I know that only a couple people probably read this blog, and I've already told both of them about this. But, just in case, I wanted to post this. Visit the link, watch the video, and give a good rating.
"He's the Reef Hunter!"Thursday, January 29, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Lie To Me
Having watched a lot of Cowboys football, which normally will air on FOX, I saw dozens of previews for the network's new show Lie To Me. It is a show about a man (played by Tim Roth) who specializes in the art of detecting lies through body language. The show, despite the onslaught of programming, was very interesting to me, and I was determined to give it a shot.
There was only one problem: Lie To Me airs on Wednesday nights at 8pm. If you look immediately down the screen, you'll know that I absolutely love LOST. Getting the picture, yet?
(They're on at the same time)
First of all, I have a question for the geniuses at FOX. Are you insane? You have a show that you spent millions advertising, and it's a show that you're going to try and build an audience for. And not only do you decide to place it against one of the more popular shows on television (I know LOST's ratings are dropping, but I assume it's still extremely popular), but you premiere it the exact same night as LOST returns.
That's crazy.
Now I realize that since American Idol runs at least twice a week (I don't watch...it might be more), the options aren't great. And I also realize that a TV juggernaut runs at least once a night, and there will always be a CSI or a LOST or a Grey's Anatomy that you have to compete against.
But we're talking about a show that was debuting mid-season. It could've easily aired while LOST was on hiatus, and it might've established an audience by the time LOST came back. And while I decided to watch the show on the network's Web site, I'm not sure that enough people will be that patient.
As for the show itself, I found it to be very interesting, but I find interesting in the same way that I find another brand-new FOX show interesting (Fringe). I watch Fringe because the science on the show is pretty interesting, whether it be teleporting a man from a German prison or killer glass butterflies. But I'm eleven episodes in, and I don't really care about the characters. I'm more intrigued by the premise, and the characters are simply there to help out the premise.
I think Lie To Me's central character (Roth) has a chance to be a likeable-jerk (like the main character on House), but I don't even remember the other character's names. I'm sure, if I continue to watch, I'll get to know them, and I'll give them a chance. But this seems to be the kind of show that I'll watch just because I'll find it interesting to see, at least on the show, the signs that people are lying.
Which means, unless it grabs me, I'll be watching it as a dramatized documentary...meaning it will be more entertaining than a regular documentary but also probably less factual.
Now if they could only find a timeslot for it...
CORRECTION/UPDATE
Apparently Lie To Me did better in the ratings than LOST did (7.7/12 to 6.8/10). I'm extremely shocked to read that because I assumed LOST was back and kicking (it certainly got back to its original starting point story-wise). LOST actually ended up third on the night (both shows got beat by Criminal Minds...a show that no one I know watches).
It's possible, as my roommate pointed out, that LOST is such a niche show that it isn't the ratings superstar that it used to be (since it will lose viewers who are tired of the premise but not pick up new ones). That is sad.
I'm going to leave the original blog, as is, though. Other than the ratings bit, it still works about the same. And, even then, I can't imagine running anything against LOST. Because on Wednesdays at 8pm, that's what I'll be running. No matter what.
There was only one problem: Lie To Me airs on Wednesday nights at 8pm. If you look immediately down the screen, you'll know that I absolutely love LOST. Getting the picture, yet?
(They're on at the same time)
First of all, I have a question for the geniuses at FOX. Are you insane? You have a show that you spent millions advertising, and it's a show that you're going to try and build an audience for. And not only do you decide to place it against one of the more popular shows on television (I know LOST's ratings are dropping, but I assume it's still extremely popular), but you premiere it the exact same night as LOST returns.
That's crazy.
Now I realize that since American Idol runs at least twice a week (I don't watch...it might be more), the options aren't great. And I also realize that a TV juggernaut runs at least once a night, and there will always be a CSI or a LOST or a Grey's Anatomy that you have to compete against.
But we're talking about a show that was debuting mid-season. It could've easily aired while LOST was on hiatus, and it might've established an audience by the time LOST came back. And while I decided to watch the show on the network's Web site, I'm not sure that enough people will be that patient.
As for the show itself, I found it to be very interesting, but I find interesting in the same way that I find another brand-new FOX show interesting (Fringe). I watch Fringe because the science on the show is pretty interesting, whether it be teleporting a man from a German prison or killer glass butterflies. But I'm eleven episodes in, and I don't really care about the characters. I'm more intrigued by the premise, and the characters are simply there to help out the premise.
I think Lie To Me's central character (Roth) has a chance to be a likeable-jerk (like the main character on House), but I don't even remember the other character's names. I'm sure, if I continue to watch, I'll get to know them, and I'll give them a chance. But this seems to be the kind of show that I'll watch just because I'll find it interesting to see, at least on the show, the signs that people are lying.
Which means, unless it grabs me, I'll be watching it as a dramatized documentary...meaning it will be more entertaining than a regular documentary but also probably less factual.
Now if they could only find a timeslot for it...
CORRECTION/UPDATE
Apparently Lie To Me did better in the ratings than LOST did (7.7/12 to 6.8/10). I'm extremely shocked to read that because I assumed LOST was back and kicking (it certainly got back to its original starting point story-wise). LOST actually ended up third on the night (both shows got beat by Criminal Minds...a show that no one I know watches).
It's possible, as my roommate pointed out, that LOST is such a niche show that it isn't the ratings superstar that it used to be (since it will lose viewers who are tired of the premise but not pick up new ones). That is sad.
I'm going to leave the original blog, as is, though. Other than the ratings bit, it still works about the same. And, even then, I can't imagine running anything against LOST. Because on Wednesdays at 8pm, that's what I'll be running. No matter what.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
L O S T
Tonight was the premiere of season five of LOST. And if there's something that I love/obsess about more than sports, it's probably this show. I spent the majority of the day thinking about what was going to happen in tonight's episode...anticipating the premiere as much as I've anticipated anything in recent memory.
The show is so beautiful to me...so rich...so layered that it is hard for me not to get excited. I do not read spoilers (or even watch the after-episode promos), but I love going to Lostpedia and reading everything I can. Looking at character bios, making connections between characters, re-reading episode summaries to remember things I'd forgotten. You know, basically doing a wikipedia surf in a site dedicated exclusively to LOST.
I'm the kind of fan that immediately gets the inside joke from the writers. Who recognizes the obscure character before anyone else. I did that a couple times tonight.
And I'm fairly certain that my future wife will have to love LOST. Probably not as much as me, but she's going to have to appreciate the show for what it is. Because this show speaks to me more than many other things (music, politics, movies, etc) and I think that's a personality quirk that I think would have to match with me.
The show is so beautiful to me...so rich...so layered that it is hard for me not to get excited. I do not read spoilers (or even watch the after-episode promos), but I love going to Lostpedia and reading everything I can. Looking at character bios, making connections between characters, re-reading episode summaries to remember things I'd forgotten. You know, basically doing a wikipedia surf in a site dedicated exclusively to LOST.
I'm the kind of fan that immediately gets the inside joke from the writers. Who recognizes the obscure character before anyone else. I did that a couple times tonight.
And I'm fairly certain that my future wife will have to love LOST. Probably not as much as me, but she's going to have to appreciate the show for what it is. Because this show speaks to me more than many other things (music, politics, movies, etc) and I think that's a personality quirk that I think would have to match with me.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration Part Two
Okay, I thought about my blog from yesterday, and I started to wonder if what I wrote was fair. And I think I'm going to end up back in the middle.
Is it fair to say that Obama must have an above average presidency to be considered a success? No, I do not believe so. I simply believe that he's going to have to do more than just be known as the first black president. And I think that, wrong or right, his performance will be America's litmus test for how well a non-white-male president will perform. For example, if Obama's presidency is an unquestioned success, it will be much easier for someone like Bill Richardson (a Hispanic man) or Hilary Clinton (a woman) to be elected president because Americans will realize that a white protestant man doesn't have to be their leader.
But if Obama's term is an unquestioned failure, I'm sure we'll see the US dip back into a few more white male presidents until we get the guts to try something different again.
I think my main issue with Obama's success is where the bar is set. I think some of it is his own fault (hope and change is an easy cause to get behind but a very difficult one to accomplish, I believe), but some of his supporters are just plain ridiculous. A woman claimed that she believed Obama would pay off her mortgage. Others believe that Obama's presidency will bring about new money (the amounts vary) into their checking account.
And then there's all the messiah talk - how is that bar attainable?
You hear all that, and you wonder if Obama would be able to survive with simply "above average" results. Anything short of turning water into wine seems like it'd be a failure, and I'm only half kidding with that statement.
This is probably the most important presidency in many of our lifetimes, and I think it will create unimaginable pressure on President Obama. Future minority candidates are counting on him, the entire African American community is counting on him, and his zealots are really counting on him.
And he's also going to have to try to get us out of this war, fix the economy, deal with Gitmo, and push through Universal Health Care. And he's probably going to have to do all of that in four years.
I hope our new president is up to the challenge, but he needs to start by curbing some of the country's enthusiasm. The next four years aren't going to bring automatic positive change just because Barack Obama is in the White House. Many of our problems can't be solved in four years, and several probably can't be solved in eight.
Most presidents get credit by getting the ball rolling, or at the very least, stopping its movement in the wrong direction. I don't think that will be the case for Obama, and I think that, if he fails, his critics will be the least of his problem. All the people who expect change and don't get it might turn on Obama quicker than his conservative critics.
And that's why things have a chance to get really ugly. Because messiahs don't tend to fall short.
Is it fair to say that Obama must have an above average presidency to be considered a success? No, I do not believe so. I simply believe that he's going to have to do more than just be known as the first black president. And I think that, wrong or right, his performance will be America's litmus test for how well a non-white-male president will perform. For example, if Obama's presidency is an unquestioned success, it will be much easier for someone like Bill Richardson (a Hispanic man) or Hilary Clinton (a woman) to be elected president because Americans will realize that a white protestant man doesn't have to be their leader.
But if Obama's term is an unquestioned failure, I'm sure we'll see the US dip back into a few more white male presidents until we get the guts to try something different again.
I think my main issue with Obama's success is where the bar is set. I think some of it is his own fault (hope and change is an easy cause to get behind but a very difficult one to accomplish, I believe), but some of his supporters are just plain ridiculous. A woman claimed that she believed Obama would pay off her mortgage. Others believe that Obama's presidency will bring about new money (the amounts vary) into their checking account.
And then there's all the messiah talk - how is that bar attainable?
You hear all that, and you wonder if Obama would be able to survive with simply "above average" results. Anything short of turning water into wine seems like it'd be a failure, and I'm only half kidding with that statement.
This is probably the most important presidency in many of our lifetimes, and I think it will create unimaginable pressure on President Obama. Future minority candidates are counting on him, the entire African American community is counting on him, and his zealots are really counting on him.
And he's also going to have to try to get us out of this war, fix the economy, deal with Gitmo, and push through Universal Health Care. And he's probably going to have to do all of that in four years.
I hope our new president is up to the challenge, but he needs to start by curbing some of the country's enthusiasm. The next four years aren't going to bring automatic positive change just because Barack Obama is in the White House. Many of our problems can't be solved in four years, and several probably can't be solved in eight.
Most presidents get credit by getting the ball rolling, or at the very least, stopping its movement in the wrong direction. I don't think that will be the case for Obama, and I think that, if he fails, his critics will be the least of his problem. All the people who expect change and don't get it might turn on Obama quicker than his conservative critics.
And that's why things have a chance to get really ugly. Because messiahs don't tend to fall short.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The First Black President
Today is very interesting to me. It is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and it is the day before the inauguration of Barack Obama as the first black President of the United States of America. It seems almost too perfect that we honor a man who believed in the unification of the US on the day before the US government's top post is finally led by an African American man.
My problem is this: is too much being made of the fact that Barack Obama is the first black president? I hear a lot about how proud Dr. King would be to see Obama elected president, and how it shows that the country is moving towards color-blindness. And I say, "If the country is color blind, the fact that Obama is the first black president shouldn't matter."
It's a milestone, though. Milestones cannot be ignored, but this is where the big deal needs to stop. In 1947, a big deal was made when Jackie Robinson became the first black player to play professional baseball. Today, no big deal is made when a black man makes his debut because I think sports, in a lot of ways, is color blind. Some sports are less color blind than other (white NBA players have to earn respect more so than black players, and black quarterbacks have to shake stereotypes in the NFL), but I think baseball is where we want to be in terms of racial issues.
If a guy can pitch, it doesn't matter where he comes from or his lineage. He can come from Iowa or Harlem, Cuba or Japan. If he can play, he's allowed to play. I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist in baseball, but I think things are almost about as good as they can be.
And I think African American people should certainly celebrate the first black president, but once the celebration is over, we can't continue to think of Obama as a black president. Because does anyone think of Clinton as a white president? Or Reagan? Or Lincoln? Or Jefferson?
No, these men were presidents. And in a 2050 history textbook, Obama's chapter/section cannot be titled "Barack Obama: First Black President" - because if it is, Obama will have failed. It needs to talk about how Obama united the country, got us out of the recession, created jobs, led to innovations, fixed health care/welfare/Social Security. The fact that Obama was the first black president needs to be a footnote.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
These are some of Dr. King's greatest words from his most famous speech. And I think a lot of people will use these words to describe tomorrow's events. But are they really going to be true?
Because let's be honest. A great number of people in the country did vote in the 2008 election because of the color of Obama's skin. Some people voted against him because he was black, but a great number of people voted for Obama because he was black. A lot of them didn't know what Obama stood for, and they probably still don't to this day. And I don't think that's something that Dr. King would want to have happen.
Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers because he deserved to be there. When he got to the majors, he won the 1947 Rookie of the Year and the 1949 MVP. He made the All-Star team six times, and he helped lead the Dodgers to the 1955 World Series title. Jackie Robinson proved that he was a great baseball player...not a great black baseball player.
And that's what Obama has to prove.
Because if Jackie Robinson had come in and hit .150, struggling through a couple years in the major leagues, he would've proved the racists right, and it probably would've been another decade before another African American was given a chance to play.
I voted for Obama because I thought he was the best man for the job. But the people who voted for him because of his race had better hope that he's the best man for the job.
Because if he succeeds, Dr. King's dream is one step closer to coming true. But if he fails, it might take several steps back.
My problem is this: is too much being made of the fact that Barack Obama is the first black president? I hear a lot about how proud Dr. King would be to see Obama elected president, and how it shows that the country is moving towards color-blindness. And I say, "If the country is color blind, the fact that Obama is the first black president shouldn't matter."
It's a milestone, though. Milestones cannot be ignored, but this is where the big deal needs to stop. In 1947, a big deal was made when Jackie Robinson became the first black player to play professional baseball. Today, no big deal is made when a black man makes his debut because I think sports, in a lot of ways, is color blind. Some sports are less color blind than other (white NBA players have to earn respect more so than black players, and black quarterbacks have to shake stereotypes in the NFL), but I think baseball is where we want to be in terms of racial issues.
If a guy can pitch, it doesn't matter where he comes from or his lineage. He can come from Iowa or Harlem, Cuba or Japan. If he can play, he's allowed to play. I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist in baseball, but I think things are almost about as good as they can be.
And I think African American people should certainly celebrate the first black president, but once the celebration is over, we can't continue to think of Obama as a black president. Because does anyone think of Clinton as a white president? Or Reagan? Or Lincoln? Or Jefferson?
No, these men were presidents. And in a 2050 history textbook, Obama's chapter/section cannot be titled "Barack Obama: First Black President" - because if it is, Obama will have failed. It needs to talk about how Obama united the country, got us out of the recession, created jobs, led to innovations, fixed health care/welfare/Social Security. The fact that Obama was the first black president needs to be a footnote.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
These are some of Dr. King's greatest words from his most famous speech. And I think a lot of people will use these words to describe tomorrow's events. But are they really going to be true?
Because let's be honest. A great number of people in the country did vote in the 2008 election because of the color of Obama's skin. Some people voted against him because he was black, but a great number of people voted for Obama because he was black. A lot of them didn't know what Obama stood for, and they probably still don't to this day. And I don't think that's something that Dr. King would want to have happen.
Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers because he deserved to be there. When he got to the majors, he won the 1947 Rookie of the Year and the 1949 MVP. He made the All-Star team six times, and he helped lead the Dodgers to the 1955 World Series title. Jackie Robinson proved that he was a great baseball player...not a great black baseball player.
And that's what Obama has to prove.
Because if Jackie Robinson had come in and hit .150, struggling through a couple years in the major leagues, he would've proved the racists right, and it probably would've been another decade before another African American was given a chance to play.
I voted for Obama because I thought he was the best man for the job. But the people who voted for him because of his race had better hope that he's the best man for the job.
Because if he succeeds, Dr. King's dream is one step closer to coming true. But if he fails, it might take several steps back.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Top 5 Worst Places on Earth
Completely randomly*, I've decided to rank the five worst places on Earth....counting down to #1 (the worst place in the world).
5. France - I've never been, but it looks like it smells like perfumed-over B.O. Plus, you have to surrender whenever you go there.
4 (Tie). Afghanistan/Iraq - War-torn nations where you could die at any minute.
3. Detroit - You have the same chance of dying as Iraq/Afghanistan, but the economy is worse.
2. Philadelphia - There's a reason the movie Philadelphia was set in Philadelphia. Enough said.
1. Buffalo - Suck it, Buffalo. Suck it.
*Not random at all
5. France - I've never been, but it looks like it smells like perfumed-over B.O. Plus, you have to surrender whenever you go there.
4 (Tie). Afghanistan/Iraq - War-torn nations where you could die at any minute.
3. Detroit - You have the same chance of dying as Iraq/Afghanistan, but the economy is worse.
2. Philadelphia - There's a reason the movie Philadelphia was set in Philadelphia. Enough said.
1. Buffalo - Suck it, Buffalo. Suck it.
*Not random at all
Monday, January 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)