Ever since the final episode of Glee in December, I have been anxiously awaiting its return. Multiple sing-a-longs with both albums, repeated viewings of past episodes and devouring morsels of information about the upcoming new episodes kept me appeased, if not entirely satisfied. And after almost four months of impatiently waiting, the long anticipated date of April 15th arrived.


I was stoked. I was so excited I walked around with a completely dopey grin on my face. I could wait to see how things were going to go with Emma and Will, what was going to happen between Rachel and Finn, if things were going to be any better for the Glee kids now that they had won regionals, who the new characters I heard were joining the cast were going to be and where Sue Sylvester would fit into the world without her beloved Cheerios.

Maybe my expectations were too high, or maybe because they had to re-establish some of the conflict that seemed to be resolved in the previous episode, but for some reason I found this episode a bit of a let down in a lot of ways. It felt like the Sectionals episode had moved characters forward, into a new place, and now this new episode came along and pushed everyone back a step or two. Overall I guess it was a decent episode, but three things in particular really bothered me:

1) Schuester the Scumbag: What was with the hook up between him and the Vocal Adrenalin director? Look I know he just got out of a bad relationship, but that doesn't give him the right to go whoring it up with the first skank who comes his way. And the whole thing about the song with Emma? Telling her it was the "perfect song" for them, and that he'd "always had a soft spot" for it? Yeah of course you did, it was you song with your ex-wife! Not cool buddy.

2) Rachel/Finn/Jesse: I like the idea of the love triangle, I really do. And I like the idea of an ambitious male who can understand that side of Rachel's personality. What I don't like is the obvious angle of Jesse being a "spy" for Vocal Adrenalin. Was anyone shocked that right after he gave Rachel that "I would never hurt you speech" he shared that knowing look with Female Schuester over Rachel's shoulder (while kissing her no less)? I think not. And Finn? Well really he just sucked all episode. I was disappointed that he fell for the Brittany/Santana thing, and the way he was so wishy-washy about Rachel. It just all felt so contrived.

3) Sue's return: I was really looking forward to seeing how Sue was going to get herself back into the school, and what was going to happen with the Cheerios. I thought the writers would find some clever way of re-introducing her in a different role to the school community and was really interested in seeing what they would do. Instead they used some obvious blackmail scenario to basically undo everything the past season had done with her character. All within the first five minutes of the episode.

Overall, I am still excited to see where this season will take us. But the first episode felt less like the "Road to Regionals" and more like the first steps of the "Road to Sectionals". Here's hoping they find their way back on track soon.

Favourite Song: Gives You Hell - All American Rejects, sung by Rachel. This was the only time in the episode where all the kids in Glee performed together AND seemed to be having fun. Plus I loved the emotion she injected into it.

Favourite Quote: "Did you know dolphins are just gay sharks?" - Brittany to Santana. Her delivery of the line was just perfect. Stupid yet earnest.

Next week: Madonna!!! A whole episode of Madonna songs! Things are definitely looking up!

|

I first started playing soccer when I was eight years old. My mom had put my sister and me in T-Ball and although I enjoyed sports, I found I spent a lot of time doing nothing. At that age the teams were co-ed, and coaches tended to put all the boys in the infield and would stick the girls out where nothing ever happened. My sister was content to sit and fill her glove with grass, but I would stand there, primed and ready to catch anything that came my way, which it never did. After a couple of years, my dad decided I should try soccer.


I don't know what happened at my first practice, or game, or what my initial impressions were of soccer. What I do know is that I have no memory of a time when I didn't love to play. I loved games, I loved practices, and I loved anything and everything to do with soccer. If I could have played all day, every day, I would have.

Over the past 24 years, I've played various levels of competitive soccer. I've played on teams I didn't like, had coaches that were morons and faced some pretty nasty opponents.  Yet even in the midst of all that, I always loved to play.

 Now that I'm older, the level of soccer I choose to play tends to be more recreational. Let's face it, I was never Mia Hamm, but at one point I think I was a decent player. But my purpose now is just to have fun, and honestly pick up soccer can be just as enjoyable as an organized league.

A couple of years ago I was introduced to a social sports league and began playing co-ed soccer for the first time in my life. I have really enjoyed it and I truly believe it has made me a better player. I have more confidence with the ball and have learned to take the extra time needed to make a good pass. My problem with this social league is that in order to keep the costs down, the games are self-reffed. And without a third part there who has no vested interest in the outcome of the game, things can sometimes get out of control.

The theory is that, as adults, we can all agree that we're there for exercise and a good time, and can all be good sports. This includes following the rules of the game, being honest about who last touched the ball when it goes out of bounds and calling your own hand balls and fouls. Much like Communism, in theory it sounds great, but in practice it just doesn't seem to work out that way.

Personally in my opinion, there is far too much incidental contact in soccer for it to remain unreffed. People take advantage of the lack of referee to heighten that incidental contact, which can end up being dangerous. But the part that really gets to me is the people who take advantage of the situation by insisting every call go their way, and arguing with you if you disagree with them. Ultimately they are like bullies - they figure chances are most people in a recreational league like this won't bother to fight them over something trivial like whose free kick it is, and they are usually right. In the grand scheme of things, it's not really such a big deal. But what gets to me about it is the underhandedness of it all. The way that even grown men and women, who are supposed to know better, will take advantage of the fact that there's no authority figure there to keep them honest. And as an honest person, you have two choices: either give the bullies what they want all the time, or end up fighting over every petty little thing. And suddenly, you're not having fun anymore.

I still love to play soccer, but now sometimes I find when the game is over, instead of feeling good, I'm angry anf frustrated.  I don't care if we won, or if we lost, but when things degenerate into shouting and name-calling, it ceases to be about the soccer. 

To me, it's just one more example of how the message of Golding's Lord of the Flies remains true in our society today. These games are just like being on the island, and when I try to stand up for rules and order I often feel like Piggy yelling at the other boys to respect the conch. And we all know what happened to Piggy. I'm not there to be the moral police - I just want to have fun playing the game I love. 

|

In a world full of tech-savvy people, it's no wonder Internet dating sites have become so popular. And while there is still a slight stigma attached to Internet dating, in most circles it has become an accepted practice for the busy individual. I mean, how else are you supposed to meet people when you no longer frequent the bars, your friends are all married and your workplace is predominantly female?

What I have discovered from venturing into the virtual dating world is it's a lot less intimidating in a number of ways. It's kind of like browsing through a people catalogue, which allows you to quickly review and discard undesirable potential candi-'dates' (get it? ha ha!) without them ever knowing they've been considered and rejected.

Through my limited experience I have learned some important lessons about what types of profiles to avoid, and today I am going to share this valuable knowledge with you, my loyal fan base (aka Anne Marie and Jackie).

Top 5 Profiles to Avoid

1. No Photos Included. Okay, yeah, so I'm starting with a bit of a no-brainer. But there's really no reason to hide something unless you've got something to hide. Now I've heard all the great excuses that exist as to why one doesn't include a photo with their profile. But the truth is, top-secret agent with the CIA or not, I am going to need to have some idea of what you look like before I agree to a date. And no, I'm not going to trust your description. Or your mom's. And I don't care what your female friends think.

2. Only Has One Photo / Only Includes Photos in Profile and/or Sunglasses. Sure, he might look super-hot, and you'll be tempted. Now I know you're thinking, "But he's super hot!" And maybe, just maybe, he really is. But the reality is more likely one of two possibilities - either it's the best photo ever taken in his life, or it's not really him. And yes, people do that. I personally operate on a three photo minimum in order to ensure some consistency. Sunglasses and profile photos don't count either as they are very misleading. If you can't see them face on and look into their eyes, don't go there! Just trust me on this one.

3. Little to No Effort. Listen, I know these profile things are a pain in the ass to fill out. Nobody really enjoys talking about themselves ad nauseum. But the reality is, you're trying to sell yourself to an unknown customer base, and people are never impressed by a lackluster sales pitch. Think about it this way - if he puts that little effort into capturing your attention in the first place, what do you think he'll be like once he has it?

4. Poor Spelling and Grammar. Maybe it's the English teacher in me, but I just cringe when I read profiles without capitalization or proper punctuation, not to mention prolific use of run-on sentences, poor spelling and horrible text/IM short forms. If I wanted to date a 19 year old I'd go pick one up at the Brunswick House on any given Thursday-Saturday. Again, it's about first impressions, and to me this just says sloppy.



5. Lack of Common Interests. Okay again, this one should be a no-brainer, except sometimes, it's not. The thing is, like with most catalogues, sometimes we get so hung up on the pretty pictures we forget to pay attention to the description underneath. That's how you end up on a date with Leaf fan who takes you to a D&D role playing party. Seriously, though opposites do attract, make sure you consider what differences might be deal breakers. For me, a guy has to be somewhat sporty, as sports (both watching and playing) are a big part of my life. He may be hot, but if you're complete opposites in every way, your wasting you time. Unless of course, you've always secretly wanted to attend a D&D party.

Trust me when I tell you all of these tips are the product of some hard earned experience.  I had to make each one of these mistakes (sometimes more than once!) to figure out they were in fact mistakes.  I'd like to say that if even one person is able to benefit from the wisdom I gathered through these horrific dating experiences that it was well worth it, but I'd be lying.  But I hope someone does anyway.

|