Regarding the Food Network

I happen to be an avid  Food Network viewer, and I have recently noticed what cannot properly be construed as a problem, but more of an observation on the nature of the programming.
As I was watching this past week's "Restaurant: Impossible" episode today (thank God for the wonder that is TiVo), I noticed a promo for the upcoming season of "Extreme Chef", a show which, in its first season, failed to excite anyone and only lasted a few episodes if I remember correctly. The basic premise was a "Chopped"- type competition, where four chefs compete in three rounds, with one getting eliminated after each one, leaving one lucky winner with $10,000. The nature of these challenges was "extreme", as they termed it, meaning that contestants had to swim across a lake to get ingredients, cook in a tornado, or plunge their hands into the chests of screaming Indians such that they could delicately prepare his still-beating heart for the judges, often including Simon Majumdar (who would criticize just about everything involved in the process).
As far as we could tell, the only other rules were that the token woman/homosexual always got eliminated first, and that the final round was always between the classy restaurant chef and the Conan the Barbarian impersonator who fricasseed dead racoons in backwoods Kansas for a living, but knew how to "cook real good". It was a toss-up.
At any rate, this upcoming season appears to only feature seven chefs, but in a more global setting, meaning that the chefs will travel around the world throughout the competition. This actually appears to be a more interesting premise for the show, but my first thought was "wait...this is just a spoof of "The Amazing Race".
Of course, once I realized this, I started thinking about all the other Food Netwrok Shows, and came to an important conclusion: Other than instructional shows ("30 Minute Meals", "Aarti Parti", etc.), shows that tour different culinary locations ("Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives", "Heat Seekers", "Kid in a Candy Store"), educational shows ("Good Eats", "Unwrapped") and "Throwdown With Bobby Flay". NO SHOW ON THE NETWORK IS ACTUALLY ORIGINAL.
Think about it. Even "Iron Chef America", their signature show, comes directly from "Iron Chef". "Chopped", the newest big thing, is essentially an expansion of the secret ingredient aspect of "Iron Chef", though admittedly with some additional creativity regarding the elimination process.
I have assembled a semi-complete list, detailing the Food Network show, and the show it is based off of on TV. It will not be complete, as I cannot remember every show to air on the network off the top of my head.

Again, not complete, and I'm likely missing some significant shows, but I think the connection is clear. It is only honest to point out that I still watch and will continue to watch many of the shows on the chart, as I personally find them entertaining, but it remains a curious observation (note to whoever thinks up these shows-try something original, please). Just some food for thought on a fast day, I suppose.

Training camp!

Today marks a very important day, which is the birthday of my younger daughter.  In other much more minor news, the New York Giants start training camp today, beginning the long run of their attempted title defense.  I am actually optimistic about the upcoming season.  Many signs point to the strong likelihood of at least an NFC East title this year, most of them related to the almost universal opinion of pundits that the Giants have no chance of repeating.  Reading many of the previews, there are multiple reasons that the Giants should consider not even showing up for their games:

1.  The Philadelphia Eagles (density's team) have once again won the offseason. Through aggressive maneuvering on draft day, signing of free agents, contract extensions, and the return of last year's dream team (who would have taken the Giants' place in the playoffs had the Giants not been so lucky), the Eggs have clearly positioned themselves to win every game and send Michael Vick and Andy Reid straight to the Hall of Fame.  *Yawn*  When have we ever heard that before?  Only every year for the past decade.  Clearly now that Douche-on Jackson is signed to a long term deal, he will be happy and give a full effort.  I have never heard of a player tanking after he signs for  big bucks, particularly following a few years of rather vocal discontent over his contract situation. My only hope is that Vick was right in saying that the Uggles have the potential to be a dynasty...and continue their 46 year streak of no championship.

2.  The Washington Redskins have found their savior in the personage of Robert Griffin the Third (no relation to Thurston Howell the Third or Shrek the Third).  While he has an impressive toolset and it would not surprise me if he does go on to have a very good, if not great, pro career, I do not see the 'Skins being quite THAT good this year.  Even Cam Newton, who by most measures had the best rookie season a quarterback has ever had last year, only managed to elevate the Panthers to a 6-10 record last season, up from 2-14 the year before.  I would be surprised if RGIII has a similar season, and even if he does, improving the teams winning record by 4 games would be a lot to ask.  I could see him bringing them up to 8-8, but would be impressed with anything better.

3.  The Dallas Cowboys have also made many moves to improve their roster.  They have addressed their secondary issues through free agency and a rather costly draft day move.  Tony Romo should have another prolific regular season, and this could be the year where he does come through in the clutch. Jerry Jones has cleared laid it on the line with his comments about the closing window of opportunity.  IF they can manage to keep Jerruh in the front office and IF his pressuring of the team doesn't get to them and Jason Garrett, then I can see them being somewhat of a threat in the division.  However, they always seem to find a way to lose out in the end (at least in the past 17 years).

4.  The other strong teams in the NFC (Panthers, Lions, Bears, Falcons, Saints, Bucs, 49ers, Rams, etc) will clearly be the ones to take the wildcard spots, leaving nothing for the NFC East.  Since the Giants won't win the division (see reasons 1-3 above), they are looking a January of golf.

5.  No team has repeated as Super Bowl Champion since 2005.  The way I see it, we are getting due for another.

By my editorializing, you can see what I think about the staying power of the above reasons.  Below are the reasons I think the Giants should remain strongly in contenion:

1.  Eli Manning.  He has improved his numbers every year he has been in the league.  I see no reason why he should not once again throw for over 3000 yards with a >60% completion percentage.  And honestly, I cannot think of another quarterback I would want on my team in the 4th quarter or in the playoffs.  He is far from perfect and has a ways to go before he should be considered Hall of Fame material, but he is certainly pathing in the right direction.

2.  Tom Coughlin.  If there is any coach in the league who will not be swayed from his course by a Super Bowl victory, it is Coughlin.  He will make sure to keep the team grounded and hungry for another title.

3.  Injuries.  While the Giants were fortunate in getting people healthy for their run at the end of the year, it seemed like they were seriously plagued by injuries to many starters at the beginning of the year.  One of the main reasons I can think of for their 9-7 regular season record is the injuries to starters and depth on the defense.  There were a lot of rookies playing for them last year with a limited offseason beforehand due to the lockout.  This year will hopefully see fewer people hurt.  Granted, if I am wrong about this, it could be a long season.

4.  Strength of schedule.  The Giants have the toughest schedule this year, based on last year's regular season records of their opponents.  So why have a put this as a strength?  Well, the Patriots have one of the easiest schedules this year and we know what that means.  Another potential rematch with:

Whatever happens, it should be a fun season.  Also gives me more to read about during my lunch breaks at work.

GO GIANTS!!!!

Immortality? Not that way, thanks!

As I was going through my workload today, I came upon a specimen from an unfortunate man who suffered from Fournier's gangrene. I paused to consider how much I would want to be famous for something like that and came to the rapid conclusion: not in the slightest.  One has to wonder how the people who have described diseases feel about the eponymous descriptors of those diseases.   If I were, say,  Leishman, who identified the protozoan that causes Leishmaniasis, I probably would not mind terribly, since the disease is named after the organism which he described (Leishmania sp.), and finding new species, even parasitic ones, is a pretty exciting thing.  However, being recorded for eternity in connection with some of the more (or less, depending on your perspective) colorful diseases out there, seems somewhat less than desirable.  I certainly would not want to be remembered for the reasons we immortalize Peyronie, Bowen, von Recklinghausen, or Queyrat (go Wikipedia them yourself).  Eponyms are frowned upon in medical schools (at least they were in mine when I went there), probably in part for these reasons.  Some common names for diseases are understandable;  for example, syphilis being called the French pox by the English, the English pox by the French, and lues in older medical terminology, derived from the Latin for plague.  However, if I should ever wind up discovering a novel disease, I would probably be happiest giving it a long Latin name in keeping with the likes of pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta, to at least be certain of giving future medical students headaches in pronouncing it (much less remembering it).   In retrospect, it wouldn't surprise me if Fournier was really the name of the man found in a compromising situation with the wife of the person who first discovered the disease.  That is an eponym of which I would wholeheartedly approve.

P.S. I did not go with my initial inclination of linking the Google Images page for Fournier's gangrene. Go ahead...click it...I dare you.

The pet dog

Sunday marked the 6th birthday of my dog, Tundra.  As I did not start this blog until yesterday, I am only getting around to public acknowledgement of his natal anniversary today.  My oldest son, Jason, is more in tune with these events and posted his birthday wishes to the dog on a different website, which rhymes with Macehook.
For those of you deficient of the inestimable pleasure of knowing my dog,  I will proceed to let you know more about him whether you wish to or not.  Tundra is of that rare hybrid designer breed known as a Sibercan.  This is a fiendishly clever contraction of the two breeds of his parents, a Siberian Husky and a Canaan dog.  The former breed is pretty well known, whereas the latter is a bit more obscure, unless you happen to have read the somewhat recent article about their plight in the Washington Post or you are an expert in obscure AKC breeds.  I know that I had never heard of them before we got Tundra.  Needless to say, the experiment by the breeder in making this hybrid went over so well, that Tundra's was the only litter they produced.
We first got Tundra at the tender age of 8 weeks, delivered to us by a dog-courier facility from the Michigan location of his breeder.  He was even sold at half price, due to the fact that he was a "shy" puppy.  Since then, I have suspected that "shy" might be a euphemism for "mentally retarded" in the world of canine husbandry, but since he does occasionally show flashes of functional grey matter, he may indeed just suffer from diffidence.
The best thing I can say about our dog is that he provides us with a seemingly endless source of entertainment, although I am pretty sure that none of it is intentional.  He is most easily described (with all due apologies to the late Douglas Adams) as acting in a manner almost, but not entirely, unlike a dog.  I have even considered looking for a zipper to see if he is just a sheep wearing a dog suit and often refer to him as our "dog-shaped mammalian pet."  The following list highlights his canine deficiency syndrome:
He does not appear to enjoy being petted.
Pleasing his owners only seems to be a motivation to him if he stand to gain something in the process.
If you throw an object at him, such as a tennis ball, piece of cheese, or chainsaw, he calmly lets it bounce off of his head/shoulder/back, without making an effort to catch it.
He will not chase thrown items (which makes it very difficult to play the fun game of faking a throw in order to watch his confusion at where the ball disappeared to)
He almost never barks.
He follows commands at times (i.e. if we are going through his training before giving him a treat), but generally just runs through a sequence of actions, rather than listening to what he is being told to do.
Along that line, he seems to have always interpreted the "sit" command as "take two or three steps back and then sit."
When strangers come to the house, he occasionally gets up to sniff them, but usually just stays reposed on the floor.
He will not climb stairs in the house (either up or down).
He has a nearly constant sad expression on his face, even when (especially when?) he is being petted or otherwise attended.
He has been observed digging a hole in the backyard to bury a rawhide bone....with his nose.
He used to routinely chew on grass when he was a puppy.
When we used to take him to the dog park, his main interest was standing near the water pump and not interacting with the other dogs.
However, this used to appeal to him so much that he would (probably still does) whine and pull towards the park every time we walk in sight of it.
When deer come into our backyard, he just stands around and looks at them (of course this may be due to his concern about the electronic fence..he has been zapped by it before and enjoys it even less than being petted).

I am sure there are many other examples I can come up with, but the above should be enough to give a general idea of what he is like.  To be fair, a lot of the reasons listed above are a part of why he is such a great dog for our family.  In addition, he is terrifically patient with the kids (my daughter used to pull on him to stand up when she was a toddler and he sat there stoically without making a move toward her), he house trained pretty quickly, he stays off of the furniture, he only requires one walk a day (but is a great pest when he does not get it), and occasionally shows glimpses of being smarter than he lets on.  My wifegenerally insists that he is independent;  however this does not keep her from calling him "stupid" a good portion of the time.  All in all, I am glad we have him.

Go read something

Society's evolved in many ways,
As it's been wont to do throughout the years.
More leisure time now fills our average days,
And Boredom rivals other primal fears.
Though blessed with countless ways to occupy
Our time productively, we often fail
To make the most of it, but mollify
That lassitude which does our Sense assail:
Senselessly watching worlds diverse from ours,
Regurgitated shows far less than real,
Virtual weapons, imaginary powers -
Our fleeting useful hours distractions steal.
Profoundest loss Society's incurred 
Is dwindled fondness for the written word.