The news headline of this Sunday evening is that North Korea claims to conduct a 2nd nuclear test, once again raising the stakes in the international efforts to prevent North Korea from attaining a nuclear weapon.
There was progress when in February 2007 North Korea agreed to shut down a nuclear power plant in exchange for oil fuel, and the easing of economic sanctions. But the process collapsed in December when they rejected the verification measures being sought by the Bush administration:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/world/asia/25nuke.html
So, if I'm reading this right, the North Koreans are welcoming foreign aid, but they are not letting the international community confirm that they are indeed shutting down the nuclear plants. Does that sound like cheating to you?
It's a game that most understand: North Korea is a desolate country ruled by a brutal dictator who's out of touch with reality (or maybe he's smarter than we think and is actually well aware that his country is desperate, but intends to keep it that way), and wants to have a nuclear bomb to bully the entire region. The international community, led by the United States, seeks to prevent this from happening via sanctions and aid. But over the past few years, this has become a give and take scenario where the North Koreans wants to develop a nuclear weapon while getting aid at the same time, and when the negotiating countries threaten to cut aid, they threaten to enrich plutonium and test bombs.
So now it's become a waiting game: the various nations might just need to wait for North Korea to become a country so dysfunctional that it will beg for aid. Perhaps the change of leadership from Kim Jong Il to one of his sons will help ease the tensions, like Raul Castro did when Fidel retired.
That, or allow the Kim regime to attain the A-bomb, and hope that they don't start World War 3.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Memory comes and goes
It happened early afternoon today.
I had a thought, all day, about writing something on a particular political issue. This thought had occurred to me after I read / watched a news piece and formed new opinions of a famous author's works.
I thought at the time "I think I will write about this thought later, and in the meanwhile, I'll try to gather more information to substantiate this thought." So finally, earlier tonight, when I sat down at the desk and began writing out a piece on that thought, something very frustrating happened.
I forgot what it was.
I didn't forget the central theme of what I wanted to talk about, or the author whom I was referring to, but I forgot about the most important part, which is the reason that drove me to link the news piece to the author in the first place.
It has happened more than once in the past while, having an insight on a subject but not getting it down before it was too late. It angers me when I think that I might have had something potentially brilliant (oh, please) and I just blank out.
What also troubles me are the excuses that I use to opt out of writing these thoughts down the moment I have them; I'm always too 'busy', either eating or watching "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer", or something like that. And it just pains me that this kind of laziness has hindered my ability to produce more literature, however amateur this kind of literature is.
But hey, who knows? Maybe that thought will come back in a while, and a majestic piece will be posted in celebration.
I had a thought, all day, about writing something on a particular political issue. This thought had occurred to me after I read / watched a news piece and formed new opinions of a famous author's works.
I thought at the time "I think I will write about this thought later, and in the meanwhile, I'll try to gather more information to substantiate this thought." So finally, earlier tonight, when I sat down at the desk and began writing out a piece on that thought, something very frustrating happened.
I forgot what it was.
I didn't forget the central theme of what I wanted to talk about, or the author whom I was referring to, but I forgot about the most important part, which is the reason that drove me to link the news piece to the author in the first place.
It has happened more than once in the past while, having an insight on a subject but not getting it down before it was too late. It angers me when I think that I might have had something potentially brilliant (oh, please) and I just blank out.
What also troubles me are the excuses that I use to opt out of writing these thoughts down the moment I have them; I'm always too 'busy', either eating or watching "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer", or something like that. And it just pains me that this kind of laziness has hindered my ability to produce more literature, however amateur this kind of literature is.
But hey, who knows? Maybe that thought will come back in a while, and a majestic piece will be posted in celebration.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Evils of the Flat World
I attend a university where the majority of the students have what people call "left-leaning" ideologies. These students often speak of the evils of capitalism, the vices of the free market that led to the world's inequalities, and in general shows a blatant disdain towards the rich.
Naturally, these views would lead them to more often be in agreement with John Maynard Keynes than with Milton Friedman, Joseph Stieglitz over Robert Nozick, and the notion that an active role by the government in most aspects of society is . This is apparent in both the course curriculum and the discussion by students in class. Many of these discussions center around the issue of equality. Note that equality, in the context of the discussion, mostly refers to equality of condition, and seldom towards equality of opportunity.
One of the writers that these courses discuss is Tom Friedman, and his famous books "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" and "The World Is Flat".
Ever since its debut in 2005, Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat" has been a massive hit. The main appeal of the book was probably Friedman's ability to conceptualize the global interconnectedness in a Flat World theory, which made sense to the general public.
I have generally been a supporter of Friedman's views: contrary to his critics, Friedman not only acknowledges the notion that currently the world is not flat, but that if certain measures are not taken, some parts of the world will never have a chance of being flattened.
However, it seems that while the flat world theory can be seen as true, its consequences are not always favorable.
As a result of this flat world, millions of American jobs are being shipped overseas to manufacturing nations that can produce the same product at a much lower cost. This is economics 101, minimizing costs while maximizing profits. It's how businesses work.
Friedman claims that the launching of Netscape, and the subsequent .com boom, is #1 of the ten principle 'flatteners' of the world. The magic of the internet is that it has given the global population the ability to gain access to unprecedented amounts of information, anywhere, anytime.
But of course, as observations and predictions go, one can never be perfect. The internet soon became the white blood cells of the international economic body, and it is now evident that too much of it does not do the system any good.
My notion was greatly strengthened by the growing sentiment that the newspaper industry is beginning to crumble, the major cause of which is because rather than purchasing hard copies at the news stand, people are accessing news at the internet, and to their delight, for free.
For example, the San Francisco Chronicle continues to lay off staffers as sales of the paper version of the paper kept on decreasing. Other papers, such as the Seattle Post-Intelligentner and the Denver Rocky-Mountain News, have already lost their print versions. It is quite possible that the print versions of newspapers will completely vanish in the foreseeable future.
It's ironic that the industry that is experiencing immense hardships as a result of the flat world is the one where Friedman achieved his major success.
I personally read the big papers, such as the New York Times and the LA Times online, partly because the print versions are not available here and also because it is more convenient. It appears that the flat world can be a double edged sword: it is because of the flattening of the world that I am able to read the Times here, but it also because of the flat world that some of these papers might go out of business.
I can only hope that the newspaper media will be able to find a way to generate revenue on the internet, which is not entirely possible. For one, all the major newspapers can unite and begin charging people for viewing the newspaper online. But instead of helping their financial situations, this would probably grossly antagonize the public and everyone will stop reading these papers.
The journalist media is one of the core elements in a functional democracy. It serves as a medium between the state and its people, and it is to hold governments accountable for their actions. Let us hope that this industry will figure out a way to get out this financial crisis.
P.S. referring to the post above, I remember that it was the newspaper newspiece I saw on TV that got me thinking about this entire piece:
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/
under "would you notice if your daily newspaper disappeared?"
Naturally, these views would lead them to more often be in agreement with John Maynard Keynes than with Milton Friedman, Joseph Stieglitz over Robert Nozick, and the notion that an active role by the government in most aspects of society is . This is apparent in both the course curriculum and the discussion by students in class. Many of these discussions center around the issue of equality. Note that equality, in the context of the discussion, mostly refers to equality of condition, and seldom towards equality of opportunity.
One of the writers that these courses discuss is Tom Friedman, and his famous books "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" and "The World Is Flat".
Ever since its debut in 2005, Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat" has been a massive hit. The main appeal of the book was probably Friedman's ability to conceptualize the global interconnectedness in a Flat World theory, which made sense to the general public.
I have generally been a supporter of Friedman's views: contrary to his critics, Friedman not only acknowledges the notion that currently the world is not flat, but that if certain measures are not taken, some parts of the world will never have a chance of being flattened.
However, it seems that while the flat world theory can be seen as true, its consequences are not always favorable.
As a result of this flat world, millions of American jobs are being shipped overseas to manufacturing nations that can produce the same product at a much lower cost. This is economics 101, minimizing costs while maximizing profits. It's how businesses work.
Friedman claims that the launching of Netscape, and the subsequent .com boom, is #1 of the ten principle 'flatteners' of the world. The magic of the internet is that it has given the global population the ability to gain access to unprecedented amounts of information, anywhere, anytime.
But of course, as observations and predictions go, one can never be perfect. The internet soon became the white blood cells of the international economic body, and it is now evident that too much of it does not do the system any good.
My notion was greatly strengthened by the growing sentiment that the newspaper industry is beginning to crumble, the major cause of which is because rather than purchasing hard copies at the news stand, people are accessing news at the internet, and to their delight, for free.
For example, the San Francisco Chronicle continues to lay off staffers as sales of the paper version of the paper kept on decreasing. Other papers, such as the Seattle Post-Intelligentner and the Denver Rocky-Mountain News, have already lost their print versions. It is quite possible that the print versions of newspapers will completely vanish in the foreseeable future.
It's ironic that the industry that is experiencing immense hardships as a result of the flat world is the one where Friedman achieved his major success.
I personally read the big papers, such as the New York Times and the LA Times online, partly because the print versions are not available here and also because it is more convenient. It appears that the flat world can be a double edged sword: it is because of the flattening of the world that I am able to read the Times here, but it also because of the flat world that some of these papers might go out of business.
I can only hope that the newspaper media will be able to find a way to generate revenue on the internet, which is not entirely possible. For one, all the major newspapers can unite and begin charging people for viewing the newspaper online. But instead of helping their financial situations, this would probably grossly antagonize the public and everyone will stop reading these papers.
The journalist media is one of the core elements in a functional democracy. It serves as a medium between the state and its people, and it is to hold governments accountable for their actions. Let us hope that this industry will figure out a way to get out this financial crisis.
P.S. referring to the post above, I remember that it was the newspaper newspiece I saw on TV that got me thinking about this entire piece:
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/
under "would you notice if your daily newspaper disappeared?"
Quick Take: "The Producers" in Germany
"The Producers" the popular comedy musical created by Mel Brooks, finally made its debut in Germany, at the Admiralspalast theatre in Berlin. The significance is that the show's biggest number "Springtime for Hitler", ridicules the dictator and parodies the Nazi campaign.
The main article of reference can be found in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/theater/19abroad.html?_r=1&8dpc
I believe this is a great step for Germany to move on from without a doubt the darkest moments of its history.
Western Europe as a whole has been quite enigmatic when it comes to moving on from the past; on the one hand, that part of the continent as a whole can be seen as the most progressive in the world: abortion and same-sex marriage are no longer considered an issue as both are allowed; most Western European states are welfare states whereby the government is not only responsible to uphold the rights of citizens, but also their well being.
But there are issues where it seems Western Europeans are reluctant, even arrogant, to confront. Perhaps it is the fact that these people led the way for the biggest social and scientific progression, in the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, that instilled them with a certain level of pomp, a quality that often leads to ethnocentrism. For example, Geert Wilders of the Dutch parliament has made it no secret that he believes the Muslims are out to get them.
What is disturbing is that unlike most of the anti-Muslim advocacy groups in the United States, Western Europeans should be more aware of the teachings and history of Islam to know that branding the entire religion as anti-Christian is a gross stereotype.
The point I am trying to make is that for Germans to laugh along with the rest of the world when they watch "Springtime for Hitler" is a giant step towards turning a page on history.
For all the marketing the theater director in Berlin made to galvanize a sagging business, showing "The Producers" to attract younger viewers would not only help the economical hardship of musicals, engage people with a unique way to look at history, but also popularize musicals, a type of literary culture that's been lost in our generation.
The main article of reference can be found in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/theater/19abroad.html?_r=1&8dpc
I believe this is a great step for Germany to move on from without a doubt the darkest moments of its history.
Western Europe as a whole has been quite enigmatic when it comes to moving on from the past; on the one hand, that part of the continent as a whole can be seen as the most progressive in the world: abortion and same-sex marriage are no longer considered an issue as both are allowed; most Western European states are welfare states whereby the government is not only responsible to uphold the rights of citizens, but also their well being.
But there are issues where it seems Western Europeans are reluctant, even arrogant, to confront. Perhaps it is the fact that these people led the way for the biggest social and scientific progression, in the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, that instilled them with a certain level of pomp, a quality that often leads to ethnocentrism. For example, Geert Wilders of the Dutch parliament has made it no secret that he believes the Muslims are out to get them.
What is disturbing is that unlike most of the anti-Muslim advocacy groups in the United States, Western Europeans should be more aware of the teachings and history of Islam to know that branding the entire religion as anti-Christian is a gross stereotype.
The point I am trying to make is that for Germans to laugh along with the rest of the world when they watch "Springtime for Hitler" is a giant step towards turning a page on history.
For all the marketing the theater director in Berlin made to galvanize a sagging business, showing "The Producers" to attract younger viewers would not only help the economical hardship of musicals, engage people with a unique way to look at history, but also popularize musicals, a type of literary culture that's been lost in our generation.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Critiquing Libertarianism
This is an article that I posted on to the school student newspaper. You can read the original article here:
http://www.the-peak.ca/article/18378
Here is my response:
Timing can be a magical thing.
Two days after The Peak published Conor Meade’s masterpiece on libertarianism, in which at one point he asks for evidence of the effectiveness of government checking on greedy corporations, he gets slapped in the face by news that demonstrates the results of not enough government intervention.
First is the disgraced financier Bernard Madoff pleading guilty to 11 counts of fraud and perjury from running a ponzi scheme and stealing an estimated 65 billion dollars. Can we even comprehend that number? Why didn’t he stop at say, a billion? Did he think that was chump change?
My point is this: a free-market virtually devoid of regulation is the reason why Wall Street bankers are able to scam their way through billions of dollars. The same can be said for Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Dennis Koslowski, the list goes on, of people who took advantages of a free market and blatantly took people’s money.
Maybe Meade has been oblivious to the news the past eight months; If not, then I wonder how he can advocate for libertarianism, especially now. In case you still don’t know what I’m talking about, here: laissez faire economics is the principle cause of the current global financial crisis! Greedy bankers and in-over-their-heads homeowners alike, these people ran nuts in an economy that didn’t have enough regulation, buying and selling until they receive debt up to their eyeballs and ended up having their homes foreclosed.
Some stocks are at 20-30 year lows, hedge funds have plunged through the floor, insurance companies are broke, and there was Meade, boasting about how a free market economy is the best way to go.
Here’s the thing with being selective about examples to back up an ideological argument: Meade brings up the ‘Asian Tigers’ as a success story of free-market economics, but conveniently neglects to mention the fact that the ‘Asian Tigers’ all went down under in 1997. The real estate market in Hong Kong was so bad people committed suicide by jumping off the apartments they can no longer afford to live in.
I stuck with Meade’s piece the whole way because I felt it was important to hear the libertarian perspective. At the end of it, I gotta say, he has a point, if we were living in 1922 America.
The truth is, free-market is great if one is idealistic; but as we all know, free market gives the power to private individuals, who would then abuse this power to make more money.
As Gordon Gecko said on the film Wall Street, “Greed is Good”. Many people seemed to have taken this to heart. But as the comedian Craig Ferguson puts it, “greed is NOT good! Greed is not the friend of capitalism, it is the enemy of capitalism!”
Of course the opposing argument would be something like “but politicians are corrupted and abuse their powers too!” Yes, they do. That’s why we vote them out of office when they do (basically why the Liberal party is where they are today). But we can’t do anything to corrupted businessmen, unless we catch them and put them in jail. Until that happens, we’d still be bailing out CEOs who would then reward themselves with insane bonuses.
Here is why an unregulated market doesn’t work. As far as economics goes, I would agree with Thomas Hobbes in thinking that humans are self-interested in their nature, which means they will try to make more gains any chance they get.
A privatized nation would be one driven by profit. Do you really want the fire department to ask “cash or credit?” before they come to your rescue?
There’s the thing about taxes. I’m going to try to break the myth that is that countries in Western Europe pay way more taxes than we do. The truth is, they don’t. In France, the average family between ages 18-26 with two children pays an income tax of about 22 percent, compared to one in America, who would pay about 19 percent. But look at what the French are getting from their taxes: Free health care, almost-free childcare, no tuition for any college or university, and unlimited sick days with full pay! The truth is, Americans (and Canadians) hate paying taxes because the money is lost not being well spent (wars, stupid projects, etc.), but that doesn’t mean that government intervention doesn’t work, as seen in Europe.
I wasn’t too surprised when Meade brought up Milton Friedman, as any libertarian would. And I would dutifully bring up John Maynard Keynes, who helped rebuild post-WWII Europe, with the creation of the Bretton-Woods system and subsequently the Marshall Plan. These massive government-sponsored programs helped set up the reemergence of capitalist markets. Keynes has influences on many renowned contemporary economists, including Paul Krugman, who believes that the government should play a vital role in turning this recession around.
During the Republican primaries, I developed great respect for Ron Paul for standing up amongst his fellow candidates to be a true conservative. But if America follows his ideas, then they would let all the automobile industries, even the insurance companies, to go bankrupt, causing millions to lose their jobs and even more to lose their savings.
I don’t want to be painted as a ‘progressive’. I believe that free markets with better government oversight are the best way to achieve a prosperous economy. I understand perfectly where the libertarians are coming from, and why this ideology is no longer compatible with our society, and why there’s still only eight of you.
http://www.the-peak.ca/article/18378
Here is my response:
Timing can be a magical thing.
Two days after The Peak published Conor Meade’s masterpiece on libertarianism, in which at one point he asks for evidence of the effectiveness of government checking on greedy corporations, he gets slapped in the face by news that demonstrates the results of not enough government intervention.
First is the disgraced financier Bernard Madoff pleading guilty to 11 counts of fraud and perjury from running a ponzi scheme and stealing an estimated 65 billion dollars. Can we even comprehend that number? Why didn’t he stop at say, a billion? Did he think that was chump change?
My point is this: a free-market virtually devoid of regulation is the reason why Wall Street bankers are able to scam their way through billions of dollars. The same can be said for Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Dennis Koslowski, the list goes on, of people who took advantages of a free market and blatantly took people’s money.
Maybe Meade has been oblivious to the news the past eight months; If not, then I wonder how he can advocate for libertarianism, especially now. In case you still don’t know what I’m talking about, here: laissez faire economics is the principle cause of the current global financial crisis! Greedy bankers and in-over-their-heads homeowners alike, these people ran nuts in an economy that didn’t have enough regulation, buying and selling until they receive debt up to their eyeballs and ended up having their homes foreclosed.
Some stocks are at 20-30 year lows, hedge funds have plunged through the floor, insurance companies are broke, and there was Meade, boasting about how a free market economy is the best way to go.
Here’s the thing with being selective about examples to back up an ideological argument: Meade brings up the ‘Asian Tigers’ as a success story of free-market economics, but conveniently neglects to mention the fact that the ‘Asian Tigers’ all went down under in 1997. The real estate market in Hong Kong was so bad people committed suicide by jumping off the apartments they can no longer afford to live in.
I stuck with Meade’s piece the whole way because I felt it was important to hear the libertarian perspective. At the end of it, I gotta say, he has a point, if we were living in 1922 America.
The truth is, free-market is great if one is idealistic; but as we all know, free market gives the power to private individuals, who would then abuse this power to make more money.
As Gordon Gecko said on the film Wall Street, “Greed is Good”. Many people seemed to have taken this to heart. But as the comedian Craig Ferguson puts it, “greed is NOT good! Greed is not the friend of capitalism, it is the enemy of capitalism!”
Of course the opposing argument would be something like “but politicians are corrupted and abuse their powers too!” Yes, they do. That’s why we vote them out of office when they do (basically why the Liberal party is where they are today). But we can’t do anything to corrupted businessmen, unless we catch them and put them in jail. Until that happens, we’d still be bailing out CEOs who would then reward themselves with insane bonuses.
Here is why an unregulated market doesn’t work. As far as economics goes, I would agree with Thomas Hobbes in thinking that humans are self-interested in their nature, which means they will try to make more gains any chance they get.
A privatized nation would be one driven by profit. Do you really want the fire department to ask “cash or credit?” before they come to your rescue?
There’s the thing about taxes. I’m going to try to break the myth that is that countries in Western Europe pay way more taxes than we do. The truth is, they don’t. In France, the average family between ages 18-26 with two children pays an income tax of about 22 percent, compared to one in America, who would pay about 19 percent. But look at what the French are getting from their taxes: Free health care, almost-free childcare, no tuition for any college or university, and unlimited sick days with full pay! The truth is, Americans (and Canadians) hate paying taxes because the money is lost not being well spent (wars, stupid projects, etc.), but that doesn’t mean that government intervention doesn’t work, as seen in Europe.
I wasn’t too surprised when Meade brought up Milton Friedman, as any libertarian would. And I would dutifully bring up John Maynard Keynes, who helped rebuild post-WWII Europe, with the creation of the Bretton-Woods system and subsequently the Marshall Plan. These massive government-sponsored programs helped set up the reemergence of capitalist markets. Keynes has influences on many renowned contemporary economists, including Paul Krugman, who believes that the government should play a vital role in turning this recession around.
During the Republican primaries, I developed great respect for Ron Paul for standing up amongst his fellow candidates to be a true conservative. But if America follows his ideas, then they would let all the automobile industries, even the insurance companies, to go bankrupt, causing millions to lose their jobs and even more to lose their savings.
I don’t want to be painted as a ‘progressive’. I believe that free markets with better government oversight are the best way to achieve a prosperous economy. I understand perfectly where the libertarians are coming from, and why this ideology is no longer compatible with our society, and why there’s still only eight of you.
Monday, May 11, 2009
House season finale: unorthodox way to end
Well, for those who's seen it, it's self-explanatory of why this season finale is unorthodox. It's dramatic yet underwhelming at the same time.
The finale is certainly nothing like the one from last season, where things blow up, buses flip over, and people die. But this one does contain that big surprise that most certainly would make the audience go "wow!" and then "no!"
The conclusion of the Chase and Cameron storyline is less than underwhelming. In my mind, Cameron is why seasons 2 and 3 were the best, because her character presents House with the moral dilemmas that made the show an exceptional drama. Now with Cameron probably getting even less screen time, she definitely will be even less involved with House's cases.
That is, if House will be taking cases.
So let us recap what House has gone through over the years: getting shot, getting sued, getting into seizures, numerous detox efforts, and finally, insanity. I'm fine with them, I just hope the writers remember that what made the show good in the first place were the moral dilemmas and good character wit, not unnecessary surprises.
On another note, it's as if the writers listened to the critics who got sick of the storyline involving Thirteen, as nothing was said of her and Foreman for the last five or so episodes.
Good thing to see Kutner do one more short scene at the end, to put a period to this character.
But lets go back to what will become of House. One would hope that when next season begins, House will be drug-free, sane, free of pain, working again, and actually getting together with Cuddy. Of course, that would make it too easy for House, heading into a sixth season where the writers must be having trouble looking for weird cases for House to solve.
Season 5 was up and down to say the least. It started slow, with episodes about Wilson coping with Amber's death. And then began the whole storyline with Thirteen. We get it, she's hot, but personally, I don't think that storyline about Thirteen's self-destructive ways really clicked for me.
Then came "Locked In", by far the best episode of the season, demonstrating the essence of what made "House" good in the first place.
I would also compare the season finale to the likes of strange / surprise movie endings such as "No Country for Old Men", "The Usual Suspects", even "The Sopranos" (although the finale for the Sopranos was for the show in its entirety, involving much more context).
And hey, it does the job of making the audience tune into the next season, I know I will.
The finale is certainly nothing like the one from last season, where things blow up, buses flip over, and people die. But this one does contain that big surprise that most certainly would make the audience go "wow!" and then "no!"
The conclusion of the Chase and Cameron storyline is less than underwhelming. In my mind, Cameron is why seasons 2 and 3 were the best, because her character presents House with the moral dilemmas that made the show an exceptional drama. Now with Cameron probably getting even less screen time, she definitely will be even less involved with House's cases.
That is, if House will be taking cases.
So let us recap what House has gone through over the years: getting shot, getting sued, getting into seizures, numerous detox efforts, and finally, insanity. I'm fine with them, I just hope the writers remember that what made the show good in the first place were the moral dilemmas and good character wit, not unnecessary surprises.
On another note, it's as if the writers listened to the critics who got sick of the storyline involving Thirteen, as nothing was said of her and Foreman for the last five or so episodes.
Good thing to see Kutner do one more short scene at the end, to put a period to this character.
But lets go back to what will become of House. One would hope that when next season begins, House will be drug-free, sane, free of pain, working again, and actually getting together with Cuddy. Of course, that would make it too easy for House, heading into a sixth season where the writers must be having trouble looking for weird cases for House to solve.
Season 5 was up and down to say the least. It started slow, with episodes about Wilson coping with Amber's death. And then began the whole storyline with Thirteen. We get it, she's hot, but personally, I don't think that storyline about Thirteen's self-destructive ways really clicked for me.
Then came "Locked In", by far the best episode of the season, demonstrating the essence of what made "House" good in the first place.
I would also compare the season finale to the likes of strange / surprise movie endings such as "No Country for Old Men", "The Usual Suspects", even "The Sopranos" (although the finale for the Sopranos was for the show in its entirety, involving much more context).
And hey, it does the job of making the audience tune into the next season, I know I will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
