The Rogers Family

So I have not blogged in nearly two months. Yes, yes, I know I am a slacker, but I have an excuse! I am pregnant, busy and forgetful. Pretty much everyone who could possibly read this blog already knows that we have a young'un on the way, and that she is a girl. Still, I have to put her cute little picture up:



That's my daughter! Which is just weird to say "my daughter." So, I will try to keep the blog better posted on the Rogers comings and goings.

I have to put my two cents with the whole "Jon & Kate Plus 8" thing, especially since I wouldn't be surprised if Nathan is sick to death of hearing me going on and on about it. You know, we see it everywhere; on the magazines at the store, on the clip shows on TV (which, on a side note, if you don't watch The Soup on E!, you are missing a heckuva good time!!). The Gosselins are just plain everywhere.

Of course, last night was another two new episodes. I had them set to tape but only got to see commercials for them as yet (The Golden Girls was on and I didn't want to change the channel!). In the commercial for the "Kate's Birthday" episode, one of the sextuplets (a boy) yells loudly, "Happy Birthday Mom!" and a second later another sextuplet (a girl) screams a "Happy Birthday, Mom!" even louder, to the point that it was not a scream, but rather a screech. The next part of the commercial showed Kate and the kids at the Ace of Cakes (from Food Network) store and Kate was jokingly snapping at Duff, the guy who runs Ace of Cakes. Both segments stood out to me, although at the time I didn't put much more thought into them other than rolling my eyes at Kate being a bitch, again.

Currently I am reading a book called Captivating. It is what most people would call a "self-help" book or possibly "Christian inspirational." Either way, the point of this book is to kind of break down and analyze what makes a woman who she is and how to get past hurts in her life. In the chapter I have read most recently, the point was made that while a girl's father tells her (by his words and actions) what a woman's value is, it is a girl's mother who teaches her (also by her words and actions) how to be a woman. The mother is the example of femininity and shows her daughter how a woman acts and what the essence of a woman is.

Now obviously, many mothers do not teach true femininity, but rather a concept that was developed by their own experiences and their own mother's teachings. So we have a lot of women in the world who have no idea how to truly be a woman nor how to act like a woman.

How does all this tie into Jon & Kate? Well, I didn't realize it at the time I saw the commercial last night, but that segment was an excellent example of how our children, and specifically in this case our daughters, are who we mold them to be (unwittingly or not). I have watched enough Jon & Kate to realize that Kate often raises her voice when she wants attention focused on her. Obviously when she needs to be heard over a bunch of screaming kids, she must raise her voice, but when she wants Jon to pay attention to her, she raises her voice to him as well. When she wanted Duff at Ace of Cakes to pay attention to her, she raised her voice, even jokingly, to him. This not only shows her children that in order to be heard, you must be loud, but it also diminishes other people's, specifically men, roles in the world. In order for people to pay attention to you, you have to be louder than everyone else. It doesn't matter who the other person is that you have to be louder than, it just matters that you are louder.

Earlier in the commercial, when Kate's daughter yelled "Happy Birthday!" louder than the son that had yelled it first, it occurred to me that Kate may already be setting this standard without realizing it. The son's "Happy Birthday!" contribution was diminished by the daughter's louder scream. It wasn't an echo of the son's love for his mother, it was a trump. Is that how a woman is supposed to act? Is this what Kate is teaching her daughter? To be a woman is to be the loudest so that people will pay attention to you when you want it?

I am sure it could be argued that this is how kids are, and I am sure that there is a "multiple child" dynamic that is factoring into the children's behavior. Still, I can't help but speculate, and take mental notes, on what effect Kate's neuroses are having on her children. I have already seen Mady and Cara take on more responsibility since Jon's absence to help Kate out with the younger kids. Is this an unhealthy extension of Kate's controlling nature?

Who knows. I am not a psychologist and I sure ain't qualified to analyze anybody but myself. Still, it does help me to see these things happen if only to give me guidance as to the kind of parent I want to be to my children.

So I was updating my Facebook status with a realization I had about Sawyer and then I got to thinking that I might was well go ahead and blog my other thoughts on Season 5.

First, I have to say that again, Nathan has pretty much called it. I love that he has been pretty accurate in his ideas about the show, not only because they are interesting anyway, but because he isn't the type to rub anyone's face in it. You know the type of person who says, "Oh, it's sooo obvious what they are doing. I know exactly what's going to happen!" Nathan hasn't been like that at all.

Early on in the series, I believe between seasons two and three, we decided to watch all the episodes from the beginning of the series and make notes of things we thought were interesting and/or record our theories. Back during the re-watching of "Exodus, Part II" Nathan came up with what we called the "Jacob and Esau" theory, which goes basically like this:

• JACOB & ESAU THEORY: There are two forces at work on the island. One, Jacob, is the rightful heir of the island, but is impotent for whatever reason. Esau is currently running the island, which is not his birthright, even though he thinks that it is. The Others may or may not be following Jacob, or they may be controlled by Esau.
• Locke’s destiny is not good, as we have been led to believe. He has unwittingly been following the course laid out for him by the “bad” (Esau) part of the island. He says it’s his destiny to open the hatch, but Walt sees that it is plainly bad. Walt also seems to be unwanted by the Others once they have him. I would tend to believe that he is being led by the “good” side. Either way, Locke and Walt are on opposite sides.

Now, we now know that there are indeed two entities that occupy the island and that there is an animosity, if not outright hostility between the two (I'll call them Jacob and Esau for the sake of clarity here). More recently, Nathan also questioned whether the "Egyptians" (the Others/Richard Alpert/Leader of the Others) were enslaving "Jacob's people" (the regular Others/the island natives) once again as they did during Moses' time.

After watching last night's episode, I am beginning to think that Locke has not been led or talked to by Jacob at all this whole time. I think that rather than Jacob being confined or imprisoned by Esau, it has been Esau impersonating Jacob to manipulate situations/people into the scenario he wanted so that he could finally kill Jacob. I have felt like there was an awful lot of supernatural conflict within Locke (and even conflicting info coming from others, especially Walt). I questioned this way back during "Exodus." So again, I wonder if Walt and Locke are on opposing sides without realizing it.

Also, I have been reading over my notes from the second and third season. This was when the Swan and the Others figured pretty prominently in the story. In reviewing the Others' actions those seasons, they don't appear to be "good" people. There is a distinct lack of compassion and benevolence in the group. It is mostly a selfish, self-serving, manipulative and violent group. The actions that Jacob showed in the season five finale did not jibe with being the leader (or head) of those kind of people. So I go back again to thinking that Esau is the one that everyone has been calling Jacob this whole time but isn't really Jacob.

I think, though, all in all, it was a satisfying season. Pierre Chang's acting has greatly improved and it appears that some of the other actors have grown more into their characters as the season has gone on. I am especially pleased with the woman who plays Eloise (not Fionnula Flanagan). She is excellent thus far. And I should also give kudos to the casting department because it seems like they actually try to get people who look alike (and can act well) to play related characters. I thought that the young Kate and Tom Brennan were very close in appearance to their adult counterparts and the same goes for teenage Ellie, adult Eloise and senior Mrs. Hawking. Those three women bear a good enough resemblance to each other for me to forget that it is three different people playing the same person.

Here are my bullet points for "The Incident, Parts I & II."

• Jacob always touches the Lostie that he comes in contact with.

• Jacob also, seemingly, encourages people in their sin. He didn’t really reprimand Kate for stealing, he gave Sawyer a pen to write his revenge note, and he prevented Sayid from being killed, but let Nadia get hit, which just encouraged Sayid’s revenge complex.

• Sawyer did not cry when he thought that Kate was dead (Because You Left), but when he thinks that Juliet is dead by being pulled into the electromagnetic pocket, he weeps terribly. Does he have a deeper and more true a love/relationship with Juliet than just the passion he had with Kate?

Well, Nathan called it. He called it all. From "oh, that's just Faraday and Miles at the door" to "Charles Widmore is his father," Nathan called all the surprises in last night's episode.

All in all, I was pleased with this episode. I am glad to have some back story on Daniel Faraday, and he has more depth as a character to me. Starting from the beginning, it seems as though there is a distinct lack of freedom in the Lost universe. I know that there is this whole fate vs. free will thing going on anyway, but to me, fate doesn’t rob you of your freedom. Destiny and fate things that will happen no matter what you do, whether you know about them or not. Telling someone that they have a purpose and then forcing them to live out that purpose is bondage, not freedom.

For example, if the guy wearing the red shoes was going to die, no matter what he or anyone else did to prevent it, it seems like acceptance and living his life the way he wanted would be acceptable to both the ideas of fate and free will.

So, it seems to me that forcing someone into their “destiny” defeats the purpose of destiny. Forcing the inevitable doesn’t make it an inevitable situation; it makes it a fact before the fact.

And that’s just the piano scene at the beginning!

My friend Lu basically said that Daniel had crappy parents and I agree. Eloise Hawking pushed Daniel into the life that she wanted him to have (or said he was supposed to have) without really having his welfare at heart. Their relationship can somewhat be compared to that of Jesus and God (bear with me a moment). Jesus had a destiny that was his purpose to fulfill. He knew that and accepted that. However, he was not told by God that he needed to live his whole life focused on dying for our sins and that he couldn’t have any friends and couldn’t have a life. Jesus was able to hang out with his friends and go to weddings and have good times. He didn’t have a cross sitting in front of his face all the time reminding him of his destiny and he didn’t have to hide his life from his Father because God would disapprove.

Daniel’s mother did not treat him the same way. As it is implied that Daniel’s destiny is imperative to the whole world, Mrs. Hawking pushed him and pushed him to that destiny at the cost of his own physical and mental health. And, uhem… I think Jesus’ destiny was a bit more imperative to the world and you don’t see God telling Jesus that he won’t be proud of him until he does exactly what God tells him to do. Anyway, Mrs. Hawking was selfish, no matter how much of the fate of the world she had in mind.

AND… let me point out another philosophy that applies: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” (or the one [tear]). Once again, there was free will and a choice in Spock’s decision to save the Enterprise. The needs of the many did outweigh Spock’s need, and it may have been his destiny to save everyone, but he still could have said no. Mrs. Hawking never seemed to give Daniel the chance to say no, nor did she instill in him at a young age his ability to do so.

But I digress…

Now, let me vent a few of my frustrations with this episode. First, I am again disappointed in the production values and continuity. It was clear in “Confirmed Dead” last season when Daniel was introduced that his hair was shorter, and wet, if not gelled back a little. While they used the same scene from “Confirmed Dead” to open the 2004 portion of his story, his hair went from short and sweaty to a little longer and wispy. Call it nit-picking on my part, but I call it lazy on production’s part. I mean Lost is better than that! And are they going to explain (on the show) why Ben said Charlotte was born in 1979, but she is clearly older than that since she’s showing up as a child in 1977?

I don’t know if I said it before, but I’ll say it now, I feel like now that the show has an end date, things are being rushed and the quality is lower than in the past.

Overall, though, it was a great episode. I would ask you to voice your thoughts, but you never do… so :p on you!!

“The Variable” bullet points:

• Did Daniel really put Theresa Spencer in a coma? How does he remember it if his memory is messed up? Did someone else do it and blame Daniel?
• Is Charles Widmore telling the truth when he says that he faked the plane wreckage?
• Does Mrs. Hawking “remember” in the future that she shot and killed Daniel in 1977?
• Are Charles Widmore and Eloise Hawking really Daniel’s biological parents or were they charge with raising him like Kate was with Aaron?
• Why doesn’t Daniel have a British accent?

I didn't get to post my thoughts on "Dead is Dead" on Wednesday because of my very busy work week and the fact that our DVR didn't tape the last three minutes of Lost. We about died until we got to watch it the next day.