NCIS- Season 9 Finale: Please kill agent E.J. Barrett

We are almost there. Time is coming up to say Good bye! to our beloved NCIS team, until the fall when the next season begins.

A few thoughts regarding Season 9 and a wish list for the next Season:

– PLEASE kill agent E.J. Barrett as she is getting on my last nerve. I dislike her character almost as much as I disliked that chick lawyer Hart. E.J addition to the show was not a good one as it messed up the familiar warm-inside feeling brought by our regular NCIS team. From what I have read on various forums, including the CBS’s one, almost nobody likes her and almost everybody wants to see her gone from the show.
– PLEASE replace director Vance with a more pleasant director. Maybe bring Hetty from NCIS- LA, as she is a great character and it would have a better synergy with the group. Director Vance should go to NCIS- LA, or find a different job. Vance is a nasty pompous ass.
– I hope nobody of the old established crew is going to be sacrificed as the producers did with Kate, long time ago. Thankfully Sasha Alexander is back on Rizzoli and Isles show.
– I did not like Ziva’s boyfriend- Ray- and I hope he is not going to be a permanent presence. No chemistry between these two characters.
– The killing of Mike Franks sucked big time. Why did they do that?
– I have mix feelings about watching the season finale, as I dread thinking that the cliffhanger will be the life or death of agent Barrett. Or even worse, of Ziva.
– It would be nice to get a new character, a love interest for Gibbs, somebody other than the annoying lawyer Hart. Too bad the the producers killed the Navy lady (forgot her name). She seemed to have been good match to Gibbs.

As curious as I normally am, this time I don’t really want to dig and find spoilers for the season finale; instead I am going to enjoy the ride.

American Idol- May 11, 2011: Hailey vs Lauren

Just a few thoughts. Let’s start by saying that I am so fed up with J.Lo that I would like to see her vanish into oblivion, which is not going to happen.
I was watching American Idol trying to relax and enjoy it. Well, maybe enjoy is too much to say. However, my relaxation was cut short after Haley’s performance. She sang a Michael Jackson song and you could tell that she gave it all; at the end of the song J.Lo started making faces and voicing her opinion which is and has been for some time totally biased against Haley. See, J.Lo favors Lauren, who is slowly getting on my last nerve, the same way Pia used to do.
So, my relaxation was cut short and I found myself screaming ‘STFU J.Lo! Stupid and pretentious cow!!’
Randy followed through with same stupid comments. The only one that save Haley’s performance was Steven Tyler. Bravo Steven!

OK, Lauren just finished singing. Geez, that girl is 16 looking 26. And surprise, surprise… NOT. The judges again pimped her. Boo!
I am so done watching this show.

What happened in the season finale of Fringe?

Fringe is over for now. The season 4 is scheduled to start sometimes in September 2011. If you are like me, as in left scratching your head after the season finale, the good news is that I found some answers on

The bad news is that it’s not really much light shedding.

This is what TVline guys got from Fringe’s producers:

“Speaking with executive producers Jeff Pinkner and J.H. Wyman after we previewed the finale, TVLine led with the No. 1 question on our list: Does Joshua Jackson have a Fringe gig come fall? Or should he have been auditioning for pilots? “He’s got a job. He’s still under contract,” Wyman confirms. “We can’t yet reveal what exactly we have in store for him, but he’s definitely not going out for other shows. As for those final two scenes, Pinkner said that even the most time paradox-savvy viewers “should be wondering” how it is that Peter vanished from existence, yet said he would be remiss to shed much light on that or what’s in store for Season 4. “The less spoilerage, the better,” he deferred. “The reason to come back and watch is exactly for the questions you’re asking.”

Wyman instead points viewers to this scene: “When Walter in the future says he has figured out a plan to send a message back to the past, he says that bringing Peter’s consciousness forward of course would have consequences.” Or as Future Peter himself remarked when presented with Walter’s plan: “Imagine the repercussions.” Indeed.
Now, a few other burning questions the Fringe EPs took on:

If Peter “Never Existed,” Wouldn’t That Mean No Feud Between the Walters, No Machine Activated, No 2026 Doomsday…?
| In a word, no. “Walter and [William] Bell were always trying to find a way to cross over, even before the Peter [abduction] incident,” Pinkner reminds. “So things may have happened differently.”

What Was “Lost In Detroit,” As Future Peter Alluded To With Broyles? | “That’s not something the audience needs to understand just yet,” says Wyman. “It’s obviously something heavily emotional between them – that may or may not be the cause of Broyles losing an eye.”

Was Olivia In Fact the “Beloved Character” Spoiled To Be Dying In the Finale? (Or Was It Gene the Cow?) | “In the course of the episode, it was Olivia,” confirms Pinkner, noting that Gene had gone to that great dairy farm in the sky sometime between 2011 and 2026.

Is That It for Big Baddie Moreau? | Sadly, yes. Played by Dune‘s Brad Dourif, Moreau and his End of Dayers threat was simply the Case of the Week for Fringe Team ’26.

Have We Also Seen the Last Of Grown-Up Ella (Boardwalk Empire‘s Emily Meade)? | Yes, says Wyman — “for the time being.”

Did Fox Execs Have As Many Questions About Fringe‘s Latest Freaky Finale As I Did? | “Probably more!” Pinkner says with a laugh. “But everybody is asking the right questions – not questions of confusion but questions of intrigue, of being compelled. We always like it when it’s like that.” Adds Wyman: “We’ve gained a lot of trust over the years [when pitching ideas to the network]. They have now seen the way we operate, how we always have tent posts that we are moving toward and from.”

Was Osama Bin Laden May 2011 Death a Staged Event?

The moment I saw the ‘breaking news’ related to Osama Bin Laden alleged death, I thought and felt that something was fishy and I kept wondering what was behind the smokescreen.
The news came too conveniently at the time when President’s Obama birth certificate stirred so much controversy. It sounded desperate, hence hard to be taken other than with a grain of salt.

Bin Laden suffered from kidney disease- among other illnesses- requiring dialysis. It’s very hard to believe that he had the strength and the money to orchestrate international terrorist movements.

Following is an article from Global Research, written by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

“SKEPTICISM: The Agendas Behind the Bin Laden News Event
The US government’s bin Laden story was so poorly crafted that it did not last 48 hours before being fundamentally altered. Indeed, the new story put out on Tuesday by White House press secretary Jay Carney bears little resemblance to the original Sunday evening story. The fierce firefight did not occur. Osama bin Laden did not hide behind a woman. Indeed, bin Laden, Carney said, “was not armed.”
The firefight story was instantly suspicious as not a single SEAL got a scratch, despite being up against al Qaeda, described by former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld as ‘the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.”
Every original story detail has been changed. It wasn’t bin Laden’s wife who was murdered by the Navy SEALs , but the wife of an aide. It wasn’t bin Laden’s son, Khalid, who was murdered by the Navy SEALs, but son Hamza.
Carney blamed the changed story on “the fog of war.” But there was no firefight, so where did the “fog of war” come from?
The White House has also had to abandon the story that President Obama and his national security team watched tensely as events unfolded in real time (despite the White House having released photos of the team watching tensely), with the operation conveyed into the White House by cameras on the SEALs helmets. If Obama was watching the event as it happened, he would have noticed, one would hope, that there was no firefight and, thus, would not have told the public that bin Laden was killed in a firefight. Another reason the story had to be abandoned is that if the event was captured on video, every news service in the world would be asking for the video, but if the event was orchestrated theater, there would be no video.
No explanation has been provided for why an unarmed bin Laden, in the absence of a firefight, was murdered by the SEALs with a shot to the head. For those who believe the government’s story that “we got bin Laden,” the operation can only appear as the most botched operation in history. What kind of incompetence does it require to senselessly and needlessly kill the most valuable intelligence asset on the planet?
According to the US government, the terrorist movements of the world operated through bin Laden, “the mastermind.” Thanks to a trigger-happy stupid SEAL, a bullet destroyed the most valuable terrorist information on the planet. Perhaps the SEAL was thinking that he could put a notch on his gun and brag for the rest of his life about being the macho tough guy who killed Osama bin Laden, the most dangerous man on the planet, who outwitted the US and its European and Israeli allies and inflicted humiliation on the “world’s only superpower” on 9/11.
When such a foundational story as the demise of bin Laden cannot last 48 hours without acknowledged “discrepancies” that require fundamental alternations to the story, there are grounds for suspicion in addition to the suspicions arising from the absence of a dead body, from the absence of any evidence that bin Laden was killed in the raid or that a raid even took place. The entire episode could just be another event like the August 4, 1964, Gulf of Tonkin event that never happened but succeeded in launching open warfare against North Vietnam at a huge cost to Americans and Vietnamese and enormous profits to the military/security complex.
There is no doubt that the US is sufficiently incompetent to have needlessly killed bin Laden instead of capturing him. But who can believe that the US would quickly dispose of the evidence that bin Laden had been terminated? The government’s story is not believable that the government dumped the proof of its success into the ocean, but has some photos that might be released, someday.
As one reader put it in an email to me: “What is really alarming is the increasingly arrogant sloppiness of these lies, as though the government has become so profoundly confident of their ability to deceive people that they make virtually no effort to even appear credible.”
Governments have known from the beginning of time that they can always deceive citizens and subjects by playing the patriot card. “Remember the Maine,” the “Gulf of Tonkin,” “weapons of mass destruction,” “the Reichstag fire”–the staged events and bogus evidence are endless. If Americans knew any history, they would not be so gullible.
The real question before us is: What agenda or agendas is the “death of bin Laden” designed to further?
There are many answers to this question. Many have noticed that Obama was facing re-election with poor approval ratings. Is anyone surprised that the New York Times/CBS Poll finds a strong rise in Obama’s poll numbers after the bin Laden raid? As the New York Times reported, “the glow of national pride” rose “above partisan politics, as support for the president rose significantly among both Republicans and independents. In all, 57 percent said they now approved of the president’s job performance, up from 46 percent.”
In Washington-think, a 24% rise in approval rating justifies a staged event.
Another possibility is that Obama realized that the the budget deficit and the dollar’s rescue from collapse require the end of the expensive Afghan war and occupation and spillover war into Pakistan. As the purpose of the war was to get bin Laden, success in this objective allows the US to withdraw without loss of face, thus making it possible to reduce the US budget deficit by several hundred billion dollars annually–an easy way to have a major spending cut.
If this is the agenda, then more power to it. However, if this was Obama’s agenda, the military/security complex has quickly moved against it. CIA director Leon Panetta opened the door to false flag attacks to keep the war going by declaring that al Qaeda would avenge bin Laden’s killing. Secretary of State Clinton declared that success in killing bin Laden justified more war and more success. Homeland Security declared that the killing of bin Laden would motivate “homegrown violent extremists” into making terrorist attacks. “Homegrown violent extremists” is an undefined term, but this newly created bogyman seems to include environmentalists and war protesters. Like “suspect,” the term will include anyone the government wants to pick up.
Various parts of the government quickly seized on the success in killing bin Laden to defend and advance their own agendas, such as torture. Americans were told that bin Laden was found as a result of information gleaned from torturing detainees held in Eastern European CIA secret prisons years ago.
This listing of possible agendas and add-on agendas is far from complete, but for those capable of skepticism and independent thought, it can serve as a starting point. The agendas behind the theater will reveal themselves as time goes on. All you have to do is to pay attention and to realize that most of what you hear from the mainstream media is designed to advance the agendas”