Too Long To Be a Myface Status Update

Shirley feels like it's becoming increasingly difficult to recognize this once (way back in 2015 for example) wonderful country, because of the Supreme Court permitting the exclusion of immigrants based on religion, the government caging children they stole from non-violent parents, and the government turning away asylum seekers.  Oh, I guess the latter isn't new though, since FDR did the same thing to Jews during the Holocaust.  But it's still rather un-American.  Btw, if we're going to ban all the Muslims because many terrorists are Muslim, then shouldn't we ban all the white Christians because many mass shooters are white Christians?  And as long as we're on this digression regarding inconsistency, why are extremist conservatives so angry about government employees such as Sarah Huckabee Sanders being turned away from businesses, when those same extremist conservatives think it's proper for businesses to turn away a gay couple who want a cake for their wedding?  Since this Myface (Facebook) status update is so long, should it have been a blog post instead?  Yes, yes it should.  And so it is.

#MAGALIWI2015 (Hashtag Make America Great Again Like It Was In 2015)

Dearest M&Ms, You Can Fix This Great Blunder

I must preface this by explaining that I have a life-long love of M&Ms.  Since I was a young-un, I have enjoyed every advertising campaign, and I have enjoyed every variety of M&M.  I have even fallen for strange new packaging; "What?!  M&Ms in a TUBE???  I MUST have them!"  M&M advertising strikes such a lovely chord for me, that in college, I had some plush M&M characters adorning a portion of the wall in my dorm room in a lovely castle (that's right, I was a princess for two years).  Furthermore, my love for M&Ms extends beyond the M&M sub-brand, in that I think I love all the Martian chocolates (chocolate from Mars Bars* would be Martian, correcto?)

Therefore, you can imagine my joyfulness and delight when I saw the adorable and funny commercial regarding the new and very exciting Caramel M&Ms.  I acquired these new M&Ms as soon as I could, and eagerly ate one.  "Ugh, maybe I had a bad taste in my mouth."  I tried another, this time biting half of it so I could gaze upon the lovely layers, as one does.  I ate both halves slowly, being sure to eliminate any pre-existing tastes in my mouth.  My palate was cleared of all but Caramel M&M.  The next one would surely be better.  I tried another, this time eating it like a normal person might, since, as a not-so-normal, I can only guess what a normal might do.  Still no good.  I ate one more, for I became determined to ascertain the cause of this bizarre lack of deliciousness.  I ate this one more slowly and delicately, trying to savor and separate the flavors in the three layers (caramel, chocolate, and candy).  "Ugh, the caramel is gritty, and it's trying to taste like yummy caramel, but isn't quite doing it right."  That was it – the caramel is no good.  How could the wonderful Martians that created the Milky Way with all its delicious parts including delicious caramel, make this caramel blunder?!

Mars Bars, please, if you are reading this, or even if you're not, please fix it.  Make the caramel smooth and delicious, as caramel should be.  I believe you can fix the disgusting gustatory atrocities you dare call Caramel M&Ms.  They are undeserving of such a beautiful name and such a wonderful commercial.  Red was right.

  

*I know Mars Bars is really just Mars, and I've never actually had the thing called a Mars Bar, but Mars Bars rhymes, and I enjoy things that rhyme, so that is how I shall refer to the Martian chocolate company.  I apologize for any inconvenience this might cause.

Unfairly Idol

I’m somewhat irritated with the people who build the American Idol contestants and their careers. On tonight’s competition of the final two, the third song of each contestant was the single that was selected to launch the winner’s career.

Scotty McCreery’s song, while performed with a beautiful voice, was a rather boring, childless song that has no emotion for the singer or audience to connect with. Scotty is young, but he is not a toddler proclaiming “I Love You This Big.”

Lauren Alaina’s song, on the other hand, was a lovely, passionate song about a mother; obviously, that song has a clear emotional connection for any singer who has or ever had a mother and any audience. In this case, that is even more true, since Lauren’s mother was in the audience, so Lauren would have to be a callous psychopath if she didn’t emotionally connect with the song and the audience. Needless to say, she sang “Like My Mother Does” beautifully, and she sang it with loving emotion. She also sang it with a sprained voice, as Ryan Seacrest explained a the beginning of the program, which is impressive.

I can’t help but think that the American Idol gods recognized the obvious superiority of Scotty’s talent, and therefore provided a vastly better song for Lauren to try to even the scales. However, disparate song quality tips the scales in the wrong direction, and masks the talent of the singer who deserves to win.

I do think Lauren Alaina is talented and deserves to have been in the top four. However, Haley Reinhart, James Durbin, and Scotty McCreery are all more talented than she is, and were and are more deserving of the American Idol title. Regardless of who wins, obviously, all of these people will have fabulous careers.

UPDATE May 25, 2011
***SPOILER ALERT: AMERICAN IDOL SEASON 10 FINALS RESULTS WILL BE EXCLAIMED BELOW***

Woohoo!!! Scotty won despite the crappy song they chose fore him! His talent won! Woohoo!

On a side note, I think Scotty and Lauren are dating and/or in love. That's adorable if that's the case. How cute would it be if they were to get married in a few years and have some country babies? Whether or not they actually are dating or in love, I'm glad Lauren was clearly happy for Scotty, and didn't appear to be devastated. I look forward to Scotty's, Lauren's, and some of the other contestants' success.

UPDATE May 26, 2011
Scotty and to a lesser extent Lauren deny that they are dating, and claim to just be BFFs. I think and/or hope they are lying; they're adorable together and they sing well together.

Musical Mediocrity

I’ve been doing a lot of complaining about today’s music, and in doing so, I have addressed the quiet lack of passion in some of it, and the tween-specificity of another sector of it. What I will discuss here resonates with those aspects of the crappy music of today, but also addresses an issue of mediocrity.

Why on earth is Train so successful? That is not to say that I think they’re bad or that they don’t deserve their success. They are probably good people and they do have some good music and talent. However, they are not, in my opinion, as great as everyone seems to think they are. Their songs are either kind of nice until you get sick of them, like "Calling all Angels," or not so great and I was somehow sick of them instantly, like "Drops of Jupiter."

One of their more recent songs, “If It’s Love,” seems to be a list of clichés that are almost chanted and that sound very much like the list was thrown together nonsensically, amidst very catchy choruses and a handful of meaningful lyrics. I'm not suggesting that clichés never belong in songs. When used well, a cliché can provide deeper meaning than new phrasing could, such as Jay-Z's modified use of "If you can make it in New York you can make it anywhere" in "Empire State of Mind." Phrasing that sentiment without the use of the cliché wouldn't have the same potent meaning that it has. Train on the other hand, uses countless clichés in “If It’s Love” to create a meaningless list. Clichés should be used wisely and few and far between (see what I did there hahahaha).

Perhaps the catchy choruses are the key to Train’s success. Britney (Spears) had that song, "Womanizer," that seems to be nothing but a catchy chorus repeated incessantly, and people appeared to like that a lot. I didn't; I liked the chorus once or twice, and then could no longer tolerate it for the duration of the song. Therefore, Train's insertion of lists of clichés between catchy choruses in “If It’s Love” is definitely an improvement compared to Britney's abuse, I mean use of the catchy chorus, which makes the former tolerable and at times even enjoyable. However, by no means is it a great song, nor are they a great band; they are merely good.

UPDATE July 21, 2012

I heard a new Train song and I liked it!  It’s “50 Ways to Say Goodbye,” and while it is yet another list of things rattled off to a catchy tune, I actually like it!  I like the Phantom-of-the-Opera sound in the verses, and I like the Mariachi-band sound in the chorus.  I often enjoy merging genres, and this quasi-merger of show tune, pop, and Mariachi created a nice, strange sound that I find myself enjoying, and I’ve only heard it once so far.  Of course it helps that I rather enjoy the occasional funny song.  Well done, Train, you’ve risen above your mediocrity for this song, despite maintaining what appears to be a lazy approach to music creation.  Please note, as a person who is incapable of humming in tune, let alone creating music, I am not one to judge.  But I will anyway.

(Later that day…)

In a flash of glorious, wondrous, and grossly exaggerated epiphany-imbued brilliance, I suddenly understood where the band name Train must have come from!  It very obviously refers to their sometimes-used style of music writing.  The lists of things are but a train of thought!  Get it?  Train of thought…Train…Get it???  I know, I’m a genius.  Thank you for your kind applause.

I feel that I should defend Train.  I have never purchased their music except for “50 Ways to Say Goodbye” and I think I might have purchased “Calling All Angels” at some point.  Thus, I have never purchased nor heard their non-radio songs.  It is therefore very possible that what doesn’t make it onto the radio could be better-than-mediocre.  I have noticed that some non-radio and otherwise less popular songs of other artists are billions of times better than some of the most popular and radio-friendly songs.  For example, Kelly Clarkson’s “Addicted” is vastly better than her “Stronger,” though I do enjoy “Stronger” as well.  Therefore, there does exist the possibility that while Train and perhaps other mediocre bands and singers are great at appealing to popular tastes in mediocrity, they might in fact be great composers and songwriters with depth beyond their shallow puddles of popular music.  Perhaps the real question is: why do popular audiences prefer so much mediocrity?

Music through the Ages

I don't understand the extent of Taylor Swift's success. She seems like a nice girl, she's pretty and blonde, she's been writing her own music since she was a teenager, and she obviously has some talent. The problem is, I'm not under-exaggerating the latter quality. It's just some talent; her voice is only ok, her guitarring seems good, and her songwriting is decent. But there's so much monotony in her melodies, and there's so much of a formula that she seems to follow. I'm not even complaining about her excessive use of fairy tale-like plots. I will say that I think she might beimproving and growing as an artist with more experience that she is having as a person and as an artist, so perhaps she will eventually manifest or at least approach the level of talent people think she has now.

I'm also baffled by the Bieber and his enormous success. Perhaps the arrogant, not-so-talented Justin Bieber will find his way into a blog posting of his own. Nah, I think I covered everything about him. I will only add that I saw some clear evidence of the far less than brilliant nature of his talent in an interview he had with Access Hollywood Live, where he was asked about Christina Aguilera’s botching of the National Anthem. He explained that since he is Canadian, he doesn’t know the American anthem too well, which I think is understandable, given his youth, though if he is going to continue to be famous here in America, he might want to learn it. Anyhoo, he then proceeded to sing the Canadian anthem in both English and French, and well, he sounded extremely mediocre – so mediocre, in fact, that there is no way he would get through the first round of American Idol auditions with that singing. When great singers with enormous talent sing impromptuly (hahaha, that’s not a word, but that never stopped me before), such as Christina Aguilera, Lady Gaga, and Steven Tyler, beautiful and flawless singing comes out of them. Bieber’s lack of brilliance in his impromptu (I wish there was another word for that, I’m sick of it already) renditions elucidate the mediocrity of his talent. Also, that one song I keep hearing (“Baby”) sounds like something I could’ve written with my black hole of talent, and he doesn’t sound so great there either. (In that song’s defense, I’ve heard the chorus about three gazillion times, but I’ve only heard the actual song once or twice.)

I don't dislike all of today's music; rather I enjoy a lot of it from various genres. However, it seems that the things that seem to gain the most popularity are the things that I guess I'm just too old to get. Or maybe it’s just not my taste.

After speaking about this with my sister, I have learned that I am, in fact, old. She pointed out that the music industry markets the Taylor Swifts and Justin Biebers of the world specifically to the young’uns, just as they marketed Britney Spears and the like to the young’uns of the late ‘90s, and the Debbie Gibsons and Tiffanys and the like to my generation in our youth. It seems this breed of pop music artists are created specifically for the young demographic, such that each generation of tweens will always enjoy the music marketed to them. They love and obsess over the music when it’s fresh, and think fondly and nostalgically when they grow up and the teen idol has either grown with the times and become integrated in the more general pop music or has lost all popularity except with that one special cohort.

The originally tween idol music is so specifically directed at the youth that most older teens and adults simply hate it and can’t comprehend the popularity of such silly sounds. My sister was absolutely right about this, for as she spoke of the marketing only to the targeted demographic, I remembered that my mother who generally has good taste in music has always found Debbie Gibson to be squeaky, and while I hear what she means, I love her 80’s music and I always have. To confirm, I asked my mother what she thinks of Debbie Gibson and Tiffany, and she reacted with equal disgust towards each, exclaiming that she hates their music and always has.

This phenomenon is rather interesting, especially if you consider the reaction of later teens to the music directed at tweens. Based on my own experience, I think older teens might fall in the middle of this spectrum of emotion toward tween music. When Britney Spears first came into my consciousness, I liked her music; I didn’t hate it and I didn’t obsess over it. I still like her music, and yes, I still don’t love or hate it. I had a similar reaction to Christina, however, she musically matured better than Britney did, or perhaps her talents exceed those of Britney, because I grew to love Christina as she matured and the beauty of her voce shined through and rose above the teeny-pop. My mother once again confirms this, in that she hated Christina and Britney, still hates Britney, but now loves Christina.

Musical Clone Machine

]I've been listening to song samples on Amazon, and I find myself thinking that some of these albums are kind of nice, but I feel like I've already heard them by other, better artists.

For example, I heard samples of a Bullet for My Valentine CD, and it does that nice thing where they mix rock screaming with melodic elements, but Red, Skillet, Three Days Grace, and obviously Linkin Park who (in my opinion) perfected it, all do it better, so why should I buy this lesser though similar music?

I listened to samples of something else – I can't even remember what – and it sounds like yet another Blink-182, Sum 41, and/or Offspring crappy clone. Why can't they be more original?

I realize I'm supplying multiple examples of similar things that are good, so maybe it's just that some artists are able to stay within the line of being inspired by something to create something that's different enough so that you can still uniquely identify them, and others are leaping over that line and just making crappy copies of things. I think some of the "crappy" ones might actually be decent copies, but they're just not good enough; perhaps "mediocre" would be a more fair word.

Idol Ranting

I previously stated that my dislike of American Idol contestant Paul McDonald simply reflects my personal taste, however, I have become increasingly baffled by the seemingly unconditional praise he receives from the judges. Now it’s not just his voice that I don’t like – he actually sings badly. I feel nothing emotionally when he sings, except for a longing for it to end.

(SPOILER ALERT – Results from the April 7 episode of American Idol are discussed below.

Less rantily, I was a bit surprised last week when Pia Toscano was voted out. Yes, I realize that my mild surprise is not a very shocking revelation, since everyone on the TV has been shocked by her departure. However, I am special (as my mom always told me), because I have not been a big fan of Pia’s. I have felt little emotionally and personality-y from her, and thus, despite my recognition of her good voice and singing ability, I didn’t love her and I therefore would not have been surprised if she had been voted out earlier. However, her last performance, in my opinion, was actually good. I sensed a personality, and I heard and felt emotion (I can’t remember what the song was though). I also felt a bit uncomfortable watching her in what looked like pajamas that might have been cute before they were altered into that thing she was wearing. Perhaps her departure had something to do with that. But seriously, I was surprised to see Pia go because I was finally starting to like her, so I naturally assumed the rest of America was too.

Finally, to end on a positive, non-ranty note, I love James Durbin and Scotty McCreery. They are amazing every time (or nearly every time) they sing. I also like the other remaining contestants (Lauren Alaina, Stefano Langone, Casey Abrams, Haley Reinhart, and Jacob Lusk).

AI Officially Sucks (IMHO)

(What? Artificial Intelligence sucks? That’s a weird thing for a Star Trek loving wannabe nerd like Yel to say. She must mean American Idol.)
Yes, dear Blog Reader, you’re absolutely right – I do think that Artificial Intelligence is cool and frightening, and that American Idol has suddenly begun to suck tremendously.

(Suddenly? Now? Hasn’t it been sucking for years?)

No, Blog Reader, not in my humble opinion. American Idol has been my delicious guilty pleasure for years – it has been, with one exception, the only reality TV I watch. Furthermore, I’ve been obsessed with it to varying degrees over the years, ranging from absolutely having to watch every second of every episode with no distractions at all, voting every time I could, and taking notes while watching to make good voting decisions, to watching casually with the pre-existing mind-set that I won’t vote that season because I don’t need the stress. I watched both for the contestants, and for the judge’s remarks, valuing Simon Cowell’s thoughts above the rest. I would inevitably fall in love with at least two or three contestants, and I am still a huge fan of some of them (most notably Adam Lambert, Chris Daughtry, Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, and David Cook).

When I learned of Cowell’s departure from the program, I wondered if I would continue to enjoy the show. When I learned that Jennifer Lopez would be one of the new judges, I thought that would surely end my love of American Idol. I know everyone seems to love her, and I kind of like her as an actress and sometimes as herself, but I really, really don’t like her music or voice at all, and I often find her personality irritating and fake. I almost didn’t watch the current season of Idol, but I couldn’t help myself for two reasons. First, I realized that I usually watch primarily because of a few contestants each year. Second, I learned that the second new judge would be Steven Tyler. I love Aerosmith and Steven Tyler, so I had to watch, even if it was just for him.

So I did, and I have been enjoying it, even the parts where J-Lo talks. I haven’t been feeling those annoying fake vibes from her too much, though they are definitely present at times. I’ve been enjoying a few of the contestants a lot. I have been enjoying Steven Tyler, who has surpassed my high expectations of him and who shows his musical genius and rock star qualities. I have also been enjoying Randy Jackson as I always have. However, I have missed Cowell’s blunt honesty and musical judging abilities, Too many contestants are praised far too much, as is evidenced by the larger than normal group of Hollywood contenders. Idol acts like that large group resulted from the allegedly amazing talent that has allegedly surpassed the talent of previous years, but to me it is obvious that it has simply resulted from the less-than-Cowell judging of the new judges. Too many contestants have been extolled as I stare baffled at the TV, as I wonder if something has gone wrong with my musical taste or my brain or something.

These are not, however, the reasons why American Idol now sucks. I didn’t expect the judging to be of the same Cowell caliber of the past. I knew things would be different, and I was accepting of this. Even when it became clear that too many people made it through the first round of auditions, I thought everything would work out in the end, since they would have to be whittled down to the much smaller group of contestants, which, I assumed, would be the really, truly talented group.

That whittling has happened during the Hollywood episodes, and it was Wednesday’s (and Thursday's) whittling that initiated the sucking Idol.

SPOILER ALERT - American Idol Top 24

To put it simply, Chris Medina did not make it to the final 24 and Clint Jun Gamboa did. Chris, the guy who dedicates his life to taking care of his car-accident-surviving fiancé, might be one of the kindest human beings on earth. On the other hand, Clint, the contestant that kicked a sweet young boy (his fellow contestant, 15 year-old Jacee Badeaux) out of his group during the preparations for one of the big Hollywood eliminations, might be, at worst an evil a-hole and at best a d-bag. More importantly for this American Idol singing competition, Chris Medina sings well, and Clint Jun Gamboa does not. Chris sings with emotion, which, in my opinion, is the most essential part of singing. Clint is one of the people whose praise I couldn’t comprehend.

I hate to seem insensitive, but I can’t help but wonder if J-Lo was told to cry about Chris Medina’s elimination. They probably realized that if she cried, America couldn’t possibly think badly of American Idol for eliminating Chris Medina. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it.

I don’t know if I’m gong to continue to watch American Idol (I most likely will because there are a few remaining contestants that I do like). If they had eliminated both Chris and Clint, I wouldn’t be so bothered, but the fact that they actually think Clint is better than Chris is simply unsettling. Perhaps even more unsettling is that American Idol thinks the barely talented Clint Jun Gamboa is a better singer than Colton Dixon.

American Idol forced us to compare Colton Dixon and Brett Loewenstern and it’s obvious that the former is vastly better than the latter. However, American Idol’s decision to place Brett rather than Colton in the Top 24 is not as troubling as their hopefully ill-fated decision to keep Clint in the competition (to clarify, by “ill-fated” I simply mean that I hope he is the first of the 24 to be kicked out of American Idol by America). Brett is obviously a sweet and kind young man and clearly does have some talent. The funny thing is that the judges mentioned that Brett has had a difficult life so far and Colton is simply a great singer. Chris also has a difficult life, and is also a sweet and kind man, yet he didn’t make it into the top 24 despite the evidence that those qualities do matter.

I am certain that Chris Medina and Colton Dixon will do well in the recording industry with or without further help from American Idol.  However, since American Idol obviously helps move things along for people’s music careers, hopefully the two of them will return as wild cards, assuming the wild cards will return this year.  Perhaps that was the plan all along.

UPDATE March 1, 2011
They have confirmed that there will be wildcard contestants this year.

SPOILER ALERT – Lost Season 6 “The Candidate”

Noooooooooooooooooo! Worst episode EVER!!!!!! I hate Lost!

I’m lying – I still love Lost, but omg, how could they do this to us??? I know it’s not real, allegedly fiction and all, but HOW COULD THEY DO THIS TO US?????

Omg, I don’t know what to do with myself. I'm going to read the Entertainment Weekly thing about this episode. I haven't been reading the Lost blogs this season, except for bits and pieces when I’m confused, because I wanted to keep my Lost watching pure and my blog different and not influenced by others. I figured I might read them after the show is over and maybe write about them then. However, I have to read this one, to help me grieve.

I have only read the beginning of Doc Jensen’s EW article so far, and he explains why they did this to us. Apparently, the producers wanted to show us that they have the power to decide who lives and who dies; in other words, they wanted to play G-d, which, as Flanders said on The Simpsons this week, is the most evil thing you can do. Of course, the article doesn’t say all that; it just says the producers wanted to show people that they are willing to kill anyone off. I see through to their evil ways.

If you haven’t seen this week's episode of Lost, “The Candidate” yet, you shouldn’t be reading this, but if you have, then you know that Sun, Jin, Sayid, and Lapidus were killed off. As I watched Sun and Jin die, I thought to myself (though not aloud as usual), "Do 'Jin and Sun' mean 'Romeo and Juliet' in Korean?” We just watched the most wonderful reunion ever between Sun and Jin, and then they went and killed them. But on the bright side, at least they did get to be reunited before they died together, and at least they are probably and hopefully going to continue to live in the New Reality/Flash-Sideways.

When I mentioned my Romeo and Juliet thought to a friend, she wondered what Sun and Jin actually do mean in Korean. I googled, and I found a blog where someone links the names with the numbers on the cave wall with the corresponding psalms. It's really interesting. In it, it says that Jin means gold, Sun means goodness, and Kwon means authority. I’m not sure if they are translating from Korean, but those meanings definitely fit well with the characters; Sun and Jin are as good as gold, and are filled with goodness….I mean “were.” :-(

The author of that blog suggests that Sawyer will be the next Jacob, because the name James is derived from Jacob, which, as I’ve discussed previously, means “supplanter.” However, the author also provides the psalm that corresponds to the number associated with Hurley on the cave wall, a psalm that states, “What is man that you are mindful of him...You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands.” Clearly, that provides further evidence for my Hurley-is-the-New-Jacob theory, assuming that Jacob is not G-d, as I’ve suggested, but is a divine force that answers to a higher being, and that protects the world from evil. Of course, the author of that blog states that not all the characters fit nicely with the corresponding psalms, and the author also clearly states that the ones that do could very well be the result of coincidence.

The title of the episode, “The Candidate,” was completely misleading; I was all excited because I thought my theory that Hurley will be named as the new Jacob would finally be confirmed. However, this episode had nothing to do with naming the new Jacob at all, NOTHING! Well, it did eliminate some people as potential candidates, and Hurley was not eliminated, so at least it didn’t disprove my theory.

I don’t even know why they named the episode “The Candidate,” except that Jack in the New Reality/Flash-Sideways says that New Reality Real John Locke is a candidate for a new surgery that could allow him to possibly walk again, but that is not sufficient criteria to name the whole episode “The Candidate.” Thus, this is more evidence that the producers of Lost are evil. Obviously, my accusations of evilness stem directly from my grief and sadness for the loss of several beloved characters. I probably don't really believe the Lost producers are actually evil.

Real New Reality John Locke sort of disproved one of my smaller theories. I spoke of his acceptance of his disability, which allowed him to move on with his life, and I linked to another blog that suggested that he did not want Jack to fix him because clinging to potentially false hope would not allow him to accept his disability. We learned in this episode, however, that he insisted on remaining disabled in order to punish himself. In the New Reality/Flash-Sideways, Anthony Cooper didn’t defenestrate his son; rather, Locke was flying a plane with his father as his first passenger and crashed, causing Anthony Cooper to be far more crippled than Locke would become. Are you still stuck on “defenestrate”? I never thought I would have an opportunity to use that rather awesome word; it means to throw something out a window. Anyway, it turns out that Locke accepted his disability (which did allow him to move on with his life), but can’t accept the loss of his vegetable father.

A few characters in the New Reality/Flash-Sideways have had visions and such of the reality we are familiar with, and now New Reality John Locke can be added to that list. As he was waking up while still in the hospital after Jack fixed the new problems Desmond caused when he crashed into Locke, Locke muttered something about pushing the button, and wishing that Jack had believed him. Of course, Jack later says he wished Locke would believe him when he said he could fix his disability and that he doesn’t need to punish himself.

I don’t believe Jack has had any visions of the reality we are familiar with; however, he is noticing the many strange coincidences involving himself and the other passengers of Oceanic 815, since he keeps running into them. Much like in the reality we are familiar with, Jack is beginning to believe in something bigger than himself and science.

I mentioned previously that Jack learned to follow and trust other potential leaders, thereby adding to his natural leadership skills. Additionally, Hurley learned to lead, and therefore also became more well rounded. However, Sawyer has not learned to both follow and lead as his fellow candidates have. That flippin’ idiot Sawyer should have trusted Jack when the latter figured out that if the bomb were left un-tampered with, they would not die, since Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster/Man in Black probably cannot kill the Jacob candidates, just as he/they could not kill Jacob. This was another loophole; Fake Locke/Smoke Monster/Man in Black arranged to get the Jacob candidates to kill each other. Sawyer had to hold onto real-world logic and non-crazy thinking despite the illogical and crazy nature of their experiences and of the island.

Jack and Hurley are better men and better Jacob candidates than Sawyer is. Jack, a natural leader and a man of science, was able to let go of the rules of the life he was familiar with and accept bizarre truths and faith; he was able to let go of his need to lead and learn that trusting others and following rather than leading are necessary at times. Hurley essentially did the inverse; he overcame his lack of confidence and took on a leadership role, thus complementing his faith and willingness to follow directions. Sawyer, however, did not grow as Jack and Hurley did; he maintained his stubborn need to lead, and he refused to accept the bizarre logic of the island. He did not learn to have faith.

In this episode, we learned that Infected Sayid still has Good in his soul. Perhaps Desmond, whom Sayid did not kill after all, found it when he apparently got through to him in “The Last Recruit.” In “The Candidate,” Sayid sacrificed his own life, and therefore the unlikely possibility that Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster would follow through with his promise of retuning Nadia to him, to save his friends. Despite being infected with Evil, Sayid’s final choice was Good.

Okay, I think I feel a bit better now. Maybe I don’t need to read the rest of that EW article right now after all. I will read the rest of it after the Lost finale, probably. For now, I can remain somewhat pure.

Regarding my “Worst episode ever” proclamation above, now that I have calmed down, I can see that it was not really the worst episode ever. In terms of great TV and great drama, it was a great episode. However, in terms of content and things happening that I don’t like, “The Candidate” was indeed, the worst episode ever.

UPDATE May 8, 2010


I’ve been thinking more about Lost, and I realized a couple of things that might be obvious to some people.

Firstly, I previously assumed that Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster was recruiting people to be on Team Evil, and thus, to become indebted to this probable Devil and do his bidding. However, we learned in “The Candidate” that he was simply recruiting our special characters so that he could gather them together in a small confined space where he would arrange for them to kill each other, since he probably cannot kill them himself. In my blog posting about “The Last Recruit,” I had doubt that Jack was really Fake Locke’s last recruit; I felt that Jack would not go with Fake Locke and do his bidding. However, Jack was his last recruit; all Fake Locke needed him to do was to be in that confined space with the other candidates. Fake Locke/The Smoke Monster didn’t need to get off the island with the candidates; he needs the candidates to be dead like Jacob in order to be free. This seems so obvious now that I finally thought about it. Duh.

Secondly, in my blog posting about “Lighthouse,” I mentioned that another website noticed that Kate’s name was crossed off the list o’ candidates on the cave wall, but not on the lighthouse thingie. I wondered at the time if the cave list was created by someone other than Jacob, such as the Man in Black/The Smoke Monster/Fake John Locke. Now I realize that Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster was probably the one who crossed her name off, regardless of who made the list. Fake Locke showed the cave list to Sawyer; so clearly, he wanted to make Sawyer believe that Kate doesn’t have the protections of being a candidate, thereby allowing Fake Locke to use threats to Kate’s life to manipulate Sawyer. Sawyer, the skilled con man, was conned by Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster/Man in Black. I’m really quite angry with Sawyer for inadvertently causing the deaths of Sun, Jin, Sayid, and Lapidus just because he stubbornly refused to trust Jack, can you tell?

Disliked Worlds Collide

Two links have been sitting in a Word document for almost a month, waiting patiently to be turned into a blog posting. Sadly, those two links were forgotten until now, and now they have lost much if not all of their relevance. However, since I’ve been known to post out-dated things, perhaps it is not too late for these links to shine in one of my joyous blog postings. If you read to the end (before and including the update), you might get a relevant and timely surprise!

If this article is not lying, and I don’t believe it is, then The Tonight Show with Jay Leno falsely portrayed the audience response to Sarah Palin when she was a guest on the show. They replaced the audience's silence and sounds of dismay with canned laughter.

It is rather unfortunate that I’m not terribly surprised that Jay Leno and his people would commit such a vile act of falsely representing an audience’s reaction to create the illusion of comedy, love, and admiration in a vacuum of such things to aid a politician. I expect two types of people above most others to be ethical: comedians and scientists. Did you think I was going to say “politicians”? Really? Why would you think such a bizarre thing? I’ve learned not to expect politicians to have ethics or souls; that way, I avoid a lot of disappointment. Anyhoo, Leno’s (or whoever’s decision it was to edit the audience – since Leno’s name is on The Tonight Show, I will hold him responsible) ethical indiscretion is, in my admittedly strange view, on par with those scientists who screwed with the climate change data a few months ago. Scientists and comedians are people we should be able to trust; when either lies, it truly is a sad day.

Fortunately, in a world of lying Lenos, there are also truth-keepers in the form of satirists. Here, Jon Stewart talks about Palin’s Leno appearance, particularly about her crazy claims that Fox News is "fair and balanced."

As if the evil editing to make Sarah Palin appear more loved or less disliked weren’t enough, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno continues to commit evil acts of duplicitous editing today. The "I’m with Coco/Conan O’Brien" Myface (Facebook) fan page posted this article a few days ago, that tells of a brave and heroic Slash wearing an "I’m with Coco" pin that made a forcibly brief appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. It’s not surprising at all that Leno and his people cannot handle dissent. Somehow, if something like that were to happen on pretty much any other talk show, the host would go ahead and make jokes about it, because that’s what funny hosts do. Unfortunately, Jay Leno continues to not be the funny talk show host that I know he could be. Of course, the other talk show hosts I allude to would probably not find themselves in such situations, for most if not all of them would not have done what Leno did.

UPDATE April 11, 2010

These disliked worlds collided s’more on SNL; The Tonight Show with Jay Leno will be featured on The Sarah Palin Network.

ABC Removed from the TV

UPDATE February 8, 2010
WABC returned to the TV about 15 minutes after the Oscars began. So we Cablevision customers missed the opening of the Oscars, as well as Barbara Walters' last Oscar special ever. I'm glad ABC and Cablevision are resolving their issues and gave us back our WABC, but I don't think they listened to me, since it sounds like Cablevision caved and is probably going to be paying ABC/Disney more money, which means Cablevision will likely increase their cable prices. My loss of respect for both companies -- but particularly ABC/Disney -- endures, similar to my remaining feelings of resentment toward Scripps Network because of the time they temporarily took Food Network (and HGTV) away as a negotiation tactic.

[Originally an email written to ABC on February 7, 2010 (yes, today). Some ideas came from a friend (yes, I have a friend).]

Dear ABC,

Rather than demanding more money from Cablevision, why doesn't ABC simply ask Cablevision to stop charging their subscribers for broadcast channels such as WABC? I would think that would resolve ABC's problem, since ABC is claiming that they should be paid since Cablevision charges us for ABC.

If ABC/Disney is actually concerned about the viewers/consumers, they will simply ask Cablevision to stop charging us for what should be free, rather than demand to be paid because of those charges. The fact is, if Cablevision pays ABC more than they already do, Cablevision will inevitably raise their prices, and therefore, we the consumers will suffer.

I understand that pulling ABC from Cablevision the night before the Oscars is a negotiation tactic, but ABC/Disney is only hurting the viewers, Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters, and America. ABC's move is a slap in the face to all of the above, and demonstrates a complete lack of respect for all of the above.

Every minute ABC remains off my TV, I lose more respect for Disney and ABC.

I will NOT change providers. ABC/Disney is not hurting Cablevision, ABC/Disney is hurting its (former) viewers.

Please put WABC back on Cablevision. Please do what is right and what is fair.

Thank you.
~Shirley

Double Standards

Tiger Woods and his wife (Elin Nordegren) have provided a real-life alleged example demonstrating the point that I made in a previous blog posting, when the former appeared to have been scratched and beaten with a golf club by the latter before and/or after an alleged car accident, allegedly resulting from an alleged argument between them regarding Woods’ alleged adulterous affairs. The alleged domestic violence portion of all this was denied by Tiger Woods, and dropped quickly by the Florida Highway Patrol, according to this article from The Examiner.

Ironically, Chris Brown (of all people) actually made a nice point (see the Examiner link above) regarding the double standard in our society that I delineate in my discussion of Pink’s lyrics in the above-mentioned blog posting. Our society seems to be significantly less harsh on female perpetrators of domestic violence than male ones. If this situation were reversed, would an investigation of Tiger Woods’ hypothetical alleged violence toward his wife end so quickly? Would the world be so focused on Elin Nordegren’s hypothetical alleged affairs, or would the world be unwaveringly focused on the domestic violence?

Regarding Woods’ affairs, as I’ve said regarding David Letterman’s affairs, it isn’t our business. It is unquestionably wrong, but it is not our business. If Elin Nordegren did assault Woods, that is the real issue. As immoral and despicable as adultery is, assault, even for the sake of vengeance, is far more immoral and criminal. The infidelity of a celebrity is not our business, particularly when that celebrity has spent his public life protecting his and his family’s privacy. If his wife did assault him, he is a victim; if he were a woman, more people might recognize that, and perhaps the investigation into whether domestic violence occurred might have at least appeared more thorough, or might have taken longer than four days to be completed.

If the situation were reversed, the investigation would not have ended so quickly, and people wouldn’t be so focused on the wife’s hypothetical alleged affairs. The world would be making proclamations of “so what if she had affairs, that doesn’t excuse violence against her.” The same should be true in this alleged situation.

The Deadly Effects on Humans of Sarah Palin’s Book

While watching this segment from last night’s Daily Show, I realized that the adorable young children to whom John Oliver read excerpts from Sarah Palin’s book (Going Rogue) have clearly been watching David Letterman’s series, “Things More Fun than Reading the Sarah Palin Memoir.”

The children’s examples of things that would be more fun than hearing a reading of Going Rogue closely parallel those of The Late Show with David Letterman. I believe my jocularity regarding the young children’s viewing of The Late Show is obvious. However, the analogous reactions formed by the young children and David Letterman and his writing staff indicates a potentially universal human reaction to Sarah Palin’s memoir – a reaction involving a preference for violent destruction, physical torture, and even suicide over being exposed to the intensely boring torture of Going Rogue.

This clearly elucidates the very obvious fact that Sarah Palin is evil and perhaps even dangerous to all humans, but particularly to young children. Won’t someone please think of the children?! Sarah Palin’s perilous evil is even recognized by the Mayans, who, according to David Letterman, states that their calendar does predict that "the world will end in 2012, but not from floods, earthquakes, or fires,” but rather from the threat of a Sarah Palin presidency.

This brings me to another segment from last night’s Daily Show. Simply put, I agree almost whole-heartedly with Jon Stewart. He presents the belief of the conservative media that we non-conservatives hate Sarah Palin because she is pretty, she hunts, and she’s Alaskan. That is clearly not the case at all. I actually want to like her because she is pretty. I know, that’s wrong, it’s anti-feminist, etc, but it’s just how I feel. Also, she looks a bit like my mother, whom I love like my own mother (probably because she is my own mother), so that’s actually another reason I want to like Sarah Palin. I don’t particularly like her hunting, it seems wrong, especially when she hunts from a helicopter. But I can’t really hate someone who eats what they hunt, for as a non-vegetarian, I’m one step away from doing that as well, though I could never kill anything directly…I mean, except for spiders and some other insects. Regarding her Alaskan origins, I certainly don’t hate her because she lives in Alaska – that’s ridiculous. The only reason I might hate Alaskans is that they elected Sarah Palin governor. Other than that, I don’t have any problem with Alaskans. I mean, it’s not like they’re New Jerseyans. Anyway, I can forgive the Alaskans for electing her since she resigned as their governor so she could write her memoirs.

So, no, I don’t hate her for those superficial reasons as conservative news people from the land of Fox News might like to believe. Rather, I hate her for, as Jon Stewart says, her emptiness, her non-substantiveness, “the nothing…a conservative boiler plate mad-lib…delivered as though it were the hard-earned wisdom of a life well lived…It’s…the boasting about [her] straight-shootin’, when [she’s] not straight shootin’, [she’s] just a talking point machine.”

But I also hate her on those occasions where she does have some degree of substance. I hate her for her overly conservative political beliefs. I have no problem at all with people believing things that differ from what I believe, of course, but I do have a problem with people who feel they should impose those beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, on the rest of the world. That is precisely what Sarah Palin wants to do. Things like forcing her pro-life perspective on women who should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies and abstinence-only sex education – these are some of the reasons I hate Sarah Palin.

Another reason I hate Sarah Palin is discussed in this segment from last night’s Colbert Report. In Going Rogue, Sarah Palin does not take responsibility for anything; she blames others for anything that goes wrong. Additionally, Going Rogue is factually flawed, and she can’t even accept responsibility for that; it’s not her fault, it’s the fault of the fact-checkers who dare to bring her false facts to light.

I hope that reading this blog has been more fun than reading Sarah Palin’s book.

Pink’s Abusive Lyrics

UPDATE: December 5, 2009
Thanks to Tiger Woods and his wife, this blog posting has more relevance now! See what I write here for why.

(Originally written as an email on August 12, 2009)

I was kind of liking that Pink song, "Please Don't Leave Me," although I vaguely noticed something a little abusive about the lyrics. So today, I listened to the lyrics, and holy crap, either Pink is an abusive POS, or maybe she is singing from the voice of an abusive POS. But the lyrics are clearly the words of an abusive POS.

I was kind of thinking at first that maybe she's just reacting to an abusive POS, but she says things like "I don't know why I’m so obnoxious, something about you makes me act that way" and "You're my perfect little punching bag"....What an abusive POS.

I hope she's just singing from the abuser's voice...I like a lot of her music, including that song, lol. Also, I like her, or I did anyway.

(I wrote another email about a half hour later)

Um, so maybe Pink is not an abusive POS. Someone told me to watch the video, which shows her trying to kill her boyfriend but then sings all sweetly, "Please don't leave me.” I know this description sounds just as terrible as I thought the lyrics were, but it's funny-like, and very clearly showing the irony of it.

A couple of people informed me that it’s an homage to a movie called Misery, which I have not seen. As one of those people notes, Pink is a funny girl, and so the lyrics and video are intended as humor. I probably should have realized that.

In this video, Pink explains the meaning of the song, and here she says that she and her mom are both a**holes, but they're also loveable, and have the whole "go away...no come back" kind of personalities.

Anyhoo, the lyrics are still the things abusive people would say, but I do like Pink and her music, and that song is good, and she is a funny girl, and I do see the intended humor.

Hmm, here's an interesting thought: If a man were singing it (let's say Chris Brown, i.e. a known abusive POS), and Pink (or Rihanna, or any other woman) was the recipient of it, I wonder if anyone would say it's funny...So yeah, while I see the humor and I still like Pink and while I’m no longer feeling that she's an abusive POS (because of the humor and obvious irony in the video), I’m still a bit uncomfortable with the lyrics. Maybe I should see this movie Misery...

Fox News Creates Britney Controversy (EXPLICIT LANGUAGE)

(Originally written as an email on March 29, 2009)

The following contains explicit and/or suggestive language, references to illegal drugs, and may contain animated nudity. Viewer discretion is advised.

I think this is funny....You know that Britney Spears song "If U Seek Amy"? I learned yesterday from the VH1 Top 20 and from Fox News that it's meant to be "IF u see ka(y) me" --> "F * C K Me." (That’s right -- I’m censoring the explicit language even though I warned you about it.)

It's rather funny that Fox News brought my attention to this, because I certainly wouldn't have noticed and when they did bring it to my attention, I had to think about it to get it. The people on Fox News didn't notice it either until it was brought to their attention, and they also had to think about it to get it.

If it takes these presumably intelligent adults on the TV and a slowly sharp-witted linguistics major like myself so much effort and attention-bringing to get it, why would they think innocent kids will get it? They actually say on there that kids are more savvy and will get it...I feel like that's not true, I think the innocent kids and innocent teens wouldn't get it, but the slutty teenagers who are already screwing each other or the kids who are already familiar with the cursed and evil f-word might get it, maybe.

I think it's pretty stupid for them to bring so much attention to it, since they're defeating their own purpose really. Furthermore, I think it's stupid to complain about this song's cryptically and barely verbalized explicit language rather than its slutty messages -- I mean, if they're going to complain about something.

Also, if they are complaining about the slutty messages, then they should complain about countless other things too -- things that are a lot more explicit than that -- because those are a lot less cryptic. It's also funny how they don't even mention what I think is an explicit drug reference, where Britney sings, "Is she smoking up outside?" Doesn't "smoking up" refer specifically to smoking the weed? In my day it did. That seems a lot more wrong to me.

Regarding my not getting of the F-*-C-K Me thing, I did actually sense that there was something sexual in the phrase "if you seek Amy," I just couldn't figure out what it was. I definitely noticed the weird/wrong grammar of "All of the boys and all of the girls are begging to if you seek Amy."

It really is pretty funny, once you get what she's saying, particularly the whole big section where she says "If you seek Amy tonight" repeatedly.

Anyhoo, I really don’t think kids would get it, and if they do get what the word is, I think there are far worse things they could hear. Regardless, I think it’s a great song.

While on the topic of music and lyrics, but otherwise completely unrelated, I think that Katy Perry and the man from Hinder should marry each other....They both sing about still being in love with an ex when they're with someone new ("Thinking of You" and "Lips of an Angel").

I hope you're not disappointed in the lack of animated nudity...I said this "may" contain it, like the disclaimers all the fox cartoons had for a while after that whole brouhaha Janet Jackson’s booby caused.

(On April 16, 2009, I wrote another related email)

Omfg! I f'ing heard “If U Seek Amy” on the (FM/terrestrial) radio, and they f'ing bleeped the "If U Seek Amy" part!!! Holy mother-f'ing sh*t, how the f are they bleeping the cryptically encoded cursing, but not bleeping the very obvious and clear drug reference, "Is she smoking up outside"?! That is so f'ing f'd up!

So it's wrong to publicly broadcast a barely understandable curse word, but it's perfectly okay to make smoking weed sound cool? I mean, the whole song is overtly and non-cryptically about how awesome Amy is, and the song suggests that Amy smokes weed, so obviously it's really cool to smoke the marijuana. You know that's how stupid kids (and stupid adults) will think. (Yes, I am suggesting that people who think it’s cool to do drugs are stupid.)

Furthermore, how the h*ll is it okay for that Christina wannabe Lady Gaga to sing (in "Just Dance") all about being so drunk on red wine that she doesn't know where she is or how her shirt got turned inside out? So the FCC apparently thinks it's good to encourage stupid kids to smoke the weed and get drunk enough to be date raped, right? But it's not okay to creatively and cryptically spell a profane word, so cryptically in fact, that reasonably intelligent adults don't get it even when it's brought to our attention, because even then we have to really think about it to get it. Britney is essentially censoring herself; it’s excessive for the radio to further censor her. Ironically, bleeping it really just draws attention to the profanity; it draws as much attention as Fox News complaining about it does.

Grr, this makes me so angry. I should smoke weed and get drunk and then tell people to if you seek Amy, because that's what the radio told me to do, and Britney, Amy, and Wannabe Christina are cool and I want to be just like them.

F*ck!

[It should be noted: I have never, nor will I ever part-take in any illegal drug use.]

[Please see my next blog posting about Lady Gaga and why I was wrong about her regarding my statements implying that she is a wannabe Christina Aguilera.]

ABC/Disney is Discriminating against DVD Users!

I make this outlandish claim because I have discovered (well, they make it blatantly obvious) that Lost University will be exclusive to the Blu-ray version of the fifth season.

I was so ridiculously excited about Lost University when I saw Lost’s Myface (Facebook) fan page post something about it back in July. I couldn’t wait to enroll – it seems so incredibly interesting. I even felt that they had stolen and then morphed my idea, since I had thought it would be a great idea to have books like The Philosophy of Lost, The Psychology of Lost, and The Gospel According to Lost, like they do for The Simpsons, and it seemed that’s what Lost University was all about, sort of.

UPDATE April 29, 2010
I suddenly felt compelled to see whether the Lost books I envisioned might, in fact, already exist, and they do!  Well, 2 out of 3 -- The Psychology of Lost doesn't appear to exist at this time, but Lost and Philosophy and The Gospel According to Lost do exist!  Woohoo!

I had hoped at the time that they were only suggesting the purchase of Lost Season 5 on Blu-ray. But after I excitedly enrolled today, I discovered that not only is that a requirement, but almost the whole University exists solely on the Blu-ray. It’s not even on the DVD!

I vowed never to buy Blu-ray discs, largely because I do not own anything that will play such a format. I also vowed never to buy Windows Vista, and thanks to Windows 7, I will never have to, so it worked. (It seems my Blu-ray avoidance might have to come to an end at some point in the future, according to Wikipedia.)

I wasn’t even sure I would be willing to buy the DVD of Season 5, but if Lost University would be on it, I probably would have. But now I won’t. I won’t buy any Lost DVD now, in protest of their exclusionary behaviors.

Hey, ABC/Disney, why don’t you put Lost University on a separate DVD if you don’t want to put it on the Season 5 DVD? I would definitely buy that, even if it’s just the non-interactive portions. Or better yet, why not put the whole thing online, you know, like at the Lost University website that already exists (see link below)? You could throw some ads on there and make money that way, or you could even charge “students” to enroll. Despite my proclivity towards cheapness, I would probably pay for such a fun, exciting, and interesting online university. But I won’t buy a Blu-ray player just for the joys of said university.

If you own a Blu-ray player and want to enroll, or if you want to enroll and see what you can get out of it without the stupid Blu-ray like I’m doing, go here:

http://www.lostuniversity.org/

UPDATE January 24, 2010
Well, so much for that – I caved. Amazon has (or had – I don’t know how long the sale will last, if it’s not over already) the DVDs of all the past seasons (1-5) for really low prices, so I bought them – all of them. It was a difficult decision – I was filled with guilt for betraying my own (pointless) cause. My sister was kind enough to allow me to “pretend” I bought it for her (which works out nicely if they end up releasing a fabulous box set of the complete series that I would obviously need to buy), but alas, it is still a betrayal of my non-worthy cause. What can I say, I’m weak.

Of course, the Blu-ray versions of all 5 seasons are (or were ) also on sale at Amazon, but their sale prices are still high, of course, because it’s Blu-ray, and Blu-ray is expensive.

I really hope they put the Lost U things on a DVD, even if it is just the non-interactive potions, because (assuming it would be cheap enough) I would buy that.