Top Chef Season 5 - "Super"-ly Suspicious

The conspiracy theories have to be flying after tonight's episode.

Jeff, after a "Super-Bowl themed competition", was sent with his knives packin' back down to the Miami.

And here's why this bugs me.....

Do I think Jeff would eventually win? Certainly not - Jeff is a solid chef but he was too inconsistent and combined too many elements into dishes that didn't need to be complicated. But no way did he deserve to go home tonight. And tonight is all that matters.

Fabio, for starters, performed the cardinal sin of Top Chef - overcooking meat. Chefs have been sent to the chopping block time after time and usually eliminated when they overcook meat - especially when Tom, who has a particularly sore spot for "meats-cooked-poorly", called Fabio out on the spot for his error. Then, he tried to defend his poor cooking with eradicate and hard-to-believe reasons. The European looked set to go home.

After winning 5 straight challenges, Stefan and his arrogant yet brilliant cooking style found himself on the block as well. His dish was actually received the worst out of all of the contestants in the competition. This should have been enough to force Stefan home. After all, if we've heard one phrase repeated over and over again from the judges, it is the following: "The past means nothing. It is what you have done for me lately that matters." And certainly, Stefan's disappointing dish (you could see the blandness radiating off of his small portion dish) should have set the enigmatic chef home.

Now, in no means was Jeff's dish excellent. But the judge's appeared split on their decision at the actual tasting, much more than we can say about the judge's reactions to Fabio's and Stefan's respective dishes.

Was Jeff voted off because his cooking was the worst? Or, was Jeff sent packing because sending Fabio or Stefan home would kill off funny, interesting, controversial and television-sexy characters? Let the conspiracy theories begin......

Stewart Falls Flat

The other night on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, former President Jimmy Carter appeared on the talk show as the featured guest. The former President and Stewart discussed Carter's new book "We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land," and the conversation dove into the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the possible scenarios for a resolution.

The conversation between the two men was not only disappointing but very unintelligent as well.

For starters, Stewart appeared to serve "political batting practice" to Carter, offering light and overtly simplistic questions - a shame considering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of major importance and in need of necessary overdue debate.

Case in point: Stewart, asking whether it would be necessary for an Arab with "street-cred" to step up to the plate and rally people around the cause of peace, walked right into Carter's seemingly crowd pleasing but intellectually-light response. Said Carter: "We've got now a man that can bring peace to the Middle East...Barack Obama." Of course, to suggest that the election of an American man can bring about peace in a section of the world ripped apart by death, war and destruction is overly simplistic and misleading. But it's also another thing to suggest that Obama can bring peace when his campaign rhetoric suggested nothing of the sort - in fact, his rhetoric towards Israel has mirrored Presidents before him (and peace hasn't exactly soared in the Middle East these last few decades).

But the triviality of the conversation didn't end there. Stewart asked Carter why it was important for the United States to lead in the peace efforts. Perhaps if Stewart had inquired with any vigor, his answer would have been self-evident. But, alas, there is the mention of the United States' annual economic and military aid to Israel; nor is there any mention of previously failed peace agreements; nor is there a discussion on the United States' role in the peace process both now and in recent decades.

Instead, Carter, sounding ever like a politician, described a dire situation where, without a strong US influence and US pressure, the ultimate goal of peace may never be reached.

Again, to agree or disagree with Carter's statement or any other foreign policy decision is important, but another point entirely. My point is that Stewart's inquiries into the situation did little to inform the public, mirroring his exact complaints against his media counterparts. The fact that the Israel-Palestinian conflict gets such little actual debate on other media networks makes Stewart's lost opportunity only more disappointing. It is even worse to consider that Stewart's entertainment niche is (correctly) identifying media obsession with the trivial, and the damaging effects it can have on a public in need of relevant information.

Hopefully, Stewart devises a montage mocking his own interview with President Carter for an opening act this week. Because that was all this conversation was good for.