More Television

two TV shows to talk about today. of course, one is deadliest catch (natch) but the other is a first for the blog...how i met your mother (HIMYM).

some people have called HIMYM the "friends" of the aughts. while i don't necessarily agree with that (i never liked friends much), i do see some similarities. both are VERY contemporary. friends dealt with being in your late 20s-early 30s in the 1990s and HIMYM deals with the same age group in the 2000s. i particularly liked the contemporary-ness of this week's episode. the marshall sub-plot was basically one large graph jam! shout-out (graph jam! is part of the cheezburger network, which is home to one of my newest favorite websites, failblog. im sure i will write about failblog in the future). the marshall sub-plot was easily the funniest part of the episode.

but the real point of this post is to weigh in on whether or not we met the mother monday night (for those who don't know, HIMYM is a sitcom about how the main character, ted, met his children's mother. each episode starts with adult ted telling his kids this long and convoluted tale of how he met their mother and hilarity ensues. it is a mystery who the mother is, but its a great plot device to keep the story moving forward). i am going to go out on a limb here and assume that none of my reader(s) watch the show, so i am going to throw some spoilers out, so if you do watch the show and haven't seen monday's episode, stop reading.

at the end of monday's episode, after all the twists of fate that lead ted to stand on the corner under the yellow umbrella, we find out that it is stella who taps ted on the shoulder. the entire episode leads us to believe that at the end, we are going to meet the mother. however, after careful review and analysis, i DO NOT THINK that stella is the mother. there are a few hints and giveaways that led me to this conclusion. first of all, the ted-stella relationship sucked, and i think the producers know that. even if you like sarah chalke (of scrubs fame), you had to hate the ted-stella dynamic. the ted-stella relationship turned ted into what i hate the most about his character: a whiney, whimpy, post-modern, metrosexual, with "feelings". those character traits are most certainly un-funny. the show is at its best when ted is free to mess around with marshall, barney, robin, and lilly, not looking like a lost puppy hanging onto stella. second, they can't make stella the mother. the show needs the conflict & resolution of wondering who the mother is to sustain itself, and as far as i know, the show isn't planning on ending anytime soon. third, the wording of the episode never EXPLICITLY said "this is when i met your mother" or something of that nature. the narration leads you to believe that ted meets the mother on the corner, but the wording is crafted in such a way that there is enough wiggle room for it not to be the mother.

one more comment about HIMYM before i get onto the deadliest catch part of this post (sometimes these things get long, don't they?). the character of ted - i have always kinda been on the fence about ted. there are times when i cannot stand him (see stella, relationship with) and there are times when he is great. i have always thought that the producers of HIMYM wanted ted to be a modern john cusack-type character. the first season of HIMYM, ted is clearly a cusack wannabe. they kinda look the same. his character tries to be witty like cusack. ted is an architect - can you imagine any profession more suited for a cusack character than a misanthropic architect? i can't. however, when ted is in john cusack mode, he sucks. the show excels when ted is "just one of the guys", giving shit to marshall and barney. that is the ted i like. i hope there is more of that ted left.

so FINALLY, deadliest catch. some interesting developments:

• i wonder how long matt has aboard the northwestern.  last season he didn't get along with jake very well and this season matt looks like he is slipping a bit and jake is really trying to earn his share as a full deckhand.
• charlie gaspar, the old hungarian dude aboard the new boat lisa marie, is AWESOME.  i can't wait to get to know him better.
• speaking of the lisa marie, man is that boat small!
• i wonder how many boats used to be the size of the lisa marie.  if you go back to the first season of deadliest catch it featured the last season of derby fishing for crab.  derby fishing was a system where the season was open for a set amount of time and the boats could catch as much as they wanted in the alloted timeframe.  however, that changed a few years back  and the state of alaska instituted a quota system where a certain amount of crab could be caught each year.  i don't know if its an overall quota or a per-boat quota, but my guess is that the bigger boats (cornelia marie, time bandit, northwestern) bought up other boats permits so they could increase the size of their catch.  this led to a drastic reduction in the size of the king crab fleet, and i guess was a system that favored the bigger boats.  how the lisa marie, a 75ft. boat can compete with the big boys (some are 150ft. +) is beyond me, but it will be very interesting watching how that boat fishes and comparing it to the others.

The Genius of Arlen Specter

arlen specter's greatest gift has always been his knack for self-preservation. in fact, that is the hallmark of a great politician: someone who is like a chameleon and can change his color to meet the times. that is exactly what specter is doing right now except he is doing it for reasons you might not expect.

even though specter's instincts for survival are strong, another hallmark of a great politician is being able to make things happen without it seeming like they were the one pulling the strings. let me explain.

specter switched parties because he was going to lose to toomey in the primary which would guarantee that any democrat, whether it be allyson schwartz, patrick murphy, or joe sestak, would win the seat. once specter switched, the democratic establishment both inside pennsylvania and in washington, quickly jumped on the specter bandwagon in an attempt to clear the democratic field for him knowing that specter could beat toomey in a race in front of the general electorate of pennsylvania. at this point, it would seem like an open-and-shut case for specter: toomey wins the republican primary, specter the democratic and eventually specter would win in the fall of 2010. but this is where things start to go a little haywire and have led me to believe that there is more going on here than meets the eye...

one would expect that specter, having switched to the democratic party, would start to, well...act like a democrat! you would expect him to start embracing some of the democratic positions like health care, EFCA, and support for al franken over norm coleman, but specter being specter he has done none of this. because of these positions specter has riled up the democratic base of pennsylvania and has led to joe sestak to start openly talking about challenging specter in the democratic primary. at the same time there is now talk of tom ridge challenging pat toomey in the republican primary and early polls (taken with a grain of salt - ridge has near 100% name recognition in the state) show ridge beating toomey handily. so now we have a situation where there may be contested primaries on both sides: specter vs. sestak and ridge vs. toomey. this creates a situation that no one could have thought about just a week ago...that is no one could have thought about this except arlen specter!

think about how this might play out. ridge beats toomey. specter continues being a thorn in the side of the democrats and sestak beats specter. its now ridge vs. sestak. ridge wins, republicans keep the seat. we can also imagine a scenario where ridge beats toomey, but specter beats sestak. this is a win-win for specter: if he beats ridge (which i think is doubtful), he keeps the seat. if he loses to ridge, republicans keep the seat. the only way the dems hold this seat is if toomey somehow beats ridge in the primary, which is not impossible, but in my mind unlikely.

this is the genius of arlen specter. he has managed to pull the wool over everyones eyes. only i see the real truth!

And In Keeping With That Theme AGAIN!

i guess i just can't get enough of these pseudo-reality/documentary shows about the outdoors. last night i watched a show on the national geographic channel called "cowboys of the sea". COTS is clearly nat geo's attempt at a deadliest catch ripoff show. the filming style is the same, as are some of the sound effects and storytelling devices the show's producers and directors use. the one difference between COTS and deadliest catch is that COTS features a different kind of fisherman every week, whereas deadliest catch just focuses on the bering sea crab boats.

i saw one previous episode of COTS about the herring (i think it was herring) runs in SE alaska outside valdez. it was very interesting to see how that fishery operates. last night's episode was about halibut and black cod (aka sable fish) fishing off the kenai. the show featured two boats: one was a modern boat equipped with automated fishing gear (baiting of the hooks, setting the lines, reeling in the lines, taking the fish off the hooks, etc..) and an on-board processor, and the other boat was a little more old-school where the crew had to bait and set the lines by hand, as well as taking the fish off the hooks when they came on board. the second boat did not have a processor on-board; they had to pack their fish in ice and deliver it to a processor on the mainland.

one of the interesting things about the show last night was a scene where they were talking to a crewman aboard the modern boat (the crewman looked suspiciously like matt bradley of the northwestern but had a different surname). he was commenting on the automated fishing process aboard the boat. he said something to the effect of how wonderful technology was that they have a machine that baits hooks, and that "who would have thought" there was someone sitting around inventing this technology for them. he couldn't get over the fact that someone would invent this machine.

i thought it was interesting that this guy could feel like that. people invent things all the time. what is that old saying? necessity is the mother of invention? why should fishing be any different? in fact, i thought about this very issue a while back and wrote about it here. if some jewish kid from philadelphia who won't even step foot on a boat in the ocean anymore (i get HORRIBLE sea sickness) has been thinking about this, then someone else closer to the situation certainly has as well.

And In Keeping With That Theme...

...i would like to talk about my newest favorite show: mantracker! mantracker may be a greater show than deadliest catch and the office put together!

so here is the premise for the show: mantracker hunts people. mantracker, aka terry grant, is:

"is a full-blooded cowboy living in the wrong century. This Albertan has been a full time ranch cowboy for almost 25 years. An expert horseman and wilderness professional, hunting, guiding and tracking come second nature. Whether man or beast, he will track them down. His keen instincts, intense character, and specialized skills have made him a crucial member of the Foothills Search and Rescue Team. His reputation is always on the line and he doesn’t let up for a second. A steely-eyed cowboy with a killer, never-say-die attitude, Terry Grant is MANTRACKER."

each week mantracker has to hunt down and catch his "prey", two individuals who are dropped in the middle of the woods and have to cover approximately 25 miles in 30 hours to escape mantracker. the prey have a compass and a map and know the location of where they have to go, mantracker has nothing - just a local guide who knows the terrain (the location of the chase changes every week, but they are normally located in remote places like the yukon, british columbia, and northern ontario. mantracker is a canadian show, btw.) and horses to track them down. the prey get a 2km headstart as well. a flare goes off to signal the start of the chase, and mantracker's first objective is to find the flare site so he can start tracking!

this is where things get good. the prey, which can consist of two males, a male and a female, or two females, normally know each other, but in some cases don't. the prey have varying ranges of outdoor skills and fitness levels...sometimes this works to the prey's advantage, sometimes it doesn't. once the prey get started, it is all up to mantracker to find them, and this is where mantracker shines. you would not believe what this guy does to track his prey. he can spot a boot print in the dirt from 100 yards out. he can see stones that have been turned over from onto his horse and know that stone was overturned by a human footprint. he knows human behavior in the bush. its really amazing to see.

the best part about mantracker, however, is how truly freaked out about mantracker the prey get. the prey doesn't get to meet mantracker before the show starts, so when he tracks them down (as he always does), the prey get super spooked. its really awesome to watch. and mantracker is always there with a pithy statement aimed at getting under the prey's skin and throwing them off their game. mantracker is a man of few words, but when he does speak, he chooses them wisely. he has a great sense of humor.

the prey actually have a decent level of success in the show. i would say the prey have about a 1/3 chance of getting captured, 1/3 chance of running out of time (technically a loss), and a 1/3 chance of winning. it all depends on the group chemistry, the terrain (even though mantracker is on horseback and can go faster, there is some terrain the prey can traverse that mantracker can't), the weather, how crafty the prey are, and how good mantracker is on that particular hunt.

its a fascinating show. you should watch it. in new york, its on the science channel, but according to the mantracker website, its also on OLN. seriously, watch mantracker. you won't be disappointed.

Mountain Climbers vs. Bering Sea Fishermen

as i have talked about many times before, i love the show "deadliest catch". it captures stories of men that no fiction can replicate. this season has started off with real life drama effecting the fleet: capt. phil can't go out for the season, capt. keith has health issues, capt. sig is getting older, and there is open competition for a spot on the time bandit which is causing some rifts to appear in the crew. on top of all that, last night's episode featured the story of the fishing boat katmai. the katmai sank in a storm and only 4 out of the 11 crew on board managed to survive.

the story of the survivors on the katmai was a harrowing one. the boat started taking on water in the middle of the night. recognizing the danger they were in, the captain ordered his crew into survival suits. all except one managed to get theirs on before the boat went under. soon after entering the water other troubles surfaced amidst 40ft. seas and howling winds: the crew was separated into two lifeboats, 6 in one and 4 in the other (no one from the 4 man boat survived); one crew member had a hole in the boot of his survival suit; one crew member had to remove his suit to fasten the canopy of the life raft; the raft was flipped by a wave causing the half-dressed crewman and the one with the hole on his boot to be tossed far from the raft and both perished. the remaining 4 held on for dear life and managed to survive the night and were rescued by the coast guard the next day.

survival stories like this always fascinate me (see this post on previous stories of heroism on deadliest catch). while watching last night's episode i started to think about survival stories of the fisherman and how they compared to stories of mountain climbers who find themselves caught in survival situations. the keys to survival in both require the same skills: clear thinking, quick action, reliance on teamwork, and the will to survive. both take place under the most adverse conditions on earth. the fishermen have to stay alive fighting the ocean and the weather, the climbers fight the mountain, altitude, and weather. neither situation is one i want to find myself in, but i am still fascinated by these stories because they represent the true epitome of the human spirit and pit man against his most ancient enemy: nature.

i think this is one of the reasons i like going on mountain climbing adventures. even though i have never been in extreme conditions like a lot of the climbers i have read about on mountains like K2 and everest, but there is still an element of danger and imminent death while on the mountain. you can never turn your back on the mountain, no matter how easy the hill is, because once you disrespect mother nature, that is when she gets you. it is that thrill of living on the edge that i enjoy so much, i think. this is not to say i have a death wish or anything or that the climbs i have been on were extremely life threatenting, but there is always that possibility and even at extreme altitudes, it is something you always have to be aware of. mountain climbing is as much of a mental exercise as it is a physical one. i cannot tell you how many times on my way up rainier i wanted to quit because i thought i couldn't make it...but i could and i did. i had the mental toughness to push through to the top.

that bravery and courage is what the members of the katmai exhibited, as well as the members of the rest of the fleet. these guys are tough as nails and will do whatever it takes to get the job done. they all know the risks of the profession, just like mountain climbers do when they embark on a trek. i think this is one of the reasons i like that show so much and watch it with such rapt attention.

It's Been Such a Long Time

the blog is back! there have been many events over the course of the past year and a half that made me think about blogging again: the phillies world series victory, the election of barack obama, and the return of phish, but none of them seemed to push the right buttons to get me back on the train to write until my lightning bolt of inspiration last night: that travis bickle is michael scott is leslie knope.

now, who are these people, you might ask? i'll tell you. travis bickle is the hero (anti-hero?) of martin scorsese's 1976 masterpiece "taxi driver". bickle is played by a young robert de niro and also stars cybill shepherd, albert brooks, a YOUNG jodie foster, and harvey keitel. the character of travis bickle is very complex. it's a story about a man who is completely clueless about the world around him. he can't seem to fit in with society, either because society in new york in the mid-'70s was out of control or because he has severe mental problems, most likely aspergers. in reality, its both, the decay of society in new york further alienated a man who already had trouble connecting with people. its really interesting to watch bickle as he tries over and over to understand people, human emotions, and verbal cues. he takes shepherd on a date to the movies, except they go to a porno, much to shepherd's dismay. travis' defense to his movie choice is "i don't know movies", which, understanding the character of bickle, is completely plausible. he didn't know which movie was socially appropriate to take her to, so he took her to what he knew and that was porn. bickle's further inability to connect and understand people further isolates him from a society that is spinning out of control and ultimately leads him down the dark path to the movie's finale.

michael scott, steve carell from "the office", and leslie knope, amy poehler from "parks and recreation", also suffer from this derangement that bickle does, albeit to a different extent (i couldn't see michael ever wanting to assassinate a presidential candidate!). neither of them understand how society works, pick up on verbal, physical, or emotional cues, and generally have a tough time acting like normal people. but that is not all they share with bickle...

admittedly, had taxi driver not been on TV wednesday night, i never would have made this connection, so i guess i have that horrible kate ascher project to thank for this (man, did that thing suck! i have never gotten something more wrong in my life!). one of the most curious things about bickle is his diet, which consists mostly of sugar and brandy. when he and shepherd get coffee on their first date, he orders a slice of pie with melted cheese on top (in his words, a "perfectly sensible choice). later on in the movie we see him making a breakfast consisting of sugar, milk, and brandy (had it been allen's coffee brandy that would have been perfect). pretty gross, right?

well, in addition to sharing bickle's aspergers, they also share his fondness for sugary foods. in last night's "parks & recreation", knope is seen twice eating waffles with whipped cream, and in last night's "the office", michael, in response to pam's request for some coffee, hands her a thermos and says "sugar & milk". pam accepts, thinking that its coffee with sugar and milk, but nope, its just sugar and milk! michael then goes on to say he drinks this every morning. yum.

so what am i trying to say here? that michael and leslie are going to team up and attempt to assasinate senator palantine? that they are going to go all urban commando and rescue jodie foster from the hands of harvey keitel, the pimp? well, no, but there are some eerie similarities here, both about the characters' mental faculties and their taste for sugary foods. i wonder if the producers/directors of both "the office" and "parks and recreation" were aware of this. it seems like too much of a coincidence to me for it to be random. i am also surprised that no one on these here internets has made the connection between michael and bickle (leslie knope has only been around for a month, so it will take some more time to get to know her), and as they say around these parts: FIRST!

travis bickle:michael scott: leslie knope::sugar&brandy:sugar&milk:waffles & whipped cream

FIRST!

as far as i can tell, i am the first person on the Internet with this idea.

had taxi driver not been on TV last night, i never would have made this connection.

ill explain more...