"Bear Feeding Frenzy" on Discovery lived up to two-thirds of its potential. There were bears, and feeding, but the show was not long on the Frenzy part.

Also, the host and producers are either liars or gigantic morons. The host - some random guy with a southern accent - spent most of the episode in a big thick polyurethane box, which the bears would occasionally investigate after checking out whatever food or bait had been set out for them. In the first segment, the host claimed that the box *should* be able to withstand such-and-such amount of weight, but that it had never been tested in the wild.

I find that extremely difficult to believe. Surely they tried throwing a chunk of meat in there and seeing if the bears could get to it. If not... seriously, why not? How stupid do you have to be?

So, "Lost." We sort of failed to watch the first 7 episodes until just recently, though we did record them on Ye Olde Tivo. We're nearly caught up. Last thing we saw was, um, somebody and another at a certain person's grave stone. Does that mean that person is dead, or could it mean that that person is merely, um, being covered up for and that this is the way for the persons visiting the grave stone to acknowledge the continuing existence of the person who is not, in fact, buried there?

Am I being deliberately obtuse? No, but hey, maybe there are other folks out there who haven't yet watched this season of "Lost" but who want to.

Also, the song referenced in the title can be listened to here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANGkn9Hddn4 There is no reason to watch the video, but the song is pretty good. EDITED: I found a better audio quality version on YouTube. There's still no point in watching the video though.

To those who are wondering what the fuck I'm yammering on about what with "The Others" and why this song lyric referenced in the title might mean something other than that war sucks, well... don't sweat it. But, explanations upon request.

So I had this little rant brewing in the back of my mind for the past week or two, because my wife watches Project Runway and they had their finale recently. I watched bits and pieces here and there, but as I sat here at the computer and listened to the finale, I kept hearing the words "wearable" or "wearability."

My initial reaction was, of course, rage: Of freaking COURSE clothes are supposed to be "wearable." People are supposed to be able to WEAR this shit, and this is what is wrong with fashion, these designers come up with insane and elaborate costumes designed to hang together for exactly 20 feet down the runway and 20 feet back, not actual CLOTHES! Why can't you assholes design CLOTHES!

RARR, I raged! Then I kept raging, screaming, "you jerks, if you're just putting together some godawful creation that couldn't be shown outside a gallery, it's not clothing, it's freaking... uh... um... art."

Well, shit. Maybe I have been looking at this the wrong way.

Maybe it's art. And, well, it's not like the stores aren't filled with actual clothes that express "wearability" so much so that it's pretty much all they've got. It's not like the selection at Wal-Mart and Target and Fashion Bee (and to be fair, at better clothing stores as well) change every season based on what happens in Milan. Haute couture is not destroying your mom's ability to buy a nice dress for your sister's graduation.

Hm. So, okay. Let's take "fashion" as its highest expression - runway shows and the like, not just stuff for everybody to wear - we're talking Paris Fashion Week, New York Fashion Week, etc. Nobody but nobody expects these creations to be sold on racks nationwide. They are there to, presumably, show off a designer's creativity.

The question: Is fashion - namely, a highly-designed piece meant to be displayed once, even if that display is on a person's body... is it art?

From the LA City College's Winter 2008 Community Services Classes catalog comes these offerings. I present it to you exactly as published, letter for letter:

SCREENWRITING WARRIORS
There are many ways to write a script. Some of them are convoluted, some are impossible to apply, and most too much time to write (then rewrite) a script quickly and well, at a professional level of craft and ready to be marketed as quickly as possible, then come learn how not of "pain yourself into a corner". This is the quickest, most direct method of creating; writing and selling a script you'll find anywhere. And you don't have to buy software or a book to do it - it's just a common sense and a practical approach.

Fee: $35
Jack Adams
One Sunday
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon

PITCHING YOUR FILM/T.V. PROJECT
Got a chance to talk about your script?  Tried to pitch-can't get it across the plate?  There's only one way to do it well, yet many ways to fail to sell. If you want to develop a bulletproof presentation (as well as elephant ride) learn the right way to pitch, get people interested, and make a deal instead of a mess. You only get one chance to make a first impression - don't blow it!  Find our how to approach, and what to expect in (and form) a pitch meeting, whether scheduled or impromptu.

Fee:  $35
Jack Adams
One Sunday
1:00 - 4:00 p.m.

I don't know why you'd spend thousands of dollars and several years learning film at UCLA or USC when you could just plonk down seventy bucks on a slow Sunday and let Jack Adams teach you how not of pain yourself into a corner.  And give you an elephant ride, apparently.  I think I'd pay 35 bucks for the elephant ride alone.

1. I was quite chuffed with the dinner I made tonight (one I've made before and crowed about before so nothing to go on about, though tonight I did add delicious fresh green beans as a side). I was going to liken my sense of being pleased with myself to the sort of low-grade yet fully satisfying feeling of a simple job well done you get when you are storing something in a Ziploc bag and you manage to not only push out most of the air but then suck so much out that it looks like you've damn near vacuum-packed the food. And then of course to achieve a perfect seal before any air can leak back in.

Then I realized that probably I'm the only one who feels that sort of satisfaction, because I'm the only one who is completely and utterly insane like this.

2. We finally watched the Family Guy Star Wars episode, and it was freakin' sweet. They even (we think, though it was hard to tell) duplicated the special effects matte in one place, where the Landspeeder is carrying Luke and Obi Wan towards Mos Eisley - the area underneath the Landspeeder (but above the shadow on the ground) is slightly lighter than the rest of the background. (Apparently this is fixed in the re-releases.)

My only complaint is that the Herbert musical number was painful. I did enjoy his rendition of "Some Place That's Clean" from Little Shop of Horrors, but this time, bleh. His voice is annoying anyway - it worked in the LSoH song, but *definitely* not this time.

Other than that, though, this was absolutely an awesome episode.

INT: A murder scene. Police officers are photographing, collecting evidence, and basically crawling all over the scene. CSI officers show up.

POLICE OFFICER #1
I can't make any sense of this killing. Why did this happen?

DAVID CARMEWSO
Looks like a case of purrrrrst-degree murder.

CARMEWSO takes off his sunglasses.

VO: YEEEEEEEEAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!

INT: A crime lab. Carmewso is eyeing some evidence, which a lab technician is holding under an ultraviolet lamp for no possible reason other than that it is easily viewable by a television camera.

LAB TECH
Hm... it looks like this guy was involved with some real dirty cats.

CARMEWSO
Dammit... I knew this was going to turn into a real hairball.

Carmewso takes off his sunglasses.

VO: YEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!


etc, etc.

1. Is it just me, or are the references on Robot Chicken getting more and more obscure?

2. It turns out that quinoa is quite tasty, at least when prepared with lemon and thyme. And apparently it's really good for you - high in stuff that's good for you, low in stuff that's not. Cool deal.

3. Our TiVo picked up an episode of Heroes and I was all excited because I thought the new season was starting, but it turned out to be an old episode. So I was sad. September 24th is the actual date for new episodes. Ah well. As I am not Hiro, I will just have to wait.

4. "Commodus" probably was a better name for an emperor before the advent of the English language. But how was the guy to know that the little island filled with savages, that his empire had already conquered a hundred years before he was born, was going to turn out to become an empire - not to mention spawning yet another empire? I mean hey, in 2000 years, after my reign as Emperor of the World and Moon has ended, the word "Eric" may come to mean "asshole" in Alpha Centaurian. I can live with that. 'Cause I'll be dead.

I've been sitting here watching the first season DVDs of Arrested Development. Damn, this was a great show.

I also notice that unexpectedly, unaccountably, bizarrely, that nobody has yet purchased Season Two or Three for me. It is inexplicable.

I suppose I can Netflix them, and probably will. Nevertheless, they'd still be a nice thing to own. Christmas is in about 4 months, people, and my birthday is a mere 7-ish months away. Don't you want to get your shopping done early¹?

Because golly gee whillikers, Arrested Development was a great freakin' show.

¹I don't actually want any of you to buy these for me right now. In fact, please don't because then I'd feel all uncomfortable, since my purpose here was to a) talk about how awesome the show was and b) amuse myself, not to beg. Anyway, I'll get it from Netflix and watch them and worry about owning them later.

This is the finest piece of investigative reporting ever to appear on television: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY

They even found stock footage of a van blowing up, to show you how it would look if something blew up.

I'm watching quiznation on the Game Show Network. It is a horrible, horrible show. I'm also not sure how it's even legal to broadcast in most areas. Allow me to explain why.

The premise: It's a live show. They put up a little puzzle on the screen. You can win a few hundred bucks if you know the answer.

The way the game works is that you text the letter "q" to a special number, and you either are selected or not to go into a pool of people they might call back on air to answer the question and receive whatever the prize money is for that question ($250 and $300 respectively so far.) Each text message costs you 99 cents over whatever you already pay to send a text, by the way. (Apparently you can also enter for free on gsn.com but you are limited to 10 entries per night, whereas people texting can continue to enter multiple times on each question to increase their chances of being called to answer the question.)

Once the puzzle has been posted, the annoying blonde host¹ paces restlessly around a set, encouraging people to call, re-explaining the rules dozens of times, and dropping so many hints about the answer that even if it weren't already ridiculously easy, only an absolute moron wouldn't know. This goes on for TEN minutes. I couldn't even stand to watch the second 10 minutes - I read for a while and let the TiVo build up a buffer so I could fast-forward through.

The questions? Heh.

So far, 20 minutes into what is apparently a two-hour show, I can only give you two examples of the puzzles:

"What's the four-letter Missing Link to these three words: Top - Sous - Iron."
"Unscramble these letters to form a movie title: HET TASF DAN HET RISFOUU."

Not exactly tough. (If you don't know, ask someone, because if you ask me I'm just going to laugh at you.)

So I guess the question is how is this not gambling, and why isn't it illegal?² Except in Vegas and Atlantic City? You're paying money for a chance to win a prize.

I can see two possible exemptions, maybe three.

1. You can enter for free, on the website, so it's all okay. This is the dodge that various product contests - since it's possible to mail in an entry instead of buying a Big Mac to get your Monopoly piece, buying a Big Mac isn't really like putting down 2.29 on a blackjack table. I suspect this is the most likely dodge.

2. There's an element of skill, since you have to solve the puzzle. Despite the heavy handed hints ("there's food involved... some people say it's a profession... the people who do it are known to wear tall hats..."), you do still have to come up with the answer. So paying to enter is no more a gambling stake than, say, the price of a plane ticket to Los Angeles to try to appear on The Price Is Right. Seems more iffy.

3. I just thought of this now when I said "illegal except in Vegas." Maybe the show is broadcast from Vegas (or Atlantic City, or for that matter from an Indian reservation), and so much like I could call a bookie in Vegas and place a sports bet, you can text your gambling stake to Nevada or where-have-you. This seems unlikely, but you never know.

So, I suppose I could go on the gsn.com website and see if they have an explanation. But I find it significantly more fun to speculate wildly without facts, and to invite you to join me in my speculations.

I'm also curious if any of you think this might be a good bet, or if it might be if the prize amount was larger. I know it's probably impossible without knowing how many people are selected for the pool, or how many people even call in on each round. But see above re: Wild, unfounded speculation.

¹She seems like she might not be quite as annoying if they'd let her stay in one place for more than 10 seconds at a time, and if she didn't have to keep repeating the same stuff over and over, and if she didn't have to keep dropping incredibly heavy-handed hints to puzzles that no person with an IQ over 75 should have a problem with³. Another example since the buffer on my TiVo has run out since I've been reading this: Vanity Plates. A sport's fan's plate: DFENZ. And now she's talking about the people in football stadiums who hold up a big D and a picket fence. Yes, they actually need someone to call and say the word "Defense," and to win 350 dollars for doing so.

²I'm not opposed to gambling, I don't really see any reason it should be illegal anywhere. But the statues do exist, and I'm wondering how it's legal under what the law is, not what the law ought to be.

³It occurs to me that this may be the genius of the show. There's a lot of dumb people out there who watch game shows and feel lame watching Wheel of Fortune when the category is "Classic Movie" and the board shows _ON_ WI_H _H_ WIN_ and they're lost; let alone how dumb they feel watching Jeopardy. quiznation, I think, is designed to make these people feel smart enough that "less than a dollar" seems like a small price to pay for the chance to seem smart on the air. Oh, and there's commercials on this show, too,so they're taking in money both ways. Most game shows only get one revenue stream. I salute the genius who came up with this idea - if you'd got it onto a broadcast network, you'd be the richest man in America in about two weeks.

Dude.

Seriously. DUDE!

So just who are the hot guys on Heroes? Click the box next to all the men you personally feel are hot. Those of all genders and sexual orientations are encouraged to vote.

SPOILER NOTE: There might be some vague spoilery contained in this poll, so if you haven't yet watched all the episodes, you may want to look away right now, and don't come complaining to me if you don't.

Poll #936133 Mmmm... Heroes
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 15

So who are the hot guys on "Heroes"?

So, if I did not already entirely *heart* Mike Rowe, I totally would have after the Daily Show interview. Dirty Jobs, y'all. It's a good show. Mike Rowe seems like a really cool guy, too.

Here's how I imagine the meeting went at Comedy Central a few months back:



HEAD OF PROGRAMMING
Well, gentlemen. It's time for a new show. What have you got for me?

EXEC #1
Well, Amy Sedaris wants to do a new show.

HEAD OF PROGRAMMING
Yyyyeaah. About that. No. Next?

EXEC #2
I'm still working on getting Dave Chappelle back.

EXEC #1
Won't he just go nuts again?

EXEC #2
At least he's not Amy Sedaris.

HEAD OF PROGRAMMING
Let's try to find somebody we can count on for more than 3 episodes. Anyway our quota of race jokes is pretty well filled with Mind of Mencia.

EXEC #2
But nobody watches that. It's stupid.

HEAD OF PROGRAMMING
Exactly. Do you want to read a bunch of complaint letters?

EXEC #1
Do you suppose we can get the Kids In The Hall back together?

EXEC #2
Oh! I know! Let's see if we can get Monty Python back together!

HEAD OF PROGRAMMING
(rubbing temples with fingers)
Graham Chapman is dead.

EXEC #2
So then forget Kids In The Hall, let's go with Monty Python! They haven't done anything in years!

HEAD OF PROGRAMMING
(vigorously rubbing temples with fingers)
I can almost guarantee you we won't be able to get Monty Python back together, okay? What else do you have for me? Something new, please.

EXEC #2
Well, I've got a pilot from the long-haired guy who was the class counselor on "Freaks and Geeks." And he was on "Gilmore Girls" a couple of times. It co-stars some guy who's been on "Reno 911" and "The Office" a few times.

HEAD OF PROGRAMMING
(brightening up)
Really? What's it called?

EXEC #2
Well, that's kind of the problem. We might need to change the title.

HEAD OF PROGRAMMING
Just tell me what it's called!

EXEC #2
Um. "The Naked Trucker and T-Bones Show."

HEAD OF PROGRAMMING
Nuh uh.

EXEC #2
Yeah huh.

EXEC #1
Look, Amy has put together a pretty good-

HEAD OF PROGRAMMING
Fine! Fine! Naked truckers! Fine! Go with it! I'll be in my office, collecting my personal effects.


And that's how shows that not one person in the whole world wants to see get on the air, kids. At least, that's how I hope it happened. It's terrifying to imagine that this show was pitched and enthusiastically snapped up by Comedy Central.

Of the two new shows we're watching this season, we've finally just now caught up with old episodes. The report:

Heroes: Hooked. Highly anticiping its return in a few weeks. This is a good show. Hopefully they'll learn from the bad example of Lost, and try to keep on track, instead of piling mystery atop mystery.

Studio 60: It was always just good enough for me to give it another episode. The penultimate episode of the most recent batch of episodes was pretty good, in fact. Again, just enough improvement to keep me going. That said, man, I sure hope he gets rid of Sarah Paulson. Harriet is supposed to be funny and a born-again Christian, Paulson is unconvincing as both. I dislike both the character and the actress. It makes me sad every time she comes on screen.

So, maybe it could be called "Studio 60 on the Strawman Strip," and I wish Sorkin would find some other way to work out his grudges against people in the industry (the stories just aren't all that interesting,) but as I keep saying with this show, it's just good enough to keep me watching. Cut Sarah Paulson out and I'd probably be a devoted fan.</i>