Suburban Mom's Political Fix: WH Spokesman Tells Reporters What Biden 'Meant to Say' on Swine Flu

Who didn't see this coming? The White House's awkward backing off from what Vice President Joe Biden said on the Today Show this morning, that he wouldn't go in any confined area like an airplane or a subway while the swine flu is spreading.

You had to feel badly for WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, having to stand there at the podium, on national TV and, with a straight face, BS his way through this quagmire, where the president tells everyone to remain calm, wash their hands and stay home if sick, while the vice president says he for one isn't gonna get trapped in some subway car potentially loaded with people carrying the swine flu.

ABC's Jake Tapper asked Gibbs about Biden's statements and Gibbs talked in nonsensical circles saying that what Biden was really saying was that if you feel sick you should take precautions. To which Tapper replied, "With all due respect . . . that's not even remotely close to what he said."

"I'm telling you what he meant to say," Gibbs said as the reporters guffawed. (Link to the question and answer here.)



Meanwhile, in another development on the swine flu front, the Associated Press reported that a White House aide and his family are being tested for the flu. "A member of the U.S. delegation that helped prepare Energy Secretary Steven Chu's trip to Mexico City has demonstrated flu-like symptoms and his family members have tested probable for swine flu."

'Lost Untangled:' The Variable

*Warning, spoilers ahead from the recent episode of Lost*

I KNEW IT!

That's what I shouted last night when The Spouse and I were watching Lost and Daniel Faraday recanted his "whatever happened, happened" theory by saying he'd forgotten that there are variables, like, um, our Losties who (*drum roll*) CAN change the future. Say it with me brothers and sisters, "Yes we can!" (Actually, yes THEY can, as neither you nor I are Lost characters . . . details, details.)

After watching "Whatever Happened, Happened" a few weeks ago, I had a huge argument with The Spouse (who subscribed to the "whatever happened, happened" school of thought) over the notion that nothing the Losties did in 1977 would change the future. "How can that be?" I argued. "What the hell's the point of any of it if they cannot change the future? If there wasn't the possibility of change?" I saw that idea as a huge downer and refused to believe that that was the big-picture conceit driving the last quarter of the series' episodes. The Lost creators, I firmly believe, are optimists at heart.

Last night I was vindicated. And I wasn't big about it either. I paused the TV, shouted (I shouted a lot last night), "I KNEW IT!" and solicited a high-five from The Spouse.

Then, at the end of the episode, he completely burst my bubble by suggesting that if the Losties were indeed able to follow through with Faraday's plan -- rid the Swan/Hatch area of its electromagnetic energy by detonating the hydrogen bomb -- that the Oceanic flight would crash anyway in 2004, all the people would die and their bodies would be left at the bottom of the ocean. "End a series with everyone dead?" I said. "Are you insane? No way!"

My Spouse's dire prediction notwithstanding, I still had a problem with what Faraday said to Jack Shephard, that Faraday's mother was wrong when she told Jack and the other Losties that it was their destiny to return to the island, that they HAD to go back. Given the heavy-handed Jesus/Christian/Locke references earlier this season, you cannot tell me that there was no reason for Jack, Kate, et al to return to the island. If it was all a ruse, that would really, really suck. I have very high standards for how I want the writers to resolve all these loose ends and will be severely disappointed if they're not met.

While I'm building up incredibly high hopes for the Lost storyline, the ABC folks behind Lost Untangled released their latest video featuring Faraday as the deliverer of bad news. As with most of these videos (link here), this one was funny, particularly when it said Jack was "punk'd" by Faraday's mother (which I sincerely hope is incorrect).

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Was Biden Truth-Telling About the Swine Flu or What?

Last night President Barack Obama told America not to panic about the swine flu pandemic. Be reasonable, he suggested, wash your hands and cover your mouth when you cough. If you become sick, he said, stay home, contact a doctor if you suspect that you or a loved one has flu-like symptoms.

Then this morning Vice President Joe Biden told viewers of the Today Show, "I wouldn't go anywhere in a confined space right now." He even seemed to be suggesting that people should avoid places where there are lots of other people. Like the NBA and NHL playoffs being played in confined arenas? Baseball games being played in parks where the concession areas are confined? Indoor concerts? Movie theaters? Malls? Public bathrooms? Schools?

My questions are: Does Biden know more than he's letting on and just being honest, on a personal level? Or is he overreacting?

It's really hard to determine who's being truthful here, the federal officials who are talking "mitigation" and preaching "reasonableness," while I know full well that they're engaging in a cost-benefit analysis where they're weighing the number of deaths with the economic impact of a public, Biden-like shut-down on an already weakened economy. There'd be a steep economic cost in terms of dollars that'd happen in the wake of this kind of a recommendation, which, I can only imagine would be issued in only the severest of flu cases, so as not to hurt the economy further. That's understandable.

But when I hear the vice president -- a guy who took Amtrak back-and-forth from Delaware to D.C. during his Senate days, someone who earned the nicknamed "Amtrak Joe" -- say he wouldn't want to be in a confined space, that gives me reason to pause and wonder what the internal, White House projections are for the impact of this flu and what costs are being weighed against what benefits.

'thirtysomething' Coming to DVD in Late August, FINALLY!

For years I've been complaining. In columns. On blogs for various web sites (including this one). Why, oh why, hadn't the award-winning drama thirtysomething come to DVD yet?

On a pop culture blog I used to have, each week when the new DVDs were released I'd viciously mock what crappy, mindless garbage were being put up for sale while thirtysomething remained on the Buena Vista Home Entertainment shelves gathering dust.

When thirtysomething first aired, I was a college student, obviously not in the show's demographic. By the time I finally became a thirtysomething myself, as well as a mom, I really wanted to watch it from my new perspective. Yet it was never released.

Instead, to get my thirtysomething fix -- to watch how Hope handled her angst about being a work-from-home writer (as I am), how Michael climbed the corporate ladder after his company went bankrupt, how they dealt with Hope's miscarriage and the challenges in their interfaith marriage, how Elliot and Nancy separated and then reunited and battled Nancy's cancer -- I've had to go to YouTube where, several months ago, one (or more) thirtysomething fan(s) uploaded episodes into five part-installments.

I've been able to watch some of low-quality versions of the episodes and, aside from rolling my eyes at the late 80s/early 90s duds (the shoulder pads!), I've found the issues explored in thirtysomething remain relevant.

Now, less than a month after leaving my thirties, I read in the Los Angeles Times that my wait is about to end. The first season of thirtysomething will be released on August 25, the Times said, and there will be a delay of six months between the release of the other three seasons. (I never did see the fourth season as I was working at my university's student newspaper on the nights when thirtysomething aired and never got around to taping the show on my VHS tapes, so I'm anxious to see how it ended.)

If only the final season of the other genius Herskovitz/Zwick series -- Once and Again with the amazing Sela Ward -- would be released. One battle at a time I guess.

'Desperate' Mondays: Rose's Turn

Maybe it's because I was spoiled by three consecutive days of thrilling baseball in the form of the Boston Red Sox kicking the New York Yankees' collective behinds. Ground rule doubles. Fastballs at 99 mph. A grand slam. STEALING HOME PLATE. What's better than that?

Maybe it's because HBO's In Treatment (which I'm going to write about in a separate blog item) is so gripping and exquisite, even when you're watching nothing but people talking.

Maybe it's because many other TV shows have been so good lately, such as Lost, Rescue Me, House, The Office, experiencing a rebirth of sorts with Michael's upstart company. (I'm currently irritated that Grey's Anatomy has become a showcase for dead and dying kid scenes. Seriously, as the mom of young kids, I can't take these kinds of scenes each week. I'm begging ya Shonda, please have Dr. Bailey get out of pediatrics, NOW!)

Whatever the cause, I do know that I've lost my Desperate Housewives' mojo. I've been writing about the show on this blog after each new episode but have been rapidly losing interest, despite the fact that the show's continuing to get good ratings. I, personally, don't find it a "must-see" anymore. Stories are becoming repetitive, characters too predictable.

How many times is Bree going to be betrayed by her husband/lover? (Rex cheated. The creepy pharmacist guy wooed Bree after killing Rex. Orson swooped in, knowing full well he'd already tried to kill Bree's neighbor Mike. I could go on and on here. Bree's unlucky in love. We've got it. But how many times are we going to see her go to war with the man who she once loved?)

How many episodes are going to feature the theme that people routinely hide things from one another? (Wasn't that the theme of the pilot episode, that Mary Alice was hiding her pain when her life looked pristine and perfect from the outside just before she committed suicide? Katherine "confessing" that she was hiding her desire for Mike to commit to her? Duh. Of course she'd want commitment. It would be out of character for her not to.)

How many times are we going to witness one spouse get jealous of another? (Tom getting upset that Lynette took a shower at the office? Like Lynette's really going to cheat on him with Carlos. Tom is feeling emasculated -- AGAIN -- because Lynette is working and comes home tired and uninterested in sex. Tom's looking to validate himself, make himself feel better. Why not have him buy a midlife crisis-mobile. Oh, wait. Already did that. How about have him join a rock band? Did that too. Flirt with a horny neighborhood housewife? Now he can check that off his list.)

Bah!

So now, if the heavy-handed foreshadowing at the end of this episode goes where I think it's going to go, we're going to see nutty, lying Dave try to kill Susan and Mike's son in order to pay Susan back for accidentally killing Dave's first wife and child? An injured or dead/dying kid, what is this, Grey's Anatomy? Good grief. Maybe they should just call an end to the season right now so the writers can re-group.

Image credit: ABC.

Where Are the Other 'Losties?'

I was digging around on YouTube and came across this video, a promo for this season of Lost set to the tune of The Fray's "You Found Me." (Link to video here.)



While watching this video a question struck me that was so obvious that I can't believe it hadn't occurred to me before:

Where are the rest of the original survivors of the Oceanic flight? Like Rose and Bernard, as well as the other nameless rabble? Did they get blown up on the ship at the end of last season? Have I somehow seen them but not realized that I've seen them? Did something happen to them when the island was traveling through time? Are they stuck in the present time and will eventually come in contact with John Locke, Ben Linus & Co.? Are they in 1977 and we just haven't seen them yet?

If anyone can shed some light on this, I'd be much obliged.

So-So 'Lost' Clip Show But Amusing Jorge Garcia Interview

Last night's Lost clip show was clearly an attempt to camouflage the time travel/can-you-change-the-future?/sci-fi geekness that has been extremely pronounced this season, so pronounced that ABC felt it necessary to create new Lost Untangled videos each week to explain what you saw on the show. The clips focused almost exclusively on the relationships between characters and de-emphasized the more confusing aspects of the show as it has unfolded this season, such as whether the arrival of the Oceanic 6 on the island in 1977 will change future events, what impact saving Kid Ben had or didn't have, etc.

Not that I dislike the relationship emphasis mind you -- in fact that's one of the things of which I'm most fond -- but I felt like the so-called "new" episode last night was a naked attempt to lure new viewers into the last few installments by saying, "Yeah, what you've heard about Lost being complicated and all geeked out with this time travel and killer/judgmental black smoke. Not so much."

Anyway . . . earlier this week while reading the web site Jezebel, I came across this clip of Jorge Garcia (Hurley) being interviewed on the Bonnie Hunt Show (a program I've never watched, though not due to any antipathy for the host). The funniest part about it was when Garcia mentioned that he cannot look at Matthew Fox (Jack) during serious scenes or they'll both crack up. (Link to the video here.)



Tangential note: The Boston Globe's Joanna Weiss cracked me up yesterday. When making her TV recommendations for Wednesday night viewing, she wrote of Lost: "A 'retrospective,' which means a 'clip show.' Which means another week before we learn what Sawyer did to Jimmy Barrett." For those of you not in the loop, Jimmy Barrett is a Mad Men character played by Patrick Fischler, who plays Phil on Lost, an inside joke for fans of Lost and Mad Men, of which I am one.

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Seriously, What's Up With This Prez. Beefcake Cover?

When I saw the cover of the May issue of Washingtonian Magazine online -- with an artificially glowing, unethically Photoshopped image of the president bare chested and in his swimming trunks -- I was disgusted. How in the heck could the magazine's editors have thought this particular image would be a wise choice, except if they were only seeking a lot of negative buzz? (No doubt the number of hits the magazine's web site has received spiked this past week.)

Certainly the editors, in their "reasons to love Washington" issue, could've used a different, albeit still attractive cover image highlighting President Obama or the photogenic Obama family. They didn't need to resort to the salacious. And they shouldn't have. (Doesn't this simply feed the notion that the media are totally in the tank, Obamified lapdogs?)

This image simply diminishes President Obama, reduces him to some tabloid personality akin to a Hollywood celebrity, an object at which to gawk. (Remember the McCain campaign's "celebrity" ads? This plays into that argument.)

Throw in the fact that the cover was doctored -- a la Time Magazine's infamous OJ cover and Newsweek's Martha Stewart cover, as the color of Obama's swimming trunks was changed, as was the lighting on his chest (see the original photo here) -- and it was just a bad move all around. When I taught a journalism ethics course to undergraduates last year, we dedicated an entire class to the discussion of altered magazine covers and made the distinction between magazines that supposedly abided by news oriented-journalistic ethics (under which I would think the Washingtonian would fall) and those that didn't (like Redbook's Faith Hill cover).

We've got serious problems to address with our economy in a precarious condition and an ongoing two-front war, with troubling stories emerging from Afghanistan. And a respected monthly in the nation's capital put the president on the cover of their magazine while he's in his bathing suit accompanied by the headline, "Our New Neighbor is Hot." What is wrong with this picture?

Image credit: Washingtonian Magazine.

'Desperate' Monday . . . Er . . . Tuesday: Look Into Their Eyes . . .

I spent a lot of time rolling my eyes during the latest episode of Desperate Housewives, back from a hiatus that seemed to go on forever. But perhaps it should've been longer. Maybe the writers should've taken some more time to work on this Edie-is-dead episode because, damn, did they phone this one in.

This episode was practically a carbon copy of the January 18 episode, "The Best Thing That Ever Could Have Happened, featuring the dead handyman whom we'd never before seen but somehow managed to be an integral part of the lives of the Wisteria Lane residents. That previous episode was filled with flashbacks as each of the ladies -- during a poker game soon after Eli Scruggs died while working on Susan Mayer's roof -- had their own remembrances of Eli and the impact he made on them.

This new episode, called "Look Into Their Eyes And See What They Know," had the ladies drive Edie's remains to her son's college. However when the son, whom Edie previously used as Carlos-bait, said he didn't want the ashes, the gals wound up spreading them in their own yards. The bulk of the episode was comprised of nothing but supposedly meaningful "flashbacks" of Edie with each of the women. But at least viewers knew Edie, unlike the Eli dude.

Come on people. This show used to offer razor-sharp satire, black humor, insight. Its first two seasons were top-notch. Desperate Housewives was the buzzy show. Its stars were featured on the covers of the big magazines. Then something happened and it all went to hell. Stories that seemed promising (the Scavo family business for example) withered or were unsatisfactorily ignored (like Gabby's kids post-Carlos' new job). Preposterous other ones came forth (Porter Scavo's arson charge). Curious characters arrived but left abruptly (Tom's daughter Kayla, who was shipped off somewhere and never heard from again), as if the writers had grown tired of them, the way a child gets tired of a toy.

This season started off with some solid scenes, most of them courtesy of Gabby and Carlos Solis. Before Carlos got the new job and all the money and Gabby's character ceased to be interesting anymore. She reverted back to being the character she'd always been: Shallow and boring in her sub-zero-sized designer duds and perfect manicure. Yawn.

After watching the recent episode, I figured the writers must now be burnt out. The writers' room must be a desert, no new ideas, no compelling storylines. Just retreads. And that's a damned shame.

Image credit: ABC.

Do YOU Think '24's' Becoming a 'Pathetic Parody of Itself?'

*Warning, spoilers from the recent episode of 24 ahead*

There's a rumbling among some TV critics when it comes to this season's 24: While it's not as bad as its previous Bauer-family centric season, the twists it has taken recently are making it a "pathetic parody of itself." That "pathetic parody" line comes from the Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik who doesn't understand why anyone with any degree of intelligence is still watching this season, whose exploits have included:

-- An attack on the White House by a group of terrorist thugs abetted by a security guard.

-- The murder of a U.S. senator whose chief of staff was a traitor, who also wound up dead.

-- The violent seizing of the president who was forced at gunpoint by African terrorists to read a statement on a live internet feed denouncing the United States' military intervention in a fictitious African nation overrun by warlords and whose democratically elected president was saved from terrorist clutches by Jack Bauer, after Bauer pretended to be working with his captors.

-- The shooting and burying alive of an FBI agent by terrorists who later was saved and was running around the nation's capital because her wound was apparently only of the flesh wound variety.

-- The downing of two American commercial airliners by the African terrorists, abetted by other home-grown terrorists, including one over the D.C. Mall near the Washington Monument.

-- The torture of a couple of evil terrorists.

-- A near meltdown of a chemical plant, saved by the plant manager who died from exposure to the chemicals but saved his employees.

-- A Blackwater-esque company got its hands on bio-weapons, after masterminding the actions of the African terrorists.

-- Jack Bauer was exposed to the contents of one container of said toxic material, and he's been told there is no cure to his condition, except for some experimental technique which requires the DNA of a close relative. Now Jack's having debilitating seizures and won't let his daughter offer DNA to possibly save him.

-- A former U.S. agent turned bad/turned good/turned bad and killed a top FBI official, plus orchestrated the detonation of a bomb that killed other FBI agents. That and he helped a fellow baddie get away with a canister of the weaponized bio-chemicals.

-- The attempted (?) suicide of the head of the Blackwater-esque private army company at the demand of an unnamed cabal of "others" who are trying to exact bad things on the American government and, by extension, the American public.

"I have to ask sincerely," critic Zurawik wrote after seeing the latest episode, "Why are you still watching this show? Isn't your intelligence insulted by what it has become and the way it tries to exploit your feelings?"

Zurawik added:

"The Jack-is-dying-and-only-his-daughter-can-save-him storyline is debasing. Watching [Kiefer] Sutherland mimic the sudden waves of pain, the need for an injection, the loss of memory and tendency to repeat himself Monday gave me new respect for the actors on daytime soap operas. Their performances in many ways are far more honest than Sutherland's . . . All I see is a great series gone bad."

Over at New York Magazine's Vulture blog, which regularly rates the "absurd" factor of events on 24, joked about the fact that Jack's daughter Kim has a daughter named Teri (after his late wife) -- making Jack a granddaddy -- as well as the fact that it's painfully obvious that Kim's DNA will save Jack. Equally as implausible was the supposed suicide via the red pill from Jonas Jolie Hodges' attorney's doppelganger which we know didn't succeed because he was shown in previews for next week. (Way to spoil your own surprise Fox!)

But I won't go as far as Zurawik or New York Magazine. While it's true that you have to suspend a whole heck of a lot to try and enjoy 24, I don't think it has quite jumped the shark or that Sutherland's acting belongs on a daytime soap. I think the first half of this season was really strong, then it slacked off a bit in the middle, as a 24-episode show tends to do.

The killing of Larry Moss last week by Tony Almeida was shocking, an OMG moment, even though I hate the vacillating loyalty factor that is Tony. Additionally, I'm not a fan of the nakedly obvious Kim-saves-Jack storyline, because we already know Sutherland has signed on for an eighth season to be set in New York City, or of the Jonas-Jolie-Hodges-isn't-dead-yet because the previews blew that fact.

All that being said, I'm not ready to kiss of 24 yet. It's been fun this season and redeemed itself from Jack Bauer's previous bad day, which was very, very bad. I'm just hoping the conclusion of this seventh day isn't a huge let-down.

Do you think 24 has become a "pathetic parody of itself" or do you find that it's still fun?

Image credit: Fox/AP Kelsey McNeal via this web site.

I Heart Michael Emerson (aka Ben Linus)

Just happened across two clips from Michael Emerson's appearance on Jimmy Fallon's Late Night show this week. Fallon dug up a couple of illustrations Emerson did when he was a freelance illustrator for the Boston Globe. They were as nightmarish and creepy as Ben Linus is on Lost.

Fallon wrapped up the interview by begging Emerson to read "Little Boy Blue" in as sinister a fashion as he could muster because Emerson does "creepy" so well. (Link to the second part of the interview is here.)



During the first part of the interview, Emerson talked about his character on Lost and how he believes that Ben Linus is the most beaten (as in physically abused) character on TV and challenged anyone to come up with another character who's been smacked around as much as Ben.

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Lovin' Nightly News 'Making a Difference' Segments

Maybe I'm just one giant, sentimental sap. I've been accused of possessing a disproportionate amount of sentimentality before, particularly by a friend of mine who doesn't understand how I can annually watch It's a Wonderful Life and still cry at the ending. Every. Single. Time. Even though I know the "richest man in town" toast is coming.

That being said, I must admit to getting a lump in my throat while watching many recent "Making a Difference" segments on NBC's Nightly News.

Several weeks ago in early March, amid the crush of dire economic news, reports about thousands of jobless Americans, people losing their homes to foreclosure and widespread financial desperation, Brian Williams sent out a plea to his viewers: Send me stories, uplifting stories about regular people doing things to help others without even being asked. And NBC's web site was flooded with heartening tales. During many broadcasts since he made that request, Williams has read e-mail after e-mail aloud on air bearing stories of good will. At least once a week, a reporter has been dispatched to report on one specific tale submitted by a viewer.

Earlier this week, a viewer from Michigan wrote in about how an anonymous businessman paid for meals for strangers at a local restaurant. All he asked for in return was that the patrons pay the kindness forward by using the money they would've spent for their meals to bolster the local economy and local charities.

Last night, a viewer from Virginia named Krystal, sent an e-mail saying that a colleague, upon hearing that Krystal's husband's unemployment payments had run out and the family was in economic trouble, left a check for $500 on her desk saying that someone had once did something like that for her when she was just out of college and broke. The generous colleague asked only that Krystal do the same for someone else in need in the future when she had the money to do so. (Link to the video here.)



Some people, like grizzled, by-the-numbers journalists and curmudgeons like Mr. Potter might make a face at this kind of reporting and scoff, "Sentimental hogwash!" To me, it's a public service, a professional bucking up public service that warms my heart. And I think it does make a difference.

'Lost Untangled:' Some Like It Hoth

I adored Star Wars films when I was a kid. I flocked to the theaters with fellow Gen Xers when the three original films were re-released in the mid-90s to gin up excitement about the three new prequels.

But I'm not so much a fan of mixing the simplistic fun of Star Wars with the dense, intelligent, symbol-heavy opus that is Lost. Starting with the silly title of this latest Lost episode, I think the writers went a bit too far with the deluge of Star Wars references. If writers wanted Hurley to mention Star Wars once, maybe twice, I could deal with that, because there's a quirky beauty to Hurley. However I think they went too far with the Luke-Darth thing to the point that it almost felt forced, although the bit about Hurley writing the script for The Empire Strikes Back before the actual screenwriters got to it was mildly amusing.

That being said, there was one "oh my God" moment. Maybe two:

1) Learning that Miles' father is Dr. Pierre Chang/Marvin Candle/He of the creepy Dharma videos and love for white rabbits. (Miles got to see his own father fawning over his 3-month-old self.)

2) Daniel Faraday left the island and then returned. (Where did he go? And what's up with the new black Dharma jumpsuits?)

The number 316 got a long screenshot during this episode, this time on the microwave oven inside the apartment a young Miles and his mother were thinking of renting. Remember that the number 316 was also the name of the best episode thus far this season -- the episode where our Losties' return to the island on a flight numbered 316. Plus there was the Biblical reference from that same episode to John: 316, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

In "Some Like It Hoth," yet another in a string of soured/strained/difficult relationships with someone's father was invoked, this time with Miles and Dr. Dharma. Hurley spent a good chunk of time repeatedly urging Miles to communicate with his dad because Hurley said a lack of communication was what led to the tragic outcome of the Luke Skywalker/Darth Vader relationship.

We also got a glimpse of what will be The Hatch/The Swan and its 108-minute computer keystroke requirement, along with Hurley's numbers being punched into a Hatch door. Why those particular numbers? Still don't have a clue.

Thoughts on "Some Like It Hoth?" ABC's Lost Untangled staff had some fun with the Star Wars/I-see-dead-people themes from this week. (Link to video here.)

ABC Attempts to Make 'Lost' Timeline Clearer

In another attempt to answer critics' lamentations that Lost has become too complicated this season -- specifically with regard to the whole time travel bit -- ABC folks have created a timeline for its web site. But I'm not sure that the timeline succeeded in making things any clearer.

On page one of the timeline, you see the Dharma logo and the following text:

The Dharma Initiative -- Orchid Station

Time is constant, but the island is a special place, where the impossible has become possible -- where temporal shifts are a reality and time skipping like a record is an even harsher reality. Here you can follow the history of the island and its inhabitants as mysteries are revealed. Time is shifted and what was lost becomes found.

(The pages that follow simply recap episodes, starting with the pilot ep.)

"What was lost becomes found."

What have our original characters lost? Well, going by the folks who left the island and then returned:

Jack: Pre-crash: His father, his relationship with his alcoholic father after Jack turned him in for drinking before operating on a patient, his wife who left him. Pre-island return: His focus, his relationship with former fiance Kate, his purpose in life as the former island hero was lost in a haze of booze and drugs and, apparently, his desire to shave.

Kate: Pre-crash: Her freedom, her relationship with her mother for whom Kate started a fatal fire that killed her mother's abusive husband. Pre-island return: her relationship with former fiance Jack and then, just before returning the island, toddler Aaron, whom she called her reason for living.

Sun: Pre-crash: Her relationship with her husband Jin. Pre-island return: Her husband and the father of her toddler, whom she thought was dead.

Hurley: Pre-crash: His sanity, compromised by his overwhelming feelings of guilt. Pre-island return: His sanity, compromised by his overwhelming feeling of guilt and fear.

Locke: Pre-crash: The relationship with the love of his life, his relationship with his scam artist father, his ability to walk. Pre-island return: Faith in himself.

Sayid: Pre-crash: The love of his life whom he couldn't locate, his humanity (because he'd become a torturer during the Gulf War). Pre-island return: The love of his life who'd been killed, his humanity (because he'd become an executioner for Ben).

So is that the purpose of the show, the grand scheme of things, that the island is a place where you can find what you've lost and helps you do so by moving you around in time like a chess piece?

I must admit that I have been puzzled as to why, for example, Sun, Ben and Locke wound up in the "current" time, 2007, and why the other returning Oceanic 6 folks are stuck in 1977. Am I to surmise that the reason has to do with them finding what they've lost?

Image credit: ABC.

Suburban Mom's Political Fix: Covering the Obamas

There's nothing wrong with noticing that the Obama children are exceptionally cute. It's also reasonable to suggest that the prospect of seeing the girls playing on the White House lawn with their new puppy Bo or swinging on their new swingset outside Dad's office would be a welcome respite from the dour economic news to which we've been treated for the past several months. More than once I've heard and read political pundits likening the White House photos of 10-year-old Malia and 7-year-old Sasha to photos from the Camelot days a generation ago of Caroline and John Kennedy.

As long as media coverage is respectfully restrained and the Obama girls aren't hounded and don't have everything that's on or near their bodies catalogued (like tracking down the makers of their clothing, backpacks, toys, etc.). There was a degree of media restraint afforded Chelsea Clinton when the 12-year-old accompanied her parents to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 1993, but that was still in the pre-blog days, so I remain skeptical that the media can or will exercise such decorum when it comes to the First Kids.

But what has already exceeded decorum and has veered into the arena of tiresome is the coverage given to Michelle Obama, an Ivy League educated lawyer and former hospital executive, a woman with something substantive to say on many subjects. Last month I examined the type of media coverage Michelle Obama was receiving -- including the odd, fetish-like obsession with her bare arms -- in a column which noted that during the span of two weeks, the First Lady was on the cover of four national magazines.

And that was before the G-20 summit in London and the Obamas' trip abroad. Before phrases such as "fashion faceoff" were uttered and the media pit Michelle Obama with the spouse of the French president, as if the women's clothing was competing against one another. Before so-called news media outlets started running slideshows on their web sites of Michelle Obama's outfits and discussing wearing stilettos versus flat shoes on national NEWS programs.

After a week's worth of fluffy, insipid news coverage, I was steamed. My irritation yielded this week's Pop Culture and Politics column over on Mommy Track'd in which I satirically imagine what it would be like if the male leaders' attire was subjected to the type of media scrutiny that their spouses' duds, where the media pay lavish attention to pumps, not the policies and causes the women try to spotlight. How I wish the media would treat these women as women of substance, not as walking mannequins that they want to dress up in designer duds.

Image credit: Huffington Post.

'Friday Night Lights' Finale: Whaddya Think?

*Warning, spoilers from the Friday Night Lights finale ahead*

EAST Dillon High? The former, dust-binned high school with the dilapidated field? The one whose future football team's roster has already been looted by its crosstown rival West Dillon Panthers boosters and compliant crooked local officials?

Kyle Chandler -- who plays Coach Eric Taylor, who used to be the West Dillon Panthers football coach who took his team to the state finals more than once -- told Vanity Fair that he thinks the Friday Night Lights season three finale sets "up a whole new slew of characters that could come into the show. The show can re-invent itself. When I read the last episode, I saw a phoenix coming out of the ashes."

And while Chandler is right when he says that the ending provides FNL with a wide open field of opportunity, with new players, new administrators, new parents, new stories, etc. I feel as if we skipped a step, as if I missed an episode explaining what went on between the Dillon Panthers' loss at the state final and Coach Taylor getting the boot to coach the East Dillon Lions. There was a disconnect, at least for me.

For example, it's entirely plausible that Joe McCoy would still, five months later, be barely able to conceal his simmering rage and hatred toward Coach Taylor after the coach and his wife Tami, the high school principal, contacted child protective services after witnessing Joe McCoy battering his wonderkid quarterback son J.D. in the Applebee's parking lot. What I don't buy is that all the Panthers boosters would hop on board the rich hothead's crazy train and dispose of Coach Taylor. McCoy notwithstanding, the only beef people seemed to have was that Taylor was indecisive when he was juggling quarterbacks before finally settling on J.D. But that can't be the entire reason for shipping him to East Dillon, that and losing the state final after staging a gutsy come-back against an incredibly tough opponent, can it? I would've liked to have seen the deliberation, the debate, the reasons before I'm ready to buy into this next phase of the show.

While discussing the finale with another FNL fan, he suggested that Buddy Garrity might've been in on the whole thing, although I don't think Garrity's capable of pulling off such expert subterfuge. However the fan did agree that this demotion seemed abrupt and not well explained.

Yes, next year will be an opportunity for FNL to go in a completely new direction and, as Chandler said, rise from the ashes of this season. I just wish the viewers had been witness to something more than Coach Taylor's clipped statement to a board and Tami Taylor showing up to a wedding to tell him he's going to be running a team which has already lost promising players courtesy of a district line drawn in such a nonsensical zig-zaggy fashion by Panther boosters that it would make Massachusetts and Chicago pols proud.

So, FNL fans, what do you think of this East Dillon High turn of events? Do you think it came out of nowhere?

Image credit: NBC.

'Lost Untangled:' Dead is Dead

*Spoilers from recent Lost episode*

Maybe I've been spoiled by all the Lost goodness that's been aired in the past few weeks. What with time travel, Kid Ben getting shot and my head hurting from trying to figure out what everything means, I've come to expect to be absolutely thrilled by the time a new episode concludes. Not so much with this last one.

It's not that the fact that the episode, "Dead is Dead" was Ben-centric that turned me off. I love Ben Linus. He's one of TV's great villains. Manipulative. Ruthless. Unpredictable. Who could've seen coming him killing an already suicidal John Locke? Or shooting Cesar after convincing him that Locke was a potentially violent loon? Brilliance.

Yet I found myself not really caring what happened to Ben when the kid-loving character was preparing to be judged by the "smoke monster" in an Indiana Jones-like temple complete with hieroglyphics of some sort for which, no doubt, Lost fans will seek out a translation soon if they haven't already (on the Pop Candy blog, some commenters are suggesting that the carvings referenced some sort of god of the dead or of the underworld or souls). Ben wasn't going to die. Not yet anyway. He's too central as the only, long standing villain. Who could replace him and wear the series' big black hat? Charles Widmore? Richard Alpert? No one really could fill Ben's shoes, therefore I didn't expect anything to happen to happen to him in the belly of the temple.

I found Kid Ben compelling because he was just that, a kid who could've been influenced and changed, drawn away from his potential, future evil ways, or at least we could try to understand how and why Ben became sinister. Adult Ben -- who didn't really repent because he believes that the island trumps everything and is the excuse for everything he does -- isn't going to change at this point. Learning that Ben spared Rousseau from death years ago when he kidnapped her baby didn't alter how I feel about him. Seeing Ben pushing cute little girl Alex on a swingset while he was sporting an atrocious hairdo was only mildly interesting.

I did, however, find intrigue in how and why Widmore was banished from the island, in what the "new" plane crash survivors are arming themselves for and in the clearly Jesus-like resurrection of Locke, on the island where previously those who were dead stayed dead.

Meanwhile, ABC's new Lost Untangled video is very funny this week. I love the Locke voice. Quirkiest bit: "Precious Moments with Ben Linus."



Your thoughts on "Dead is Dead?"

'Ghosts of Girlfriends Past' Trailer Hooked Me, Sap I Am

I can be a sap for romantic films. Ones that have brains, and sometimes genuine humor. Like When Harry Met Sally. Sleepless in Seattle. Sabrina (the Audrey Hepburn one). The Philadelphia Story. But not crappy romantic comedies that are insultingly stupid. Like Bride Wars.

So although I'm skeptical when I see a trailer for a new rom-com, this week when I saw for the first time a promo for the upcoming Jennifer Garner-Matthew McConaughey film Ghosts of Girlfriends Past which opens May 1, I became hopeful that perhaps it could be one of the ones that's of the non-insulting and smart variety. Of course I could be blinded by my unabashed admiration for Garner (loved her as a smart, tough intelligence agent in Alias and as a wide-eyed 13-year-old in a 30-year-old's body in her first big film role in 13 Going on 30). But I hope not.

'House' Stunner Still Creating Buzz, Backlash

*Spoilers from Monday's House ahead*

I just got around to watching the latest episode of House last night on my DVR. And, when I got to THAT scene -- the one in which Dr. Lawrence Kutner (Kal Penn) was found dead from a single, suicidal gunshot wound to the head -- I was really thrown.

I thoroughly enjoyed last week's episode which featured a patient with "locked-in" syndrome, where most of the action took place from the perspective and line of sight of that patient who couldn't move and couldn't talk. It was quite different from anything I've seen on TV. (No, I did not see the film The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.)

So I had high hopes when tuning in this week, thinking that the writers might be on a creative roll. But to see that Kutner committed suicide (not on screen), without explanation, was a shocker. Dr. Greg House spent the episode flailing about trying to figure out why Kutner did it, as House repeatedly ambled around Kutner's apartment, seeking clues, noting that Kutner had passions and interests, and never seemed depressed, despite the tragic death of his parents when he was a child. House's grief took the form of an almost inhumane brutality when he initially blamed Kutner's grieving adoptive parents, knowing full well that they likely had nothing to do with Kutner's decision to pull the trigger.

Yesterday, news reports began to circulate explaining why the actor, Penn, had left the show House; he is joining the Obama administration. Yet today, the buzz about his character's suicide has not yet abated.

The New York Daily News reported that the show's creators hope that the episode will serve as a "teachable moment" and perhaps prevent some suicides, noting that the episode concluded with contact info for the National Alliance for Mental Illness. The Daily News quoted House producer David Shore as saying that while the audience still remains surprised, so does the show's namesake. ". . . [T]he biggest impact will be on House himself. The man with all the answers doesn't have one."

The Chicago Tribune's Maureen Ryan hated, I mean absolutely HATED, this plot twist, saying on her blog:

"Everything about the death of Kutner . . . smelled of manipulation. And how about that online 'memorial' to Kutner that was advertised at the end of the show? Sigh. It just struck me as cheesy . . . How exploitative and expedient to kill him off so randomly."



While I disagree with Ryan's assessment regarding the decision to kill off Kutner's character by way of suicide -- I didn't feel manipulated, just shellshocked -- I do think the notion of an online memorial for the fictional character -- plus the Facebook page and the Fox "tribute" video -- is indeed creepy.

What do you think about the Kutner demise? Manipulative? Shocking? Brilliant?

Rethinking 'Rescue Me'

I abandoned Rescue Me in June 2006 following a controversial scene involving what I saw as Denis Leary's deeply flawed and tragic Tommy Gavin character sexually assaulting his almost ex-wife Janet. Some argued that it wasn't an assault, given their troubled relationship, but the scene really bothered me nonetheless. Though at the time I adored the show for its button-pushing dark edginess, that scene was too dark. I said I wouldn't watch the show again.

And I haven't.

But, as they said in the Godfather, when I thought I was out, I feel like I'm being pulled back in. Now that the series is gearing up for its fifth season (premiering tonight on FX at 10) and reviewers are saying they're going to get back to the essence of the show -- how New York firefighters' lives are impacted by not just the danger they face everyday, but by the events of 9/11 -- I'm finding myself tempted to tune in once again.

The New York Times review of the first few episodes of this new season, in particular, make it sound as though it will be intriguing on multiple fronts, including political and socio-economic. Reviewer Ginia Bellafante wrote:

"As the most frantic and emotionally undone member of the crew of 62 Truck, at a New York City firehouse, Tommy was hardly finished working through his guilt and grief over his [firefighter] cousin's death during the 9/11 rescue mission when he was forced to deal with the loss of his son, killed by a drunk driver. At the end of last season Tommy's unloving father died as well, and it isn't too long before he is turning up in Tommy's vodka-induced visions, Tommy's hold on sobriety as shaking as a timid child's on horseback.

The specter of 9/11 -- never completed submerged but sometimes obscured by the show's elements of comic soap opera -- is in the foreground again, as another crew member begins to espouse the theory that the attacks were orchestrated by neoconservative nut cases bent on American global domination."

So, I'm thinking I may go back on my three-year-old vow and tune in tonight, just to see where the character with whom I once sympathized -- Tommy Gavin -- is in his post-9/11 journey.

Are there any shows you USED to watch that you started watching again after taking a season or more off? Are you looking forward to the new season of Rescue Me?

Image credit: FX.

'Lost' Untangled: Whatever Happened, Happened

*Spoilers from recent Lost episode ahead*

I don't care what the title of this episode is. I cannot buy into the notion that nothing that our favorite time travelin' Losties do will in any way change the future. If that's the case, that they can't change anything, then why was it so damned important for the Oceanic 6 (or most of them) to return to the island and, as best as possible, replicate the circumstances around their original crash? If them returning to the island wouldn't change the future, won't save anyone (which was the stated reason for returning) why do it? Why do anything?

A version of the Miles-Hurley conversation went on in my house last night when I paused the DVR and debated my husband, with him playing the role of Miles and me playing the role of the mental patient, Hurley. (Not the best character to be emulating, I know.) Maybe I'm being naive here, but I can't believe that nothing the time travelers do will have any impact on the future. If "whatever happened, happened" then there's no point to anything they do. Taking away the possibility of trying to help prevent bad things from happening in the future (like preventing The Purge and Ben's genocidal ascension) changes the dramatic frame of reference. And not in a good way.

When I wasn't arguing the impact/non-impact of our time travelers' actions with my spouse, I was sniffling while watching Kate's storyline unfold which explained that Kate had befriended Sawyer's baby mama off-island and that Kate had given Aaron to his grandmother before she returned to the island. I always wondered why she never told Aaron's grandmother about the child. One could argue that Kate couldn't tell Claire's mother the truth for fear that the intricate lies that the Oceanic 6 had contrived would unravel. But if Kate was willing to come clean to Sawyer's ex-gal pal, why not with Aaron's grandmother with whom some kind of a deal could potentially have been struck, particularly given the fact that Jack is Aaron's uncle.

The argument that Kate needed to keep Aaron in order to fill a void in her heart, well, I didn't really find that convincing. Don't know exactly why. And the idea that she returned to the island to find Claire? That suggestion left me flat as well. However the scenes where Kate lost Aaron in the supermarket and when she left him with his grandmother . . . tears. Tears and sniffling.

On the Jack-won't-save-Kid-Ben front: While pulling out my season two DVDs to see how Ben/Henry Gale reacted when he saw Sayid for the "first" time provided me no satisfaction, I was reminded that not only did Jack save Ben when he operated on his spinal tumor in season three, but he also saved him in season two when he successfully removed the arrow that Danielle Rousseau had shot through Ben's shoulder while saying over and over again to Sayid, "He's one of Them. He's one of Them."

Finally, the scene with Richard Alpert saying he could save the grievously wounded Kid Ben if he took him into the smoke monster's temple although Ben would lose all his innocence . . . that one I'm still trying to process. Need more caffeine to figure that one out, but I did have this thought: While everyone's blaming Jack for failing to save Kid Ben, had Kate not brought Kid Ben to Alpert, Kid Ben could've died with an innocent soul rather than grown up to be a soulless monster.

Meanwhile, the ABC folks released their latest Lost Untangled video and have added a few new touches: The original Losties who've time traveled are now wearing giant Dharma badges and tent-like jumpsuits. Additionally, the video makers inserted moving lips into character photos when mocking a conversation. I'm not a fan of the cartoonish lip bit. Reminds me of something from Conan O'Brien. These Lost Untangled videos are great when they're action figure/cardboard cut-out based. Much funnier.

Liz Lemon's Chat-Line Ad

You saw excerpts of it during a recent episode of 30 Rock.

Liz Lemon.

In the persona of "Bijou" and wearing an awful wig and bad lipstick.

Shilling for a chat-line for "horny" Chicagoans.

Now, via Hulu, NBC has unleashed the inner Liz Lemon goddess . . . the one that made Jack Donaghy laugh so hard that he threw up.

'Big Love's' Roman is Really Dead, Show Creator Says

Following Big Love's season three finale, I speculated in this space about whether the sinister, self-appointed "prophet" of Juniper Creek, Roman Grant had REALLY died after being smothered by a pillow at the hands of Joey Henrickson.

According to Big Love co-creator Will Scheffer, Roman (Harry Dean Stanton) is indeed dead, as dead as Lipstick Jungle.

"Roman is 100 percent, absolutely, completely dead," Scheffer told the Los Angeles Times' Show Tracker blog. "There's no trick in terms of, he was pretending to be dead, or it was a hallucination. He is gone. His spirit has left the earth . . . No one can bring him back from the dead."

Well, okay then, with that issue settled, what else did Scheffer have to say about season four? J.J. (Zeljko Ivanek) -- Nicki's first husband played by the same actor who's hunting down those folks with superpowers on Heroes -- will become a series regular. For those who wondered why the third Henrickson child, Teenie, was largely absent from the tail-end of the third season, particularly in the pivotal "Sacrament" scene in which the Church of Bill was created, Scheffer said, ". . . [When] we left her out of the sacrament at the end of the season finale, we were doing so on purpose . . . We will deal with that this coming season."

Over on Mommy Track'd, my column this week focuses on how watching Big Love, and the Showtime drama United States of Tara both make me thankful that my life bears no resemblance to the lives of the women on these shows.

Image credit: HBO.