Lost

So, "Lost" is over and the blogs are buzzing with reviews of the finale. Personally, I liked it a lot, and I had to go looking online to see if I could get some of my own questions answered. While browsing through comments posted on USA Today's site, many fans agreed with me and thought the finale "rocked" while others thought it the "worst ending ever." It's to be expected. But the posting that really caught my eye was this one:

"SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME OUT HERE. Half the comments on this page are by Lost fans and the other are by people calling the show tripe, or calling the fans of the show the masses. Why? Why, do you get on here and do that? I really want to know what the point is of bashing the show or its fans. Everyone has something they like, just because you dont doesnt mean you need to be a dooshbag (sp). I also notice the people who bash the show NEVER say what their interests are. For the record, I loved the show and enjoyed the finale."

I couldn't have said it better myself! What IS the point of bashing the show and its fans? I suspect those people are the same ones who lashed out in high school and who counselors tried to make excuses for by saying they had low self-esteem rather than just admitting that they were bad seeds. Why do so many people get their jollies criticizing people for liking something they don't? It's not like it adds to the discussion. To me, it's just ignorance and stupidity. Personally, I can't think of a positive thing to say about this whole vampire obsession that people have, but I'm not going to go onto some blog or discussion board and start bashing those people and the shows they like just because I don't like what they like. To each, their own, and if you don't like the fact that I loved "Lost," that it gave me hours upon hours of great, quality entertainment, and that I'm kind of depressed that it's all over, then, please, just shut your trap.

Brother, can you spare a dime?

I've spent my adult life anguishing over what to do when someone asks me for spare change.

In high school a young social activist suggested I just offer to buy the bum (my words, not hers) a cup of coffee instead of giving money that he'd probably use to get alcohol or drugs. It was a great idea except that I wasn't inclined then (and am even less so now) to share a cup of coffee with someone I didn't know. I'm bad at making small talk, unless you want to hear about cats.

I later held that if what the bum really wants is to get loaded and that's what will make him happy, then let's do away with the whole cup-of-coffee charade and help him on his way. I'm no social worker, I thought, so who cares if the money I give makes his life worse in the long-run, just as long as it makes him happy now. I always respected the bum who told me outright he needed money to get beer. Still, it didn't seem right contributing to their delinquency.

Then one day I heard the theory that people begging for money were actually angels in disguise and my willingness to give would be noted by said angel and the cumulative total of my deeds would be addressed at St. Peter's Gate. Now that prompted me to give! They asked for change, I gave them a percentage of that night's tips, and I did it with a smile. Even though I doubted the existence of God back then, I was smart enough to cover some of my bases, just in case I was wrong. The problem, of course, was that it was Boulder and there was a bum on every corner. Some of those homeless souls were quite young, and it was then that I learned that many of the "homeless" were just lazy-asses who could make more money begging for money than actually earning it. Simultaneously, I began to think that surely not every legitimate bum could be an angel, and seeing how I couldn't afford to give money to each one that asked in the hope that one would be an angel and I'd get a good mark, I cut back on my alms giving. I decided it was a sleazy way for God to judge me and I stopped my giving despite the fear of eternal damnation.

I later found myself in Eugene, OR. Eugene used to be where Gateful Dead groupies stayed until the next tour, a town inundated with white, dreadlocked, pot-smoking bums with no further ambition in life than to mooch off of society as long as possible. Lacking a firm spare-change philosophy to guide me, I was a prime target. Every 7-11 I went to, every trip to the grocery store brought me in contact with perfectly healthy young men and women who accosted me and demanded I give them some of the money I'd made that day cooking french fries and flipping burgers at Red Robin and serving dinner at an assisted living home. If I told them to get a job, they replied that they wouldn't work for The Man (I guess that's me) and they wanted to remain free to live life on their own terms. I made just enough money in those days to pay rent, stay current on my student loans, and to buy my own weed and beer. I gave them nothing but contempt.

Austin wasn't much better, especially since being a slacker was in vogue when I got there, but by then I'd lost almost all sense of charity towards the real and supposed homeless. I did once buy cat food for a young woman who actually wanted to get her cat some food but didn't have the money. I reached over and gave the cashier $5.00. For once, I witnessed genuine appreciation...from the cat. In Austin I would formulate a spiritual philosophy that didn't involve angels, pearly gates or circles of Hell, and my social awareness moved from the plight of people to that of animals. I cast aside all presumptions of being my brother's keeper and decided to let him fend for himself. But I still voted Democrat. That was over ten years ago.

Enter the other day when I stopped at a street corner where a woman stood with the ubiquitous cardboard "Homeless and hungry. God bless!" sign. Though more critical of society than I once was, I am socially softer than before, and I looked at her and then my spare change. Time was of the essence for soon the light would change. She walked down the shoulder and stopped just ahead of my car, looked at me and gave a plaintive wave. She was older than the other woman who haunts that corner, gray-haired. My mind raced.

She's faking it.
Maybe, but she's older.
The lottery is tonight and if I give something to her now then karma might reward me later.
I don't need that change, just give it to her.
I wish she'd quit looking at me.
I am not responsible for her.
Ask the guy in the Escalade.
No, I will not fall for the sad eyes.
C'mon light, turn green.

The light turned green and I left her to solicit change from someone else. Yet even before completing the turn I felt guilty for not having given her something. I was mad at myself for not only not giving but for also feeling guilty about not giving. I guess I should be happy that I haven't gone completely over to the dark side and I feel compelled to help. I want to help those who truly need help, not those unwilling to help themselves. I don't want my generosity to be taken advantage of or to be taken for granted.

Yeah, I can spare a dime; I'm just not sure if I should.

Outrage-ous

It appears yet another segment of society is (yawn) feeling victimized. Some airlines are raising fees again and this is causing many travelers to feel a bit put out; in fact, it's being described more as "outrage." Although born with a champagne appetite, I live on a beer income, and so I, too, don't like the idea of paying any more money than I have to in order to fly. However, I have to side with the airlines on this one.

I'm sorry to break this to the outraged but travel and especially air travel is not a right, human or God-given. It is not enshrined in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that you have a right to travel by air as cheaply as is convenient for you. Airlines, on the other hand, have a right as designated by our capitalist society to make money. Their goal is the same as any for-profit company, large or small, global or local: profit. Just because they provide a service that we feel we can't do without doesn't mean they don't have the right to charge more money whenever they want for that service. Many restaurants (rightly) charged for water during Georgia's drought but I don't recall hearing about any outraged diners. Movie theaters nationwide charge more for admission to 3-D movies and yet there was no end to the lines to get into see "Avatar." Where was the outrage when the US Postal Service raised the price of stamps? If businesses like restaurants, movie theaters and the USPS can impose fees to make more money without a lick of consumer outrage, then why the fuss when airlines do it?

The only way this particular bit of traveler outrage can be justified is if the airlines were nationalized because then we, the people, would own them...in a sense...and it wouldn't make sense to be charging ourselves extra fees. Of course, the government could step in and establish some sort of price ceiling or limits on certain fees. But that would be Socialism, wouldn't it, and if Americans think that government-run health care is Socialism and thus un-American, then, well, I'm sure they wouldn't want the government having anything to do with lowering the costs of flying home for Christmas (especially since Socialism is apparently "godless").

There are other means of transportation open to travelers. Buses go all over the country and provide ample opportunity to get close to your fellow Americans. Trains have sleeping, dining and viewing cars for your pleasure. The automobile can get you anywhere in the US that a airplane can go and more. Wait...what's that? You say those other means of travel aren't convenient? Oh, oh...I see. Well, I guess flying is like shopping at 7-11 or Circle K: you pay more for the convenience.

If you want to enjoys the fruits of capitalism (and you know you do!), then you have to pay for it. So, buck up airline travelers and keep your unfounded outrage to yourselves.

In Defense of Curling

OK, I've had it up to here (my hand is over my head) with all the curling bashing. Seems some arrogant, closed minded Americans (Bryant Gumble, for one) don't think it's a true sport (it's a game, they argue) and that curlers aren't athletes. Using the same criteria, I argue that the following are not sports and the participants not athletes:

NASCAR (or any form of auto racing):
I drive every damn day and I don't think it's the slightest bit sporting. I'm sure that driving cars at that speed is not easy and that it takes a bit of talent and strategy to win. Probably not much more than what I need to get through Atlanta traffic every day, though. And no one can make fun of curlers' supposed lack of athleticism without taking a look at doughy Tony Stewart. That chubby can barely get in and out of a car.

Golf:
I love golf. I love to watch it and play it; I'd play every day if I could. Still, hitting a little ball with a titanium rod takes no athleticism at all, just a little skill. OK, a lot of skill, but it takes a lot of skill to be a curler, too. Golfers aren't all that athletic, either. Sure they have to do a lot of walking, but they don't even have to carry their own clubs. Us poor golfers do, but not the pros. Before Tiger came along it was all a bunch of pot-bellied white men playing the game, and even with Tiger in the game you can't call golfers real athletes. Seen Phil's belly lately? How about cigarette smoking, alcoholic, wife-beating John Daly? Sure, he's slimmed down, but he's no athlete.

Bowling:
Fun game, but all one really needs to be a good bowler is skill, nice shoes, a good ball, and a strong stomach.

Bass Fishing:
Please.

Poker:
Why is this even on TV? An intelligent person wouldn't even begin to think of poker as a sport, yet, sadly, many Americans do just that.

Snowboarding:
Skateboarding on snow. Nothing more needs to be said.

Other notable non-sports based on the "curling is not a sport" argument: ping pong, badminton, ski jumping, luge, fly fishing, billiards, diving, shooting, hunting, rodeo, darts, jarts, horseshoes, polo, equestrian, and all the supposed X-games. I reserve the right to add more as they come to mind.

I don't know much about curling. In fact, I only watch it when the Winter Olympics rolls around, so it's safe to say I don't follow the sport. But I do appreciate it for the sport that it is and the talent and skill it takes to play it. I guess that's what separates me from the likes of Bryant Gumble, David Letterman, Frank Deford, Jimmy Kimble, and many others: an ability and willingness to appreciate the finer things. And curling is fine.

Game over, Mr. President. Game over.

It's over for President Obama. Yes, I know he's only just starting the second year of a four year gig and that his fortunes can change; thing is, I don't think they will change. My crystal ball is clouded by depressing headlines and overly verbose pundits, but I can still see for miles, and unless we find Sarah Palin back on the GOP ticket, I predict Obama will be a one-term president.

It's not that I think his policies and/or decisions are the problem, although his first year could have been much better. He ruined a good chance at health care reform by tasking Congress with that responsibility instead of taking the lead himself. Man, that was a mistake. His waffling on Afghanistan showed too careful of a deliberation, bordering on weakness; still, he should get credit for finally doing the right thing and sending in more troops. His trip to Copenhagen was a waste. Guantanamo is still wide open, and his efforts to make government more transparent remain to be seen. I won't even start on Ken Salazar.

The Obama administration is pretty bad at public relations, too. The president had to bail out the banks, but the White House did a piss poor job of explaining why. "To big to fail" is not an answer. It would've been better if they had said that if we didn't bail out the banks many more people would lose their homes and jobs and life would be pretty miserable for a longer time. How come we only hear about how most of the banks have paid back their loans with interest in the Money section? I would think they'd want that all over the news. Obama's PR people are failing him.

It's really the forces massed against Obama that will make his presidency resemble Jimmy Carter's, one of failed promise. The Party of No has the momentum, and despite all the talk about bi-partianship they have no desire or need to work with Obama and the Democrats. They have the upperhand and don't need to budge, so Obama will need to concede more and more to them in order to get anything done, resulting in victories for the GOP. The GOP is far more unified, far more energized, and far nastier then the Democrats. Another prediction: I foresee a second Republican Revolution this November.

Obama also has to contend with an American public that is fickle and short on patience. The economy went sour on Bush's watch but because Obama foolishly promised to make things better in the first year of his presidency, John Doe now blames him for the whole mess. I wasn't a stellar student of the dismal science, faring better in Micro- than I did in Macroeconomics; yet, I learned enough to know that economies don't turn around in one year (and that the second ice cream cone is not as good as the first - point of diminishing returns). Unfortunately for this president, Americans as a rule live in the short-term, with patience for the long-term being un-American. Americans lack the ability to see the big picture. We want quick fixes and immediate results, and you just don't get those in economics. Or soccer. The economy will rebound and jobs will be created and unemployment will drop, but not in time to save Obama (but in time for the GOP to take credit for it).

The Democratic Party isn't helping the president either. They still have a majority in Congress and they can't agree on anything. They should review tapes of the Bush years to learn how to support a leader. Loyalty doesn't have to be blind. Showing a little backbone and relegating Sen. Lieberman to the political backwaters and removing Howard Dean as DNC Chairman might help a bit.

Obama must also contend with an alarming unity of ugly discontent. It's not just the usual FOX News and Limbaugh groupies and the Glenn Beck flunkies that hate Obama simply because; Independents and moderate Democrats are increasingly joining their ranks. Honestly, I don't know what they want, but they're passionate and vocal, and that spells trouble.

We all knew that Obama couldn't bring the political skill and experience Hillary Clinton would have brought to the office. He only got my vote because she was too polarising and wouldn't have been elected president. Nonetheless, I felt warm inside when he took the presidency. Maybe it was hope. Fast-forward a year and his administration is floundering and showing few signs that it has any staying power.

You might say that it's too early to predict an early retirement for Obama, that I'm being pessimistic, only seeing the bad. Perhaps. If my team is losing, I am prone to turning off the TV before the game is over, before the last pitch is thrown, and because of that I've missed a few great comebacks. Only a few. Some will remind me that Bill Clinton's presidency was doomed after his first year and yet he bounced back. To that I simply reply, "Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton."

There is a ray of hope in that my record as a teller of fortunes is spotty (particularly in horse racing), and I actually hope I'm wrong this time.

But I don't think I am.

Facebook is FREE!!

I'll keep this one short and sweet: Facebook is FREE, so quit complaining about it.

You don't like the changes or the ads? Get over it; it's FREE. FB's privacy policies not good enough for you? That's what you get when something is FREE. If you want more assurances that the photos you uploaded to a server you didn't contribute one penny to help purchase and which you pay nothing to maintain won't be used in ads or whatever, then quit...posting...photos. It's that frickin' simple.

FB is FREE. You have no right to demand anything of or ask anything from the FB Powers that Be. Why can't you just be content with the fact the FB is awesome and it's FREE? It doesn't have to be FREE, you know. They could (and probably should) start charging monthly fees, but you wouldn't use it then, would you? If you paid a subscription, then I think you would have a foot to stand on when demanding changes; however, you don't have to subscribe to FB because it's FREE and so you have nothing to stand on when complaining about what FB should or should not do. You're acting like a spoiled child.

Facebook is FREE. Quit complaining.

Moral Outrage

Like most Americans, I am "outraged" by the bonuses that many bank executives will purportedly receive. It sickens me, and if I think about it too much I'm sure I'll get an ulcer. But that's my moral outrage speaking. One aspect of my personality that I've battled with all my life is to not let my moral outrage get the best of me. It gets in the way of reasoning, and though I may not always be reasonable, I tend to let Reason dictate. Which is why I began thinking this morning that if those people excelled at what they were supposed to excel at (presumably increasing profits), then they should be compensated for a job well done. It's only logical.

I bet if the scale of the bonuses wasn't so high, then none of us would care. We get outraged when we hear about people raking in six or seven figure bonuses, but no one seemed outraged when I got a performance bonus several years ago. After taxes it amounted to barely $100 a month, but it was a bonus nonetheless. If we're going to get all high and mighty about bank executives and their bonuses, it only stands to reason that our outrage should be directed towards everyone who gets a bonus. Our moral outrage, however, thinks it wrong for the rich to get richer, even if they earn it. Ironically, our collective moral outrage seems to disappear when unions force companies to pay employees to not work or to not work well.

The fact of the matter is that our society has decided that some professions are more important than others, and as a result the people in those professions generally get paid more. We need doctors and lawyers, for example, and so that's one reason they make the good money. Banks, too, are critical to our society; if we all kept our money tucked away in our mattresses, our economy, our so-called way of life, would die. So there's no logical reason why bank executives shouldn't get bigger bonuses than those in non-critical professions...like librarians.

The reason some of the most important jobs in our society - teachers and social workers being among my top 10 - don't get the salaries and bonuses they deserve is that we, the American people, don't value them nearly as much as we value the people who heal us, who interpret the law, and, yes, who manage our money. Oh, we all like to say how important education is but when push comes to shove and we're asked to vote on a tax increase to support our schools, the majority of us suddenly decide our money is more important than our schools and we vote no. In all the cities and liberal college towns I've lived in, I've never known a tax increase to support public schools to pass. Never. Not in Boulder, not in Eugene, not in Austin, not in Chicago, not in Ithaca, not in Atlanta. THAT gets my moral outrage all in a tizzy!

So, my Reason tells me that the bonuses to be doled out to the evil bank execs is fine, and if I listen to my Reason, I'll not get that ulcer and will probably live longer. It's silly to get all bent out of shape over the amount of money someone I don't know makes or doesn't make. Let them make billions and all the power to them if they get bonuses for making those billions. In the end, it means nothing to me. Thanks, Reason.