TV Picks for Thursday

• Ugly Betty -- Telenovela meets "The Devil Wears Prada," I think. All the critics are going crazy extolling its virtues, so it's probably worth tuning in to see what they're talking about.

• My Name is Earl

• The Office

• Grey's Anatomy

• Six Degrees -- I put this show on the list reluctantly, as last week's show required a great deal of skipping to get through. But I have heard that they brought some new behind-the-scenes people on to the show to correct some of its issues, so I'll stay with it for another week.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 28 September 2006 at 9:18 AM

TV Picks for Wednesday

• Jericho -- The first episode, despite Gerald McRaney, was pretty good. The critics saw episode 2 is even better, so I'm looking forward to it.

• Kidnapped -- I like this show, but most Americans don't and it tanked in the ratings last week. Hopefully more people tune in this week.

• Project Runway (Bravo, 9 pm CDT)

Except where noted, air times are on my Fall TV grid.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 27 September 2006 at 5:56 PM

My source on all things TV-related -- the P-D's Gail Pennington -- believes Heroes is the "one show you MUST watch this fall or be left behind." I saw a pre-air of the pilot over the summer and thought the premise was interesting, but also thought that the show moved a little slowly setting up its premise. This is the same problem that the pilot of Studio 60 had and is probably just a by-product of needing to introduce all of its characters over the course of a single episode. But I'll definitely be staying with this show, as it is certainly more entertaining -- even in intro-mode -- than, say, Justice.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 27 September 2006 at 11:58 AM

Studio 60, week 2.

Let's just say that I'm glad Aaron Sorkin is writing "Studio 60," the drama about a sketch comedy show, and not "Studio 60," the sketch comedy show.

In fact, this week's show validated my one fear about "Studio 60" (the actual show): that Sorkin would be great with all the behind-the-scenes drama, but the sketch comedy would be disappointing. I had hoped he would address this by never -- or rarely -- showing the show-within-a-show, but that wasn't the case this week. Instead, we got a ten minute musical number was supposed to signal that "Studio 60" (the sketch comedy show) was back, relevant, and funnier than ever, but instead would have made me change the channel. However, the fifty minutes that preceded the cold opening of "Studio 60" (the fake one) were great. All things considered, I give the show a B+.

(Also, I'm getting a bit tired of both the actual and the fake shows being called "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.")

Comments: 3 Posted by david on 27 September 2006 at 10:22 AM

TV Picks for Tuesday

• NCIS

• Boston Legal

• Smith -- Last week's episode proved to be pretty good, so I'll watch again this week.

Except where noted, air times are on my Fall TV grid.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 26 September 2006 at 5:32 PM

TV Picks for Monday

• How I Met Your Mother

• Heroes -- Oridinary people with extraordinary powers. Just my cup of tea.

• Runaway -- From what I've heard, this is like "Everwood" meets "The Fugitive." You may interpret that as a good or a bad thing. Or perhaps a little of both.

• Studio 60

Except where noted, air times are on my Fall TV grid.

Comments: 1 Posted by david on 25 September 2006 at 4:22 PM

TV Picks for Friday

• Law & Order -- The mothership has moved to Fridays and it lost a few cast members along the way. Dennis Farina bowed out over the summer and his character (Det. Fontana) has been replaced by Milena Govich. And Alana De La Garza is the new ADA, replacing Annie Parisse whose character was killed off in the last episode of the last season. However, L&O has a history of replacing characters -- at this point, no main characters from the first season remain -- so these changes probably won't change much.

Except where noted, air times are on my Fall TV grid.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 22 September 2006 at 5:43 PM

TV Picks for Thursday

• My Name is Earl

• The Office -- As Michael Scott might say, it's win-win-win.

• Grey's Anatomy -- Everyone else loves this, so I'm sure I'll end up watching it.

• Six Degrees -- The latest from JJ Abrams who previously gave us Alias and Lost. The title is related to the six degrees of separation concept, and the show chronicles the intersecting lives of six New Yorkers. I'm picking this over Shark, a new legal drama starring James Woods, which airs in the same time slot. I don't need another courtroom drama on my schedule and I'm not a big fan of James Woods, so that seems like an easy choice. I guess we'll see if the masses agree with me.

Except where noted, air times are on my Fall TV grid.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 21 September 2006 at 12:19 PM

TV Picks for Wednesday

• Jericho -- Post-apocalyptic Kansas. Or is it?

• Kidnapped -- Probably ther better of the two serialized kidnapping shows debuting this fall.

Except where noted, air times are on my Fall TV grid.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 20 September 2006 at 7:24 PM

Tonight's "Boston Legal" reminded me that, despite all the hype Aaron Sorkin is getting for "Studio 60," David E. Kelley currently has the best show on television. In the long-run I may be proved wrong on this, but you can't unseat the reigning champion with one showing. And I don't think the pilot of "Studio 60," as good as it was, was better than the season 3 premiere of BL. BL didn't have the burden of introducing a huge ensemble cast, of course, so they could focus on what they do best: the ridiculous. But that's why "Boston Legal" is not to be missed. I'd certainly hate to be the only one chatting around the water cooler who didn't know about Denny's Shirley Schmidt-Ho.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 19 September 2006 at 10:12 PM

TV Picks for Tuesday

• NCIS -- I've given up on CSI: Wherever, but I still enjoy NCIS. Probably because it focuses on its cast more than made-up science.

• House -- There's nothing more predictable than an episode of House, but I still enjoy it.

• Law & Order: Criminal Intent -- I'll check in to see this season's new cast.

• Boston Legal -- The new season debuts with Michael J. Fox accused of trying to buy a lung.

• Eureka -- Always a bit cheesy, but it has some nice sci-fi flair. (Not on the Fall TV grid. Sci-Fi channel at 8pm.)

• Smith -- Tuning in just to see what it's like, but I don't expect it to make it onto my permanent schedule.

Except where noted, air times are on my Fall TV grid.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 19 September 2006 at 10:11 AM

In a comment to my previous post, Ron expresses his dislike of local uses of eminent domain: "calling decent neighborhoods "blighted" just so a shopping mall can be built." Indeed, this does to stretch the definition of "public good" that our Constitution requires. Claiming increased tax revenues as a public good seems ridiculously far-fetched for a few reasons:

1. Citing increased tax revenue as your justification is risky because the public benefit is just a projection. If tenants don't buy spaces in your new mall, the projected revenue gains can become overall losses when you factor in other economic incentives that are usually offered to large-scale developments.

2. Those being displaced are often cut out of any benefit that the new development generates. If I live in municipality X and X takes my house to build a mall, then I only benefit from the higher property values, lower taxes and/or increased spending now available to X if I stay in X. And since eminent domain claims seem to buy up inexpensive land and replace it with more expensive properties, the trend is that displaced homeowners often must relocate outside their community.

3. Increased tax revenue by a municipality is a benefit to those who live in that municipality, but in the hypothetical case it is easy to extend the current trend so that all residences are replaced with higher revenue businesses. For this scenario, in the absence of any citizens, there is no longer any public benefit. This raises the question of whether there is a lower threshold than 100% displacement that mitigates the public benefit. Is it 50%? Half are evicted to benefit the other half? That seems unfair. But what is the threshold, and can we apply it evenly and fairly.

Eminent domain seizures are a tricky business. Even ignoring the new spin put on it by using projected increases in tax revenues as a justification, it fails my basic test of all government action: Does it offer benefit to many while protecting the rights of the few?

Eminent domain's public good requirement is designed to cover the first tenet while the compensation requirement is designed to cover the second. But even in this, I feel that our current system of eminent domain fails. I don't believe that offering fair market value for property is fair compensation. It fails to account for moving costs, severed community connections, and sentimental attachment. It also appears that some developers use eminent domain as a crutch that allows them to avoid legitimate negotiations with property owners regarding the purchase of their home.

I am not arguing against eminent domain. I think it is an important tool that should be available to governments. However, I would like to see legislation that puts some restrictions on its use:

1. Governments should be required to show exactly what will be built on land that they are seizing.

2. Tax revenue projects, if they are allowed to justify eminent domain seizures at all, must be developed by an independent that is immune to influence from developers or government.

3. Eminent domain must be a tool of last resort. All reasonable efforts to purchase property must be exhausted before eminent domain can be asserted. Further, I think it reasonable to assume that a developer's desire for the property should be allowed to inflate its market value, but there should be some reasonable cap to this amount. That is, if a homeowner rejects an offer of, for example, fair market value + moving expenses + 20%, the developer should then be able to pursue eminent domain.

4. Compensation for seized property should also pay more than the market value prior to the announcing of the new development. This compensation should cover things like moving expenses and the like, but it should cap at less than the amount of the cap available under the previous step. This would encourage developers and property owners to reach an agreement before the government becomes involved. But it does keep the door open to homeowners who think that the fair market value being offered is unfair and to developers who are forced to deal with property owners who won't budge under any circumstances.

Anyway, that's my eminent domain plan. I'd be interested in hearing what all of you think about this issue. I'd also recommend this as an inter sting debate on the issue.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 18 September 2006 at 3:03 PM

I don't have a horse in this race, but I became a little angry when I read this article about why an eminent domain issue wasn't going to be on the November ballot. I'm sure there are logical reasons why petitions with hundreds of thousands of signatures are required to be turned in in a specific format, but refusing to accept the petition is a victory for legalistic red-tape over citizen initiative. And that's too bad.

The idea behind ballot initiatives is to return control of our government to the people. It's an empowerment initiative born in the 1970s when the people had lost faith in the leaders who were leading their states and their country. In a time when the leaders of our country are trying every trick in the book to errode the rights of the people, it is sad to hear the voices of 220,000 Missourians silenced.

There is nothing new and unique about this particular incident. From the day more than 200 years ago when "We the People" granted powers to our government, our government has struggled to take more. We ask our government to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." In exchange, we grant away rights that, in the absence of government, would naturally be ours. It is troubling, however, to find my government limiting my right to offer input on how and why it acts when carrying out its obligations.

Comments: 1 Posted by david on 13 September 2006 at 7:05 PM

I saw "Hollywoodland" on Friday night. You would be well advised to wait for the DVD before seeing it. It isn't particularly bad, just not very good.

For those of you who haven't heard, "Hollywoodland" is a period piece set in 1950s Hollywood. Ben Affleck plays George Reeves, the actor who played Superman on TV and later killed himself. Adrian Brody plays a headline-obsessed detective investigating Reeves' death. In many ways, "Hollywoodland" owes a lot to "LA Confidential."

However, in one very important aspect, the two movies are quite different. Unlike "LA Confidential," "Hollywoodland" never actually solves the mystery of how Reeves died. The movie offers up three or four different hypotheses, but never lands on one. As more evidence is introduced, it opens up the door to other possibilities, but it never closes the door on an old theory. Mysteries with no solution are quite disappointing, so I'd advise you to avoid "Hollywoodland."

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 10 September 2006 at 12:02 PM

I don't know. Destruction can create some beautiful images.

Comments: 3 Posted by david on 10 September 2006 at 12:18 AM