"Chopped" is a travesty

• 
• I kind of hate Ted Allen. He has no personality, at least on this show, and I don't have any reason to believe he knows about food in the same way that even a Tom Colicchio would.
  
• It's obvious that this is a Top Chef knock-off. It was bad enough when they had "Next Food Network Star," which sucked, but at least was right for Food Network. The skills it tested were more associated the warm nonsense that Food Network goes for than actual cooking. This show purports to be about actual top-level cooking, which is why is fails. That's simply not what Food Network is about, it's about home cooking.
• The ingredients are mostly things a Food Network viewer might find at home. It might seem cute and appeal to some, but it just seems contrived and weird to restrict real chefs in this way.
• Dessert is the final showdown between the last two contestants. Really? Something real chefs apparently don't really focus on at all is the last task?
• Because there are new chefs on every episode, you don't get to know them, so it ends up being another personality-less affair, like Food Network Challenge. At least on shows like Throwdown, you can learn to love to hate Bobby Flay.
• There's really only room in my life for one food competition show, and even that one spot has been being squeezed recently by the poor quality of Top Chef this season. Sorry Chopped.
  

There's often such a fine line between inspired and insipid

Inspired:

Insipid:


So similar, yet so radically different.

Quote of the Day

"(All together now, all you masochists out there, specially those of you don't have a partner tonight, alone with those fantasies that don't look like they'll ever come true - want you just to join in here with your brothers and sisters, let each other know you're alive and sincere, try to break through the silences, try to reach through and connect. . . .)

Aw, the sodium lights-aren't, so bright in Berlin,
I go to the bars dear, but nobody's in!
Oh, I'd much rather bee
In a Greek trage-dee,
Than be a VICTIM IN A VACUUM to-nite!"

From Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon

'Play-to-lose' on Final Jeopardy is an abomination

Something strange and infuriating has been happening recently on Jeopardy. Contestants in second or third place prior to Final Jeopardy, even when within striking distance of the money leader, have bid zero or some negligible amount in the hope that all contestants answer incorrectly, resulting in a win by virtue of not losing money.

Take this scenario based on yesterday's game: Alex unveils the category - International Relations. Not so bad, right? "International Relations" is more or less code for history of the past 150 years and anyone on Jeopardy should know plenty about that. The money leader has $20k, second has $15k, last has $5k. The question is pretty easy: Over what country's airspace may America only fly 'hurricane hunter' planes? (Cuba.) Yet, it is answered wrong by each contestant. (Iran, China, and N. Korea, respectively. Idiots.)

Last place wagered everything and zeroed out. Second place wagered $1k and finished with $14k. The money leader placed the standard bet for money leaders, that is, twice the second place contestant's money total before Final plus one. Here, that came to $10,001. That put the leader prior to Final at $9,999, handing the victory to the second place player with $14k.

What sort of bullshit is this feckless strategy? Final Jeopardy clues are often tricky, but it is the rare clue that draws on hopelessly obscure knowledge as to be unanswerable. Typically, the clue provides several hints leading most intelligent people to the answer, regardless of the topic. (Yesterday, those clues were hurricanes and nations hostile to America - hence Cuba.) The 'play-to-lose' strategy is predicated on the assumption that the bidder isn't going to be smart enough to answer the question. I am stunned at this lack of confidence and find that it taints a victory.

Fine, the strategy can work. But only if you're a weak-willed conniver. It's kind of like taking the Don't Pass Line in craps. Sure, you win every now and then, but it's so contrary to the spirit of the game that you deserve a hearty amount of derision when you achieve victory.

Granted, 'play-to-lose' is occasionally acceptable. Last place contestants, where the top two are neck-and-neck, may play to lose. Truly obscure categories where a contestant legitimately may have no knowledge permit a play-to-lose strategy. (Yet, as stated above, well-written questions will almost always have an out for a smart contestant to make a strong educated guess even if he or she doesn't know much about the category.)

The inverse of play-to-lose is excessive aggression, which I really enjoy watching and would probably employ if I were a contestant on Jeopardy. My favorite example of over-aggression was a kid in last year's Teen Tournament who went for 'true' Daily Doubles almost every time he had the opportunity. Because he was really sharp and boundlessly confident, he had some success. However, like 'play-to-lose,' the strategy is flawed. It is based on the assumption that you can answer all of the questions, as opposed to the assumption underlying 'play-to-lose' - nobody can answer any of the questions. He was eventually tripped up on a crucial Daily Double involving Václav Havel. Poor kid. The difference between these strategies is that one is confident and affirming, while the other is cowardly and weak.

So yeah. Get some balls and bid like the trivia genius you obviously think you are. You're on Jeopardy - act like it.

An Old Statement in a New Form

A big phrase these days is "it ain't trickin' if you got it." It seems to be in every big rap song these days. T.I. and Lil Wayne in particular are noted proponents of the phrase. In its most literal meaning, the phrase means that spending a lot of money on a girl who has sex with you isn't prostitution if you were already entitled to it.

Of course, this is just a reformulation of an earlier expressed sentiment, "it ain't braggin' if you can do it." (Or "...if you can back it up." Sources vary.) This was said by Dizzy Dean, a Cardinals baseball player from the 1930's. Dean's sentiment lacks the sexual imagery of today's rap phrase, but the basic idea is obviously the same: flashy behavior is acceptable as long as you have transcendent talent. (Dean probably adapted this from an earlier source; I'm not accusing Lil Wayne of biting Dizzy Dean.)

No nuanced observations here. Just pointing out something kind of banal that I've noticed recently.