Island, and has some chance of finding the Island and potentially killing the Islanders.
7) With no rescuers searching for the Island and only additional Keamy's, doesn't that leave only two possibilities for the remaining Islanders? Eternal strandation or death by Keamy 2?

How is that helpful to Sawyer and Juliet and whoever else is still on the island (who wants to leave)?

My argument extends to the possibility that if the Oceanic 6 out a very evident conspiracy to deem the survivors dead, then they would put Widmore on the defensive against the authorities. And that would potentially diminish the power he had to send other Keamy's.

The counter-argument is 'who would believe' the extent of the story that might involve a magical island and a bloody corporate war? Further, the counter-argument extends to the fact that Abaddon (in the first episode of Season 4), who presumably knew of Oceanic survivors prior to his arrival on the island, approaches Hurley, (after Hurley's "rescue",) with uncertainty about the survival of any additional people or the island. That has presumably not stopped Widmore from looking for the Island, but it's possible, that he lost some of his fervor.
Furthermore, for whatever reason, Jack bought into it entirely, Kate bought into it and benefitted from the lie (in terms of freedom from prison), Hurley seemed to adamantly advocate the lie to Walt, Sayid did not seem to be too disturbed by it, and Sun, who might hate Jack's guts more than anyone else's in the world, consented to the lie. In the face of such universal agreement, who am I to question Jack's wisdom?

Bentham finally revealed.
The other thing that bothered me about the episode is the big revelation of the identity of Jeremy Bentham. Granted, the identity of the person in the coffin was a big reveal, but the release of the actual identity of Jeremy Bentham was not a big reveal. The use of the name was merely a strategic device employed to prevent the viewer from knowing Locke was off the island (and dead) until the end of the episode. That's fine, except I didn't care about who Jeremy Bentham was before the episode, and I still don't care who Jeremy Bentham is, so are we just going to drop the name? Speaking of name-dropping, since John Locke assumed the name of another famous philosopher, that would have to be a purposeful decision on Locke's part, wouldn't it? It was not just a writer's poetic license, but a writer's depiction of the character's intent. So, the only reason to use an alias for Locke other than to keep us in suspense for an hour is to demonstrate that Locke appreciates utilitarianism.

Weak destiny.
Locke's destiny with regard to the Island was as follows... Arrive at the Island to be healed for the following purposes... So that he can have faith in the Island... Begin understanding some of the island's secrets, mysteries, and histories... Allow Ben to move the Island in time(/space). Lead the surviving Islanders into or through some terrible tragedies (that he blames on Jack). Then, he leaves the Island to retrieve Jack and the Oceanic 6... Then die...??
That's a pretty weak fate, isn't it, for those of us who are expecting super-heroics or some sort of messianic leadership? Instead, it's like being 1 of the storm troopers in the empire thinking he has a destiny (or more aptly like 1 of the lame jedi in the earlier episodes.) Granted, Locke could still be alive on the Island and be the new Jacob, but in general, that's why I have problems with the person whose fate is special (and so I tend to agree with Jack. (Also see Eli Stone as an example of God intervening in human affairs to help 10 people at a time?) In a larger picture, we're all just ants, scurrying about with weights we shouldn't be able to carry. Even if there is a destiny for a guy like Locke and he's waited his whole life for it, it's bound to be a very human fate.

What did I like about this episode? Is it all complaints? No. It was a really good episode because it highlighted one of my favorite aspects of all of these characters, their badassery. Allow me to explain.

First, we have the most obvious badass of this particular episode, the guy who dies almost as often as Mikhael Bakunin (who may actually be dead from his grenade stunt killing Charlie?), Keamy. Let's start with the fact that he's a stone cold killer, who killed lots of Losties, and Ben's "daughter" with no compunction. But, in this episode, he went against a larger force, Alpert's hostiles (who demonstrated great stealth and aptitude to live up to Ana Lucia's fears). Then, instead of retreating, he continued to pursue Ben like The Terminator.

In the greatest hand to hand combat scene in Lost history, Keamy took a gigantic beating from Sayid, including being beaten with a log and stabbed with a knife, and yet emerged victorious from the fight. This monster was about to kill Sayid with a perverse smile on his face. But, Richard Alpert came and shot this machine several times until he no longer blinked. Guess what happened next? He wiped himself off and went after his target, following Ben to an isolated location. Then, he taunted his prey until he was caught off guard by Ben. With his final act of losing his pulse, he sunk his own entire battleship. That sounds a little like the Predator's self destruct button. Although, Keamy ultimately failed in his plight, he was an excellent hybrid of the most famous science fiction hunters of all time.

Sayid was the other performer in the fight and performed admirably. He demonstrated a lot of the skills he utilized in his ability to snap a man's neck with his hand's tied behind his back. He also picked the fight with Keamy, which almost got him killed and then in the flash forward killed another random guy in a car.

How about Kate's badassery as she charged into Keamy, who she knew to be a mass murderer, with only the hope that he would spare her before Alpert could save them all.

Then, there's Sawyer's reformed badassery. Sawyer was always the tough guy, but now, he's the same tough guy with the additional caveat that he sacrifices himself so that a helicopter could fly just a little bit longer. He blindly runs into into jungle-dangerous situations to save his friends.

We know about Jack's badassery, as he trailblazed through the forest with his recent surgery and probable infection. He managed to save Desmond and deliver him safely into Penny's arm. He brought eight people off the Island. And, of course, Jack, coldly stared down Locke in a battle of faith.

But, ultimately, in this season's finale, faith and Locke prevailed. First, of all, Locke (and Ben) were able to move the Island, then, Locke was able to convince Jack to lie "to protect" the Islanders. Then, Locke as Bentham, was able to convince Jack that the Oceanic 6 have to return to the Island. Sure, he ended up in a cardboard box, but just cause Locke and Keamy died in the episode doesn't mean that they were not badasses.

Speaking of dying, Michael finally got some redemption in going down with the ship playing his own kind of music. He had a nice moment with Jin and a nice moment with Sun about the magnitude of being a parent. Do anything and everything for the child, I suppose, except raise them.

Then, there was Jin, who now appears to be dead. He had several tough guy moments, including getting his wife and their child off the Island. Then, he got to stay with the boat too... maybe. So, I guess he's dead? Like Claire?

And finally, speaking of badasses, there is Sun, the new power broker. She stood up to Jack and then to her father. And she told her father that he is one of the two people he blames for what happened to her husband. Who is the other? Is it Jack, who wouldn't let the chopper go back for her husband, stranded on the doomed freighter. Is it Ben/Locke, who she might blame for the war and their part in Jin's death? Or is it Widmore, who she blames for sending mercenaries to kill them all? The end of the season demonstrated a nice transition for Sun from a person in fearful hiding to a person in command of her own life.

Desmond was not that tough this season; he was always a problem and was just a complete mess without Penny: leaving on his boat in Season 2, he had emotional problems (became a drunk), leaving the Island on the chopper early this season, he had mental problems (lost time), and then when he got on the raft, he had some physical problems (died). Now, he's going to try to spend the rest of his life running away from his girlfriend's daddy. Penny was admirably saving her man from her white horse of a ship from the balcony tower that her Romeo had to climb to be with her. These star-crossed lovers are finally together, which of course does not bode well for their health and well-being on this show.

Alpert continues to demonstrate his value and understated strength with a few shots at Keamy. Miles is becoming a valuable tool for us to understand the Island. His first revelation? Charlotte has been on the Island before. Was she Annie? She does look like Juliet, doesn't she? Faraday and his rafters were Lost between the Island and the freighter when the freighter blew up and the Island was moved. Obviously, the suspicion is that he was moved with the Island.

Or maybe, this place is not an Island, and it's just a giant whale that moved. It's got special properties, very unstable properties. The time travelling bunnies properties. Okay, well, at least, we finally heard in an official capacity (from a confusing and possibly untrue video) that Dharma was on the Island conducting experiments about the very unique properties of the Island.

I'll spare you the few things I garnered about the Ben-Widmore feud, except to say, I welcome the Paik's involvement in the corporate war. It does make me think there was some reason for the rich folks getting off the Island. On Gilligan's Island, who was saved? The Millionaire and his wife. I guess, that's life.

I also like how Lost has evolved or more aptly transitioned from Family Guy into How I Met Your Mother. In the first three seasons, the flashbacks were always "that reminds me of the time I..." or "I haven't seen anyone that desperate since..." Now, the flash forwards are more along the lines of "Listen kids... let me tell you about the time..." The reimagining woke the show up from a potential malaise and kept the flashes fresh.

So, I want to end my Lost blogging for the season by thanking all the people who make Lost for providing me fodder and the people who watch Lost for keeping Lost fodder-ful and my blog readers for accepting my crap over and over again.

Congratulations to the Lakers and the Celtics. Both teams won easy in part because of the injuries to Manu, Chauncey and to a lesser extent Rip Hamilton. But, I was wrong in both conference finals, so I'll take the heat. I'm rooting for the Celtics now. I've seen Ray Allen out-clutch Kobe and several other players quite a few times. Also, beyond the recent performances of Pierce, he also led the league in 4th quarter points a few years ago. This is a very capable Celtics team that has stars who could perform in the clutch. I'll spare my prediction because it does not bode well for who I am rooting for.

Otherwise, I'll be back soon with other material.
Thanks for listening,
ME PB

Clinton's Truth

2008-05-25T10:54:00.005-04:00

Hello at last my Non-Lost Readers,

I wanted to take some time, a lot of time really, to address a few of the other interesting things going on in the world that have nothing to do with the TV show that has engendered a stranglehold on my attention. So, I'll address Hillary Clinton (at great length), Aaron Burr (at decent length), and the basketball playoffs (at good length), in that order.

I want to start by talking about the enigma that is Hillary Clinton. I have long been a Hillary-hater (for lack of a more appropriate term) for various reasons better explained in prior posts. But, here, I find myself, in a strange position upon consideration of her tenacity, in the face of presumably being doomed to fail in her presidential plight. There are two juxtaposed forces in my mind: the undeniable and impressive will to win of the flailing senator juxtaposed with my better judgment. I actually understand the Hillary-lovers in their admiration for her attachment to the candidacy with vigor that borders on lunacy (and the Republicans who wish to continue the Democratic in-fighting).

Of course, there is an open question about whether the continued campaigning harms the prospective candidate because the length of the campaign increases voter registration and the candidate get the additional "free" national exposure. But, overall, I would guess the continued campaign has to be net-negative, by removing certainty from an otherwise clear-cut Democratic presidential year with a Republican president suffering from historic lows in presidential polls and along with low morale for the national Republican Party. Add that to the fact that McCain could likely not bring together the same base group that Bush assembled to scrounge up his two victories and one would have to imagine the Democratic nominee as a dominant favorite. But, the extended delegate fight has allowed a lengthy debate about Obama's "electability" that would otherwise be a non-issue once he receives the nomination. The question will transform from "can the country actually elect a bi-racial man with an Islamic sounding name for president?" to "will the country elect a bi-racial man with an Islamic sounding name for president?" The change in the tense of the question is dramatic because while racists and xenophobes would not vote for him either way, there will no longer be the veiled specter of potential American racism. It changes the whole debate and the Republicans cannot make the, at times, not so subtle appeal to (American racists as well as) the people with the supposition that the rest of the country will not vote for him because "they", or "those people" are racists. That is the argument Hillary has tried to hammer home to her party to no avail.

So, it is questionable whether the lengthy campaign has helped any particular candidate, but it has brought added attention to politics. Most people seem to think the added attention to such an influential sphere of modern life is unquestionably positive. I tend to disagree because although attracting added informed attention to politics is a worthwhile endeavor, adding any attention such as attack ad attention or potentially embarrassing scandal-ridden attention, or "Paris Hilton-ing" politics is not in and of itself a value to society and may in fact be detrimental to the country. While character is an important part of presidential politics and choosing a candidate, a candidate's fame or noteworthiness has rapidly increased in its importance in the A.D.D. generation, even as noteworthiness is melded with notoriety.

So, to evaluate the efficacy and admirability of Hillary Clinton's strategery, I looked to sports analogies and games comparisons. Particularly, I looked to the end game of two competitive head to head match-ups: chess and basketball. I note that I have seen the basketball comparison in a Sunday morning news show discussion, but, I of course, will take the point and beat it to absurdity.

Politics is often viewed as a high-minded competition, and although there are appeals to the baser natures of various constituencies, there is a kinship that the politicians who serve together in Washington share. So, seemingly, the end game of chess would be an apt comparison to the endgame of the delegate process. In chess, even when the two players do not get along personally, the player about to lose tends to resign quickly when her imminent defeat has become apparent. This chivalric maneuver is a gesture of respect to the opponent and is an effort to minimize the torment of a slow painful game-death and create a more sudden-death. And chess essentially awards the "gimme" to the opposing player who is anywhere around the hole. While politics is not a physical contact sport, one would assume that chess would be the ideal comparison, but it is not. In politics, there are additional psychological implications of a beat-down that reverberate into the next election cycle or what the press has referred to over the course of the Obama-Clinton battles as "momentum". While Obama emerged as the near certain victor and nominee mathematically, he still contends with the idea of momentum, and Hillary continues to push the envelope of the idea's importance (a dramatic shift from earlier in the campaign). I have never heard of the concept of psychological momentum in chess (perhaps because I don't follow chess like I follow sports or perhaps because when there is momentum, it is more a product of mental factors than psychological ones.)

So, instead, I look to a basketball playoff series (not the individual psychological momentum known as the "zone" or a "slump"), a conference finals, to determine how basketball teams react to a likely impending loss. So, for the purposes of the comparison, we assume this race is a best of 7 series and we are in game 6 with Obama ahead in games and in the lead by a healthy margin late in the 4th quarter. (I would call game 7 the superdelegate game if it makes it that far.) Many teams acknowledge defeat early because of the same reasons discussed in the chess analogy, but those teams aren't Hillary Clinton. She looks down upon such chivalric ideals with contempt and scorn as a sign of weakness. Instead, she opts to try to foul her way back into the game. She commits foul after foul to slow the game down, stop time, and force her opponent to make free throws and not make mental blunders. Often times, in situations like this, mental weaknesses (and the inability to close out the game) are exposed to the victorious party's future opponents, but the current loser has no interest in the next series. She is totally focused on trying to get back into this game despite all odds. Apparently, most of America and even most of the Democratic Party agrees that such a strategy is optimal (despite the issue similarities between the two candidates). She, according to the polls, should stay in the game and stay in the series until she loses her 4th game. She commits fouls even as she lightens the rhetoric of the previously hard and abrasive fouls.

A very strong foul is the Florida non-vote. Assuming Florida's current unfair vote tallies are not counted or that a future vote is not imposed, Florida, a critical swing state had no part in nominating a candidate in a tightly contested race and Clinton's repeated exposure of this weakness is akin to badgering an opponent's persistent ankle injury. I'm sure McCain could manipulate the weakness, but not as effectively as Clinton can in damaging the credibility of the process over the next few weeks. Why is this so important? Because momentum is a factor and while Obama was riding a high for a long time, she has taken the wind out of his sails and brought him into a knockout bout (I was proud of that very mixed metaphor). Of course, the key is that few people seem to get dirty or hurt sailing, but in boxing, or in basketball, people get hurt all the time.

While mathematically, this does not look like a seven game series, she's going to extend game six as long as she can regardless of what it does to Obama's reputation or her reputation in the long term. But, I gather, considering, people out there are referring to her as a gritty competitor with tenacity rather than a dirty fighter with audacity, her reputation is less of an issue than Obama's is.

The length of the race, the desperation of the candidates, the pandering to so many groups and demographics, and exhaustion has led both of these people to raise the very fascinating strategy of telling the truth (as they perceive it), and reopened the McCain style debate of honesty's place in the lexicon and matrix political strategies. Seizing on the straight talk of McCain, both Hillary and Obama have utilized this method to ineffective ends over the past several months.

In the aftermath of the Rev. Wright scandals, where Hillary was delivering body blows and elbows to the face of Obama all over the country, Obama emerged scathed, but relatively unscarred because of a powerful, inspirational, seemingly intellectually honest, and almost comprehensive speech delivered by Obama about the state of race relations in the United States. But, that's not what I mean by truth telling.

Instead, what I mean, is that, in a closed speech to San Franciscans, Obama referred to the indigent and struggling Americans populace as bitter and he tied God and guns to economic desperation. I'm not up to date on the most recent sociological studies, but it's my understanding that rich people go to church and own guns too and that the pursuit of religion is not a response to a person's destituteness, but rather a response to a search for answers to (often all the) deeply philosophical questions about the universe and one's place in that universe. I would also think that Obama, a proudly religious man, who actually became devout after becoming wealthy, would agree with that assessment. If he wanted to say anything along the lines of what he actually said, he could have said the politically more appropriate thing (and quite possibly the more true point) that the financial despair has allowed the Republicans to politicize and capitalize on the issues of God and guns, rather than espousing the notion that these people are clinging to these things out of desperation. So, Obama made the vast leap academicians might make in a research paper to try to garner scholarly interest and get a research grant. However, while hitting a homerun in the S.F. crowd, he made a few enemies along the way and cemented his image as the ivory tower candidate. So, is this what I meant by truth telling; speaking perceived truths that are potentially harmful? Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for asking.

But, then of course, came Hillary's response to the race issue, which is essentially, that America is not ready to elect a Black candidate. In her brief dialogue on the issue, she acknowledged the potential truth that a portion, possibly a substantial portion of her constituency would not vote for Obama, and implied that racism was a critical factor in the decision. The undertone goes further into electability as, since Democrats, the allegedly racially tolerant party has such a large number of racists, imagine how many racists will cast an anti-Black vote among independents and Republicans. Is there truth to the notion that America might elect anyone but the Black candidate? I have no reason to not believe her contention, considering, to the best of my understanding: racism is a world-wide problem, our country is vast and sparse with lots of capacity for ignorance and intolerance in cities, suburbs, and rural areas in all the regions, and of course our nation has long tragic history of racism influencing political decisions and vice versa. But that does not make Hillary look any better. If anything, her answer to the racists is to pander to them and cater to them by giving them a White Democratic option. Is that what's best for the Democratic party? I'm not in a position to say. Is that some unholy possible truth telling that damages both candidates? I would imagine so.

Another theme that Hillary has played upon regularly is the potential misogyny in the media's portrayal of her. Has there been sexism in the depiction of her persona? In truth, I would imagine so. But, there are several points to raise. The same general election argument she implied with regard to racism in the Democratic party (being a potentially much larger problem in the general election discussed above) would likely hold true for sexism as well, wouldn't it? Next, it is important to address the notion that Hillary would not be in position to be president if she was not a woman (or Obama would not be in position to be president if he were not a Black man). Of course, both of these candidates have remarkable stories and Hillary has a strong political acumen and great will (and Obama has a vast intellect with a great speaking voice and a strong stage presence). But, would the American public really vote for a person for president whose sole executive experiences were failures and whose only other political experience was being a non-descript senator for a few years? The answer is, of course, it depends. But, I don't see how having a former president for a spouse didn't help her be in the dominant position she was in, which would of course, play upon the fact that she is a woman and she married presidentially. So, the complaints about Obama's Blackness being a boon to his election hopes, while her womanhood is a detriment to her chances seems counterintuitive. Additionally, while she often fights the stereotypes that women are forced upon women, she makes no apologies for using tactics such as literally crying about how hard it is to run a campaign and thereby feeding the stereotype of the frail woman when it suits her political goals (in that case demonstrating vulnerability to an otherwise streamlined veneer). So, again, this potential truth-telling was a tactic that Hillary may feel to be true and as I mentioned may indeed be true, but is ultimately bad for her campaign as she whines about the press coverage of her, she feeds the image and draws attention to her own duplicity.

Most recently, Hillary has delivered a damaging blow to both campaigns by stating that the potentiality of assassination is a valid justification for her continued pursuit of the nomination. We will assume for the purposes of argument, that Hillary has no plans to involve herself in any attack-planning and we focus on the potential truth of and the potential damage done by the statement. The comparisons to Bobby Kennedy are present, as both are inspirational figures speaking out about dramatic and controversial changes in the American political landscape. Beyond the Kennedy comparison, Obama is a bi-racial man (or a Black man, depending on who is doing the categorizing) who is a candidate with a legitimate chance at the presidency (and probably the likely favorite at this point). With all the race issues in our nation, how is this possibility not legitimate... that the man is a veritable lightning rod of potential animosity, whether it be from racists who wish to prevent his presidency or nutjobs who now, not only have the same old reasons to harm the powerful (such as impressing Jodie Foster), but also have the new reason of ending the life of possibly the most important political figure of our time (from a contemporary and historical perspective). What nut jobs are thinking about this historical perspective? Well, honestly, I don't know anyone in these categories, but the fact that he is rife and sought after target seems like sound logic to me and I could only hope and imagine that the Secret Service is being particularly protective of him.

So, Hillary's recent statement, may be the most true, of all of these perceived truths I just mentioned, and yet many pundits have labeled it the death knell for her candidacy. Why? In part, because politics and truth have a complex relationship. It's touch and go, people. In part, because, while it may be true, it's a very unpleasant and ignoble (and desperate) justification to continue such a bitter nomination process. So, with all her hail-mary attempts at winning the game, she couldn't accomplish the goal. And now, her purpose in staying the race is the very morbid possibility of his death. It's a distasteful thing to say, and to bring the comparison to light so soon after Ted Kennedy's near death experience was not thoughtful. (I myself am withholding many comments about Ted Kennedy in light of his condition and acknowledging the truths that he has been a strong and passionate advocate for his constituents for years and will go down as one of the most influential senators in American history.) Moreover, the Kennedy family, American royalty, is much more akin to the Bush and Clinton brand names than that of Obama.

Turning to Obama's lack of experience for the presidency: many have suggested including himself, that to alleviate these fears, that he employ an all star team of Democrats to unite the party in this time of need. Obama pointed to Lincoln's hiring of his rivals as a potential model for this idea. Of course he made the allusion to Lincoln, a junior senator from Illinois with no combat experience that led the country successfully through a devastating war. But, the notion is clear, that he might perhaps turn to Hillary as V.P. and Richardson as Sec. of State and Biden as Sec. of Defense and Edwards as Attorney General, and so on. Five years ago, the Democrats did not have an all star line-up, but now they do. That level of cachet bodes well for their future, but all star casts rarely make a quality movie, a team filled with all star players rarely make a quality team, and all star politicians... well there's only one microphone and several hundred egos among those people I just mentioned. But since elections are popularity contests, having more of the cool kids running on your ticket can be helpful (though endorsements are generally useless).

In my estimation, McCain and Obama are two well-meaning individuals with different visions for the future and both represent dramatic changes from the current presidency at home and abroad. (An enormous change for McCain, aside from policy issues is that McCain is running on the premise of opening up dialogue with the American public and Congress about the future of our country, while the current presidency has been marred by fiercely maintained secrecy.) I'd be satisfied with either candidate as our president, and though I have a favorite in the race, (I've been an avid unabashed McCain supporter for over 10 years), much to the chagrin of many of my known associates, I have no intention of fleeing the country should my candidate lose.

Even though I believe these are two well-meaning individuals, I have a strong feeling this race is going to be intensely personal, visceral, and vitriolic. McCain doesn't like Obama from some immigration bill they discussed at length that led to fireworks. Taking into account Obama's relative youth and popularity, I would imagine McCain perceives Obama as a person who has not earned his stripes, even in comparison to Hillary (who McCain strangely does like personally). Furthermore, neither McCain nor Obama has shown any inclination to pull punches or to hold back for the purposes of leading a united country. This is going to the mats.

Even assuming one of them tries to stay civil, it will not work because of a larger view of the Tragedy of the Commons. Allow me to explain. The tragedy or tyranny of the commons is a simple idea: where there are several shepherds (no relation to Jack Shepard, I promise) with grazing area of their own and a public grazing area, they will tend to use the public grazing area before using their own land to maximize their grazing. The same principle applies at the dinner table, where, if you want a lot of mashed potatoes, you should put some on your own plate, but then eat from community bowl. The problem is that the good guy who is trying to live off his own land and not take from the community unless he absolutely has to, gets less.

Well, the same is true in politics. Obviously, each side has a base of people who are going to vote for them on the issues. But, when it comes to swing voters, they look at character as well. There is an argument to be made that a candidate who rises above the fray has the real character, but apparently, we live on earth, where that is not the type of character we are looking for in our leaders (and it has always been this way). But, once one side's character is attacked, they start losing the community demographic as well (as the community notion of character). To earn the respect of the candidate, and not lose independent ground, the other must retaliate by also eating from the commons. You know who loses in this situation? The community, which is everyone. It's a tragedy. But, it's human nature. And if you read Animal Farm, it's apparently, animal nature as well.

Speaking of nasty political duels, I want to switch topics to the most famous political duel in American history. Recently, I was watching the John Adams mini-series, and I thought it was fantastic. One side plot/character to the miniseries was Alexander Hamilton (played by Rufus Sewell of Dark City, the poor pre-cursor to the Matrix) and his political machinations. The mini-series challenged my conventional wisdom on history's positive portrayal of this man. As an American history fan (and history major, perhaps even a buff of history), I have always thought of Alexander Hamilton as a great and powerful man, whose nationalist ideals shaped modern America, from the government to the economy. What I didn't realize, was that this strong leader, who was Washington's second in command for much of the Revolutionary War and Washington's political life, who was a self-made titan, who was a prolific renaissance man/entrepreneur, was also a huge a-hole.

The program made me look into the truth of Hamilton and Aaron Burr and recognize that Burr, while a problematic figure in his own right, was not quite the Benedict Arnold or even the crazy loon I previously thought he was. Sure, he might have committed some mild treason, but name a founding father or a Bluthe family member who hasn't. According to my sources, Burr's treason was exacerbated by trusting the wrong general, who was actually committing a grand treason, and then who eventually turned state's evidence to try take down the alleged arch-villain in Aaron Burr who had to live his life friendless in exile (despite a Supreme Court acquittal.) Why? Mostly because he killed the great mind of Hamilton in this duel. The terms of the duel were unclear and people seem unsure whether they were dueling for show or for keeps, but Burr won the duel.

How did it start, you ask? Well, apparently, future president James Monroe and future vice president Burr outed an affair Hamilton was having. Hamilton, of course, being a jerk, blamed the people who outed the affair rather than himself for having the affair. Hamilton successfully dedicated his considerable resources to defeating Burr's post VP NY gubernatorial election. Burr, who was a charismatic and respectable figure (an aristocratic snob), and who conducted himself in a gentlemanly fashion, basically gave Hamilton months to retract the negative things he and his newspaper smeared Burr with to no avail. Hamilton, who had a son who died in a duel only months before, knew the dangers of a duel and accepted possible death rather than retract his own jerkiness. Centuries have provided Hamilton with many vindications and policy victories, but apparently his biggest coup was rather instantaneous, as in death, he became the good guy in the scenario. In death, he got a name (Robert Poulsen?) and he became the man of honor. Burr was exiled and then, in time, became his mild treasonous self. And he is now widely perceived by the general public as one of the craziest vice presidents we've ever had, while Hamilton is more of the best actor never to have received an Oscar (or best player without an MVP). So, they gave him ten bucks.
Most of this knowledge is from wikipedia, so take it with a grain of deliciously scandalous salt.

But, as I switch to a topic on which I could write the wikipedia page, basketball, I am sure to lose some readers. So, feel free to tune out.

My picks for the playoffs this year were San Antonio beating Detroit in the finals (a replay of the finale from three years ago), which would be a nightmare for the NBA and ABC. But despite, the 2-1 tallies and the road victory requirements, I am sticking to my picks.

So far, I have already been correct about every series except for one (the Hornets-Dallas series). But, my vision for the future, my prophecy, and the balance of good and evil in the world may be tilted as the vaunted Lakers are on pace to crush the Spurs physically and mentally, leading the series 2-1. Sure, the Spurs are whiny floppers, and have Robert Horry, who has become a modern day Kurt Rambis-type thug. But, the team leader is Tim Duncan, who is a soft-spoken, wry-witted, team-first type player, person, and captain. That's gotta make him the good guy over the Kobe Bryant-led Lakers, who aside from incredulities of previous years, has made open criticisms of the lack of skill of his teammates within the past year. Kobe, who I have contended in the past has just about every skill Jordan ever had (though overall a substantially worse player for various reasons including the incredible field goal percentage disparity and team leadership issues,) has become less unselfish, and this year was the deserving MVP (and the second best player in basketball behind LeBron). Yet, he remains a flawful (I prefer it to flawed) human being and a generally me-first type player.

What has quelled his relatively unbridled fury (in the form of Hillary-esque whiny criticisms) from last summer? The realization that the assembled team is actually an excellent group of players. Odom is an all star caliber talent, and although, not a prolific scorer (and is terrified of clutch moments) is a presence, a rebounder, and an excellent facilitator. Bynum who emerged again for half a season to demonstrate a lot of potential and produced a low post-presence on both ends of the floor. Of course, when he went down, they traded some of their scrubs and a draft pick to steal Gasol, a prolific big man scorer. Complement those all-stars with the clutch shooting and toughness of Derek Fisher, the savvy of Luke Walton (a Shane Battier type player), two excellent outside shooters in Vujacic and Farmar, and a number of agile back-up big men, and the team has the makings of a strong playoff performer.

They are facing Tim Duncan, the best player over the past 10 years a little past his prime, but still a formidable post player because of fundamentally sound moves, smart passing, and the will to dominate a game, who is also the anchor on their potent defensive unit, where he is a leader calling out open spots and players, great at individual, and team defense. The problem is not Duncan. The problem is the other players. Tony Parker is streaky, in large part because he cannot hit outside shots with any regularity. When he gets to the rim, he is one of the best finishers in the game with an impressive array of floaters and layups. This outside shot infirmity would be acceptable and defensible if he was a player along the lines of Jason Kidd, whose responsibilities fall outside of the realm of scoring, but Parker is not a facilitator, and has never been much of a passer. So, if they can keep Parker out of the lane, they totally neutralize him. Easier said than done because of Parker's lightning speed, but if they can neutralize such an important offensive force on San Antonio, a team that often struggles for baskets, it becomes likely that the Lakers have an edge. To compare Parker to other players, I would use either Chris Paul without the passing or Dwayne Wade without the strength. Oh, and he lacks either of their intensity or leadership, but he has a really hot wife and more championships than the two others combined.

And then, we come to Manu Ginobli, who, many people believe is a top flight player, earning PER stats akin to Kobe Bryant (according to a Hollinger article from a month ago is the virtual equivalent to Kobe on the floor) and according to various sources is one of the most clutch players in basketball, and even made some sport's writer's All NBA ballot (best player at his position). I have long held the position that he is an excellent player, but he would be a borderline all star at best in the packed West. Sure, he has plenty of games like Game 3 of the series, but he has plenty of games where he disappears like games 1 and 2. They need him or Parker to complement Duncan, and he's more able to fully complement Duncan because of his wide array of skills. But more on him, after I rant about a tangential issue.

The PER stats (Player Efficiency Rating of John Hollinger's creation, the ESPN stats guru) are based on "efficiency", not "effectiveness", which would be the more appropriate measure of who is better for their team. Because, if a guy plays 20 minutes a game, and is very efficient during those 20 minutes, he is helping the team, but only providing 20 minutes worth of help, not a game's worth of help. A game is the lowest common denominator between a time span and a relevant impact on team success statistic, and providing per minute or per second or per 40 minute evaluations are valuable as Hollinger puts it, for the purposes of efficiency, but not for the more important statistic of a player's effectiveness for the team. Ginobli ended up playing plenty of minutes (about as many as Duncan), but not as much as the quality stars at his position often do. You could make arguments about more minutes translating into better efficiency or more overall stats, but those arguments are illusory because they are not of any actual impact. But, there is no question, that when he is on, he is extremely beneficial to the team.

There are lots of reasons that I disparage the PER stats even for efficiency purposes, mostly, the lack of defensive statistical data. Steals and blocks are often bad indicators of a player's effectiveness or efficiency at defense as Battier (who puts his hand in front of your eyes, not on the ball to make you miss and not block your shot or steal the ball, and also plays the angles and help defenders extremely well) and Bowen (who is extremely physical) are excellent defensive players that don't show up in the stats sheets. I have always believed rebounds are not defensive data, but more special teams data in part because of some rebounds are offensive, in part because of the majority of the hustle required for defensive rebounding is conducted after an offensive sequence has concluded, and in part because I like dividing stuff up into logical groups, which in basketball falls into the 2-2-1 variety, (e.g. blocks and rebounds are big-man stats, steals and assists are little-man stats and points are size-neutral or e.g. on offense, there is generally a point guard, two swing men, and two post players and on defense there is generally a center, two forwards and two guards).

Okay, back to Ginobli, he's quick, he's angular, he's got a decent outside shot, he finishes well at the basket, he passes well, and he's clutch. On defense, he has quick hands and quick feet, but he takes a lot of chances and his man can usually beat him off the dribble if he has skills. So what? Lots of top caliber players have flaws, look at Nash and 'Melo, they don't play defense. Look at LeBron, Howard, they only play D when they want. Look at Chris Paul, he doesn't have an outside shot. But, from what I have seen, I would want those guys as my best offensive player, carrying my team for me. Those other guys could do it for a season and they could do it for a series. Manu, for whatever reason can do that for a given game, but he's more of a John Starks type player, who if you're relying too much on him carrying your team, will run into road blocks. Luckily, the team has never relied on him too much, they play him roughly 30 minutes a night, keeping him rested and allow Duncan to be the consistent best player and Parker to intermittently shoulder the offense when Manu is not playing great ball.

The Spurs are helped out by a veteran team in Bowen, who lost a step, but remains every bit as physical on the defensive end and has a respectable spot up 3 point shot. Finley and Barry lead mishmash of 3 point shooters. And they have a few serviceable big men to relieve Duncan.

I have found Udoke to be a very weak link on the offensive end in particular, but worse yet, a defensive specialist that has no ability to stop Kobe from doing anything he wants.

If I were the Spurs, I would go to the Kobe ball denial on defense, and Duncan in the post on offense. Duncan will generally make the right decision about shooting or passing to the open shooter. On defense, once Kobe does get the ball, I would try playing some LeBron-ball against him, using some double teams and hard fouls when he drives the lane. He won't be intimidated from driving because he's mentally tough and is willing to throw his body into harm's way, but he'll start altering his shot to expect contact, and it might tire him out more than the jacked LeBron who barely feels the contact.

I have much less to say about Boston and Detroit. I picked Detroit because I figured Sheed could minimize KG, Tayshaun's length could minimize Pierce's truth, and Hamilton would outduel an aged Ray Allen. I accounted for a formidable Boston defense, but assumed that Detroit's myriad of above-average offensive options would prevent Boston's defense from stopping Detroit. I might be wrong, but prognostication is not an exact science, it's a pseudo-science or a "social science" like history. Like the history of Duncan or Shaq being in the finals every year for the last 9 years or Burr actually not being the bad guy in the Hamilton duel, or Hillary's chances of being president.

Take solace, people. Take lots of solace in stuff,
The Creaking Papa Bear, ME

Home Planning

2008-05-16T13:55:00.007-04:00

Hello Lost fans,

Spoilers below.

"How many times do I have to tell you?... I always have a plan."
The writers of the show promise this to us over and over again. They know what happens next, even if we don't. They don't tell us about their design or how they get there. But along the way, they reveal little bits of information of their grand scheme and the role that each of these characters play in that scheme. At times, Ben, who also always has a plan, seems to represent the show, as well as anyone can, by being knowingly deceptive while still offering up hope. You never know whether to trust what he says or what he does. And each action or word seems to have an ulterior motive. Sound like Lost? Or sound like the Man Behind the Curtain in Oz?

In fact, the show is so much like Ben in those particular ways, that it has clouded the minds of great Lost interpreters and scholars. And like religious or philosophical texts, the show can be overinterpreted and thus misinterpreted. Jeff Jensen, formerly referred to herein as "Doc" seems to have fallen prey to this brand of overanalysis. In the latest noteworthy incarnation of Lost babble (of which I proudly partake), he is now espousing that the show has taken a political stance and is supporting a party in the upcoming election, which is really not a far cry from espousing that a religion or a philosophy is on your side. No, Jesus would not vote Republican, and no Lost would not vote Democrat (that's not to say that the creators, writers, directors, actors, etc. don't have pronounced, respectable, and respectful views; just that the show has not taken that turn... yet and hopefully won't go there. To extrapolate that there is an espoused party affiliation or even issue-based lobbying within the show, one would have to have quite a few tokes of the red bull, if you know what I mean, or one would have to have his own agenda that said person is pushing forth. You could make an intelligible, tangible, and strong political argument in any number of ways given the tenets, fictional facts, and ideas behind the show, and the point is... that that's not the point. So, says the Mysterious Sphynx. It's entirely possible that Doc Jensen has jumped the shark, though I doubt it and I hope not. But for the time being, I am left to rely on melanism.com for my Lost truths.)

Leaving the weekly entertainment portion of my blog, and returning to the meat of the episode: we now know who got off the island and how, kindof...
We don't know who helped them off. Was it Ben or Widmore that made a deal with, to got them off the island, and presumably protect/save those who are still there? Were those photographs of the 6 arriving at the second island real? Did they follow the same path that Michael followed to get rescued? Really, we know nothing about how they get off the island, and the Oceanic 6 are still totally separate (although we've been teased quite a few times with Kate, Jack, Hurley, and Sayid going towards the Orchid (of which we know nothing about except it might move the island in space or time and is probably guarded by Ben's hostiles).

What about these Oceanic 6? Was there reason in their choosing? Why did the two richest people get off the island: is that part of the deal? Did Hurley and Sun get off the island to use their money to benefit Ben in his war against Widmore and protect those left behind? (And that's aside from the Oceanic settlement for all of them). The fact that Sayid could be used as a ruthless killer would come in handy for Ben/Widmore as long as you play the right strings. I guess, Jin, Michael, and Sawyer could be used as killing pawns by Ben too, but not with the precision that Sayid could muster (Jin missed the tent bombs with his gunfire, Michael is quickly losing his cool, and Sawyer is unpredictable). Since these three characters all trust Jack, the mastermind would need him to get off the island to organize them. He can get them off the island with a sufficiently strong story and keep them sticking to the story (at least longer than anyone else could), and if need be, eventually bring them all back. Jack's George Washington-esque stature could get them all to follow because they know that even though he makes mistakes, he's the noble hero of the story. And if he's convinced something is the right thing to do, he might still be wrong, but there is at least a basis for that belief. Of course, he's not leaving without Kate. And none of them could afford to leave a baby behind on the island (probably without a mother and additionally, which could be used as a sympathy tool for Kate, to keep her out of jail). It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that these people were chosen for how they could benefit Ben/Widmore.

Speaking of Ben as Obi Wan Kenobe (Jensen's still got plenty of goods), and Alpert as Robinhood, and Jack as Superman, and Sawyer as Batman, and Locke as... (maybe I'll think of someone next week,) how about adding a gigantic villain? Keamy is not only a bloodthirsty mercenary, who indiscriminantly kills children, commits mass murder, starts forest fires, kills allies, shoots skeet, (I could go on), he is also a willing bomber, who planted a radio detection device to his body that would blow up the ship if the ship received the signal (whether it's a button or a pulse stoppage is unclear.) But, now, the villains are settling in nicely, with Widmore as a Luthor-type villain: very rich, out in the open, corporate, and in his greed and self interest is probably the most dangerous to the world. Ben, as the Joker type villain: you can never quite figure out his motivations, but he's always out there doing things that seem crazy and may or may not be part of some truly grand plan and may or may not be good for the world in what may or may not be his warped view of the world. But, he knows he's valued alive and he knows which buttons he can push. And then, he pushes them. Abbadon??? Keamy- resident badass. What about Mrs. Harper, the person who appeared to Desmond, preventing him from getting engaged and telling us all about coure correcting. Is she Jacob? No.

(Speaking of Michael Rosenbaum as Lex Luthor, as he's leaving the show Smallville's regular cast, I just wanted to celebrate his exceptional performance over the last seven (?) years and the fact that in his last episode as a series regular, he truly physically grew into the role. As he stood in front of Jimmy Olsen, he towered over him physically; and as he put in his hand on Jimmy Olsen's shoulder, it was one of those TV moments that played out exactly right. It was a nice moment. Of course, Luthor was lying to the naive young optimist, and we the audience strongly suspected he was lying (because of his character, not his acting,) and the listener he thought this was Lex's few good deeds (how Benjamin Linus of him). So Rosenbaum played the role perfectly throughout the series, and for the first time, in this episode, he no longer looked like the whiny little rich kid (his role through most of the show), but finally looked transformed into the strong, independant, and fully developed criminal mastermind he's actually been for the past several years. Kudos to his acting, the casting, and for that special moment in villainy history. Perfect way to go out.)

Speaking of Jack's badassery, how about this guy who is so committed to saving lives that he runs into the jungle days after a major surgery to try to save two of his flock. The blood begins pouring from his opened stitches, and Jack replies, 'tis but a fleshwound'. It's just your common infection; don't worry about it Kate. But you, the audience, pay attention. This guy is a glutton for punishment, and it's going to haunt him for a long time. It might even cost him a happy family life down the road. Just, you watch.

So, Jack lies to Kate about the blood. Isn't that very Ben-like? The twist is Jack lies to try to do good things, while Ben (probably) isn't lying to do good things. The other twist is Jack only looks you square in the eye when he's lying. Actually, I've noticed that Jack is always distracted and rarely looks these islanders in the eye at all. Not sure if it is a directorial/acting technique to make Jack seem preoccupied, distracted, busy, and concerned about everyone and not just the person he is talking to, or perhaps to demonstrate Jack's major failing, which is the interpersonal relationship. He's great in a crowd, but when he's talking to you, he's really only thinking about you peripherally, to make sure you're healthy. When he's looking at you (and not surveying the island, his other flock members, and his surroundings), he's really looking through you for problems to fix. And if you don't have current problems, he's looking directly through you, because someone behind you does. So, it is entirely plausible that Jack only does look people squarely in the eye when he's lying. So, it's not a politician thing, because they have good poker faces and look you square in the eye whether they are lying or not, it's a Jack thing.

But, the best scene of the episode was Jack meeting Claire's mom. We knew exactly what was coming, the truth that was about to be revealed, but we (I) did not imagine the devastating impact it would have on the still grieving (and still in shock) Jack. Jack was crushed. He was even more crushed because he seemed to be the only person who bought into the idea (and may have been the proponent) that they stick to the lie. Everyone else seemed mildly against the lie, or at least uncomfortable with the idea of lying to the world about the fate of their comrades. But, Jack, in his willingness to lie in general (to do good things: see above and see perjury for Kate) and his heroism, must have been convinced that he was doing the right thing. He was convinced that getting off the island and lying about it, straight in the face of the media and the world, was the right thing to do. And, he did not appear to have second thoughts about it, the way the other 4 did (the baby seemed fine with it too).

For a moment, this truth that Claire was his half-sister (which couldn't have possibly made a difference in his prior actions had he found out days before) along with the lies which he advocated, were more than he could handle. And eventually these small powerful truths, along with the intermixed lies (throw in a dash of his own self-destructiveness and some supernatural influences) would ultimately bring his world crumbling down. There he stood. He couldn't muster the courage to admit that he knew Claire, that he bonded with Claire, that he took care of her, or that Claire's child, this woman's grandchild was in Kate's arms. He couldn't hug her and say, we share our pain, Ms. Claire's mom. He couldn't say these things, but his face said it all. Anguish. (That is not to say the run of the mill despair and shock, that all of the Oceanic 6 felt on the plane back to civilization. That was something to behold as well.) But, Jack finally had his moment of doubt, and it was absolutely crushing for him, and crushing for a viewer who has come to know him and respect him over the past 4 years (few months). Well done.

Another great moment was when Jack and Sawyer had their verbal duel. As they duked it out in jests and mockery, right before they again majestically united like we were all back in the first season, I was left thinking about what their situation reminds me of. It's a pretty strong comparison too. Dawson's Creek. Jack is this straight laced guy who is destined for great achievement, but he is entangled by this desperate longing, teen angst for an on/off relationship with a strong independant female who has feelings for him. Along comes this guy, (in Dawson's Creek, it was Dawson's best friend, Pacey), who is a misfit, not destined for any great things, but who seems to be totally impacted and tranformed by the feelings that he shares with the same woman. This third guy is a better person in her presence, and with her, his prospects brighten. And she, who would have blossomed on her own regardless of who she chose, must make a life decision (over a period of several years). But, because of the nature of television, and the fact that they were stuck in high school, and often the same town, these two rivals (former friends) constantly had to unite to accomplish a task like putting together a dance or whatever. Spoiler alert for Dawson's Creek people. Joey chose Pacey, and while I totally disliked the choice because Pacey, who was a better character (and a far superior actor) didn't deserve the grace of her love, even though, he was better for having it.

Despite having seen the future, which has a Jack and Kate engagement, we still don't know the fate of Sawyer, and I suspect the three of them will meet again. And, my guess is that Jack goes off and works on movies with Spielberg, his lifelong idol, or accomplishes his ultimate goal of being a hero and getting all of these people off the island. Meanwhile, Sawyer, who becomes a decent human being with Joey in his life, needs her to stay above his old misfitty ways, and she adores being thus needed. So, while Jack and Kate might be soul mates, Sawyer and Kate are more compatible. And I will hate that decision too, despite it's rationality, with each of them being mildly satisfied in the end result.

Now, that I have appropriately embarassed myself by my intimate knowledge of Dawson's Creek, I can let you go home.

Yours,
PB#ME

PS: Why didn't the guy in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, drink from the wet cup, the cup that looked like Old Man River's been drinking out of it for the last few hundred years?

Moving Cabin

2008-05-09T10:26:00.004-04:00

Hello Lost viewers,

After a dizzying, troubling week, I am relieved to be able to sit down and share a few Lost thoughts with all of you. So, I present to you my thoughts on the Cabin Fever episode of Lost.

Spoilers ahead.

As usual, I prefer to start with the Widmore-Ben war and how the mythology plays out over the course of years. It seems, Dharma and the Hostiles were at odds when Ben first arrived on the island. On one side, there was Horace Goodspeed, who worked for Dharma, and apparently built a cabin in the woods. He was a mathematician or something and he recruited Roger Linus to the island with no clear sinister (or hidden) objective. Ben was a tag along. At the same time, Richard Alpert, an ageless wonder, was a doctor/scientist/school teacher, who was trying to acquire gifted youth, John Locke for many years to his "Portland" based science camp called Mittelos, an anagram for time lost, for those of you new the show.

So, Alpert, who was apparently in the group that opposes Goodspeed tried to recruit Locke in the 50's and early 70's. Then, around 2000, when Locke began to despair, he was visited by Abaddon, who currently works for Widmore (not the hostiles or Alpert presumably, and possibly even works for the remnants of the Dharma Initiative) and was told to go on the walkabout, that leads John to the island (oh and John owes Abaddon a favor). Abaddon is much more than an orderly, he's also an Oceanic lawyer and a military strategist of sorts. Okay, so Alpert, who was one of the hostiles, possibly even their leader, wants John on the island (and later helped John kill his father to take command of the island folk). Alpert, in the current time, works for/reports to Ben. Then, Abaddon wants John on the island, and he may be working for Widmore. Then, to make matters more confusing, Goodspeed's ghost, who used to work for Dharma, now wants John to find Jacob.

So, all three groups at some point are pointing John to the same point, to finding Jacob (and possibly becoming Jacob?). The only thing that helps all of this make sense is Ben. Ben is consistently for keeping power for himself, which means hindering John from taking power. He's tried mental approaches, trying to make John kill his estranged passed, trying mental approaches, trying to deter John's self-confidence, and he's tried physical approaches, shooting John in the kidney-hole.

But, John was not ready for his ascendancy until the crash. Ben has in the meanwhile rose to power with his own specialness, and strives to keep that power. In his revelation that it was not his decision to purge Dharma, he revealed that he was no always in charge. In fact, since he's been in charge, it seems that the hostiles have made efforts to keep John away from the cabin (save for the sneaky sneaky efforts of Alpert) and now, it seems Dharma people and Widmore people are trying to get John to the island.

More and more, it seems Widmore is ahead of the game now, knowing where Ben is going to be after Keamy fails to extract him at the barracks. Widmore is apparently a very smart man, and likely has some of the island future telling magic that Ben seems to have lost.

John, the star of this week's episode, now seems back to accepting his role as superhero. It turns out he's special because he was born around the 6 month mark like Ben was (someone check Walt's medical history) and of course, that is the death knell for island pregnancies. But, John is special and because he's special, he gets to go see Christian Shepard and his daughter Claire in Jacob or Horace's cabin. John can find the cabin, he can go into the cabin, and he can move the island. Wait... what? Yep, that's absurd, or is it? Yes, it's absurd. Can he move the island spacially to connect with the other island that Ben imprisoned Ben on? What good would that do? Could it mean move the island on the time line, so that the island loses a day or something? It's very possible in this Lost world that centers around some sort of rift in the space-time continuum that some people like Ben and Widmore (and Jacob?) are able to exploit to know things about the future.

For example, Richard Alpert has some sort of eternal youth (or he's a ghost like everyone else seems to be, e.g.s Christian, Claire, Horace, Charlie, Echo's brother). Also, Alpert showed up and asked little John (the show called him that, not me, after the Robin Hood character of huge stature) to tell him what already belonged to him. Unfortunately for John and Alpert, John wasn't ready, either psychicly (meaning he couldn't read the future yet because he didn't understand his purpose, didn't have flashbacks, conscience time travel, or whatever yet) or because he wasn't psychologically ready for being special. Ben was refused his first time too.

Also, the Island is already moving in time. I'm not sure what I mean, but that's what the show does to me. I never exactly know what I mean. But, a good example of this is that the Islanders see a dead body and contact the ship, who correctly answer them, that the dead body of the doctor is alive and well. Hours later, after Sayid went to rescue the others following the proper bearings, and when he arrives, the body has already been there for quite some time. Entry to the island seems to be a space time rift, and changing the bearings, will likely move the island sufficiently to mess with the coordinates and with my head.

I want to note that they show various things that "belong to" Locke when he's a kid, as he's growing up and then actually owns them.

Doc Jensen proposed the idea of Ben as the island's back-up plan, which warrants further consideration, but not enough for me to delve into the theory.

My buddy from www.melanism.com suggested that Locke is going to switch the bearings after the Oceanic 6 get off the island, so they can't go back and find the island. That sounds about right to me, but I don't want to get too deep into that idea because it's not my idea and he should get credit for it, should the idea land him some sort of prize money. That is unless, the prize is something related to Lost, then, it was actually my idea. Nah, I can't even fake having an idea that is close to accurate. I saw this website where Lindeloff and Cuse (the 2 main writers) respond and grade various theories posited by write in emails. I tried to grade them too, and each theory that they thought was excellent, well-crafted and close to the truth- I guessed was ridiculous. And vice versa. So, I am not on the same page as these writers, so I trust other people's opinions more than my own.

Also, how's that for some lazy blogging, just using other people's ideas. I like it. Are there rules, saying I can't do that?

No one tells me what I can't do,
ME PB

Home Heaven

2008-05-02T10:25:00.003-04:00

Hello readers,

although I have lots to report about my own life, I will spare you that boring stuff, and delve right into something much more exciting. TV. More specifically, the program, Lost... again. Send your complaints to your email address, in care of me.

SPOILERS! for those who haven't seen the last episode.

This Jack-centric episode reminded me again, why this show is not only the most intriguing plotline on TV, not only the most rewarding for people looking for religious, philosphical, literary, (etc.) meaning through a story and through cultural references, but it's also got a constant that brings us all back to the heart of the show, character connections. The show is filled with interesting characters, diverse in backgrounds and personalites, but what makes the show unique is how these players connect. I'm not just talking about the fun connections like Christian Shepard secretly being the father of two people on the island, and having met several other characters on the island before they arrived (although that begs a few questions about him and his almost supernatural influence on the Losties), I'm talking about how these characters interconnect in this forced island setting, and how their pasts affected them today. And for the first time, we see, how these characters every day life in the future are affected by this lost experience, not just when they are killers or rich lunatics, or on a celebrity trial, but how it affects their days and their relationships, having been on the island.

Enough with what I'm not talking about, and onto what I am talking about: Jack Shepard... his relationship with his father, with his love, with his child (half-nephew), with his lack of friends (where is Silverman?), with his co-workers, and with his flock. No on embodies this notion of connection better than Jack who has little tolerance for himself and thus depends entirely upon his connection with others.

Perhaps it all started with his genetics, or with his erratic relationship with his father, or perhaps it was his own choices, as when he tried to protect the downtrodden from a bully when he was just a boy, but Jack has been depending on people, needing people to need him for quite some time. He is constantly saved by these people who need him: saved by his first wife, who needed him to perform miracle surgery and then recover. He was saved by the Losties when his life was falling apart just as he came to the island, and they needed him to lead. He was saved by Kate/Aaron who needed someone to complete their fictional family unit. And ultimately, most likely, he will be saved one more time, by his friend Hurley who pointed out that he does live in a fictional world (in a constructed heaven and not a home goodness), and his happiness is not true happiness because of his deep personal baggage and the, as of yet, unfulfilled promise he made to the islanders.

My affection for this episode started because I personally enjoy Jack episodes, (aside from the episode about his arm ink), and grew when I saw that despite his agony, Jack stood up and faced his flock, and denied them a pound of flesh from the two lying scientists by treating them with compassion and dealing with the upcoming problem with his ever-present resolve, promising to prepare for any impending attack in an effort to get his people off the island.

But, the episode piqued my devoted attention and solidified its place in the pantheon (using a term crafted by the Boston Sports Guy) of Lost episodes with the reading of what I later learned was Alice in Wonderland. (For the purposes of this blog post, don't concern yourself with the context of Alice in Wonderland, which is a Lost favorite for many reasons, expounded in Jensen's column, as well as in previous blogs.) The passage was moving, but also extremely revealing. As we look at Jack (as well as all the other characters), we see the dramatic transformations that have occurred over the course of this trip to the island. And we learn about his constant struggle, and conversation with himself? Who is he in times of peril? Who is he in times of happiness? Who are any of us in these situations, when we are in a paradox or a quandary, or when we are in bliss. As we all have learned, in times of strife, Jack rises to the occasion and is revered by others who depend on him for his great strength. In times of joy, he becomes a monster, who is seemingly out to destroy that emotion within himself, but that is when he depends on other people the most. Jack seems to understand this dichotomy and he does not ignore it, but instead he turns inside himself for answers, and despite or perhaps because of his overanalysis of the situation, he magnifies his problems.

And who used to read this book excerpt to Jack that helped define his understanding of himself? His father. Christian Shepard is the most important single influence in Jack's life and over the course of many years and through a number of bouts with alcoholism, Christian revealed his lack of faith in his son, perhaps in large part because of his own failings as a man. Christian constantly recognized the disappointment in his ever-achieving son, while only rarely expressing his pride. But, was that what defined Jack? That Daddy didn't hug him enough? Is he out to make daddy proud? No, in fact, it was his resistance to his father's advice about heroism, and not his numerous similarites that made him so appealing a leader to the Losties. Nobody tells Jack (or Locke or Kate or Sawyer) what he can't do. It all hearkens back to "fate" and/or "course correcting". If there is some sort of destiny for Jack, whether it is to be a successful family man, or a first rate surgeon, or a dominant leadership position on the island, he is up to the task, but is contantly pushing it away and testing the boundaries; he is contantly revolting against the outside authorities trying to control him. Jack, in that way, is much like Winston Churchill, the man widely revered in America, and often denigrated in Britain, because America is aware of his bravado, strength and wisdom in wartime, while during times of peace, he was constantly actively seeking (anticipating) the next conflict. So, Christian's alcoholism, and bitterness left a resounding impact in Jack's soul and it echoed throughout his life.

His father even affects his love life. Jack and Kate are a pair that seemingly does not make sense, in that he is a respected doctor and she is an escaped convict. In order for her to get off relatively free, he had to drag himself through the mud and commit purgery on her behalf. But, again, knowing Jack, the decision is perfectly logical, and he jumps to the defense of a person in need and does whatever it takes, reasonable or unreasonable and miraculously saves the woman, and proposes to her. And through it all, he worries about whether or not he's the same person he was before the paradox of this day, and maybe in this topsy turvy world of Lost, and even our topsy turvy world, it would be better if he was not the same person, and he comes out of the Island trauma cleansed of the hero complex (the same one that led to Boone's downfall). Or maybe, like Charlie and Echo and Shannon and... Jin?, once you are cleansed of your dominant character flaws, you are doomed.

But, what about his relationship with Kate? Wwe've seen her have relationships in the past in which she appeared happy, even, downright content, such as the Nathan Fillion relationship, but Kate's natural inclination, when there is a problem in her life is to run, to flee. For the record though, when there is a problem in someone else's life about whom she cares deeply, ala her mother or presumably Aaron, she actively gets rid of the bad influence. So, Kate, determined to remain secretive and to live up to her baser instincts, flees from a potentially promising relationship with someone who loves her and her "son" deeply by getting rid of Jack, at least in part protects Aaron.

Speaking of father (type-person who is really an uncle) and son. Jack apparently acknowledged his blood kinship with Aaron (meaning in the future, he knows about his uncle-hood) and also decided to take an active role in child rearing. He reads to the little one, and maybe even cleans up Star Wars toys after him, cussing all the while. Like father like son. Jack starts drinking, starts questioning his own abilities as a father, and starts becoming a poor father. It is often the case (I will withhold examples) that great people are not good parents. It makes sense to me, because often in taking on the responsibilities of greatness, whether it is in leadership, science, arts, sports, or regular professional life, one has to devote incredible amounts of time, attention, and focus to achieving widely acclaimed success, and often taking the necessary "quantity time" away from living a well-balanced life. Can Jack be a great man? Jack's biggest lifelong critic, his father, once told Sawyer (in an Aussie dive bar) that he thought Jack could be a great man and he certainly is not panning out to be much of a parental figure with his late nights at work, trips to the insane asylum, and the drinking.

But, where is he great? Are his miracle surgeries what makes him great... or what about his, at times, questionable leaderhip? Well, he made a promise to his flock, the islanders, that he would get them off the island. Sure, we can explain how he came to be great by explaining his various skills, his caring, his dedication, and his obvious height advantage. But, actions make a person great. At the time of his appendectomy, Jack had already saved several people medically, led these people from fear and helped them survive and thrive in the face of terrible adversity: warding off internal strife on various occasions, often involving intently self-interested parties (a.k.a. Sawyer), potential virus scares, killers amongst them (e.g.s Ethan and Michael), various kidnapping attempts (i.e. Ben's kidnapping of pregnant women, children, and the big four), hostile others, potentially hostile lying freighteries, supernatural smoke monsters, unusual hostile wildlife (ala polar bears), scarce resources crises, failed rescue efforts, and general administrative and management concerns and using Locke's outdoor skills, Sayid's technical skills, etc. to maximize advantages to maintain hope, optimism, and civility and get his people ever closer to getting off this island that through supernatural, natural, technological, and multiple human methods are collaborating to keep them stranded and lost. Moreover, he subsequently succeeded in getting some of them off the island, and he is determined to get the rest of them off the island. I am hopeful that he will succeed (in Season 6).

Oh, and it's worth noting, almost none of these islanders have many friends. Even Hurley, who is eminently personable has an invisible best friend (Dave?). Jack's best man, (Silverman?) plays almost no role in any of his decision making processes, hence appearing in only one flashback. Kate's friendships are tied in with her love-life. So, on the island, all of these people are more than friendly; they are caring and dedicated and important to each other; they are friends. Before the island, and after the island, in all of the scenes of their lives that we are privy to (which are always the most revealing moments about how they came to make their current decisions) have almost nothing to do with their friendships. The show is telling us, sure, peers can pressure you into something you are not, temporarily, but families (along with your jobs and your loves) mold you into who you are and who you will become (whether by pressuring you to comply with the family tradition or by leading you to rebel against the family mold). So, what will become of Aaron? Is the Island telling Jack not to raise him? And if so, does it mean Jack is not well enough to raise him, and would exert a poor influence? No one tells Jack what he can't do.

But, what of his co-workers? Jack was actually co-workers with his father. Sure, someone precribed him some clonazepam for depression and to help him sleep, but she seemed surprised that they were talking. And his boss in the future really respects him before becoming suspicious of Jack's drug addiction. Because, ultimately, this guy is a maverick who works on his own. He works his own hours, doesn't really report to anyone, doesn't trust anyone else to get the job done (see Juliet, the star-crossed lover,) and although, he might be a masterful surgeon and a capable leader, he doesn't like any idea unless it is his own. He doesn't play well with others.

Sure, we can try and blame his father for his pitfalls, and for his lack of friendships, and for his trouble with women, but this guy is in plenty of torment of his own construction. He welcomes the pain of surgery and the agony of a woman who repeatedly chooses Sawyer over himself, as he continuously devotes himself to her, sacrificing himself for her. He revels in chaos. Not quite the average shepard, but perhaps it is more of a Churchillian trait?

So, who is Jack Shepard? Is he a leader, a healer, a family man, is he any one of us? Or is a contrarian? Perhaps, he is the guy who does good when he is surrounded by bad, and does bad when he is surrounded by good? I'm biased as his deep conflict and his stubborn desire to do good things and great things makes him a compelling character to me. (Contrary to the popular opinion, he is one of my favorite characters, probably second only to Ben.) So, I think he's good and though like many heroes, he is flawed, he will ultimately shine in even the more mundane family environment, along with the hostile conditions on this as of yet unnamed island, or the often even more harsh conditions of the hospital.

So, when is Jack in the paradox that he described from reading his passage to Aaron? I submit to you, that it is not when he is on the island, but when he is off the island. Hurley described the serene environment, and the peace in Jack's heart as heaven, as Jack was able to bring the goodness of home in Kate's house, and remember the goodness of his father beyond the torment. Jack, having realized he is "dead," and having realized that his issues are not resolved, is haunted by the actual dead, his father of course, just as Hurley was haunted by his best friend Charlie. And both come to realize that indeed, they have to go back. Who or what will appear to Kate, Sun, and Sayid? Or do only Hurley and Jack have to go back to save/live with/die with the Losties? Does the apparition have to be someone whose corpse is on the island like Charlie or Christian, so might Shannon come for Sayid, or can it be an off-island corpse like Nadja? Can it be someone who is on the island, but presumably not dead yet like Sawyer, who already is haunting Kate by having her run errands for him, but now haunt her in some physical manifestation or corporeal form?

And whose in the goshdarn box and why don't they have to go back to the island and why do they get to die, when the other Losties can't: Jack (tried to jump off bridge), Michael (tried to crash car, shoot self, and blow self up), Hurley (was in a minor car crash), Sayid (was shot pretty severely), and Widmore (who Ben couldn't kill, though "can't" kill is obviously up for interpretation)? The safe bet on that one is still that Michael is in the box as he has lost all of his friends, is living under an assumed name, has incurred the ire of Kate, and Jack would not call him a friend, has possibly served his purpose to the island by that point, and of course, is actively seeking death.

There are so many unanswered questions in the Lost world? Lost is incredibly entertaining, but is even more special because it occasionally points the finger at the viewer and makes the viewer ask him/her self: "Who am I?" What is my place in this world? Do I have a destiny? Can I change who I am? Should I try? Finally, those are questions I CAN answer for you. But, I would have to charge you for that little slice of heaven.

As always, I wish you the best.
Keep watching, look closer, and the truth is here, so find it,
PB ME

My Island

2008-04-25T11:24:00.004-04:00

Hello again Lost-fans,
what a revelation-filled episode... sort of.

Sorry for the weeks off since my last broadcast, but I assure you, I kept writing, you just didn't want to read the stuff I wrote. I made that decision for you because I am very protective of you my dear readers and you are encapable of judging for yourself. You're like my little pets that I water every week, or whatever you are supposed to do with pets. (Aren't you glad I've never had any pets?)

So, I come back to blogging about my favorite blog topic or blopic... Lost. Spoilers ahead.

The episode featured my current favorite character, the sinister, yet utterly trustworthy, uber-bad guy Benjamin Linus. Doc Jensen did a particularly superb job this week referencing Laurence of Arabia, Indiana Jones, H.G. Wells, etc...
But, as usual, I want to focus on the Linus-Widmore war. Widmore is a traditional villain in the mold of Lethal Weapon 2's South African diplomatic immunity spouting government/businessman villain. Also, his people invented golf (methinks), which is villainous for its exclusion, but moreso for the frustration it causes. Stupid 7 iron. Ben, on the other hand, other than his thyroid problem (probable cause of his "evil" eyes) does not dress the part of the Bond villain, with his cargo shorts, Hawaiian shirts, and sandals. Sure, he could be a villain in Tunisian desert J. Peterman parka, but does he project power? Maybe. Intellect, yes. Faith, of course. It's possible that he was chosen for his relative meek appearance (along with impressive acting skill). But, this guy is powerful, not only physically as he beat/killed two Tunisian soldiers with merely a cool stick (not sure what that's called), not only because he has the money to be a preferred customer in a Tunisian hotel (under the name Moriarty, no less), not only because he is able to manipulate people like the doorman through intricate lies to allow him to do as he pleases, or manipulate Sayid using potential truths into acting on his behalf, but also because when he stood over Widmore's bed, he declined to kill him with an air of superiority. Also, he can time/space travel, which is pretty powerful too.

The space/time traveling thing Ben did, ending up in Tunisia, was that real travel or was that consciousness travel, like Desmond, Faraday, or the NBC show the Traveller (which was bad and probably got cancelled)? From all of our previous knowledge, it would seem likely that it was consciousness travel, in which Ben woke up in a different moment of his life with all of the memories he had from before the journey and upon return to the present day, he took the new memories "back" to his present existence. So, that way, he can know the future by having lived the future. This has long been the running theory on how Ben was so smart, prepared, and confident about every situation... because he has seen how the future turns out. And, while he is an excellent actor, Michael Emerson's character, Ben, seemed stunned about the death of his adoptive daughter.

Ben responded to the death by saying, "he changed the rules", which of course initially made you think that he was referring to the mercenary, Keany, who shot well before the promised count of ten, effectively changing the rules. Then, once you remembered Ben is always living in part of a larger world than the Losties and larger than the viewers understand, it became apparent he was probably referring to Widmore, with whom he may or may not have had some sort of mafia-like pact about not killing family members. Then, you remember that Ben is living in part of a larger universe in which the rules are different and the future can be seen, and Ben's surprise becomes all the more jarring. This death was not his expected outcome, and the person who changed the rules, may have been the Island's version of God, Jacob.

His active reaction was to go into a hidden room and possibly call the smoke monster or possibly time travel or possibly use the toilet. Assuming he called the smoke monster, how did he do it? He clearly knows more about the gaseous beast than he let on, but does that mean he has some measure of control over it? We know that Smokey once stopped at the electrified gate that Alex, in this episode turned off, which may have allowed the smoker monster entrance. Did Ben just call the monster up and tell it that the door was open? Then, why wouldn't it attack Ben and the gang? So, Ben does seem to have some control over it. But, the theory that the Monster is as Danielle once claimed, the island's security system, is bolstered by the fact that it attacked only the new folks who might mean to threaten the island or at least the status quo of the island's power balance. But, the theory that the Monster is related to Jacob was not aided here?

But, now onto the revelation that Ben and Charles meet in Widmore's room. Did they share the billion dollar scotch? Ben is worth more than Desmond, so Ben can drink with Widmore. But, the substance of the conversation was more than a bit childish, which of course, was excellent. "You started it..." "No you started it..." "It's your fault." "Uh, no, yours." [Paraphrased.]

So, it now appears more likely than ever that these two people are at odds over the island, (thus less likely that the whole frigate was a Ben plot pitting two sides against each other.) And apparently, Ben took everything he has from Widmore. Does that mean the millions of dollars he can access at a whim? Or does that just mean claim over the island, which may account for millions of dollars? But, Widmore evidently had a strong claim to the island and as we suspected at some point in the past/future, he may have been there before. But, as of the date of their meeting, Widmore was unable to find the island. Ben, whether he time travelled his way to England or whether he made it off on Desmond's boat, does appear confident that he can get back. So, perhaps, Miles is confident that ben can get him money because of some sort of time/space travel equipment and not because of his ability to communicate off island.

The problem is that in these Linus episodes, other than the stuff we see happening, we can hardly credibly believe the things that are said by anyone because he doesn't believe them. And at any point, Ben could change the rules of our arrangement and lie to us viewers. Frankly, wee've been warned enough.

Ben's gonna kill Penelope. Where is she? In hiding? This certainly confirms that even if he is not the worst bad guy, he is a pretty darned bad guy. I read some comments/blog ideas about how the two of them could be God and the devil, but they really both seem to be pretty awful people.

The death of Alex, Danielle, Karl, and the "other" oceanic survivors at the barracks was sad, but taught Ben a lesson about something and sent the Lost audience a message: the writers have no compunction killing off unessential characters with even more ease than they kill off the ensemble members. It's not an important lesson unless you consider that there were only 50 some odd Losties to begin with. Now, there are somewhere between 30-40? I'll have to consult lostpedia for more info. But, the episode had a very high death count. And, we're not even sure how many of the frigate mercenaries were killed. Jack Bauer would be proud... or furious.

So, Dr. Jack has fallen ill? Does he have "the virus"? Is the idea of an island virus back? Should we bring it back? Is it simply a ruptured appendix? Is he going to die? Well, he's not going to die.. or is he? I'm also not sure what to make of the death of the frigate doctor, unless, the probable theory is that the scientists like Faraday of Widmore's camp created a doctor killing virus to get rid of all of Ben's people. Okay, so that is not likely, but there seems to be something going around.

So, although I probably gleaned less from this episode than most people because of how much/little I trust Linus, it was an action packed episode and nonetheless informative through our visions and delusions of grandeur and extremely entertaining. I very much look forwards to next week's romp and then rambling about it to you fine folks.

That's it,
ME PB

Good Guys

2008-03-21T15:59:00.005-04:00

Hello peoples,

next week, I will have to find something to write about that isn't Lost related because of the show's current hiatus. I assume I will find something to ramble about, but don't cry too hard if I don't. Now onto the Kevin Johnson episode of Lost and what we learned, didn't learn and why I was ultimately disappointed by the episode. As often, spoilers ahead.

Before I talk about the episode specifically, I want to delve a bit into the Ben-Widmore war. I have discussed the matter before, but I'm not sure I nailed down the exact premise of the war before. The war is (in my current theory's incarnation) about classic, nineteenth century imperialism. It appears that from the very moment Dharma stepped on the Island, they have been struggling with the Hostiles. If you notice, Dharma (and Widmore) tend to bring in mathematicians and scientists like Horace Goodspeed, Michael Faraday, and Charlotte Staples Lewis, while Ben and the hostiles bring in doctors like Juliet, Ethan, and Alpert. Dharma brought in scientists to study and extract whatever natural (or unnatural) resources the Island has to give. As of now, the Island has shown the ability to prevent death (see Michael, Jack, Juliet's sister, Rose, etc.), prevent aging ala the Fountain of Youth (see Alpert), sub-conscious time travel (see Desmond, Faraday, Minkowski, etc.). So, it is totally understandable that Dharma would want to comprehend and harness those unique properties for profit as well as for the betterment of humanity as a whole. On the other side, Ben and his lot are more naturalists, and they intend to hoarde, protect, and preserve the island's natural gifts in fear that people don't understand the gifts of the island and will misuse them for the non-betterment of the world. When, Ben brings the doctors, they are there to study, treat, and prevent the negative effects of living on the Island (see the birthing problem) to make the island completely habitable.

Of course, neither side is as benevolent and kind as I portrayed them. Widmore represents the conventional military-industrial corporate complex that has trained military people like Naomi, maintains a frigate, with air support, and boundless resources, often spent in public places such as auctions. Ben, on the other hand, is the guerilla warfare expert, eco-terrorist who is willing to kill civilians en masse with chemical weapons, see the Purge, and his submarine was torched, while his money is often in cash.

It's time to start thinking of Ben as Kurtz, the guy who came into the heart of darkness as an imperialist and stayed as the leader of the nativists. The result... an apocalypse, an apocalypse of the human mind? Of course, it's never as simple as that in Lost, so, there are other viable theories.

A widespread theory that I appreciate is often refered to as the Palpatine theory by Doc Jensen and his replacement. The notion is that the fight is really Ben against Ben. When I first saw this played out in The Phantom Menace, despite the sub-expectations nature of the movie, I was so excited about the notion of an evil, manipulative person who is so smart that he could manufacture a war/conflict to create the opportunity to play the hero on both sides, so he gains influence and wins the war either way. It's possible that Ben has foreseen the events that would lead him towards the ultimate power on the island. Nothing unites people better than a war against outsiders... against others. And Ben has managed to seize a leadership role for himself by generating further conflict to harness the full extent of his power. He also uses lies, blackmail, violence, brainwashing, and Jacob (which is the veritable equivalent of quoting scripture) as well as other forms of manipulation, so why not engineer a war to place stranglehold on his community that was rapidly warming to the idea of following John Locke's principles. It is thoroughly plausible, but I almost don't want to believe it because of how convincing Michael Emerson is, and how much Ben appears to believe he is one of the good guys. If he was playing both sides, he wouldn't be one of the good guys at all and he couldn't even reasonably think he was one of the good guys.

Speaking of power, if knowledge is power, Miles is powerful. Otherwise, Miles is not. Miles can talk to ghosts of drug dealers, Naomi's ghost, Ben's bank account, and Kevin Johnson's passport. I'm still convinced the show is under-utilizing his intensity, but I'm not sure how they can satisfactorily use this premise without scaring off many of the sci-fi-hesitant viewers.

The Plane. The Plane. It's now an old fashioned, "who done it" mystery. Whose story is more plausible, Widmore's story as told by Captain Gault or Ben's story as told by Friendly Tom? Tom's story has more details, but Michael bought into the story very very quickly. Worse yet, he was persuaded to kill yet again at the drop of a hat. This time, Ben didn't even use Walt as bait, but Michael was ready to do anything for Ben. The acting was fine, but the writing was implausible. It's nice that Michael is haunted by the ghost of Libby's past, and it makes sense that his murdering could drive him to depression and despair... but to more murder... mass murder? There had to be more persuasion from Mr. Friendly to get Michael to that point.

I'm not sure how Michael survived his suicide attempts, but the gun jamming, along with the car crash survival along with the Jack's failed suicide attempts leads to the conclusion that, indeed, these former Islanders can't die. Not sure how that works even in this Lost world of several improbable events (and it's always unseemly when supernatural occurences take place off island like Miles with ghost whispering and Walt with bird killing). Now, I am even more intrigued how someone could end up in the coffin off the island. And who is it? The Kevin Johnson guess is looking very strong.

Speaking of Sayid, what the heck was he thinking? In an impetuous move, he wasted his one trump card on the boat, the identity of the saboteur without negotiating anything on his or his friend's behalf. Why? To make friends with a clearly suspect, and certainly untrustworthy captain? Or more likely, he acted rashly to punish his one-time friend because Sayid appreciates loyalty and friendship, and Michael is the cardinal sinner/betrayer of friendship.

It is unclear how the time traveling, space traveling polar bears played into this episode, but I wanted to mention them.

The death of Karl was tragic because of his youth, but as a character, he had served his purpose. He had been brainwashed, been in love with the bad guy's daughter, and not gotten her pregnant. I think that's it for him. I am not convinced that Alex's mother, Rousseau, is dead, considering we still don't know about her survival story, the research project that she was on, and whether it was Dharma related? Was there really a virus? How did she deliver Alex by herself? Crazy stuff.

And the question to ask here, is who shot at them. Ben would want to kill Karl to keep Alex from fornicating (and getting pregnant and dying like his mother did and every other island fornicator did. It's a classic slasher film: sex = death.) Ben would want Rousseau's death because she is Ben's rival for Alex's affection and guidance. Ben would also want Alex to feel threatened, so that she could be more easily manipulated and feel forced to turn to Ben for protection. He had access as he has people, the hostiles, hidden away and still following his orders. However, Widmore might have people on the island because Lapidus was off on a mission. Widmore might not have a compunction killing anyone on the island, particularly picking them off in secluded locations. And thus, Alex yelling out that she is Ben's daughter would likely save her life either way, either as a unique specimen to be protected or a commodity to be exploited. It's still unclear who shot at her, but it's totally clear that she will live to fight another day.

Eight weeks off? The horror. The horror.
-ME PB

Wise Delay

2008-03-14T13:08:00.006-04:00

Hello again,

continuing in my recent theme of discussing the most recent Lost episode, I am going to discuss the most recent episode of Lost. "Ji Yeon", which, I am informed by Doc Jensen, means delay or flower of wisdom. In a show that knows quite a bit about both, the name is particularly apt. Beware, if you did not watch the episode yet, there are spoilers below, and even if you did watch the show in the past, I have been known to guess at the future.

Let's start with delay and what we know about delays as Lost fans. First off, the entire show is centered on delayed gratification as we wait for one answer after another that will explain the greater and lesser anomalies and oddities that pop up throughout the show. These delays have taken place in many forums, from the audience's outcries over improper scheduling over the first several seasons to our prolonged six season wait for one universal answer.

More thematically, the delay also occurs in the wait for birth, and possibly the wait to reunite these people. But, in this episode, the "delay" was finding out that the flash forwards were not all flash forwards. Now, we have to guess at each flash, whether it is backwards or forwards, not just figure out the time frame once per episode. But, yes, as melanism points out, cell phones provide an excellent clue as to the year, and the larger cell phone that Jin was using could have clued us into the secret had we been on our toes. But, it caught me by surprise. (I thought he was going to die in a car accident, but more on that below.)

I tend to think most popular names in one country have a popular name equivalent in other countries. It's easier in European countries, e.g. Johann = Ivan = John. But, it still holds some credence in non-westernized countries as well, Ji Yeon, may well be the equivalent of Jo Anne. But, I feel it is particularly noteworthy because the name is homonym with the name "John". Now, it could be coincidence, but in this show, I don't proscribe to that view very often. Instead, after being on the Island for 3 months, is Jin essentially saying, I'm naming my daughter after notable killer, island leader, John Locke? Is there some other reason that he has always liked this name? It's food for thought.

Onto the Oceanic 6. Resolved? Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Sun, Aaron? Done? I hope not, but let's assume that is correct. Who are the two that "survive" the plane crash, but don't make it off the island according to Jack's testimony? We still don't know, but I have to guess Claire was one of those people because of Desmond's chopper vision. Jin is probably not one of those two people, otherwise, they would have adjusted the date on his grave accordingly. And, we are still not much closer to figuring out the person in the coffin at the end of Season 3, though the Ben and Michael (under his assumed name, Kevin Johnson (who we are meeting next week)) guesses are looking pretty good, right about now, particularly because Michael is separated from Walt and under an assumed name, no one but the islanders would know who he was and possibly visit him. Doc Jensen enjoyed entertaining a theory that Kevin was not Michael, but actually Walt, a theory which does not suit my fancy because even I have my limits for the sci-fi fantasy stuff.

Which brings us to Jin's grave. Is it filled or empty? Did he actually die on the island or is he still on the island? Sun's tears looked genuine, which based on her displaying quality acting throughout the show and particularly in this episode, I take to mean she is genuinely sad. But, is she grieving or is she just sad that she is separated from her love? Lost is great.

The Jin-Sun dynamic continues to fascinate me, as his relatively long-standing overbearing dominance over Sun prior to the island, has given way, not to a mutual trust and respect, of the "optimal" relationship, but rather Sun has assumed the dominance and makes the decisions without regard for Jin's opinion. Yes, she did take the name for her baby that Jin intended, but that is after a prolonged separation. But, had Jin made the same decision about where they are going to live and told Sun to trust him (i.e. decided that they would live in the caves as opposed to the beach), she would be furious. Sun also has yet to tell Jin about the baby mama dying syndrome. She still has issues to resolve. Jin, on the other hand, has not evolved from the stereotypical angry husband to the perfect husband. The shift was much more nuanced than that, and much more poignant. He went from the courting lover who won Sun's affections with his romance to the stereotypical jealous overbearing husband, and now returned to the innocent, trusting, romantic love that Sun initially fell for. His transition and return to innocence marks the end of his journey on the show. He might stay in the fold, but other than the viewer's determining his ultimate destiny, his psychological issues and idiosyncrasies are just about resolved, and thus the show need not deal with him much any more. The same rang true for most of the other dead castaways on the show before they bought the big one. Once their emotional and mental issues are resolved, they no longer belong in this purgatory.

I wonder if Mr. Paik still has a role to play in how the Widmore-Ben war plays out. I seem to remember a few power players, and now that Hurley has amassed quite a fortune, I imagine he can play some Island games as well (once he's off the island and certifiably sane). Speaking of fathers and father figures, how about Bernard's role as surrogate father to Jin? He was very talkative, but he otherwise lived up the role of advising (by example and by analogy) Jin on Jin's marital problems. He even went so far as to take Jin out fishing, which is what Jin's father actually does for a living. Surrogate father of the day award goes to Bernard.

It was nice seeing Michael again, though I am not sure how both Desmond and Sayid would be able to contain their anger at a man that had killed Libby and Ana Lucia (if I remember correctly they knew that it was him and not Ben) and sent Jack, Kate, Sawyer, and Hurley on a path of doom into the hands of Ben. They might understand Michael's actions on behalf of Walt and they might be coy about the whole thing, but really? No reaction? It's just not that plausible. For weeks, we have collectively suspected that Michael was Ben's man on the boat, but now we know for sure(ish). Walt was not with him, so we can only suspect Walt is still on the island, perhaps with the other children harbored by the hostiles.

But, more importantly, what a crappy boat that is. The captain, who has surreptitiously avoided these two strandees for 2-3 days, is very chatty all of a sudden, and he weaves a few tales about Widmore and Ben masterminding the Oceanic wreckage discovery. The captain sounds very plausible, despite the note received by the two bearded Islanders. Obviously, Michael might have sent the note, and Michael may be Ben's mole and Michael might have left the door open, but ultimately they will have to decide who to believe. Would you believe a captain who hasn't helped you yet but seems extremely forthcoming or Ben, who might yet prove to be the lesser of two evils, but who withholds everything he knows and still lies with every other word? Yep, me too.

But, what is up with that boat? Regina is reading some book by Jules Verne, which I am informed is totally relevant, but then, she grabs a chain and walks off the boat to sink 20,000 leagues under the sea. Jensen also believes that Regina and Naomi were more than just friends and the "RG" on Naomi's bracelet was given to her by Regina. (Very possible... and apparently the bracelet is not related to the bracelet found on the corpse of the German girl, killed by Sayid.) But watching Regina plunge off the deck was my biggest shock of the episode. It was like watching a David Lynch movie, even though this might actually make sense. And the nonchalance of the rest of the crew to her suicide was something truly special. Utter anarchic chaos.

Of course, the bloody un-cleaned walls and the bugs in the quiet part of the ship went unexplained, but another legitimate question is whether the captain wanted Desmond and Sayid to see these things. It's possible that Michael would be too busy sabotaging things to have time to clean the room (or it could have been a warning from him). It's also possible that the Captain was threatening the Islanders by showing them blood and death (and bugs) and didn't tell Michael to clean the room (who would want to go unnoticed, so would be doing his job as much as anyone else, which on a boat, is often.)

The semi-death of a prominent castaway has been foretold (in spoilers) for weeks, and coming into this week, it seemed pretty clear that it was going to happen off the island in the future and likely that it would happen to Jin or Sun.
Does that mean I wasn't shocked? Actually, I wasn't shocked about the death, I was shocked by the flashback/flashforward switcheroo that left me feeling more helpless and lost in time then I'd been for more than 2 weeks (since the Desmond episode). I was also shocked that we didn't get to see it. But, it would make sense that he actually died because his issues were resolved (see above) and like Charlie's death, we are merely given a heads up that it's going to happen, and then we subsequently slowly watch the death unravel. Come to think of it, I could see Jin dying in some dramatic fashion, saving Sun in a Jin-Sun-centric episode next year.

Anyone know what it said on Jin's grave (other than the date)?

But, now back to the feature film, and the ongoing quest for control of the island. Captain Gault said he worked for Widmore (little reason to doubt that) and that he was after Ben (some reason to believe that is true). We also know that Michael is lying to him (but Michael has lied before). The Captain has a high tolerance for death/ low value for life, as he didn't seem to care deeply about the loss of his crewmen as he casually explained Island fever. Speaking of Island fever, doesn't this clearly resemble whatever Danielle was talking about when she explained what happened to her and her team when they first got on the island... some sort of viral madness? It's not clear that there was any actual virus, despite Ethan's menacing threats. But something affected the French research crew, and it might as well have been the same thing happening to this frigate's crew.

Where do you get 300 bodies is a good question, regardless of whether it was Ben or Widmore. The purge only killed 40 people, (I think,) so that's not it. The Black Rock probably has totally decayed bodies, so that's not it. Ben works in a veterinary hospital off island, not a morgue, so that's not it. We'll figure it out. But, again, I point to the dichotomy between the show's portrayal of Widmore and Ben over the last two weeks. Widmore is shown beating up 1 person. Ben is alleged to have produced 300 corpses to stage a massive subterfuge. Hmmm. Ben certainly seems more evil from just this comparison, but I guess our file is still relatively empty on Mr. Widmore.

By the way, Sun is a better English teacher than Sawyer. Sun's flip-flopping is not going to get her elected to any prominent political posts on the island. Oh, and Juliet will do anything/say anything to get what she wants, even though what she wants is not as bad as what Ben wants (presumably).

I've got more, but in my flowery wisdom, I will delay your gratification... until next week.

I am Jack's hearty breakfast,
-ME PB

Storm Chasers

2008-03-07T11:17:00.003-05:00

Lost fans,

for now, because of my level of busy-ness, I have been reduced to one posting per week, which has to be Lost related because, of course, I am obsessed with the show. Many people will point to the relative weakness of the past episode and the slow moving plotlines where little actually happens, less is decisively answered, and nothing is ever concluded and ask, why the obsession? Well, I point to the name of the episode as just the beginning in addition to the intricate interweaving characters and plotlines, the powerful acting performances, the nimble dexterity of the references (from Shakespeare to Star Wars, from Milton to Danielle Steele, from Homer and Boccaccio to Stephen King and the Jeffersons), and of course the mysteriousness of the Island, each of which can be most adeptly described in two words, Benjamin Linus.

As always, beware of Spoilers have you not watched the episode.

Let's start with the name of the episode, which is the name of the Dharma station the Islanders visited (and showed us), the probable initiation site of the sh**storm known as "the Purge" that eradicated Dharma several years prior. The name is also the title of the Shakespeare play with much in common with this episode from the damsel in distress to the powerful manipulative wizard to the mysterious Island itself. But, that stuff's obvious (and I haven't read The Tempest in a long time). Instead, let's focus on the literal meaning(s) of the "tempest". A tempest is a powerful storm. Such a storm is bound to occur during monsoon season, which I believe corresponds with Sweeps Week. And we had a little taste of an actual, literal storm when the rain created cover for Faraday and Staples Lewis to run towards the station to release/deactivate the poisonous gas, which Ben invariably controlled. But, that was a nice distraction from the story about the real tempest... Ben.

Ben is the master manipulator, and the architect behind several of the sub-plotlines of this episode. He always has a plan. Let's start with the storm brewing in the Locke camp, or as Ben termed it, the revolution. It starts innocently with a mother and her baby coming up to Locke and questioning Locke's supreme authority, an authority which is based on nothing other than the fact that these people all agreed that Locke had one good idea... to run. Ben uses his last trump cards with Locke to reveal the identity of the owner of the boat (possibly Widmore, but Ben has lied to us in the past from time to time). There was even some grainy footage of Widmore being involved in the shady capture and beating of someone somewhere, which is probably important (even though I am not sure why or who that was.) There was a file on Widmore, much thinner than the file on Jack, and probably much thinner than the file of Juliet, whose file we apparently do not want to read. (But, we will talk more about Widmore momentarily.) Locke seems reluctant to let Ben go free for the fear that Ben will either leave these barracks or attack the holed-up Islanders. But, why would he do that if within a matter of days, it seems likely that Ben will be leading these people too.

Let's move to Ben's manipulation of Juliet in her flashbacks. Ben is in love with Juliet, or he's got some crush on her, or he "owns" her, in large part because Juliet looks like "her", who may be Ben's childhood girlfriend from Dharma, whom Ben may or may not have killed. So, he brings Juliet to the island, he keeps her on the island, and when she becomes romantically entangled with the wrong guy (a.k.a. anyone but Ben), Ben takes measured action. So, Ben, pulls out all the romantic stops, which despite his brilliance, is actually zero stops because he is socially inept (see his zero friends). He brings flowers, sets up dinner under false pretenses, gets her boyfriend killed, initiates hand contact, etc. Right, in King David style (see Bathsheba and Uriel), Ben sends out Goodwin, Juliet's married male companion, to the front lines and abandons him there with the unquestionably un-list-worthy Ana-Lucia to be killed. This way, David, er. Ben could have Juliet's baby... oh wait, I got a little confused. Ben and Juliet could not have a baby (because the women all die after 7 months) just like Ben's mother did (but the babies die too, unlike Ben who survived much to the dismay of his father, Roger "Work Man" Linus.) So, maybe that's why he is trying to secure Juliet, to replace his first female friend, who looked like Juliet, who died trying to bear Ben's child who was supposed to be a girl. And then, Annie died along with the baby, and with the luck of the Island, (where a spinal surgeon falls out of the sky when Ben has cancer), a woman births a child on the Island, which the Island gives Ben to raise, Alex, who will one day grow up to rule all the known world. Okay, I've gone too far. But, it's clear that he does whatever he can to get Juliet to sway towards him.

Let's continue with Ben's manipulation of Juliet in the present. Ben knows that because of her rocky relationship with her Island therapist, Harper (Juliet was sleeping with her husband, which along with refusing to talk about herself officially made her the worst patient ever) and their shared Goodwin connection, he can use Harper to send Juliet a message... stop the Faraday, Staples Lewis combo from getting to the gas station. Of course, he pressed the right buttons and not only got Juliet on her side, but she convinced Jack to be on their side. Because Ben knows how to push his buttons too. And Juliet almost completely stops the other male-female duo, who also might not know exactly what they are doing, just as Juliet and Jack had no idea what they were doing. In fact, for all we know, the scientist duo (as opposed to the doctor duo) might have just transferred control of the gas at the Tempest Dharma station from Ben to Widmore or Abaddon. Or, it is even legitimately possible, that like the Emperor from Star Wars, in the prequels, Ben is actually orchestrating the attack on both sides.

Moreover, how did Ben get the message to Harper? 1) Was it telepathy? Doubtful because we haven't encountered telepathy before on the island, which makes it less plausible than the other three alternatives. 2) Ben was told to ask Harper to do this by Jacob, which its possible though somewhat unlikely that Jacob, the silent, invisible partner is actually in control of the relationship and the list (and the people have blind faith in Jacob). 3) Careful planning by Ben, which we know is what makes Ben so powerful and so dangerous, that he planned for so many eventualities (and rest assured, he has a back-up plan for Juliet and Jack failing to kill Faraday and Staples Lewis). 4) Or most likely, Ben told Harper in advance because, he, like Desmond and Faraday can see the future, though he can remember it better than either of them. This reminds me of Bill Bellichick, not because the coach of the New England Patriots football team is psychic, but because for five years we were astounded by how amazing the guy was. Year after year, the guy took a team with mostly average to slightly above average players to several championships through exceptional coaching. It was as if he had a preternatural intuition in planning methods and determining the teams next move. Recently, we found out what the NFL has been covering up for several years and continues to try to cover up, that rather than seeing the future or being some sort of super genius, he was actually cheating (probably). He knew the plays the other team practiced before they played and with videotaping the play calling, he was able to determine the other team's play calls and with planning and proper play calling of his own, be in a better position to succeed on every given play. But, like steroids, it doesn't get you all the way there, and the Patriots still had to play well and train hard, but they had an incredibly unfair advantage (which was also illegal or a rule violation, whichever you consider worse). Ben, who has been exposed to whatever radiation is on the island for a few years, may be exploiting the tricks he learned, which may be more than the whispering and disappearing into the jungle. He might be forever youthful and mostly self-healing, along with being a seer, who can see into the truth of things, (actually that's a mind-reader or a reader, but I have no evidence to support the mind-reading.) Still, it's clear this guy is pretty special.

But, now it's time to discuss Widmore insofar as he relates to Ben. As I stated last week, it is very possible that Widmore can see the future too and knew Desmond was the key to him getting onto the island. It is likely that Widmore and Ben are rivals, both rich and both seeking to exploit the island to their own ends: possibly Widmore to exploit for profit, and Ben to hoard for himself. Thus, the Abaddonians sent in people that could study the properties of the island, while Ben brings in people that could make the island habitable for the people already on the island (and future generations) like doctors and well... mainly doctors, as there are a lot of doctors. Is Abaddon, Widmore's Smiling Tom? If so, there is a nice creepy contrast between the two. Or maybe he's Widmore's Alpert? Or maybe he works for Ben? Or maybe he is Ben? Lost is so confusingly awesome.

The only non-mystery of the show is the next week's likely reveal of Michael as Ben's man on the boat. It makes sense, in that Locke because of his Walt connection, would listen to Ben if he knew Ben was in cahoots with Michael. It makes sense in that the boat-people would want Michael, who had been on the island, to direct them back to the island. It makes sense that Michael would do it if he were actually trying to help Ben. And it makes sense that either using his multiple murders, his son Walt as a bargaining chip or hostage, that Ben could get Michael to cooperate (see the mutliple murders). The question is whether Michael ever truly left the island, might then be answered, if the answer is that he was immediately ensnared by Widmore's Abaddonians and realized that Ben might not actually be the bad guy, or might be slightly less bad than Widmore. Or maybe not. Either way, I don't like how the show is trying to make it seem like we never thought we would see Michael again. In fact, most of us wondered where he was and were waiting for answers, rather than thinking he was off the show for good. I definitely want to see him, but would be much more satisfied if Ben's mole is someone else, though I can't think of anyone that makes nearly as much sense, who is still alive, who we thought we would never see again/the viewers would be excited about seeing again other than Michael/Walt.

The one thing we do know is that Ben will win, and Juliet was sure of it. Jack was not afraid, but Jack has been known to be foolish (and brave) before. So, let's move on to Ben's manipulation of the future and what Ben wins. Ben might lose, at least in part, in the near future as we see him off the island and perhaps manipulating Sayid to get back onto the island. Perhaps, Ben is the man in the coffin, which was appropriately sized for his small frame, and it is than fitting that a man that killed his family and has no friends, would have no visitors other than the consumate do-gooder in Jack. But, of course, Ben might be too obvious a choice for the coffin dweller, and it does not fall in line with the theory that Ben wins. Does Ben win Juliet? Probably not, because Juliet would rather have more awkward kisses with Jack, who is clearly in love with someone else. Additionally, Ben seems to enjoy the pursuit, and the plotting, and the crushing vengeance for failure to achieve his smaller goals like love. (See his glee in anouncing, "take as much time as you need" after scolding her for not falling in line with his plan). So, if Ben doesn't win Juliet, I guess he wins the Island, as Locke seems unready to take command of the Island as its protector and caretaker and Jacob is too old and too dead (especially if Jacob is Christian Shepard). I guess Ben wins the fight against Widmore and the Abaddonians, but my guess is that doesn't happen this season. And my guess, and my hope, is that by the end of the show, this guy would have fooled these island saps (and us viewers) sooo many times, and yet, we will actually be rooting for him... and we will be right to cheer for his victory.

But, as to Ben's dubious personality, it is still unclear whether he's a good guy or bad guy, though it is clear that even beyond manipulation, he does morally repugnant things to achieve his ends (like The Prince). But, to be fair, "it's hard being an other", and that's exactly what Ben is. He is not just an "Other", he is the "Other" in every sense of the word, an outcast among his old group at Dharma, an outcast from his new people (the former Hostiles,) an outcast from Charles Widmore's crew, an outcast off the island, and an outcast among the Islanders. But, maybe, he'll fit right in with the Locke crew, though judging from his early reception walking around with some laundry, it appears clear that Ben is different. Okay, so maybe not with the whole crew, but maybe he could have a friend in Locke. Because as the Joker says to the Batman in the upcoming film The Dark Knight, and Ben can easily say to John, "you're just a freak... like me!"

"I taped over it",
ME PB

PS: See my title for insight into my mind. What do I mean by Storm? What do I mean by Chasers? What do I mean by Storm Chasers? Yep, I am way too into this show.

Constant Connection

2008-02-29T10:59:00.006-05:00

My long Lost brothers and sisters,

If you did not yet see the latest Lost episode, I now present you with SPOILERS. If you have seen it, I present you with gibberish.

Given, that the show was about constants, I want to stress some constants in the Lost universe. Constant is more than a mere steady presence, as we Lost addicts are searching for a Lost constant... the truth about the Lost world, and in our search, we try to connect the dots, so that we are not torn apart by Lost's time fluctuations. Yes, it is the viewers who have the difficulty, (not deadly difficulty, but mild discomfort) of having to be ripped back and forth in time constantly at the whims of the show. We get ripped to flashbacks, flashforwards, and occasionally foray our combined wisdom to the knowledge of the present on an unknown Pacific Island on December 24, 2004, the present. So, if Penny is a constant for Desmond, and Desmond is a constant for Faraday, then who is our constant? Is it Jack? Is it the love triangle that we always come back to? Or is it the same for you that it is for me... the truth about the Island? That is my constant, and why I keep coming back for more. The show was trying to get me to acknowledge that Lost is really about connections between people and the development of characters, and not some unfathomable pseudo-scientific, pseudo-mystical truth. I'm not drinking that Kool-Aid. The connections and characters are great and make the ride more fun, but I'm not watching TV to meet new people. I'm watching TV to learn.

But, onto the new unique characters. Let's start with Faraday, namesake to the famed boy-genius English physicist, Michael Faraday (mostly non-fictional historical character) who as far as I can recall, was a specialist in electro-magnetism. Daniel Faraday, fictional modern-day character, is a guy who knows about electro-magnetism and radiation, and of course, time travel. Does it strike anyone as odd that he is vaguely reminiscent, in looks, character, and mannerisms of Horace Goodspeed, the mathematician that helped birth Benjamin Linus and recruited Roger "Work Man" Linus to the island? This connection, if there is one here, would explain why Faraday became a scientist, why he's obsessed with time travel, and why he would have a personal reason to track down Benjamin Linus, who killed Horace Goodspeed with gas (hence the gas mask). So, my outlandish theory of the day, Horace Goodspeed is Faraday's father. But, that's probably just me.

But, as for Faraday's story...
Why was Faraday crying when he heard about the Lost plane crash in Episode 2 of Season 4? Because he lived this future moment already and though he couldn't clearly remember it, his subconscious had a memory of knowing all these folks. He was crying because he knew these people already in the future. However, maybe he was crying (and not happy that they were alive) because he knew their fate beyond the island. But, throughout his memories, past and present, Desmond (who was not on that plane) is his constant.

What was the memory game with the cards? Faraday was trying to remember this moment from his past because he has experienced this moment already. On the Island, he is perhaps better able to perceive these memories of the future. Yep, now it's all tied up in a neat little bow?!? And all of this subconscious time travel is a side-effect of the major time distortion caused by the radioactive electromagnetism emitted by the island. Quick, get a physicist here.

How about Faraday? No, how about Minkowski, who we finally met, before his quick demise. But, doesn't this clown look like someone from Hurley's past? Is it Leonard? My Lost early season DVDs are on loan, so someone else has to check this out for me. But, it's interesting to me, which people are having the time travelling side-effects... Minkowski, Faraday, and Desmond, but not Sayid or the pilot. (Or is that why Sayid is listening to Ben/killing for Ben, because they both know something in the future? Also, someone should check Staples Lewis vs. Annie, Ben's childhood girlfriend, as per Doc Jensen's proposed theory from a month ago, that they are the same person. Perhaps, are all the people on the Island connected by their memories of a joint consciousnessness, which would play out in their intricately interwoven lives, culminating on landing at the same airport terminal? What's really going to bake your noodle later on, is if the islanders hadn't seen the future by being on the Island, would they have gotten on that plane in the first place?)

Minkowski was something of the communications officer of the boat, before he went mad visiting the island in the chopper with his dead unseen buddy. They died of brain aneurisms, like Eli Stone has, but the aneurisms were not prophecies of the future, like Eli Stone has... wait, yes they were... What is that?!? Cross-advertising? They should just name a character, Eli Stone. (By the way, not a good show, despite the lawyer-prophet stuff and the George Michael sound track.) Overall, Minkowski's role here was a bit anti-climactic, and doesn't make much sense unless they explain it a little more, perhaps giving him a bit of back story when we explore Abaddon.

But, now to the Widmores and their antics. Penny's love for Desmond is pretty deep, in the fact that she was waiting around for him (not sure if she's married, as my brother pointed out that she was covering her fingers). When these two star-crossed lovers finally spoke and professed their eternal love for each other, it was a beautiful moment. But, I'm more interested in her dad, Charles Widmore?

What's Widmore's deal? He is more than likely involved in the stuff with the island, but is he a time traveler as well? Does he know that Desmond will be on the island, and thus, he doesn't actually hate Desmond, he just needs life to play out, such that Desmond and Penny are separated and Desmond finds the Island in a ridiculous effort to prove himself. Thus, Widmore might not actually hate Desmond; but the more interesting question is what was in the diary of the Black Rock captain that Widmore purchased?

First off, the prior owner of the diary was a Hanso, so did Widmore win the bidding on that piece in the hopes of attaining the location of the island? Or protecting the Island's secrets from others?

So, let's recap what we know and what we think we know here... Hanso was with the Dharma Initiative. The Hostiles are present on Lost Island, when Dharma is studying the Island. With low level Dharma employee, Ben Linus's, betrayal of the Initiative, Richard Alpert and the rest of the Hostiles expel/kill the Dharma island scientists and workers. Alpert represents himself to Juliet as a doctor from a company called Mittelos (anagram for Lost Time,) which is presumably run by Linus. The logical position would be that the people on the frigate, the Abaddonians, are from the descendant company of Dharma or Dharma itself reincarnated. None of this would explain Widmore's relationship with any of these companies.

But, the Black Rock, which was lost at sea 150 years earlier was discovered in the middle of the Island and Alvar Hanso did know the location of Lost Island, as discussed in the training videos in the Dharma stations. The people that could have known that the Black Rock was not actually lost at sea, but was actually on Lost island... Dharma, because they were on the Island before, Mittelos, because they are on the Island now (as well as before), and almost anybody else because of corporate espionage, which definitely occurs in the Lost world, see Sayid and German girl in the Economist or Ben's mole on the boat.

The most intriguing line in the episode came as a Faraday, 1996 mumbling throwaway, when he sputtered, paraphrased, "the future can't be changed." What does that mean? What about the multiple Charlie deaths that were avoided, which if they occurred as we suspect, changed the future, at least a little bit? Did they never happen or was Faraday wrong? If he's right, how did Faraday forget about meeting Desmond? And how did he forget about the mischievous little Eloise, lost in the maze hotel, even though she was not lost at all. I have no conscience knowledge of an answer for that question, and I let you bake your noodle on if I already know the answer subconsciously.

Stay Lost,
ME PB

EggTown Blues

2008-02-22T15:55:00.008-05:00

Hey brother,

Lost-ophiles, I continue to be amazed with the show, even when the episodes are weak, they stay strong. Lost provided us with more questions, answers, and room for theories and discussion. So, here goes.
SPOILERS below for those who have not seen the latest episode.

Let's start with the obvious question, why is the episode called Eggtown? Is it because Locke made the last two eggs for Benjamin Linus? Is it because eggs are ova, and the episode was about Kate's pregnancy or lack thereof, and/or Kate's child or lack thereof? Or is it because eggs are a cultural and religious icon to symbolize birth and life (think Easter)? Imagine and egg town... a whole town full of life. Not that hard to imagine, I guess. But, sounds a little bit like Lost to have so many legitimate theories. So, who is the egg? Is it Kate getting a second chance at living a normal life, thanks to her lawyer (go lawyers), her mother (who birthed her and tried to reform their relationship because of Jack's testimony,) and Jack's testimony. Jack came off as an honest likeable witness, even though he was lying through his teeth (presumably), and thus he basically saved her life. Maybe, the egg was Aaron, who is one of the few Island babies that we know of (Alex is also an Island baby, if I remember correctly). And the episode was about the Aaron surprise, as Claire, who spawned the egg from eggtown had to share motherhood with Kate, but we'll get to that later. On an island, where women can't have children, eggs come at a premium.

Of course, some other egg related thoughts include the fragile nature of eggs, as in "walking on eggshells." The entire Locke town is dependant on a leader who doesn't have confidence in his own leadership. Of course, the egg is part of the chicken and the egg conundrum, which is a thought about origins and paradoxes, but this episode did not seem to be about paradoxes, at least not more than other Lost episodes. Instead, I prefer to think of the egg town as in how someone eggs a house on Halloween or someone has egg on their face. Locke certainly has egg on his face as he is duped by Linus, by Miles, by Kate, and of course, by Sawyer. The whole town is led by an egghead who doesn't have confidence in himself and is rapidly losing control over his people... well, until his magnificent grenade trick with Miles. Yep, he put the egg on someone else's face. Very nice contrast to the Linus treatment in the beginning of the episode. Enjoy your breakfast.

Of course, the most obvious question from the episode is why Kate is walking around with Claire's baby, Aaron, and pretending it's hers? Of course, it's still possible that the baby is a different baby Aaron named after Claire's baby boy, but we will ignore that possibility because it infuriates me. Various potential answers...

1) Claire lost Aaron in a card game/backgammon game. And then for fun, she goes around yelling, "I've abandoned my boy! I've abandoned my child!" (Yep, that's your Oscar winner people. You have to deal with it.)
2) Claire dies between now and then. Even if that's the case, she could still have been one of the Oceanic 6 or at least, the 8 who "survived" the plane crash.
3) Claire is stuck on the Island, and Kate adopts the kid because someone has to take care of him. Jack, who is Aaron's half-uncle (by blood) does not want the responsibility. Although an interesting side plot may arise if some paparazzo does a paternity test on the kid, thinking Jack is the father.

But, if Claire is stuck on the Island (despite Desmond's vision of her getting on chopper with Aaron), then why did Kate jump at the chance at never leaving the state again? Why is Jack lying under oath about the death of all of his fellow islanders (assuming they are alive)? These people are really locking themselves tight into this story of no survivors.

The most obvious answer to these question has to do with the Abaddon, Linus feud... whereby someone made them make promises and tell lies (and/or had Sayid kill) to protect the others on the Island.

If so, why the ruse about two other people surviving the crash? The likely scenario at this point is that two bodies were found along with the Oceanic 6, and it was apparent that the 2 did not die in a plane crash.

Does Aaron count as one of the Oceanic 6? I have no idea.
Did we answer the question from the end of last season, when Kate said in the flashforward, "he's gonna be wondering where I am." Is that Aaron? Again, I have no idea.

What about the card game between Faraday and Staples Lewis, you ask... Well, the words they used, indicated that these people were playing a memory game, which demonstrated Faraday's progress. 2 out of 3 though, is that progress? Since neither of them appears to have a particular memory problem, then the answer that makes the most sense within the Lost universe, which we know has some sort of time distortion... is that Faraday is seeing things in advance like Desmond, and now is trying to improve his future memory. To rephrase, Faraday is having these visions about the future and trying to maintain the future in his memory. If that's true, then, is 2 out of 3 really progress? Desmond remembers whole elaborate Charlie deaths. I guess, it's still progress.

Speaking of progress. The last of the NBA trades was the most interesting. Wally Sczerbiak and Ben Wallace and Delonte West (becoming solid) and Joe Smith (still solid) for an erratic Drew Gooden, and a good perimeter defender, slasher in Larry Hughes. The point of the trade by Cleveland is two-fold, make LeBron happy by continued management activeness or activity, and also to maximize LeBron in certain unique ways. Wally is an excellent outside shooter, but a bit slow, which hurts particularly on the defensive end. But, on offense, the chances are that the Cavs will have LeBron drive, have the defenders fall in to guard him, and then kick out to Wally, or if they are less wise, then they do not double team LeBron when he drives and watch as he physically beats the other team down.

But, as for the defense, if Ben Wallace is anywhere nearly as good as he was in Detroit, then their defense should take care of itself because he can cover a lot of ground. If their defense suffers, well... then, Boston, Detroit, or maybe Orlando will have to find a way to win the conference. If it does work, then we just gave the best player in basketball more tools to win the championship. He has some tough competition in the Lakers, who were a very good team before getting another very good player for almost nothing and now are a legitimate championship contender. He has some very tough competition in Dallas, who acquired Jason Kidd for one or two chances at a title. He has even tougher competition in Phoenix who sacrificed a very good player for one or two very good chances at the title. Shaq appears fit, and if he was Shaq of 2 years ago, it's tough not to imagine them as the favorites. Except that they all face the toughest competition of San Antonio and Tim Duncan. Manu has somehow improved and is now consistently playing at an all star level and is even averaging over 30 minutes a game, and Tony Parker's quickness will continue to be a boon to this versatile team. Thus, Duncan, still has to be the favorite in that very difficult west. The West even has Houston with Yao and McGrady who have won 11 in a row, as they round into proper form; Denver, with two incredible scorers in Melo and AI with an incredible interior defense centered on Camby; Deron Williams or Chris Paul's team (who respectively have won about 16 of 19 and have the best record in the west). Yeah, the west battles are going to be tough, as they even struggle to make the playoffs against a Golden State team that is intent on returning to the playoffs.

Speaking of the playoffs and AI, and not speaking of politics (where McCain was unabashedly smeared by the New York Times for what appears to me to be his former staffer's concern about the potential, yes, potential appearance of impropriety because he was hanging out with a pretty lobbyist... ridiculous) the Oscars, (other than Juno, American Gangsters, Depp's performance in Edward Scissorhands 2: The Revenge, and Bale's performance in 3:10 to Yuma, I have no vested interest in these candidates). So, as usual, I will speak to something I rewatched this weekend.

AMC, American Movie Classics replayed the movie, The Matrix, which was the ultimate of the Terminator type movies because it superbly deals with so many subject matters. Most obviously, the movie was a special effects masterpiece, with its dramatic fight sequences and morphing techniques from Terminator 2, and of course, bullet-time. Seriously impressive and fun to look at, in the computer sequences, and even the elaborate, stylish cape-like black long coats were magnificent in the various fight sequences. Great care was taken to making the movie beautiful as well as appropriately drab for contrast. I'll point out that the sound and the music were excellent and appropriate at all times. Then, once you are watching the movie, you realize that the movie itself is a lot of fun, with plenty of action sequences, a primitive love story, and a legitimately interesting plotline.

But, those things are obvious, then we get a little less obvious and we deal with many of the same themes dealt with in Terminator 2 about man vs. machine, the present vs. the future, what is life, what is reality, is there a destiny, do machines factor into evolution, (can one John Connor or one Thomas Anderson actually save the world from machines)... etc. Then, we have directly addressed and less obvious religious, philosophical, artistic, psychological, and econo-socio-political references and homages and melds all of these into the modern technological culture. People sometimes complain about the 2nd and 3rd of the series, which are not nearly up to par, though they deal with interesting subject matters, but in a less crafty and less entertaining manner. Additionally, people complain about the acting, as Keanu Reeves, who almost exclusively makes great movies, and Trinity give wooden performances. But, I disagree, I feel that Neo was perfect for the role with his constant look of shock actually appropriate for the character.

But, back to the imagery: let's see, he is the savior of all mankind whose burden is to bring people the truth. They call him Neo, which in scrabulous or boggle, you would know is One, as the One, the savior. His friends are Trinity, as in the three pronged, one god theory proposed by various Christian doctrines. (Morpheus is the Greek god of dreams.)
In order to bring the truth, he must have complete faith in himself and in his vision for the future. We have a John the Baptist character who has been heralding his arrival. Of course, we have an oracle, a prophet, like the one's the Greek's visited, the liaison to the gods. The Greek gods had to physically overtake the cruel Titans before they could run the world in a more just manner. These characters were fighting for a place called Zion (a Judaic reference, hence the term zionists), the one place that survived the human armageddon. The people in the system are the enemy before they come to believe what he believes. Because, "if you are not one of us, you are on of them." Oh and Cypher even acts as a Judas figure, though his last supper of steak and wine is with the Romanesque bad guys. I'll get to the bad guy soon enough. The references to Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism with references to enlightenment and rebirth are also evident.

Of course, the Matrix, is an anthem to rebellion, so, much like Star Wars, the good guys have to fight the system. The thing that might make the movie legendary is that the bad guy, Agent Smith has a panache about him. He is a fed, he wears a business suit, and sun glasses. He even wears a tie clip to keep his tie from getting ruffled. No, he's not Darth Vader, but his monotone, and ability to fit into the modern world and boss around cops and frighten Neo with his gestapo tactics is part of the process of bringing old time magical evil into the 20th century or maybe even the 21st century. The guy is a white collar criminal, a computer hacker, technically, a program of some sort, but he dresses like a white collar criminal and fights with mystical toughness when he is not giving highly thoughtful diatribes about the human existence and Dennis Milleresque rants about what is wrong with our culture and our odor.

Of course, the movie is a study of lunacy because the way they describe the nature of reality as a hammer beating in his head is not what normal people think (or at least I hope they don't). It is important to remember that the world is not real, since there is no spoon. There is no anything, and we all live in a dream world and in this world, if you take the proper pills you could fly, and if you take the wrong pills you get fried. In the non-dream world, any one of us could be some very important super hero neo-Jesus. Maybe it's not just a harmless dream, or a facile movie, but a testament the unification of lunacy and rebellion. But, even so, it is very entertaining.

I only touched on a few random religious thoughts and film references, and I left out hundreds of other ideas, explored thoroughly throughout the movie. Frankly, The Matrix and Lost should be classes our children study in school, but not like classes about other TV shows and movies. These are advanced courses because although you can appreciate the movie on any level, like Shakespeare, the more you know, the more you can understand, appreciate, and discuss this art.

Of course, if LeBron (King James) wins himself a championship this year, all of this is moot because it becomes clear that he is The One. Either way, he seems like a good egg.

Stay tuned for the next episode of...
Papa Bear

All Star

2008-02-18T20:19:00.006-05:00

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