Questions Remain About The Mother in "How I Met Your Mother"

Unlike a lot of other How I Met Your Mother fans, I am actually OK with how the series finale turned out.

However, I am not OK with the fact that there are still lingering questions about the mother.

We may finally know her name (Tracy McConnell) and when she was born (September 19, 1984), but we still don't know where she was born, where she grew up, who her parents were, or even if she had any brothers or sisters. We also don't know why ending world poverty was such an important issue to her. Did she grow up in poverty and not want anyone else to experience what she went through? Or is it because she just doesn't like to see anyone suffer? Also, we never found out where Tracy's little yellow bus came from, or why it was so important to Ted that he kept it in his office. Did Tracy make it or did Make give it to her? How did she and Max meet, and how did he die? And where did she get her yellow umbrella? The list goes on.

The creators were dishonest when they said every question would be answered after the finale. We know what happens to all the characters, including the mother, yet they failed to give her as much a backstory as the five other major characters. This is totally unacceptable since her name is in the very title. The show is not called How I Met Robin or How I Met Barney or How I Met Marshall and Lily yet we know more about them than we do about Tracy.

Just because the show has ended doesn't mean we can't get more answers. Back in 2007 right after the release of the last Harry Potter book J.K. Rowling revealed to HP fans during a Q and A session that Dumbledore was in fact gay. Carter Bays and Craig Thomas should do a similar Q and A session for fans of the show or at least reveal information on the HIMYM wiki site. But perhaps the best way the creators can satisfy us fans would be to do a prequel-spinoff series  with Tracy as the main character called How I Met Max. It would take place before she dies and be about her telling Luke and Penny the story of how she met the last love of her life before meeting their father.

Last Forever was supposed to reveal every unanswered question fans have about the show. Bays and Thomas failed to live up to that promise, and until they answer a few more questions about Tracy,  I and other fans are going to be left unsatisfied.

Why "How I Met Your Mother" had to end the way it did

While the ending to How I Met Your Mother was indeed heartbreaking, I certainly wouldn't call it disappointing. In fact, it felt just right.

Yes it would have been nice for Tracy (aka The Mother) to beat her illness and live happily ever after with Ted and their two kids in the year 2030. But having Tracy live would have been a huge disservice to Ted's character. It would have made Future Ted look like a complete douchebag and a total weirdo (what kind of a father would tell his kids about all the other girls he hooked up with while their mother was still alive, even if she was out of town for a few days?). Having Tracy die makes Ted, especially Future Ted, a more sympathetic character than if she had lived.

It also makes Ted's 45 days speech more meaningful since we now know for sure that it's given by a widower who lost the love of his life too soon. If Tracy was alive in 2030 the whole speech would have been pointless since he would have had many more days to spend with her. Wanting those extra 45 days or even 45 seconds with Tracy because she's gone makes Ted and Tracy's relationship, as well as the speech, a lot more special.

Many fans have gone to Twitter to complain about the series finale because it didn't end perfectly. But I think the message creators Carter Bays and Craig Thomas were trying to say, the whole point they were trying to make, is that life isn't perfect. Life doesn't always end up the way we want it to, and it can take us through many twists and turns, bringing us places we wouldn't have imagined. I also think Bays and Thomas wanted to send a message about accepting change. The entire series from start to finish is about accepting change and letting things go-Ted letting go of Robin and later Tracy, Tracy letting go of Max, Marshall letting go of his dead father and his dream of becoming a judge, etc.

The only thing I found wrong with the finale was its length. I felt that an hour (or 40 minutes without commercials) was not enough to give the series a satisfying conclusion. It should have been at least an hour and a half, maybe even two hours. That would have made it possible for the finale to go deeper into what happened to all the major characters. For example, while the scene with Barney and his newborn daughter was very touching (and arguably the most touching scene of the entire series) it would have been nice to see Barney raising his daughter and warning her to avoid boys that were just like him. It would have also made it possible to give Tracy a proper goodbye by showing her funeral and Ted grieving over her.

How I Met Your Mother has been one long giant puzzle during its entire nine-year run. Despite all the heartbreak and all the sadness and the unperfect ending I and other fans experienced, the pieces to the puzzle in the end fit absolutely perfectly. 

Why Ted Mosby isn't dying/has Alzheimers

Besides the mother being dead, another growing How I Met Your Mother theory is that Ted himself is dying or has Alzheimer's. After all, why would he sit his kids down and tell them the story of how he met their mom if something bad wasn't going to happen to him?

But here's the thing: if Ted was dying or had Alzheimer's, why isn't he writing this story down? Or tape recording it? Or videotaping himself telling the story? The kids aren't taking any notes, and it's unlikely they will remember every little detail of their dad's incredibly long story. If Ted archived the story in some way then the kids could hear/read/watch it over and over again and also show it to Ted's kids, grandkids, great-grandkids, etc. Also, let's take a look at Penny & Luke's attitude. If their father was dying or had Alzheimer's disease they would be a lot more sympathetic.

As a beloved fan of the show, I have many theories about why Ted decided to tell his kids the story during that particular time in 2030. It could be that Ted and the mother decided to have Robin, Barney, Marshall, and Lily be their kids guardians in case something happened to both of them, just like Lily & Marshall did with Marvin. Or it could be Ted waited until Luke turned 13 to tell the story due to all the sex and drugs. Whatever it is, we'll find out in less than a week. 

Democrats Can Win in Kansas?!

Given how deeply red Kansas is, I was dead certain that Republican Governor Sam Brownback would easily win re-election this November, especially with an environment favorable to his party.

Turns out that's not the case. Polls show a tight race between Brownback and Kansas House Minority Leader Paul Davis. A PPP poll taken last month shows Davis up by two points, which is really bad news for Brownback, who was elected Governor in the Republican wave of 2010 after serving 14 years in the U.S. Senate.

What's even more troubling for the Brownback Campaign is another PPP poll showing a majority of Kansans disapproving of his performance as Governor. A majority of voters in the state disapprove of his job performance, and his 33% approval rating is even lower than President Obama's in the state. In the last presidential election, Obama lost Kansas to Mitt Romney in a landslide.

Brownback's sagging poll numbers are partly contributed to his declining popularity among Republicans in the state, whom a quarter now say they will back Davis for Governor. During his last three years in office, Brownback has alienated moderate GOP voters in the state with his administration's agenda, which includes drastic cuts to education, far-right anti-aboriton legislation, and the largest tax cut in the state's history.

Brownback was elected Governor in a landslide with 63% of the vote. If he loses this November, it could potentially send a warning signal to the national GOP on how far to the right the party can go-even in a state as red as Kansas. 

Why Republican Senate Victory May Be Short Lived

There's a growing consensus that the Republicans will gain control of the Senate again this November. But even if they do, they might have a hard time defending their majority when the next Senate elections take place.

While Democrats are defending seven U.S. Senate seats in states where Mitt Romney won in this years midterm elections, in 2016 Republicans will have to defend six U.S. Senate seats in states that voted for President Obama in 2012. Protecting those states will be a tall order for the GOP, especially with an electorate that is expected to be younger and less white than the last presidential election.

These senate races will take place in Illlinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Florida. These elections may be more than two years away, but already it is becoming clear that Senator Mark Kirk (D-IL) will have a hard time defending the seat that once belonged to a guy named Barack Obama. Though he is currently recovering from a debilitating stroke, Kirks approval ratings are stuck in the mid 30s, and his refusal to vote to extend unemployment benefits may hurt him even more. Illinois is a solid blue state that hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, so expect this seat to be a prime target for Democrats when 2016 comes around.

Of the states listed above, only two of them-Ohio and Florida-are considered tossup states that could go to either party. Yet in 2012, the Florida electorate was 17% Latino, and African-Americans represented 15% of the electorate in Ohio. These numbers are expected to go up during the next presidential election, and the GOP isn't doing themselves any favors with these groups with their embrace of voter ID laws and their refusal to embrace immigration reform.

If all goes according to plan, this November will be a cause for celebration for the GOP. Yet even if they do get their victory, the party of Reagan will immediately have to keep their eye out for the next Senate elections that would be taking place right around the corner. 

Review of "Mr. Peabody and Sherman"

Based on the shorts that played during Rocky & Bullwinkle, Dreamworks Animations Mr. Peabody & Sherman is a great thrill ride for anyone who has a passion for history and a love of time travel.

Played convincingly by Ty Burrell of Modern Family, Mr. Peabody is the world's most brilliant canine who lives with his adopted boy Sherman (Max Charles). Thanks to his WABAC Machine, Mr. Peabody is able to introduce his son to some of the greatest legends of history. But on his first day of school, Sherman gets into a fight with classmate Penny Peterson (voiced by Ariel Winter, who coincidentally plays Burrell's daughter on Modern Family) after she makes fun of him for having a dog as a parent. After being called to the principals office and learning about the fight, Mr. Peabody discovers that his guardianship of Sherman is in jeopardy. In order to set things right he invited Penny and her parents (voiced by Stephen Colbert and Leslie Mann) over for dinner, which leads to Sherman showing Penny the WABAC Machine and her getting stuck in Ancient Egypt. Sherman enlists his dad's help to save her, and from there the trio embark on a time traveling adventure that takes them through the Renaissance and Ancient Rome.

Despite this being an animated movie, I was actually amazed by the films architecture. The historical settings feel so grand, so majestic, that it's hard not to feel like you are not at that particular place at that particular point in time. Perhaps my favorite scene in the movie is when Penny and Sherman soar over 16th Century Italy on a flying machine created by Leonardo da Vinci. It was reminiscent of the flying hippogriff scene in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and gave a sense of wonder and excitement that is missing from most movies these days.

However, there are a few shortcomings that should be addressed, the first of which is Sherman himself. There's nothing wrong with the kid, and that's exactly the problem. The character is just way too good. I'm not saying the writers should have made him a bad kid, but I wish they would have spent more time making him more three dimensional. Although she is a supporting character, Penny is a more dimensional character than Sherman and experiences greater character growth than he does, going from being a self-centered bully to someone who encourages Sherman to believe in himself.

The relationship between Sherman and his dad could have also used some more work. While it's clear that Mr. Peabody truly cares for his son, there's no real sense of tension between them, so when they do finally get into an argument it doesn't pull at the heartstrings like it did in A Goofy Movie  or other films with a father-son relationship at its center.

In spite of its shortcomings, Mr. Peabody & Sherman is a thrill ride for people of all ages. I am hoping that in the next few years, Mr. Peabody and his adopted son will return to the big screen and take us on another time traveling adventure. 

Why We Don't Have Flying Cars

According to Back to the Future Part II we are supposed to have flying cars one year from now. Being able to fly our cars through the air has been, for such a long time, one of the primary things that come to  our minds when we think about "the future". Just recently a flying car has been invented and is awaiting FAA approval. However, unlike a lot of people who can't wait for flying cars, I am here to argue why flying cars are such a terrible idea and why the FAA should stop them from becoming a reality.

One of the biggest problems that come to mind when it comes to flying cars is what would happen if said flying car ran out of gas/battery. Does anyone seriously want to run the risk of being crushed by a few thousand pounds of metal just because a car ran out of gas or the battery stopped working? If there was a way to teleport the car to a cornfield as far away from civilization as possible in that situation then it wouldn't be a problem, yet we have as much chance of being able to teleport in the next five years as we are to seeing a pig fly. Also, what if a couple of flying cars crash into each other? Unless there was a way of keeping the cars floating in the air in that circumstance, both of those cars would fall to the ground, potentially creating even more casualties.

Another thought that comes to mind is how flying cars would be regulated when it comes to airplanes. We can't have cars flying straight towards an airplane in flight, because that would cause an even greater catastrophe than the ones I mentioned above. It would be hard to regulate how high a flying car could go up since airplanes start their descent even before they land at the airport. Limiting how high a car can go up to just a few feet off the ground might be the safest way to regulate it, but that would take all the fun out of flying cars since the point of flying cars is being able to go as high in the sky whenever you want to.

Back to the Future Part II predicted that one year from now we would have TVs that could play 6 channels at a time, 3-D images that would jump at us right outside the movie theater, and of course, flying cars. But I am happy to have flying cars kept in TV and the movies and away from real life. Because the last thing I want is a car falling down on me.