What Ever Happened to the Best Cereal EVER?

I have written previously of the gloriously delicious and banana-y Banana Nut Cheerios, when I declared it Best Cereal EVER!  I have since enjoyed it periodically, for as I stated in that post, I am not much of a cereal person in general.  However, for some time, these wonderful Cheerios seemed to have vanished.  So you can imagine my delight when they suddenly re-appeared on a supermarket shelf and shortly thereafter in my home.  But my delight ended before my tummy received the cheery o's.  The Banana Nut Cheerios were little o-shaped imposters.

They did not taste strongly of banana; rather, they tasted mildly of it for the first bite, followed by increasing…something else.  'Twas a flavor I could not put my finger on.  Sugary?  Sort of.  Maple-y?  Maybe.  Brown-sugar-y?  Um, I don't know.  Of course, despite my disappointment, I continued to eat them, trying to re-attain the banana-y flavor I so yearned for.

In my previous post regarding these Cheerios, I explained that milk, especially real milk, brings out more of the delicious flavors.  Therefore, I must assure you, I did indeed have real milk with my not-so-Banana Nut Cheerios.  If you must know, it was a fancy organic and even grass-fed milk.  'Twas my first time having such a fancy milk.  I was surprised to find I did not moo as a result of imbibing it.  I did not moo at all.

I was uncertain if the lost banana flavor was General Mill's fault or mine own.  Perhaps I had a taste in my mouth that altered the cereal, or perhaps my taste buds were on the fritz.

So I conducted thorough research into whether the Banana Nut Cheerio recipe had changed.  Of course, by "thorough research," I mean I quickly Googled.  In so researching, I learned that the mysterious absence of Banana Nut Cheerios was due to an evil and cruel discontinuation of said cereal two flippin' years ago!  Didn't they know I love them?  Why would they do such a treacherous thing?  Anyhoo, they made what could have been a triumphant albeit limited-time return recently.  I then compared the old ingredients to the new ingredients, and it most certainly has changed.

Ironically, the changes in ingredients suggest an improvement in quality and healthiness.  There are no longer any chemical-sounding words in the ingredients list, and almonds have been replaced with pecans and cinnamon (I mean, "natural flavors" of these things).  There are 10 more calories per the same sized serving of 3/4 cup, and 1 gram less sugar.  Instead of a combination of whole grain corn and oats, it's now just whole grain oats.  None of this should be bad, except maybe the 10 more calories, though that's only a problem if you have many servings at once (as some people do).

I realized the problem was probably that the pecan and cinnamon flavors are stealing the spotlight from the banana, and those were probably the flavors I couldn't put my finger on.  Almonds (or "natural almond flavor" as it were) are probably more mild, and certainly a lack of cinnamon would keep the spotlight on the banana.  The old recipe got one important thing right: it knew that bananas were the star of the show.

With my new understanding of what the new Banana Nut Cheerios are, I decided to give them another chance.  This time, I had the cereal with Lactaid, another (less) fancy milk whose lactose is removed or something.  I don't think the type of real milk made a difference in this case because the cereal tasted the same as it did before.  However, my expectations and understandings were different, as I no longer expected anything all that banana-y, and I did expect cinnamon and pecan flavors.  And so it was.  Because I was no longer distracted by my disappoint in lack of banana flavor, I was able to experience the cinnamon pecan flavor as the initial banana faded.  While it is no longer the best cereal ever, and it is not a yummy banana-y cereal, it is a yummy cereal with an initial hint of banana.  I can still recommend it, but not as whole-heartedly as I once could.

Sinister Soul

Why dost thou hurt me so, Sinister Soul?

Dost thou seek vengeance?

I know not of what I have done

To thee, or to thy sister, Sinister Soul.

Wilt thou free me of this pain

That thou hast inflicted upon me?

Or shalt the pain remain?

I step upon thee as I move forward,

Or rather, I step with thee;

With thee, and upon thee.

Thou propelest me;

Thou compelest me.

I stand over thee,

And I stand still.

I step with thee,

And I move forward.

Alas, the Sinister Soul of which I speak

Is a part of me.

Sinister Soul, thou art my Sinister Soul.

Thou liest beneath my Sinister Foot.

My Sinister Soul aches so verily.

Dost thou hurt me?

Or do I hurt thee?

'Tis a dichotomy.

Sometimes, my Sinister Soul

Is itchy.

Oh dear, Sinister Soul,

I have misspelled thee!

I did not know, or recall anyway

That you are without a "u"

And silently bear an "e."

Oh, Dear Sinister Sole,

Canst thou forgive me

For mine orthographic atrocity?

In Defense of Trump Supporters and Why They're Wrong

Before I get to the Trump supporters, I must write about the petition that is attempting to stop Trump and why I signed it.  I am politically opposed to Donald Trump, and I have grown to like Hillary Clinton, to the extent that I can like a politician, that is.  But those things have nothing to do with why I signed the Change Dot Org petition.  I signed it because Donald Trump is dangerous; he is a threat to everything that makes America great.  Did you see what I did there?  I turned his motto against him.  I go girl.

The petition is asking the electors to not vote for Trump even if they're "supposed" to since the whole point of the Electoral College is to keep the people from voting for someone who is unfit for the presidency.  Since Hillary won the popular vote anyway, going "against" what the electors are "supposed" to do wouldn't actually oppose the will of the people.  I think the other point of the Electoral College is to help the smaller states be more represented, but I feel like that is less important than the popular vote and the understanding that Trump is dangerous.  I don't know if the petition will actually make a difference, but I signed it anyway, because it's something I can do.  I did hesitate before signing because of things like democracy and the peaceful transition of power, but decided to do it for the reasons I just stated.

I want to be clear regarding my reasons for signing the petition: it isn't because I disagree with Trump politically, even though I do.  This isn't about politics.  It's because he is dangerous.  I would never have signed such a petition against George W. Bush, for example, even though Al Gore won the popular vote and even though I knew (and was proven correct) that W would start wars, run the country into the ground economically, and stifle stem cell research.  Those are political things; he was not a danger to the very fabric of what America stands for. 

As I understand it, the main purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent a demagogue from becoming president.  I have to admit, I had to look up the definition of demagogue to gain a clearer and better understanding of what the eff that means.  Alarmingly, both Google's and Webster's definitions of demagogue seem to be providing frighteningly precise descriptions of Donald Trump's behavior.  The Google definition is clearer: "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."

And now, onto the actual purpose of this post: my defense of Trump supporters.  Before I defend them, I shall offend them.

There are many (two that I know of anyway) people who feel that many Trump supporters are some form of piece of crap, or deplorable, as Hillary more eloquently put it.  I don't think she was wrong to make that statement, since the things she was describing are unquestionably deplorable, and she was obviously not talking about all Trump supporters.  This deplorable sect of supporters seem to be racist, homophobic, white supremacists, opposed to religious freedom, etc, etc, etc.  I am quite sure that there is at least a portion of Trump supporters that fit these categories of pieces of crap, evidenced by the fact that the KKK support Trump, since the KKK is obviously composed of pieces of crap as described here.  For the record, I don't think the pieces of crap are limited to the KKK, based on things I've heard from non-KKK Trump supporters.  However, I am quite sure that these categories do not apply to all Trump supporters; in fact, I personally know at least one who is none of those deplorable things.  But even the non-deplorable among them have chosen to elect a distributor of deplorable; I saw on Myface (Facebook) a post that stated that all Trump supporters might not be racist, but racism wasn't a deal-breaker for them.  That sums it up nicely, I think.  So now that I have offended the Trump supporters, I shall, at long last, defend them.

I will not be defending the deplorable portion of Trump supporters, i.e. the racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc.  I will be defending the ones who are not deplorable, for whom deplorable things about Trump were not a deal-breaker.

As crazy as it sounds, I think there are people who wanted to vote for someone who holds their political views.  Some of those people, mostly Republicans probably, only saw one political option, and it wasn't Hillary Clinton.  To be honest, while I understand the political opposition to Hillary by Republicans, it strikes me as odd since she seems moderate to me, and therefore potentially appealing to both parties.  But then again, I also think the same thing of President Obama and John McCain, both of whom are opposed by the other party.  Perhaps this is reflective of people's inability to compromise on anything.  But I digress.

Those Republicans were left with one awful candidate who claims to hold their Republican views, and I think they felt like they couldn't bear to vote for someone on the Democratic side, even though she is moderate.  Oh, I guess the above paragraph wasn't actually a digression after all.  They couldn't bear to compromise their political views, even if it meant electing a dangerous demagogue.

I had trouble empathizing with these voters, until I really imagined myself in their position (I'm normally better at empathy than that, I think).  I imagined a scenario in which an alleged Democratic version of Trump (so Trump from a few years ago then) but with the current state of crazies would run against a Republican whom I find vile as a person (because it seems there are people who hate Hillary as a person as well as a politician) and whose political views are contrary to mine.  So Ted Cruz.  I imagined a Democratic but still just as dangerous version of Trump running against Ted Cruz.  What would I do?  I disagree with Cruz on probably everything, and I don't like anything about him at all.  But he's not a danger to our beloved country the way Trump is.  Cruz wouldn't start a nuclear war because someone hurt his feelings on Twitter.  He wouldn't scapegoat entire races of people the way Hitler did.  He wouldn't attack journalistic freedom.  I would like to believe that I would be able to look past the politics, since this really isn't about politics, and vote for the person who is least evil and least dangerous for our country and its people.  I think I would be able to do that, as hard as it would be to vote for Ted Cruz, because ever since I was little, I understood that politics is always a choice of bad and worse, and we must vote for the lesser of the evils.  In my scenario, Ted Cruz is clearly the lesser of evils when compared to Trump.  While I believe I would ultimately make the right choice and cast the sane vote for Ted Cruz, it would be an incredibly hard decision to make and it would hurt my soul to cast that vote.  So I understand the non-deplorable Trump supporters; it probably would have been too hard for them to vote for Hillary.

And now, I shall get to the part about why the Trump supporters I just defended are wrong.  I do understand how hard their decision was, but they made the wrong one.  They should have been stronger; they should have made the difficult decision to vote against their views that are merely political, and vote for the person who is not a danger to our beloved country and beautiful Earth.  They made the wrong decision.  Now we must all suffer the consequences.  This isn't about politics.

Is Gaga Self-Censored?

***WARNING: The following contains foul language, though it does not contain language about fowl. Viewer discretion is advised.***

I initially became irritated upon hearing the bleeps in the amazing Lady Gaga song “Government Hooker” from the amazing album Born This Way, because I am not a fan of censorship on things that I buy. This had happened before, when the word “bitch” was censored on the allegedly explicit version of “Bad Romance” from The Fame Monster that I bought. Clearly, that drove me crazy, as I searched desperately for a truly explicit version (I eventually found one somewhere, but I don’t remember where). As I heard the bleeps at the end of “Government Hooker” on Born This Way, I thought I had another annoying search for foul language on my hands.

However, I have decided that this time, the censorship might have been intentional. In “Bad Romance,” the word “b*tch” was altered to sound like “bit,” thus creating a clean version of the song that sounded clean and not too edited. However, in “Government Hooker,” the words “f*ck “and “f*cking” are covered with actual beeps that are disruptive to the song and don’t blend in the way the “b*tch,” altering does. If one doesn’t pay attention to the lyrics of “Bad Romance,” the censorship goes unnoticed; however, there is no doubt at all about whether there is censorship in “Government Hooker.” The censorship of the expletive is clearly explicated in the latter song.

Because of the apparent intentionality, I realized the censorship, particularly of the word “f*ck” fits perfectly within the song’s meaning. The song seems to have several complex meanings, according to this website, but one meaning (that at the time that I am writing this) is not mentioned there explicitly. The song seems to be about government hypocrisy. The government (via the FCC) censors the word “f*ck” as symbolized in the song with the bleeps, yet so many politicians are often found f*cking hookers and mistresses (“I wanna f*ck government hooker”). The hypocrisy continues, as so often, the government figuratively f*cks the people it represents as well as the people it doesn’t represent (“Stop f*cking me government hooker”).

Gaga, nice work, adding at least one layer of thought to your fantastic music. This is yet another of many reasons for why I heart Lady Gaga.

It’s a Conspiracy!

The TV once told me that people like conspiracies because they are more interesting than reality is. I agree with the TV (I think it was the History channel), and I think there’s more to it than that. I learned many a year ago in an anthropology class that people like to find patterns since it's what our brains were built (by aliens I presume) to do, because without patterns, things like sensory stimuli such as lights and sounds wouldn't make any sense and thus couldn’t become objects and words that we perceive. I think, as this thing from CNN sort of suggests, conspiracies also add more meaning to coincidences, which, again, makes thing more interesting.

With all of that being said, I think one thing is clear: Conspiracies are all just one big conspiracy to distract us from the truth: the TV talks to me and aliens built us for their amusement. Isn’t that more fun than reality?

Jew for Jesus in a Dream

DISCLAIMER: NONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS INTENDED TO BE OFFENSIVE TOWARD ANYONE OF ANY RELIGION.

I had the strangest dream a few months ago. I have strange dreams at times, amidst the boring and mundane ones, but this one could win a strange award, as far as my dreams go anyway.

As this bizarre dream began, I was walking across a very busy street. I think I was jaywalking actually. I couldn’t get safely across alone; I needed someone to help me. Someone (a regular person) was trying to help me cross this insanely trafficky street, with far-off shouts of “stop!” and “go!” With each step, the traffic became continually worse, and when I got halfway across, I felt like I couldn’t possibly make it the rest of the way, even with the far-off human guidance.

Just then, Jesus picked me up and carried me the rest of the way. I felt completely and utterly safe. Yes, Jesus, and please bear in mind, I am Jewish, or more precisely, I’m an agnostic Jew. Yet Jesus literally saved me in my dream.

In my dream, I knew it was Jesus, but he only partially looked like the traditional Christian, probably false view of what Jesus looked like. His head wasn’t very clear in the dream; actually, none of him was, but he had short hair (blonde I think), and he wore all white. SPOILER ALERT: LOST PLOT WILL BE MENTIONED NOW! While you might want to exclaim, “OMG! Maybe it wasn’t Jesus, but rather Jacob from Lost!” but that isn’t likely, as the rest of my description will illustrate. My dream Jesus was somewhat deformed in that his right arm and maybe his right leg weren’t really there and there was something that looked kind of like a drum instead (perhaps representing the little drummer boy?).

After he saved me in my dream, Jesus went on to help some other people. I don’t remember the details of who he helped or how. I said something where I referred to him aloud to other people as Jesus, and he said quietly to me, “No, don’t tell them I’m Jesus. Say G-d, or Orange.” I understood that he didn’t want his identity as Jesus revealed. I don’t remember anything else, and the dream might have ended there.

At first when I awoke, I couldn’t figure out why on earth I would have such a strange dream. I can’t emphasize enough that I’m a Jew, and an agnostic Jew at that. I don’t believe that Jesus was divine, and I don’t’ believe it’s possible to truly know if there is or isn’t a G-d at all (though I do tend towards faith). Nevertheless, in my dream, Jesus saved me, and made me feel completely safe and comforted, and I think at peace.

Later that day, I remembered some things that happened the day before that could explain the bizarre dream. I had eaten a truly delicious red orange (a Cara Cara navel orange) the night of the dream, and that is likely why Jesus told me to tell others that he is G-d or Orange. I suppose I felt the orange I had eaten was deliciously divine (it really was).


My orange consumption only explained one tiny aspect of my dream. Sometime after the Orange revelation, I determined that the divine nature of my dream came from Stephen Colbert. The night of the dream, I had watched an episode of The Colbert Report in which Colbert spoke of Bill O’Reilly’s certainty of G-d’s existence based on his lack of understanding of how the tides work. Neil deGrasse Tyson then came to Colbert's studio (via his wormhole of course) to explain that the tides are controlled by the moon, prompting Colbert to praise the Moon as G-d. When Tyson explained that the Moon is not G-d, Colbert praised Neil deGrasse Tyson as G-d, proclaiming “Neal before Neil!”

I think it’s clear then, that my Jesus dream was induced by Stephen Colbert and all his talk of who or what G-d is, and by a divinely delicious fruit. If I were a different person, I imagine my dream could have converted me to a Jew for Jesus, or even a full-blown Christian – not that there’s anything wrong with that. (Hey, look, by quoting Seinfeld, I inadvertently juxtaposed Christianity with homosexuality, and there’s nothing wrong with either.) But alas, I am just too practical (in terms of finding real-world explanations for my strange dreams) to put all my beliefs in one dream-woven basket.

SPOILER ALERT – Lost Season 6: Before “The End”

The following are some thoughts I had while watching the pre-Lost-finale retrospective, “The Final Journey,” written in sort of a Twitter-like way. For my thoughts during the Lost finale written in the same fashion, go here, and for my normal blog posting about the finale, go here.


The Lost producers explained that the Flash-Sideways is what happens when the island is not pulling the characters toward itself; therefore, it has nothing to do with anything the new Jacob is doing, as I had thought. I guess I should have realized that since the island is under water in the Flash-Sideways, however, I assumed that New Jacob could somehow still be functional underwater. Since they are suggesting that is not the case, then perhaps Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster succeeded in destroying the Island, and if that is the case, then all that talk of the Light was a big lie, or a misperception, a superstition carried from one Jacob to the next, from one divine generation to the next.

The lack of Island gravity pulling the characters toward it and toward each other suggest that it truly was fate drawing them together.

I was somewhat correct then, when, early in the season, I wondered if the New Reality/Flash-Sideways is what happens when Jacob might not have been affecting their lives. I was just wrong more recently when I suggested that the new Jacob (whom I was sure would be Hurley) was influencing their lives in order to improve them.

I didn’t realize that Real John Locke never told Jack that he was in a wheelchair in his pre-Island days. Clearly that means I was more correct than I realized when I said Locke never accepted his disability so that he could move on with his life in the reality we’re familiar with.

The producers explained that in the Flash-Sideways, the characters ask for and provide help for each other, which is different from the reality we’re familiar with. I didn’t notice that distinction, but it explains why they aren’t empty or without purpose in the New Realty; their purpose is to help each other, and in so doing, they attain happiness, and are not so deeply flawed, as they were when Jacob chose them as candidates. Jacob told them they needed the Island because they were alone; in the Flash-Sideways, they are not alone, for they found each other, as if by fate, or, I stubbornly say, by Hurley…I mean Jacob…I mean Jack.

SPOILER ALERT – Lost Season 6 “Everybody Loves Hugo”

Old (Ongoing) Predictions and Mea Culpas


Well, it seems “Everybody Loves Hugo,” this week’s episode of Lost, teaches us not to jump to conclusions. Firstly, it seems I was wrong to jump to the conclusion that I was correct in my prediction that Hurley will be the new Jacob based on the preview for this episode. I might still be right, and this episode seems to be leading towards that, however, it did not confirm my prediction as I expected it to. So, mea culpa, my dear blog readers. As for the other lesson in not jumping to conclusions, I’ll get to that soon enough.

Part of my theory might be very flawed. I whole-heartedly believe that I am going to be shown to be correct in that Hurley will be the new Jacob; however, I think I might be wrong regarding the other half of my theory. I don’t think it’s likely that the new reality/flash-sideways is the result of Hurley’s Jacobian take-over. If the new reality resulted from the detonation of the hydrogen bomb and represents the resetting of everything that would or would not have happened if the Swan were never built, then there is a good chance that Jacob would not have died. Ben would not have grown up to kill Jacob, obviously, since we know that he did live on the island as a young ‘un but left as a young ‘un as well in the new reality. Therefore, assuming that the new reality did indeed result from the bomb, then Jacob is probably still alive in the new reality, rendering a replacement (by Hurley or anyone else) unnecessary. Jacob’s last living words of “They’re coming” suggests that the bomb detonation would salvage Jacob and/or the island, so it’s reasonable to assume that such a detonation could mean Jacob’s survival in the new reality. Of course, it’s possible that it was Jacob’s destiny to die, or that Man in Black found another way to have Jacob murdered, in which case it could potentially be possible for Hurley or someone else to be the new Jacob in the new reality. I believe this possibility might be reliant on the bomb not being the cause of the new reality. Clearly, it is very unlikely that Hurley is the new Jacob in the new reality, but I stand by my prediction that he will become the new Jacob in the reality we are familiar with.

Considering the implausibility of the new-reality half of my prediction, I think I just wanted Hurley to be the cause of all the nice things happening in the new reality. If my whole theory could be true, it would have given us a nice sense of closure; it would have meant that the reality we are familiar with and the new reality would come together. Fortunately, since some of the new reality people are having memories of the reality we are familiar with, perhaps the merging of realities could be happening after all.

New Predictions and Theories

Who is that kid in the jungle? Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster seems to fear him, and, in “The Substitute,” the little boy seems to feel that Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster/Man in Black has broken some rule. I’m guessing that the rule that was broken was the loophole by which Man in Black had Jacob murdered. Perhaps the little boy in the jungle is G-d, or a divine force superior to both Man in Black and Jacob. Perhaps this highest and most powerful being takes the form of a child because who but a child possesses more innocence and less Evil? Alternatively, perhaps the little boy is Jacob reincarnated; I don’t think he appeared (to us anyway) until after Jacob’s death, and I don’t think we ever saw the little boy and Jacob (or his ghost) together. However, I think my first theory is probably more likely.

I have a new theory to go along with my other theories. I correctly predicted (assuming that Jacob wasn’t lying to Richard) that the island is where Evil is detained and kept from roaming throughout the world. Since Evil lives on the island, and since in this episode, we learned that Michael and other dead people are stuck on the island and can’t “move on” because of bad things they’ve done (such as killing Libby), I can’t help but wonder if the island is some form of Hell after all. I previously argued that if the island turns out to be Hell, then Lost will be a tremendously unsettling show, but perhaps it is not the traditional concept of Hell, but rather a place on Earth where Evil itself along with the souls of dead people who have committed evil acts in their lives are held captive, and kept from moving on. Live people can live in this place too, because I refuse to believe that all our characters are dead. If the island is Hell, then Jacob, or whoever takes his place, is the guardian of Hell, and, if I’m not mistaken (and I definitely could be) the guardian of Hell is Satan. Therefore, if my theory is correct, then Jacob and whoever takes is place is the Devil. However, I am still leaning toward my previous theory that Jacob and his predecessor is G-d or a divine entity similar to G-d. Interestingly, Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster/Man in Black/Evil Incarnate refers to G-d colloquially; he said, “G-d knows” at least once. I don’t remember Jacob ever referring to G-d, or the Devil for that matter. (Note: Just because I don’t remember doesn’t mean it didn’t happen; my memory is very much imperfect.) Of course, as Richard said, Jacob doesn’t tell people what to do (although Jacob has told Hurley what to do on at least two occasions), and I don’t believe he tells them what to believe either, so it makes sense that he wouldn’t define anyone as G-d or the Devil. Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster/Man in Black, however, likes to tell people what they want to hear to manipulate them, so his references to G-d and the Devil mean nothing, it would seem.

This Week’s Episode

It was nice to see Hurley’s story in the new reality/flash-sideways. It was comforting and happy-making to see him finally have his date with his Destiny, his love, Libby. By the way, Hurley and Libby can be added to the list o’ people in the new reality who have memories of the reality we are familiar with. I heart Hurley. It was also nice to see him in the reality we are familiar with gaining confidence as the leader he is destined to be in the form of the new Jacob (I say, stubbornly holding onto my as-yet-unconfirmed theory). It’s also nice to see the role reversal of Jack trusting Hurley.

If you’re wondering about Hugo Reyes’ name meaning, other than his last name meaning “kings,” Hugo means heart, mind, or spirit. Clearly, this fits perfectly with Hurley; he has a connection with spirits in that people come to him after they die, and, despite thinking he was/is crazy, he is of sound mind, and he has a huge heart.

Desmond in the new reality seems to have taken the job of helping his fellow Oceanic 815-ers fulfill their Destiny. It’s cute that Desmond and Destiny both start with Des, as if they were trying to give us this clue from the beginning. He helped Hurley and Libby find each other, and then…well, and then what he did is what I was referring to above about jumping to conclusions.

In the new reality, Desmond might have killed Real New Reality John Locke. He probably did this because he probably had a memory from the reality we are familiar with where what he believed was Real John Locke threw him (Desmond) down a deep well and probably killed the latter (I say “probably” because he might not be dead, particularly if the Island isn’t through with him, since it probably still needs him). However, Desmond is wrong – that was not the evil act of Real John Locke – Real John Locke would never do such a terrible thing. Obviously (to us), it was Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster, but Desmond Hume didn’t know that. Ah, remember I mentioned in a previous blog posting that Hume, the philosopher for whom Desmond was named, believed human knowledge is restricted to what we perceive – just like Philosopher John Locke. It seems Desmond Hume’s Destiny turned out to be Hume-like –he didn’t know that the John Locke who threw him down a well wasn’t what he perceived, and so he sought vengeance on the wrong Locke. Desmond Hume acted on his perceptual knowledge, for he didn’t know the evil that lurked beyond his perception.

I think we can all agree that Ben was destined to protect the children. He clearly serves that role in the new reality, watching out for Alex and his student’s in “Dr. Linus,” and noticing and questioning Creepy Desmond in this episode. He showed his proclivity for protecting the young ’uns in the reality we are familiar with as well, when he took Alex as his own daughter rather than killing her and her mother as he was instructed to. It’s nice to see him fulfilling such a nice destiny in the new reality.

Pink’s Abusive Lyrics

UPDATE: December 5, 2009
Thanks to Tiger Woods and his wife, this blog posting has more relevance now! See what I write here for why.

(Originally written as an email on August 12, 2009)

I was kind of liking that Pink song, "Please Don't Leave Me," although I vaguely noticed something a little abusive about the lyrics. So today, I listened to the lyrics, and holy crap, either Pink is an abusive POS, or maybe she is singing from the voice of an abusive POS. But the lyrics are clearly the words of an abusive POS.

I was kind of thinking at first that maybe she's just reacting to an abusive POS, but she says things like "I don't know why I’m so obnoxious, something about you makes me act that way" and "You're my perfect little punching bag"....What an abusive POS.

I hope she's just singing from the abuser's voice...I like a lot of her music, including that song, lol. Also, I like her, or I did anyway.

(I wrote another email about a half hour later)

Um, so maybe Pink is not an abusive POS. Someone told me to watch the video, which shows her trying to kill her boyfriend but then sings all sweetly, "Please don't leave me.” I know this description sounds just as terrible as I thought the lyrics were, but it's funny-like, and very clearly showing the irony of it.

A couple of people informed me that it’s an homage to a movie called Misery, which I have not seen. As one of those people notes, Pink is a funny girl, and so the lyrics and video are intended as humor. I probably should have realized that.

In this video, Pink explains the meaning of the song, and here she says that she and her mom are both a**holes, but they're also loveable, and have the whole "go away...no come back" kind of personalities.

Anyhoo, the lyrics are still the things abusive people would say, but I do like Pink and her music, and that song is good, and she is a funny girl, and I do see the intended humor.

Hmm, here's an interesting thought: If a man were singing it (let's say Chris Brown, i.e. a known abusive POS), and Pink (or Rihanna, or any other woman) was the recipient of it, I wonder if anyone would say it's funny...So yeah, while I see the humor and I still like Pink and while I’m no longer feeling that she's an abusive POS (because of the humor and obvious irony in the video), I’m still a bit uncomfortable with the lyrics. Maybe I should see this movie Misery...

Evolving Perceptions of Lady Gaga

My hatred of Lady Gaga (whose real name is Stefani Germanotta) was immediate, from the moment she entered my consciousness. She is just a wannabe Christina Aguilera (whom I love, and whose talent is unquestionable; if there was ever any doubt regarding Christina’s talent, her impromptu a cappella performance of “Beautiful” on Saturday Night Live very clearly elucidates her talent), I thought, as I’m sure many people did. So, as I mention in my previous blog posting, I hated Lady Gaga for what I thought was: an obvious lack of originality. I thought she was a derivative and therefore fake pop singer who, beyond her lack, of originality, appeared to lack talent. Another Paris Hilton-like pop quasi-singer, manufactured to sound decent.

I was informed at some point that according to Perez Hilton, Lady Gaga is, in fact, original. Apparently, he provides evidence that Lady Gaga’s fashion precedes Christina’s, so, assuming he is correct (which I do), Lady Gaga is original and therefore is not fake. Yet I continued to hate her, despite the elimination of my perception of her as a wannabe Christina.

Her music itself didn’t anger me quite so much; I kind of like “Just Dance,” though I couldn’t listen to the whole song since it just got annoying. I did (and continue to) like “Poker Face,” but I hated (and continue to hate) “LoveGame.” I also continued to hate her.

My hatred began to change when I saw the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, where Lady Gaga performed “Paparazzi.” Until then, I hadn’t heard the song at all; I occasionally reside under a rock where I somehow manage to (usually inadvertently) avoid any exposure to new music or celebrity and newsly goings on. As I watched the very dramatic performance, I found myself…enjoying it…a lot. This came as quite a shock to me. The song was fantastic. More notably, it became clear that she actually does sing, and her voice is kind of good and unique in that its distinctiveness makes the Lady-Gaga-ness unmistakably recognizable. In addition to her singing talent, I noticed she plays the piano as well. I had seen her perform “Poker Face” on American Idol where it was evident that she actually sings and also plays the piano, but somehow her talent didn’t strike me then; my hatred at the time was too strong because I hadn’t yet learned of her originality and so I still thought she was a wannabe Christina at the time. But at the VMAs, the song and her talent struck me, and I began to realize that she is not only original in her fashions, but she seems to have some real talent too. My hatred was dissolving, and I was beginning to like her.

My hatred further dissolved as I watched her further demonstrate her talent on SNL, where in her second performance of a medley of her songs, she appeared to improvise on the piano and with the singing. I was impressed. I didn’t see the whole episode at the time, so I had missed her talent-displaying performance of "Paparazzi" as well as her rather funny appearance in this funny sketch. Apparently she has comedic talent as well as musical talent.

Then, a few weeks ago, I heard somewhere (probably on MTV or VH1) that Lady Gaga had spoken and performed at a Human Rights Campaign dinner, and then participated in the National Equality March on the mall in Washington DC, and that she had stated that it was the most important thing she has ever done in her career. Upon hearing this, very much to my surprise, I thought to myself “I love Lady Gaga, she is awesome.” I am a huge fan of equality and of not discriminating, and also of GLBT people and their rights, so it truly warmed my heart to hear that Lady Gaga shares my love for the gays. My perception of Lady Gaga was fully transformed. My initial hate-filled perceptions were based on misconceptions. She is a talented performer, and a kind-hearted person.

Since antipathy had turned to admiration and fanliness (if it hasn’t become obvious, I like to make up words), I became interested in how far her talent goes. Apparently, before releasing her own album (for which she wrote most of the music and lyrics), she had been writing songs for other singers. More interestingly, her talent seems to be quite a natural one; she learned to play the piano by ear when she was four years old, and has been writing music since she was 13. She is vastly more talented than I had thought, and is the antithesis of the Paris-Hilton-esque quasi-singer that I thought she was.

Since I now love her, I find that I like her music more than I had. However, I still hate “LoveGame,” both the song and the video, but that could just be because I’m not much of a fan of pornography.

UPDATE December 24, 2009
Since writing this blog posting, my love for Lady Gaga has grown. Since then, I've seen her in a few interviews on the TV, where she appears to be a genuinely kind and sweet human being who loves her fans and always remains true to herself. Additionally, "Bad Romance" in particular and The Fame Monster as a whole are fantastically good. Shockingly, "LoveGame" has grown on me, and now I kind of like the song, though I continue to not like the video.

I heart Lady Gaga.

UPDATE February 1, 2010
As if I didn’t already love Lady Gaga enough, she just keeps making me love her more. She kindly donated proceeds from a concert and from merchandise to Haiti earthquake relief efforts. I know a lot of celebrities do things like that, and I love every one of them.

Lady Gaga’s sweet, genuine kindness pours from her in interviews, including Oprah’s interview, where Gaga said about her fans, “I want them to free themselves, and I want them to be proud of who they are. I want them to celebrate all the things they don't like about themselves the way that I did, and to be truly happy from the inside.” She said something similar to that (somewhere, possibly also on Oprah) about the meaning behind “Bad Romance.” She explained that the song is about loving someone for everything he or she is, for all the good, all the bad, and all the things the person doesn’t like about him or herself. She spoke as though these are the things she wants, and, therefore, she read my mind…I think that might just be what every human wants, and she captures that perfectly.

If you missed her amazing performance with Elton John at the 52nd Grammy Awards last night, you should watch it right now – it’s fantastic. I was very happy to learn that she won two Grammys last night (during the un-televised portion) for “Poker Face” and The Fame. I love her so much.

I think a big part of what makes me love Lady Gaga is that she seems to have always felt like a freak and an outsider, and she makes such an effort to keep other people from feeling that way, or from feeling bad about being a freak or an outsider. I imagine most people (myself definitely included) have felt like freaks and like outsiders in some way, and Lady Gaga makes us realize we’re not alone. She is a wonderful human being.

UPDATE: May 23, 2011
The TV, or more specifically, the Fuse, has explained that what I called pornographic in the LoveGame video was an homage to Michael Jackson's "Bad" video.  I guess that makes it less gross, but still...ew.  In Gaga's defense, I think it's gross in the "Bad" video too.  I suppose I'm just too prudish.