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?

More Economics from a Dummy

The following has existed as an unpublished draft for more than a year with the second half added a few months ago.  Most of it is probably not relevant anymore.  Enjoy!

As I explained previously, I know just about nothing about economics and my interest in it is nearly non-existent as well, to the extent that I would rather learn about the cell biology of how grass grows or the quantum physics of how paint dries than about economics. However, I have been thinking a little bit about some of the things I put forth in my economic theory, and I think I need to add to it. Like most sequels, this is not as good as the first one.

Fun with Flat Taxes

One of the disjointed parts of my theory involved a flat tax for all. Recently, flat taxes have been the topic of ridicule via the ridicule of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. I learned about that plant from a chart someone posted on Facebook, and some googling I did later (though I apparently didn't save the links I learned from). It seems that Herman Cain would charge a 9% income tax for people and corporations, and a 9% national sales tax to either replace or add to state taxes. I’m not clear on the latter because I’m not clear on the difference between the apples and oranges he keeps talking about in the clips of debates I’ve seen on The Daily Show and/or Colbert Report (like this one). Herman Cain would also remove all tax deductions. Based on other clips of things I’ve seen on The Daily Colbert (here's one), it seems that Rick Perry also has a flat tax plan where he would charge 20% taxes for all while keeping tax deductions in place.  (Herman Cain and Rick Perry were Republican candidates who lost the primaries for the 2012 presidential election.  These now-obscure references are partially what render this blog posting no longer relevant.)

Obviously, Herman Cain and Rick Perry got these ideas from my blog, because there is simply no other possible explanation of how one could think of a flat tax or simplifying the overly complicated tax code. I spoke of a flat tax, as part of my three-disjointed-pronged economic plan that could easily make me president, and they took that idea and added some stuff that I do not approve of and never intended for. Please note: I am not crazy (at least in this respect), nor am I serious about having any part in Herman Cain’s or Rick Perry’s plan making.

Lots of people (well, at least one person) feel that Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is a terrible idea, and I agree for the reasons those people state. Someone at the Huffington Post explained that it would end up taxing lower income people a bit more than they are currently taxed, and it would drastically reduce taxes for corporations and the very wealthy by a lot. I haven’t googled Rick Perry’s plan, but it seems like it might be an improvement on Cain’s plan.  Clearly, that’s quite an endorsement, since it is coming from my uneconomical brain via my blog-typing fingers, I mean digits (because digits are economically related!).

While Herman Cain’s flat tax plan is clearly not fair and good, I still believe that my flat tax plan could be fair and good. My plan is extremely vague, which leaves it open to suggestions from people who know about the economics. If you don’t feel like going back and reading about my plan, I will re-state it and de-Cain it here: We should pick some percentage, and charge that percentage of tax to all people. I don’t know what that percentage would be, but I would want it to be a fair one for all. Furthermore, this would only apply to taxable people, and says nothing about how to tax corporations. Despite what the Supreme Court says, I cannot include corporations in the semantics of “People”; my brain simply won’t allow it. Thus, how to tax corporations is another thing that is left vague in my tax plan for people smarter and more knowledgeable than I to handle when I become president. I’m kidding of course -- I still won’t run for president. Anyhoo, my tax plan would not have anything to do with sales tax, since I would never have thought of changing the way sales tax is, and after reading the Huff-Po article, it’s clear that it would be wrong to give the power of sales tax to the Federal Government. Regarding Herman Cain’s removal of all tax deductions, I think I would leave that vague also, because I think some deductions are good, so long as they don’t allow people to screw over the government via loopholes and abuses and such. Yes, I think that is sufficiently vague to ensure success.

Speculators are Evil! Eeeeeeviiiiiil!

One of the other disjointed portions of my theory states that commodities trading is wrong and should be eradicated. Later, it occurred to me that there is a precedent for my proposed illegalization of commodities trading: insider trading! Like insider trading, commodities trading hurts the whole economy while benefiting a few traders. I assume that is why insider trading is illegal, and so, commodities trading should be too.

Political Predictions

This does not in any way bring me to another disjointed, unrelated point.  This point is so unrelated, in fact, that it has very little to do with economics.  Jon Stewart delineated the bizarre doomsday-like predictions Republican presidential candidates make and have made in the past regarding the horrors that would befall this great land if Obama was/is (re)-elected.  He highlighted the bizarreness of these predictions by emphasizing that the previous predictions have not come to fruition.  This brought to my mind the predictions I made about what could happen if George W. Bush were elected president.  The difference, however, is that my predictions came true, except that W. was not actually elected (the first time anyway).

At the time of my correct predictions, this blog did not exist.  Instead, I had a verbal blog, i.e. I occasionally told people what my thoughts were.  Thus, I verbally pre-blogged (or “told”) at least one family member or friend (but probably more than one) that if George W. Bush became president, we would undoubtedly go to war, and the economy would suffer.  Obviously both things happened.

The economy thing could have happened anyway.  From what I barely understand, it seems that it is possible that the economy simply goes through cycles, and whoever is president at the time either gets credit for a strong economy, or is blamed for a bad economy.  However, I’m pretty sure President W. Bush caused all these economic problems we have now that I am trying to fix via this blog.  I know this because I heard during Mr. W. Bush’s campaign that he ran every business he had ever owned into the ground, so I naturally deduced that he would therefore run this country into the ground, since its economy is but a giant business (or so I assume).

I knew that Present W. Bush would bring us to war because he stated during his campaign that if anyone, in any way, attacked us or harmed us or whatever, we would go to war.  He said this in such a way that sounded to me as if he were looking to go to war, and would react to any trigger with war.  Clearly, that made me nervous.

So, to conclude, I was right, but I wasn’t making crazy predictions based on nothing; I was making accurate predictions based on things I heard during a presidential campaign.  Furthermore, I am a predicting genius!  But I sill won’t run for president!

Economics from a Dummy

**DISCLAIMER: If any of the following appears strange or offensive in any way, please assume that it is intended as exaggeration or hyperbole.**

Although I know almost nothing about economics, I shall present my economic theory here. Thusly, it shall, quite literally, be an idiot’s guide to economics, in that I am the idiot.

My Lack of Credentials

I was forced to take an economics course in high school – a whole semester of a course! I was told at some point in my life that I should love economics, for it is a social science infused with math, and these are two things I have been known to enjoy, excluding of course, my K-12 (minus 8th and 11th grades) difficulties with actual social studies courses. However, not only do I not love economics, I rather detest it. I find it painfully boring, and I find myself unable to grasp most economic concepts. It’s very possible that the former is causing the latter; in fact, I would argue that it most certainly is, as evidenced by my love of hardcore neuroscience and hardcore physics despite my inability to grasp things in those fields of knowledge. This is evidence because my lack of understanding with interest feels entirely different from my lack of understanding without interest. Furthermore, even when I do understand something in economics, I am still intensely bored by it, and I think it might be impossible for me to have any real interest in it.

Anyway, the point is, I don’t understand much of anything that involves economics, and I think I got a B or less in that economics class I was forced to take. Thus, I am by no means, an expert or qualified in any way to postulate any kind of economic theory or even thought.

My Theory (or Quasi-Theory, or really Non-Theory)

My Non-Theory has three nearly unrelated parts.

Part One: It’s All a Gamble

Something suddenly occurred to me today that I am quite sure no other human on Earth has ever realized before. In fact, I am so sure of this, that I am not even going to Google to confirm my statement.

It occurred to me that the whole stock market is nothing but institutionalized, society-encouraged, legal gambling. One is expected to invest money in something with the hope that that money will grow, but it’s very possible that the money will shrink significantly. One is expected to continue gambling that money, and decide at what point the stock should be sold, which is also a gamble. One is then expected to continue this never-ending loop of buying and selling stocks, and thus, the gambling never ends.

One of the few things I remember from that economics course that was forced upon me in high school was the claims of the importance of investing, particularly in the stock market. I believe it was a guest speaker that explained that it is best to start early, and that our parents would likely help us. Clearly, these stock-pushers wanted to get the kids started young on their new legal gambling addictions, and clearly they wanted to get as many of us involved in it as possible, while we were young and impressionable, by having an authority figure that we were to inherently trust to tell us of all the wonderful things that might happen if we invest early. This very clearly indicates the degree to which our society encourages stock market gambling.

Since I couldn’t help myself, I did Google, but I will just pretend that this wasn’t the first Google result of many that indicates that the stock market being a form of gambling is a commonly held belief.

Part Two: Commodity Stocks will be our Downfall

Some time ago (I don’t know how long ago, hence the use of  “some time ago”), I saw a video on the interwebs that explained commodity stock trading. I don’t know what that video was, and I am far too lazy to find it for you. As you should expect if you read the beginning of this blog posting, I failed to understand the bulk of what the video explained. However, I did understand one thing (that might or might not have been explicated in the video): The commodity stock trade will be our downfall.

The man in the video and people that I have seen on the TV after I saw the video explained that commodities are things like oil, sugar, coffee, and most importantly, cocoa. From what I gather, it seems that Wall Street people make presumably psychic speculations about the future of these commodities and then pretend to trade them via the stock market. Their pretend trading causes real things to happen to the prices of these commodities in our real economy, and I am therefore quite sure, will inevitably cause real problems and our real downfall as a society that once had a real economy.

The gambling of the commodity portion of the stock market is far worse than the normal stock market gambling. It’s a game involving imaginary trades that result in real changes that affect real people and real chocolate. I therefore suggest, with my complete and utter lack of credentials and nearly complete lack of economic understanding, that we abolish the commodity stock trade, and that alone will fix our economy. I’m sure of it – as sure as I am of the originality and pure novelty of Part One of my Fabulous Non-Theory of Economics.

Ultimately, I felt bad that I didn’t look for the video that first taught me about commodities, so I tried to find it, but I could not. While unsuccessfully searching for it, I saw several snippets that seem to agree with me in that commodity speculation is damaging, and I won't pretend those don't exist. Here are some French people talking about the need for regulation of it. This suggests that I might have understood this better than I thought I did. I go girl!

Part Three: Simple Taxes for Simple and Also Not Simple Folk

A few months or a few years ago, I had a brilliant thought. Instead of arguing about different groups of people being taxed different amounts, and instead of having horribly confusing tax laws and forms, why not have a simplified theory on taxation. Since I’m playing fast and loose with my misuse of the word “theory,” I figured I should continue with that trend. Anyway, my simplified taxation non-theory is as follows:

Pick a percentage, and require all the people to pay that particular percentage of their net (or would it be gross? I'm not entirely sure what these things mean) income to the government as their sole taxes. That way, the wealthier people will end up paying higher taxes, the poorer people will pay lower taxes, and no one will complain because it will be 100% fair. Perhaps a few tweaks here and there would be necessary, but I think this could work really well.

For someone who knows nearly nothing about economics, I sure am smart, with my brilliant ideas! But I won’t run for president, and you can’t make me.

Where are the 2012-ers?

DISCLAIMER: I absolutely do not intend to be insensitive or offensive to anyone or anything. Any statement that appears insensitive or offensive is intended as sarcasm and/or hyperbole (an exaggeration to make a point; I am providing that explanation so you don’t have to Google the definition as I once did). If anything offends anyone, I apologize sincerely in advance.

With all that’s going on with the 9.0 magnitude earthquake, tsunami, and radioactivity in Japan, where are all the people who have been insisting that an apocalypse is coming, particularly the ones who say it’s coming on December 21, 2012, or as my sister called them just now after I brought this up with her, the 2012-ers (patent pending…in my dreams!).

After other major disasters, such as Katrina and the Haitian earthquake, the 2012-ers and other Armageddon-ers were so quick to say those were signs of the upcoming apocalypse. However, the current Japanese disasters that are of much more Biblical proportions don’t seem to be generating the same apocalyptical warnings. Where are you, fear-mongering 2012-ers?

The current disasters seem so much more extreme than the previous ones, particularly since this time, nuclear radiation is involved, which could mean the beginning of some crazy genetic mutations, assuming humans survive at all. These disasters are far more doom-ridden than a mere ginormous hurricane and a mere 7.0 magnitude earthquake that happened in different locations.

I wonder if the difference is the perceived blasphemy happening in the location of the disasters. Maybe it’s only a sign of the apocalypse if the people are not strict Christians, like the blasphemous New Orleans people with their Mardi Gras and their New Orleans Voodoo, and the Vodou wielding Haitians. I’m pretty sure Christianity has infiltrated Japan, but then again, there must be lots of blasphemous Buddhists there too, so I really don’t understand where the Armageddon-ers are.

I found some 2012-ers when I googled for them (here is one example). It’s nice to see they are out there, mongering their fear, but they are not doing it loud enough, because I had to seek them out. Previously, they made themselves known, and I heard about them on the TV. Some religious extremists such as Glenn Beck are doing their traditional Pat Robertson-like blaming of the blasphemous, but there doesn’t seem to be enough Pat Robertson-like talk of the end of the world as we know it.

Come on, 2012-ers, you’re here, you fear, get loud about it!

UPDATE April 10, 2011
Finally, someone (that I’ve seen) made the connection between the 2012 apocalypse that the Mayans predicted and all the bad things happening now. And of course, it was that fear-monger (satirist) Jon Stewart! He also alluded to it during his beautiful farewell to Glenn Beck. Thank you, Jon Stewart!

Update May 7, 2011
OMG, I just discovered some relatives of the 2012-ers, and they are crazy – I mean they are May 21, 2011-ers. If you click on the “listen” thing here, you will hear that some of the May 21-ers sound like they are on drugs – seriously, their voices sound drugged to me, though I obviously make no claim regarding whether they actually are drugged. These people have left their families and quit their jobs because they are awaiting the rapture that will come on May 21, 2011. They explain that if you’re still here on May 22, then you are in Hell. I bet they will be in Hell, since they will have left their families and jobs for nothing and will then be left to either mend their burned bridges or find some way to move on from them, at least for the next 153 days, since that is when the universe will cease to exist. Maybe they can all join together and form a cult, or maybe they already have. Am I being too judgmental about the impending Judgment Day believers? Then I guess I’ll see you in Hell! Hahahahahahaha! Just kidding.

UPDATE May 20, 2011
When I wrote the previous update, I felt bad for the extent of my harshness, particularly the part about seeing ya’ll in Hell. However, I now feel better about that, since Stephen Colbert said the same thing, after providing a moving recap of Earth’s history. Thanks, Stephen Colbert!

UPDATE May 22, 2011

So, here we are in Hell. Hell seems an awful lot like Earth in the pre-Rapture days. The only apocalyptic sign that I witnessed was that in the part of Hell where I live, it was a beautiful sunny day until it suddenly became cloudy and rainy within an hour of the time of the Rapture, and the sun came back about an hour after. I guess G-d was being subtly apocalyptic. I didn’t see anyone floating up to the Heavens, but if you witnessed any floating virtuous people, feel free to comment below, Fellow Hell-dwellers.

UPDATE August 23, 2011


The 5.9 earthquake in Virginia that I felt in NY and that others felt throughout the Eastern part of the country (according to my Myface newsfeed and the CNN part of the TV) is clear and undeniable evidence of the apocalypse! This is particularly obvious since we are rapidly approaching December 21, 2012 and even more rapidly approaching October 21, 2011, Harold Camping’s new judgmentally apocalyptic prediction! Run!

SPOILER ALERT – Lost Season 6 “The End”

I apologize for the delay in posting this and the preceding two postings, but I haven’t been feeling well. The following was written on the night of the Lost finale (May 23, 2010) and in the days subsequent to it.

These are thoughts I’m having after the final episode of Lost, "The End," was over. See this blog posting for the thoughts I had during the episode, and this one for the thoughts I had during the retrospective before the final episode, “The Final Journey.”

Confirmed, Disconfirmed, and Non-Existent Predictions

Woohoo!!!!! I was finally proven right!!!!! When all hope was lost, I clung to some hope anyway, and I was right! I go girl! I am awesome, and you are more awesome for reading my blog and my correct predictions!!!!!!

Yes, Hurley finally became the new Jacob, or, more accurately, the new New Jacob! Jack, the first New Jacob, ordained Hurley as the new New Jacob before Jack sacrificed himself for the Island, his friends, and the world by fulfilling his life’s purpose of re-kindling the Light. While I didn’t predict that Jack would be an intermediary Jacob, I did have Jack as my back-up prediction, and I did recognize that both Jack and Hurley possessed the most Jacobliness, experienced the most personal growth, and seemed to have the most favor in Jacob’s eyes. In addition to the Hurley-is-the-new-Jacob portion of my prediction, I had also predicted that the Flash-Sideways was a creation of Hurley where he and his friends could live the happy fulfilling lives they were meant to live. I was almost correct, since Christian Shephard explains that the Flash-Sideways is an afterlife created by all of the Lost people in it such that they would be able to find each other. Personally, I believe that Hurley probably guided their efforts to create that afterlife, and since he was the new New Jacob, it is certainly possible.

I was completely and utterly wrong about what I insisted on calling the New Reality. It isn’t reality at all, which is why I will now give in and call it the Flash-Sideways like the rest of the world. The possibility that it wasn’t real, that it was an afterlife, never crossed my mind. As I’ve mentioned before, I would have felt that the island being Hell or an afterlife would be a huge cop-out, and that is why I refused to believe such a thing; perhaps that is also why it never crossed my mind that the Flash-Sideways might be an afterlife. Except that wasn’t a cop-out at all. It would have been so nice if it were real, and I think my hope that it was real was too strong to allow me to see any other possibilities. Also, I’m probably just not the world’s best Lost predictor, although you have to admit, I’m not too shabby.

I was right about there being a big Jack v. Fake Locke argument about Fate v. Coincidence, except in the more specific form of Everything Matters v. Nothing Matters. Obviously the argument was reversed, in that Jack has learned from Real John Locke (and from his experiences and ruminations and so forth) to be on the side of fate, and everything mattering, while Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster/Man in Black was on the side of coincidence and nothing mattering. It’s possible that Fake Locke was only saying the things he said to screw with Jack, since he knew that could have been Jack’s weakness, if Jack wasn’t so strong and hot. I suppose his hotness probably has nothing to do with it though.

Plot

The short version of my analysis of what happened is pretty much what they told us happened. The island was real life, the New Reality/Flash-Sideways was not real, and was some kind of Heaven-like afterlife, or maybe a pre-Heaven thing, since they were all planning to move on when they were ready. Matthew Fox explained on Jimmy Kimmel’s Aloha to Lost that there is a religion where they believe that when you die, you don’t move on until you remember your death, how you died, and everyone involved. It seems our characters had to remember their life on the island in order to be ready to move on. Perhaps they also needed to accept certain things about themselves, and to let go. For example, Ben probably needed to work through and let go of his sins before he would be ready. It’s interesting that the Island was their true life, sine so many people, including myself at one point, thought the Island could be the afterlife, or even Hell.

The most important part of their lives was on the island, as Dead Christian Shephard explained to his dead son Jack, and so they somehow made sure they would be able to find each other there in the afterlife. They are all dead, but as Christian implied, they did not all die young, and we can assume that many of them lived long lives. I would imagine that Hurley and Ben probably lived the longest, since Hurley is the new Jacob and he appointed Ben as his Richard (i.e. as his guide, his number 2).

The man who plays Michael (Harold Perrineau) explained on Jimmy Kimmel that Michael will remain on the island, perhaps forever. I imagine that is because of evil things he did. Of course Ben did a lot more things that were horribly evil, yet he is in the pleasant afterlife and allowed to move on when he is ready (presumably), though it is taking a longer time for him to get there than the less evil people. I imagine Ben is not destined to be a ghost on the island because he redeemed himself – he turned good via his emotional breakthrough, and while he strayed briefly for the sake of survival, he came back to the side of Good, ultimately becoming the second in command, the advisor, the Richard to the good and pure Hurley.

I think Eloise Widmore/Hawking might have been ready to move on, but I don’t believe Charles Widmore or their son, Daniel Widmore/Faraday, were ready. I imagine this is why Eloise did not want Desmond to take her son with him; she wanted to keep her family together, because they belong together, just as our other characters belong together.


We now have confirmation of whether Charles Widmore is good or evil. Similar to Ben, he was evil, often for the sake of the Island and Jacob, but turned good, with the help of Jacob. Widmore had said that Jacob had visited him and convinced him to change his evil ways. I wasn’t sure I believed him at the time, but I do now. It makes sense, since he seemed to know things that Jacob would have told him, as did Eloise Hawking, whom Jacob probably also visited. There is now unquestionable evidence that Widmore is Good; he was in the same place as the rest of our Good characters, and was not left to be a ghost on the Island, as evil people are. Similar to Ben, he and perhaps Eloise were not ready to move on, perhaps because they still had to work through all the evil things they did before turning Good.


I have one problem with Lost (right now, maybe I’ll think of more later). Why didn’t Desmond or Jack turn into Smoke Monsters? Previous Jacob Lady told Jacob that if he ever went into the Light, he would suffer a fate worse than death, and when Jacob threw Man in Black into the Light, he turned into the Smoke Monster, demonstrating what Previous Jacob Lady meant. I understand why Desmond didn’t turn to smoke, since he is not immortal or divine, and therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that different rules might apply. I suppose Jack didn’t turn to smoke because he was turning the Light back on and was therefore not going toward it, but was rather going away from it. I guess I cleared that smoke up for myself. Hahahahahaha! I made a pun!

The Island is under water in the Flash-Sideways, but they are in some kind of afterlife. This could mean that it’s so far into the future that the Island has sunken some time after Hurley’s time as Jacob. This is possible, since Christian Shephard explained that time does not exist there. Alternatively, and this is the way I’m leaning, since this afterlife is a better version of their lives, as the producers said in “The Final Journey” and I suggested early in the season, in this life, the Island and Jacob are not exerting their effects on our characters. It wasn’t the Island that made their time on the island the greatest time of their lives, it was the people, and that is why they created that Heaven such that they could find each other again.


Purgatory

Jimmy Kimmel and some people on Myface (Facebook) have concluded that the Island was some kind of Purgatory. I personally don’t believe this, and there is evidence against it. In the Flash-Sideways, when each character peacefully and happily realized they were dead and accepted it with tremendous peace, they had memories of the Island – their lives flashed before their eyes. Why would such a critical moment come with memories of time spent in Purgatory rather than memories from the greatest part of a person’s life, particularly when this is all happening in a fictional drama show on the TV? Of course, the Island is bizarre, and crazy, supernatural things happen there, but this is fiction, and it was presented in a way that allowed for very comfortable suspended disbelief, at least in my opinion.

The Flash-Sideways might be some kind of purgatory, as a friend (and probably others) have suggested. I don’t believe it is Purgatory in what I understand to be the traditional sense. It was not a place of suffering, or a quasi-Hell, or soul purification, but it might be a place where people work out their issues – some sins, some just issues – and eventually accept and let go of whatever is necessary. For John Locke, he needed to let go of the sense that he needed to punish himself, and he needed to accept his disability so he could be freed from both. Jack needed to accept his father’s death and thereby let go of his father. Additionally, Jack also had to accept his father’s life, in that he had to accept the kind of person and father Christian Shephard was; that is why Jack has a son in the Flash-Sideways. Sayid needed to let go of the sense that he was evil, and needed to accept that he is good. Ben still needs to work through his many sins, since, like Sayid, he is also good, and he proved that in his life, just as Sayid proved he was still good when he (Sayid) sacrificed himself to save his friends. These are but a few examples; for each character, there was something to be accepted, something to work through, something to let go of; perhaps someday I will discuss more of them (but don't hold your breath). Once they were able to let go, when they were ready, they could leave; they could move on, perhaps to Heaven, perhaps to another part of Heaven, perhaps towards Nirvana. Regardless of what you believe, they moved on to something greater.

The Death of Jack

A friend suggested that Jack might have been the last to die, since he was the last to have his memories re-ignited. That got me thinking, when he died after climbing out of the Light, an eternity could have passed since Jack as the previous New Jacob might have become immortal or quasi-immortal. Since Rose and Bernard’s doggie was with him as he died, did Fake John Locke give our kind couple and their dog immortality when he promised Desmond they would never be hurt? If so, that’s nice of him, and provides further evidence that despite his intensely evil ways, Fake Locke/The Smoke Monster/Man in Black did have some glimmer of Good left in him Whether or not they were given quasi-immortality, Rose and Bernard did die eventually, since they were in the Flash-Sideways.

I think there is evidence that Jack died soon after Hurley’s Jacobification. As Jack lay dying, he saw the plane overhead flying away; this was probably the plane carrying his friends, and so Jack knew that they made it off the island. It is possible, however, that it was another plane, far in the future, since Ben pointed out to Hurley that Jacob’s rules of no one coming or going from the Island could be changed.

Jack died knowing that his death had purpose; he knew that the Island was saved and would be safe from the now dead Smoke Monster, and he knew that his friends had escaped the island. Fake John Locke/The Smoke Monster’s attempt to make Jack believe that he would die for nothing failed epically (I can’t believe I just said that hahahahaha…Epic fail).

I believe Jack took the longest to accept that he is dead because it took the longest for him to let go and have the emotional experience that would bring on the memories. As Locke had told him, Jack had to let go of his father, to accept his father’s death, and to accept his father for everything that he was and wasn’t. That was why Jack was a father in the Flash-Sideways, so he could experience what his father might have gone through – so that he might understand his father better. Jack never got closure for his father’s death; I don’t believe he ever did in his life, and he didn’t get a chance to have a funeral for him until the lost coffin was found and delivered in the Flash-Sideways. In his life, Jack was, in fact, plagued by his father appearing to be alive after he died via The Smoke Monster’s use of his corpse. In the Flash-Sideways, Jack finally had a chance to gain the closure he needed, and so when he touched the coffin, the memories from his life were finally ignited. He once again saw his father appearing to be alive, and his father could explain all that was happening. Jack was finally able to let go.

The Death of the Smoke Monster and the Life of Richard

It was interesting to see that the Light might have been holding Fake John Locke on the Island, and it was almost certainly the force that kept him indestructible. Only after the Light was extinguished could Kate’s Jack-saving bullet affect him, and only then could Jack kill the Smoke Monster. Therefore, I imagine the Light was also the mechanism by which Jacob’s gift of immortality worked on Richard; when it was extinguished, Richard began to age, and with the prospect of dying someday, he could finally enjoy the life he had left.

Conclusion (Because I’m not creative enough to come up with a better title for this concluding section)

I really did love this episode. I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it. It truly was satisfying, and, despite the many tears that flowed and despite the deathly ending, it was a happy ending. As a friend pointed out (yes, this friend is the one I keep mentioning in this posting), this episode provided much-needed closure, both for the characters, and for the show. They were all dead, but many of them probably led long lives. They might not have experienced all the happy things they should have in their lives, but they got to experience those things in an afterlife. They were all together, as they were supposed to be – as they were destined to be. Jacob selected them because they were alone like he was, but, thanks to Jacob, they weren’t alone anymore.

4 ways to Make Lots of Money!

I read somewhere that when using Google Adsense (I mean Topeka Adsense), the higher paying ads are the ones about money and commerce. This amused me. I guess the old adage is true: You have to [use] money to make money.


So I decided to sell out (pun intended of course) and write a blog posting about making money.

I can think of four ways to get lots of money:

1) Work really hard. This doesn’t always work, but it will probably make you a better person. Unless you become a workaholic, or alienate the people you love and who love you for the sake of working hard. If that’s the case, then it will be your downfall.

2) Be born into a family that already has lots of money. This is the easiest way of going about getting lots of money. But it might make you a worser person (hahahahahaha, get it?) Or maybe it won’t. I guess that’s up to you, if you decide to be born into money.

3) Screw people over, in a Madoffian (Madovian?) manner. You could make lots of money, but you might lose it all and end up in prison for 150 years. Additionally, you’ll be a horrible person. The world will hate you. This is probably not the best route for making lots of money.

4) Be lucky and win the lottery. If you succeed in this unlikely event, this is a great way to make money. However, as with any money-making technique, this can lead to terrible things like greed or the money consuming you, or worse, you could (SPOILER ALERT) end up on some crazy island like Hurley did in Lost after he won the lottery. But then again, maybe that island is a blessing for Hurley and the others, and maybe also the Others.

I imagine there might be other ways to make money as well. For example, you could win a big lawsuit or a big settlement in a lawsuit. However, that would technically require that you (or your lawyer) work hard in the lawsuit, so that would fall under the category of working hard for the money (so you better be treated right). It might also require some good luck, and could thus fall into the “Being Lucky” category as well.

You might think there are ways to make money that require work that is easy, or that don’t require any work at all. However, difficulty is relative, so if something is easy for you, it might be hard for someone else, and so it still fits in the category of working hard. Similarly, if something doesn’t feel like work to you, because it’s so easy or you simply enjoy it, that is also relative – you might not have to put any effort into something, but someone else might struggle with the same thing, and you might enjoy something, but someone else might not,.

Perhaps you might be thinking that another way to get money would be via theft. However, this could fit into two of the categories above: screwing people over and working hard. In fact, screwing people over could itself fit into the working hard category, so perhaps it is redundant. Anyway, with theft, you’re obviously screwing someone over, though not exactly in a Madoffian way, for the latter was probably a bit more creative than simply robbing someone and also the latter involved screwing over a large number of people. I think it’s clear, however, how the two methods fit in the same category.

Both of these screwing-people-over methods of getting money also fit into the working hard category; all the scheming, planning, and preparing for any of the ways to screw people over (Madoffian or more traditional theft) all require hard work. Arguably, it’s not hard work at all, but then we’re back to the relative nature of difficulty. Theft might be easy for some people, but it might be difficult for other people, particularly people who come equipped with consciences. In addition to conscience-ridden people, another example of someone who might feel that theft is hard work would be a shy individual. I imagine it would be rather difficult for a shy person to go up to someone and rob them – they might have to talk to their victim, and if the robber is overcome with stage fright, they might not succeed in their endeavors to screw someone over. Therefore, the robber would have to work really hard to conquer his or her shyness and fears. It’s clear then, the screwing-people-over method of getting money should fall into the category of working hard, and it is therefore a redundant category. However, since I am lazy, I will leave it as a separate category above and continue to claim that there are four ways to make money.

Perhaps being lucky is also a redundant category. After all, in order to win the lottery, you have to play the lottery, and in order to do that, effort (to buy lottery tickets) and pre-existing money are necessary. However, if one were truly lucky, then buying a lottery ticket wouldn’t be difficult, rendering the relative nature of difficulty irrelevant given luckiness. Therefore, being lucky shall remain a separate category, irrelevant of my lazy inclinations.

I should mention that these methods of getting money have some degree of uncertainty. For example, you could work really hard, but make very little money, or no money at all, or you could be a really lucky person, but you might only be lucky in more sentimental ways rather than fiscally. (Does that make sense? Should I have said “financially”? I don’t care, “fiscally” sounds more fun.) You could screw people over, but the people you screwed over might not have much money for you to steal. You could be born into money, but your family might be very stingy in life and then not bequeath any of the money to you. Therefore, my methods of getting money are not guaranteed methods. Also, they are void where prohibited. (What? That doesn’t even make sense.)

I’ve been discussing ways to get money, however my list o’ categories does not reflect keeping the money that is gotten. Keeping money is also important; if you use all the money you get, you won’t have anymore. However, keeping all of it is no fun, because what is the point of getting all that money if you don’t enjoy any of it. Swimming in your money like Uncle Scrooge would probably get boring eventually. It’s important to find a nice balance between saving money and using it for nice things and survival – well, survival is also a nice thing, but you know what I mean.

I like money. It’s a good thing to have around. However, it can also be evil – the root of all evil, in fact. Furthermore, it’s dirty – everyone touches it with their germy hands. That’s why credit and debit cards are better: they’re touched by fewer people. I’m a germaphobe.

I hope this has been helpful in your endeavors to make or get lots of money! Good luck, and when you do, share some with me!

DISCLAIMER: Don’t steal things or otherwise screw people over – it’s wrong, there are consequences that are not good, and you will suffer them in some way, even if your just deserts are served later on, or if it’s in the form of guilt, for that guilt will defeat you.

The Deadly Effects on Humans of Sarah Palin’s Book

While watching this segment from last night’s Daily Show, I realized that the adorable young children to whom John Oliver read excerpts from Sarah Palin’s book (Going Rogue) have clearly been watching David Letterman’s series, “Things More Fun than Reading the Sarah Palin Memoir.”

The children’s examples of things that would be more fun than hearing a reading of Going Rogue closely parallel those of The Late Show with David Letterman. I believe my jocularity regarding the young children’s viewing of The Late Show is obvious. However, the analogous reactions formed by the young children and David Letterman and his writing staff indicates a potentially universal human reaction to Sarah Palin’s memoir – a reaction involving a preference for violent destruction, physical torture, and even suicide over being exposed to the intensely boring torture of Going Rogue.

This clearly elucidates the very obvious fact that Sarah Palin is evil and perhaps even dangerous to all humans, but particularly to young children. Won’t someone please think of the children?! Sarah Palin’s perilous evil is even recognized by the Mayans, who, according to David Letterman, states that their calendar does predict that "the world will end in 2012, but not from floods, earthquakes, or fires,” but rather from the threat of a Sarah Palin presidency.

This brings me to another segment from last night’s Daily Show. Simply put, I agree almost whole-heartedly with Jon Stewart. He presents the belief of the conservative media that we non-conservatives hate Sarah Palin because she is pretty, she hunts, and she’s Alaskan. That is clearly not the case at all. I actually want to like her because she is pretty. I know, that’s wrong, it’s anti-feminist, etc, but it’s just how I feel. Also, she looks a bit like my mother, whom I love like my own mother (probably because she is my own mother), so that’s actually another reason I want to like Sarah Palin. I don’t particularly like her hunting, it seems wrong, especially when she hunts from a helicopter. But I can’t really hate someone who eats what they hunt, for as a non-vegetarian, I’m one step away from doing that as well, though I could never kill anything directly…I mean, except for spiders and some other insects. Regarding her Alaskan origins, I certainly don’t hate her because she lives in Alaska – that’s ridiculous. The only reason I might hate Alaskans is that they elected Sarah Palin governor. Other than that, I don’t have any problem with Alaskans. I mean, it’s not like they’re New Jerseyans. Anyway, I can forgive the Alaskans for electing her since she resigned as their governor so she could write her memoirs.

So, no, I don’t hate her for those superficial reasons as conservative news people from the land of Fox News might like to believe. Rather, I hate her for, as Jon Stewart says, her emptiness, her non-substantiveness, “the nothing…a conservative boiler plate mad-lib…delivered as though it were the hard-earned wisdom of a life well lived…It’s…the boasting about [her] straight-shootin’, when [she’s] not straight shootin’, [she’s] just a talking point machine.”

But I also hate her on those occasions where she does have some degree of substance. I hate her for her overly conservative political beliefs. I have no problem at all with people believing things that differ from what I believe, of course, but I do have a problem with people who feel they should impose those beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, on the rest of the world. That is precisely what Sarah Palin wants to do. Things like forcing her pro-life perspective on women who should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies and abstinence-only sex education – these are some of the reasons I hate Sarah Palin.

Another reason I hate Sarah Palin is discussed in this segment from last night’s Colbert Report. In Going Rogue, Sarah Palin does not take responsibility for anything; she blames others for anything that goes wrong. Additionally, Going Rogue is factually flawed, and she can’t even accept responsibility for that; it’s not her fault, it’s the fault of the fact-checkers who dare to bring her false facts to light.

I hope that reading this blog has been more fun than reading Sarah Palin’s book.

I Can be all Poetical-like! (Hehehe)

UPDATE February 15, 2011

OMG!  I just discovered that Eminem coincidentally plagiarized my title!  On his 2010 CD, Recovery, the first track is called...wait for it..."Cold Wind Blows"!  I wrote and published my poem with the same title in 2007.  Eminem obviously read my blog and stole my title!  Please note, I'm obviously just kidding, though it is a strange coincidence. that demonstrates my talent hahaha.

(Originally posted as a Myspace blog, Sunday, February 4, 2007, 8:35 PM)


Cold Wind BlowsAs I walk through the bitter cold
The icy wind stings mine eyelids
And the phalanges that doth lie
Directly betwixt their brethren upon each glov'd upper appendage
Doth feel as though frost perchance hath bitten them
As the sanguineous humor enveloping my phalanges
Shrinks back in fear
Of its nemesis, the cold wind
That doth penetrate mine Old Navy fleece

(I know, I am hilarious!)