TV shows - roundup

"Law and Order: SVU" - This is my favorite of the "Law and Order" franchise. Now that "Criminal Intent" has been moved to cable, I won't be able to watch it, being cably-challenged and all, except that I think I did hear that second-run episodes would be shown on NBC sometime, so maybe I'll catch it then. I'm looking forward with some trepidation to the beginning of "Law and Order" given Sam Waterston's character's job promotion and the departure of Fred Dalton Thompson as he pursues the (real) presidency. I thought the episode was ok, with a script obviously designed to showcase a tour-de-force performance by the guest star (in this case, Cynthia Nixon). The whole thing with the sargeant seemed really odd. OK, so he's gone for like 15 minutes and then he's back on the job. Ummm, ok, so who did he have pictures of?

"Heroes" - I thought it was a good start to the much-anticipated second season. I hope they don't fall into the same pitfall that "Lost" fell into in their sophomore year, though the "Heroes" writers have figured out that small payoffs are necessary instead of just generating more and more questions and never giving any answers. I liked the introduction of the two new characters, especially that there wasn't a whole onslaught of new characters, except that with the combo of them and Ando and Hiro, it means I actually have to keep my eyes glued to the TV to read the subtitles. "Lost" was a huge part of this as well, with Jin and Sun, but who knew that hugely successful primetime shows could sustain forcing its viewers to read subtitles when so many people seem resistant to reading subtitles when going to the movies? I laughed when Hiro's hero turned out to be a white dude - and yes, I happen to know what "gaijin" means. With so many characters, I'm ok with them not having talked about all of them in the first episode. From the previews, we're going to see more familiar faces in the second episode. Looking forward to seeing what the deal is with Peter, but poor Mr. Sulu. Sayonara.

"Dirty Sexy Money" - I had heard that this was almost a throwback to the days of "Dallas" and "Dynasty", and being huge fans of those shows, I decided to give this one a try. To me, the writers just tried entirely too hard - and it showed and almost reeked of desperation. It was so over-the-top, even for a soap opera, but with none of the camp of "Dallas" or "Dynasty" and really none of the sincerity of a real daytime soap opera. I was almost out before the first half-hour was up, but then came the spectacular scene with Donald Sutherland that had me glued to the screen. Donald is not only the best part of the show, but he's really wonderful, and he was really the only reason I even watched the entire episode. However, the appeal of watching Donald week after week isn't enough to get me through the rest of the show. This is the show that has one character who is a raving asshole priest who has an illegitimate child on the side that his wife and kids don't know about and that his mistress has just dropped on his doorstep and another character (brother to the priest character) who is a married would-be Senatorial candidate who is having a torrid affair with a transsexual. Trying entirely too hard.

"Journeyman" - I only gave this show a chance because it was on after "Heroes" and the husband was going to try it out. I was able to last 20 minutes into the show before I was out. It had the initial appeal of "Quantum Leap" to me, but I really disliked not knowing why this stuff was happening to him, and after a while, I didn't care about him or what he was doing. I heard the rest of the show from the other room because the husband was still watching it, but it still didn't keep my attention enough to keep watching it.

Cal beats the Ducks!

Cal is now 5-0 in football, having just beat the Ducks today. This was one of those games that was making me nervous all week. In my four years at Cal, we were never a real team. If we won, great. If not, oh, well, we weren't really expected to. Even the year we went something like 1-40, we managed to beat Stanford that year, thus preventing them from going to a bowl game, and the season was therefore a success. So this week, it was amazingly unnerving to listen to ESPN and other sports shows and have them talk about how the most important college game this weekend is between Cal and the Ducks. What!?!?!?!?!!? We don't get included in those sorts of discussions! And what's with all the attention? I didn't think Cal was going to be able to do it. This was going to be the first real test of the season, and even though Cal was ranked higher, Oregon was expected to win. Well, the Ducks almost pulled it off, but thanks to a great job by one of the Cal players who shoved the Duck with the ball out of bounds at about the 1 yard line on their fourth down, thus saving a touchdown, Cal won. Oh, and Stanford got pounded today, which is just icing on the cake.

On the other side of the spectrum, poor, poor Notre Dame.

Not so much sand and fog as it is kipple and entropy

In some works of fiction and probably also in real life, some people like to give their houses names. I've decided that the most appropriate for me currently is the name House of Kipple and Entropy. (Don't know what kipple is? Read Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".)

Entropy and kipple are something that I fight in pretty much all aspects of my life, but they seem to be winning the battle in the house. Kipple just seems to appear and multiply and invite their other kipple friends over for a party and then just never leave. And then more kipple is delivered every day, most usually in the form of junkmail that I could just throw away as it comes into the house, but for some reason, I instead decide that I'm too tired/don't feel like dealing with it, so I just leave it there and it hangs out and makes friends with the other kipple already living in the house, and then they make little kipple babies who run off and find other friends.

And then to top it off, I'm probably responsible for bringing more kipple in the house. (Does it still count as kipple if I actively go out and seek it for the purpose of bringing it back? Is there another word that better describes it?) I don't shop as much as some do, but I do my fair share.

As I was telling a co-worker today, I inherited the pack rat gene from my mother, but unfortunately, the gene has mutated in me, so whereas my mother pack rats inexpensive and useless things that aren't that hard to get rid of, I pack rat much more expensive things that have the double effect of being things that I can't/don't want to get rid of *and* costing me way more money.

I think part of the problem is that I have a hard time tossing things that are still useful. It's wasteful. *Someone* might find it useful and/or might want something like this, and maybe they just can't find it or can't afford it, and it would be so much better for them to have it than for it to take up more space at a trash dump. But since I have no way of finding them, I apparently decide that they will somehow, someday, magically find me, so I'm storing the stuff for them in the meantime.

I also have things that others have given me that I really have no use for. They might be nice things, but they don't fit into my life. If I'm given something, I feel obligated to keep it, no matter what. Maybe I'll start trying to impose a deadline. I keep things for X amount of time, after which, I toss them or find someone who wants them. Or store them for those people until they get around to finding me and the item they would like... :|

Of course, I know I'm guilty of giving other people things they might not want/have no use for as well, thereby adding to the kipple population of their residence. I'll see if I can learn to curb that particular impulse during the holidays this year. And no, it doesn't apply to the kipple I've already bought for them that I'm saving as Christmas/birthday presents...

Hi, my name is Cindy, and I'm a kippleholic.

"Back to You", "Kitchen Nightmares" and "The Big Bang Theory"

"Back to You" - Another good episode. It was kind of weird to have the "previously" segment at the beginning for a comedy. They usually don't do that. Unless you count "Soap". I loved all the different bits with the goldfish getting killed. I think my favorite was the coffee in the cup. But the fish that Kelsey took out of the bowl when Patricia thought she killed it looked incredibly plastic/rubbery. And where was the disclaimer about "no goldfish were harmed in the filming of this episode"? ;) I loved the field reporter guy with all the tasering. He was amazing at the shaking, and it was so funny to watch him trying to eat at the end. I also give major credit to the three actors actually in the tasering scene with him for being able to not even look like they were trying to suppress laughter as he was shaking and trying to talk. Nothing much with Montana this time, but I loved the pumpkin festival bit.

"Kitchen Nightmares" - This episode was ok, but I could not watch the scenes with all the creepy crawlies in the supply basement. I just had to look away. Amazing that even in the end, Martin just didn't get it at all.

I remember hearing that a lawsuit had been filed even before the show was aired, but I didn't know who had filed the lawsuit. Apparently, it was Martin, who is suing for something like $1 million, alleging, among other things, that Gordon had the rotten food planted and that he (Martin) was forced to quit.

After seeing last night's show, I don't think he's going to have a leg to stand on. Apparently, he had also asked that the episode not be allowed to air, but that was shot down by the judge/court.

There are two commentary bits that I found that had some more information: here's the first one and here's the second one.

"The Big Bang Theory" - This week was the series premiere of the show, and I'm so happy to say that I've now got 2 new comedies on my schedule! Yippee!!!! I loved the show. Kaley was so good in "8 Simple Rules", so I'm glad she's getting another shot here. She's great with her expressions on reactions. I hope this show makes it. I was laughing so hard at all the geeks. They brought back a lot of college memories. (Going to a computer science club meeting, being the only female there, most of the people didn't know who I was, many of the people didn't know *what* I was.) Mr. Smooth Geek guy was a riot, and when he started singing at the end, the laughter on Kaley's part looked so genuine. Some of the dialogue for the geeks must be a handful to learn and say. The husband loved the elemental chart shower curtain, though he claims not to want one. And apparently, the geek guys use the same brand of shampoo that I do, though not the same flavor. And no, it wasn't Darth Vader. Looking forward to seeing more of this show.

So there are "direct" flights and "non-stop" flights?

One of the things I learned last weekend is that there is such a thing as "direct" flights. When I was told that I would be flying to Baltimore where I would then catch a different flight to Hartford, I thought I would be flying just to Baltimore. So you can imagine my surprise when I saw "Nashville" listed on the board when I actually got to the airport. Apparently, a "non-stop" would have meant that we would be flying to Baltimore with "do not pass 'go'", "do not collect $100" on the way. A "direct" meant that we would eventually make it to Baltimore, but in the meantime, we were going to stop at Nashville, where I wouldn't get off the plane, but other people would and still others would get on. Oooookaaaaaay.

I tried to put this in terms that would actually make sense to me. Back in the day, we would drive to Las Vegas, and since we were just going to Vegas, we would drive directly there. Now, we'd always stop off at Stateline (no, I refuse to call it Primm) either to have lunch or use the restroom or get gas or something like that. So it wasn't a non-stop since we did in fact stop, but we just stopped for necessities. So that would mean that Nashville was a food/potty/refueling stop? Except that when we stopped at Stateline, no one got out of the car and stayed there and no additional people got in the car when we continued our journey to Vegas.

So now, when I get on a plane, and it's not billed as a non-stop, that means I'll have no idea how many other cities I will be seeing from the "comfort" of my airplane seat. The biggest problem with that is that by the end of the day, I was tired of hearing the safety spiel, since I'd heard it 3 times in the course of several hours, and coming back two days later meant I'd heard it 6 times in less than 3 days.

Stewardess, I think I need a cocktail.

No, actually, you weren't first in line.

The husband and a friend and I were in line for something this morning. Along with a few other people, we were to the side of a particular entrance, and there was at least one party behind us. A group of 3 girls came up and decided to "wait in line" as well, though they decided to just wait in the middle as opposed to the side where we were. When the gathering became an actual line, the gathered groups merged, with us in front of the group of 3 girls, but with them in front of the party who had been waiting behind us. They seemed to take exception to that. A few minutes later, one girl very loudly commented to another girl, "Weren't we the first in line?", to which I, probably to her surprise, turned around and said, "No." and then turned back. No further comments from them.

Just because you don't notice or recognize that a line has already formed and you decide to just stake your own claim doesn't in fact make you the start of the line.

Yep, that's on the side alright.

Whenever I have salad, I tend to ask for the dressing on the side. I find that most establishments put way too much dressing on salad, and as you get nearer to the bottom of the dish, you're basically having salad soup, which I hate.

A number of years ago, a co-worker and I went to the food court of a nearby mall for lunch. We each went to separate stalls and agreed to meet at a table in the middle. I ended up getting my food first and so was already seated when I saw her approach the table with her food. I also noticed that she was laughing quite a bit. After she sat down, it took her a minute or two to calm down enough to tell me what had happened.

She had gotten something that came with salad, and she had asked for the dressing on the side. So the person helping her very carefully put the dressing container up against the side of the plate and poured the dressing so that it dripped down the side of the plate to the bottom. She was so astounded that she didn't protest and just took her plate to leave.

It's definitely a story I've never forgotten.

Nope, no bias to see here.

I was in Hartford, Connecticut over the weekend, and in my hotel room was a magazine for tourists that detailed a number of restaurants, sites to see and other things to help tourists. It was a monthly magazine, and this was the August issue. Inexplicably, they also had a column called "Ask the Ethics Guy". Umm, OK, that seems odd for a publication like this. The only connection I could find was that it was written by Samuel L. Schrager, a professor at the local business school.

The first question was from someone who was in a public location and two women started chatting in Korean, which the person (who presumably didn't look remotely Korean) actually understood, and the person moved so as not to be able to hear the personal conversation. The person asked under what situations someone would be obligated to divulge that he/she could understand the foreign language being spoken.

The gist of Mr. Schrager's answer seemed to make sense to me - you're in a public location, and anyone who has a conversation in a public location, no matter what language they might be speaking, has to know that they might be overheard by someone else.

However, in the course of his answer, he rephrased the question as "is eavesdropping unethical" and initially responded with "The Bush administration would answer with a resounding 'NO'" and later goes on to say that if you use special listening devices like wiretaps without a warrant or permission, then that's completely unethical.

Ummm, excuse me? Did I miss a question? Was the original question edited so much between what was presented to him and what made it to print that his answer now references issues that are never presented nor even hinted at in the original question? What in the hell does being in a public place and having people talking nearby have anything to do with wiretapping and the Bush administration? Oh, I see, this must be one of those non-existent liberal biases rearing its ugly head that no ones seems to cop to. Because of course two people talking within earshot of you is *exactly* the same as the government using a clandestine listening device.

I am not a fan of Rosie O'Donnell. However, if there was a discussion of starving children going on, and someone were to say, "Well, you know Rosie O'Donnell was never a starving child because she's so fat, but I'll bet she starves those kids she adopted because she eats all their food," I would be equally as appalled even though I don't care for her. It doesn't matter whether or not I like the person - I am still capable of seeing when a reference is entirely inappropriate.

Nice to know that this Mr. Schrager is teaching business ethics to students.

"Back to You" and "Kitchen Nightmares" - series premieres

Tonight was the premiere of two new series, "Back to You" and "Kitchen Nightmares".

"Back to You"

After reading a bit about "Back to You" and knowing that Kelsey Grammer was in the show, I had decided to give the show a try. I'm seriously hurting for comedies in my TV schedule - the funniest show I watch is "Desperate Housewives", which I really like and has its comedic moments, but it's not exactly a belly-laugh inducing sitcom. I've had a couple over the last year or two (including "Out of Practice" with Henry Winkler and Stockard Channing who were both excellent), but they haven't survived.

The half-hour sitcom about life at a local news show in Pittsburgh goes very quickly, helped along by very quick dialogue and a lot of throwaway lines that you're likely to miss if you blink or laugh too long at the previous joke. Kelsey as Chuck Darling is not quite as curmudgeonly as he was in "Cheers" and "Frasier", but he's still got great comic timing and sense. Patricia Heaton isn't someone I've really watched before, but she was very good in this, and there's a definite chemistry between the two of them. The actor who played the brother in "Out of Practice" plays a field reporter and wanna-be anchor, and he's great with the one-liners. There's a segment where he makes a comment about how he has to do a remote from in front of the empty dark courthouse in the pouring rain because that somehow lends credibility to the story, and anyone who's familiar with news shows can relate to the absurdity of that way of thinking. Fred Williard plays the sports anchor, and he's a joy to watch as usual. My favorite character, though, is Montana Diaz Herrera, the weather girl who plays up her Hispanic heritage up and over the top. She pronounces everything in a normal tone, except when she gets to her last name, which is overdone with a Hispanic accent. Later in the show, she brings up Chuck's stint in "Los An-heles". The husband and I were laughing hysterically. I'm not sure how well that plays in other parts of the country, but those in the Los Angeles area will be quite familiar with local broadcasters who use the same tactic in real life.

The series has a good production staff pedigree as well, with head writers who also wrote for "Frasier" and "Golden Girls" and the first episode directed by well-known and successful James Burrows.

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing more of this show.


"Kitchen Nightmares"

I started watching "Hell's Kitchen" because the husband was watching it. I've seen the past couple seasons, and I usually start watching about half-way into the season. I'm not particularly keen on Gordon Ramsay's abrasive tactics, but you can see that he does really appreciate good cooking talent and expects of others the same that he expects of himself. So I decided to give this new show a try as well.

This show is like a combination of "Extreme Makeover" and "Supernanny". Ramsay goes into a different restaurant each week that is on the verge of failure and tries to help them fix it up. The first episode has him in a family-run Italian restaurant where the brother co-owner, Peter, is the major problem. It was really frustrating to watch Peter's antics, and it was really fun when Gordon gave him the needed dressing-downs, much to the amusement, appreciation and admiration of the sister co-owner and everyone else on the staff who has had to put up with Peter's shenanigans. Oftentimes, these kinds of shows are done from the restauranteur/businessman's perspectives, but knowing that Ramsay is an accomplished chef gives you a different look. When he is examining the refrigeration units and sees the rotting vegetables and other food and sees the deplorable state of the kitchen, with so many non-working or non-existent tools, you can see how appalled Ramsay is at those conditions.

It's an enjoyable hour of television, and it's being added to my schedule as well.

Big Brother 8 - Finale

First of all, what in the heck was up with Amber during the live vote part? Ummm, did someone offer to do her hair and she refused? It was a mess! And babydolls are out, and even if they were still in, they're really intended for people with a figure that she doesn't possess. Was this her "cover of a magazine" look? Just awful!

It was pretty funny watching the jury debate between Dick and Daniele. And Amber's question to Daniele was pretty interesting, and I thought Daniele had a good response. I'd been told by someone that Daniele's boyfriend apparently packed up all her stuff and took them to her grandmother's and said he didn't want to talk to the show anymore. Guess that's not working out. Daniele wouldn't have known that yet, and she and Nick were pretty cozy at the reunion.

I had said that if they were able to put aside their personal feelings and just go on game, they're probably vote for Dick. Of course, it didn't hurt that Eric was campaigning for him too. The surprise for me was that Amber voted for Dick. Maybe she really did have enough of a problem with Daniele/Nick that she voted for Dick even though Dick was so vicious to her?

Who would have thought at the beginning of the season that Dick would be the overall winner.

But what I really want to know is who Eric would have voted for if he'd been able to vote between Dick and Daniele.