Max

MichaelGL, I always enjoy discussing politics with you, but I disagree (at least partially) on your assessment that America is the same (or better off) than it was 15-20 years ago. True, on the social issues, we have made great strides; however, the economic/job opportunities available to many Americans are far bleaker now than they were back then. (And, while government help to the unemployed is needed, government is not the only solution to this problem; unless we are to impose a massive tax increase on Americans of all income levels, government funding for every type of assistance needs to be cut in order for us to balance the budget.)

You're absolutely right in criticizing Newt Gingrich; I personally believe that (when it comes to being a human being) he is a piece of s#it. However, those on the right are not the only ones guilty of claiming that America is doomed to failure as the result of having a president who belonged to the opposite party: back when Bush was president, many liberals constantly bemoned that the U.S. was going to hell in a handbasket. Of course, under both Presidents Bush and Obama, the U.S. still remained the envy of the world, and (as you stated) many others risked their lives in order to come here. It's unfortunate that there are partisans who will exploit a situation and paint an inaccurate picture of the state of America, but that is called politics.

I'm not surprised in the least that Donald Trump decided not to run for president, as I always believed that this was just a big ploy for publicity on his part. (Back in 2000, he made a very similar flirtation about running for president, only then as an independent.) Also, Trump would have never have won the Republican nomination due to being strongly pro-choice and anti-war in the past, as well as his having been a public supporter of the presidential campaigns of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. (Trump flip-flopped so much during the last few months that he makes Mitt Romney look principled by comparison.)

A much bigger piece of political news came on Saturday, when Mike Huckabee announced that he would not run for president. Although it was rumored for quite some time that Huckabee would not run in 2012, this news was still somewhat surprising given that Huckabee was the front-runner in many Republican polls. Personally, I am devastated by this news, since I feel that Huckabee was by far the strongest possible contender the GOP could nominate against Obama: that's because even if one doesn't agree with his very conservative views, Huckabee has a charismatic personality that results in his being liked by just about everybody. (Well, technically Huckabee is not the strongest possible contender the GOP could have nominated; that distinction belongs to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. However, there's about a zero chance that Christie will run in 2012.) Obviously, my conclusion is that Huckabee chose not to run because he felt that he would have likely lost to Obama (and, in the process, would have been forced to give up his job as talk show host on Fox News).

Now that Huckabee has decided not to run, I feel that the only potential Republican candidate with any chance against Obama is Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Honestly, I don't know much about him, aside from the facts that he is a mainstream conservative who happens to be very popular in a state that Obama managed to narrowly carry in 2008. (Obama's victory in Indiana was a major upset, since he was the first Democrat since 1964 to win that state.) Aside from Daniels (who has not announced his intentions), the rest of the Republican field looks so dreadful that I can't help but think that Obama will win in a cakewalk next year. (The tragic part about this is that--at least on paper--Obama looks very beatable due to the terrible economy and job market. But, not even that will matter to swing voters if the Republicans nominate a crappy candidate.)

Michael, I never said that the economy has not grown during Obama's presidency; what I said that meaningful job growth has failed to happen. Of course, overall economic growth is a positive thing, but what good is that to the oridinary person who remains unemployed (since the unemployement rate is still over 9%, as it was a few years ago before the overall economy grew)? And, the graph that's found at the link you provided just shows GDP growth, not growth in the employment rate. (Although the graph's companion article mentions that GDP growth should be a good sign for future job growth, such statements have been made throughout this economic rebound and yet the job market continues to remain stagnant.)

Alphanguy has a vaild point that corportions deserve some of the blame for failing to hire new workers as the economy rebounds (when they instead choose to hire temporary workers or illegal immigrants). However, he is way off base when he states that "the lazy ass American public has lost its work ethic." While he's entitled to his own opinion, I'd really like to know why he feels such a statement is true.

And even though (1) this recession began under Bush and (2) corporations still are not in any mood to hire permanent employees as the economy rebounds, there comes a time when being a leader means being willing to take blame for things that have not improved under your watch. Unfortunately, Obama fails to acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part, and his supporters continue to make excuses for him. At the very least, there should be some sort of admission that job growth has not always been the #1 focus of his efforts: witness the fact that after passing the stimulus package very early in his presidency, Obama then made health care reform his administration's top priority; virtually all of his political capital went into this battle, which lasted over twelve months. By the time Obama won the health care battle, his popularity was far lower than it was at the beginning of his term, which made passing any more legislation designed to increase job growth so much more difficult. (The main point here is not to re-argue the health care debate. Instead, it is to say that even if you supported health care reform 100%, a massive failure in leadership on the president's part occurred because he should have made sure the economy and the job market first recovered before pursuing over initiatives. After all, it was the job market/economy--and not health care--that was the most important concern on voter's minds in 2008.)

Even though we disagreed politically, Geraldine Ferraro was always a class act. She will be sorely missed.

I remember back in 2008 how viciously (and unfairly) the left attacked her as a racist simply because she brought up the fact that Obama was grossly underqualified/inexperienced to be president. Yet, based on his mediocre performance as commander in chief (especially when it comes to job creation, which is the number one issue for most Americans), it turns out that Ferraro's objections were right all along.

Why exactly was Cali Timmins let go from AW? Was it just because Judi Evans became available and the show wanted a "big name"?

In political news other than the Arizona shootings, the Illinois Democratic State Legislature has just passed the largest state income tax raise in its history. Democratic Governor Pat Quinn has said he will sign this bill into law, which will raise state income taxes by a whopping 67 percent!

Of course, I believe that it is fool hardy to raise taxes in the middle of a severe recession. But, don't just take my word for it: rather, look to the new Democratic Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, who stated that "New York has no future as the tax capital of the nation."

When somebody in an opposing political party makes the right decision(s), it is very important to give him praise. Governor Cuomo has refused to raise taxes and will instead make many necessary cuts to New York's incredibly bloated budget. I wish Cuomo well, and have a feeling that he will be a great governor.

According to its "sources," CNN has learned that Rahm Emanuel is expected to leave his position as White House Chief of Staff in order to run for mayor of Chicago.

While this news comes as no surprise to me, Mr. Emanuel is by no means guaranteed of victory in the Democratic primary. (And whoever wins that primary will obviously win the general election.) In fact, that race is believed to be wide-open.

Jack, thank you so much for this opportunity. Here are two questions that I would ask Sandra if I had the chance:

1. What were her favorite and least favorite storylines that she was involved with while she was on AW?

2. With whom would she most have liked to have seen Amanda paired romantically (out of all the characters with whom she never enterd into a relationship)?

I look forward to reading the answers to these questions. Please give Sandra my thanks for all of her hard work while at AW.

CarlD2, your points are well taken, but it still would have been refreshing to have seen a liberal make a comment such as the following (since they were so vocal against Bush back when this thread was more popular): "While the damn Republicans pushed Obama to drill, I'm angry he chose to drill anyway. And look what its come to: disaster. Of course, it goes without saying that I am disappointed in the president for his slow handling of the oil spill."

In my posts, I often criticize the Republican Party. I've been particularly critical of how this party is drifting further to the right, and vocal in regards to my belief that the Tea Party will do nothing but harm the GOP in the long-run.

I'm certainly not going to defend Rand Paul, who is a nut. With him as the nominee, I fear the Democrats will pick up that seat.

However, regarding the BP oil spill, I find it interesting (but not at all surprising) that none of the resident liberals on this site have criticized Obama for his terribly slow handling of this matter (after more than one month has passed since the spill, all he has done was just recently announce the formation of a commission to look into it). There's no doubt you folks--along with all the environmental groups (who also have remained silent)--would have loudly complained had this occurred under a Republican president's watch.

Before I conclude this post, I also want to touch upon the topic of Arlen Specter's defeat in the Democratic primary this week. This is so ironic, because one year ago he switch parties because all the polls showed he would be defeated in a Republican primary. At the time, Democrats (including some on this board) praised Specter for his "courage" and then trashed the GOP for having no room for moderates. Yet, after Specter's defeat to someone on the far left, not one Democrat has said that their party also makes it unwelcoming for moderates. (By the way, I don't want to make it look like I'm defending Specter, since I believe that his party switch was purely opportunistic; all I'm trying to do here is to point out another case of Democratic hypocrisy.)

Alphanguy, I actually do agree with you in regards to the fact that the increase in health care costs has been absolutely absurd. While something has to be done (and given the fact that I am not an expert on this subject, I am not exactly sure what course of action should be taken), I just don't believe a government-run health care system (which will introduce a whole new host of problems that I discussed earlier) is the solution.

Also, while I am no way condoning these outrageous health care fees, one does need to remember that insurance covers most of the costs for most doctor's visits and procedures. Of course, this sucks for those who are uninsured. I guess that this whole debate comes down to what is for the greater good: is it the morally right thing to insure every American (even though--in the process--those who already have health insurance will likely get a lesser quality of health care), or is the most ethical course of action to leave the current system in place so that the vast majority of Americans who are insured can continue to receive top-quality health care? I happen to believe that the most "moral" course of action is not to pursue a government-run health care plan, becuase such a plan will benefit the minority (who are not insured) at the expense of screwing the vast majority. (However, I would like to add that I do respect those who hold the opposing point of view that states we have a moral obligation to insure every American citizen.)

I apologize for waiting so long to respond (as I was unable to use the internet the past couple of days), but I would like to address the points made by Toups and Alphanguy.

First, the law of supply and demand is the reason why some Canadians are not able to see the doctor(s) of their choice. In a government-run health care system, virtually every single physician quickly gets booked to the max (and can take on no more new patients) since everybody can afford his or her services. By contrast, in a free market system, doctors are able to avoid the problem of being overbooked by charging a fee that not everybody is willing to pay (or can afford); this provides openings for those patients who want to see a particular physician or specialist (assuming, of course, that they can afford it).

Secondly, wait lists in Canada are not just limited to "non urgent" matters (although I would hate to wait six monts or more for a hip replacement). Sometimes, those with life-threatening illiness are affected: according to Canadian Dr. David Gratzer (who wrote a book about the weaknesses of his country's health care system titled "Code Blue"), a woman with breast cancer had to wait four months for radiation therapy. A few years ago, Dr. Gratzer wrote an article titled "The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care" that can be found at the following link:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

Anyway, even though we disagree over the topic of a government-run health care system, I still really appreciate reading the opposing point of view. Toups, I am happy that you are content with the Canadian health care system, and I applaud you for articulating what you believe to be its positivies. Unfortunately, here in the Unites States, the Democratic Party has uttery failed to articulate how a government-run health care system would benefit the ordinary American (who is already insured). This failure of getting their message across (on the part of the Democrats) is especially baffling when one considers Obama's extraordinary communication skills.

The reasons why the American public is so opposed to government-run health care are two-fold: First, ordinary citizens will no longer be able to choose their doctors under a government run health plan. Second, in the event that you need urgent surgery, you will be placed on a waiting list (and may have to wait over a year, even if you have a life threatening illness). Because of these tremendous weaknesses, those Canadians who can afford it choose to go to the USA for treatment (if they are gravely ill).

The Democrats have already tried to push for government-run health care back in 1993-94, and it resulted in a mid-term election slaughter for them. What makes zero political sense to me is that the Democrats are behaving in the exact same way now, yet seem to be in denial that this upcoming mid-term election is going to be a disaster.

With all due respect, I think that it's way off base to proclaim AW as one of the worst soaps of the 80's & 90's (in terms of its storylines). While I do concede that that the show's quality had fallen quite a bit from its 70's zenith, the 80's & 90's brought about many good storylines including:

*Janice Frame's attempt to kill Mac Cory

*The return of Steve Frame to Bay City (after being presumed dead)

*The many different schemes of Cecile DePoulignac

*The Sin Stalker storyline

*Cass' relationships with Cecile, Kathleen McKinnon, and Frankie Frame

*The "Who Shot Jake McKinnon" storyline

*Felicia Gallant's alcoholism storyline

*The redemption of Carl Hutchins as he fell in love with Rachel Cory

Of course, AW had its fair share of clunker storylines as well. And, in all objectivity, I do feel that ATWT was of a higher quality than AW during the 80's & 90's; the same goes for GL during some--but not all--of that period (specifically GL's golden years of the early 80's and early 90's).

Yet, there were soaps with far worse storylines than what AW served up in the 80's & 90's: What about the endless campy and/or sci-fi storylines served up by GH, DOOL, and both SBs? Or, how about the trash that was (and still is) B&B? Do you honestly mean to tell me that AW had worse storylines than all of these shows?

Unless you are an extreme Democratic partisan, an objective analysis of Obama's first year in office would have to come to the conclusion that he has been quite a disappointment (especially when all the hype at the beginning of the year was that he would be the next Lincoln or FDR). Likewise, only an extreme Republican partisan would say that he has been a complete failure. Again, the word that best summaries Obama's first year performance is "disappointing."

Even though I believe that Obama will continue to be a disappointment throughout the remainder of his term, I still have a sinking feeling that he will win re-election: For one thing, it is extemely likely that the economy will have recovered significantly by 2012 (and not because of anything Obama did, but rather because the natural economic cycle will bring the economy to the point of recovery by then). Furthermore, and most importantly, Obama will win re-election becuase presidential races almost always are decided on the basis of each candidate's charisma and likeability (and simply put, I don't know of any Republican who could compete with Obama on these scores).

However, the economy will probably still be in the doldrums in 2010. As a result, I expect the Republicans to do very well in next year's mid-term elections. (Although, due to their very low numbers in Congress at the present time, it will be nearly impossible for them to regain the majority in either the House or Senate.)

I am curious as to what others think about Tuesday's election results.

Unless you are an extreme partisan, one has to admit that the Democrats had a devastating night. In Virginia--which is a critical swing state that voted for Obama last year--the Republican trounced the Democrat by 18 percentage points. (This showing was so horrendous that the Democratic candidate even lost in the heavily liberal northern part of the state.) In New Jersey--which is hands down one of the most Democratic states in the country--the incumbent Democratic governor lost re-election by nearly five points, resulting in the first time in twelve years that a Republican was able to win a statewide election there. (As a resident of New Jersey, I still predicted a Democratic victory. In fact, I never thought a Republican would win a statewide election again for my entire lifetime.)

The only bright spot for Democrats was the fact that they won a special election for a House seat located in upstate New York. (This actually marks the first time in over 130 years that a Democrat will represent that particular Congressional District.) This Democratic victory was solely the result of the stupidity of the far right, who decided to ditch a moderate Republican in favor of an ultra-conservative (and anybody who is far to the right has no chance to win an election anywhere in New York state).

The only other significant election of the night was the race for New York City mayor. The arrogant and egotistical Mike Bloomberg decided to run for a third term, despite the fact that New Yorkers twice approved a measure that would limit mayors and members of the city council to two terms. (Bloomberg was able to change this law not by going to the voters, but rather by asking the self-interested city council to repeal it.) Bloomberg spent over $100 million of his own money in the race, which was 14 times more than his little known Democratic opponent spent. Yet, despite his lavish spending--as well as his huge lead in the polls--Bloomberg won a third term by only a five percent margin. (Even though I am a Republican, I would have voted for Bloomberg's Democratic opponent had I been a resident of New York City; I just thought the sleazy way Bloomberg was able to run for a third term was far too egotistical and over the top, even by normal political standards.)

I'm surprised that I'm the first one to post about this, but I can't believe how stupid Palin was in choosing to resign as governor. Politically, this makes no sense at all. In fact, the only "logical" reason behind this decision is that she has concluded her political career is over and instead has decided to become very wealthy in the private sector (by becoming a talk show host or milking her celebrity in some other way).

I'm a Republican that has always disliked Palin, because of the huge damage she caused to McCain. (However, I do believe that the personal attacks Democrats made against her were some of the most viscious I have ever seen.) Although her behavior has always been erratic, this crazy decision really takes the cake.

Yet, if I was a Democrat, I would not be so thrilled about today's bombshell announcement. Prior to today, Palin was the clear front-runner for the 2012 GOP nomination. (And as the nominee, she would have gotten crushed in a general election.) Now, however, her chances of getting the nomination are slim to none (as nobody in the Republican establishment will want to embrace her). This, in turn, means that the GOP may nominate a much stronger candidate to run against Obama.

Brian, I appreciate your thoughtful response to my post. However, I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

There is actually a huge amount of difference between a moderate Republican and most Democrats. For starters, while moderate Republicans are pro-chioce, most of them still support bans on partial-birth abortion as well as a requirement that minors notify parents before having an abortion. On the other hand, so many Democrats believe that everybody should have as easy access to abortion as possible. More importantly, in my opinion, are the differences between moderate Republicans and Democrats on issues of economics and national security. Just about every single Democrat (even the "moderate" ones) supported Obama's huge pork-barrel stimulus package and would rather make sure that terrorists aren't "tortured" even if that means protecting the U.S. from another terrorist attack. Moderate Republicans are opposed to such liberal tax-and-spend policies and are far more concerned with protecting the U.S. from another terrorist attack than with treating suspected terrorists with comfort.

McCain did not lose because he was a moderate. Rather, he lost simply because the voting public blamed the entire Republican Party for the economic collapse that happened in September. It would simply have been impossible for any Republican to have won the 2008 election. However, McCain still garnered 173 electoral votes and lost the popular vote by just 7 percentage points, which was a very respectable showing under the circumstances. By contrast, had the Republicans nominated somebody from the right wing of the party, that candidated would have been butchered by Obama.

And finally, I'd like to talk about your home state of California. (I'm discussing this state because the political dynamics there are so similar to the dynamics in the Northeast and in several Midwestern states.) The only type of Republican who can win a statewide election there is a solid moderate such as Arnold. If the party instead chose to nominate a right-winger, that candidate would have lost the general election badly to a very liberal Democrat (along the lines of Barbara Boxer). Now, while I know that so many conservatives dislike Arnold, don't you still think he is far better than an ultra-liberal (run-of-the-mill) California Democrat?

As a moderate Republican, I feel really betrayed by Arlen Specter, given the fact that so many fellow moderates--as well as the entire Republican establishment--went out of their way to help Specter narrowly win his primary contest in 2004. (So much help was given to Specter because we wanted to keep that seat in Republican hands, and we knew that his ultra-conservative primary opponent had no chance of winning in the general election.) Although Specter clearly has philosophical differences with the far right, I feel his party switch was primarily motivated by a desire to win another term (which is another thing that really upsets me, since Specter said back in 2004 that--if re-elected--he would retire in 2010). Also if Specter was really that principled, then why didn't he switch parties several years ago? Back then, the far right still had every bit as much control over the party as they do today. Obviously, the reason why he didn't switch parties back then was because (1) the Republicans were the majority party in the Senate and (2) Specter himself was not headed for certain defeat in a Republican primary.

However, with all of that being said, I do feel very troubled that the far right is causing so much difficulty for the moderate wing of the party. This attitude of "let's purge the moderates from the party" is a sure-fire way of making the Republican Party completely irrelevant. The sad fact of the matter is that the far right's primary concern is not what is in the best interest of the Republican Party; rather, their concern is solely with adherence to their rigid agenda. All Democrats ought to thank God for the Religious Right, becuase they are absolute poison to the Republican brand. The far-right social agenda espoused by the Republicans in charge is the reason why almost no Republican can win a statewide election anywhere in the Northeast, on the West Coast, and in much of the Midwest.

Unfortunately, the far right will remain in control of the party for quite a few years to come, which of course means that Republicans can expect to do poorly in the 2010 and 2012 elections. Yet, after enough electoral beatings, I predict that the far right will eventually lose credibility among those in the establishement, and the GOP will finally begin to embrace moderates as the key to its future. Obviously, such a drastic change will take many years to complete, since the far right has controlled the levers of power in the party for so long; specifically, I expect that it won't be until around 2016 or 2020 when the moderate wing of the party prevails. However, once that happens, I believe that the GOP will enjoy a long run of successes, since the views held by moderate Republicans truly do reflect the beliefs of a large portion of the American electorate: conservatism on issues of economics and national security, and tolerance when it comes to the hot-button social/cultural issues.

Roman, the point of my previous post was not to knock the liberal agenda or defend the conservative one. (Thus, I am not attacking you for being a liberal.) Rather, it was to point out that Obama has dismally failed to live up to the hype that you and his other supporters cultivated throughout the course of the campaign. Obama is nothing more than your typical phony, run-of-the-mill politican, as opposed to being this great savior that you and others purported him to be.

I find it interesting that you are not even addressing this issue (about Obama not being all that he was hyped up to be). Instead, all you have done is made a couple of nasty and vitriolic posts in response to what Brian and I have said.

Obama and the Democrats just had a terrible week.

First, there's the matter of Obama's tasteless "joke" where he compared his bowling skills to those athletes who compete in the Special Olympics. I find it really pathetic that fellow Democrats (including the Shriver family, which runs the Special Olympics) are making all sorts of excuses for him by stating that he really didn't mean anything hurtful by this joke. Can you imagine the holy hell that would be happening had Bush made this comment?

Then, of course, there's the fake outrage that Obama expressed over the AIG executives being paid huge bonuses. What's fake about this outrage was that it was produced only after the public had become so upset over finding out about the AIG bonuses. In fact, not only did Obama know that this "bonus clause" was in the bill he signed, but it was Geithner himself who pushed Senate Democrats to insert such a clause in the first place. (And don't even get me started on Chris Dood, who first said that he had no idea who inserted that bonus clause into the bill, but then--the very next day--admitted that he was the guilty party.)

Obama's first two months have been nothing but an endless series of blunders. (Which is to be expected given the fact that he had so little experience prior to being elected.) Now, I can almost be certain that one of the Democrats who post here will respond to this fact by stating "he's still a lot better than Bush." Unfortunately, that is a pointless line of attack for two reasons: First, his opponent in the last election was John McCain, not Bush. And secondly, Obama, his supporters, and the media set forth much higher expectations for Obama (when compared to the expectations Bush was faced with when he took office) by constantly comparing him to Lincoln and stating that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Anybody is entitled to think that the liberal agenda is much better than the conservative one. However, what would be so refreshing is for any liberal to acknowledge the simple truth: that Obama is very much the typcial opportunistic politician as opposed to the great savior who's going to bridge the partisan divide and put an end to politics as usual.

I commend Roman for attacking Obama for the fact he screwed up so badly with his cabinet choices. I even commend Obama for admitting he screwed up.

However, I am disturbed at the very weak defense Obama's supporters are offering: that Obama is still better than Bush. Unfortunately, Obama's supporters and--more importantly--Obama himself didn't campaign on the slogan that he's "mediocre, but still way better than Bush." Instead, the American public was constantly led to believe that Obama was going to be one of the very best presidents ever. Supporters and the media initially made comparasions between Obama and JFK (who, IMO, is the most overrated president ever); not content with merely that, however, they then compared Obama to FDR, and eventually even to Lincoln. Obama himself is guilty of jumping on board the "I'm the greatest thing since Lincoln" bandwagon when he (1) publicly announced that he was taking the same train route to Washington that Lincoln did before his inauguration and (2) insisted upon taking the oath of office on the same bible Lincoln used.

So, again, after all of Obama's screw-ups, it is just so incredibly pathetic that the only defense his supporters can give is that he is still way better than Bush.

Chicago Democrats are as corrupt as they come. However, the ultimate blame goes to the idiot voters of Illinois, who easily re-elected Blago two years ago despite the fact that a huge ethical cloud hung over him.

Illinois is extremely similar to my home state of New Jersey in several aspects. In both states, the Democratic party has complete dominance of state government, and govern in an extremely corrupt manner. Also, it is simply impossible for a Republican to win a statewide election in either state. Finally, both NJ and IL voters don't give a damn about ethics, choosing to instead re-elect the corrupt Democrats every time.

Generations was undoubtedly the last attempt to create a serious daytime drama, given that all of the soaps that debuted in the 90's were farces. This soap lasted only 22 months on NBC, beginning in March 1989 and ending in January 1991.

To start off this discussion thread, first watch this series of cool promos that aired before the pilot episode (please note that embedding was disabled):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MCeWEseXO8

Thankfully, somebody posted the entire first episode of Generations on YouTube for our viewing pleasure.

Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

Part IV:

Part V:

While I may have more to say later, I have just two comments I want to make before I conclude this post: First, while it was creative to have Generations' first scenes be comprised of a "soap within a soap," I feel that this may have caused many to turn the channel (since the "fake" amnesia storyline seemed very uninteresting). (To be honest, I was not the first to point this out. Rather, a poster on YouTube made this observation.) And second, I am shocked that NBC gave Generations such little support, given the fact that the network owns the show. (In fact, I recall many stating that NBC's ownership of Passions was the reason the network treated it so well. However, in this case, NBC treated Generations even worse than it treated all its other soaps in recent decades.)