BlogBlogBlog

posted by admin on Feb 27

What an episode! As usual the Locke-centric episodes jump the shows plot forward dramatically giving us tons of information and min-information hidden behind incredible story developments.

SPOILERS WITHIN

As has become custom I’ll start with the title: The Life and Death and Jeremy Bentham. Two British works come to mind which feels appropriate considering the nationalities of Locke’s namesakes. The first one that jumped to mind was the film The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. A great film and highly recommended about a talented British officer whose career spans pre-WWI through the second World War. Blimp, an alias based on a popular comic strip and is called Clive Wynn-Candy in the film, becomes great friends with a German who injures him in a duel, takes part in WWI as an impetuous officer and sees the world pass him by when he is relegated to the home guard during WWII. With Widmore’s reference to a coming war I couldn’t help think which former Island-resident would see this new war pass them by and be pushed to the side. Ben seems insistent on taking part but being sent off island by Jacob might indicate he doesn’t have a side to fight on any longer.

The original comic-strip Colonel Blimp was a joke while the film shows a great man. Sound like Locke pre- and post- Island arrival?

The other, possibly more relevant, work is The Life and Death of Cardinal Wolsey. Wolsey eventually attained the office of Lord Chancellor, the King’s chief advisor, and during his life Wolsey was frequently seen as possessing power almost on equal with his king, Henry VIII. Wolsey played intregal roles in several wars and treaties almost all of which met with mixed success. Locke’s anticipated role as leader of the Others and #2 to Jacob seems to mirror Wolsey himself while Locke working with Widmore and Ben seems to foreshadow Locke attempting to bring peace to the island working as ambassador to both sides. Even more importantly this continues the subtly growing influence of religion on Lost and the importance of faith. Which leads nicely into one of the show stopping moments of the episode: Ben murdering Locke.

I argued with my roommate for a solid twenty minutes about Ben’s motivation. We’ve both already chosen our sides on this debate and we continue to have it every week. He maintains they should have killed Ben and having made that mistake need to remedy it immediately. For him Locke’s murder showed you everything you needed to know about Ben. He saves Locke, builds him back up, gets the information he needs and kills him. I disagree. We know Locke needs to die to bring the Oceanic Six back to the island which will help save the island and those left behind. I believe if Locke commits suicide he is not resurrected on the Island because suicide is a sin. And Ben knows this. As evidenced by Ben’s speech to Jack in the church Ben appears to be a Christian. If Locke is the savior of the Island, a Christ figure, his death necessitates suffering and betrayal before his resurrection.

The other part of the episode that really struck me was Locke’s dialogue upon returning to the Island. Cryptic, knowing and frustrating to the other characters it reminded me of the Others. But Locke doesn’t really know much about the Island. He gives honest answers that seem baffling if you don’t know his back-story. A back-story that is impossible to believe. Is it the same way with the Others? Do they not understand the Island the way we think but have simply been there a little longer and had more unexplainable things happen to them? It’s not like Juliet seems to have any answers. Are the Others skipping through time and simply know what the future holds with little idea why?

Loved the episode. Next week: LeFleur - Sounds like we’ll be back on the Island and find out what happened to the other survivors after the time skipping.

posted by admin on Feb 26

Last nights LOST was fantastic, the best in a few weeks. I’m sick this week but I will get a post up later today once my brain starts functioning at a reasonable level.

posted by admin on Feb 25

Providence defeats #1 Pitt.

If PC beats Rutgers they have to be a lock for the tourney. Right?

I’m interested to see where their RPI move too. More and more I’m becoming less a fan of RPI and Strength of Schedule. While important factors I feel the eyeball test is the most important. For example, Wake Forest loses to some terrible teams and looks god awful but doesn’t fall out of the top 10. Wake Forest loses to 9th ranked Duke in Cameron and drops 6 spots to 14. I have no problem with Wake being 14 but when you barely drop them for a loss to NC St. and then punish them for losing a close game at Duke your ratings lose some legitimacy. All I want is consistency.

But back to Providence. At the end of the game ESPN showed PC’s resume and had Notre Dame and at Boston College as key losses. That might be the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Losing to ND at home is maybe a bad loss but ND was desperate for a win and 6 of their loses have been against teams around the top 15, I guess I’ll listen to the argument. But BC has beat Duke and UNC and is 100% in the tourney. How is that a key loss? Terrible broadcasting.

Anyway, here’s my RPI/SOS problem. (I know this is factored in somehow but) Playing teams ranked in the top 25 of the RPI skews your SOS regardless of winning and losing. Example:

Memphis - #7 RPI

1-2 vs. RPI top 25 - lone win vs. #25 Tennessee

2-3 vs. RPI top 50 - other win vs. #40 Gonzaga

I’m not trying to knock Memphis but they’ve built up wins against weak teams and been unsuccessful against most of the top teams they’ve played. I just feel multiple top 25 wins should be a requirement for stepping into the top 10. How many teams in the Big East would only have 3 losses or less if they played the Memphis schedule? Make a case for Memphis being #7 based on wins and losses vs. quality opponents and maybe I’ll start taking RPI seriously.

FSN is showing game 5 of the 1988 World Series. Orel Hershieser is God. If I had to have anyone pitch a game to save my life it would be 1988 Orel Hershieser. Un-freaking-hittable.

posted by admin on Feb 20

Here is Rick Reilly’s latest article. It pains me to deconstruct it because I used to like Rick Reilly, then I graduated from middle school! Hiyoooo! Thank you, thank you it’s just too easy.

Now let’s go through everything wrong in it.

“I’ve been able to retrieve every single MVP award that was wrongfully won by every single suspected ‘roid ranger over the past 20 years.”

One: It’s 2009 so the 1988 MVP he later references falls outside his area of expertise of the last 20 years. Small but important when you are accusing people of such contentious things.

Two: This sentence is a lie.

Three: The word ‘every’. This implies that Reilly has a secret knowledge of steroid use in this era.

Four: The word ’suspected’. So “every” player Reilly “suspects” took steroids should have their award stripped. A little subjective?

Let’s move on this is hurting my brain.

The first potentially incorrect assumption he makes is that Player X on steroids beats player Y but Player X not on steroids loses to Player Y.

Prime example: 2001 Barry Bonds wins the MVP and Luis Gonzalez finished second in voting. You are assuming Bonds, already a three-time MVP winner, loses to Gonzalez without steroids. Possible but not definite.

The second totally incorrect assumption is none of these guys who finished second are above suspicion. And apparently Rick agrees with me in certain cases, “We’re throwing out Beltre since, while he denies ever using PEDs, he fell off the face of the planet once baseball put in stricter steroid suspensions in 2005. If he wasn’t cheating, I’m the Queen Mother. ” Beltre finished second to Bonds in 2004.

Now let’s look at these other guys Reilly finds above suspiscion.

Mike Piazza - drafted in the last round and a few years later is the best hitting catcher in history.

Moises Alou - finished second in 1998 in his second best statistical year. Did not play in 1999 due to injury. In 2004 at the age of 37 had his best statistical year ever, ironically enough in a contract year. Not drawing any conclusions just reporting the facts.

Luis Gonzalez - Hits over 30 HR’s twice in his career. First in 2000 at the age of 32 he knocks 31 dingers. In 2001 at the age of 33 he bombs a staggering 57. He never hits more then 28 ever again.

Albert Pujols and Carlos Delgado are two of the other players mentioned and I’m willing to cut them some slack but not willing to place them above suspicion. The point here is Rick Reilly wrote a nice article if you look at half the facts. We can’t even begin to know who was taking steroids in 1996, never-mind 1988. To rescind awards and give them out instantly to the second place finisher is ludicrous and proves how ridiculous it actually is too judge the Steroid Era as anything but the Steroid Era. Stats and longevity were artificially produced and I don’t think anyone is going to forget that so why the witch hunt?

This all brings me to something I’ve felt strongly about for some time. A big, big part of the steroid controversy is media driven. Just look at football if you disagree with me. And it’s media driven because baseball writers are obsessed with the history of the game but more importantly they are obsessed with their memories of the game. They remember being seven, eight years old watching Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente, Hank Aaron or Reggie Jackson and now they watch new athletes surpass the achievements of their childhood heroes. Well, I watched Mark McGwire break Maris’ record. I watched it with my Dad and my Uncle. The next morning I cut the giant full paged picture out of the local paper and hung it on my wall. So god damn you for trying to ruin that memory, god damn you for caring five years after the fact but celebrating the achievement at the time. If you want to know who ruined baseball for a generation it was you, every writer who praised McGwire and Sosa but suddenly found a conscious years later when the story was big enough this is your fault. You did not take care of the baseball history and purity you treasure so much and now you blame the players you gave monster headlines, magazine covers and helped make millions of dollars. In 1988 the A’s played the Dodgers in the World Series and I knew Canseco was on steroids. I was five. You know how I knew? The A’s fans in the stands bashing their enormous, novelty forearms together in celebration of The Bash Brothers, McGwire and Canseco. That wasn’t a big enough clue? In nineteen eighty-freaking-eight? So god damn you for destroying the heroes of a generation, of my generation. God damn your hypocrisy. God damn your bullshit moral posturing. God damn you.

posted by admin on Feb 19

Word comes out from Pepsi that corn’s domination (in the form of high fructose corn syrup) of the soft drink industry has an old challenger.

I think this means that we, as a society, have jumped the proverbial shark.

I am all about cutting out the HFCS but maybe, just maybe, the answer is to stop drinking soda like it’s an every meal beverage and return to treating soda like a treat, a snack, a dessert. But that would be quitting and American’s don’t quit! We do, however, drink heart disease-giving, farm-killing crap for fifty years! What’s that in the background? Oh, just the national anthem playing through a drive thru speaker box.

posted by admin on Feb 19

A few people have complained so:

*****SPOILERS WITHIN******

If I were a different man I might call them delicious spoilitos but, alas, I am not that man.

Last nights episode. 316. An airline flight and one of the most famous bible verses about God giving the world his only son.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Taken from the book of John makes your mind jump to Locke but after watching the episode the Son in this scenario seems to be Jack who has found some degree of faith and is trying to lead his fellow survivors back to the island. Plus, the father in this scenario is powerful Island resident Christian Shepherd.

Religion and more accurately faith appear to have a deepening importance in the mythology of the show and the plot. Yet another C.S. Lewis, Chronicles of Narnia reference with the off-island Dharma Station The Lamp-Post. In The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe a lamppost guides the way between the two worlds. And I couldn’t help but get a Prince Caspian feel from the opening of the episode with the Jack, Hurley and Kate awakening by a lagoon. And if memory serves in Prince Caspian the children are waiting in a train station when a magical flash transports them back to Narnia because Narnia needs their help similar to the flash on the plane at the end of the episode. Last night the show pushed into a different realm for me with the religious references and I’m starting to develop a theory. More on that later.

The Lamp-Post. Ms. Hawking’s explanation elicited several eye-rolls and made me incredibly nervous about coming BIG reveals in the show. In part it was her performance which was just horribly off-key for the information (is there anyway Ben would not have done this a million times better?) and the flashback’s I was having to Episode I and midochlorians (I’m not looking up that spelling). Pockets of energy throughout the world? How are they connected? Why don’t the others move around like the island? And if the island is constantly moving what stops it from appearing in Kansas one day? I’m inclined to call bullshit and believe Desmond. The survivors are pawns in the machinations of others. One thing I did enjoy was her vagueness about the man who figured all this out. If it’s true, it’s got to be her son Faraday right? We know he travels back to the island’s past and seems to understand more about all of this then anyone.

Also, if the pockets of energy story is true we can assume there’s one in LA, one in the Tunisian desert, and one at the faith-healers Rose and Bernard visit. Not sure if that means anything but could become important.

All this made the first half very weak but the second half more then redeemed the episode.

Coming Soon!

Flashback episode of Hurley visited by … somebody (Charlie? Libby?) and getting on that flight. The guitar points to Charlie. Also, it was a small detail but Hurley buying as many seats as he could to save people solved one concern I had about the flight but was a gentle reminder of Hurley’s character and telling about his motivations for being on that plane.

Flashback! Kate receives a visit from … somebody (Ben? Sun? Claire?) and decides to return.

Flashback! Ben pays somebody a visit that maybe doesn’t go how he planned. Does he kill Penny, like he promised Widmore he would, thus driving Desmond back to the island? Does it relate to Sayid’s arrest (Flashback!)? Does he kill Ms. Hawking so no one else can follow?

Lapidas flying the plane blind-sided me. In hindsight it’s something everyone should have seen coming but the doubt of the other character’s being on the plane threw me off the scent. In case you forgot (and I forget where or when this info is from) Lapidas was supposed to be the pilot of Oceanic 815.

And Jin. Holy shit! If Jack, Kate and Hurley have traveled back to the Dharma Initiative’s time on the island (50’s?) then the shows about to get crazy! And I mean that in the best possible way. The theories this opens up for the survivors being Others, the actions during Season 1 being orchestrated by Jack and/or other survivors because they had already happened in the past of the characters so had to happen again are just insane. I love it!

Interesting theory I saw in Jeff ‘Doc’ Jensen’s EW write-up; Jack’s grandfather is not really his grandfather. It’s a much older, wiser Jack after he’s returned to the island and come back to LA. Also, helps explain the shoes.

My big picture show theory: For the entire run of the show one of the main themes has been Science vs. Faith and last night was the perfect example. Ms. Hawking explains how to get back with science but really demands faith. All the computers and the big swinging pendulum look impressive but I think they are pure theatrics. Jack, Kate and Hurley travel back to the island’s past, they know it’s on flight 316 and send Ms. Hawking off island to make sure they take it. When she confirms Ben is a liar it’s to throw everyone off the track of her lies! What does this mean for the show?

The show will end open ended but with a divine power as the leading explanation for everything. Those who have faith will believe it, those who lack faith will see ulterior motives of power and control behind it. All the talk of constants and variable refer to free will. The universe or God has given mankind free will but this leads to potential paradoxes. A few dozen people have their free will taken away and must serve as ‘course correctors’ for the world. If you try to deviate from this path fate/God will punish you and inevitably send you back on the right course.

This all ties in to the islands seeming mystical powers. If fate/God still needs you the island ‘heals’ you but once your usefulness is over, well, Mr. Eko. The island struggles with babies and children because they cause people to go down different, safer roads in the role of care taker as well as being more unpredictable then adults.

This has gotten much longer then I meant but this theory makes 100% sense to me. It’s also why when the characters first crash on the island things are chaos. Fate/God and the people already on the island are have to sort out all these new variables. This was a very long-winded way to say I think God will come into Lost. I hope it does because, well I’ll be right, but also because I think they handle it in a very deft and subtle manner leaving several other theories open to debate but giving people who want a strong, all encompassing explanation exactly what they need.

I still have no idea about the polar bears. Unless it’s from the island moving but as I said I’m not inclined to believe all that nonsense. Can’t wait for next week!

posted by admin on Feb 16

Last night HBO premiered the new sitcom from Danny McBride (Pineapple Express, The Foot Fist Way) Eastbound & Down. I found the show funny but the main character is largely unsympathetic making me wonder how long audiences will be able to tolerate the show.

McBride plays former big league pitcher Kenny Powers. Powers is a crass, offensive ego maniac obsessed with his own stardom. Falling on hard times exacerbates his offensive characteristics as he screams at his brother’s children, orders prostitutes on his sister-in-law’s cell phone and unabashedly hits on an engaged ex-girlfriend. He takes a job as a substitute gym teacher where he receives a mixture of contempt and awe from students and faculty alike.

The show will fail if it continues to focus on Kenny. As a movie that would work fine (and would be very similar to McBride’s The Foot Fist Way which the show is clearly inspired by) because Kenny could have a natural character arc but the show’s humor is largely based on Kenny’s narcissism meaning he can never truly have the epiphany that makes him a like-able character. If the show takes The Office route with Kenny as a Michael Scott-esque device causing trouble for a well-rounded cast of supporters I think it will work very well. I have hopes they’re taking this route because they introduced several characters that Kenny will infuriate but be useful too because of his fame.

I’m also hopeful because the show gave Kenny a few moments of weakness that reveal an insecure boy beneath all his bravado. If managed correctly this could provide the show with it’s heart and give Kenny enough moments of self-awareness to make him slightly relatable.

All in all I enjoyed the episode, cringed a couple of times as it went too over-the-top for me but most importantly will tune in next week to see what happens. The next two episodes will decide the fate of the show for me. If we get to know the other characters and I can retain some little bit of sympathy for Kenny then the show could be a winner.

Also, can’t wait for this.

posted by admin on Feb 16

Go to this web site.

Click on the link for the announced TV winners.

Look at the winners. Go to Semifinalists for Sitcom Category. Look at the third name from the bottom.

So you’re saying there’s a chance!

posted by admin on Feb 12

I’ve started this post three of four times now and half way through realize I’ve completely lost my way. I become bogged down in bizarre time travel explanations, analysis of Christian Shepherd (Jack’s Dad with the overtly symbolic name) as an avatar for the island correcting time and fate and…. see this stuff gets a little tricky. Let’s try to take it slow.

Jin - Hangs out with some French people, sees an arm ripped-off, skips through time, and is going to be pretty pissed at Locke when Sun returns. I’m really hoping Jin chillin’ with the frogs pays off but I’m worried it was just a device for Jin’s dramatic return and a convenient way to remind us of Rousseau’s story and keep a survivor there as a grounding element. He feels oddly tacked on to the survivor’s right now because his emotional investment is off-island. The exchanging of his ring from Jin to Locke, Locke to Ben, Ben to Sun played well for me.

Sun - Only one observation. Her decision to return felt too quick. She has a daughter! I realize she wants to find Jin but returning to the island could mean never seeing her daughter again. That’s kind of messed up.

Rousseau - I fully believe that she would not remember Jin in Season One. She saw Jin for a couple hours, sixteen years go by where she grows more and more insane and she meets a non-English speaking Jin surrounded by dozens of other people. Not to mention she killed her lover and gave birth around the same time, I’m sure her memory focuses on those events slightly stronger then the bizarre Korean guy.

Locke - Will be paralyzed again once he’s off the island? The implications about the island are huge either way.

Charlotte/Faraday & Time Travel - Online people continue to attempt finding inconsistencies with the shows treatment of time travel. Desmond and Faraday suddenly remember things in the past due to time travel, Charlotte remembers Daniel Faraday (or someone like Daniel) from her past and Richard appears to remember Locke meeting him in the 50’s. Two statements by Faraday explain this easily.
1) “You can’t change the past.”
2) “Desmond, you’re different, the rules don’t apply to you.”
Desmond’s difference is that he can change the past while the others are locked in this time loop where Charlotte dies on the island causing Faraday to warn her away as a child causing her obsession with returning to the island. Locke travels back and tells Richard he’s their leader, Richard finds Locke as a child.
Think of time as a math equation some people are constants and some people are variables. The question is who are the constants and who the variables?

Sorry, if this is unfocused. I have hundreds of theories kicking around in my head and was probably not ready to write about this episode.

Easter Egg: The voice reading the numbers over the transmission on the French radio appears to be Hurley’s. Seriously, go back and listen.

Next week - 316: How and why will they return to the island?

Two weeks - The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham: Locke off the island!

posted by admin on Feb 10

Just read this interesting post from one of the LA Times Dodger blogs. If you’re too lazy to follow the link it regards Joe Torre answering a Larry King viewer about gay baseball players.

Essentially, Torre supports a player coming out but recognizes why he wouldn’t. I think we can all understand that. Initially I balked at the writer praising Torre for taking this stand because I don’t find anything praiseworthy about saying something politically correct but was intrigued by the writer’s brief statement about this being an opportunity for baseball to do something positive and socially progressive after so much negative news coming out of the sport. (i.e. A-Roid, who I could not care less about b/c we would all take PEDs in exchange for $225 million.) If a Dodger player did come out and Torre supported him and helped him I would find that praiseworthy because sports are notoriously close minded about this issue.

But baseball embracing a gay movement is a very interesting idea. Obviously, there are people inside and outside of baseball who would have huge problems with this but that’s why it could be such a powerful movement. The gay rights movement is the progressive movement of our time and for baseball to be on the forefront of that movement would force this issue into the public forum on an every day basis like nothing before. Baseball works perfectly for this because the season lasts forever and the media loves any controversy in baseball because most people find regular season baseball incredibly boring. Not to mention the players living the season together longer then any other sport leading to inevitable locker room blow ups where someone’s sexual preference would become an issue. Players take sides, fans take sides and people truly show how they feel.

Due to the historical comparisons I would love for the Dodgers to be this team. Linking the player with Jackie Robinson in such an obvious and iconic way would hit baseball people with why this issue matters. Now all of the players on the major league roster may be straight or 99% of the locker room could be vocally anti-gay which would be unfair to ask anyone to come out in that environment so it may not be an option but someone in baseball needs to step out and embrace this controversial issue. Sports is of incalculable value to social progress, I don’t care how anti-gay you are when a homosexual hits a walk-off home run for your team the last thing on your mind will be his sexual preference.

And that’s the first step on this long road.

And let’s try to avoid any “baseball players injecting things into their ass” jokes. Trying to have a serious conversation here.