Starting this week, and for the month of August, FOX will be re-airing 4 consecutive episodes of "Arrested Development", Season Two, every Friday night at 8 pm. So, I will take the opportunity to encourage anyone who hasn't already "gotten arrested" to check it out. (While you're at it, check out www.getarrested.com!)

In addition, as promised three weeks ago, I will explain what makes "Arrested Development" so good. It's simple... it's the new Seinfeld.

Check out all these ways in which the two shows are so similar:

1. Seinfeld took a while to really catch on. For the first three seasons, its schedule kept changing, it was close to being canceled, and it didn't get a full slate of episodes. Same thing for Arrested Development. Perhaps, just like Seinfeld it can finally get through initially tough times and last a long time.
2. Jason Bateman is the new Jerry Seinfeld. Although not all scenes involve him, the show does centre around the main character him. He is the sane character amongst a cast of "misfits". He is always the voice of reason. Yet he himself isn't always reasonable. He has his quirks too.
3. The dialogue is superb, especially Jason's character Michael Bluth. Remember Jerry's dismissive, off-the-cuff remarks like "That's a shame." Michael has his own such remarks that are delivered just as sarcastically: "Yeah, that makes sense."
4. There are always at least two (and sometimes three or four) different plots involving different characters, but they always intersect by the end of the episode. That's classic Seinfeld.
5. It’s a show for which you can watch an episode one day and then immediately watch it again that same day, and it’s just as funny and entertaining, because you can pick up things you didn't catch the first time. (In fact, if you have watched the show, check out www.fox.com/arresteddev/ and click on "In case you missed it")
6. Certain phrases used in one episode become a catch phrase later in the episode or in subsequent episodes, sometimes with an entirely different context. For example, "I've made a huge mistake." That often happened on Seinfeld too.
7. All the actors cast for significant parts - who were fairly often well-known but not always - do the job well. They don't just cast extras. This is something that always separated Seinfeld from the average sitcom.

Overall, the two shows were the most brilliantly-written comedies of their generations. Hopefully that should be enough to keep Arrested on the air for years to come.

With the news of the NHL coming back comes the news of the rules change and one of them sticks out like a sore thumb: Shootouts. Similar to my thoughts on the MLB All-Star game deciding home field advantage in the World Series, having shootouts to decide the outcome of games tied after overtime is a very exciting thing to watch, but terrible in principle.

Yes, nobody likes ties (as was so eloquently put on a Simpsons episode, "Tie, what the hell!?") But what's really wrong with them? A hockey game cannot go on indefinitely, and it rewards both teams for playing hard. It would be ideal to reward a team that can prevail, but note the emphasis on "team." Once you put in 3 guys per team to just take penalty shots, you're taking the "team" out of it, and putting the focus on individual players. Why? Because you're rewarding the team that has the faster puck-handling shooter or the better goalie.

Am I going to boycott "shootouts"? No, because it's not as drastic as with the MLB (where they don't reward the better "team", but the "team" whose league happened to have the "individuals" that played better on one particular day - now, if that's not ridiculous, I don't know what is.) But I am disappointed that they caved into popular demand, for the quick thrill. Whenever a big Olympic or World Cup game is decided by shootouts (and that goes for hockey and soccer) people seem to complain that it's not right. But now they want to make it happen day in and day out? I don't like it.

Keep the ties. It wasn't that big a deal.

Well, I was right about Tiger. He's now made it 5-for-5 in winning the major that Nicklaus said would be his last. Yes, 5 not 4 since Nicklaus previously said the Open Championship in 2000 would be his last, but changed his mind this year when the rotation was switched so this year's Open would be at St. Andrews. Tiger won in 2000, and again here in 2005. He'll have to thank Nicklaus and the R&A for switching the rotation because otherwise he might not have won. But St. Andrews is the course best suited to Tiger's game.

Another thing I was right about is the NHL lockout. They've finally got a deal, but it's pretty much what the players could have gotten a year ago. The players effectively threw away a year. I'm not saying that the owners' position was right. But they could afford to sit out. In fact, they couldn't afford not to. They were losing money and were not prepared to make a deal that wouldn't rectify. They weren't going to blink first. The players should have seen that, and (reluctantly) made a deal when they could to save the season. Alas.

But I understand their position too, so I'm not going to boycott the NHL or anything. If they make changes that will make the game more interesting, I'll check it out. But before the lockout, hockey was boring to the point where I didn't watch it anymore. We'll see if things change.

Turning back to golf, the Open Championship (known as the British Open in North America) started this morning, and already my preseason pick is out of it. Actually, my pick, Padraig Harrington, was literally out of it before the tournament started, as he withdrew due to his father passing away from cancer this week. My heart goes out to him. And I'm glad I'm not a betting man.

But if I were, I would consider putting some money on a longshot. Because the Open Championship seems to generate the most longshots (or even flukes) of any of the majors. Looking at the last 6 winners, half of them were real surprises. Paul Lawrie (1999), came out of nowhere after Jean Van De Velde (who would have been a longshot winner himself) blew the lead. Ben Curtis (2003), was the biggest longshot ever to win a major, and Todd Hamilton (2004) was a pretty big surprise too (although I actually picked him to win it... really, I did, just after he won his first PGA event earlier in the year - I felt a longshot was going to win that British Open and I went with him because I was impressed with the way he played and his experience worldwide. If only I was a betting man then!)

The reason I think that the British Open generates so many surprise winners (moreso than the Masters and U.S. Open) is because the courses tend to allow for too many tough bounces - even on good shots - that really penalize the players. This can level the playing field and allow for more flukes. This was certainly the case with Ben Curtis. He played well, no doubt. But one of Tiger Woods, Davis Love, Vijay Singh or Thomas Bjorn should have been able to overtake him. But they just got tough breaks, while Curtis didn't really. The R&A doesn't do much to deal with this, and this is why the Masters always produces a top-notch player, no flukes - because Augusta National sets up their course beautifully. You're punished for making a bad shot, but rewarded for good shot. At the Open, it's more of a crapshoot. A good shot can end up bad and a bad shot can end up okay.

If there's ever an exception, it's the Old Course at St. Andrews, which is where they're playing this year. It's no coincidence that this is the only course on which Tiger has won the Open Championship. And after his first round this year, he's already got the lead. He may win (and in fact I picked him to win after Padraig withdrew). It will just be interesting to see if I surprise player does come along on Sunday, and if Tiger will ever win an Open on a course other than St. Andrews.

Well, it's the All-Star break for the MLB season, so now's a good time to make a post about a couple of things that could be categorized as "Bud Blunders". I'm talking about Bud Selig of course, and I will start with the All-Star game itself.

A couple of years ago, Bud Selig and the league were trying to come up with a way to make the All-Star game more appealing to fans and viewers. (This was the year after Selig made the unexplicable decision to call the All-Star game in the 11th inning a tie.) Fans were not happy, so I guess they felt they had to do something drastic.

Their idea - as FOX makes very clear with its tagline "This time it counts" - was to make the league that wins the game have homefield advantage in the World Series. At the time, SI.com called for readers' responses to this idea. They printed mine (online) on July 14, 2003:

"It's seemingly a great idea for making the All-Star Game more interesting, but an absolutely horrendous way of deciding home-field advantage in the World Series. I don't like the old system of alternating, but at least you know that if you've got the best record in the majors and make the World Series for two straight years, you'd be guaranteed home-field advantage once. But with the current system, you could get home-field advantage neither time, simply because the players on the other teams in your league couldn't get it done in the All-Star Game. This has absolutely no merit, and I myself will be boycotting the All-Star Game until they give home-field advantage to the team (not league) that truly deserves it."

I have not changed my feelings on this since then, so I again will not be watching the All-Star game. I may watch the Home Run derby tonight, although the idea of having players represent their country is a little bit suspect. It leaves out some deserving players, as Albert Pujols won't be participating since David Ortiz is representing the Dominican Republic. How does Selig continually make such boneheaded decisions?

They way he has been handling the All-Star game is just one instance in a long line of blunders. Tune in later when I will give a full list.

I haven’t posted anything about TV yet, so (surprise, surprise) I’m going to do that now. I’d like to make a statement that I didn’t think would ever be uttered. There is a network that is establishing itself as the most classy and reputable and worth applauding in its programming choices. That network is FOX.

That’s right, the network that brought you “Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?” and “The Littlest Groom” used to be considered the trashiest network. But in a surprise move, their Fall line-up featured no reality shows whatsoever. Not a one. (Unless you count “Cops” and “America’s Most Wanted” but they’ve been around since before the reality TV craze and are classic.) Yes, “American Idol” is coming back, but not until January, and “Hell’s Kitchen” will be done by the end of the summer.

But another thing they did, for which they really deserve applause, is their decision to bring back Arrested Development, despite low ratings, because they recognized its potential and how popular it was for those who did catch on to it. This is something that neither NBC nor CBS had the backbone to do, in canceling the quality shows “Law & Order: Trial by Jury” and “Joan of Arcadia”, respectively.

You’d figure that NBC would give “L&O: TBJ” more of a chance, but they instead just went with what would bring in the money now. NBC did the same thing with “Boomtown”, one of the best and most original shows, which it canceled a couple years ago before it could even finish its second season, despite being critically acclaimed and winning awards. Meanwhile, after “Joan” enjoyed a good first year, CBS raised the white flag just because the ratings dipped for the second year. I intend to avoid all CBS programming (which I’m not a big fan of anyway) and would do the same for NBC if not for its L&O series (I love them all).

In addition to having the best comedy series on TV ("Arrested Development"), FOX features the best new drama series and best medical show on TV ("House", which was so good it didn't give its corresponding NBC show, "Medical Investigation" a chance), and one of the most popular long-running shows ("24").

Check back again in the future for a unique description of what makes “Arrested Development” so good, and perhaps I’ll elaborate on why I thought “L&O: TBJ” was worth riding out for a little longer.

I want to say a few words about the movie Mr. & Mrs. Smith. (WARNING, I may give some stuff away, so perhaps don't read beyond the first paragraph.) I enjoyed it. Before I saw the movie, I thought the overriding premise was far-fetched, but it wasn't that bad. It was actually pretty funny, cute at times, and had good action. And it actually had some very interesting insights about marriage, even if unintentional. There were some truths, some myths, some jokes and some outrageous ideas, but they were thought-provoking.

But what I found so frustrating was how they were put into the situation. I knew that both being assigned the same target must have been a set-up. But by their own organizations, because being married to each other was "bad for business"? How was it bad for business?!? And even if it were, how would it be worth going to all the trouble of killing them. And even it it were, why not just do it yourself, when they're not expecting it, like while they're in their offices when they feel secure and have their backs turned? That would be a lot simpler, and less prone to error. And if pretty much every agent from both organizations is on the case to kill (which is what it seemed like), who's paying them? Do you think any one of them would have said, "Gee, well, they've already killed a bunch of our agents, and there really isn't much benefit in pursuing them, because they're really no threat if we leave them alone, but sure, I'll put my life at risk for no money."

And then comes the climactic scene. They're stuck in the shed and surrounded, and I'm thinking to myself, how are they going to get out of this one? Something unexpected has to happend because if they just walk out, and try to shoot their way out, their dead, I mean they're surrounded by professionals like them! But no, they just walk out and manage to hit their dozen or so targets who are all around them presumbly shielded while their out in the open, back to back no less. Alas.

But the movie was cool nonetheless. And you really rooted for these cool characters (even though they ruthlessly assassinate people for a living and we don't have any assurance that they people they eliminate deserve it). And three of her associate's are played by actresses who were characters on three different TV shows (on three different networks) who took time off to do movies; namely, Jennifer Morrison, Stephanie March and Kerry Washington.