Spoiler Alert: Dexter Season 5

How does Dexter handle being a single
parent? By getting a serious of breaks
to go his way!

Coming off easily the best season of Dexter ever, it's understandable that this season has been somewhat of a letdown. The first three episodes, the writers were clearly scrambling to get Dexter back to what he does best. They settled on sending the kids to Orlando to live with their grandparents (which, personally, I thought was a huge cop-out) and we haven't really heard from them since. Then Dexter finds a babysitter that apparently has nothing else to do all day than watch little Harrison (how exactly does he afford stuff like this as a blood analyst? The plastic sheets and killing outfits alone should bankrupt him). Which leads us to the main plot lines this year. Stop me if you've heard them before:

(1) There's a killer loose in Miami that's beheading people and then leaving the bodies in very interesting and specific positions.

(2) Dexter's true self was revealed to someone and now she's off trying to do what he does.

(3) One of the detectives in homicide has serious suspicions about Dexter and is obsessed with catching him.

Not ringing any bells? Let me help you out: (1) every season; (2) Season 3; (3) Season 2.

So in a sense what we have here is a greatest hits of Dexter plot lines, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but makes me skeptical for the rest of the episodes.

Season Predictions

Dexter may have a serious problem on
his hands by letting Miguel Prado, I
mean Lumen Ann Pierce, see his true
self.

(1) The hispanic uniform cop working with Debra is actually behind or intimately involved with the beheadings. This is the type of twist that we always see from Dexter and with her character appearing so abruptly, it makes me all the more suspicious. Either that, or they'll use her as a red herring.

(2) Lumen (Julia Stiles) will kill herself. They won't have her go off the deep end like Miguel Prado (Jimmy Smits) because, come on, how lazy would that be? This leaves us with three options: heading back home, getting caught, and offing herself. Having her simply heading home would be a huge letdown (especially since they just tried to fake us out with that last episode) and getting caught is out of the question because she would more than likely rat out Dexter. This leaves me with the suicide option and given how fragile he current mental state is, it seems like the most likely option.

(3) Quinn will finally get to Jonah and he'll protect Dexter. This won't put an end to Quinn's suspicions but that's as far as we'll get this season. As far as I know, this isn't the last season of Dexter so I don't think we're in any danger of Dexter getting caught.

Defending the Mad Men Finale

I've been hearing a lot of negativity towards the Mad Men season finale so I thought I would come to the defense of poor Matt Weiner (he only has a couple million a year to console himself, folks, leave the man alone).

Granted, the season finale wasn't anywhere near as good as last year's epic finale, but don't you think we were all asking a lot of Weiner to live up to that lofty standard? After all, Seasons 1 & 2 didn't exactly have phenomenal endings either (do you actually remember them? I had to look them up).

A kinder, gentler, more family-friendly
Don Draper? No thanks. We want
emotionally-abusive, brash, mildly-
alcoholic Don Draper please!

I think the problem everyone is having is Don Draper is at his best when he's a miserable wiseass who takes pleasure it telling people off. In the finale, though, he's a jovial family man who, in the end, did what was best for his family (translation: boring television). Many people I've talked to are concerned that that is the direction they're going to take Don's character but I would suggest otherwise. Mad Men thrives on downward spirals. Thinks about it, Don is in one every year. The problem is, Don also bottoms out near the end of each year, so Weiner has to find a way to bring him back up. Last year, it was the new firm. This year it's a new wife.

The important thing, Mad Men fans, is that early in the next season, Don's new marriage will start falling apart at the seams and he'll be back to verbally bitch-slapping people by episode two. Mark my words. Remember what Doctor Lady said in the finale: "You only like the beginning of things, Don."

You Just ... Don't Get it, Do You Scott? You Don't!

In a perfect example of "completely out of touch with the real world," News Corp. has pulled their channels from all Cablevision markets. Now this in no big deal to me personally, but I'm sure the good people of New York and Philadelphia would like to watch their baseball teams play today.

Disney almost neglected me of Full
House reruns! My favorite is where DJ
does something even though she
knows she's not suppose to and she gets
caught and Danny gives her a heart-
warming speech about how much he
loves her and they hug as the audience
goes, "Awwww!" 

Now we see this happen all the time. It happened earlier this year with Time Warner and Disney channels (ABC, ESPN, ABC Family, and most importantly, the Disney Channel). Now, I'm sure Cablevision viewers are devastated at the prospect of being without FOXNews for days but they're much more likely to get angry/drunk phone calls from Phillies and Evil Empire fans to put the ALCS and NLCS back on the air.

I understand that this is a negotiating ploy and that Cablevision will probably cave but is there no shame among multi-billion dollar corporations? Yeah, I didn't think so either. I'm hoping this backfires on News Corp., who already is pretty much hated, and they have to field all the angry calls. After all, they're the ones who picked the day of the championships to make their point. Although, they should get some credit for not waiting until the World Series to pull this stunt. Clearly, they have some modicum of a soul remaining.

Networks try this crap all the time and it seems that the only cable provider that stands up to them is Time Warner. Look at NFL Network. The NFL, perhaps only second to News Corp. in greediness, forced all of the cable networks to make NFL Network a part of their basic cable. Time Warner refused, saying they would be happy to make it a premium channel but it wouldn't be basic cable because their was no demand for it (I mean, what am I suppose to do with this channel the 360 days they don't have a game?). The NFL started an anti-Time Warner campaign that they had to stop after a few months because it backfired big time. The reason? Believe it or not, the customers didn't want their rates to raise for a network they didn't even really want.

My point is, while these holdouts work more often than not (except when your channel is completely worthless, NFL), all the channel succeeds in doing is making itself look more greedy slowly eroding whatever goodwill they may have. While they may have legitimate reasons to rate increases, the customers are always going to side with the cable provider in this case because they are fighting to keep the rates the same ... so they can raise them later on their own and make more profit. Wait a minute, why do we side with them again?

Riding the Roller Coaster of the NLDS

Talk about a nail-bitter, the NLDS between the Braves and Giants feature a tortured franchise in the Giants and a franchise that, despite winning a title in '95, more often than not winds up let's their fans (most notably, me) down on the postseason stage. I can't recall another series that featured two franchises that had a history of torturing fans and then both teams proceeded to do it each game.  Ride the coaster with me ...

Game 1
Tim Lincecum throws an absolute gem striking out 14 along the way.


Braves Fans Perspective: After a somewhat shaky first inning, Lincecum was totally unhittable and at no time did the Braves fans feel like they had a chance as long as he was pitching.

Giants Fans Perspective: Lincecum was pitching well but, as usual, the batting lineup was letting him down. Loewe pitched well and the Braves bullpen looked solid which means that Braves are only going to touch up Lincecum for two runs the tie the game. Something that all Giants fans were probably expecting.

Game 2
The Giants jump on young Tommy Hansen early but fail to produce any runs after the second.

Braves Fans Perspective: With the lineup missing two of the four best players on the team (Prado and Chipper), there seemed to be little hope of getting five or more runs against Cain. What transpired was a tremendous surprise and once the game was tied up, Braves fans started liking their chances.

The Giants fans' slogan for the year is
"Giants Baseball - Torture." I'm
completely serious.

Giants Fans Perspective: With Cain on the mound and a four run lead after just two innings they had to be feeling pretty good. Until the sixth inning where an error on Pat Burrell (who constantly proves that fielding ability is less than important to play left field in MLB) allowed Derek Lee to advance into scoring position. When McCann drove him in on the next play, Giants fan started feeling that feeling in the pit of their stomachs that the hammer was about to fall. The Braves then made three straight outs stranding McCann on second and allowing Giants fans to breathe again. When the first three batters got on in the eighth, though, Giants fans started getting that nagging feeling of impending doom again. A throwing error on the Kung Fu Panda (almost as overrated as the movie he's named after) scored a run, Giants fans knew what was coming. The Braves tied the game two plays later. The Giants were unable to get runners on in the eight or ninth but in the top of the tenth, the Giants loaded the bases with one out and the one batter performing well in the series coming up in Buster Posey (who incidentally, should decimate Jayson Heyward in the NL Rookie of the Year award who fell apart down the stretch). Posey would hit into a double play that absolutely deflated PacBell (or whatever the hell their calling it these days). Number eight hitter Rick Ankiel launched a bomb into the bay in the 11th and I think all Giants fans knew the game was over at that point.

Game 3
Another pitching showdown. Giants capitalized on an early error on Brooks Conrad (which would become a trend) but went scoreless after that until the ninth. The Braves again struggled to hit until a two-run bomb by Eric Hinske. In a mirror image of Game 2, the Braves blew it in the ninth.

The loneliest man on the planet Sunday
was Brooks Conrad and believe me, I
was relieved to relinquish the title.

Braves Fans Perspective: As the Ks continued to rack up, Braves fans couldn't help but relive Game 1 again. Hope was at an all-time low until Hinske pinch hit in eighth just barely snuck over the wall in right field. After issuing the Giants another stomach punch, it was difficult to believe that they would be able to come back. Unfortunately, Billy Wagner had torn his oblique in the previous game and the Braves had no closer in the pen. Bobby went to young Craig Kimbrel who had been outstanding in Games 1 and 2 for the save. Kimbrel got the first out fairly easily then gave up a walk. He quickly bounced back by fanning Torres and Braves fans couldn't help but believe that the game was over.  Kimbrel gave up a single to Freddy Sanchez and got the hook to bring in a lefty face left-handed batter Aubrey Huff. Huff singled to tie the game. Bobby brought in Moylan to face righty Buster Posey who hit a grounder to second. The ball took an in-between hop and Brooks Conrad (a pinch-hit specialist who was only playing because of the injury to Chipper and Prado) came up completely empty allowing the go-ahead run to score. As far as Braves fans were concerned, the game was over there.

Giants Fans Perspective: Game 3 proved to be a terrifying combination of Games 1 and 2 with a great pitching performance with abismal run support. This time, the Braves capitalized and when the Hinske homer happened, Giants fans had to feel that there was no way they were going win. As the ninth unfolded, Giants fans were in shock as their team took the lead. What people don't understand about being in a tortured franchises, though, is that a lead in a key situation scares the crap out of them. The bottom of the ninth was terrifying. Sure you have a lead, but you're convinced that the only reason you took the lead was to make your loss all the more unbearable. Trust me, they were waiting for something terrible to happen until the very last out.

The Types of Fans

With the playoffs under way in MLB, I thought I would break down the types of fans Bill Simmons-style. Being a Bills and a Braves fans, I've been all over the map and on the happy to devastated scale and could be among the most qualified to do this ... probably. So here we go.

The Winners
At the end of the day, there's only one team in each league that's totally satisfied: the champs. Now, you can further break down the types of winners based on the importance of the title. Don't get me wrong, all titles are specials, but I don't think anyone would argue with that some are better than others. So here we go:

The Guerilla Off the Back

The '04 Sox fans will never be able to
recapture the joy of that title.

There's nothing better than getting that guerilla off your back for the first time whether it's the first title ever or the first in a long, long, long time. I think the reaction of New Orleans' fans last year say it all. This is the only situation where all generations are experiencing the joy of a title for the first time and the elation of accomplishing something that they never thought would happen.

First Title of Your Lifetime
You always remember your first. No matter how much the old-timers tell you about the glory days of your franchise, you never fully own it. Not until your team wins the title under your watch for the first time. Then its your title, something you earned.

First Title in 20+ Years
Important note, this can only apply to 30 and up for obvious reasons. But this is the point where you're beginning to forget what it feels like to win and you're beginning to think it will never happen again. Then comes the sweet reminder.

Been There, Done That
Don't get me wrong, it's still sweet, but it's more like a great buzz than the pure elation of the top three levels. It's the one thing I can hold over Yankees fans. All the titles they win will never feel better than when the Bills win Super Bowl LXV.

The Losers
Nobody likes to lose ... except for maybe Cubs fans. So when your team is finally done for the year it hurts no matter what. But some are less painful than others. Allow me to break it down:

Recent Champs
It's a long-held fact of fandom that if you've won a title in the last 10 years, you cannot complain about not winning until your 10 year window is up. Still in the warm afterglow of a title, it numbs the pain of being eliminated. At least it should, but it can lead to one of our later levels.

Glad-to-Be-Here Playoff Team
When you haven't been to the playoffs in 10 or more years, just getting there is almost as good as winning a title. This can also be said of teams that over-achieved and the fans know it. Losing is going to hurt but you're so pumped to just make the playoffs that you'll convince yourself that this is the first step to an inevitable title, which is a slippery slope to the bottom of this list.

Pessimistic Fans
You have absolutely no faith in your team and therefore you're numb when they lose. Great example of this is the Bills this year. I'm have no confidence that the Bills will win a single game this year. This makes each loss less painful albeit more embarrassing. It's easier to deal with an even level of emotions than a roller coaster which is why I'll always maintain that it's much easier to be a Lions fan than a Bills fan.

Spoiled Fans

LeBron James is a Yankees fan so you
know how hard it is. It's not like he' a
front-runner or anything. He's was also
Bulls and Cowboys fan in the 90s ...
wait a minute ...

This is a franchise that has been so successful recently that they expect to win every single year. When they don't, they take it fairly badly, much to the chagrin of long-suffering fans who have never won. The perfect example is the '03 - '08 Yankees. If you ever heard talk radio coming out of the City in that timeframe, you would think they were the Cubs.

Atlanta Braves Syndrome
I couldn't come up with a better name so bare with the bias. As you'll recall, the Braves won 14 consecutive division titles in the 90s and early 00s. All of these opportunities resulted in exactly 1 title. This is tough to explain to someone who's never won a title but getting all those chances and blowing 13 out of 14 of them hurts pretty bad. Don't believe me? Ask a Colts fan.

Great Expectations, Huge Disappointment
There's nothing worse than finally making it to the top of the game, seeing all the experts pick you, and then coming up short. The worst part of this one is that the team has convinced you that this is the year. This year, they're going to get it done. Then when they're finally eliminated you're blindsided. See: 2001 Mariners.

Tortured Fans

This is just an average day in a Cubs
fan's life

There are only a handful of franchises that fall to this level. Many teams have unjustifiably label themselves tortured franchises but only 9 actually are (counting only the NBA, MLB, and NFL; you know, the real leagues). To qualify, you need to: 1) have no titles in the last 30 years; 2) lose in stunning fashion on a consistent basis and 3) continue to get near greatness only to have it ripped away from you. Using this criteria, I've come up with the following franchises in the three important sports leagues (in no particular order): Bills, Indians, Browns, Cavs, Cubs, Vikings, Knicks, Eagles, SF Giants.

This Year's Playoff Crew
So where do this year's playoff teams fit in on the fan scale? Here's what I got:

Yankees and Phils - Recent Champs
Braves, Rangers and Reds - Glad-to-be-Here
Twins - Atlanta Braves Syndrome
Giants - Tortured Fans
Rays - N/A: don't have fans
*if they did, they would fit in Great Expectations, Huge Disappointment

E-Dunc Misery Watch: Day 3,923

Sure, the team is better looking now,
but is it actually better without
Marshawn Lynch?

The Bills got a lot less ugly today. The Brain Trust traded away one of the few Pro Bowlers left on what is still generously being called a "professional football team." Now granted, you cannot have three high caliber running backs on your team. There just aren't enough carries to go around. So at the end of the day, somebody had to go and Lynch made himself the most expendable by his off the field indiscretions (he got caught smoking pot in an SUV he had inexplicably removed the license plates from and got arrested on gun charges).

This of course brings me back to last year's draft. On a team that had no quality offensive tackles, no starting-caliber quarterbacks, and no pass-catching tight end, the Brain Trust took a running back, something that we already had excellent depth at. Spiller is a phenomenal talent and is a big play waiting to happen, but in my opinion his ceiling is Reggie Bush: an exciting contributor who will never be able to carry a team. By trading Marshawn, we are essentially left with Fast Freddy Jackson as our only serious run threat. I hope that Spiller can break a few big runs the rest of the year, but he's shown no indications that he's ready to do that as a running back (he's showed a lot of promise coming out of the slot and on screen passes, not to mention kick returns but has been less than impressive on run plays).

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but the Bills offense is going to be even more terrible down the stretch as we now lack any semblance of a power running game.

A look into the Bills draft room minutes
before the CJ Spiller pick.

"But E-Dunc," you may be saying, "you have to build for the future and I'm sure you got some good draft picks for him!" Good point, although I would hesitate to say a fourth round pick is the solution to our problem (although it's probably the best we could do). It's clear that the Bills have so many needs that we need all draft choices we can get to fill them. The problem is, given how badly the Brain Trust botched last year's draft, I'm terrified what we're going to do with them. I could see us doing something inexplicable like drafting A.J. Green and then having to trade Lee Evans for a fourth round pick (or as I call it, deja vu) while again refusing to take any tackles for the 83rd year in a row (NOTE: number of years may be an exaggeration).

So good luck in Seattle, Marshawn. If you become an All Pro again, I may have to go all Dexter on One Bills Drive.

Unsolicited Movie Advice: Social Network

After a pretty mediocre summer season, it was about time that we kicked off Oscar season in style. The Social Network is probably the first serious contender for the gold statue of the year (NOTE: the Academy has too big a stick up their ass to let Inception win Best Picture no matter how badly it deserves it). The movie teams up one of my personal favorite screenwriters and Entourage cameos, Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, West Wing) with legendary director David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en) creating some of the best dialogue in recent memory.

The screenplay is by far the best facet of the movie. As to be expected from Sorkin, the plot is very much dialogue driven and we are treated to some fantastic one-liners from our main character Mark Zuckerberg (who couldn't have been too pleased with the movie, but more on that later). Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the screenplay, though, was that Sorkin managed to stay fairly neutral, never siding too much with any of the characters in the quest to find out what really happened at the beginning of one of the world's most popular Web sites.

Without getting into too much detail, the plot centers around Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg as he created Facebook in his sophomore year at Harvard. As the movie tells it, Zuckerberg was approached by a campus frat to produce what they call "Harvard Connection" which would be a facebook (at the time, all the frats had sites that had a picture of their members and their names called a facebook) but on a campus-wide basis. The reason everyone would use it, they claimed, was the exclusivity of the @harvard.edu. In other words, it will be an online social club that only Harvard students could use.

Zuckerberg agreed to make the page then set about making what would ultimately become Facebook while stringing along the frat brothers. Zuckerberg turned to his best friend Eduardo Saverin to finance the endeavor. Saverin put up $1,000 for the initial server space and Zuckerberg rewarded him with 30% of the company. Saverin would continue to be the sole source of money until they secured financing almost a year later.

Zuckerberg goes on to be sued by both the frat boys and Saverin in two seperate law suits that occurred at the same time. Saverin alone sued for the dizzying sum of $600 million.

While the screenplay is the movie strength, kudos also go to Jesse Eisenberg (Zombieland) who continues his meteoric rise to the top. Eisenberg plays Zuckerberg perfectly as a cocky douche who puts more importance in his coding than anything else. He excelled at Sorkin's quick banter turning in the best performance of the year thus far (E-Dunc Guarantee: Oscar nomination for Eisenberg; he won't win, again, the huge stick up the Academy's ass, but it's an honor just to be nominated right?)

Final Verdict: A 

(A = Definitely Go See it in Theaters) 

P.S. How I Would Have Awarded the Law Suits

This really isn't a spoiler since, you know, this is based on a true story and all, but if you haven't seen it you might not want to read this so you can form your own opinion.

First, the case of the twins:

Zuckerberg did absolutely nothing illegal in stringing along the frat boys while he launched his own site. My feeling is that he wasn't trying to conceal that he stole their idea but was trying to get a head start on a competing Web site. He hadn't signed a contract and the frat had every opportunity to bring on a new programmer. At the end of the day, what Zuckerberg did was a dick move and questionable ethically but he didn't steal any actual programming code. Where you get into a real debate is when you ask the question of whether or not Zuckerberg stole the idea of Facebook from Harvard Connection. My feeling is that Harvard Connection wasn't that original an idea. MySpace and Friendster had been around for years, the only thing that Harvard Connection would have offered was the exclusivity of the @harvard.edu e-mail address, an idea that Zuckerberg did incorporate into Facebook, but I don't feel is the driving force behind its success. Therefore, I would have only award the frat boys between $1 and $3 million (a microscopic percentage of the $7.9 billion Facebook is worth today according to Forbes Magazine). It's reported that they settled for $65 million. The twins, on a side-note, swear the film is 100% accurate.

Now, the more difficult case of Saverin:

Saverin has a much better case against Zuckerberg because I believe that Facebook would never have gotten off the ground without Saverin as the money man. Saverin is the only person that would have given Zuckerberg $1,000 without making any demands about the site. This allowed Zuckerberg the level of creativity needed to make Facebook what it is today. The original agreement was that Saverin would own 30% of Facebook. When he signed the new contracts, Zuckerberg snuck in a clause that didn't protect his shares if they offered more stock in the future. When they got more outside financing Saverin was diluted all the way down to 0.3%. Again, this was a dick move, but not illegal because Saverin signed the contract. A civil case is not meant to find what is illegal, however, but to find what is right. As such, I feel that Saverin had no reason to believe that his best friend would screw him out of his 30% and didn't read the contract as thoroughly as he should have. Now given that Facebook is currently valued at $7.9 billion according to Forbes, Saverin would have been entitled to just over $2 billion. Now I feel that he should be held somewhat accountable for not reading the contract more thoroughly so I'm only going to give him 10% for a total of $790 million. Now you might be saying to yourself, "But he only sued for $600 million!" Excellent point, but keep in mind that that suit was a couple of years ago and Facebook has continued to grow exponentially. The movie says Saverin settled for an undisclosed amount which I'm going to put somewhere in the $200-$500 million range.