reggiejax

Isaac and Ishmael was the one episode that I did view in it's entirety when it initially aired, and I loved it precisely because it was so Sorkin-esque. Meaning it makes eating your vegetables seem like dessert. Or at least like you poured some melted cheese on your veggies. And I also like that it manages the neat trick of essentially standing completely apart from the West Wing's overall narrative, yet never feels like it. The one part I didn't care for was Josh trying to connect with the Josh-like kid among the students. Mainly because he tries to connect in such a Josh-like manner. And you all know what I mean when I say Josh-like.

That was Bobby Beausoliel, and his arrest while driving Hinman's car was true to life, though not that bit where the cop sees him covered in blood. Beausoliel was pulled over and the cop ran the plates and they arrested him as they were on the lookout for Hinman's car. And Beausoliel was not murdered, he has spent every moment since that arrest in jail for Hinman's murder. 47 years now for doing the bidding of a two-bit, sack of shit like Charles Manson.

Why do I think the bowl of pineapple is essentially useless? Because the general belief is that the pineapple was used to lure JonBenet and get her trust before she was murdered. And that stretches reason no matter what theory one believes in. If it was her parents, the pineapple simply would not have even been needed. Not to mention, it is generally believed that if her parents murdered her, it was in a fit of rage. So the bowl of pineapple, which indicates premeditation, just doesn't fly. Also, while the stereotype of a pedophile is some weirdo luring kids with treats, that wouldn't be the case here if the murderer was a stranger. For lack of a better term, the "soft approach" is usually utilized in a public or outdoor setting. It is done to lessen the chance of a scene being made. But here we have someone who went to the trouble of breaking into a residence. In that situation, it reverses, and the soft approach becomes riskier. Why take the time and effort when the chances are higher the child will scream. No, someone who breaks in is going to take her quickly and forcefully, subduing her and/or gagging her. As for prints on the bowl, if those of a member of the Ramsey family were found, that is essentially worthless. Their prints on a bowl they owned and used have no value. If it was an intruder, then yes, it had value. But I think I have outlined why I believe that just wasn't going to be the case. Quite honestly, I don't believe the bowl of pineapple had anything to do with the murder, nor could it have broken the case. Having said that, I do agree that the police should have gathered it as evidence. There is no argument from me about the piss poor job the police did.

Until recently, I had never heard of pineapple being related to this case. But as I prepare to watch this show, the more I read about the pineapple the more interesting I find it. And when I say interesting, I don't mean interesting so much as it is an important piece of evidence, because at this point, I honestly don't think it is, but rather as a piece of evidence that can be, and has been, interpreted to support whatever side of the discussion one happens to be on. The one indisputable fact is that JonBenet had eaten pineapple before her death, as it was found inside of her. After that, everything else seems to be highly debatable, and can be interpreted in many ways. And people tend to interpret it to fit their theory, rather than admitting there is really little the pineapple can conclusively tell us. As a true crime buff, there is usually some item in just about every case that tends to serve this purpose. For example, in the Manson case, there is a pair of eyeglasses found at the Tate home that cannot be matched to any of the victims, and were never tied to any of the perpetrators. Though in this instance, I tend to think the closest antecedent is the bottle of Coke that Lee Harvey Oswald had in his possession shortly after the assassination. Oswald was encountered by his boss and a policeman in the 2nd floor lunchroom of the Book Depository. This was roughly 90 seconds after the assassination. The officer asked if Oswald worked there, his boss said he did, and they left him there to continue searching. With regards to the soft drink, the one thing for sure is that Lee Oswald had bought himself a Coke. The rest of the details are debatable, and suffice it to say this piece of evidence, however insignificant (and it is ultimately insignificant) has been used to fuel many a conspiracy theory, most exonerating Oswald. But it is amazing how we tend to take whatever we can get to support what we believe, regardless of it's factual and evidentiary usefulness, or lack thereof.

It is also possible that when he refers to Valentine as "my son", he isn't necessarily speaking in terms of his being the biological father of the boy, but rather in terms of his being the leader of the Family. Although more likely is that Manson was completely full of shit and certainly would have had no qualms about not practicing what he preached. Certainly wasn't going to let the fact that he was going against his teachings stop him from blaming Mary Brunner, or any other Family member, if anything went wrong. The regular black eyes Mary Brunner and the other Manson women sported attest to that fact.

I am looking forward to this show, Which is a bit strange as the JonBenet case, for me, rates on the lower end of my interest spectrum. There are true crime cases I devour and learn as much as I can about them (JFK, Zodiac, Manson), there are others that pique my interest level and I have a moderate amount of knowledge (OJ, Son of Sam), and then there are cases that I take note of, but I only really know what everyone else knows, the JonBenet case being the best example of that. I knew what was in the news, and like a lot of people, I pretty much presumed the parents were guilty as hell. But I admit, my belief in their guilt came from presumptions from how cases like this turn out, rather than a clear understanding of the facts and evidence. Nowadays, I kind of accept that the authorities have basically cleared the Ramseys. I have only ever read one book on the case, and it wasn't even a book specifically about the case. In fact, it was only a chapter in the Bill James book "Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence". And yes, the book is by that Bill James, the baseball stats guy. The book is essentially a layman's history of true crime in the US over the last 250 years. And JonBenet gets a chapter, but I have found that people interested in the case tend to get infuriated by James take on it. First and foremost, James is unapologetically on the side of the Ramseys being innocent. He even states that if people get just one thing from his book, it is that the Ramsey's are innocent. I will say he makes a pretty good case for that viewpoint, though I am only mostly convinced, not completely. The other part that is infuriating, and I agree with those infuriated, is his hypothesis of what he thinks happened. Suffice it to say he makes a lot of presumptions and takes a lot of leaps of logic. That aside, it is a good book, one I recommend to any true crime aficionado. I do look forward to really learning about the case from this show. Hopefully I will be able to get past the fact that one of the people involved looks a lot like Tony Hale, TV's Buster Bluth.

It was either because 60% of the time, she works all the time, or she smells like Bigfoot's dick.

That was at a tattoo parlor at a resort, not in some shack behind a cantina. I'm pretty sure the only diseases Lace and Grant, or Lant, will bring home are the ones they gave each other.

Hodiak probably had relatives who were in concentration camps, but his father was not one of them. We saw his father in season one, played by the late RIchard Libertini (his last role, btw), and while we didn't get an in depth bio on the elder Hodiak, it was pretty clear that he lived his life in the States for most, if not all of his life. Also, he was portrayed as being a bit of a radical, one who supported what his grandson Walt was doing, and one who lamented the fact that his son Sam was so eager to go and fight the big one. Had Sam's dad been in a concentration camp, I find it highly unlikely he would have been against his son fighting in the WW2.

That was a house that was commonly referred to as The Spiral Staircase. Because it had a spiral staircase. Can't accuse hippies of not being clever, can you? The Spiral Staircase was one of four places that could be considered home to the Family. There was also Dennis Wilson's house, Spahn Ranch and finally Barker Ranch, which is where Charlie enjoyed his last moments of freedom.

They are really rushing to introduce the players involved in the murders. We saw this episode introduce us to Bobby Beausoliel and Gary Hinman. And it also brought back Mary Brunner. The only people we haven't seen are the LaBianca's, Shorty Shea and Leslie Van Houten. Though I may be wrong about the LaBianca's. I think they might have been shown in a flashback earlier this season. After their murders, that is. I have been hating the Karns all season, but I admit, there was something entertaining about seeing father and daughter hanging out with the Manson Family. But then Grace had to rear her head, and I remembered why I hope they fictionalize the murders a bit more and make it the Tate/Labianca/Karn murders.

Bunchy, we hardly knew ye. Rest in peace. Glad my initial suspicion, that Kristen Shafe would be killed too, turned out all wrong. I liked the scenes between Ralph and Manson in the jail cell. It was a clever way to have Gethin Anthony let loose with all of Charlie's Helter Skelter nonsense, and with moving the Ralph plotline forward. But I have to ask, what the hell kind of a bar was that where they got arrested? Interesting clientele. You had hippies, black gangsters, Beach Boys and cops all hanging out. And something tells me we still haven't seen the last of Ralph.

I highly doubt they would even consider it, but I would like to see them tackle the Onion Field case. For those not familiar with it, this was an incident from 1963, in which two petty criminals kidnapped two Los Angeles police officers, murdering one. What would normally seem like an open and shut case would instead turn out to be quite complex and time consuming, as the perpetrators would take full advantage of the sweeping changes that were occurring in the justice system in that era. The case inspired both one of the finest true crime books ever written and one of the most underrated true crime films ever made, both titled The Onion Field. The book was written by Joseph Wambaugh, and is a classic of the genre. The film was made in 1979, and though it earned critical praise at the time, it has basically become forgotten. Which is a shame as it is such a good movie, featuring excellent performances from some noted actors early in their careers, including Michael Savage, a pre-Cheers Ted Danson, the late Franklyn Seales (who sadly is better known for his time on Silver Spoons, rather than this) and a young James Woods. All the performances are great, but Woods is the one to watch, as he gives a chilling performance that would earn him a Golden Globe nomination. Normally, I would not suggest a remake of a film that I like a lot, but I think the expanded format of a mini-series could allow a more in depth look at what truly is a complex case that touches on a lot of issues. And considering that the 1979 film is basically forgotten, I don't think it would be a bad idea to do a remake.

I was confused about why Grace would have Emma locked up. We are shown in an earlier episode that Emma's continued absence is beginning to look strange to the other ladies of the GOP Auxiliary, or whatever the hell that was. So Grace decides that the best way to deal with the fact that her lie about Emma being in France was becoming more and more untenable is to institutionalize Emma? What was Grace's plan, to keep her there until the Nixon administration left office? 4 years for sure, 8 max? (5 1/2 as it would turn out, but Grace couldn't know that in 1968). And correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't their first solution to the Emma problem to emancipate her? That happened in season one. And if she was emancipated, how can Grace have Emma institutionalized? And not for nothing, but as far as Grace knew, Emma was with Dennis Wilson and was trying to get a singing career started. Was that such an awful thing to tell Plastic Pat and the rest of the GOP wives?

Compared to Bachelors like Chris (or Ben Flajnik, or Sean Lowe, or Jason Mesnick, etc, etc), rocks have a personality. The bar isn't exactly set high. It sounds like I am down on Nick, but I really am not. But I cannot pretend to be excited either. But that is how I usually am with the leads on this show. I care more about the contestants. I will judge his season based on the women they bring in. Nick is The Bachelor, good for him. But they could have brought back Blob Guiney for all I care about the Bachelor himself.

And one day we might actually get one. For now we have to settle for Nick Vile.

I am currently watching The West Wing for what is essentially the first time. I am already into the third episode of Season 4. And I have to say, so far Season 2 is my favorite, if only because of Ainsley Hayes. I have always liked Emily Proctor, but I never knew how good she was as Ainsley. Between her and the greatness that is Janel Moloney, I am really kicking myself for not having come aboard for The West Wing back when it was on. If I had known I could have had crushes on Donna Moss AND Ainsley Hayes for the last 17 years, I would have been all over it. I guess better late than never, though that is only a small comfort.

Yeah, I wouldn't get too bogged down with accuracy with this show. This very same episode showed Sadie going into labor with little Zezozose Zadfrack Glutz, but real life tells us that he was born in October 1968, not in November, or whatever point in time they are at when we are shown Sadie's water breaking. So maybe it wasn't January 1969, which is when the real Bunchy bit the dust, but I think we can assume, in terms of the Aquarius universe, Bunchy has shuffled off this mortal coil. No names are mentioned, but I am certain that was meant to be a photographer friend of Sharon Tate's, Shahrokh Hatami. This was pretty close to the reality of that moment. Hatami was at the house the one time Manson visited. He spoke with Manson and did brush him off, though rather than shut the door on him, he told him to visit with the owner of the home, Rudy Altobelli, who was staying in the guest house. Sharon Tate and Charles Manson did come face to face, sort of. Tate stepped out of the door and met eyes with Manson, who was standing on the lawn. They never spoke, they never shook hands, and Sharon Tate certainly never gave Manson permission to use the phone (Manson didn't ask anyway). And while he was looking for Melcher, it was not because Manson just had to rush over to tell Melcher all about The White Album, as the show portrays. As usual, Manson was there to inquire about his own stillborn recording career. As for the "flash forwards", I am guessing that was more for our benefit, as it was meant to portray the moment Manson began his descent into murder. Or not, who can tell with this show. And now that I think about it, that is another timeline discrepancy. Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski did not move to the house on Cielo Drive until February of 1969, and the encounter with Manson did not happen until a couple of months later. So yeah, I wouldn't hold out hope for Bunchy based on the timeline not being quite right.

You mean besides the entertainment factor? It is true that Ken's back door shenanigans seem to serve little purpose with regards to the larger viewpoint of the show, but Ken is second only to Hodiak in terms of being an entertaining character. Which is saying something when Charles Manson is a character on the show. Granted, TPTB seem determined to create the most boring Charles Manson ever, but still, good for Ken.

I happen to be watching The West Wing right now, for what is essentially the first time. I never watched when it was on originally, save for parts of an episode here and there. I can't honestly say I am unspoiled though. The show was a hit, and if you're a dedicated follower of pop culture, which I am, you are going to know a lot of plot points by sheer osmosis. The interesting part is that I am a huge Sorkin fan, and I was back then. Sports Night is one of my favorite TV shows ever. But I recall that I really didn't want to watch TWW because a) politics bore me and b) watching TWW felt to me like I was being disloyal to Sports Night. Ridiculous but true. Of course after taking in Studio 60 and The Newsroom, I realized my error in thinking, so while it took me a while, I am all in with TWW. I am halfway through season 2, and enjoying every minute of it.

Amy Robach having the second worst day of her Good Morning America career. I would say worst, but it is hard to beat the day she did an on-air mammogram, which would come back with a breast cancer diagnosis.

That would certainly have made for an interesting strip of Peanuts. Probably best saved for the Saturday edition, when less people would read it. ;) I'll cut this short here and I say that my estimation of Ashley is purely my own. I am not trying to rehabilitate her image, and I am certainly not trying to change any minds. If anyone wants to continue to see her as Paradise's resident psycho hose beast, then by all means.

And his name would be Evan. Now, I don't honestly believe Carly is in any danger, but I would say Carly seemingly would have more to worry about with Evan than Jared does with Ashley. On the stalker scale, Ashley I ranks more with Sally Brown (hence, Jared being her sweet baboo) than with Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction.

As annoying as Ashley I. can be, I have to say, my heart tends to go out to her. Strip away all the dramatics, and all she really wants is to make it work with Jared, her sweet baboo.

Well then I guess I'm delusional as well, because I find Emily, and naturally Haley as well, to be far prettier than the bland, dull as dishwater, Caila. I am so glad Caila did not become the Bachelorette because she would have put Bachelor Nation in a coma. I find her only value to be that they use her to treat insomniacs who haven't responded to heavy drugs. (thank you, Robin Williams). And I say that knowing full well that neither twin is exactly a bundle of dynamite, personality wise. But purely on looks, I'll take Emily and/or Haley every time. They've got kind of a young Faith Ford thing going. And lord knows I loves me some Corky Sherwood Forrest.