36. Deadwood

In their music Led Zeppelin has sung a lot of world-wide, common sense truisms, such as: “If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now. It's just a sprinkle for the May queen.” I can't tell you how many times a day this piece of advice saves me from being alarmed. But this quote, “It's been a long time since I rock and rolled”, best fits in with the tardiness (as in late, not retarded – though you have to read this entry to weigh in on that) of my posts of late. Life, kids. Life sometimes gets in the way of writing.

Let's shrug off the day-to-day weight of life and get down to why we're here, to slog upwards to the top of the mountain of television greatness. Please don't forget that I am your Sherpa guide and in this entry, we're going to make a base camp at the summit of the HBO western, “Deadwood”.

Traditional Westerns have never done it for me; I didn't like “Bonanza” or “Wagon Train” or anything starring John Wayne. The whole genre seemed a little too hokey for me; the bad guys are always wearing black hats and the good guys in white always riding to the rescue of a town. The only payment for the good guys is the faint whiff of sweet lady justice—and the ability to put holes in people without getting tossed in the clink. And the rest of the characters were equally cartoony: the damsel in distress, the grizzled prospector, the pussy-assed “law man”, the savage Indian.

All of these people had flimsy excuses for living and had even lamer reasons for doing what they did. Why is the good guy good? Why is the mayor so lilly-livered? There was never any backstory or any shades of grey in westerns; good was good, bad was bad. That's just the way it was back then.

But was it really? Of course not. The west was the last bastion of no-man's land on this planet. Men who needed a new beginning or a change from the East or who were interested in making their fortunes fled to west because everything was up for grabs out there. Like to have sex with prostitutes for 50 cents? Come out to the west. Like to drink your weight in booze? Come out to the west. Like to kill Indians or want to be the boss of a boom town? Come out to the west. Don't want to work in a factory where your arms could get ripped off? Come out to the west.

These are some of the themes that “Deadwood” delved into. This show wasn't set up like the traditional westerns of the past, and that's what was so great about it. The one thing that traditional westerns glazed over was that there wasn't any “civilized” rules in the wild west and people acted upon it. Sex, drugs, drinking, swearing, killing—these kinds of things happened every day in “Deadwood” and it probably happened every day in “Bonanza”, yet the viewers weren't allowed to see it, or hear about it. Because of this puritanical attitude that was prevalent during the majority of last century,“Deadwood” is probably the best mirror to what the real post Civil War west was like.

I know that societal mores were different when the western was the popular form of entertainment, but how could an audience not question the actions of the men portrayed in a truly free society? “Deadwood” shows the type of lawlessness that happens when man is not governed by some set of rules.

There are a ton of characters in “Deadwood”; some real, some fictional. Calamity Jane is a lesbian drunk (which makes sense if you think about it), Wild Bill Hickok starred in a few episodes before he was shot in the back; but the two characters most focused upon are Sheriff Seth Bullock and Al Swearengen. Bullock comes to Deadwood, South Dakota with his partner Sol Star to open a hardware store because he is sick of being a lawman in his home town. Swearengen is the muscle that runs the local brothel and the rest of the town (unofficially, of course).

The two square off in the first season, realize an uneasy truce in the second season—when Swearengen has to mobilize to fend off Cy Tolliver, the proprietor of even shady business dealings and a new whore house that has been cutting in on Swearengen's business. Tolliver is small potatoes compared to the menace that shows up midway through the second season: George Hearst. As Hearst makes himself home and begins to summon his men to claim this town for his own—strictly for the gold in them thar hills—Swearengen and Bullock both agree that this isn't good for them and indirectly the people of Deadwood and mobilize a counter attack.

Those two paragraphs do nothing for the intricacies of each episode as there are often four to five plot lines running concurrently that may effect each season's story arc. I believe that what creator David Milch wanted to show is that like today, the west wasn't cut and dry. These were not people who had one moral compass; even the “good guys” do things for their own selfish reasons and that doesn't make them bad. And for the most part, the bad guys (even Hearst) aren't completely and totally bad.

Hearst is set up to be the villain purely because he arrived at Deadwood a few years too late. If he had taken the initiative and Swearengen had been lax in getting to South Dakota, the roles would be reversed. Like many HBO programs (“The Sopranos”, “Rome”, “Big Love” and even “Entourage”) everything comes down to power and how you protect it. Swearengen and Bullock don't want to give up their power and will do everything they can to keep it. That means that the sheriff may have to get dirty with the pigs in some cases.

Also, it is my belief that Milch sets Hearst up as the personification of progress and change; bringing the east out west. His character was like many of the factory owners, oil or land barons of that time where they were made rich off the sweat of the working man. They were unsympathetic towards the plight of their workers and treated men like raw material. Hearst does the same thing, only in the wild west there are people to try and stop them. Ultimately, Swearengen and Bullock will learn that they can't stop progress. If Hearst is halted, then there will be another and another and another until the “civilized” world is brought to South Dakota and their lawless paradise is destroyed.

There are also themes running through the three seasons: how women were treated (poorly, but with some respect), how black people were seen following the Civil War (a lot of the western settlers were soldiers from both sides of the conflict and thus their interactions are tempered by that), how the Chinese were treated (very poorly, almost subhuman—though Swearengen was intelligent enough to strike a bond with the Chinese ghetto's leader Wu). Even issues with children, Jews, the handicapped (played by former “Facts of Life” star Geri Jewell—another terrific character is played by follow 80s sitcom alum, William Sanderson as dim witted, puppet “mayor” and hotel owner E.B. Farnum. Sanderson played Larry—not Daryl or his other brother Daryl—on “Newhart”.) and other immigrants are brought to light in this series.

There are two hurdles to jump regarding this show: the cadence and quickness of each speaker is tough to pick up during the first episode. You begin to grow an ear for deciphering what each character says, understanding Deadwood is almost like understanding a different language. The other hurdle—and this is a big one—is that show never was given a proper send off. Once the third season concluded, it was thought that despite low ratings, “Deadwood” was going to get either a full or half-season to tie up loose ends. Then it was decided that Milch was going to work on his new series, “John From Cincinnati” (which was terrible) and wrap up “Deadwood” with two movies. That never materialized either.

So unless something happens soon, we are left to wonder what happened to the all too human inhabitants mining camp that tried their damnedest to stop civilization.

2008 Boston Red Sox Pitcher's Preview

In honor of the Red Sox opening up Fenway Park for the 2009 season ... uhm, it hasn't been that long has it? Sorry about that folks, real life has been absolutely crazy the past few weeks which is why the TV countdown and the baseball previews have been stagnant.

So without more talky-talky, let's get to the reason why you guys are here; half-baked attempts at prognostication!

Starters
Daisuke Matsuzaka 15-12 4.40 – Better. For as much crap as Curt Schilling and Josh Beckett get for being hard-headed and unresponsive to suggestions from pitching coaches, Matsuzaka may be more so. All last year manager Terry Francona and pitching coach John Farrell have been begging Matsuzaka to throw his change up more often and for some reason he wouldn't. That's why he had decent, but not spectacular numbers. Do I think that he'll change his approach this year and listen to what Francona and Farrell have to say? I certainly hope so because he has the stuff to be a staff ace, I just hope he has the head too.

Tim Wakefield 17-12 4.76 – Worse. Wakefield pitched very well last year and at times he looked like Tim Wakefield circa 1995. I don't think that it will happen again this year and the main reason is that injuries are starting to nip at the knuckler's heels. He was scratched from a World Series start and opened the year on the DL. He didn't pitch very well in Toronto, though with the knuckleball things can be different from start-to-start. My gut tells me that Wakefield had his last good year in 2007 and that 2008 may be his last year period. I don't think that going from Doug Mirabelli to Kevin Cash is going to hurt him at all.

Josh Beckett 20-7 3.27 – Same. This guy was an absolute monster in the post season in 2007 and without him, Boston would've lost to the Cleveland Indians in five games. The reason why he outpitched Indians' ace CC Sabathia wasn't because he had better stuff, it's because he threw 40 innings less than the large lefty. Boston was wise to keep him off the Japan roadtrip and while it may look like he got rocked by the Blue Jays on Sunday, he really didn't pitch that badly. I expect a better performance for his next start and that will catapult him for the rest of the season.

Jon Lester 4-0 4.57 – Better. I've never really been sold on Jon Lester as a lights-out prospect. I thought that he could be a decent mid-rotation starter, not someone that you don't include in a trade for Johan Santana. Over the last two seasons, he's impressed me at times—the guy came back from cancer in less than a year and won game four of the World Series, how can you not be blown away by that. But there have been times when he's been maddening—I'm not going to say that he's Pat Rapp or Frank Castillo, but quit f*&*%$ing nibbling out there and throw the ball. His first two starts were decent, let's see if he can keep it up.

Clay Buchholz 3-1 1.59 – Worse. He's not going to throw a no-hitter every other start, and truthfully if Schilling didn't get hurt, he'd be in Pawtucket. But the kid does have electric stuff and could be the best home-grown pitcher the Sox have produced since William Roger Clemens. This kid could be a top-of-the-rotation guy, but it won't be this year. Expect to see him struggle, expect to hear people ask “What's wrong with him?”, expect to see him dominate next year.

Curt Schilling 9-8 3.87 – Worse. Like him or hate him, he's been everything the Sox asked for since they acquired him during the dark winter of 2003. He's not going to throw a meaningful inning until July—if at all—so anything you get from him is going to be gravy. Because of his pride and respect for the sport itself, I have a feeling that Schilling will pitch again in 2008, even if it's just to get the standing ovation that he richly deserves. A borderline Hall of Famer coming into the 2007 season, I think that his candidacy was cemented last October.

Bartolo Colon 6-8 6.34 (with LA Angels) – Better? One day you hear that he's topping out in Pawtucket at 96 mph, the next day he goes on the seven-day minor league disabled list. He looks like Lard Lad, but apparently his arm is ok. I have no idea what to make of this guy. If I was a betting man, I would say that he'd make a few good starts in Boston, get the fandom completely pumped up and then go on the DL with some sort of ailment. Basically he's the fatter version of Brett Saberhagen, David Cone, Ramon Martinez or any other pitcher that used to be really good and then came to Boston on the backside of their career.

Relievers
Jonathan Papelbon 37 saves 1.85 – Worse, but not much. The only reason why I say he's going to do worse is because of that ERA. Look at it. That's amazing. Can he do that for two straight seasons? It's a tall order, but if anyone on this staff can do it, it'll be him. The one thing that I'm worried about is if success has gone to his head. Going on David Letterman, offers for “Dancing With the Stars”, hanging out with the Dropkick Murphys—you saw what happened to Ricky Vaughn. I wish more people would realize that “Major League” was a cautionary tale and NOT a comedy.

Hideki Okajima 3-2 2.22 – Worse. Like Papelbon, how can Okajima be much better? For the first four months of the season, the guy was lights out. Then he got very tired, was rested and came back strong for the postseason. Say what you want about Mike Lowell, David Ortiz and Beckett, but Okajima was the MVP of the season. But he's not going to get a lot of pub for that, and that's ok because he likes being the “Assassin in the Dark”, which is a nickname that the inner comic book geek in me loves. That being said, he'll have another solid year but it won't be as great as 2007.

Mike Timlin 2-1 3.42 – Worse. This has to be it for Timlin, right? He's coming up on his 20th season and that's a bit old for a middle reliever. I think that the 2007 stats belie his effectiveness though as Timlin had a decent year, but he wasn't as good as his numbers say. I'd expect a few more trips to the DL and some worse numbers, but like always, he'll be effective.

Manny Delcarmen 0-0 2.5 – Better. A lot of responsibility is being dumped on Delcarmen's shoulders this year as the front office wants him to be the new Mike Timlin—ie the guy who gets to either Okajima or Papelbon. And with the first few games already in the books, that little experiment isn't turning out the way that the front office intended. Hopefully it's just the jet lag and not the winter spent being the toast of Jamaica Plain.

Javier Lopez 2-1 3.10 – Same. Lopez is a strange cat, he's a LOOGY who can't get left-handed hitters out, but is nasty on righties. Do you waste a roster spot on him hoping that he gets his act together and use him against right-handed hitters? Or do you send him away and pray that you can find someone that can get lefties out? I think that Francona is the type of manager who likes what he has and stays with it, instead of beating the bushes to see if he can get someone better.

Bryan Corey 1-0 1.93 – Worse. He only pitched a handful of innings last year and so far this year, he's thrown just as well. However, he's not going to keep that sub 2.00 ERA. He's a good back of the bullpen type of guy. You can't worry much about your 10th or 11th guys on the pitching staff, otherwise you'd go crazy.
David Aardsma 2-1 6.40 (with Chicago White Sox) – Same. And here's your 11th pitcher. There are times when he throws extremely well and times when he's should be boarding the Lou Merloni shuttle to Pawtucket. The problem is he doesn't have options left and the Sox like him. They like him so much that they DFA'ed Kyle Snyder last week instead of Aardsma. I think that says something.

2008 Boston Red Sox Hitters Preview

It's already two days into the season and I'm already horribly late with my Sox preview, as Bob Ryan (or Julius Caesar, I guess) would say, “Mea culpa. Mea culpa.”* And after splitting two games with the Oakland Athletics in Tokyo, we don't have a good enough idea about this team yet to make any strong predictions on the 2008 season.

*Quick aside, I like that way of saying sorry it sounds so, erudite. And it's a lot less whiny than “I'm sorry.” Though needed at times, people sound wussy saying “I'm sorry”. “Mea culpa” has some gravitas behind it, plus if you get a person who doesn't understand Latin, you can apologize and not lose face.

Here's what I know about the 2008 Boston Red Sox: they're going to be pretty good. How good? I'm not sure. I am 90% sure that they're going to make the playoffs. I'm about 50-50 on them making the World Series and a little less sure about them winning the whole enchilada. With that being said, I'm not sure that there is a team better than them. I just think that a lot of things have to fall into place for the Sox to take home the trophy in back-to-back years.

What I'm going to do is go through the team, position by position with last year's numbers and tell you whether the player will do better, do worse or stay even in 2008. Be warned, I don't do a lot of projections with numbers, I'm going to go off of gut feelings, what I think is common sense and trends. I will get to the pitchers on Friday.

Catchers
Jason Varitek: .255/.267/.421 – Worse. I think that 2007 was the last good year for Jason Varitek. He's 36-years-old, caught a ton of games in the last decade and he's getting older. His Spring Training stats weren't very good and he looked old and slow in the first two games of the season. Obviously two games don't make a season, but the Sox are really up against the wall when it comes to catchers. This is Varitek's last year on a four-year deal and there's no one out there (internally or on the free agent market) that's better. What do they do?

Kevin Cash: .111/.242/.148 – Better. I mean, how can he do any worse, right? For as much as I hated Doug Mirabelli, Kevin Cash is not the answer. He's a fine defensive back stop, but he can't hit for anything. That being said, you have to think that he can improve on those terrible 2007 numbers.

Infielders
Kevin Youkilis: .288/.390/.453 – Same. Had a break out year last year, and like the three years prior faded down the stretch. Though he did rebound hugely in the post season and is one of the main reasons why the Sox won the Series. I'm hoping that Sean Casey will spell Youkilis a lot this summer and that will stop his yearly fade.

Dustin Pedroia: .317/.380/.453 – Worse. Rookie of the Year and began hitting at a Williamsian level after one of the crappiest Aprils ever. The reason why I say he may have a worse year is because you can't expect him to hit .317 all the time and he has to walk a bit more to get that OBP up. I wouldn't be upset with a .290/.400/.450 line. That's where I think that his numbers will fall this year, if he has a better eye.

Julio Lugo: .237/.294/.349 – Better. He can't do much worse and Peter Gammons has been banging the drum all spring that Lugo was very sick last Spring Training and lost a ton of weight, but now he's better. I hope so. I do have to say that he is batting .500 right now, which is much better than what he was doing a year ago.

Mike Lowell: .324/.378/.501 – Worse. Lowell had a monster career year last year, and I doubt very much that he'll do it again. Do I think that he's going to fall off the planet like he did in 2005? No, but I think that if he hits .280 with 20-25 bombs and 80-90 RBIs, that will be perfectly acceptable. I also think that he'll play better defensively this year than he did in the early part of last year.

Alex Cora: .246/.298/.386 – Same. Pretty good numbers for a back up infielder. Don't ask him to do too much and he'll do a good job for the club. The fact is, you can't have an All-Star at every position. I wonder if this is the year I stop calling him by his brother's name? I doubt it. There's only one Cora: Joey.

Sean Casey: .296/.353/.393 – Better, though not by much. I think that Sean Casey is going to use the wall to his advantage this year and pepper that thing with a ton of doubles. I hope that he can, so he can give Youkilis and Lowell the days off that they need to keep them fresh for the post season.

Outfielders
Manny Ramirez: .296/.388/.493 – Better, much better. Last year Manny Ramirez had pretty good numbers for someone not named Manny Ramirez. This year, I think that he's going to be the American League Most Valuable Player*. I've been reading articles all winter about how he's rededicated himself to training and is supposedly in tip-top shape. He looked monstrous in the opening series against the A's and I think it's just going to keep going from there.

* If Manny, or somebody on the Sox, wins the MVP this year or next, the Red Sox will be the only team to have a representative win the MVP in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. Not too many people are talking about this, but that's a tribute to how competitive the Red Sox have been in the last 70 years. No one really talks about this though.

Jacoby Ellsbury: .353/.394/.509 – Worse. He only played about 30 games last year, and he's still a rookie. There is no way that Jacoby Ellsbury is going to put up the same numbers he did last year over a full season. Expecting him to do this is totally unreasonable. I wouldn't be surprised if he .275 with a few bombs and 40+ steals. I'd be totally ok with that. I don't think that the banshees on WEEI would, but they're not happy with anything.

JD Drew: .270/.373/.423 – Same. Last year he told Boston Herald scribe Rob Bradford (when he was still with the Lawrence Eagle Tribune) that he spent the 2006 off season sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber—the same kind Michael Jackson sleeps in—so that he can cut down on his injuries. It sort of worked as he did play in 140 games. Problem was he hit like Jackson until Game 6 of the ALCS. What's he going to do this year? I have no idea. My gut says he'll be better, but I'm not sure. He's already begged out of the first two games with back issues. That nine hour flight back to the states should do wonders for that.

Coco Crisp: .268/.330/.382 – Same. It's about time to cut bait with Covelli Crisp. He is not the heir to the Johnny Damon centerfield throne, he just isn't. No matter how many times he teases us, he's not that guy. And that's too bad, because he had a very good year in Cleveland in 2005 and when he came to the Sox in 2006 he started out like a house afire, but then he got hurt. And that was the reason why he sucked in 2006. And the reason why he wasn't so great in 2007—though he did play a Gold Glove centerfield. And he's sort of been hurt in Spring Training.

Bobby Kietly: .231/.295/.327 – Better. Should be the fourth outfielder once Crisp gets traded or he might not want to wait around for that and demand his release in April. I have no clue what the Sox are going to do with him because while he went with the team to Japan, he was never brought on to the 40-man roster. Basically he got paid $40K to take a trip to Tokyo. Not bad work if you can get it. I do like him as he can play all three outfield positions. And he was pretty clutch in Game Four of the World Series. At least he has that on his resume.

Brandon Moss: .280/.379/.440 – Worse. If he plays, it'll be because of injury or because someone needs a break. He was the embodiment of the humbling game of baseball as he had a terrific game on Tuesday (game tying homer and two RBIs) and looked terrible on Wednesday (three strikeouts). I expect him to be a charter member of the Lou Merloni shuttle from Boston to Pawtucket.

Designated Hitter
David Ortiz: .332/.445/.621 – Same. The power numbers were there, just look at his slugging percent if you don't believe me, but he didn't hit 54 dingers. No matter, Ortiz had one of his best all-around years in a Red Sox uniform in 2007 and he did it on one knee. This year the knee is better (surgery in the off-season) and I don't see why Ortiz can't put up the same digits as last year.

Friday, the pitchers.

37. The Monkees

Though it was only on for two seasons (which is really surprising to me as I thought it ran longer than that), “The Monkees” was an important show that had long-lasting ramifications on the television industry. Though that's not the reason why I like the show. Truthfully, I have no idea whether just preteens made up the audience or whether hippies thought it was a lame attempt of Hollywood scrubbing up the late 60s love movement for middle America (though both are probably true), but it is an enjoyable show. The show's plots aren't anything special and in most cases don't make a lot of sense, but you don't watch “The Monkees” for the plot. You watch for two reasons: the music and for the band members.

This entry isn't going to be a debate about the validity of the Monkees' music. Like many pop acts, there is some good stuff and some bad stuff, but the Monkees basically were a carbon copy of the Beatles from their Help! days. They were poppy, had a slight edge to some of their songs, but mostly sang about love and trivial subjects. The group had a lot of aid from professional song writers like Neil Diamond and Carole King, which made those subjects take on a more interesting tone. And the group also took advantage of session musicians until their musical chops were built up. However, a strict judgement on whether the music is “good”or “bad” misses the point of the show.

The point was to have a weekly show that would take suburbia into the wacky (albeit safe) lifestyle of the day's youth. Aside from a few things that never show (drug use, conjugal visits with scores of groupies, legendary battles with their producer Don Kirshner) I don't think that Mickey Dolenz, Mike Nesmith, Peter Tork or Davy Jones were playing characters that were too far off from themselves. The show was also among the first to use a lot of the slang that 60s youth was using. Most important about this is that the language didn't sound stilted or scripted. It also portrayed the youth of that time as caring and centered—having a good head on their shoulders—despite media reports that the baby boomer generation wasn't living up to their parents' generation and were shiftless and lazy.

While this probably went over the heads of older viewers—if it reached them at all—this is probably the main reason why the show resonated with a lot of young people. Here was a show with young people getting by without a care in the world. The only time that a problem did enter their world was brought in by a person outside of their “universe”, normally someone from their previous generation who didn't, or couldn't, understand the world today. The Monkees normally took care of this problem through nonviolent, and often slapstick, means which resulted not in vanquishing the foes, but turning enemies into friends.

Was that the way of the world? No. But it was a television show that never made any bones that it was more cartoon than documentary.

Despite the cartoon nature of the show, there were some serious aftershocks of “The Monkees”. For one thing, it was one of the first instances to prove the power of music on television. Yes, Ricky Nelson became a heart throb to millions of girls in the early 60s after singing a few songs on his parents' show “The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet”, but the Monkees were a juggernaut that provided their audiences with new songs week after week after week. And you pair those new songs with movie shorts, interspliced with the television show (often these shorts had zero to do with the program's main plot) and kids seemed to love the song much more.

Thus, the music video was born.

And it wasn't just the music industry that was revolutionized. While “Dobbie Gillis” was the first to break down the so-called “fourth wall”—where an actor talks to the audience—the Monkees also did this and further shattered the illusion of television when the cast members would stop the action to converse with camera men and stage hands while the show was being filmed. This nonlinear form of television was also extended to drawn out dream and fantasy sequences and inserts and jump cuts. All of these innovations have had a profound impact on the television and movies that we watch even today.

No matter what the ramifications that the shows had on later television programs or any social impact that it may or may not have had, the bottom line is that “The Monkees” were a fun program. Any time you tuned in, you knew what you were going to get and that's ok. Because a show does not deviate from it's norm, that doesn't make it a bad show. This is precisely what killed the band though.

Fed up with their bubble gum image, once the show was cancelled in 1968, they along with a young actor/writer named Jack Nicholson came up with a movie called “Head”. Written over a weekend where a lot of acid was ingested, the movie's first scene opened with the band jumping off a bridge and killing themselves. It only got weirder from there. The group's core base of fans (mostly young teens) were confused as to the radical 180 degree turn the band took and rejected them.

And the group of fans that the band did want—the more serious, older hipster crowd—thought that they were a fake band that was put together by Hollywood suits. They literally were a band without an audience and with their show running (and doing well) in constant reruns, the Monkees were constantly reminded of the past and how things once were. The Monkees would break up, try solo endeavors and reunite over the next 30 years, but they always remained in America's pop culture consciousness.

For me, and other members of my generation, the Monkees were a summer TV show first and foremost, I had no idea that the group had any chart success at all. Every June, Channel 56 knew that kids were being let out for summer break and would schedule the show to run in the afternoon. And I'd be in front of the tube watching as jokes about 60s culture went flying over my head. I watched an episode recently and the group was in ghost town being held hostage by gangsters. Mickey used an old phone and was hoping to get Marshall Dillon (the erstwhile sheriff from “Gunsmoke” to help out). He got a grizzly prospector who said that there is a Dylan in town (Bob Dylan) who could write a protest song for you, but couldn't help much more than that. Interesting (and funny) juxtaposition of Bob Dylan and Marshall Dillon, but one that an eight-year-old would never get.

That's what I get when I tune into “The Monkees” now, I get to remember what it was like when I was younger and had zero responsibilities and I'm able to appreciate some witty writing. That's not a bad two-for-one combination.

2008 National League Preview

You saw my American League picks on Friday, here are my guesses for the Senior Circuit. BTW, I have always been a fan of the National League arrogance when they refer to themselves as the “Senior Circuit”. For some reason it made me laugh because even though the NL is only about 20 years older than the AL and the AL has (arguably) had more success than the NL, the National League never seemed to let the American League forget that they were around first.

I can almost picture the NL eagle saying to the AL eagle, “Sure, you have your New York Yankees and their 26 World Championships and your Boston Red Sox with their besting us in the first ever World Series, but we've been around since the days of President James A. Garfield, so suck on that American League.” Ok. Maybe I need some sort of a hallucinogenic to picture that, but you know what I mean.

National League East:

1.Philadelphia Phillies
I know that the New York Mets made a big acquisition over the winter (more on that in a bit), but I still think that the Phillies are the team to beat. The infield with Ryan Howard, Chase Utley and Jimmy Rollins is probably the best in the league. The front three pitchers of Cole Hammels, Jamie Moyer (who played with Cap Anson, I believe) and Brett Myers are terrific. If Brad Lidge comes back from injuries (both mental and physical) they could have a very good bullpen. The only weaknesses I see are outfield and manager. I've never been a Charlie Manuel guy, he reminds me too much of Grady Little, but he did get these guys to play extremely well down the stretch. Of course, they crapped their pants against the Rockies in the playoffs.

2.New York Mets
They got Johan Santana from the Minnesota Twins for a bag of used doorknobs. They added him to a nucleus of Carlos Beltran, David Wright and Jose Reyes, players who are all in their prime of their careers. Unfortunately for manager Willie Randolph, he better hope that a few other of his twilight stars like Pedro Martinez, Billy Wagner, Carlos Delgado, Luis Castillo and Moises Alou can stop father time for one more year. If that last group of guys come up empty, it's going to be a long year for the Metropolitans.

3.Atlanta Braves
Tom Glavine is back. John Smoltz is still pitching and Chipper Jones is manning the hot corner. It's like 1997 all over again, only we're not listening to Smashmouth and the Verve. The Braves do have some young talent in Jeff Francouer and Brian McCann (who is probably the best backstop in the division), but will that be enough? Obviously Mark Teixeira is going to have a monster year (he's a free agent after this season--and has agent Scott Boras chomping at the bit for another $20 million a year player) but will pitchers Tim Hudson and Mark Hampton also do well? That's the key for the Bravos, if Glavine, Smoltz, Hudson and Hampton find some magic elixir then the team will probably do well. Otherwise, it's third place. And come to think of it, that's exactly where they're going to end up, even if that foursome does find the Fountain of Youth. The bottom line is that they aren't as good as the Phillies and Mets, but they aren't as terrible as the Marlins and Nats. I don't think I've ever been more sure of a team's prediction as I am of this year's Atlanta squad.

4.Florida Marlins
Between the Marlins and the Nationals, who cares? One of them will end up in fourth while the other is in last. The Marlins have Hanley Ramirez, Dan Uggla and a bunch of kids they got from Detroit. It sucks to be Fredi Gonzalez and have to manage this dreck. The good news is that in about three years the Marlins will have a new park, a new name (the MIAMI Marlins) and maybe some new players that owner Jeffrey Loria will hold onto for 20 minutes before deciding that a profit of $25 million isn't enough. After killing baseball in Montreal and slowly bleeding South Florida dry, I think that he could be the worst owner in Major League Baseball history.

5.Washington Nationals
From what I read they have a very good group of prospects that are about a year or two away, so in 2010 they might be in the running for first place. However, it's still 2008 and I don't think that there is another Dmitri Young type surprise for the Nats. They did pick up Elijah Dukes from the Rays during the winter and if Young can be some sort of a mentor to both him and Lastings Milledge (acquired from the Mets) then maybe the Nationals can hop over the Marlins and start year one of the rebuilding a bit early. They do have a brand new ball park, so that should excite the Washingtonians for a few months.

National League Central:

1.Milwaukee Brewers
They faded down the stretch, but I think that this is the year that they go wire-to-wire for first place in the NL Central. Chris Capuano can't be that bad, can he? I think that it may be time to admit that whatever Ben Sheets gives you is gravy, because I don't think that he'll ever stay healthy for an entire season. The Brew Crew pitching staff does have Yovani Gallardo and Jeff Suppan, plus a rebuilt bullpen, so they may be ok in the pitching department. Where Milwaukee excels is at the plate: Prince Fielder, JJ Hardy, Ryan Braun and Billy Hall make up the new Harvey Wallbangers. Lots of 10-8, 11-9 contests in the Brewers' favor this year.

2.Chicago Cubs
Ok. I'm going to say it, Lou Piniella is overrated. He led the Reds to the 1990 World Series upset of the Athletics and skippered the Mariners to a 116-win season, but what has he done since then? Not a heck of a lot. The Cubs will probably be pretty good this year; much like last year where there were some periods of great play and periods of terrible play. Alfonso Soriano will be the offensive star while Derek Lee and Aramis Ramirez try to help out. Kosuke Fukudome has been brought in from Japan to help in the outfield and Felix Pie may work out too. Aside from Carlos Zambrano, there is not a lot of pitching to speak of. Chicago is second here, but they could easily be fourth or fifth.

3.St. Louis Cardinals
Speaking of overrated managers, Tony LaRusa is back for another year at the helm in St. Louis. This may be the worst team that he's had because aside from Albert Pujols, there isn't a lot of guys that can score runs. And Pujols may need Tommy John surgery soon. Let me amend that, the Cards do have Mitchell boys Troy Glaus and Rick Ankiel and if they're taking their vitamins, maybe there will be some firepower in the midwest. Aside from that, it's going to be a long season pitching wise as Chris Carpenter, Joel Piniero and Mark Mulder are all starting the season on the shelf. It got so bad they had to sign Kyle Loshe.

4.Cincinnati Reds
This is going to be a very interesting year as baseball's Holy War may come to somewhat of a conclusion. I think that Cincinnati is just mediocre enough that going to one of baseball's dueling philosophy (stats vs. intangibles) may push the Reds to being something better than they are. On one hand we have the anti-stat guy managing the squad Dusty Baker. He's all about blood-and-guts, old school baseball. He thinks math is something that you learn and forget in high school and is certainly not to be used on the diamond. Baker has told his troops that he wants them hacking away and not trying to work walks, because walks “clog up the basepaths”. Now, if the Reds do well and exceed expectations, it might be safe to say that Baker does know what he's talking about and that the number crunchers might be clueless. However, if the Reds suck, then it's Baker who's clueless. I'm putting my money on the latter scenario taking place.

5.Pittsburgh Pirates
I'm going to be honest, there's not a lot I can say about the Pittsburgh Pirates other than that their ball park looks awesome. I do know that they're trying to sign Ian Snell long term and that their biggest off-season acquisition was Byung-Hyun Kim. Freddy Sanchez is going to hit and play a decent second base, Adam LaRoche and Jason Bay are going to try and have bounce-back years. And other than the perfectly average Tom Gorzelanny, there's not much else in the Iron City. And that sucks. In retrospect, I guess that they should have signed Barry Bonds instead of Andy VanSlyke. Live and learn.

6.Houston Astros
Roy Oswalt, Lance Berkman, Hunter Pence and Carlos Lee. In that order are the best the Astros have to offer, and that's not a lot. True, Miguel Tejada and Jose Valverde are on the roster, but Tejada has had a really bad winter and who knows just how good Valverde really is? What does this mean for manager Cecil Cooper? It means that they'll probably be the worst team in the National League Central, which is really saying something. With the size of their park and the quality of their pitchers, the Astros are going to get bludgeoned every game that Oswalt doesn't start.

National League West:

1.Arizona Diamondbacks
Here's the deal, when the D'backs and the D'Rays came into the league about a decade ago, I hated everything about Arizona. I hated their goofy name, I hated their purple, teal, copper and black uniforms, I hated Buck Schowalter and his 800-page Diamondback way book, I hated that they weren't trying to build anything from the ground up and were just signing free agents like crazy, to paraphrase Ugly Kid Joe, I hated everything about then. But then Josh Byrnes goes from Boston to the desert and starts making the Diamondbacks into a real, major league organization. He ditches their old uniforms, gets rid of their old broken-down players and sets the ground work for a solidly-run squad. With the best 1-2 rotation in all of baseball (Brandon Webb and Dan Haren) and a pretty decent number three in Randy Johnson the D'Backs can do really well. Especially if Micah Owings fulfills his promise. The offense is young with Connor Jackson, Steven Drew, Justin Upton and Chris Young leading the charge. This is a fun team to watch and wouldn't surprise me if they went to the World Series.

2.Los Angeles Dodgers
The Dodgers have a bunch of young kids and that's how they're going to live and die this year: through youth. And I think that they're going to live, especially with another bonafide All Star catcher in Russell Martin. Throw in Andy LaRoche, James Loney and Matt Kemp and Los Angeles is going through a youth revival the likes of which Los Angelenos haven't seen since the mid 90s. As for the vets, Andruw Jones has something to prove and this might be the end of the line for Jeff Kent. New manager Joe Torre (you may have heard of him) still has to figure out the pitching staff, but should be ok with Derek Lowe, Brad Penny and Jason Schmidt. And he has Scott Proctor on board too, which means that we should see Proctor's arm completely falling off by mid-June.

3.Colorado Rockies
I think that the Rockies are a decent team with a bunch of young stars that may have played very well last fall. That being said, I think that they got extremely lucky and I do not expect to see them in the post season this year. Outfielder Matt Holiday was huge last year, as was shortstop Troy Tulowitzky, Brad Hawpe and even Todd Helton rebounded with a nice year. I just don't think that they have the pitching this year and God's squad maybe looking at a finish in the middle of the pack. Hopefully this kick starts baseball in Denver and for a generation of fans, this could be their Impossible Dream year.

4.San Diego Padres
The biggest problem for the Padres? No outfield defense. I know that might not be a big deal, but when you play most of your games in Petco Park and have fly ball pitchers, outs that should be easy and turn into triples can really screw with your staff's collective heads. The pitching staff is more than solid with Jake Peavy, Chris Young, Greg Maddux and a rehabbing Mark Prior looking to make a mid-season debut. And their bullpen is top notch too, with ageless wonder Trevor Hoffman waiting for “Hell's Bells” to ring so that he can nail down another save. However, Hoffman's mental state is one to watch. He did give up Tony Gwynn Jr.'s two-out, ninth inning game tying triple in the last game to ruin the Pad's post season chances. Then blew a save against the Rockies in a one-game winner goes to the NLDS game. But that's the least of their worries, the bats just aren't there. I envision lots of 2-1, 3-2 losses for the Pads this year.

5.San Francisco Giants
Why did manager Bruce Bochy leave the Padres for this group? This could be the worst team in the major leagues as their veterans are way over the hill and their minor league system is scrap iron. Put it this way, guess who is replacing Barry Bonds as the number four hitter in the lineup? Bengie Molina. They do have Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain for starters and Barry Zito has to be better than last year, but other than that, it's deadwood. I think that it'll be interesting for baseball fans on each coast to see what section is worse: the Bay Area (Giants and A's) or the Beltway (Nationals and Orioles). I think that the former is going to take the crown.

2008 American League Preview

Today I am completely exhausted for some reason, but I am still going to deliver to my readers my 2008 American League baseball preview. Next week, I'll bust out the National League preview and the week after I will go ahead with a more in-depth Boston Red Sox preview.

I was trying pretty hard to think of a gimmick for this entry, but those have been sort of played out in the last few years, right? I mean, if I have to see one more person use quotes from “One Crazy Summer” or the names of 19th Century German philosophers as reasons for where teams are going to end up, I'm probably going to puke. So, we're going old school and just listing the teams in the order where I think that they'll end up ... which is sort of a gimmick in itself.

American League East:

1. Boston Red Sox
The Sox freak me out a bit, I think that they're going to win, but it's not going to be easy. Josh Beckett's back scares me. Curt Schilling's injury scares me. Tim Wakefield scares me some times, but is oddly comforting other times. The experience of the two kids (Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz) scare me. Bartolo Colon would scare me if I saw him coming at me with a fork and knife. About the only starting pitcher that doesn't scare me is Daisuke Matsuzaka. I think that he's going to have a monster year in 2008.

I think that the bullpen is going to be great, as long as Papelbon is handled with care and Peter Gammons has been absolutely raving about Manny Delcarmen. Mike Timlin and Hideki Okajima are going to be solid and the team has a few other live arms as well. I just want to ask, what the hell ever happened to Craig Hansen? Wasn't he supposed to have the closer's role by now?

Dougie Parmesan is gone, which means that backup catching goes to Kevin Cash. That totally sucks, but it doesn't matter, because Jason Varitek is going to do most of the catching. And maybe the front office will get off its collective ass and get a catching prospect to intern under Varitek.

Aside from Coco Crisp, the same group of infielders and outfielders are back for another year. Is Jacoby Ellsbury for real? The front office certainly thinks so. Will Mike Lowell have a 2008 that was anything like 2007? Probably not, but JD Drew and Julio Lugo should be better, so that will even out. Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis are four guys who you shouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about. They're going to be fine.

2. New York Yankees
I don't know what to tell you about the 2008 Yanks. Do I think that they're going to be bad? Probably not. Do I think that they're going to be good? Yes, I do, but not as good as they were last year. But I'm not ready to count them out yet. Mainly because I've been kicking dirt of the Yankees' grave since 2002 and they always come back to haunt you.

The things I'd be worried about if I was a Yankee fan are: starting troika of Ian Kennedy/Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain—and this doesn't include their asinine plan to start Chamberlain in the bullpen for two months, send him to the minors to stretch his arm for two months and then bring him back as a starter for the stretch run. Can these three rookies handle the pressure? Can Andy Pettitte handle the season after what happened to him in January and February? Is Mike Mussina going to continue to be the best .500 pitcher masquerading as an ace ever? Mariano Rivera is 36-years-old, he has to slip eventually, right?

And what about the offense? ARod is going to rake, no doubt. Derek Jeter and Robinson Cano will do the things they do. But Jorge Posada won't have the year that he did last year. Johnny Damon is left, Melky Cabrera is in center and Bob Abreau is in right. Is that a good outfield? And Jason Giambi is playing first, while porn meister Hideki Matsui DHs. Is that a good idea?

Plus, Captain Spaz (Joe Girardi) himself is the new manager in the Bronx. This is not Joe Torre and with Hank Steinbrenner shooting off his mouth every two weeks, I can easily a Bronx Zoo situation blowing up in the summer. I think that this team is closer to fourth place than first.

BTW, Billy Crystal will not help this team. Though if he did get a fastball in his ear, that would've helped me out immensely. I hate that smug prick.

3.Toronto Blue Jays
They've got good pitching and solid hitting. They can definitely go places. Of course, I've been saying that for a few years and each year, someone on the Blue Jays gets hurt and it completely submarines their season. Who will it be this year? I am going to go on a limb and say Alex Rios or AJ Burnett.

4.Tampa Bay Rays
These aren't your daddy's Devil Rays. They changed their uniforms, their colors, their name and maybe their luck. These Rays are going to be a solid team, no doubt about it. I wouldn't be surprised if they finished ahead of the Blue Jays for third place, but fourth is where they'll likely end up. They have solid starters (Scott Kazmir, Matt Garza and James Shield) and have a solid, young lineup especially if Evan Longoria is ready to take over the hot corner. The one thing that's going to kill them is their bullpen, especially if they're going to rely on Troy Percival, who didn't even pitch last year. Put it this way, if this young and exciting team doesn't draw anyone to the Trop this year ... end the charade and move them to a city that appreciates Major Leauge Baseball.

5.Baltimore Orioles
Give this front office credit; it took them 10 seasons but they finally realized that they have to blow the entire thing up and rebuild. And it's not going to be pretty. This team may lose 110 games this year and will be a punching bag for every team in the division. If you're an O's fan, at least you'll get to watch Adam Jones and whatever they get from the Cubs for Brian Roberts. That should be fun.

American League Central:

1.Cleveland Indians
I like what the Detroit Tigers have done this off season, but I like the Indians a little better. Fausto Carmona and CC Sabathia are miles ahead of what Detroit has. Also, their every day talent is a bit younger and I expect Travis Haffner to have a more more Pronk-like season this year. Also, and this is a scary thought, I think that their bullpen is going to be better, especially when Joe Borowski is not the closer any more. This Indians team reminds me of the Indians team of the mid 90s in that there may be a flaw or two, but otherwise its a solid group of players that should do some damage during the season and post season.

2.Detroit Tigers
Just four years ago, Detroit were the worst team in the majors and you couldn't find a Tigers fan if you offered free Red Wings tickets. Now, they're arguably the strongest offensive team and the pick du jour for World Series Champions. That happens when you acquire Dontrelle Willis, Miguel Cabrera and Edgar Renteria. No doubt, they're stacked, but there are a bunch of questions. Will Willis make the transition to the American League (especially after getting lit up in the NL last year)? Is Gary Sheffield healthy? Will Maglio Ordonez have the same output this year as he did last year? Is Renteria an AL player?

3.Kansas City Royals
Maybe it's because I read three Royals Blogs a day, but I am convinced that Kansas City is going to do very well this year, or at least better than expected. Gil Meche and Brian Bannister lead off their rotation and those two guys aren't too bad. If Alex Gordon matures and Billy Butler hits like he's supposed to (draft him in the late round of your fantasy league, trust me) they could be a decent team. I like what new manager Trey Hillman is doing and if they play with some passion, third place is a good landing spot for them.

4.Chicago White Sox
Mark this down, Ozzie Guillen will be the first manager fired in 2008. However, GM Kenny Williams should be the one to get the blame. He signed a ton of mediocre bullpen guys to long term contracts over the winter. He traded starting pitcher Jon Garland for shortstop Orlando Cabrera. He did manage to get Nick Swisher, but he's playing him in centerfield. I'm not predicting a lot of South Side wins this year and they're going to fight with the next team on the list to stay out of the basement.

5.Minnesota Twins
They have Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Joe Nathan and a healthy (?) Francisco Liriano. That doesn't add up to a lot of wins, but will that allow them to escape the cellar? I don't know. They lost a lot: Torii Hunter, Carlos Silva, Matt Garza and most of all, Johan Santana. The one really good player they got back from all that was Delmon Young. They're building for their new building in 2010, so I think that they expect to get their butts handed to them—especially with the worst hitter in the majors as their starting short stop, Adam Everett. It just sucks for Twins fans because owner Carl Pohlad has the money, he's just too cheap to spend it.

American League West:

1.Los Angeles Angels
They're the class of the division. They have the most balanced starting rotation, a terrific bullpen and every day lineup, as well as a pretty decent manager. They've been like this for most of this century, so why do they only have one World Series title to show for it? I don't know, maybe Vlad Guerrero has something to do with it. They were able to sign Torii Hunter and while he was able to be a star in Minnesota, I don't think that it will translate to the left coast. I expect them to take the American League West title again and suck in the playoffs.

2.Seattle Mariners
Last year the M's won 88 games. Stat heads will tell you it was mostly luck and that they should have won closer to 83 games. Apparently the front office doesn't believe in statistics as they went out and traded their entire minor league system to the Orioles for Erik Bedard. With Bedard and King Felix Hernandez, does Seattle have what it takes to win the AL West or at least get the Wild Card? I don't think so, but if you like strong starting pitching and a great closer with a funny name (JJ Putz) look to the Pacific Northwest.

3.Texas Rangers
They aren't going to be a very good team, but they will be better than the Athletics. Seriously, the Orioles, Rangers and Athletics could be some of the worst baseball teams the American League has seen in some time. I know that Ron Washington manages them, Hank Blalock, Ian Kinsler and Michael Young make up a decent infield and catcher Jarrod Saltalamaccia has the longest last name in MLB history and is a stud, but this team is damn terrible.

4.Oakland Athletics
Every few years Billy Beane is lauded as the example of a model franchise and then does the model thing—purge. Edit: Ugh, what a crappy juxtaposition ... I'm going to leave it in there as a testament to just how bad I can write some times. Christ. Huston Street will probably be gone by July 31 as will Joe Blanton and if anyone wants Bobby Crosby or Eric Chavez, they'll be out of town too. That leaves a bunch of kids and Jack Cust. The A's are building for their move to Freemont, which like Minnesota will also be in 2010. Manager Bob Gerren has his hands full, but the good news is that he shouldn't have any expectations to win. Hooray for him.

38. 24

I really do like this show a lot, but there are two reasons why this show is not higher on this list: a) I find repeated viewings of this program virtually unwatchable and b) last season was so bad, that the only reason why I continued watching it was out of consolation and to make fun of it.

Let me explain the second reason first: it probably wasn't totally the writers' fault why the fifth season was just so poor. For starters “24” is a hit show because of one reason, each week and each season the show has to be more exciting and more action-packed than the last. The American people always want more, they want their heroes to be bigger, stronger, faster and after a while a tipping point is reached where action-packed turns into sheer idiocy. Unfortunately, that tipping point was reached last year.

I would guess that each season's first writer's meeting begins with the following question “How do we top the previous season?” For the sixth season, the writers thought that a nuclear bomb exploding in a town just outside of Los Angeles would be the best thing to do to grab their audiences' attention. And that worked, however they had the bomb explode a little too early in the day thus rendering the rest of the day's action completely implausible.

Yes, I understand that when viewing “24” and thrilling to the heroics of Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) believability is usually suspended. It has to be so that the “real time” formula of the show can work correctly—Bauer is never in traffic (unless as a plot point), he never eats, sleeps or goes to the bathroom during this entire day, people eventually bend to his every whim and for the most part people do what he says. Fine. I can deal with all of that, this isn't a documentary.

But, here's what happens during Season Six' day: Bauer is released from 20 months in a Chinese torture prison, immediately he is put to work to help find five suitcase bombs, he finds four and the fifth one explodes in Valencia, CA, the President and the leader of a anti-American group (who is now working with the Americans) both are caught in a bombing that was set up by a secret cabal that includes the Vice President, he wants to turn the Middle East into a parking lot and hopes that the American people will buy that an Arab faction were the ones that wounded the President, also the Chinese and a renegade group of Russians come back into the picture with war on their mind and it's about to happen until Jack Bauer stops it.

BIGGEST. NEWS. DAY. EVER.

What would be on the front page of the following day's newspaper: War with China and Russia Averted? President in Coma? Coup D'etat Squashed? Nuclear Bomb Explodes Near LA? For example, when the bomb explodes, every one is in a panic for about 10 minutes. The rest of the day happens like there was no bomb. The President is in a coma and everyone is ok with that too and he comes out of it for a few minutes to stop the Vice President's “retaliatory” strike on an innocent Middle Eastern country. Oh yeah, the US government was rounding up Middle Easterners and throwing them in internment camps. Aside from a few people, no one really seemed to care.

See, there is just way too much going on and after awhile it was just silly. The best part of “24” was that there was a little bit of realism that went along with the show. In Season Six, the writers took all of that and threw it out the window. Jack Bauer could've been in outer space fighting dragons with a Wookie sidekick and I'd probably have taken it more seriously.

As far as the first reason, that's more on me than anything. “24” is syndicated on a couple of channels and I've tried to watch it, but when I know what's coming, the show just isn't as good. I know that a cougar is going to attack Kim Bauer in the first season. I know that President Palmer—who, BTW is the best fictional President ever, though his brother sort of sucked—is going to get some sort of virus from an unsavory character. Nina is going to turn on Jack and shoot his wife. Audrey is going to get amnesia. The kid from “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle” is really a terrorist. Edgar may be a creep at first, but he's really a nice guy and is going to die from poison gas that wipes out most of CTU. These things just don't pack the same punch when seen a second time as they do when they are first viewed.

BTW, there were spoilers in that last paragraph.

And that's what I love most about this show: it's unpredictability. It's awesome that main characters get killed all the time, it's cool that Jack Bauer is as close to a super hero as we have on television, it's great that there are bad guys who are just evil. I love it, the whole black and white of all the situations are great. You don't have to think or feel conflicted, like you do in the real world. Bad guys are bad. Good guys are good. It's almost like I'm eight-years-old again.

And I think that the whole serialization of the show is brilliant. From January through mid-May you get a new episode or two every single week. No reruns, no waiting three weeks for a new episode. It's gratifying to know that next week, Jack is going to wiggle his way out his next dangerous encounter and kick some bad guy ass. I imagine this is what older generations loved about the “Superman” or “Tarzan” serials that were run before the main feature of a movie every Saturday. Watching a show unfold, as if it was a chapter in a book is terrific fun.

I know that I usually go on and on and on about characters, but this show is much more different than any show that I watch—as the plot is what I like most. The plots are involved, though not the most difficult thing to understand (“The Wire” is far more complicated as was “Rome”) and there are a few red herrings here and there, but for the most part they keep the viewer interested and engaged. The writers do cop out every now and again—how many moles could CTU hire in five years? It seems like 90% of the people that work there have other, more sinister obligations—but I can understand that and I give them a pass. I would bet that writing “24” is not a typical gig for a writer.

The characters are usually right out of central casting, but that allows the viewer to concentrate on the plot. Yes, nerdy computer girl (Chloe, played by “Mr. Show” alum Mary Lynn Rajskub) may look like she won't help Jack, but in the end she will. And the hard ass CTU boss (there are a million of them) may not like the way Bauer does business, but damn it, he gets results!

The one character that is a bit different is Jack Bauer, of course. Yes, he is a machine who will stop at nothing to get the job done, but he also has a conscious which sets him apart from the drug lords, mercenaries, war lords and terrorists that he faces every day. And while that can be a little hacky, the writers at least allow him to lose something tangible (his wife in the first season, his partner and daughter in the third, his girlfriend and all of his friends in the fifth) so that it's not just lip service. This makes him a hero with flaws, which is something that we don't see too much—even in this age of anti-heroes.

My hope is that with the writers' strike cancelling this season of “24” it will allow the writers to look back and study what made older seasons of the show so great. Then they will go forward with better ideas and realize that bigger is not always better. The one thing that I am nervous about is that one of the series creator, Joel Surnow, has left the show. In my view “24” seems to have a liberal bent (most of the “evil” politicians are conservative) but what I find interesting is that Surnow is about as right wing as one can get. He ultra conservative and favors isolationism, but his writing doesn't seem to follow his ideas. I think that this is really cool for some reason.

Are there better written dramas out there? Of course. But is there a more fun drama? I doubt it. Another thing that I really like is that each episode is like a mini movie, with explosions and fire fights that rival big screen action movies. The producers and the tech guys spend a lot of time and money on this show and the viewers can tell.

Having said that, will this be a show that goes down in the annals of television history? Probably not. I suspect that in 10 or 15 years, people will look at “24” the way that we look at “The A-Team” or “Knight Rider” now; innocent fun that seemed far more serious at the time. Especially since there is going to be a whole group of people that will parody the way that the show is shot, will have the digital clock countdown and other aspects from the show. The same thing happened to "The Matrix" when everyone copied the slow motion fighting. It took away from the original project and made it a cliche. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess that will be just fine.