Jack and Bobby

Normally I'd hate to admit to watching much of anything that was aired on the WB. Take a gander for a few minutes during any weekday prime-time slot and one can obviously tell who the demographics are that they are trying to woo. Jack and Bobby was different, however. I probably was first interested in it because of the fact that Tommy Schlamme (fresh off a stint from The West Wing) was a key player. After seeing the first few episodes, though, this show was obviously a step above the WB trash (though an effort was made to bring some of that in probably as an experiment toward drawing their normal demographic -- in other words, if I'm watching the show they are hitting the wrong target). It was a documentary-style show with people looking back from 35-50 years in the future on a future President of the United States and his older brother when they were about 13 and 16, respectively. It covered, specifically, the rite of passage of the future President, Bobby, along with the family life that included his mom and his brother. It also covered a general look back on his Presidency. My description doesn't really do justice to the cleverness of the style of the show, but suffice it to say that it was a great story to see a kid battle with the culture of the times and his better judgment or human shortcomings. I see now that the show is likely to have found eternal rest. Like I said, the show had it's poorer moments which included a small percentage of the smuttiness of the typical WB show, but it had many finer moments. Unfortunately it's another small statement about the state of television in this country. It says something that this show won't survive. It shows something that this show attempted to resort to smut in order to try to survive. It says something that there will barely be a word if the show suddenly disappears from the WB lineup.

The Pope’s many names

Catholics call him Papa, The Holy Father, The Pope, The Pontiff, and many other titles. Journalists, though, have a host of other names for Pope Benedict VXI, however, and Gerard Baker wonders why they are so surprised:

Journalists and pundits for whom the Catholic Church has long been an object of anthropological curiosity fringed with patronising ridicule have really let themselves go since the new pontiff emerged. Indeed most of the coverage I have seen or read could be neatly summarised as: “Cardinals elect Catholic Pope. World in Shock.” As headlines, I’ll grant you, it’s hard to beat God’s Rottweiler, The Enforcer, or Cardinal No. They all play beautifully into the anti-Catholic sentiment in intellectual European and American circles that is, in this politically correct era, the only form of religious bigotry legitimised and sanctioned in public life. But I ask you, in all honesty, what were they expecting? Did the likes of The Guardian, the BBC or The New York Times think there was someone in the Church’s leadership who was going to pop up out on the balcony of St Peter’s and with a cheery wave, tell the faithful that everything they’d heard for the past 26 — no, make that 726 — years was rubbish and that they should all rush out and load up with condoms and abortifacients like teenagers off for a smutty weekend?

My take is that it's one thing that journalists don't get a say in, and that is frustrating to them. Shortly before the pope was elected -- I think it was the day before -- I was watching CNN and one of the journalists (this is no lie) said, "if there is no pope after the third day and the Cardinals decide to take the fourth day off we [journalists] will all be reporting about a divided church." I wish I would have gotten the name of this "journalist" but the quote motivated me to turn the TV off instantly. It just goes to show that journalists are much more interested in creating the news than reporting the news. It makes a locked-down Sistine Chapel that much more of a beautiful thing.

The Apprentice: Martha Stewart

Martha Stewart saying "you're fired?" Strange.

First Lady (sort of) driving drunk

The West Wing's First Lady was arrested for driving under the influence.

A West Wing What-next

Patrick Ruffini has some ideas about what should happen next on The West Wing. I've said many times that I'm a huge fan of the show. I'm not a fan of Martin Sheen nor many of the other bleeding hearts on the show. But the issues are great and even though the liberal one seems to win out in almost all cases (though they did have a school voucher program in D.C.!), both sides are presented albeit in a slanted fashion. I'd hate to see this show go away as it is one of the few that raises a wide range of issues, from foreign policy down to what the smallest event's impact on the economy. It would be nice to get the "other side" of the issues for a few years, at least, while the show winds down into oblivion. It would sure beat the overwhelming drama that's taken over the show that was once 43 minutes of solid debate on a few issues.

Republican West Wing?

CNN.com has a pre-premiere write-up on the new season of The West Wing, and it suggests that the show could continue with a Republican taking over in office. It's interesting because a lot of people see the show as a very liberal show. The way I look at it is that it's an ideal, almost utopian idea of what our nation's leaders should be. But the show also presents an argument for the "other side" of almost all issues they deal with. It wouldn't be a drama if they didn't have some drama, in other words. So, yes, ultimately the liberal viewpoint wins out most of the time. If you consider the end result the only important measure than it can be safely referred to as The Left Wing. But you can almost see the struggle for the writers (and particularly when Aaron Sorkin was still holding the pen) because often times you are left saying "yeah, but the other way would have been smarter." I think the show does a pretty good job of presenting the ideals, and I think that's something that is lost in real-life politics and quid pro quo that real-life politics entail. In reality our government doesn't make decisions because they are the right decisions. They make decisions because they think there is something "in it" for them or their people. In any case, I'd hate to see this show go away. On the other hand, the play between the very strong characteristics of Jed Bartlet cannot be lost or the show will be lost. Things such as Bartlet's Catholicism butting heads with his political decisions are things that a show about ideals needs. In other words this show would, for lack of a better word, suck if a wish-washer like Kerry were the main character. There would be no battle within other than "what do the polls show?"

The Brady Bunch

There is a very interesting and funny article in today's USA Today about a Brady Bunch reunion showing on TV Land Sunday evening. You gotta love The Brady Bunch.