Welcome to Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past! On Thursdays, I will be reviewing Malibu CA, which aired in Syndication in 1998 and 1999. Almost the entire show is currently streaming on YouTube!
Yes, this is from the first season. I don’t care. I refuse to waste my time looking for a second season advertisement.
This week, Peter tries to enjoy retirement but his dumbass sons screw it all up.
Episode 2.14 “Retiring Dad”
(Dir by Gary Shimokawa, originally aired on February 5th, 2000)
This may be the worst episode of Malibu CA that I’ve ever seen and that’s saying something as every episode of this show that I watch is the worst until I watch the next one. Most bad shows will still occasionally have a good episode. Somehow, Malibu CA continues to get worse and worse. I say this despite the fact that Edward Blatchford, Brandon Brooks and Priscilla Inga Taylor have consistently managed to give performance that are far better than the material. I say this despite the fact that Trevor Merszie, in the role of Scott, is nowhere near as annoying during the second season than he was during the first. Despite those improvements, the show continues to decline with each passing week.
It all comes down to the writing, which is uninspired even by the standards of the typical 90s teen sitcom. Peter Engel’s shows were never known for their strong scripts but California Dreams (especially during its final season) showed that it was possible to make a good show while remaining true to Engel’s “vision” of what a teen sitcom should be. The writing on Malibu CA just feels lazy and, for whatever reason, storylines seem to consistently focus on the two weakest members of the cast, Jason Hayes and Marquita Terry.
(I should say that, in fairness to Terry, her character usually got stuck with the worst lines in each episode and the writers never came up with much of a personality beyond, “Girl Who Complains Nonstop.” As for Jason Hayes, he was still looking straight at the camera halfway through the second season.)
As for this episode, it features Peter finally retiring from running The Lighthouse so that he can fish and travel. He leaves his two idiot sons in charge. In this episode, we learn that Scott is apparently in college while Jason is still pursuing his — *snicker* — music career. Why Peter would leave his sons in charge (especially when you consider that, whenever he’s done so in the past, it’s always led to disaster) is a question that show never really explains. Seriously, is there no one else that works at the restaurant? It’s a big restaurant. Surely, there is someone else who is capable of running the restaurant. Considering the amount of time that Marquita Terry’s Lisa spends complaining about every little decision that Peter makes, maybe she should have been put in charge. She certainly seems more emotionally invested in the place than either Jason or Scott.
Jason and Scott’s attempt to turn the restaurant into a nightclub leads to a brawl between two customers who proceed to totally trash the place. Again, the restaurant gets trashed in every other episode so you would think Jason and Scott would be used to this. (You would also think that the restaurant would have gone out of business a long time ago as I can’t imagine it’s cost efficient to have to rebuild the damn place twice a month.) Peter ends his retirement because both of his sons are idiots. I’d feel bad for Peter but he was stupid for trusting them in the first place.
Meanwhile, Murray’s cousin — Alecia — is visiting from Alabama. Murray is overprotective but then, at the end of the episode, Alecia sings a song and everything is magically fixed. Alecia was played by Alecia Elliott, who was a cast member of another Peter Engel-produced sitcom, All About Us. Elliott had just released her first country album when she appeared on Malibu CA. I have to admit that I did laugh out loud when, from out of nowhere, she suddenly started singing. Of course, her song took up the last four minutes of the show, which spared us from having to deal with anymore scenes involving the restaurant. That was a good thing.
There’s only a handful of episodes left. Soon, I will never have to write or think about this show again.
Through the Shattered Lens 
On June 13, 2025, Israel conducted military strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, which has drawn significant international attention and condemnation. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) reported that they targeted multiple military sites, including key nuclear facilities, as part of a preemptive strike aimed at neutralizing what they described as a threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In response to these actions, the United Nations has condemned the strikes, emphasizing the need for diplomatic solutions to prevent escalation in the region. The UN ambassador stated that the decision to strike was an “independent Israeli decision,” indicating a lack of consensus on the appropriateness of the military action.
The strikes reportedly resulted in significant casualties, including the death of a senior commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, which has heightened tensions further. Iranian state media has indicated that missile and drone attacks on Israel are expected in retaliation.
In the wake of Israel’s recent military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, several major world powers, including Britain, France, Russia, and China, have condemned the actions as “unprovoked.” These nations have expressed deep concern over the escalation of tensions in the region and the potential for further conflict.
The strikes, which occurred on June 13, 2025, targeted multiple sites associated with Iran’s nuclear program, including key military installations. Israeli officials justified the attacks as necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, citing the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In their statements, the leaders of Britain, France, Russia, and China emphasized the importance of diplomatic solutions and called for restraint from all parties involved. They criticized the Israeli actions as undermining regional stability and violating international norms regarding the use of military force.
In a significant diplomatic move, Britain, France, Russia, and China have collectively withdrawn their ambassadors from Israel in response to the recent military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. This decision reflects the escalating tensions and widespread condemnation of Israel’s actions, which these nations have labeled as “unprovoked.”
The withdrawal of ambassadors marks a notable shift in diplomatic relations and underscores the seriousness with which these countries view the situation. They have called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and emphasized the need for a diplomatic resolution to prevent further escalation in the region.
This action follows a series of international criticisms directed at Israel, with various nations expressing concern over the potential for increased conflict and instability. The UN has also been vocal in its condemnation, urging all parties to engage in dialogue rather than military confrontation.
In a reciprocal diplomatic response to the withdrawal of ambassadors by Britain, France, Russia, and China, Israel has also decided to withdraw its ambassadors from these countries. This move reflects the escalating tensions and deteriorating relations following Israel’s military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which have been widely condemned as “unprovoked” by the international community.
The decision to withdraw ambassadors signifies a significant breakdown in diplomatic relations and highlights the ongoing crisis in the region. Israel’s actions have drawn sharp criticism from these nations, prompting them to take a stand against what they perceive as aggressive military actions.
This diplomatic rift is part of a broader context of heightened tensions in the Middle East, with various countries calling for restraint and a return to dialogue to address the underlying issues. The situation remains fluid, and the international community is closely monitoring developments as both sides navigate this escalating conflict.
The UN’s condemnation, backed by the UK, France, Russia, and China, portrays the action as “unprovoked” — a term that reflects political calculus more than legal clarity. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state may use force in self-defense if an armed attack occurs — but preemptive strikes exist in a gray zone. Israel’s argument likely hinges on the “imminence” clause, as articulated in the Caroline case (1837): when the threat is instant, overwhelming, and leaves no choice of means.
Israel’s June 13, 2025 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities represent a classic case of preemptive self-defense, aligning with the Begin Doctrine — the principle that Israel will not allow enemy states to acquire nuclear weapons. It echoes past operations. (1) Osirak (1981) against Iraq’s nuclear reactor. (2) Operation Outside the Box (2007) against Syria.
Yet the withdrawal of ambassadors by four permanent members of the Security Council — including the two Western nations historically sympathetic to Israel — signals a profound diplomatic rupture, potentially worse than during the 1956 Suez Crisis or 1982 Lebanon War.
But this time, the scope is broader, the stakes are higher, and the diplomatic fallout is far more severe. The reciprocal withdrawals by Israel, we are now witnessing a partial diplomatic isolation of Israel from key global players — a scenario that dangerously echoes the pre-1967 international atmosphere, only now with a nuclear shadow.
The continuity between medieval Church slanders and modern UN blood libels. Iran, a regime openly threatening genocide (e.g., statements by top officials calling for Israel’s destruction), is shielded by powers that once committed or abetted genocide. Those same powers — Britain and France — betrayed Jewish refugees pre-1948, yet now sanctimoniously claim Israel undermines “stability.” Russia, currently engaged in illegal war and nuclear threats in Ukraine, calls Israel’s actions illegal. China, persecutor of Uyghurs and enforcer of state repression, calls for restraint.
These are not neutral arbiters of international law. They are part of a long tradition of holding Jews to impossible standards, demanding “restraint” even when faced with annihilation. The UN has inherited the mantle of Church anti-Jewish theology in secularized diplomatic language. Resolution 3379 (Zionism = Racism) was the modern Inquisition; Today’s condemnation of Israel’s self-defense is the new blood libel; The ICJ’s silence on Iran’s genocidal threats is a political Kiddush Hashem inversion — punishing the victim for refusing to lie still.
Iran will likely retaliate via proxies: Hezbollah, Houthis, and Shi’ite militias in Syria or Iraq. Israel may face multi-front escalation, forcing it into a prolonged regional war.
The Gulf States’ reaction (e.g., UAE, Saudi Arabia) will be critical: they fear Iran, but won’t publicly back Israel under current diplomatic pressure. The US response under the leadership of President Trump contrasts with the European barbaric anti Jewish history.
This is more than a military episode — it’s a constitutional test of Jewish sovereignty. If Israel, as a free Jewish nation, cannot defend itself without being slandered and isolated, then the very post-Holocaust consensus that birthed the UN is shattered. Once again, the Jewish state is punished not for what it does, but for daring to exist — and fight to survive.
LikeLike
Pingback: Lisa Marie’s Week In Review: 6/9/25 — 6/15/25 | Through the Shattered Lens