Films of the 1930s and '40s often glorified and reveled in the lives of the rich. From what I've read, many people during the depression enjoyed being able to lose themselves in the celluloid lives of the rich. A Marxist view (which I think has a bit of merit) would hold that the glorification of wealth was a kind of cultural propaganda promulgated by the establishment to keep people off the streets. Who was going to join the Wobblies while in the thrall of a Gable movie?

Maybe this current trend of television programs can be seen in the same way. Like the '30s it's a pretty scary world out there: violent religious extremism, the economy diving, vague rumblings of peak oil and global warming, etc. So now we get the 21st century version of those depression era glamor films. And again I think there also may be something to a kind of cultural propaganda going on here as well. The corporate world doesn't want us to freak out and stop buying stuff, right? These types of programs seem to have a opiate-like effect on the viewer: the world is orderly, prosperous, and interesting.

Oh well, it would certainly be an interesting topic in a cultural studies course anyway. Especially if Ms. Havrilesky was teaching.

Anyway, my fantasy TV world of escapism isn't in the world of the filthy rich, but rather in the fabulously smart world of Eureka. Now that's escapism I can get behind.

When did the games begin starting later? What's the time-line here? I seem to remember my parents letting me stay up pretty late to see MLB post-season when I was a kid in the mid-'80s. I distinctly remember staying up really late for that 16 inning marathon between the Mets-Astros in 1986. And game 6 of that year's World Series felt like it was never going to end.

I imagine many parents, like mine, make exceptions during baseball's post season. Although, I wish they'd go with a 7:00 P.M. start time, and I'd love a couple of day games.

What you are seeing is not alchemy, but rather Real Leadership. For real. Leadership can transcend any obstacle , and achieve the seemingly unattainable. It is clear (to me anyway) that Sen. Obama is a real leader, and we have not seen leadership in this country for quite some time.

I was a leader as an NCO in the military (Active duty Navy and Army--Army National Guard that turned into active duty on more than one occasion, but that's quite a different story :)), so I think I recognize true leadership qualities when I see them. A leader does not necessarily have all the answers or experience (I led solders in the Army that had more "Army experience" than I), but rather knows how to mobilize and motivate the people in his/her charge as well as delegate authority to those who are experts in their particular field. Sen Obama is the first genuine political leader I have seen in my lifetime.

I really believe if he is elected he will surround himself with the right people (not that it would happen, but Sen. Clinton or Gov. Richardson would make great cabinet members or advisors--again there is a difference between a leader and a policy expert). I don't look to the executive branch for all the answers--only that they to listen to the right people who can assemble a good solution. This is what Obama suggests--furthermore he is also asking us to share a stake in this--listen carefully to his message; he is asking us to involve ourselves in his endeavor. This is his riskiest proposition. I think we (generally speaking) have been so cynical for so long that involvement and responsibility on our part is a long shot. That being said, I believe it is the only way we can rescue our little experiment here--an experiment, natch, an idea I deeply believe in so I'm "throwing the dice" thank you very much. Clinton and Edwards reflect and articulate the reality of what is wrong with America, and for the most part I agree with them. Obama points to the IDEAL that IS America, and challenges all of us to move toward that goal. That is what a leader does. For the first time in my life I truly believe we might actually move a step closer to that ideal.

On another note I just want to recognize ACCalhoun for all the insightful and rational letters. You always add to any article you comment on. Keep up the good work. What does it mean that the most rational letter writer here is an apostate republican! LOL!

I think these discussions are worthwhile to have, and it is something I too am interested in. This isn't really a new phenomenon however. Remember the dilemma of Sartre's student; should he join the resistance or stay and take care of his mother. Sartre posited that this student had already made up his mind in choosing whom to ask for advice--the person asking for advice will only reinforce what the student had already decided.