“The countdown has begun.Survivor: Heroes vs Villains begins in 72 hours. I challenge anyone to watch first 20 minutes and not be hooked.”

That was a tweet from Jeff Probst 3 days ago. I was going to watch this season no matter what, but decided to take him up on the challenge. I only hoped that he wasn’t making my expectations going in too high.

I like this idea of all-stars, I like the setup. I wish Survivor had waited until the summer for the 10th anniversary edition in order to fully recognize and celebrate the feat of the show.

As Probst did his welcome speech to everyone, I realized this was the first season of Survivor I may actually be sad to see the first castaway go.

My thoughts about the episode, and who was voted out after the jump.

(Photo courtesy of CBS)

• Seeing Russell starstruck was very interesting and not expected. Imagine how he would have been if Hatch had come, the man would not have been able to function. If he can’t get his bearings, he may not last long.
• First challenge: Stephenie’s shoulder popped. Just watching her with James, my stomach churned a bit.
• Oh and the 20 minute thing, Probst? You kinda ruin it when it gets leaked about Stephenie’s shoulder. Perhaps if I hadn’t known that, it would have been more compelling.
• I hate Coach, but man that was awesome seeing him drag Colby to his mat to score that point. And Sugar really redeemed herself to the other Survivors and a lot of viewers that she deserved to be there.
• “I’m the best player who ever played this game. And guess what? Now I get to prove it.” (evil laugh). Awesome.
• Tom noticing the chickens cracked me up. (Good thing Shambo was not invited to this one, eh?)
• Will the first Island romance be Coach and Jerri? Oh God.
• Sugar did herself in by trying to get with Colby way too fast. It’s too bad because she could have gone very far after her performance in the first reward challenge. I liked Sugar

Anyone else have thoughts about the first episode? Anyone sad to see Sugar go home first?

This is the press conference Adam Giambrone gave on Wednesday. It can be dissected it to death, but we might never really know what he was really thinking. What strikes me most (besides the fact that he does not finish his statement himself) is that he doesn’t look up from the piece of paper. Barely once does he glance at the throng of media assembled to hear him speak.

Many people have asked why we should even care about what Giambrone, or anyone else, does in their own private life, and why we should care if he is or is not monogamous with his partner — whether she is his wife, or his partner. For me, it’s not about the cheating, it’s about the lying.

When this scandal broke, I immediately felt for Sarah McQuarrie. Not because she was the one cheated on, but because she was being lied to (if the allegations were true, which they obviously were). Giambrone lied to the press when first confronted about this, denying the affair. And in doing so, effectively lied to the people and voters of Toronto.

As a woman, but more importantly, as a voter, it is the lying that bothers me the most.

I am a firm believer that if you choose to go into the public service, your personal life is no longer yours alone. It is something you have to be willing to give up. I don’t expect my politicians to be perfect, but I expect them to at least be honest when it comes to basic truths. Many have compared Giambrone to Mel Lastman, who had his own extramarital affair brought to light while he was mayor, the difference was he owned up to it.

Looking at Giambrone, all I see is another John Edwards — except this time, it appears his partner had no knowledge of these affairs.

I remember how outraged people were when they found out not only did Edwards cheat on his dying wife, but he continued to run for president, even after his wife found out about it. They were outraged. But now, people don’t seem to bat an eye. Many think he could have stayed in the race and survived this hiccup.

Maybe.

But something tells me his decision to drop out was not because he thought his mayoral aspirations were done, but rather he had to do so for personal reasons.

While that may be giving Giambrone too much credit, it would be the decent thing to do — not for him, but for those around him.

Especially his partner.

Wednesday morning, the Toronto Star reported on a statement he released to them late Tuesday night, admitting to multiple affairs and apologizing for his behaviour:

“In an effort to bring this chapter to a close, let me say I did have intimate relationships for a period that lasted throughout most of last year with women other than my partner. I apologize to them for the hurt I have caused. I regret deeply not having made this full disclosure earlier, to Sarah, my partner, and to my family, my friends and my supporters as well.”

Then news hit he was going to have a press conference at City Hall Wednesday morning.

Apparently he made a 90 second appearance, where he apologized to his partner Sarah McQuarrie, he left it to an aide to continue the statement and announce Giambrone is leaving the mayoral race. He would remain chair of the TTC and city councillor until the election.

In short, he had no choice but to quit.

There were two camps on Tuesday, those who asked why we should care about Giambrone’s personal life and those who were basically calling for him to be burned at the stake. As it most often does, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The thing is, once someone takes on a public role in society, their personal life is fair game. It may not be fair, but it’s the way it is. And while Giambrobne’s scandal is not the same as him fathering a child out of wedlock with another woman like John Edwards, it still should sting just as hard.

Perhaps some of the reason some people don’t see this scandal as being a big deal is because he and McQuarrie are not married (I believe I even heard that spin on the radio Tuesday). That should not matter — cheating is cheating, period.

It’s a shame to see Giambrone drop out of the race, if only because this year’s municipal election in Toronto was heating up to be an exciting one, even without John Tory and Michael Bryant in the mix.

At least he’s young, so there is a chance Giambrone can make a comeback at some point.

Some highlights of coverage from the past few days:

• The Toronto Sun’s Rob Granatstein’s comment on the scandal from (Tuesday morning).
• The audio from Giambrone’s Tuesday night statement to the Star (with video here)

Do you think Giambrone had to quit? Or could he have waited it out?

In order to help you with that, I give you Beaker.

Is there anyone with worse luck than Beaker? Poor guy.

The photo was taken at Adam Giambrone’s launch for mayor. His partner, Sarah, was right by his side, gazing up at him with pride. The videos I watched showed the same thing.

I poured over these photos trying to put myself in this woman’s shoes. I mean my name is Sarah, too. We’re about the same age. We both have glasses. I have a set of pearls (though more than likely the ones she wore that night are real).

I tried to imagine being this woman. To be this young and be the politician’s partner or wife. To go to events and smile and stand next to the candidate. What if he became mayor? What would be required of her then? I know that Mayor of Toronto is not the same as President of the United States, but every politician’s partner is part of an image.

It made me wonder if I could be that image. If my partner decided to run for office, would I be able to fill the role of the dutiful politican’s partner? Am I pretty enough? Would I have enough confidence to stand next to him for photo ops and speeches?

I poured over that photo of Giambrone not because I envied this woman, but because I wondered what was running through her head, and if she had those doubts too when Giambrone decided to run for mayor.

And then Tuesday morning happened.

As news broke about Giambrone’s alleged affair with a 20-year-old student (and we thought that video of his was bad), I find myself empathizing with Sarah McQuarrie even more.What was she thinking now? What was she feeling?

Whenever these politician sex scandals happen, all that’s talked about is the politician and his mistress. His mistress is given all the air time, his partner (usually wife) is left silent. I can’t even imagine what this woman is going through this morning.

Suddenly, those photos from last week don’t look as glamorous to me anymore.

Two days after TTC general manager Gary Webster issued a statement saying enough is enough, employees have started a Facebook group to air their grievances about the public, the media and management (the full story is here).

The best part about it all is the group was public! I wish I was kidding, but I’m not. Up until the press coverage of the group, anyone could see everything the operators were posting in the group. Everything from the public being a nuisance (putting feet on seats, litter left behind) to a public discussion of the operators deciding it’s time for them to work-to-rule to take back the commission  to warning the public they would be coming after them too (one post on the wall even said, “Cellphone journalism swings both ways).

Enough!

I have had enough!

I have pitied the transit system these last few weeks because they just can’t seem to get a break, but this is getting ridiculous. This back and forth between everybody is like two toddlers fighting. As for the operators going on a work to rule, why? There are many good operators out there, believe me, I’ve had a lot of them. But there are many bad ones too, and this “crackdown” of the TTC is not meant to punish you if you are doing your job (that would be my outside understanding anyways).

Operators in the group were discussing not be allowed to stop for a coffee ever (because of video that surfaced of an operator stopping his streetcar to do some banking, and another few who stopped for coffees), but the thing about both those incidents is they were in midroute. That’s where the problem arises. I can’t go get a coffee at my job if I’m on deadline, it just would not be allowed. Getting a coffee while you’re on route, which is scheduled, should not be allowed either.

A work-to-rule campaign, or even a wildcat strike would anger the public even more. Perhaps it’s time we all just start acting like adults and do the jobs we were hired to do, then maybe the public might be putting away their cellphone cameras and video recorders.

Entertainment Weekly reports that Leno wore a disguise to the shoot. Late Show producer Rob Burnett told ew.com there was no awkwardness or bitterness between the late night rivals: “It was great, very professional, very cordial. We shot it in 25 minutes, and it went really, really well. It felt like one of those things where you wake up and say, ‘I had the strangest dream.’ There was no frostiness. We were focused on trying to execute the joke.” (You can read a full Q&A with Burnett here.)

Kudos to both Leno and Letterman for being game. And to Oprah for being willing to be put in the middle of those two men.

Neither of the ads below mention abortion or terminating a pregnancy. Now I really don’t see what all the kerfuffle was about. All these ads really do is point you to the Focus on the Family website (where they tell their story of how Timmy came to be and why they “choose life”).

Whatever happened last week to kick out the notion that Focus on the Family was running an anti-abortion ad during the Super Bowl, was just wrong. And that’s too bad. While ideologically, I may agree with Focus on the Family, both their Super Bowl ads did not bother me one bit.

UPDATE NO. 2: My bad, the ad in the first update did not air, and is much different than the ad that did air. Thoughts to come. Here is the ad that aired during the game:

UPDATE: Here is the ad:

I will post more on my thoughts when I can pay attention to it but it doesn’t seem as bad as all the hype made it out to be.

——

This year, I have a feeling I know what is going to be the most talked about commercial of the Super Bowl.

It won’t be for a beer or a gadget or a car — it will be the anti-abortion ad that’s been making headlines for the last week.

Being done by the Christian group Focus on the Family, the ad apparently shows college football star Timothy Tebow. His mother Pam was told during her pregnancy that if she carried the child to term, she was endangering her life, and that of her unborn son. She decided not to abort the baby, and both turned out fine. Apparently, Timothy says something like he’s glad his mother chose life, because otherwise he wouldn’t be here (which really, is the truth).

Super Bowl commercials are usually funny, and some of the best of the year. This is one of the first issue-based ads to really air at the Super Bowl. Many articles have said it’s because the networks don’t want to stir any pots by airing something that could be considered controversial by its viewers, but I can’t help but wonder if it’s because most of these organizations who would pay for an issues-based ad just simply can’t afford the ad rates during the game.

Many will debate whether CBS should have approved this ad or not, or if they should have reached out to the pro-choice side in order to “balance” the viewpoints.

I think all of this is wrong.

Of course CBS approved the ad, it’s paid advertising (and in this recession, many broadcast TV networks are going to take their money any way they can get it). They are under no obligation to “balance” their advertising. Advertising is not editorial, so there’s no need for “balance.” It would be different if the pro-choice side had tried to get an ad on too and CBS said no, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

I’m pro-choice, but do not disapprove of the ad for the reasons you may think. The only problem I have with this ad is that I just don’t think the Super Bowl is the right forum for Focus on the Family to be preaching its view against abortions. Even today, more men than women watch the Super Bowl and abortion, when push comes to shove, is usually considered the woman’s choice, not the man’s. So what is advertising to an audience of mostly men going to do? (And come on, I mean guys get shifty and uncomfortable when a commercial about maxipads comes on, nevermind one about the consequences of sex).

I’m still eager to see this ad. We can all disagree with it before we see it, but that’s not fair to anyone.

And if nothing else, at least Focus on the Family got people talking about the issue. Which is likely what they wanted all along.

Now, we all know that sex sells, but sex also makes up a lot of the internet, so when this thing went online, it went viral.

I was going to write a blog post about it then, but was so disgusted by the whole thing I just tweeted about it and linked back to the article (which you can read in its entirety here).

Basically, the jist was that Mildred’s Temple Kitchen, a restaurant in Toronto, was encouraging its customers to have sex in their bathrooms while out to Valentine’s Day dinner next weekend. In fact, they even spruced up the bathrooms, since people are already having sex in there all the time.

“We’ve always had little trysts in our bathrooms,” says chef/co-owner Donna Dooher, pointing to lingering weekday lunches as a popular time. “We’re taking it to the next level on Valentine’s weekend.”

The restaurant’s four bathrooms light up outside when occupied. Staff have learned to watch the light flicker twice when two customers enter the same bathroom, usually a few minutes apart.

(…) Dooher says customers must bring their own condoms but she’s hiring a maid to tidy the washrooms that weekend. “She’ll be there with her feather duster and cleaning supplies.”

It all stemmed from an online invitation, which according to the Star said, “Have you given any thought to moving beyond the bedroom? Check out Mildred’s Sexy Bathrooms throughout the weekend of Big Love. You get the picture.”

Well needless to say, this whole story went crazy. On Friday, Mildred’s backpedaled to the Star, saying they were not encouraging sex in their bathrooms, and that they had received negative responses from the public, with many “negative voicemails” being left (though no reservations have been cancelled).

So in a second story, Dooher said that they were just trying to encourage couples to inject some spontaneity into their sex lives — not necessarily in their bathrooms.

“We were just having a bit of fun and being playful,” she told the Star. “The world is a pretty stressed place.”

And then Torontoist, a great local blog, weighed in on the issue, pretty much assigning blame to Toronto Star writer Amy Pataki for setting the whole thing off, that she zeroed in on the sex in the bathroom thing.

I don’t know if that’s true, and really, neither does Torontoist. As a journalist myself, if it’s not caught on tape, the two parties can claim they said whatever they want and that their words were construed however they think. However, I doubt that the owners at Mildred’s tried that hard to deflect the whole let’s-get-everyone-to-get-it-on-in-our-bathrooms thing. If they really were wanting to promote the dining experience, then they would have answered the sex in our bathroom questions much differently.

When people don’t want to talk about something, or make something the focus of a story, they don’t answer those questions — or won’t answer them well, anyways. So I find it hard to believe that Pataki was forcing this article on this restaurant because if she was, this is likely how the first question and answer would have gone:

Q: Your e-mail could be construed as encouraging your patrons to have sex in your washrooms, is it?
A: No, what we were trying to say is that couples should try to make their lovelife a little more spontaneous than the same old routine, not that they have to do it in our bathrooms!

See how easy that was?

I don’t know what Mildred’s was trying to do, but a part of me wonders if they were encouraging sex in their bathrooms (they consented to a photo of a hostess showing off their spacious washrooms for crying out loud!) but that the negative criticism outweighed the positive response, so they backpedaled.

And the easiest way to backpedal?

Blame the press.

Survivor, AKA the reality show of all reality shows (you know, the one everyone blames for starting this latest reality craze), kicks off its 20th season next Thursday on CBS (Global in Canada). In order to celebrate that milestone, this edition is another all-stars, but with a twist. Instead of just marooning 20 of the fans’ favourite contestants over the past 20 seasons, Survivor is pitting the good guys versus the bad guys to see who will really come out on top (it’s too bad then that Richard Hatch is still in prison and can’t compete, because to see him work with — or against — Russell would have been great).

Beginning next week, there will be a recap posted here after each show until we get to the ultimate Survivor.

To tide you over until next week’s premiere, here’s a look at the two tribes, and my prediction of who will win.

Heroes Tribe:
Rupert Boneham (Pearl Islands, all-stars): Everyone loves Rupert. Everyone who hasn’t played Survivor. It’s because of the fan love-in Rupert gets, I just can’t see anyone keeping him around for very long. Sorry, big guy.

James Clement (China, Fans vs. Favorites): James comes in as a loveable player as well, but unlike Rupert, he also comes in with a pretty solid alliance from Fans. vs. Favourites with Parvati and Amanda. Can he make it? Depends if these girls go far and decide to take him with them. James may do better to make a new alliance with other men on the Heroes tribe like …

Colby Donaldson (Australian Outback, All-Stars): A good alliance is Colby’s only chance. I like Colby, always have. Hated what he did in Africa when he basically set himself up to lose the million, but what can you do?

Cirie Fields (Panama, Fans vs. Favorites): I like Cirie. Partly because she plays such a good social game, people tend to overlook her until it’s too late. However, this time she’s competing against former contestants. I don’t see them keeping her around for very long.

Amanda Kimmel (China, Fans vs. Favorites): Number of times Amanda has competed on Survivor before Heroes vs. Villians: 2. Number of final Tribal Councils she has made it to: 2. Number of times she has won the million: 0. ‘Nuff said.

Jessica “Sugar” Kiper (Gabon): I like Sugar, I do. But I think she’s going to get eaten alive. And while she can be a viewer favourite, and Probst seems to like her, she didn’t get any  votes in the Gabon finale, so that pretty much says it all.

Stephenie LaGrossa (Palau, Guatemala): Stephenie has always been one of my favourite contestants, but I don’t see her doing it this time. Her chance at winning was Palau when she was the last person standing in her tribe. Her time has passed.

JT Thomas (Tocantins): Who doesn’t love JT? Can he align himself with people who will carry him to a win again? Here’s hoping, he’s just a nice guy.

Tom Westman (Palau): I’m glad to see Tom come back. But he may find it harder to dominate like he did in Palau. It also depends if he gets into the game this time, or pulls a Colby from all-stars and just really doesn’t want to be there.

Candice Woodcock (Cook Islands): I don’t even know why Candice is here. So she pulled a mutiny. Whoopee. I would have rather seen someone like Terry or Yau-Man back again.

Villains Tribe:
Tyson Apostol (Tocantins): I love Tyson. I love his snide comments and I don’t think anyone who has played this game has been more full of himself than Tyson. Can’t see him winning though.

Randy Bailey (Gabon): Randy’s just miserable, and not very memorable. I see that happening again.

Sandra Diaz (Pearl Islands): Between her mouth, and her previous million dollar paycheque, Sandra’s not likely to last.

Danielle DiLorenzo (Panama): I don’t really know or remember Danielle from her season. Which means she’ll likely win this one.

Russell Hantz (Samoa): I love Russell and am still pissed he lost Samoa. He has Samoa going for him, that’s about it (the two seasons taped back-to-back, so these all-stars never saw him play) but that could be used against him too and he may find it hard to build a second dumb-ass girls alliance. I also can’t see him being able to manipulate the pros the way he walked all over the first-timers last season.

Jerri Manthey (Australian Outback): I was over Jerry after season 2. I hated seeing her get an all-star spot and I hate this. Jerry just has never done anything for me.

Boston Rob Mariano (Marquesas, All-Stars): I HATE BOSTON ROB!! If he wins, I will never, ever watch this show again. Here’s hoping he found it too hard to be away from Amber and the Baby. Please.

Parvati Shallow (Cook Islands, Fans vs. Favorites): Parvati is really going to have to use her body to get anywhere. And I don’t mean that in the bad way it sounds, she just might find it hard otherwise.

Benjamin “Coach” Wade (Tocantins): Coach is one of the most unbelievable players I have ever seen anywhere. Here’s hoping the dragon slayer makes it far in the game, but doesn’t win.

Courtney Yates (China): I don’t really like Courtney either, but she could make things interesting if she can stay under the radar doing nothing again. A final two consisting of Courtney and Sugard would be interesting.

My pick: This is actually a lot harder than I thought. It’s the first cast where anyone can win, literally. I’d love to see Russell win, but don’t know. I’d also love to see Tom win a second million, or Colby finally get his, but both of those are doubtful. I don’t think it’s going to be one of the good guys, I think a “villain” will take the title this time. I’m going to pick Parvati.  She has the right mix of smarts and sex appeal and knows how to use them both to her advantage.

(Photo of the Survivor Heroes vs. Villains cast courtesy of CBS).