Weekly TV Thoughts: 01/25 - 01/31

This is going up ass early on Sunday because I just got back from watching the Penn-St. Pierre fight at Puddin's house and decided to try and stay up and watch the Australian Open Men's Final between Nadal and Federer live. Its never not a good match when those two meet, especially for a grand slam title, so I figure it'd be worth staying up for. Plus, it would allow me too sleep through the morning/afternoon and thereby miss the 9+ hours of Super Bowl pregame crap. Anyway, to the week that was in TV:

-24, Monday: American lives versus Sangalan lives; which would you choose? As I watched this episode, I couldn't help but be reminded of an epsisode of The West Wing. Working with a similar plot, minus the domestic terrorist threat, President Bartlet is contemplating US involvment in a civil war that is tearing apart the country of Equitorial Kundu (think Rwanda circa 1994). Its on the eve of his second inaurgural, and while working on the speech, Bartlet asks Will Bailey, "Why is a Kudanese life worth less to me than an American life?” The question was rhetorical, but Will responded anyway with, “I don’t know, but it is.” This leads Bartlet to introduce what becomes known as "The Bartlet Doctrine", which states that American forces will intervene wherever there are humanitarian interests at stake. I think it would have been awesome if President Taylor had dropped the “Bartlet Doctrine” in her reasoning for sending troops to Sangala; afterall, it wouldn’t have been the first time these two shows have referenced each other. Once, during a crisis, President Bartlet gave the order to “mobilize CTU”, and at the beginning of this season, a suspect’s lawyers were from the law firm of Gage Whitney Pace, which was is a fictional firm used on The West Wing (and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, for that matter; Aaron Sorkin likes to reuse things). Yeah, that's the kind of junk I just know.

-Fringe, Tuesday: For I second there, I thought I was watching The Ring. Watch creepy video, see hallucinations, die. Seriously folks, how many times do you need to hear it- DON'T CLICK ON POP-UPS!! Sheesh.

-Lost, Wednesday: Man, where to begin? So Charles Widmore was once on the island. That explains A LOT. His knowledge about the island and his desire to find it again... its all starting to make sense. I guess the next big question with Widmore is why he left the island in the first place. Was it his choice or was he forced to do so? We get some answers on Charles Widmore and all it does it create more questions. Well done, Lost. Next, I loved the connection they made with Locke and Richard Alpert, explaining why Alpert came to see Locke as a child. I guess it was the compass that Locke was expected to pick during Alpert's little test. Now, the H-bomb. I've read that its supposed to play a big role in the story this season, so I wonder what that is. One theory out there is that the bomb gets buried in the location that would eventually become the Dharma Swan Station. Did pushing the button every 108 minutes keep the bomb from exploding? No idea, but stranger coincidences have happened. Which brings me to the last major point of the episode- the introduction of a new character named Ellie. Lots of chatter on the interwebs about her. Check it- Faraday says that she reminds him of someone he knew. The obvious choice given in this episode as to whom he is refering to is Theresa, the girl Faraday incapaticated by messing with her brain. But that, like communism, was just a red herring. So who was Faraday refering to? The rumor de jour is that Faraday was talking about his mother, who has already been rumored to be Mrs. Hawking, the lady Desmond met in the jewelry story and Ben met in the church. Her full name is Eloise Hawking. Ellie, Eloise.... its just too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence, thus I'm thinking its probably true. It would also explain why Mrs. Hawking knows so much about the island; she, like Charles Widmore, was also once living on the island. Nothing is ever incidental on Lost; everything has a meaning, everything is tied to something. I've just come to assume that everything on Lost is a Chekhov Gun.

-Psych, Friday: Just one quick note- I love that they name-checked The Mentalist this week. It reminded me of when Scrubs name-dropped Grey's Anatomy in an episode ("Its like they took our lives and put them on TV!"). The Mentalist is basically Psych plus serious.

-Battlestar Galactica, Friday: Has any character fallen as far as Feliz Gaeta? No on on the show as taking a larger fall from grace than Gaeta; at one time, he was one of the most virtuous members of the crew, always, in the end, doing what was right. But then came Baltar's trial, where he purjured himself on the stand to try and enact some revenge on Baltar. It was a low, despicable move by Gaeta, but little did we know then that it wouldn't be the worst thing he was capable of; he can now add mutiny and treason to his list of wrongs. The guy lost a leg during the last mutiny attempt- we're supposed to feel sympathy torward him; and yet I doubt there's a single BSG fan who doesn't want to see Gaeta die a slow, horrible, painful death. At this point, that's all he deserves. Loved seeing Adama and Tigh go all Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid at the end of the episode. From next week's promo, its clear that Adama lives, but you hear Zarek say that Tigh was killed. Again, like communism, I think this another red herring; he's just trying to convice the Cylons and Roslin that Tigh's dead. I think my favorite part of this episode was Starbuck's reaction to the mutiny. She's all business- no talk, no discussion, you're either with Adama or a traitor, and if you're a traitor, you die. Plain, simple, to the point. I hope its Starbuck that eventally takes down Gaeta. That would be fitting.

Final note- while I've been writing this, I've been listening to the 90's Music Choice channel, which is easily the greatest music channel available. A small sample of the songs I've heard while writing this post: Losing My Religion, REM, Free Fallin', Tom Petty (which, oddly enough, came out in 1989), Baby Got Back, Sir Mix-A-Lot, Black Velvet, Alannah Myles, Linger, The Cranberries, One Week, Barenaked Ladies... I should watch/listen to this channel more often.

Yeah, But He Never Won The French Open

As recent as last year, tennis people were willing to call Roger Federer the greatest player of all time (and it was tough to argue against). But now, the specter of never winning the French Open looks like it might tarnish his career, which isn't even over yet. Pete Sampras never won the French Open, and yet it doesn't seem to affect his legacy at all. So what gives?

That's right folks, we're talking tennis. Men's tennis.

(If this were Puddin's blog, this is probably where he'd drop a picture of a hot girl that's semi-related to the post topic, possibly Maria Sharapova, or newly-crowned French Open champ Ana Ivanovic, since we're talking about tennis. Knowing Puddin', I'm going with Sharapova. When in doubt, go with the blond.)

Pete Sampras is easily one of the top 5 greatest tennis players of all time. You make that statement, and no one's going to challenge you on it. And if they do challenge you on it, its with the line, "Yeah, but he never won the French Open." And while that's true, it doesn't seem to diminish his career at all. A record 14 Grand Slam titles, and no one really seems to care that none them came in Paris.

But they do when it comes to Roger Federer.

I thought about this over the weekend as I watched Rafael Nafal absolutely dominate Federer in the French Open final one, three, and love. Roger Federer is going to break Sampras'scareer Grand Slam record (he at 12 and could easily tie Sampras by the end of the year; would you bet against him at Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows?), and will probably end up near 20 when he retires. So why will the French Open haunt him as it doesn't haunt Sampras? Because if it weren't for Nadal, Federer would already have 3 French Open titles (and the career Grand Slam record).

To put it bluntly, Sampras sucked at the French Open. He never made the finals (NEVER!) and only made the semifinal once (ONCE!) in his entire career. So good as he was at Wimbledon, he was horrible in Paris. And that's why never winning there doesn't mar his legacy. He was so bad there over the course of his career that we was never expect to win (kinda like the Cubs- you knew I'd find a way to get baseball into this post).

But with Federer, he makes the finals (three years in a row), he just can't win it all (kinda like the Red Sox, pre-2004). And we look harsher on those that get to the end and can't finish compared to those that never get there at all, so he's seen as a disappointment while Sampras is not. As long as Federer continues to make the finals at Roland Garros, he's going to be expected to eventually win one. Sampras never had that expectation, so history will gives him a pass. And the fact that he's lost all three finals to Nadal is just insult to injury. Even for a great champion like Federer, its got to be demoralizing to know that you can beat everyone else on this surface except for this one guy (see: Franklin, Rich vs. Silva, Anderson; nice- tennis, baseball, MMA, all in one post).

It sucks, but unless he finds a way to win the French Open (and, after 3 straight losses, it has to be against Nadal, otherwise you'll get the, "but he hasn't beaten Nadal at the French" nay-sayers), he'll always be penalized for being both good enough and not good enough, all at the same time.