The Yin Blog

A nagging question about MP3s and married couples

While starting the pretty awful task of packing our house for the move to Portland, I noticed that my wife and I had two copies of two CDs.  Which was kind of weird, because we have somewhat similar tastes in music -- a lot of overlap in 80s and 90s pop/rock.  I would've expected more duplicates, but the Post Office lost most of my CDs in 1996 when I moved out to Oklahoma City for my second clerkship.

Anyway, I set aside the two duplicates for consignment (more likely, donation, though).  That got me wondering about what the RIAA thinks that married couples who both have MP3 players should do when both want to install a song that they bought once, whether a physical CD or a MP3 file.  Just to be clear: this is merely a hypothetical within our family, since I am the only one with a portable MP3 player.

In other words, let's assume that I buy into the RIAA's normative position that one "ought" not to steal artists' intellectual property by violating the copyright on songs.  Some easy examples would be -- (1) it's clearly okay for me to install an MP3 that I paid for myself; and (2) it's clearly not okay for me to sell MP3 files ripped from a CD that I bought.  A harder example is -- (3) it's probably not okay for me to let my good friend borrow my CD to rip the MP3 file for his/her own MP3 player.

But where do married couples fit within this?  Example (3) falls out the way it does because if my friend likes the particular song enough to install it on his/her MP3 player, he/she should just go buy it.  Helping my friend save $0.99 is really just stealing $0.99 from the record label and the artist.  I find that argument persuasive as far it goes, but there's a significant difference between a good friend and a spouse, no?  I find it a little hard to believe that if my wife and I both wanted to put a song on MP3 players, we're supposed to buy two copies of the song. . . .

Sarah Palin and "Prison Break"

For some reason, when I first saw that Sarah Palin was quitting as Governor of Alaska, I wondered if it was an instance of life imitating art -- specifically, "Prison Break"'s season 2, episode 19 ("Sweet Caroline"), in which President Caroline Reynolds surprisingly announces her resignation.  Why?  She was being blackmailed by both the Company and protagonist Michael Scofield, and resigning was the only way out of her dilemma.

Of course, I don't really think this, but the hasty announcement does make you wonder . . . .

Nice write up for my former employer

According to the ABA, my former employer, Munger Tolles & Olson, topped American Lawyer's A-list of law firms, based on its commitment to pro bono work, its diversity, and its associate satisfaction.  Although I'm of course much happier in my current gig as a law prof than I was as a lawyer, I have fond memories of Munger Tolles.  As law firms go, it's hard for me to imagine a better place. 

But it is kind of weird looking at the attorney roster and seeing that some people who were summer associates when I was there are now partners(!).  That says that I've been in the legal academy for a while now (7 years) but also that Munger Tolles still has a relatively short partnership track.

The Mall of America and the Minn.-St. Paul airport

So the other day, I was flying from Portland to Iowa City, with a stop in the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.  Naturally, I arrived in the F terminal and had to head over to the A terminal, which gave me a nice scenic tour of the airport, including that section in the middle that looks a lot like a shopping mall.

The strangest airport store that I saw was one for the Mall of America.

Are you kidding?  The Mall of America has its own mall store in the MSP airport?!?

7 years of separation(s)

I was just thinking today about how 7 years seems to be a defining period for me going back a ways now.  I finished college in 1988 without much of an idea of what I wanted to do for a career.  7 years later, I finished law school in 1995 with a very clear idea (become a law professor).  7 years after that, I started teaching law here at the University of Iowa in 2002.  And 7 years have passed since then, and now I'm about to move on to teaching law at Lewis & Clark Law School in Oregon.  Pretty coincidental . . . .

Signs of the end of TiVo?

As I've blogged before, I absolutely *love* my TiVo . . . .  But I'm afraid that I see signs of the end of its viability as a company.

With my move to Oregon less than a month away now, I've been getting utilities set up.  For water, gas, electricity, and garbage/recycling, there was no choice, but for telephone/Internet/TV, it was basically between Qwest/DirectTV or Comcast.  (VerizonFiOS is available in parts of Portland, but apparently not where we're going to be living.  Boo.)  From doing some research online, it seemed like the choice came down to Qwest's being cheaper but possibly slower online and definitely more frustrating on customer service, compared to Comcast's higher expense.

Anyway, the part relevant to TiVo is that both Comcast and DirectTV apparently scramble their signals, so you need their unscrambling boxes to watch anything.  This is great for them, since they can sell you their DVR service, but it looks to be pretty bad for TiVo, which can't do the nifty "season pass" recording and all the other smart stuff it's known for.

On clutter vs costs, when it comes to books

With our move to Oregon about a month away, we've started the packing process.  As you might expect, we have a lot of books.  And I have a penchant for collecting hardcover books (new, remainders, or used), which take up a lot of space and weigh a ton.

A few months ago, my wife got a Sony e-reader, which she calls the ultimate "declutter" device.  It carries up to 160 books on a thin device that's smaller than a trade paperback.  It would take me about two small moving boxes to fit that many paperbacks, and about seven to fit that many hardcovers.

However, I've been participating in Amazon's Vine program, through which I've been getting advance reader copies of various books, mostly fiction, for free to review.  The ARCs aren't as heavy as hardcovers, but they're about the same size, and therefore the same clutter.

It's hard to argue against free books.  But it's also hard to argue against decluttering . . . .  I'm not sure which of us is doing the better job.

My unknown Good Samaritan!

You have to love Iowa City!

Today, I was biking home from the law school (for the first time), and somehow, unknown to me, my bike bag fell off my rack.  When I got home, I got off my bike and turned to get the bag, only to see it wasn't there!  There was nothing critical inside, although there was a check I needed to mail to a contractor, and some HR paperwork.  But the bag itself was $40.

So I backtracked all the way back to where I last knew I had it, but . . . nothing.

I called the bank to stop payment on the check, and then we went out for dinner.  When we got back, my bike bag was resting on our front step.  Whoever picked it up saw the return address on the unmailed envelope and dropped it off for me.  How awesome is that?!?

Talk about an understated news headline . . . .

This story shouldn't be a surprise to any of you who are astronomy junkies, or anyone who's read the classic Larry Niven short story "Neutron Star," but check this out: the news headline reads "Neutron Star Crust is Stronger than Steel."  Considering that neutron stars are just one step short of black holes in density, this is what you'd expect.

But if you read the story, you'll see this:

A new study suggests how strong they are: The crust of neutron stars could be 10 billion times stronger than steel, based on an innovative model of elements compressed as tightly as they would be on the surface of a neutron star.

10 billion times stronger than steel!  The headline doesn't exactly convey the scale of how much stronger neutron star crust is than steel, does it?

You can't script stuff like this! (Celebrity Apprentice)

Oh, my, reality TV might not be all that "real," but you can't script stuff like last night's episode of "The Celebrity Apprentice," where Joan Rivers and her daughter Melissa both totally melted down after Melissa was fired.

Waterboarding, foreigners, and Americans abroad

The other morning, I was listening to a discussion on "On Point" on NPR about the release of the formerly classified torture memos, and one of the program guests -- I think it was George Washington law prof Jonathan Turley -- asserted that if another country had treated Americans the way we treated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah (i.e., allegedly waterboarding them a combined 200+ times), we would be outraged.

I'm not so sure.

Just to be clear, I'm not intending in this blog post to defend how we treated those two al Qaeda members, nor am I intending to argue that waterboarding is not torture.  I'm simply exploring the counterfactual offered above.

Suppose that a foreign country captured two American citizens that it claimed had planned and executed a terrorist attack that killed more than 3000 persons.  And then for interrogation or retributive purposes, that country had subjected the two Americans to 200 instances of waterboarding.  Would we jump so fast to defend our fellow citizens?

Maybe.  But the closest analogy I can think of is the 1994 caning punishment inflicted on American teenager Michael Fay in Singapore.  Fay had been charged with vandalizing a number of vehicles, and after pleading guilty, he was sentenced to six caning strokes across the butt.  President Clinton asked Singapore officials for clemency of some sort, but all the Singapore government would do was reduce it to four caning strokes.  Although President Clinton decried the punishment as extreme, a significant percentage of Americans, as AsiaWeek reported at the time:

But according to a string of polls, Fay's caning sentence struck a chord in the U.S. Many Americans fed up with rising crime in their cities actually supported the tough punishment. Singapore's embassy in Washington said that the mail it had received was overwhelmingly approving of the tough sentence. And a radio call-in survey in Fay's hometown of Dayton, Ohio, was strongly pro-caning.

Of coure, caning is not the same as waterboarding, and Fay did receive due process in the sense of a judicial proceeding, so the two situations aren't exactly alike.  However, my point is that many Americans appeared to see Fay as getting what he deserved according to the laws of the country in which he was then residing.  In the same way, I'm not sure that all Americans would protest if another country were to punish Americans for pretty heinous acts in ways that would offend our laws and constitution.

My confession about "The Celebrity Apprentice"

Let me confess that I like "The Celebrity Apprentice."  I like it a lot!  Nothing will ever match the first season, of course (Omarosa!; the Nick and Amy "romance"!; the Bill and Kwame finale), when it was sparkly and new, and every task was original.  But after a while, the novelty wore off and the tasks started to blur together.  I wasn't alone in thinking this, as the ratings dropped off.

But then, NBC -- probably in desperation -- brought it back with a twist: cast teams of celebrities.  This was brilliant!  Seeing celebrities doing the silly tasks has its own kind of perverse reward.  And of course, the celebrities can be cast in part (or even totally) because of their personalities, and more importantly, potential for causing strife.  Bad for their teammates, but enthralling for viewers.  What, why else do you think Omarosa was cast on the first celebrity edition?

The only nagging thing about this celebrity version is that it introduces a kind of moral hazard.  Before, the grand prize was a job with Donald Trump for $250,000 a year.  Therefore, if it came down to firing an enthralling troublemaker versus a boring good worker, Trump would fire the former.  But none of the celebrities is playing for a job with Trump, so he has nothing to lose by keeping the entertaining celebrity.  Indeed, it's his gain, since better ratings mean that his show is more likely to be renewed.

Oh well, I still like it.

From Iowa to Oregon . . . not so economically happy?

According to this economic happiness survey, I'm going to be moving from the #2 state (Iowa) to the #50 state (Oregon).  Hmm . . . .

Why is it snowing?!?

Come on, it's almost April!  Why is it snowing right now?!?

My 2009 fantasy baseball team

It's springtime, which means it's fantasy baseball season.  We had our live draft on Wednesday night, 11 managers including -- for the first time -- another law prof!  I had the #9 pick, which was kind of a bummer since there were no obvious superstars likely to drop that far down.

I didn't do a whole lot of advance reading (too busy with other stuff), but I did go into the draft with my usual strategy of trying to draft power hitters early and holding off on pitchers -- especially closers -- until at least after the 5th round.  I also decided that I was going to be extremely ageist and avoid any hitters who were 30 or over, if I could.

Here are my picks:

1. Ian Kinsler (Tex - 2b)

Other choices here were Ryan Howard, Jimmy Rollins, or Chase Utley.  All three Phillies players are over 30, so I went with Kinsler, who's likely to get better rather than slightly worse.  My preference would have been to take a bigger hitter rather than a middle infielder, but what can you do?

2. Mark Teixeira (NYY - 1b)

I can only hope that putting Teixeria in the middle of the Yankees lineup will produce awesome stats . . . .

3. Nick Markakis (Balt. - of)

Shares my first son's name (sort of).  Enough said.

4. Carlos Quentin (CWS - of)

Hopefully not just a flash in the pan.  But another youngster with upside.

5. Joe Mauer (Minn. - c)

In retrospect, this was probably a mistake.  Sure, he's got a nice batting average, but he hasn't been stealing bases, and he doesn't have much power.  I could have taken Jake Peavy or Dan Haren, which would have been a round earlier than I would normally take pitching, but still would have been better.

6. Josh Beckett (Bos. - sp)

I was all set to take Chad Billingsley here, but then, while waiting for my turn, I was reading about his recent groin injury.  Maybe it wasn't that serious a problem, but I decided not to risk it.

7. Felix Hernandez (Sea. - sp)

Most of the picks around this one went to other starting pitchers or older hitters.  I drafted Hernandez a couple of years ago, too early as it turned out, but I like the strikeout potential and the home ballpark.

8. Francisco Rodriguez (NYM - rp)

I don't like to draft closers early, but K-Rod has amazing stuff and is going to a pitcher's park.  I don't expect him to get 60+ saves again, but I do expect lots of Ks and great ERA and whip.

9. Rich Harden (ChC - sp)

Great results when he pitches.  Roy Oswalt was the pick right before this one.  I've always like Oswalt as a player, but last year (when I drafted him) was kind of scary, so it's just as well he was off the board for me.  I do wonder if I should've taken Yovani Gallardo instead of Harden, though.

10. Conor Jackson (Ari. - of/1b)

My outfield was looking thin, and the available choices down the road were getting ugly.

11. B.J. Ryan (Tor. - rp)

Another closer with terrific peripherals.  I had some other starting pitchers that I was keeping an eye on, but enough that I could afford to wait.  The same thing was true for shortstops and third basemen; having missed out on the obvious choices, I was content to wait.

12. Zack Greinke (KC - sp)

I believe Greinke was the first KC Royal taken in our draft!  Yeah, KC is a pretty bad team, and I've stayed away from Greinke in the past because of his unimpressive K rate.  However, I was surprised to see that he had picked things up in that department last year, so I took a chance with him.

13. Johnny Cueto (Cin. - sp)

Cueto looked mighty good at times last year.  Whether I was right to take him or Erik Bedard, who went a few picks later, will depend on Bedard's health, I suspect.

14. Frank Francisco (Tex. - rp)

He only had 5 saves last year, but it looks like the closer's job is his.

15. Felipe Lopez (Ari. - 2b/ss/3b)

This was a pick of faith. . . .  I do like players who have multiple infield eligibility for their flexibility.  Lopez stole 20+ bases in 2006 and 2007, and apparently Kirk Gibson is one of the bench coaches for Arizona, so hopefully that will inspire/goad Lopez into being more aggressive.

16. John Danks (CWS - sp)

The White Sox have two promising young pitchers, Gavin Floyd and Danks.  Danks has better K numbers and a worse W-L record, both of which point to him as the better option this year.

17. Jim Thome (CWS - dh)

I need a DH.  Thome can still crank the ball when he plays.  Do  you know, one year I accidentally drafted Jim Thome with the #1 pick in the draft?  I think I won that year's league, too, notwithstanding the mistake.

18. Hank Blalock (Tex. - 3b)

Apparently, this was a mistake.  I didn't realize that the Texas Rangers were moving Michael Young from shortstop to third base. . . .

19. Dan Wheeler (TB - rp)

Mostly here I was looking for a relief pitcher with good ERA and whip, and the chance at some wins and occasional saves.  Besides, Tampa Bay's closer is Troy Percival, who's almost as old as I am.  He could break down at any moment.

20. Dioner Navarro (TB - c)

Just a back up catcher for when Mauer takes a day off.

21. Ryan Theriot (ChC - ss)

I had signed off, so this was Yahoo!'s autopick for me.

***

Overall, I'm somewhat dissatisfied with my team's relative lack of power, which is the result of drafting a core of young players.  I guess we'll see if my risk aversion pays off.  In the meantime, I decided to rectify my Blalock mistake by cutting him and adding Scott Downs (Tor. - rp) as a backup to Ryan.

The sound you really don't want to hear when you're driving a truck full of bio/chemical weapons

. . . is "sssssssssssss."

Jay Leno, a free show for the unemployed, and M*A*S*H

NBC's late night talk show host Jay Leno decided to put on a free comedy show for unemployed workers (or those just facing hard times) in Detroit, Michigan.  That's pretty admirable; he's actually going out of his way to give something to the much less fortunate.

However, when he found out that some people who got tickets were auctioning them off on eBay, he complained:

On Monday night’s NBC program, Leno said, "Here is something that annoys me. I look on eBay today and I see four tickets to my show for sale. ... You're out of your mind to pay $800 to see me. ... I would like to ask the people on eBay to take the tickets down. There is nothing for sale here.”

Economist Greg Mankiw has covered the economic analysis of Leno's position:

If a person down on his luck prefers the cash to the opportunity to watch Leno live, why would Leno object? Is it altruism that is really motivating Leno here? Is he really sure that the unemployed person in Detroit would be better off with an evening of laughs than $800 in his pocket? Or does Leno want to play to a live audience of unemployed workers so he will seem altruistic to his television audience?

Meanwhile, I'm reminded of an episode of M*A*S*H, set around Christmas time, where Major Winchester -- pursuant to a family custom -- anonymously donates a nice big package of chocolate candy to a nearby South Korean orphanage.  Later, when he finds an American GI eating one of the pieces of candy from the package, he learns that the GI bought the candy on the black market.  Winchester confronts the director of the orphanage, who admits that he sold the candy.  The orphanage director explains that, had he given the candy to the orphans, they would have had a nice treat that would have lasted for one night.  By selling the candy instead, he got enough money to be able to feed the orphans for an entire month.  Suitably chastened, Winchester says that he is the one who's learned something about the Christmas spirit.

Upshot: Winchester had something valuable to donate, and he did.  The orphanage director greatly appreciated Winchester's gesture, but was able to turn the gift into something far more useful for the orphans.  It seems to me that if you replace "chocolate candy" with "Jay Leno performance," and "orphans" with "unemployed workers," the stories sound the same.  Too bad the outcome wasn't.

UPDATE: Something else that occurred to me . . . .

I haven't watched "The Tonight Show" lately, but I've usually enjoyed Jay Leno's shtick.  Yeah, I know that David Letterman is considered more hip and all that, but what can I say?  Indeed, before we left Los Angeles to come to Iowa, I thought about trying to get seats for "The Tonight Show."  If we didn't have kids and we got free tickets to a Leno performance, I'm sure that my wife and I would go.

But we do have kids, so if we got free tickets today, what would we do with them?  To go, we'd have to hire a babysitter, but if the point is to do something for the unemployed, how does it help them to make those kids have to find and pay for a babysitter just to go to a comedy show?

Did "American Idol" become boring overnight?

Last night, I fired up my TiVo and started watching the "American Idol" performance show.  It was country music night, which was not a good thing for me.  I'll admit, when it comes to country music, Shania Twain, some of Martina McBride, and current Taylor Swift are about as adventurous as I get.  But geez, after one and a half performances, I abandoned "AI" and decided to watch "Castle" instead.

Yeah, there's nothing special about "Castle" -- it's another police procedural/mismatched "buddy" series -- but the interaction between Nathan Fillion as annoying crime writer Richard Castle and Stana Katic as exasperated police detective Kate Beckett is pretty entertaining.  It looks like it's dropping a lot of its lead-in from "Dancing with the Stars," though, so it may not be long for this world.

What would have made "Dollhouse" more interesting

Joss Whedon apparently has something of a cult following based on his past works, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Firefly," which meant that his new show, "Dollhouse," started with a built-in fan base.  Personally, I never got into "Buffy" or "Firefly" -- the former because it seemed too "teen" for me (in a way that "Veronica Mars" did not), and the latter because it got canceled almost overnight.  But I decided to give "Dollhouse" a try, especially after the similarly-themed "My Own Worst Enemy" got yanked after 8 or so episodes.

The premise of "Dollhouse" is that a secret organization keeps a group of "actives" available for paying clients; each active can be downloaded with different personality composites, allowing them to be anything needed, from hostage negotiator to safecracker to whatever.  (If you're thinking that this premise was done in NBC's mid-1990s thriller "The Pretender," you're right.)  When the mission is over, the active is "wiped" and returned to an innocent state, waiting in the Dollhouse for the next mission.

You can see the appeal of such a show for an actor/actress: you get to play a different character every episode.  (Reportedly, this is why Martin Landau turned down the role of Mr. Spock in the original "Star Trek" in favor of Rollin Hand on "Mission: Impossible"; Hand was the team's master of disguises.)

Unfortunately, Eliza Dushku, who plays "Echo," isn't gifted with the most acting range, so she ends up playing each mission more or less the same.  Just compare her to Dichen Lachman, who plays Sierra (another active), and you can see the difference in acting range.

In addition, it's hard to build any emotional connection to a character who is the same physically but otherwise a chameleon in personality.  The show is attempting to address this by suggesting that the "wipes" aren't working 100%.  Maybe that will work.

But I think it would have been far more interesting if they had done essentially the reverse -- have the personality be downloaded into different "bodies."  This is a pretty common theme in modern British sci-fi, particularly work by Richard K. Morgan and Peter F. Hamilton.  Morgan's "Takeshi Kovacs" series posits a future where cortical stacks copy your mental processes and memories, and physical bodies are just "sleeves" to be grown as needed.

Of course, this would obviate the need for any "star," since every episode would be a different body (though you could return to favorite bodies from time to time, I suppose), but would allow the development of a long-term character.  Indeed, it would be interesting to see how different actors approach the challenge of playing the same character!  (For a pretty good example, see how Nicolas Cage and John Travolta played each other's characters in "Face Off.")

Why "24" is captivating my attention again this season

Last week's episode of "24" (day 7, 8:00-9:00 pm) was a pretty good microcosm of everything that's gone right with this season of the show.  To be sure, looking better than the awful mess that was season 6 is not a very high bar to surmount.  And I don't know if the show will ever be as good as it was in its heyday (season 5?).  And of course, it's still full of the ridiculous things that have come to define "24," like the ability of computer nerds to access and control virtually any aspect of American life with a keyboard and T1 line.

Still, let's review what was so good about the episode.  In case you've forgotten, the hour began with Sangalan General Juma holding President Allison Taylor, her daughter, Jack Bauer, Bill Buchanan, and dozens of White House staff hostage, while FBI agents waited outside for the go-ahead to storm the building.  Only, the feckless -- or perhaps conspiratorial? -- Vice-President insisted on having a clear picture of where the President was before authorizing an attack.  (But how are the FBI agents supposed to have a clear picture if they don't storm the White House? - Hey, I didn't say this season was perfect!)

1. Bill's sacrifice

At the beginning of this hour, Juma is going to force the President to admit to all kinds of war crimes, etc. on an Internet-streamed video.  Jack decides the only way to stop this is to create a distraction.  He notices a gas leak and figures that one gunshot in the right spot will ignite the gas, kill some terrorists, and allow the hostages to fight back.  Of course, he is going to be the sacrificial lamb, but then Bill Buchanan tells Jack to get to the bottom of the conspiracy and sacrifices himself.  The ruse works, and 15 minutes into the episode, Juma is dead and Jack has saved the President.

Don't get me wrong -- I like Bill Buchanan.  He was a decent, level-headed guy, the kind you'd want running someplace like CTU.  But "24" has always been pretty ruthless about killing off long-time characters.  (At this point, Jack,Tony Almeida, and retired Secret Service agent Aaron Pierce are the only survivors from season 1, and even if you go back to season 3, you only add Chloe O'Brian to the list.)  The question is whether beloved characters get to die in a meaningful way, or a stupid and pointless way.

Take CTU agent Curtis Manning, who for a while seemed like the only competent field agent other than Jack.  The writers contrived a silly situation that forced Jack to kill Curtis, just for shock value.  Only, it required that Curtis act totally out of character.  I get the desire to "stain" Jack's soul with another killing of a friend/colleague.  But it was done much better in season 3, when he was forced to assassinate Ryan Chappelle to stave off another biological virus attack.

So, having Bill sacrifice himself to save the President, while tragic, was a heroic, not pointless, death, and befitting of the honorable character.

2. Special Agent In Charge Larry Moss

Jack has always had issues with his superiors, and not surprisingly, because they are usually portrayed as simpering bureaucrats who get in his way, are wrong about the ground situation, and sometimes turn out to be allied with the bad guys.  About the only competent superior he's had had been Bill Buchanan, and Bill was usually on his side.

What I like about SAIC Moss is that he's not portrayed as a buffoon (even though Jack is right), and I especially liked his first encounter with Jack, where after rejecting Jack's suggestion for some kind of action, faces Jack off when Jack stands up with that intense look and then said, "What, are you going to torture me now?"

3. Worth Adversaries

Juma didn't really hold his own as an adversary for Jack (which was probably a waste of fabulous actor Tony Todd), but the new sub-arc has brought Jon Voight's group into focus.  As Jack interrogates a traitor in the hospital, the conspiracy's assassin -- a kind of anti-Jack Bauer -- does a nifty job of infiltration.  Not only is he as skilled as Jack is, he even carries around an equipment bag, much like Jack did during seasons 4 and 5!  And wow, you have to admire a bad guy who can come up with a plan that involves looping the video feed of the hospital room to conceal what happens next, then dosing Jack and the traitor with a paralyzing nerve gas, then getting Jack's fingerprints on a shard of glass from a broken vase, using the shard to cut the traitor's throat and stab him in the heart, and then escaping -- thus setting up Jack to look he murdered the traitor!

Jack deserves worth adversaries.  It makes for more interesting TV when the writers create intelligent and resourceful adversaries.