Credit goes to my friend Nicole for the inspiration for the title of this post. Twice Thursday I sent her a text message about Lost. First one posed the following question.
Me: You watched Lost yet?
Her: O Yeah!
Second Message:
Me: Wasn't it amazing?
Her: O Yeah!
I think that pretty much sums up everyone's opinion about the episode "The Man Behind the Cutain". Really quite amazing what they pulled off in this episode. They even managed to, in retrospect, make the "Hurley Drives a Car" episode seem relevant, which may have been the writers' greatest feat.
But, I digress.
First off, I loved getting a back story on Benjamin Linus. He has become too important a character, as just an incredible villain, that a back story could only add to the depth of his nature. Going in, I wondered would it make him seem more or less evil? Would he be painted sympathetically or would his villainy be shown to be more dastardly.
Well, I think that the obvious answer to the first question is that seeing his back story showed him to be more evil than we might have imagined. I don't know about you, but I was starting to wonder whether he was truly evil or just "mis-understood." The writers have done a masterful job lately sewing those doubts into the viewers' heads. (And I guess some of those doubts remain.) But seeing him murder his father in cold blood and be complicit (at least) in the mass murder of the Dharma Initiative population pretty much erases those doubts. At least for me. Then he goes and lures John Locke to said mass grave and, after again insulting John's intelligence. puts a slug in his chest. Not the actions of a nice man. (Understatement of the day.) But, let me ask, knowing what he knows about the island's powers, and John's communion with the island; if he really wanted to kill Locke, wouldn't he have put more than one bullet in him? Think about that and get back to me. (My two cents: Expect Locke back.)
So, what was it about his past that made him so evil? Let's break down the back story a little, shall we? First off, I loved the opening scene that made it appear to us viewers (we viewers?) that Ben was being born on the island deep in the jungle. But as Ben's parents ran for help, they quickly emerged onto a busy road, apparently 32 miles from Portland. I figure that this is Portland, Oregon. One, I've been to Oregon twice and that forest that Ben was born in looked damn familiar, and two, Ben, Richard, and Ethan lured Juliette to the island from Miami, through Oregon, to the island. Perhaps the Dharma inititiative was based out of Portland, and later Ben's group used Portland as a mainland base as well. Note that Ben's mom died seven months into her pregnancy with Ben. Isn't that around the same time period in a pregnancy that women on the island run into problems?
Next we saw a very shy, quiet Ben Linus and his father Roger having disembarked from the submarine and being welcomed to the island by Mr. Goodspeed who represents the Dharma Initiative. I'd like to comment on the casting of Harry Potter as young Ben Linus. I loved it. Now we know why everyone on the islands has amazing magic powers, the island is really wizard school. Interesting details of the friendship between young Ben and Annie. Annie is super sweet and they seem to have a genuine bond. Knowing that few things are thrown in to Lost, I assume we will see her again at some point. How I do not know.
As Ben's father sinks into alcoholism and continues to blame his son for the death of his beloved Emily, Ben's like gets more and more miserable. When he starts seeing visions of his mom, he runs away to find her in the jungle. She tells him it is not time and that he must be patient. I think this is more fodder for the island being somehow connected to the afterworld. He wants to join her, but she say it is not time yet. Was she referring to him joining her in the afterworld, but not anytime soon? The same type of patience is required of Ben when he asks Richard to take him away from Dharma and back to Richard's people.
Then we get the purge. All those dead Dharma folks, including Ben's dad, who is killed with poison gas, by a very calm, cold, and calculating Ben, who comfortably puts on his gas mask, watches his dad die, and proceeds back to the Dharma camp where the others wait for him. Was his friend Annie killed in the purge too? Like I said above, I doubt it. Ben probably arranged to have her saved if she was still around. Ben has proven to Richard's hostiles, much the way he challenged Locke to, if he wanted to join them in the present.
One point on the scene in the cabin where we met Jacob. Michael Emerson's acting is just so good. I loved how he interacted with Jacob. Totally convincing. He brings so much subtlety and creepiness to his portrayal of everyone's favorite villian.
OK: Two more points on this scene. Did you see Jacob when you went back and watched it in sl0-mo? Looked a lot like Locke with hair to me. Hmmm.
What was that ashy substance that Locke was looking at on his way to the cabin? My guess: The residue of the smoke monster, who is clearly Jacob in another form. In other words Locke is the smoke monster. Cool, eh?
The side plot involving Naomi, and Jack and Juliet got interesting too. Clearly, things are coming together for a "crash survivors" vs. the "others" battle on the beach to end the season, reminiscent of the brilliant first season finale. Will this "Mother" of all battles be interrupted by a certain act of nature, which if you think of the time line, that is about to affect the Indian Ocean? Hmmm.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
3 More Years!
ABC announced the other day that they would continue Lost for three more 16 episode seasons. I had mixed emotions when I first heard this but having read about the plan, and thought about it, I think a good decision has been reached.
To start, I was hoping that they would do two more seasons and then wrap it up. I thought that was about as long as they could sustain the show at a high level and be within a time frame that ABC would be happy with revenue wise. So, when I originally heard that there would be three more seasons, I was a little worried. But, by limiting the seasons to 16 new episodes, that will be shown in consecutive weeks, I think they have found the right balance. My hope is that the producers will make every effort to present 16 great episodes every seasons, no throwaways. For example, who among us could have lived without this year's two throwaway episodes, "Hurley Finds a Car" and "Nikki and Paulo Build a Sand Castle"? Answer: All of us.
So the questions we are left with are, how are they going to keep things going for three more seasons and how will they resolve all of the mysteries (too many to count) they have thrown out there at us? After watching the last 4 or 5 episodes, I have this to say. I have complete faith in the shows writers, producers, and creators, to provide us with 3 more great seasons that will keep us in inevitable suspense as they unfold and that we will remember long after the series final in May of 2010. (By the way, party at my house that night. If you are reading this, you are invited. Will let you know the details as we get a little closer, but please save the date.)
Why do I have such faith? Well, I guess its because the show has been so great for the first three seasons, and there is so much to build on. The key in my opinion to a successful series like Lost, is the strength of the characters. No matter how good a concept is for a show, a lack of interesting, diverse characters that drive the drama would still manage to sink it. Lost has more than its share of fantastic characters. There are plenty who have been on the show from episode 1, but the genius of the casting and writing is how they have brought new characters in. (with the obvious exception of Nikki and Paulo). Think about how much Mr. Eko added to the show. And what about Ben Linus and Juliette? Apparently Ben was not supposed to be a recurring character and was to be limited to only 3 episodes. The writers saw what they had with him though and smartly kept him on and developed him. Can you imagine Lost without him? And Juliette has added a lot to the show too. Who among is not intrigued by the mystery of her allegiance and how it will play out?
So, in summary, I think there are enough mysteries to be solved and great characters to develop to keep the show going strong until May 2010. I really hope my faith is not mis-placed.
To start, I was hoping that they would do two more seasons and then wrap it up. I thought that was about as long as they could sustain the show at a high level and be within a time frame that ABC would be happy with revenue wise. So, when I originally heard that there would be three more seasons, I was a little worried. But, by limiting the seasons to 16 new episodes, that will be shown in consecutive weeks, I think they have found the right balance. My hope is that the producers will make every effort to present 16 great episodes every seasons, no throwaways. For example, who among us could have lived without this year's two throwaway episodes, "Hurley Finds a Car" and "Nikki and Paulo Build a Sand Castle"? Answer: All of us.
So the questions we are left with are, how are they going to keep things going for three more seasons and how will they resolve all of the mysteries (too many to count) they have thrown out there at us? After watching the last 4 or 5 episodes, I have this to say. I have complete faith in the shows writers, producers, and creators, to provide us with 3 more great seasons that will keep us in inevitable suspense as they unfold and that we will remember long after the series final in May of 2010. (By the way, party at my house that night. If you are reading this, you are invited. Will let you know the details as we get a little closer, but please save the date.)
Why do I have such faith? Well, I guess its because the show has been so great for the first three seasons, and there is so much to build on. The key in my opinion to a successful series like Lost, is the strength of the characters. No matter how good a concept is for a show, a lack of interesting, diverse characters that drive the drama would still manage to sink it. Lost has more than its share of fantastic characters. There are plenty who have been on the show from episode 1, but the genius of the casting and writing is how they have brought new characters in. (with the obvious exception of Nikki and Paulo). Think about how much Mr. Eko added to the show. And what about Ben Linus and Juliette? Apparently Ben was not supposed to be a recurring character and was to be limited to only 3 episodes. The writers saw what they had with him though and smartly kept him on and developed him. Can you imagine Lost without him? And Juliette has added a lot to the show too. Who among is not intrigued by the mystery of her allegiance and how it will play out?
So, in summary, I think there are enough mysteries to be solved and great characters to develop to keep the show going strong until May 2010. I really hope my faith is not mis-placed.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
You're Welcome
I got off the train this morning at Hunterspoint Avenue in Long Island City. I have been taking the train there recently to break up the monotony of my commute and to save a few minutes. When I was getting off the train, I noticed that there was a huge gap that I had to hop over. Because, I am a nice guy I turned to the gentleman (I use the term loosely) behind me and said, "Be careful there is a huge gap here." He said "Thanks, I appreciate it." Or so I thought he might. What he actually did was give me a blank stare and no verbal acknowledgment. Pissed me off. Maybe I am being petty, but I thought I was being helpful, and a little acknowledgment would have gone a long way.
So Mr. Grumpy Train Commuter (that's his name, I saw it on his corporate ID card he had around his neck) I have just a couple of more things to say to you.
1. I am glad you did not fall in the gap, and
2. BITE ME!
So Mr. Grumpy Train Commuter (that's his name, I saw it on his corporate ID card he had around his neck) I have just a couple of more things to say to you.
1. I am glad you did not fall in the gap, and
2. BITE ME!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Hello Again
Sorry to all of my loyal readers that I have dropped the ball on writing new posts lately. There has been so much going on that I didn't even know where to start, or what to really write about. When considering what to write about the Imus situation, I heard the voice of an "msn.com headline" warning me to steer clear of certain controversial topics in my blog if I ever wanted to work again. Don't worry, though, I won't steer clear of all controversial topics obviously, but I thought the Imus issue might be a good one to sit out, since my analysis clearly could have been tainted by the fact that I woke up and listened to the show on and off for the last 18 years or so.
This week, clearly the main news story is the shooting deaths that occurred at Virginia Tech. Since you have already surely read and watched a lot about the story, I will not re-cap the facts. What I will do, is take the opportunity this platform affords me to say that the people of the United States of America need to do something about its gun laws. It is just way to easy in many states, to just walk into a store and buy a lethal weapon, much like the shooter in this case did. One of the best ways to start making a dent in the amount of guns around and in use would be to begin to cut into the lobbying power of the National Rifle Association. For how long have they had the political lobbying power to scare everyone into not calling for gun control? They are so out of control, defending rights that go so far beyond what many reasonable people, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, could ever feel are protected by the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment.
To demonstrate a little about why I think the N.R.A is out of control, I am including this link to a story about an "Outdoor Sports" writer and N.R.A member who dared wander off the N.R.A. reservation on one issue and how they came down on him like a ton of bricks. He wrote his first column for "Outdoor Life" in 1962. Here is an article from the Washington Post about what happened to him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301709.html
Here is the column from the Editor-In-Chief of "Outdoor Life" magazine describing how Zumbo and the magazine parted ways after approximately 45 years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301709.html
There is a Presidential election coming up. Those who want to avoid more campus shootings and the gun murders and gun crime should force the issue into the forefront as the campaigns continue.
The hypocrisy of the N.R.A can also be seen in the fact that they like to quote only the second half of their hallowed Second Amendment. You'll see it quoted a lot like this: "...the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In the interest of fairness, let's take a look at the amendment in full, eh?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Why do they not quote the amendment in full?
This week, clearly the main news story is the shooting deaths that occurred at Virginia Tech. Since you have already surely read and watched a lot about the story, I will not re-cap the facts. What I will do, is take the opportunity this platform affords me to say that the people of the United States of America need to do something about its gun laws. It is just way to easy in many states, to just walk into a store and buy a lethal weapon, much like the shooter in this case did. One of the best ways to start making a dent in the amount of guns around and in use would be to begin to cut into the lobbying power of the National Rifle Association. For how long have they had the political lobbying power to scare everyone into not calling for gun control? They are so out of control, defending rights that go so far beyond what many reasonable people, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, could ever feel are protected by the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment.
To demonstrate a little about why I think the N.R.A is out of control, I am including this link to a story about an "Outdoor Sports" writer and N.R.A member who dared wander off the N.R.A. reservation on one issue and how they came down on him like a ton of bricks. He wrote his first column for "Outdoor Life" in 1962. Here is an article from the Washington Post about what happened to him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301709.html
Here is the column from the Editor-In-Chief of "Outdoor Life" magazine describing how Zumbo and the magazine parted ways after approximately 45 years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301709.html
There is a Presidential election coming up. Those who want to avoid more campus shootings and the gun murders and gun crime should force the issue into the forefront as the campaigns continue.
The hypocrisy of the N.R.A can also be seen in the fact that they like to quote only the second half of their hallowed Second Amendment. You'll see it quoted a lot like this: "...the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In the interest of fairness, let's take a look at the amendment in full, eh?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Why do they not quote the amendment in full?
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Creepy and Interesting...
...but in the end a tad bit disappointing.
When it became apparent last night that the episode was going to focus on Nikki (and Paulo) my expectations fell from the sky like a Oceanic flight. I could not possibly care any less about these two losers and the last thing I wanted was an episode focusing on them. Then not only do we find out that they are annoying, but they are also cold-blooded killers. Great. Next time I hit turbulence on a flight I am going to look around me and guess how many people on the plane have committed murder. I mean, look at Oceanic 815. Sawyer, Kate, Anna Lucia, and Nikki and Paulo, all could be convicted of first degree murder. And Mr. Eko wasn't afraid to spill his enemies' blood either now, was he? Anyone I am leaving out? I don't think Jin ever killed anyone, although he certainly came pretty close. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Anyway, the episode was a lot better than I though it was going to be. It had its problems though. First off, it did basically nothing to advance any of the story lines we are all following. Secondly, it was not terribly original in that everyone from Shakespeare to Edgar Allan Poe, and more have written episodes with similar themes. (I've never actually read any Bill Shakespeare, but I am guessing he wrote stuff that explored similar themes. Especially in the comedies.)
But, as an hour of television, it was good. I walked away from the TV feeling appropriately creeped out, wondering what more they might do with the characters, (hopefully nothing) and enjoying the flashback scenes that integrated Nikki and Paulo into the crash scene and seeing Ben and Juliette in the Pearl Station discussing their plan to have Jack so Ben's surgery. I thought Billy Dee Williams cameo was a little weak. Also, the way they weaved Nikki's life as an actress, being shot on the set and coming back to life served its allegorical purpose quite well.
News aside: Apparently this episode set another all-time record for Lost viewership with 11.5 million viewers tuned in. I hope that the downward trend in ratings does not cause the network to panic. I think that further netword intervention could really kill the show. Instead, I think, that for the integrity of the show, the producers should probably do just one more season. Get through this season and spend next year writing kick-ass episodes and wrapping things up. All but the shows most hardcore fans have some level of frustration with the show, and knowing that things were heading towards resolution would help everyone involved (with the exception of all the actors and crew).
That's all folks. Here's hoping next week's episode is better AND advances the plot. I want to see Jack and Locke going at each other the first time they have chance to speak about the whole "submarine episode." Will Jack be more pissed off that he can't go home or that his chances of getting it on with Juliette took a bit of a hit? Tune in to find out. Point your browser here afterwards for the my innapropriate commentary. :)
Thanks for reading everyone. Talk to you soon.
When it became apparent last night that the episode was going to focus on Nikki (and Paulo) my expectations fell from the sky like a Oceanic flight. I could not possibly care any less about these two losers and the last thing I wanted was an episode focusing on them. Then not only do we find out that they are annoying, but they are also cold-blooded killers. Great. Next time I hit turbulence on a flight I am going to look around me and guess how many people on the plane have committed murder. I mean, look at Oceanic 815. Sawyer, Kate, Anna Lucia, and Nikki and Paulo, all could be convicted of first degree murder. And Mr. Eko wasn't afraid to spill his enemies' blood either now, was he? Anyone I am leaving out? I don't think Jin ever killed anyone, although he certainly came pretty close. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Anyway, the episode was a lot better than I though it was going to be. It had its problems though. First off, it did basically nothing to advance any of the story lines we are all following. Secondly, it was not terribly original in that everyone from Shakespeare to Edgar Allan Poe, and more have written episodes with similar themes. (I've never actually read any Bill Shakespeare, but I am guessing he wrote stuff that explored similar themes. Especially in the comedies.)
But, as an hour of television, it was good. I walked away from the TV feeling appropriately creeped out, wondering what more they might do with the characters, (hopefully nothing) and enjoying the flashback scenes that integrated Nikki and Paulo into the crash scene and seeing Ben and Juliette in the Pearl Station discussing their plan to have Jack so Ben's surgery. I thought Billy Dee Williams cameo was a little weak. Also, the way they weaved Nikki's life as an actress, being shot on the set and coming back to life served its allegorical purpose quite well.
News aside: Apparently this episode set another all-time record for Lost viewership with 11.5 million viewers tuned in. I hope that the downward trend in ratings does not cause the network to panic. I think that further netword intervention could really kill the show. Instead, I think, that for the integrity of the show, the producers should probably do just one more season. Get through this season and spend next year writing kick-ass episodes and wrapping things up. All but the shows most hardcore fans have some level of frustration with the show, and knowing that things were heading towards resolution would help everyone involved (with the exception of all the actors and crew).
That's all folks. Here's hoping next week's episode is better AND advances the plot. I want to see Jack and Locke going at each other the first time they have chance to speak about the whole "submarine episode." Will Jack be more pissed off that he can't go home or that his chances of getting it on with Juliette took a bit of a hit? Tune in to find out. Point your browser here afterwards for the my innapropriate commentary. :)
Thanks for reading everyone. Talk to you soon.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
John! What Were You Thinking?
Oh John, what the hell did you do that for? I knew something was up with you, but did you have to go and blow up the submarine? Jack was about to get lucky in a navy bunk with Juliette, the blonde bombshell AND get to go home. That is called leaving the island in style.
What a great episode of "Lost" we were treated to last Wednesday. I was truly on the edge of my seat for most of the episode. Just awesome. But sickening in some ways too. Can you imagine how Jack is going to look at John Locke from now on? Ten minutes from hopping on the submarine to freedom (and get lucky) and his friendly nemesis blows the thing up. Ouch. That is not going to help these two strong-willed alpha males make nice after their earlier disagreements. In fact I think it MIGHT even make things more difficult. Ya know? Where was the spirit of the late Boone to talk some sense into Locke.
Things we learned this week:
1. How John Locke became paralyzed: "I'm a con artist, not a murderer." After he speaks those words, Locke's father grabs him and throws him out an eigth story window. This scene was so brilliant. Came out of nowhere, and all of the sudden Locke is plunging down to the ground. How can one man cause so much pain, in this case to his son. Loved the conversation between Ben and John before we got to that scene in the flashback. "Did it hurt, John?" Linus asks. And later, Ben's statement that he wasn't talking about the broken back, which obviously hurt, but was talking about almost being murdered by his father.
2. Turns out that Ben Linus was born on the island. Cool, I wonder how much time he has spent off of the island in his life time. Does he know what life is like in the rest of the world and how that knowledge or lack thereof effect him? It also turns out that the "Island" is not helping him heal from his surgery as quickly as he thought. AND, how did he get such a bad tumor in the first place if the island has such healing poweres? I loved the discourse between Locke and Linus when they debated who, between them, understood the island better. The currently wheelchair bound Linus who has spent his whole life on the island, or the formerly wheelchairbound Locke, having spent only 80 days there, but immediately upon his arrival on the island could suddenly walk again? Great stuff.
3. John Locke's father is on the island. (Holy Cow) How did Ben, the ultimate manipulator, pull that one off. Maybe he manipulated Locke's father the way he manipulated Locke the son, and convinced him to come to the island.
My sister Maggie tells me that there is hot speculation on the "Lost blogs" that Locke's father, now firmly established as a con-man AND a murderer" is the original Sawyer. The con artist who drove James Ford's father over the edge and made him the "Sawyer" we know and hate now on the island. Very interesting and having heard the theory, I do see it playing out that way. It makes sense. Sure it would test plausibility, but what on this show hasn't stretched plausibility since all of our favorite characters walked away from the plane crash in the pilot episode. Exactly nothing.
But here is my question. Where are they going to from here? It seems like a lot of what has made the show great has sort of been covered? Many of the mysteries that made the others so scary and intimidating have seemingly been dispelled, a truce between the plane survivors and the others seems to be in place, and the submarine has been blown to Smithereens. Certainly there are things left to explore, but I hope the writers have thought this out.
One last thing. I really am enjoying having a new episode every week. For me it was worth it to have one long break so that we could get 16 (or however many there are) episodes back to back to back etc...I feel a really good flow going in this "second" season.
And one more last thing. I really like Alex. Cool character. Adds a lot to the show.
Peace out yo.
What a great episode of "Lost" we were treated to last Wednesday. I was truly on the edge of my seat for most of the episode. Just awesome. But sickening in some ways too. Can you imagine how Jack is going to look at John Locke from now on? Ten minutes from hopping on the submarine to freedom (and get lucky) and his friendly nemesis blows the thing up. Ouch. That is not going to help these two strong-willed alpha males make nice after their earlier disagreements. In fact I think it MIGHT even make things more difficult. Ya know? Where was the spirit of the late Boone to talk some sense into Locke.
Things we learned this week:
1. How John Locke became paralyzed: "I'm a con artist, not a murderer." After he speaks those words, Locke's father grabs him and throws him out an eigth story window. This scene was so brilliant. Came out of nowhere, and all of the sudden Locke is plunging down to the ground. How can one man cause so much pain, in this case to his son. Loved the conversation between Ben and John before we got to that scene in the flashback. "Did it hurt, John?" Linus asks. And later, Ben's statement that he wasn't talking about the broken back, which obviously hurt, but was talking about almost being murdered by his father.
2. Turns out that Ben Linus was born on the island. Cool, I wonder how much time he has spent off of the island in his life time. Does he know what life is like in the rest of the world and how that knowledge or lack thereof effect him? It also turns out that the "Island" is not helping him heal from his surgery as quickly as he thought. AND, how did he get such a bad tumor in the first place if the island has such healing poweres? I loved the discourse between Locke and Linus when they debated who, between them, understood the island better. The currently wheelchair bound Linus who has spent his whole life on the island, or the formerly wheelchairbound Locke, having spent only 80 days there, but immediately upon his arrival on the island could suddenly walk again? Great stuff.
3. John Locke's father is on the island. (Holy Cow) How did Ben, the ultimate manipulator, pull that one off. Maybe he manipulated Locke's father the way he manipulated Locke the son, and convinced him to come to the island.
My sister Maggie tells me that there is hot speculation on the "Lost blogs" that Locke's father, now firmly established as a con-man AND a murderer" is the original Sawyer. The con artist who drove James Ford's father over the edge and made him the "Sawyer" we know and hate now on the island. Very interesting and having heard the theory, I do see it playing out that way. It makes sense. Sure it would test plausibility, but what on this show hasn't stretched plausibility since all of our favorite characters walked away from the plane crash in the pilot episode. Exactly nothing.
But here is my question. Where are they going to from here? It seems like a lot of what has made the show great has sort of been covered? Many of the mysteries that made the others so scary and intimidating have seemingly been dispelled, a truce between the plane survivors and the others seems to be in place, and the submarine has been blown to Smithereens. Certainly there are things left to explore, but I hope the writers have thought this out.
One last thing. I really am enjoying having a new episode every week. For me it was worth it to have one long break so that we could get 16 (or however many there are) episodes back to back to back etc...I feel a really good flow going in this "second" season.
And one more last thing. I really like Alex. Cool character. Adds a lot to the show.
Peace out yo.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
TOUCHDOWN! Or What Up With John Locke?
"Claire, I'm your father."
You know, I really cannot over-emphasize the importance of watching each episode of "Lost" at least twice. The things you pick up on are truly revelatory.
That said, I must make a confession, that even after two viewings of the most recent episode, "Par Avion", I still don't understand why Desmond had to scare away the birds that Claire, Jin, and Sun were about to capture. Had they caught them then, would not have Charlie had no reason to go searching for others and find his watery death instead? Oh well, maybe the particular birds about to be trapped were not tagged, but they never really made that clear. Can anyone solve this little mystery for me? Thanks in advance.
One more mystery, how is a note written on a piece of paper and stuck inside a bird's tag supposed to make it all they way back to civilization without getting 1) wet and illegible, 2) Lost (pun intended), or 3) dropped in the ocean. Claire's optimism about her plan seemed just a little over zealous.
But, the real intrigue in this episode was trying to figure out what the hell was up with Locke and what the relationship between him and Patch Man was? The first time I watched it, I knew something was up, but the second time I picked up on something really important. Patch Man did not just know John from reading a dossier on him. Patch Man says "The John Locke I knew was par..." He certainly was about to say "paralyzed." He said he knew John, and he apparently meant it. And the way, Locke acted around him and subsequently killed him, those two clearly have some sort of ugly history.
I suspect that we are going to learn some more of that history tonight. My guess is that we'll find out what paralyzed Locke and Ibet it is going to prover very interesting.
So, the last scene of the episode was cool, eh? Jack running towards his friends, seemingly trying to escape, but instead cutting on a dime and catching a well thrown pass from Mr. Zeke Tom Friendly. Smiles all around as Jack spikes the ball in celebration. Very odd. Has Jack been brainwashed already? (I doubt it.) Playing along with them to save his ass? (Maybe) Have they already arranged his transportation home? (Probably not since they there seem to be problems getting to the island now that the beacon has been destroyed.) I hope that along with the focus on Locke tonight they also move Jack's storyline along. And if they want to kill Charlie off tonight, that would be fine too.
We'll know more soon.
You know, I really cannot over-emphasize the importance of watching each episode of "Lost" at least twice. The things you pick up on are truly revelatory.
That said, I must make a confession, that even after two viewings of the most recent episode, "Par Avion", I still don't understand why Desmond had to scare away the birds that Claire, Jin, and Sun were about to capture. Had they caught them then, would not have Charlie had no reason to go searching for others and find his watery death instead? Oh well, maybe the particular birds about to be trapped were not tagged, but they never really made that clear. Can anyone solve this little mystery for me? Thanks in advance.
One more mystery, how is a note written on a piece of paper and stuck inside a bird's tag supposed to make it all they way back to civilization without getting 1) wet and illegible, 2) Lost (pun intended), or 3) dropped in the ocean. Claire's optimism about her plan seemed just a little over zealous.
But, the real intrigue in this episode was trying to figure out what the hell was up with Locke and what the relationship between him and Patch Man was? The first time I watched it, I knew something was up, but the second time I picked up on something really important. Patch Man did not just know John from reading a dossier on him. Patch Man says "The John Locke I knew was par..." He certainly was about to say "paralyzed." He said he knew John, and he apparently meant it. And the way, Locke acted around him and subsequently killed him, those two clearly have some sort of ugly history.
I suspect that we are going to learn some more of that history tonight. My guess is that we'll find out what paralyzed Locke and Ibet it is going to prover very interesting.
So, the last scene of the episode was cool, eh? Jack running towards his friends, seemingly trying to escape, but instead cutting on a dime and catching a well thrown pass from Mr. Zeke Tom Friendly. Smiles all around as Jack spikes the ball in celebration. Very odd. Has Jack been brainwashed already? (I doubt it.) Playing along with them to save his ass? (Maybe) Have they already arranged his transportation home? (Probably not since they there seem to be problems getting to the island now that the beacon has been destroyed.) I hope that along with the focus on Locke tonight they also move Jack's storyline along. And if they want to kill Charlie off tonight, that would be fine too.
We'll know more soon.
Please Go!
With the Scooter Libby verdict a few weeks in the past, I find my almost insatiable desire to see Bush Administration officials embarassed due to their incompetence, malfeasance, felony convictions, etc. fully ramped up again.
With Libby out of the way, let's turn our focus to the A.G. a.g. (attorney general, alberto gonzales.) There is a disturbing pattern (actually there are many) in the Bush administration of putting unqualified people into important jobs where they inevitably fail. They get their jobs because they are "Bushies", loyal to George W. and the family in general. Yuk. Anyway, we've seen the results of these appointments before, maybe most tragically with Michael Brown (Brownie) leading the administration's brilliant response to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. The man was appointed to head FEMA with absolutely no emergency management experience. We all know how that turned out and the tragic consequences of having such an ill-prepared person in such an important job.
Back to Alberto Gonzales, Esq. Perhaps, he more than anyone other than Brown, is the type of Bush appointee that leads to problems. As much as anyone, Alberto Gonzales has built a career around being loyal to bush. I'm sure he is smart and whatever else, but loyalty has been his ticket to all sorts of important jobs. As Governor of Texas, he worked for bush and then bush put him on the texas supreme court. He served as bush's White House counsel before becoming Attorney General.
The Attorney General's highest duty is to the Constitution of the United States. Who among us would believe that Gonzales would put that duty above his loyalty to george w. bush?
I hope the pressure stays on him, and that by the end of this week or next, Alberto Gonzales will have found his way out of the D.O.J.
After John Ashcroft, I never thought bush could come up with a worse Attorney General. He may have just accomplished it.
In related news, today there is a story out that the White House has agreed to let karl rove and harriet miers be interviewed by committee members investigating the purge of U.S. Attorneys. Now, these "interviews" are always conducted without the interviewees being under oath.
Make no mistake. You can read this "agreement" only one way. The White House is saying to rove and miers "Feel free to go lie to Congress about your roles in this. You won't be subject to perjury charges and you can provide for cover to the White House." Very reminiscent of the scene in "Farenheit 911" in which Bush says he won't testify to the 9/11 Commission but that he'd be happy to "chat with them". How nice.
With Libby out of the way, let's turn our focus to the A.G. a.g. (attorney general, alberto gonzales.) There is a disturbing pattern (actually there are many) in the Bush administration of putting unqualified people into important jobs where they inevitably fail. They get their jobs because they are "Bushies", loyal to George W. and the family in general. Yuk. Anyway, we've seen the results of these appointments before, maybe most tragically with Michael Brown (Brownie) leading the administration's brilliant response to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. The man was appointed to head FEMA with absolutely no emergency management experience. We all know how that turned out and the tragic consequences of having such an ill-prepared person in such an important job.
Back to Alberto Gonzales, Esq. Perhaps, he more than anyone other than Brown, is the type of Bush appointee that leads to problems. As much as anyone, Alberto Gonzales has built a career around being loyal to bush. I'm sure he is smart and whatever else, but loyalty has been his ticket to all sorts of important jobs. As Governor of Texas, he worked for bush and then bush put him on the texas supreme court. He served as bush's White House counsel before becoming Attorney General.
The Attorney General's highest duty is to the Constitution of the United States. Who among us would believe that Gonzales would put that duty above his loyalty to george w. bush?
I hope the pressure stays on him, and that by the end of this week or next, Alberto Gonzales will have found his way out of the D.O.J.
After John Ashcroft, I never thought bush could come up with a worse Attorney General. He may have just accomplished it.
In related news, today there is a story out that the White House has agreed to let karl rove and harriet miers be interviewed by committee members investigating the purge of U.S. Attorneys. Now, these "interviews" are always conducted without the interviewees being under oath.
Make no mistake. You can read this "agreement" only one way. The White House is saying to rove and miers "Feel free to go lie to Congress about your roles in this. You won't be subject to perjury charges and you can provide for cover to the White House." Very reminiscent of the scene in "Farenheit 911" in which Bush says he won't testify to the 9/11 Commission but that he'd be happy to "chat with them". How nice.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Sayid
Lost was much better last week, when it took a break from taking a break, and returned to the tried and true formula we "Lost" fans like so much. Here are some of the devices this episode featured that we love.
1. A potential "other" potentially posing as someone he is potentially not.
2. Sayid there on the scene to instinctively know, with 100% certainty, whether or not someone is lying. (Sayeed's gut feeling are more accurate than Captain Kirk's but somehow he had no idea that he was being led into a trap when his countryman offered him a job at his new restaurant.
3. The always powerful trifecta of John Locke, a computer, and the inevitable explosion that accompanies.
4. Guns and the seemingly endless source of ammo that is suddenly available on the island.
Anyway, the result of all this was an episode that was 1) Entertaining, 2) Advanced the plot, and 3) Seemed to leave off letting us know that Kate, Sayeed, and Locke were on their way to find Jack, who, as my favorite character needs to be found soon so I can stop worrying about him so much.
So; speaking of my favorite characters on Lost, I think it would be fun to put together my list of favorites and non-favorites. I am sure my friend Bones will disagree with my choices, because somehow we disagree on so many aspects of our favorite shows but somehow we seem to have so many shows that we love in common. Strange, isn't it Bones?
Anyway, here goes.
Favorites:
Jack, Sayid, Locke, Sun, Desmond, Ben Linus, Juliette, Sawyer, Hurley, Kate, Walt
Least Favorites: CHARLIE! (Note to producers, don't tease me by saying Charlie is destined to die and then let him linger.)
Favorite Dead Characters: Libby, Mr. Eko, Ethan, Boone
Dead Characters I Am Most Grateful are Dead: Shannon, Danny
I will expound on each of these characters in future blogs.
And one last thought to close the post.
Rest in peace Miss Clue. We hardly knew ya. And here is my poetic tribute to the latest fatality on Lost.
Miss Clue is dead,
My hunger to know her better,
Forever unfed,
To find out more of who she'd been,
Or why she made Mikhail do her in,
And the confusion from me was gushin'
Where had this woman learned to speak Russian?!
A well-placed shot right to her heart,
Ended this fine character's part.
So rest on the Island for an eternity or two,
Well never have a clue or two about you,
Miss Clue.
Who?
Kluh.
1. A potential "other" potentially posing as someone he is potentially not.
2. Sayid there on the scene to instinctively know, with 100% certainty, whether or not someone is lying. (Sayeed's gut feeling are more accurate than Captain Kirk's but somehow he had no idea that he was being led into a trap when his countryman offered him a job at his new restaurant.
3. The always powerful trifecta of John Locke, a computer, and the inevitable explosion that accompanies.
4. Guns and the seemingly endless source of ammo that is suddenly available on the island.
Anyway, the result of all this was an episode that was 1) Entertaining, 2) Advanced the plot, and 3) Seemed to leave off letting us know that Kate, Sayeed, and Locke were on their way to find Jack, who, as my favorite character needs to be found soon so I can stop worrying about him so much.
So; speaking of my favorite characters on Lost, I think it would be fun to put together my list of favorites and non-favorites. I am sure my friend Bones will disagree with my choices, because somehow we disagree on so many aspects of our favorite shows but somehow we seem to have so many shows that we love in common. Strange, isn't it Bones?
Anyway, here goes.
Favorites:
Jack, Sayid, Locke, Sun, Desmond, Ben Linus, Juliette, Sawyer, Hurley, Kate, Walt
Least Favorites: CHARLIE! (Note to producers, don't tease me by saying Charlie is destined to die and then let him linger.)
Favorite Dead Characters: Libby, Mr. Eko, Ethan, Boone
Dead Characters I Am Most Grateful are Dead: Shannon, Danny
I will expound on each of these characters in future blogs.
And one last thought to close the post.
Rest in peace Miss Clue. We hardly knew ya. And here is my poetic tribute to the latest fatality on Lost.
Miss Clue is dead,
My hunger to know her better,
Forever unfed,
To find out more of who she'd been,
Or why she made Mikhail do her in,
And the confusion from me was gushin'
Where had this woman learned to speak Russian?!
A well-placed shot right to her heart,
Ended this fine character's part.
So rest on the Island for an eternity or two,
Well never have a clue or two about you,
Miss Clue.
Who?
Kluh.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Scooter Goes Down
After all of the writing I did leading up to this, I find myself nearly speechless now that the verdict is in. I will say, though, that I think this is good for the country. When a powerful White House figure lies to a grand jury and the F.B.I., and then tries to blame the media, I take some pleasure in a conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice. The juror who spoke yesterday told us what was pretty obvious. Scooter was dick's fall guy. Time to resign mr. cheney. Also, add Mr. Libby to the list of previously well-respected people whose reputations are forever tarnished by their association with george w. bush and their support of the Iraq fiasco. (Led of course, by Colin Powell and Tony Blair.)
What a news day yesterday was. You had army staff testifying on the Capitol Hill about the horrendous conditions at Walter Reed and other facilities for the treatment of wounded soldiers. You had former U.S. Attorneys discussing the political pressure put on them before their terminations. You had the Libby convictions. (4 of them) And, perhaps the most disturbing: On a day when the first headline I heard on the news at 6:00 AM was that 9 American soldiers had died north of Baghdad, then hearing that approximately 120 Shiites in Iraq had been killed in a bombing, I then saw a headline that said that Bush was talking about "Progress in Iaq." My stomach really hurt for a while after I saw that.
Here are some links to the stories I have referenced.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/503149p-424403c.html
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16847386.htm
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070306/D8NMLPK82.html
What a news day yesterday was. You had army staff testifying on the Capitol Hill about the horrendous conditions at Walter Reed and other facilities for the treatment of wounded soldiers. You had former U.S. Attorneys discussing the political pressure put on them before their terminations. You had the Libby convictions. (4 of them) And, perhaps the most disturbing: On a day when the first headline I heard on the news at 6:00 AM was that 9 American soldiers had died north of Baghdad, then hearing that approximately 120 Shiites in Iraq had been killed in a bombing, I then saw a headline that said that Bush was talking about "Progress in Iaq." My stomach really hurt for a while after I saw that.
Here are some links to the stories I have referenced.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/503149p-424403c.html
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16847386.htm
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070306/D8NMLPK82.html
Thursday, March 1, 2007
You know that you might be in for disappointment, when early on in an epsiode of Lost, Hurley (or any other character for that matter) says something like this: "You know, we never have any fun on this island."
Fun? How many of us watch Lost to see the characters have "fun"? We watch it to see them in grave danger, or to see them encounter strange mysteries, or deal with the oddest ironies and coincidences that test our beliefs. We do not watch to see Hurley and Charlie go careening down a hill in an old hippie van while Sawyer gets drunk on old, warm beer, and Jin improves his English. (Note to readers, in January I saw Daniel Dae Kim in Zen Palate in Union Square. Handsome dude he is. And for those of you who are curious, I did not ask him what he was doing in New York City when he was supposed to be lost on an island in the Pacific.) But, I digress. Last week's episode was pretty disappointing. My favorite moment was not even during the show itself, but during one of the late commercial breaks when I got to see my friend Bones in an Olive Garden commercial. Well done, my friend, well done. You look great in purple. Thanks to Beth for pointing it out because she knew otherwise I might speed past it as I watched the episode on DVR.
Now, I am notorious for not watching previews or letting myself find out anything in advance of a new episode. But, I hear tonight's episode is going to be great. If it involves, Rousseau and Kate going to rescue Jack, I have no doubt it will be. Let's hope so.
Fun? How many of us watch Lost to see the characters have "fun"? We watch it to see them in grave danger, or to see them encounter strange mysteries, or deal with the oddest ironies and coincidences that test our beliefs. We do not watch to see Hurley and Charlie go careening down a hill in an old hippie van while Sawyer gets drunk on old, warm beer, and Jin improves his English. (Note to readers, in January I saw Daniel Dae Kim in Zen Palate in Union Square. Handsome dude he is. And for those of you who are curious, I did not ask him what he was doing in New York City when he was supposed to be lost on an island in the Pacific.) But, I digress. Last week's episode was pretty disappointing. My favorite moment was not even during the show itself, but during one of the late commercial breaks when I got to see my friend Bones in an Olive Garden commercial. Well done, my friend, well done. You look great in purple. Thanks to Beth for pointing it out because she knew otherwise I might speed past it as I watched the episode on DVR.
Now, I am notorious for not watching previews or letting myself find out anything in advance of a new episode. But, I hear tonight's episode is going to be great. If it involves, Rousseau and Kate going to rescue Jack, I have no doubt it will be. Let's hope so.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
STILL Deliberating (minus 1)
It is Tuesday and the "Scooter" Libby jury is still at it. Of course, as you probably know, they are down one special team member who, somehow, was exposed to media coverage over the weekend. I can't even begin to imagine how that would have happened! Was she checking the weather on CNN? Did she log on to her computer to check her e-mail? (I bet she had quite a few e-mails after 6 busy weeks on the this scandalous case.) Or did she just HAVE to know what was going to happen the Anna Nicole Smith's body once her 5 year old daughter got custody. We may never know. :(
So, now they are deliberating with 11 jurors only. Apparently Federal Law allows that, a fact I did not know until today. I wonder if the 4 alternate jurors knew that while they spent the last month of their lives listening to the same testimony as the "Chosen 12" did. But, I'll tell you what, those "Forgotten 4" cannot be happy. I can hear them in my head as clear as a bell.
Forgotten 4 Juror #1: "Are you telling me that I sat here taking 13 notebooks worth of notes, listening to a million witnesses all saying the same things, missed work, haven't seen my kids more than to kiss them good night for 6 weeks and now, yes now, after you toss someone off the jury, you are not even going to let me in on the fun?! You have GOT to be kidding me."
Forgotten 4 Jurot #2: "Hmm. I feel a little cold coming on. My throat is scratchy. Tell the judge, I am OUT of here."
Forgotten 4 Juror #3: "Damn, I can't remember my password to log onto my computer. I really want to check the news and see if anything interesting is going on, especially in Washington. I'll be real careful not to read anything about THIS case. Wink, wink."
Forgotten 4 Juror #4: "Wow, with this judge ruling like he has, there's no DOUBT I'll be deciding this case myself before close of business tonight." (Juror 4 is not too bright.)
Turns out that the prosecution really wanted alternate juror number one to empanelled. She was paying close attention (especially to the prosecutors) and her body language seemed to show she was favorable to their position. But, the defense won the motion and the judge kept the jury intact minus 1 instead of replacing the news junkie who just could not get through the weekend without peeking at CNN. (Or perhaps, my blog.)
The most interesting analysis I heard of this was that the defense did not want the jury to have to start deliberating again from scratch. That would put the final verdict further away from the time that the defense gave their VERY emotional (boo-hoo) closing argument and apparently, they think that the closer the jury's decision comes to the time they saw "Scooter's" lead defense lawyer cry, the better chance "Scooter" has of walking out of there a free man. That, right there, speaks volumes about the evidence presented in this case and the strength of each side's respective case.
My prediction: At least one conviction on the myriad of charges. The rest of the charges? Not sure yet.
And I guess, I can't really ignore this. It is true that the one jury member who refused to wear a red shirt with a white heart on it on Valentines' Day, is the very same member who was tossed from the jury. This is probably the best news of all for Libby. Does this lying, untrustworthy, snake of a man want a jilted woman deciding his fate? I doubt it.
More soon. Have a great day my friends.
So, now they are deliberating with 11 jurors only. Apparently Federal Law allows that, a fact I did not know until today. I wonder if the 4 alternate jurors knew that while they spent the last month of their lives listening to the same testimony as the "Chosen 12" did. But, I'll tell you what, those "Forgotten 4" cannot be happy. I can hear them in my head as clear as a bell.
Forgotten 4 Juror #1: "Are you telling me that I sat here taking 13 notebooks worth of notes, listening to a million witnesses all saying the same things, missed work, haven't seen my kids more than to kiss them good night for 6 weeks and now, yes now, after you toss someone off the jury, you are not even going to let me in on the fun?! You have GOT to be kidding me."
Forgotten 4 Jurot #2: "Hmm. I feel a little cold coming on. My throat is scratchy. Tell the judge, I am OUT of here."
Forgotten 4 Juror #3: "Damn, I can't remember my password to log onto my computer. I really want to check the news and see if anything interesting is going on, especially in Washington. I'll be real careful not to read anything about THIS case. Wink, wink."
Forgotten 4 Juror #4: "Wow, with this judge ruling like he has, there's no DOUBT I'll be deciding this case myself before close of business tonight." (Juror 4 is not too bright.)
Turns out that the prosecution really wanted alternate juror number one to empanelled. She was paying close attention (especially to the prosecutors) and her body language seemed to show she was favorable to their position. But, the defense won the motion and the judge kept the jury intact minus 1 instead of replacing the news junkie who just could not get through the weekend without peeking at CNN. (Or perhaps, my blog.)
The most interesting analysis I heard of this was that the defense did not want the jury to have to start deliberating again from scratch. That would put the final verdict further away from the time that the defense gave their VERY emotional (boo-hoo) closing argument and apparently, they think that the closer the jury's decision comes to the time they saw "Scooter's" lead defense lawyer cry, the better chance "Scooter" has of walking out of there a free man. That, right there, speaks volumes about the evidence presented in this case and the strength of each side's respective case.
My prediction: At least one conviction on the myriad of charges. The rest of the charges? Not sure yet.
And I guess, I can't really ignore this. It is true that the one jury member who refused to wear a red shirt with a white heart on it on Valentines' Day, is the very same member who was tossed from the jury. This is probably the best news of all for Libby. Does this lying, untrustworthy, snake of a man want a jilted woman deciding his fate? I doubt it.
More soon. Have a great day my friends.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Still Deliberating
The jurors are still talking it all over at the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial. From what I heard on Imus this morning they asked for a bunch of arts and crafts materials, apparently to construct a big paper timeline. I'd like to get a look at it when they're done because I, too, can't keep all that I have read about this case straight, espeically the timing of certain big events. Has anyone else noticed that each article you read about the case seems to have the last 3 or so paragraphs that explain the sequence of events and cast of characters? It is odd to see those details every time but without them, nothing much makes sense.
I wonder if the jury will really go home today without coming out with a verdict or at least trying to convince the judge that they are deadlocked. I really doubt that any of them want to come back to court tomorrow or on Monday morning. (Alternative theory: There is one juror who absolutely hates his job SO much that he is stalling in order to get a couple of more days off.)
All kidding aside, I agree with what Howard Fineman said this morning. There are probably 1 or 2 jurors who are leaning towards voting for acquittal and the others are doing everything in their power to turn them around. Hence, the sticky notes, magic markers, and the other things currently being pillaged from the local elementary school art rooms.
So, if that is what is going on we are going to get a conviction or a hung jury. I really doubt that there are one or two holdouts for conviction. The evidence seems a little too strong for an acquittal, but maybe strong enough for a hung jury which I'm sure Libby would not complain too much about. I bet that would annoy cheney, though? Another opportunity for his name and actions to be dragged through the mud in a re-trial later this year. Wouldn't that be a shame.
Speaking of cheney....Did you know that in 1991 he predicted that if bush sr. went into Baghdad it would be a mistake that would end up in a quagmire? According to him 9/11 changed everything to such an extent that it is now ok to be mired in a quagmire. Oh man, when does it stop? Here's a link to a posting in today's Washington Post where I learned all this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
That's all I got for today y'all. Enjoy the weekend.
I wonder if the jury will really go home today without coming out with a verdict or at least trying to convince the judge that they are deadlocked. I really doubt that any of them want to come back to court tomorrow or on Monday morning. (Alternative theory: There is one juror who absolutely hates his job SO much that he is stalling in order to get a couple of more days off.)
All kidding aside, I agree with what Howard Fineman said this morning. There are probably 1 or 2 jurors who are leaning towards voting for acquittal and the others are doing everything in their power to turn them around. Hence, the sticky notes, magic markers, and the other things currently being pillaged from the local elementary school art rooms.
So, if that is what is going on we are going to get a conviction or a hung jury. I really doubt that there are one or two holdouts for conviction. The evidence seems a little too strong for an acquittal, but maybe strong enough for a hung jury which I'm sure Libby would not complain too much about. I bet that would annoy cheney, though? Another opportunity for his name and actions to be dragged through the mud in a re-trial later this year. Wouldn't that be a shame.
Speaking of cheney....Did you know that in 1991 he predicted that if bush sr. went into Baghdad it would be a mistake that would end up in a quagmire? According to him 9/11 changed everything to such an extent that it is now ok to be mired in a quagmire. Oh man, when does it stop? Here's a link to a posting in today's Washington Post where I learned all this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
That's all I got for today y'all. Enjoy the weekend.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
As I typed the name of this post, I thought to myself, "What a dumb name." First, he decides to go by his middle name (which is fine), but then ends up with a nickname that makes him sound like a muppet. Or maybe a "Fraggle" although I doubt Scooter "rocks".
ANYWAY, we have apparently made it through a second day of jury deliberation without a verdict in his trial in which, if convicted, he could face up to 30 YEARS IN JAIL! Wow, that's a long time, eh? Although the truth is, that he'll probably never see even one single day in jail, because even if the jury returns a guilty verdict he'll be out on bail pending his appeal, an appeal likely to take long enough that even if he loses all they way up to the highest court, by then it will be late enough in bush's administration, that he'll just pardon him with very few consequences. (Love those run-on sentences.)
Despite that, I would like to see a guilty verdict as a solid example of just how corrupt this administration has been since before they even took office. I am glad Patrick Fitzgerald proceeded as he did and from what I can tell he has done a fantastic job, conviction or not.
So, what does it mean that the jury has not come back yet? I guess there are two likely possibilities. The first is that they are split somehow and so far they have not been able to convince enough others to change their minds as to get a unanimous verdict. Obviously, this scenario would be good for Libby. The second possibility I have come up with is that the jury is spending many hours pouring over the evidence and digesting the judge's instructions. This was a complicated and confusing case and maybe they just want to due their due dilligence before returning. They've been there hearing testimony and the like for over a month already, right? So what's a few more days? (Alternatively, you could argue that after a month they are going to do everything in their power to get the HELL out of there, justice be darned!)
Anyway, this case is really about DICK cheney. Fitzgerald would probably love to get a conviction against the muppet and turn him on Cheney to keep himself (Libby) out of muppet prison. Unlikely to work though because of that whole presidential pardon thing.
Speaking of which, I found it interesting that David Geffen soured on the Clinton's when Bill decided to pardon Marc Rich, but gave no such pardon to Lenord Peltier, who Geffen had personally asked Clinton to consider. (See Maureen Dowd's BRILLIANT column from yesterday's New York Times.)
But that is neither here nor there. (Whatever that means.) Another sleepless night awaits me, as I ponder what the jury will do to my least favorite fraggle.
Oh, I just came up with a 3rd theory for why the jury did not come back today. They obviously did not want to have to share tabloid headlines tomorrow with the judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case who awared custody of her body to....her 5 month old infant daughter. Good grief.
I hope you enjoyed this post, and if you want to laugh tonight, watch Scrubs.
One more question for you (all) to ponder. Do you think Libby was lying about being in the tail end of the plane that crashed on the island? I guess she wasn't under oath though, so it really doesn't relate, does it? Sorry.
ANYWAY, we have apparently made it through a second day of jury deliberation without a verdict in his trial in which, if convicted, he could face up to 30 YEARS IN JAIL! Wow, that's a long time, eh? Although the truth is, that he'll probably never see even one single day in jail, because even if the jury returns a guilty verdict he'll be out on bail pending his appeal, an appeal likely to take long enough that even if he loses all they way up to the highest court, by then it will be late enough in bush's administration, that he'll just pardon him with very few consequences. (Love those run-on sentences.)
Despite that, I would like to see a guilty verdict as a solid example of just how corrupt this administration has been since before they even took office. I am glad Patrick Fitzgerald proceeded as he did and from what I can tell he has done a fantastic job, conviction or not.
So, what does it mean that the jury has not come back yet? I guess there are two likely possibilities. The first is that they are split somehow and so far they have not been able to convince enough others to change their minds as to get a unanimous verdict. Obviously, this scenario would be good for Libby. The second possibility I have come up with is that the jury is spending many hours pouring over the evidence and digesting the judge's instructions. This was a complicated and confusing case and maybe they just want to due their due dilligence before returning. They've been there hearing testimony and the like for over a month already, right? So what's a few more days? (Alternatively, you could argue that after a month they are going to do everything in their power to get the HELL out of there, justice be darned!)
Anyway, this case is really about DICK cheney. Fitzgerald would probably love to get a conviction against the muppet and turn him on Cheney to keep himself (Libby) out of muppet prison. Unlikely to work though because of that whole presidential pardon thing.
Speaking of which, I found it interesting that David Geffen soured on the Clinton's when Bill decided to pardon Marc Rich, but gave no such pardon to Lenord Peltier, who Geffen had personally asked Clinton to consider. (See Maureen Dowd's BRILLIANT column from yesterday's New York Times.)
But that is neither here nor there. (Whatever that means.) Another sleepless night awaits me, as I ponder what the jury will do to my least favorite fraggle.
Oh, I just came up with a 3rd theory for why the jury did not come back today. They obviously did not want to have to share tabloid headlines tomorrow with the judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case who awared custody of her body to....her 5 month old infant daughter. Good grief.
I hope you enjoyed this post, and if you want to laugh tonight, watch Scrubs.
One more question for you (all) to ponder. Do you think Libby was lying about being in the tail end of the plane that crashed on the island? I guess she wasn't under oath though, so it really doesn't relate, does it? Sorry.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Desmond David Hume
So, did you see last Wednesday's episode of Lost?
OK, allow me to travel back in time a little and give you a hint of a post I should have written earlier.
Lost is my favorite TV show, probably ever. Friends who know of my 20 year (and counting) obsession with Star Trek might find that hard to believe. I sort of missed the first season but kept up with it just enough to know that I had to start watching. After I got my sister Maggie into it, she bought the first season on DVD and we caught up and have been hooked ever since. If you don't watch, but the show intrigues you, I say rent the first season DVD and fire it up. You'll know pretty quickly whether the show is for you or not. If it is your thing, then trust me, you are in for a real treat.
But, back to the present. Wednesday's episode of Lost was damn good. And it was quite different than most of the episodes. Instead of having a "back story" about one of the characters' life before their arrival on the Island, Desmond seemed to actually travel back in time to a point before his arrival. The show was entertaining, heartbreaking, and intellectually stimulating. It reminded me of Star Trek episodes that dealt with time travel but became a great Lost episode by staying true to the principals that make Lost unique.
Desomnd was referred to in the episode by his full name Desmond David Hume. Desmond is Scottish, as is one of David Hume, one of Scotland's most revered philospophers. This is surely not a coincidence. In the episode Desmond tries to find out whether he really IS travelling through time and asks his scientifically inclined friend whether time travel is really possible. Not that I am a David Hume expert by any stretch of the imagination, but my limited understanding of his philosophy leads me to believe that if Desmond David Hume were to ask David Hume those very questions, David Hume would certainly think that time travel was possible. Just because time generally travels forward does not mean it cannot travel backward. Anyone with knowledge of Hume who would be interested in giving a more detailed analysis of this is welcomed and encouraged to. (Rob?) And if you are inclined to doubt the connection connection between the fictional Hume and the real one, perhaps you should ask John Locke or John Locke whether they think the writers of Lost are well versed in western philosophy.
That's all for now.
OK, allow me to travel back in time a little and give you a hint of a post I should have written earlier.
Lost is my favorite TV show, probably ever. Friends who know of my 20 year (and counting) obsession with Star Trek might find that hard to believe. I sort of missed the first season but kept up with it just enough to know that I had to start watching. After I got my sister Maggie into it, she bought the first season on DVD and we caught up and have been hooked ever since. If you don't watch, but the show intrigues you, I say rent the first season DVD and fire it up. You'll know pretty quickly whether the show is for you or not. If it is your thing, then trust me, you are in for a real treat.
But, back to the present. Wednesday's episode of Lost was damn good. And it was quite different than most of the episodes. Instead of having a "back story" about one of the characters' life before their arrival on the Island, Desmond seemed to actually travel back in time to a point before his arrival. The show was entertaining, heartbreaking, and intellectually stimulating. It reminded me of Star Trek episodes that dealt with time travel but became a great Lost episode by staying true to the principals that make Lost unique.
Desomnd was referred to in the episode by his full name Desmond David Hume. Desmond is Scottish, as is one of David Hume, one of Scotland's most revered philospophers. This is surely not a coincidence. In the episode Desmond tries to find out whether he really IS travelling through time and asks his scientifically inclined friend whether time travel is really possible. Not that I am a David Hume expert by any stretch of the imagination, but my limited understanding of his philosophy leads me to believe that if Desmond David Hume were to ask David Hume those very questions, David Hume would certainly think that time travel was possible. Just because time generally travels forward does not mean it cannot travel backward. Anyone with knowledge of Hume who would be interested in giving a more detailed analysis of this is welcomed and encouraged to. (Rob?) And if you are inclined to doubt the connection connection between the fictional Hume and the real one, perhaps you should ask John Locke or John Locke whether they think the writers of Lost are well versed in western philosophy.
That's all for now.
Mike Lupica
Good day everyone.
I wanted to take the opportunity to recommend to you Mike Lupica's relatively new political column that he writes in the New York Daily News. I have been reading his sports columns for years and always thought he was among the very best sports writers. A couple of years ago, I noticed him slipping some political thoughts and ideas into his columns. Mostly jabs at the bush administration and their never ending blunders with regard to the Iraq Fiasco. Now he has a full- blown politcal column in addition to the great sportswriting he still does. Today he discusses the debate over whether Hillary Clinton needs to and/or should apologize for her Senate vote on 2002's Iraq Resolution. Here is the link for your convenience.
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/499486p-421108c.html
Also, I cannot more highly recommend a current piece of investigative journalism than the story that was broken in the Washington Post this Sunday by Dana Priest and Anne Hull. This is the story of "Building 18" where outpatients from Walter Reed live during their rehabiliation from war injuries. The original article and follow-up have been very enlightening. Here is a link to their original scoop. You may have to be a registered user of the Washington Post to open it and read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html?sub=AR
Well, that is all for now. I hope you are all having a nice Wednesday, and for those of you in the northeast that you are enjoying the nice temperatures we've been enjoying for the last couple of days.
I wanted to take the opportunity to recommend to you Mike Lupica's relatively new political column that he writes in the New York Daily News. I have been reading his sports columns for years and always thought he was among the very best sports writers. A couple of years ago, I noticed him slipping some political thoughts and ideas into his columns. Mostly jabs at the bush administration and their never ending blunders with regard to the Iraq Fiasco. Now he has a full- blown politcal column in addition to the great sportswriting he still does. Today he discusses the debate over whether Hillary Clinton needs to and/or should apologize for her Senate vote on 2002's Iraq Resolution. Here is the link for your convenience.
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/499486p-421108c.html
Also, I cannot more highly recommend a current piece of investigative journalism than the story that was broken in the Washington Post this Sunday by Dana Priest and Anne Hull. This is the story of "Building 18" where outpatients from Walter Reed live during their rehabiliation from war injuries. The original article and follow-up have been very enlightening. Here is a link to their original scoop. You may have to be a registered user of the Washington Post to open it and read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html?sub=AR
Well, that is all for now. I hope you are all having a nice Wednesday, and for those of you in the northeast that you are enjoying the nice temperatures we've been enjoying for the last couple of days.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
A Little More About Me
Hi everyone. I hope you all had a good weekend and that you were lucky enough to have a three-day weekend. As promised in my first blog entry last week, I want to give you some biographical information about myself.
I live in Huntington, Long Island, the town in which I grew up. My girlfriend lives in Boston and I am planning on moving there in the near future. I graduated from Harborfields High School in 1990, Skidmore College in 1994, and CUNY Law School in 2004. Between college and law school I worked mostly in the music retail business, starting out at Sountraks, Ltd. a great small CD store in Huntington, and then working at several Virgin Megastores in Manhattan and on Long Island. Props to my friend Tim McIntosh for hiring me and getting me started on a good path there. In 2000, sensing the change that was coming in the music biz, I started to look for an alternative career path and in August of 2001 I started my first semester of law school. I graduated and (somehow) passed the New York State Bar Exam on my first try. I worked with my dad on Long Island for one and a half years, and am now a contract attorney working in Mid-town Manhattan. The commute from Huntington to Manhattan is no fun, but thanks to my sister Mary, I only have to do it a few times a week. She lives in Manhattan and I often crash with her. Saves me MAD time and money. I come from a large family. I have SIX sisters AND a brother. They are all older than I. More on them in future postings for sure. For now, know that we are all very close.
I live in Huntington, Long Island, the town in which I grew up. My girlfriend lives in Boston and I am planning on moving there in the near future. I graduated from Harborfields High School in 1990, Skidmore College in 1994, and CUNY Law School in 2004. Between college and law school I worked mostly in the music retail business, starting out at Sountraks, Ltd. a great small CD store in Huntington, and then working at several Virgin Megastores in Manhattan and on Long Island. Props to my friend Tim McIntosh for hiring me and getting me started on a good path there. In 2000, sensing the change that was coming in the music biz, I started to look for an alternative career path and in August of 2001 I started my first semester of law school. I graduated and (somehow) passed the New York State Bar Exam on my first try. I worked with my dad on Long Island for one and a half years, and am now a contract attorney working in Mid-town Manhattan. The commute from Huntington to Manhattan is no fun, but thanks to my sister Mary, I only have to do it a few times a week. She lives in Manhattan and I often crash with her. Saves me MAD time and money. I come from a large family. I have SIX sisters AND a brother. They are all older than I. More on them in future postings for sure. For now, know that we are all very close.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Introduction and Welcome
Greetings Reader(s):
Thanks for stopping by. I decided to start this blog to give myself a forum for the thoughts and ideas that I often share with friends and family, I hope I'll be able to to entertain, inform, and accomplish more to be determined as I proceed. Thanks to my friend Bones Rodriguez for inspiring me to start this. His blogs are very good and I'll put the address for them up on here shortly so you can check them out. Today is February 16, 2007, one day after my 35th birthday. Wow, Dan, you're not a kid anymore. It is cold and sunny outside, 2 days removed from the icy, slushy mess that fell from the sky on Wednesday here in the New York Metro area.
Topics I think will get a fair amount of attention of this blog are: 1) The New York Mets, 2) My fledgling legal career and my quest to make it satisfying, 3) The upcoming 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and the current events that are shaping it every day, 4) The never-ending dumb things that go on with the Long Island Rail Road, 5)Lost, 6) Music and 7) The Weather.
I will do my best to make this blog entertaining and I promise that no entry will ever start with the following: "I am bored today."
Thanks again for stopping by. Please do check back whenever the desire to hits you. Next post will contain some biographical information about me for those reading who don't know me personally. (Will that ever even happen?)
Have a great day everyone.
Thanks for stopping by. I decided to start this blog to give myself a forum for the thoughts and ideas that I often share with friends and family, I hope I'll be able to to entertain, inform, and accomplish more to be determined as I proceed. Thanks to my friend Bones Rodriguez for inspiring me to start this. His blogs are very good and I'll put the address for them up on here shortly so you can check them out. Today is February 16, 2007, one day after my 35th birthday. Wow, Dan, you're not a kid anymore. It is cold and sunny outside, 2 days removed from the icy, slushy mess that fell from the sky on Wednesday here in the New York Metro area.
Topics I think will get a fair amount of attention of this blog are: 1) The New York Mets, 2) My fledgling legal career and my quest to make it satisfying, 3) The upcoming 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and the current events that are shaping it every day, 4) The never-ending dumb things that go on with the Long Island Rail Road, 5)Lost, 6) Music and 7) The Weather.
I will do my best to make this blog entertaining and I promise that no entry will ever start with the following: "I am bored today."
Thanks again for stopping by. Please do check back whenever the desire to hits you. Next post will contain some biographical information about me for those reading who don't know me personally. (Will that ever even happen?)
Have a great day everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)