Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

I think I’m beginning to make a hobby out of countering Michelle Malkin’s lapses in logic contentions. Today, she linked to a story about released French hostages. Consider the basic facts of the story:

A French journalist who was held hostage in Iraq for five months says she was beaten by her captors.

Speaking at a new conference in Paris, Florence Aubenas said she was kept blindfolded in a basement cell that measured 4m by 2m (13ft by 6ft).

She said she was beaten after being accused of speaking to a cell mate.

Ms Aubenas was forced out of her car in Baghdad on 5 January, along with her guide, Hussein Hanoun al-Saadi. They were both freed on 11 June.

Mr Saadi was reunited with his family in Baghdad. Ms Aubenas, who is a senior correspondent for Liberation, was flown home to France.

What’s the lesson in this story? Terrorists are despicable. They’ll beat hostages for allegedly speaking to a cell mate. They’ll hold hostages captive in a basement. They’ll subject them to mock trials. Most importantly, this is the lesson reported by the BBC, which any right-thinking conservative will tell you is one of the biggest pushers of the Liberal Agenda&#153. Yet, the BBC reported this with objective facts that are easy to interpret. Again, terrorists do Bad Things.

So what does Ms. Malkin focus on? Consider:

TERRORISTS HEART THE FRENCH

Terrorist farewell gifts for a recently released French kidnapping victim:

Two rings and a bottle of perfume.

The French hostage reported that one of her captors offered her gifts at the same time he returned her belongings. Rather than discounting the significance of this as either a crush or a goodwill gesture or a hideously presumptuous guard, Ms. Malkin decided that this was the lesson: We hate terrorists, terrorists like the French, we hate the French. All with the specter of hating the Liberal Agenda&#153, I presume.

How ridiculous. From reading her blog, I understand that she wants us to realize that terrorists are bad, we’re fighting terrorists, and we can’t waiver in our commitment to the task. Ok, got it. I even agree with it, despite not casting my vote for George W. Bush last November. Yet, she doesn’t use this as an example to further illustrate who the real bad guys are in this war. She takes another hysterical jab at Those Who Are Against Us because they don’t agree with and condone every action we take. That’s stupid logic.

Until we stop throwing around this nonsense and presenting the “with us or against us” mentality, we’re going to be mired in the problem rather than striving closer to the goal. America is founded on belief in the moral correctness of our ideals and the ability to dissent in an effort to stretch the moral correctness of our actions closer to perfection.

You know, because it matters not really

God bless the staunch conservative mouthpieces bloggers who look out for the good people.

In yet another lapse in logical causality thinking, Michelle Malkin points her readers (of which, I am strangely one) to this story about Rosie O’Donnell’s guest appearance on Friday’s episode of The View. Ms. Malkin quoted the article’s recap of Ms. O’Donnell’s remarks concerning breastfeeding and a recent “nurse-in”. Consider:

O’Donnell Halted Her Partner’s Breastfeeding

Comedienne Rosie O’Donnell banned her partner Kelli Carpenter from breastfeeding their daughter Vivienne just a few weeks after she was born–because she was jealous of their bonding sessions. Kelli gave birth to Vivienne in 2002, and the lesbian couple have been raising her along with their three other adopted children.

But O’Donnell admits she felt left out of the motherhood process whenever she observed her partner nursing their child.

She says, “Kelli only nursed for like a month and then I was very angry.

“With the other babies, nobody nursed because they were adopted. But with this baby she was the only one getting to bond, so I was like, ‘The nursing is over!’ I cut her off.

“I’m like, ‘You’ve had your limit, honey, no more!'”

I watched the clip (watch it here) and she did say those things. While I think she was being dramatical for the sake of television, knowing that the people who watch The View would not likely jeer her comments, I concede that it was stupid. Ms. Malkin correctly attacks Ms. O’Donnell’s “selfish, psycho comments”. I’ll even add to that how absurd Ms. O’Donnell’s comments were because, given that her partner is the biological mother, Ms. O’Donnell is in the role of the father. Men don’t get that bonding, yet somehow the term “daddy’s girl” is familiar to everyone. So, yeah, Ms. O’Donnell is selfish, putting herself above the child’s needs (if she didn’t exaggerate the truth for dramatic effect, though I don’t doubt she’s “me, me, me”).

But. How does that correspond with introducing the story as “one for the Hollyweird files” and concluding with this:

Can the pathological self-absoprtion [sic] of Hollywood be illustrated anymore clearly?

You know, because Rosie O’Donnell is the sole spokesman for parenting skills and decisions for anyone who has ever worked in Hollywood. This is ridiculous. Ms. Malkin should have challenged her comments and then explained why “forbidding” nursing is wrong. And then, she should’ve stopped. But Ms. Malkin can’t do that. Everywhere she turns there is some further proof of the Liberal Agenda&#153, which dictates that all people must be brainwashed into collectivism, self-absorption, and homosexuality. (I’ve written about this here and here.)

I do envy her, though, because I imagine she has much free time. Ignore the likelihood that she uses this free time to sniff out the tyranny of the Liberal Agenda&#153, she still has lots of free time that most of us don’t. I know this because I think of those moments I spend evaluating each individual news item/circumstance/whatever to determine the truth and insight it reveals. How much easier it must be for Ms. Malkin to see the headline “Rosie O’Donnell Halted Her Partner’s Breastfeeding” and immediately know it’s the Liberal Agenda&#153. Oh, cursed objectivity, you are my life’s bane.

I thought perhaps I read too much into the post, but I know from reading through the trackbacks to her entry that I did not. Not because there is so much hatred for the Liberal Agenda&#153 in the post as much as what she spews regularly. There is an overwhelming “with us or against us” absolutism in much of her thinking, which permits every basic fact to represent the Path of Righteousness&#153 and its obvious triumph over the fallacy of the Liberal Agenda&#153. The trackbacks to most of Ms. Malkin’s “liberals are destroying America” posts include nonsense such as this blog:

Here’s yet another reason why it’s dangerous to exchange natural relations for unnatural ones. The family unit is being torn apart and Hollywood embraces it. This is enfuriating [sic].

That logic is solid, because any time one member of a community does something stupid or illegal or immoral or {insert other obvious bad Liberal quality here}, that person represents everyone in that group. Right, because every priest who molests an altar boy indicates the problem with every member of the clergy. And every doctor who abuses drugs reveals the heavy burden to which every doctor succumbs. And every pro athlete who crashes his car after beating his wife while drunk with his penis in another woman is proof that athletes are poor role models and should be mocked, shunned, and shamed for existing. How much easier life must be for those who have found that ideology trumps the mind’s flexibility.

I hope the Kool-Aid&#174 tastes really good because there sure is some mass consumption happening.

I spent 75&#162 on this entry

KipEsquire at A Stitch in Haste points to this article concerning New Jersey’s newly announced ban on junk food in school lunches (to take effect on Sept. 1, 2007).

Under the New Jersey plan, soda, candy and foods listing sugar as the first or principal ingredient will be banned from school cafeterias. Snacks and drinks with more than eight grams of total fat per serving and two grams of saturated fat will be banned, and cafeterias will have to restrict amounts of foods with trans fats.

The only beverages that can be served in amounts of 12 ounces or more will be water or milk with 2 percent fat or less.

I’m not going to focus on the merits of this proposal because I don’t really care much. It’s a noble goal that will go horribly wrong because the government wishes to dictate that people make responsible choices where they don’t wish to do so. It’s especially absurd because it involves the state’s power over minors, a group that obviously has no political power to object. Also, parents form their child’s eating habits, so anything that doesn’t influence the prior learning before forcing the change, and I can think of little government intervention that would, will fail. I suspect the typical reaction will mimic this (not surprising) response:

“I think it’s whack,” Malcolm Jones, 13, an eighth grader at South Orange Middle School, said while munching on a baked chicken patty sandwich. A carrot stick sat untouched on his plate. “They took away French fries, pizza, all the good stuff. A lot of students aren’t happy.”

Anyone believe that kids won’t find a way around this? Administrators and teaches will spend more time confiscating junk food contraband than educating kids. So, no, I have nothing to add to that debate that isn’t obvious.

I do wish to comment on this quote, though:

Robert Earl, senior director of nutrition policy for the Food Products Association in Washington, D.C., said there were flaws with the plan because it excluded many foods that children want and need as part of a whole diet.

“Things like cheeses, nuts, peanut butter, flavored milks and normal foods that are part of a healthful diet could be excluded,” Mr. Earl said. “It seems like the better objective is perhaps having a lot of variety instead of restrictions.”

Education and choices? Oh, why would we do that? We don’t put children in school to learn to think. They’re in school to learn how to take directions. Duh.

But again I digress. What really bothers me is that Mr. Earl mentions flavored milks as “part of a healthful diet”. How are they healthful? Aside from the obvious arguments that humans are the only species to drink the milk of another species and milk does bad things to the human body, how is adding flavors to milk going to keep make it healthy? Consider this explanation of flavored milk by the National Dairy Council:

In general, flavored milks are milks to which a sweetened flavors such as cocoa or cocoa powder, strawberry or vanilla extract has been added, along with a sweetener such as sucrose or high fructose corn syrup.

No doubt every nutritionist recommends a minimum daily intake of high fructose corn syrup. That’s why we’re being propagandized marketed flavored milk from many different angles. Consider:

Besides the great taste, pediatricians agree that flavored milk is a nutritious beverage for children. This same survey also revealed that 100% of pediatricians agree calcium is important for children’s growth and development and 93% said that children are not consuming enough calcium in their diets. Many children agree that they would drink more milk if it were flavored, and a recent study shows that children who drink milk with their lunch consume more calcium for the entire day! Not just for kids, milk, including flavored milk, has an excellent nutrient profile, and, along with other dairy products, is the major source of calcium in the diet. Government data indicates that most of us fail to meet our daily calcium recommendations as set by the National Academy of Sciences. This can lead to bone fractures early in life and eventually osteoporosis. Why shouldn’t we add a little “flavor” to our lives!

That’s a hard-hitting study. 100% of pediatricians agree calcium is important for children’s growth and development. Who knew? Blah, blah, blah. There’s more debunking I could do on the facts, as presented so far, but that’s for another day. What I will do is a little experiment, based on this comment from Dayle Hayes, a registered dietician:

Flavored milk does contain added sweeteners. However, the amount of sugar in most flavored milk is significantly less than the amount in regular soft drinks.

Really? That’s good. We should make flavored milk the staple liquid to quench every thirst. But just to be sure, let’s look at the labels, okay? Okay. Here is the nutrition label for Horizon Organics Vanilla Milk. Here is the nutrition label for Nesquik Vanilla Milk.

One has 29 grams of sugar, the other has 30 grams. They’re basically even. And to get that fine flavor, they both use sugar. And Nesquik is better because it uses the high fructose corn syrup and artificial flavors. Mmmmmm. Nutritious. At least they’re use considerably less sugar than soft drinks. I hesitate to even think of the sugar content of soft drinks. But I must suffer for my art, so I purchased a 12 oz. can of Coca-Cola to read the nutrition label. (Coca-Cola doesn’t make it available on the web. Wonder why?) I took this picture of the Coca-Cola nutrition label.

Right, the less sugar argument is true because that can of soda has 39 grams of sugar. And yet, I don’t feel like that’s true. Why is that? Could it be that the soda’s 39 grams of sugar is in 12 oz. of soda, versus the 30 grams of sugar in 8 oz. of flavored milk? I didn’t major in calculus, but I think I can do this math. The soda has 3.25 grams of sugar per oz. The flavored milk has 3.75 grams of sugar per oz.

I haven’t had a soda in years, so I’m not promoting soda as an alternative to milk. But the argument that flavored milk is a good choice is absurd. For example, a serving of flavored vanilla milk has the same sugar content as a Snickers&#174 bar. Yet, it’s so much easier to believe the marketing from the government and dairy producers that milk is a great food. Really, they wouldn’t market lies. They wouldn’t pay legislators to legislate milk over soda water. Would they?

So, no, I have no faith in the state of New Jersey to get th
is plan right.

Mind your own business

I don’t know who Googled “mike lieberthal homosexual“, but you’re not going to find that sort of gossip here. I don’t have any insight into his sexuality, nor do I care. Isn’t it good enough that he plays catcher for the Phillies and does his job? Besides, I doubt his priorities include him Googling “john doe dumbass” to find out about you, so why do you care? Go watch television or something.

Adam & Eve owned a butcher shop

Sometimes a news item comes along that makes me angry. I may rant at many stories, but this article’s nonsense is beyond anything imaginable. So, even though the article is more than three months old, I’m still going to comment on it.

I’m a vegan. I’ve written a little about that in the past, but not much because I don’t care to preach to anyone. I think it’s the right choice, but I know most won’t agree. So be it. If you’re interested, I’m more than happy to give you information about why I choose veganism. Basically, I subscribe to the “Don’t tell, unless asked”. Most carnivores don’t want to know, believing that ignorance is bliss. Fine, enjoy. However, I expect the same because yes, I can get enough protein and no, I don’t really want a burger. I don’t even sneak them when no one is looking, even though I know many don’ t believe that. Somehow, I survive.

A few months ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science held its annual meeting. One topic was veganism and whether or not its healthy, appropriate, or ethical for children. Professor Lindsay Allen, a US scientist with the US Agricultural Research Service. (The ARS is part of the US Department of Agriculture.) Those credentials seem impressive, but this is what she had to say:

“There have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, their babies are born small, they grow very slowly and they are developmentally retarded, possibly permanently.”

Really? Hmmm, maybe she’s on to something. I’ve read the exact opposite in almost every book I’ve read in the last eleven years, but perhaps she’s studied more. I want to know more.

“If you’re talking about feeding young children, pregnant women and lactating women, I would go as far as to say it is unethical to withhold these foods [animal source foods] during that period of life.”

Unethical? That strong? What would be better? Blue Kool-Aid&#174 drinks? That occurs naturally in the wild. Chocolate milk? Ditto. I can’t count the number of times I’ve driven by a pasture only to witness three, sometimes four children suckling the teat of some grateful dairy cow. She nurses them so well, it’s stunning to think that, not only did she not give birth to those children, they’re not even the same species. Yet she cares so much. Cows are cool.

Professor Allen’s studied enough to know this. She’s even done studies. Consider:

Research she carried out among African schoolchildren suggests as little as two spoonfuls of meat each day is enough to provide nutrients such as vitamin B12, zinc and iron.

The 544 children studied had been raised on diets chiefly consisting of starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean staples lacking these micronutrients.

This meant they were already malnourished.

Time to interrupt this just to emphasize that point. The children were already malnourished. Remember that as the story continues.

Over two years, some of the children were given 2oz supplements of meat each day, equivalent to about two spoonfuls of mince.

Two other groups received either a cup of milk a day or an oil supplement containing the same amount of energy. The diet of a fourth group was left unaltered.

The changes seen in the children given the meat, and to a lesser extent the milk or oil, were dramatic.

These children grew more and performed better on problem-solving and intelligence tests than any of the other children at the end of the two years.

Adding either meat or milk to the diets also almost completely eliminated the very high rates of vitamin B12 deficiency previously seen in the children.

Look at how completely the oil aspect dropped from the conclusion, but no matter. The point is obvious. Eat more meat and dairy. It gives the kids what they need. Damn, what an amazing elixir meat is. I’m just stunned. I would’ve never guessed that any adjustment to a nutrient-poor diet would make a difference. Who knew that consuming a variety of foods could make a difference? And I won’t mention how happy I am that Professor Allen concluded that it’s unethical to feed a young child a vegan diet consisting of vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, and oils, but it’s ethical in the name of science to deliberately withhold nutrition from a group of children known to be malnourished. I have so much to learn.

Professor Allen did make a concession.

She accepted that adults could avoid animal foods if they took the right supplements, but she said adding animal source food into the diet was a better way to tackle malnutrition worldwide than quick fixes with supplements in the form of pills.

“Where feasible, it would be much better to do it through the diet than by giving pills,” she said. “With pills it’s very hard to be certain that the quantity of nutrition is right for everybody and it’s hard to sustain.”

Right. It’s too hard to take B-12 supplements, so let’s just go to the easy answer. That’s how civilization achieved every advancement until this study, so it must work. Oh, and it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the National Cattleman’s Beef Association partially supported the study.

One final revelation in the story shows how generous developed, carnivorous nations can be. Consider:

In Africa, good results had been obtained from giving people a dried meat on a stick snack which proved both nutritious and appealing.

In two hundred years of economic and scientific advancement, the best we can do is export corn dogs?

Do the Ickey Shuffle on “Newlyweds”

Dear Nick Lachey,

Instead of writing articles in The Cincinnati Enquirer about your passion for Cincinnati sports teams, please think of your fans. They don’t want to read this:

Now, I find myself questioning some of those loyalties because of the recent developments involving the Reds and Bearcats. I’ve tried to complain to Jessica about it, but she doesn’t have a clue what I’m talking about, so I’ve written this to assuage my frustration.

I doubt your fans have heard the word “assuage”, much less the definition. Because I’m nice, I will offer it to them here. I’m going to get more Google hits with your name so I’m offering this as a public service. Context makes a difference, so I hope most people can decipher the definition without the definition, but still. I’m here to serve. Behold and learn:

to make unpleasant feelings less strong

Really, though, would it be so hard for you to assuage your fans with what they want, which is a picture of your penis?

Thanks.

P.S. Your wife can’t sing. She should stop.

Pointless rambling is fun

I hate fashion. Not in a vile, throw paint on runway models way. I see all the hip people and the new, shiny clothes they’re wearing and I just don’t care. Sure, donning the latest $100 shirt might project a better image than my $10 logo-less golf shirt, but why? That’s not who I am, or who I care to try to be. Clothes a function, not form. I’ll wear jeans or a t-shirt until it’s only presentable in a frat house and then, maybe, I’ll trash the tattered cotton (for it is always cotton over synthetic). On those occasions my clothes must leave my closet for their final destination, only then do I replace them. Usually with the same item.

This weekend I had to purchase new pants for work. While my co-workers (my brother included) go for the ever-so-appropriate “slacks”, I dart for the decidedly coolness-free Dockers&#174. Such is life. When I realized a few months ago that the edges were fraying on most of my pants, exposing the inner plastic lining, which is surprisingly sharp against skin, I dreaded the looming shopping task. Fitting rooms, a lack of pants in my size, and a abundance of pleats is enough to break me out in hives. When I found pants like what I aimed to replace, I tried them on. When they fit, I purchased two, one black, one off-white. Dark and light, that’s the motto with shirts and pants. One dark color mixed with one light color and I’m dressed. In some aspects, I’m quite the simpleton.

This morning, I wore the new black pants. Since I dress in a hurry in the morning, I don’t usually check my clothing before leaving. As long as everything is comfortable, I think nothing of any possible negatives. I should.

When I sat down on the metro this morning, I realized that my pants were covered in cat hair. That’s not unusual because, with two cats at home, I often have to run the lint brush over my clothes when I get to work to pick off the few stray hairs. What I saw this morning fell outside of the usual. My black pants looked like someone shaved the orange cat to his skin, then dipped my pants in a foul, chalky egg batter to guarantee maximum adherence before dragging both legs through the cat shavings. Twice. I had to use four sheets from the lint brush to get most of the hair off.

I remembered to brush my pants about ninety minutes after I arrived at my desk.

The slogan will include “bias” and “pious”

That liberal media is at it again. Or is it just that the conservative blogosphere has nothing better to do than obsess about how allegedly far out of touch Hollyweird Hollywood is? Either way, there’s a new target for the disdain of so many who believe that every word uttered by, for, on, or in the media is a rant against “real”, patriotic Americans. Today, that target is Law & Order: Criminal Intent. Behold the freedom-hating, indecency-loving, vile-hatred of innocuous dialogue, as recounted (with comments) here:

If you really want to be all-but guaranteed to pick up on a bit of leftist Bush bashing on television, there’s no better place to turn than to NBC’s “Law & Order” TV series. The season finale of the show featured a storyline on judicial security. Detectives think a white supremacist is involved in the shootings of a judge’s family. Here’s part of the dialogue from that show:

ADA RON CARVER: An African American judge, an appellate court judge, no less.

MAN: Chief of DS is setting up a task force. People are talking about multiple assassination teams.

DET. ALEX EAMES: Looks like the same shooters. CSU found the slug in a post, matched it to the one that killed Judge Barton. Maybe we should put out an APB for somebody in a Tom DeLay T-Shirt.

Ummm, ha ha? Really, it’s a stupid throwaway line, but that’s how people talk, stupid throwaway lines included. And I believe the point of scripted entertainment is to entertain. Do we really want dialogue to sound like this:

ADA RON CARVER: An American judge, an appellate court judge, no less.

MAN: Chief of DS is setting up a task force. People are talking about multiple assassination teams.

DET. ALEX EAMES: Looks like the same shooters. CSU found the slug in a post, matched it to the one that killed Judge Barton. Maybe we should put out an APB for somebody.

That works for me. “Somebody” doesn’t offend. It doesn’t describe either, but it doesn’t offend. And isn’t that the most important characteristic of entertainment? In business the maxim is “Cash is king.” I thought literature, a category in which screenwriting falls, the basic maxim is “Story is king.” Now I know better that the real literature maxim is “Non-offensiveness to any person’s politics, gender, sex, sexual orientation, education, ancestry, dietary considerations, disabilities, internet access, or humorlessness is king.” Really rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?

After a few incredulous comments, Mr. Boortz tries his hand at dialogue writing. Consider:

ADA RON CARVER: “She looks like she was alive when the car went off the bridge”

MAN: “Why didn’t she get out? The water is only four feet deep here.”

CARVER: “Dunno. Maybe she was dazed. The door might have been jammed. Anyway, she suffocated. Lack of air. Must have been a brutal death.

MAN: “Was she driving when the car went off the bridge?”

CARVER: “Doesn’t look like it. The seat is too far back for her to have been driving. Looks like someone taller .. a lot heavier.”

DET. ALEX EAMES: “Check the car to see if it has a Ted Kennedy bumper sticker.”

Guess what? I caught the meaning. You know, that the evidence doesn’t add up to the alleged facts. Isn’t that what good writing is supposed to convey? But somehow, I don’t understand how that conveys that the hypothetical suspect is a crazy, moonbat, left-leaning, liberal elitist. I just don’t make that connection. But, of course, when it comes from the so-called liberal media, there’s a clear intention behind the stupid, throwaway line. As Mr. Boortz concludes:

I ask you to imagine, if you can, the outrage that would come pouring forth from the nation’s liberal media if any of those punchy little vignettes actually appeared on a network television show. We would see stories damming NBC for using that dialogue and making those references to liberal icons. But in this case all NBC did was suggest that DeLay supporters kill federal judges. That’s not bias .. that’s entertainment.

NBC did not suggest that DeLay supporters kill judges. Here’s NBC’s official position:

“This isolated piece of gritty ‘cop talk’ was neither a political comment nor an accusation,” NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly said. “It’s not unusual for L & O to mention real names in its fictional stories. We’re confident in our viewers’ ability to distinguish between the two.”

You mean viewers are smart enough to determine that the stupid, throwaway line implied that the killer might be a crazy person who took this statement as an immediate order to be carried out because Rep. DeLay stated “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior,” after judges refused to reverse the decision to remove Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube? You mean writers may take the easy way out to express their thought in an “inartful” way, just like Rep. DeLay “meant that Congress should increase its oversight of the courts.” Huh? No, I don’t believe that. It’s the liberal media. It can’t be anything else, my ideological talking point interpretation tells me so, so don’t try to convince me.

Is it really that devious? Or is there an alternate possibility? Maybe, just maybe, “Tom DeLay T-shirt” is a stand-in as a current events reference, a reference which explains the point in 14 words rather than a 3-page dissertation about public figures irresponsibly bitching about so-called activist judges and how those judges will eventually be made “to answer for their behavior”. Again, I state, isn’t that the point of effective writing? Particularly in dialogue?

If it quacks like a duck, sometimes it’s actually a sound clip of a duck, played on a computer by someone who realizes that purchasing a duck to hear a duck quack is overkill.

(Hat tip: Instapundit and my friend Will)

P.S. Mr. Boortz uses a picture from the original Law & Order, even though that isn’t the correct Law & Order for this non-scandal. Isn’t putting a misleading picture with a story a conservative argument against the so-called liberal media? I’m just saying.

I hate this show. When is the next episode?

Behold:This post has a major plot spoiler for last night’s Alias season finale. If you’re a loser like my brother, you let TiVo watch Alias last night for you. You might watch it tonight, you might not. You’ll watch it eventually, when “wedding stuff” doesn’t get in the way, as if that’s more important. I don’t care that the wedding is in eight days. Ummm, it’s Alias. What kind of fan are you? I mean, really, you won’t even suffer the indignity of seeing two naked men so that you can watch Ron Rifkin perform for two hours and meet Ron Rifkin after the show. If you’re like that, you don’t want to read this yet. Warning delivered.

I love that Alias chose to remember that the first 50+ episodes happened, contrary to what ABC might hope, but holy hell, what was that ending last night? I mean, seriously folks, what. the. fuck? Vaughn is not Vaughn? And he might’ve been/probably was/definitely implied that he was a “bad guy”? And Sydney meeting him specifically wasn’t a coincidence? My brain computes that not. How can that be?

Here’s what I know from the past:

  1. Alias is a bigger-than-life comic book.
  2. The writers know what they’re doing.
  3. No detail is too small or too far in the past to be important.
  4. This story line will be like every Rambaldi story line: ridiculously unbelievable and preposterous.
  5. I will anticipate season five like no other season yet. That’s a lot of anticipating.
  6. I will watch every episode of season five, whenever it starts. (Damn you, Ben Affleck!)
  7. I will love every bit of it.
  8. I will evangelize the brilliance of Alias to everyone I meet.

I have so many more thoughts and comments, but I need to re-watch the ending. Until then I can’t write any more.

I need a stiff drink cold slushee.