Every week I sit down to watch Boston Legal (well, every week there is a new episode, anyway). Sometimes I love the soapbox they choose to stand on, and other times I'm miffed by it. Sometimes I think the extraneous shenanigans are great, and other times I'm hugely disturbed and disappointed by them.

Last night was one of those nights where the show seemed, to me, to work wonderfully. Probably that's because I lean more to the left than the right. The show doesn't just lean to the left, it tends to fall over to that side, but last night Boston Legal and I had a meeting of the minds.

Alan was arguing a case before the Supreme Court, trying to defend a man who had been sentenced to death in Louisiana for raping (but not murdering) a 7-year-old. It was a heinous crime to be sure, one that the individual, whose IQ was a mere 70, claimed not to have done.

Standing before the nine Justices, Alan, who had been prepped not to, flew off the handle, ranting and raving against the Justices and their insanely political bent. He argued that it wasn't the history of the court to be quite as political as they have been recently, and whether or not that's accurate, they certainly shouldn't be.

Alan's tirade was mainly focused on the conservative Justices and the fact that they, in his mind, have not only acted almost solely on ideological grounds over the past few years, but that they have refused to recuse themselves when they face a clear conflict of interest in a case. Here they almost lost me as I'm quite sure that the liberal Justices have equally strong failings, but, it was still great to watch him rip into the highest court in the land.

It was, in fact, more fun than watching Gordon Ramsay rip into the contestants on Hell's Kitchen. I feel as though he needs to come up with new and different ways to humiliate his contestants in order for the show to remain interesting, and so far he just hasn't done that this season. Week in and week out the show relies on virtually the exact same epithets, complaints, and challenges that appeared last year and the year before. I'm still enjoying it, but I'd like to see something more, too.

Maybe that's why I enjoy Last Restaurant Standing so much, it's the same… but it's different. The show operates, usually, in a much more genial way than American reality shows; there seems to be little to no backstabbing, it's all about each team doing their best.

Actually, that's exactly why I felt like last night's episode took a weird, slightly disturbing, turn. When Raymond Blanc fired Lloyd and Adwoa, he explained, quite clearly, that Adwoa was fantastic, that she was a great cook and managed the kitchen beautifully. He then said that Lloyd was the weakness of the team, that he did, to put it plainly, a bad job managing the front of the house. If Adwoa was working with someone else, not her fiancé, it's entirely possible she could have won the competition.

I just wonder where they go as a couple now. I would hope that I would be a big enough person that my fiancée crushing all my hopes and dreams wouldn't cause me any sort of resentment, but that's kind of hard to take. I know I'd get over it eventually, but in the short term I think I'd be pretty angry. If the person you loved most in the world caused you to lose your dreams, you'd probably be angry, too.

I can't figure out why Raymond would frame his dismissing the couple from the competition in quite that way. It may have been truthful, but surely it should have been couched in more diplomatic terms, terms that may not have had the ability to create such a negative impact on the couple.

No? Am I wrong? Speak up if you think so.