Game-show-rama

Are prime time game shows good for television? Let's break it down:

• Normal people get to be on TV. Good and bad. There are some times that I love watching regular people have their lives changed for the better, like Pimp my Ride. It's a guilty pleasure, but it's nice to see random people rewarded, even if it's for something stupid like picking a number. But then you run the overwhelming risk of jackassery. It's a minus, but just barely. Edge: No go.
• Forgotten stars get to resurrect their careers. Howie Mandell, Regis Philbin, Bob Saget, that lady from The Weakest Link (who was on the ropes in the UK, I guess), Penn Jilette, and William Shatner (it's Shat-tastic!). Answer: They all have it in common. Question: What is the antithesis of talent? Edge: Definite no go.
• Money flows from studios to the masses. This is not as important as one might think. The biggest prizes are still way less than they'd be spending on crazy things like stories or actors. A huge financial gain for the studio makes it look like they're being generous when in reality they're cheap punks. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I'm smarter than a kindergartener...and I'm willing to prove it for $100,000. Edge: Slight go.
• Suspense. Artificially splicing in dramatic looks with dramatic music at a dramatically loud volume is not actual drama. If it were, David Caruso would have an Emmy. Edge: No go.
• Bright lights, shiny objects, and attractive women. How do you argue against these things? They're the essence of America, and in the case of shiny objects, the essence of the American political landscape (look out! Gays! Yeah yeah, there's a war on, but there are gay people getting married! Look! No, not at Walter Reed, it's Adam and Steve! Shiny!) Edge: Slight go.

That's about as scientific as it gets. Final verdict: prime time game shows hurt our country. But not as much as an incompetent attorney general illegal immigrants.