Bob

I know this will be of interest to some of you...namely Jeffro.
It appears Bob Dylan has a new album coming out, and you can listen to it free for at least a week on NPR's Web site. Here's a link to an MSNBC story with details.

Oh, imagine that, MSNBC and NPR sharing stories...lefty pinko commies

Look who I found

He was hanging out at the Goodwill here in Harrisonburg. He's the long-lost brother of Ribbons! So I took him home to stay at my place. Funny who you run into when you're not expecting it.

LOST

I borrowed season 1 of ABC's LOST from Greg and Sarah Mac a few days ago. I polished off the 24th and final 1st season episode today. This says 2 things:
1) I've had nothing better to do with my days than sit around and watch four-year-old tv
2) The show is VERY addictive

Now, that is not to say the show does not have its flaws (both continuity and literary). And I'll share a few of my thoughts on those topics in a Jeff/Fukakai-reminiscent style. But the reality is, I very much enjoy the show and am eagerly awaiting the arrival of season 2 (and 3-4) to watch. I'm sure I'll be able to catch up before the 5th season premiere, TBD in early 2009. So don't expect a complete lambasting...

My thoughts, both positive and negative, randomly as they come to me:
-For being a series based on one of the most familiar concepts in pop culture (shipwrecked/crashed transport of person/people on a stranded island), the show is quite innovative and fresh. Creator/producer JJ Abrams uses several non-traditional techniques to set this show apart from what is typically seen on tv these days.
1. Cast--something on the order of 14 or so main characters appear in the first season. That's certainly more than most shows. And, for the most part, the ensemble's members are at least passable actors, if not good/very good. The standout to me is Terry O'Quinn (John Locke). Not only do I like him because I've seen him in real life (his brother, Tom Quinn, teaches theatre at my alma mater IWU), but he does a very nice job in slowly revealing the mystery of his character. Matthew Fox (Dr. Jack Shepherd) is ok. I read that originally, Shepherd was to appear only in the pilot, but ABC execs liked Fox so much, they insisted he remain in the show. And he is now the central protagonist. I also like Naveen Andrews (Sayid ?) and Josh Holloway (Sawyer). Evangeline Lilly (Kate) is cute and charismatic, both on show and in real life. The lower caliber actors are Harold Perrineau (Michael Dawson), Ian Somerholder (Boone) and Maggie Grace (Shannon). It's clear the latter two are on the show simply to be eye candy, though their storyline is also fresh for TV. I'm a little wishy washy on Dominic Monaghan (of LOTR fame). I'm not sure if it is him or just his character, Charlie, which has grown tiresome over the course of the season. I'm also fairly impressed with Daniel Dae Kim's ability to translate to the screen in a human way while speaking only Korean (often subtitled). And child actor Malcolm David Kelley is surprisingly passable as 12?-year old Walt. Jorge Garcia is pretty funny as the fat guy (Hugo/Hurley), and his storyline is pretty intriguing, but neither is extremely special.
2. Sci-fi/Supernatural element--It's not surprising that Abrams, who also was involved in some aspect with other borderline sci-fi pieces Alias, MI3, Armageddon, Cloverfield and the to-be released 2009 Star Trek movie, would want to incorporate a supernatural element. There are several actually. And for the most part, each is compelling. Of course, beside the requisite Christian themology and the technique of leaving the mysterious possible inhabitants of the island as "others" (even naming them that), the general encounter with the supernatural usually boils down to fate. That's ok.
3. Narrative structure--The structure of each episode is almost always basically the same: a cold opening, followed with the main story of the episode, which typically features one character's conflict on the island interspersed with a mirroring storyline from his/her previous, pre-flight life, plus peripheral action that moves the overall series arc. The show does not shy away from metaphor or foreshadowing. I appreciate a show that attempts a little deeper narrative arc than simple situational resolution in each episode, though there is no doubt at times the metaphor is obvious or even trite. It is TV after all, not Shakespeare (thankfully). And I've never found it unbearably so. For the most part, the stories are fresh, applicable in today's world, and mesh well with the overall arc. However, the basically unchanging format does get a bit wearing, but again, it is not unbearable. Again, the storyline I find most intriguing is Locke's. Rife with both metaphor and foreshadowing, as well as a nice mix between human drama and the supernatural.
4. Perhaps the most grating part of the series is that most of the interpersonal conflict could be avoided simply by people not being conversationally inept and most of the action drama avoided by simply making sure other people, including an 8-months pregnant girl, do not wander off alone into the jungle. Simple tasks, yet nearly each episode's main arc is driven by either one or both of those elements. The interpersonal conflict is made bearable by allowing yourself to interpret, as the writers wish, the lack of communication as a side effect of an individual's hubris or desire not to divulge much about their (mostly sordid) past. That's another point. It is totally unlikely that so many people with such incredible life conflicts would be gathered on one plane. But I guess that's fate.

A shout out to my Veeps

So, now that McCain has made up his (senile) mind for a VP, I can evaluate both Dem and Reep Veep picks.
First, Biden:
Positives
-Definitely brings gravitas. His white hair and white shirt/straight tie image carry a palpable air of distinguish-ment. But said white shirt also appears to be the right fit for a guy willing to roll up the sleeves for a hard job.
-Nice smile. In my 22-year-old, heterosexual perspective, Joe appears to be a nice looking man. I mean, his wife is very good looking, so he must be somewhat attractive in an old-man way.
-Foreign Policy/Washington experience. We all know his resume in the Senate, and he definitely shores up both of those, but both in such ways as to not bolt him into the “Washington insider” shade of darkness. His message the whole campaign has been Change, and his record appears to follow that as well. His handling of the Georgia situation (possi-/prob-ably done in conjunction w/ Obama’s camp) projects well with Obama’s message.
Negatives
-Despite said Senate record, no executive experience can still be brought up, though personally I think that is a fairly overblown “qualification”
-Mouth. Hailed as both a positive and negative by most, it appears that it may be more of a liability to me. Neither possible prez has shown that he has a problem with going negative against his opponent, so the role of the “attack dog” VP may not be as important. Just one slip on policy or general message can be blown up into a giant problem. And we all know he’s capable of that. The first speech was a good start though.
-Isn’t Bill Richardson. I mean, seriously, the guy’s resume makes him more qualified for the oval office than either of the candidates for the top job, let alone for the #2 job. What makes a good prez in any era? Experience in both legislative and executive branches, a knowledge of both world and domestic affairs. Well the former Congressman, governor, ambassador and cabinet secretary can check all those off. And specifically for this year, the hot topics are economy, energy, war in the Middle East, healthcare and education. Well, as governor, he’s overseen a stable economy, passed laws to help insure the health of more children, and get more money into schools. Check, check, check. As for an energy crisis, who better to help than the guy who was energy secretary back in the days when $1.20 gas was considered high!? True, the task now means more spearheading new technology than with fossil fuels, but those aren’t going away soon whoever gets the job. And remember when that other Clinton was in the White House and the Middle East was relatively peaceful under treaties originating from U.S. diplomacy. Well, just look up who was a major negotiator in the U.S. envoy. I know the guy comes off as a bumbler, but seriously, how is this guy not THE candidate?

Palin:
Positives
-Gender. Though she is about a polar opposite to H. Clinton on almost every issue, a part of me can still see some women, even avowed democrats (and male feminists I suppose), not be able to pass up the chance to put a woman in the White House when they get into the booth. And commentators from both sides of the aisle have pointed out her beauty pageant good looks (I don’t see it). Won’t get the 25% of Hillary supporters Fox Noise has promised, but will get some.
-Crazy Conservative. Could help shore up the conservative vote and get the churchees to the polls. Her stances against gay marriage and abortion (the two carrots always dangled by the Reeps) have been 100% against all the way. Her family, complete with a Down’s syndrome child and a 17-year-old mother-to-be are a poster family for anti-abortion. So much so, I think, that any flap over the unwed-mother daughter thing is negated. She apparently even owns and AK-47? Wow.
-Mouth. She apparently is taking the role of attack dog, espousing the conservative viewpoint on the ticket. However, I find her accent irritating and her demeanor creepy.
Negatives
-All of the above. Lefty MSNBCers Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann were ecstatic to hear the pick of Palin. A “Dan Quayle” pick they called it. And it’s a reasonable comparison, in that they were both relatively unknown. However, her ultra-right stances and obvious unique political qualities make her even more of a target.
-Lack of experience. McCain has expressed his opinion that Obama’s 4 years in the Senate do not qualify him for the White House. But Palin’s half-term as governor of a turmoil-ridden, sparsely-populated state is good enough? It seems the Reeps have lost what might have been their most potent argument.