Dark Knighted

Hello beautiful,

Those of you who know me can be quite certain, that when I tell you that I started writing this piece well before I saw the movie the Dark Knight, that I did indeed start writing it then (today is Tuesday, July 15, 2008). Having seen a few clips of the movie, some trailers, some TV spots, and an HBO special, I am convinced that I know the plot, and have seen sufficient amounts of acting and directing to make categorical judgments on all of the film maker's choices. I was right (or wrong. Actually I'm writing this paragraph on Tuesday evening before I'm supposed to watch the film this coming Friday). Eat my shorts Lost; watch me play games with time in real life. I will supplement my work with additional information because I intend this to be an actual review.

I will limit the spoilers to the parts of the movie that are available in the trailers, previews, and TV spots, which are numerous.

Let me start with the best part of the movie. Ledger's Joker is exactly the maniac he is supposed to be. Perfect. If I were giving out Oscars, I'd give him one for best supporting actor and if possible best actor (as well). In his masterful portrayal, he allows his character's free spirit to maniacally control his body, his faculties, and his mannerisms. And when Ledger was in the war paint clown make-up, he simply seemed at home. A common theme in superhero movies is: which is the real personality and which is the disguise: who is the superhero really? Batman asked the question in Batman Begins and expounded upon it further in the Dark Knight. But, for a super villain, and for the Joker in particular, there can be no question. He essentially has no identity other than the one in decaying clown make-up. He looked like and probably smelled like a rotten egg and his facial ticks are reminiscent of hungry lizard.

The schizophrenic acting was perfect, stressing different intonations, varying his cadence, laying out several minimally different accents in one continuous chord, and manipulating the pitch and volume of his voice as if each sentence were relaying a carnival of emotions. Speaking of emotions, the Joker would jump from a jokester to a sad clown, to the monster from It all within one sentence. Watch him tell a random party-goer that he reminds him of his father.

Unfortunately for Jack Nicholson, his Joker has to be compared to this great performance, much in the same way that Steven Weber has to be compared to Nicholson's Shining character. It's not to say Nicholson did a bad job. He was silly, he was cooky, he was wild, he was angry, and he was whiny, just like he is at every Lakers game. Burton's adaptation, which was beautiful in its own right mixes Caesar Romero's prankster with a classic mafia don who has no compunction about killing. Of course, Jack, being Jack, he made it a bit more gritty, and Burton being Burton, he gave the joker some artistry. But, essentially, Nicholson was just Jack Nicholson with some neat paint on his face who occasionally did a dance to pretend he was still spry and agile, which he wasn't.

But, then came The Joker in Heath Ledger. It was a veritable clinic of mania. And that is the perfect joker for our time. His voice and mannerisms would vary from Daniel Plainview's megalomaniac, to Hannibal Lecter's snooty carnivore, to orange Alex's violent sexual predator, to Jack Torrance's unbridled fury, to Agent Stansfield's explosive professionalism, and of course, he mixed in some 70's mafia dons to even it all out. And as a result, we get a character who does not want to rule the world, but who wants to utterly deface it and revel in its destruction. He's introduced to us as a serial mass murderer, a serial killer who kills many people each outing just for the joy of bringing terror to the world. (I was having a reasoned and logical debate about what constitutes the greatest form of evil, about whether Lex Luthor from the most recent incantations of Superman, an uber-powerful man, who thinks at least in part, what he is doing good, warding off an alien superhuman, but is really doing a bad thing is worse than the Joker, who presumably knows what he is doing is wrong. You got lots of evil tyrants on the Lex Luthor side and then a bunch of Charles Manson types on the other. Practically, Lex Luthor is more dangerous because his greed, ambition, and subtlety allow him to do more damage in our world, but theoretically, one joker who could achieve Luthor type power could end the world.)

So, under what circumstances can such a person take over, even a crime syndicate, in an organizational capacity? Well, if there are a lot of unemployed criminals looking for a boss, they might just turn to someone they don't understand. On what planet would they follow a guy who was not only crazy, but also wearing face make up? If they are terrified by a guy dressed as a bat, perhaps they could be soothed by a guy dressed as a clown. Sun Tzu makes it very clear; never push your enemy in a corner because when desperate, they are particularly deadly. Even when you win in those situations, it will often be a pyrrhic victory.

(As I was watching this movie, I didn't once remember that this actor, totally immersed in the role was no longer with us. I don't care what James McAvoy says, if you're a great actor, or probably even a good actor, you could take all the commercialization, all of the paparazzi attention, and all the late night wise-cracks, and make people forget that celebrity for the entirety of a movie. McAvoy is famed for vocally refusing to take spots in advertisements because movie goers would not be able differentiate his selling image from his characters. I have an idea that will resolve this for McAvoy... act. Act differently in Wanted than you did in Atonement or Last King of Scotland or Penelope. Or maybe, take that one facial expression of being overwhelmed by a stronger character, and try putting it into being overwhelmed by the sheer power of an Audi or a Prius or whatever foreign-Hollywood douchebags drive.)

But, back to the movie, the post-Joker Gotham was the darkest setting I've seen since Sin City, which was the most atrociously shocking urban sprawl I have ever had the revolting privilege of viewing. Gotham-Chicago, works less well than Gotham-NY, but is still very strongly up to the task.

My favorite part of analyzing The Joker in this movie is trying to characterize his type of criminal activity and villainy. Is he a terrorist? Certainly, he is blowing up people and buildings for a political message of anarchy and opposition to the Batman. Is he a mobster? He sure is, given that he controls the mob and gets them all kinds of money. Is he a serial killer? I would say yes (see above). An assassin? That's kind of his thing. Spree killer? Watch the movie. Arsonist? Sure. Armed robber? Of course. Kidnapper? No question. Turf gangster? No doubt. Pirate? Watch him try to get into an armored car at high speeds. Torturer? Tyrant? Sexual predator? Maybe not, but his intro to Rachel Dawes character certainly ranks among his creepier moments. You name a kind of villainy and this guy seems up to the task.

The Batman has to contend with this, and as we have found out from the Beginning and even more in this film, the Batman is extremely logical, an unmatched adept fighter, with seemingly infinite financial resources and thus access to countless gadgets and information. And, as we know from the commercials and previews, the Batman will have to make a judgment about how evil he must become to rid the world of this potentially ultimate evil. Further, he must determine how many bad things he can do before he himself is not a good person anymore. Theatrics and deception? What about straight up lying, what about bringing about escalation of violence, what about scaring innocent people, what about hurting bad people, what about killing evil people, what about...? Well, you get it. And his answer to that is Harvey Dent, the clean cut prosecutor who uses the laws in the slightly reformed and improved Gotham judicial system to begin punishing the crime lords.

Bale brings a similar intensity to this role that he did in the first, and though his competition outshines him, there is nothing wrong with that. Eckhart is truly excellent in his role as he transforms from a person the viewer and the public believes in to the person the viewer half understands. The others are quite good as well. I was bothered a bit that Katie Holmes (who was notably weak) was simply replaced by the Secretary, but it didn't ruin much for me.

The beginning of the movie is a bit choppy and chaotic as Nolan and his brother try desperately to tell us where we are now, but the plot and the story are otherwise crisp. The dialogue varies from good to great, and almost every one of the soliloquies is valuable, informative, and entertaining. Some of the action was downright spectacular and some of the comedic moments will fill you with tense laughter.

I talked about the Joker more than I should have, but he embodies this most excellent movie. I'm not a big Batman person, so the fact that I think this was one of the best performances I have ever seen is noteworthy. I avoided tour de force or electric or brilliant or genius because they are either over used not the proper word for his performance. But, I recommend the movie to all movie goers as a movie event whether you like Batman, comics, super natural, action, horror, or whatever. See the movie and make your own judgment.

As for the Joker, who I haven't discussed enough: he is a man of simple tastes, but is he a planner? Are the extent of his plans just disruption? His tactics seem genius and lucky, and his strategies are confusing with or without the whole picture. Is he a performance artist setting Gotham as his stage, is he making a socio-economic-political statement, is he trying to capitalize on a vacuum at the higher levels of power, is he making a religious/philosophical insights into the hearts and minds of mankind, or is he just having sadistic and masochistic fun competing against the Batman for sport? It's likely that there are elements of all of these things, but it's also likely that on the first viewing, you will only notice 1 or 2 of them because you will be enraptured by the sparkling brilliance of his cracked shell. What was Nolan thinking when he unleashed Ledger on this extraordinarily well written role? Well, we don't know for sure, but we can only guess that it was all part of the plan.

Sleep well,
Papa Bear

Post Script: I wrote about half the review before seeing the movie, changing two major errors, but refusing to change typographical errors or opinions. I took out one paragraph because my guess was too close to being right. But, the rest was written subsequently. I interspersed today's paragraphs with last Tuesdays to make it more fun for me. Feel free to guess which paragraphs were written before and which were written after. It makes the entry a bit chaotic, but that seems apt given the subject matter.

Mark's Oscars

Hello reader,

In response to my buddy at http://www.melanism.com blog's challenge to his readers, I have pain-stakingly gone through wikipedia's list of movies every year since the year of my birth, 1980 and used several of my fingers to type out my favorite movie from each year. This is a very frustrating process that takes longer than you might expect, except, if you're like me, and strangely have a favorite movie every goshdarn year. There are a few notable exceptions: Lean on Me couldn't edge out Say Anything in the 80's; Mumford had no chance against American Beauty in the 90's, and nobody this year, not Wall-E's beautifully simple romance or the forceful fun of Iron Man holds a candle to a movie I am going to see within one week.

Additionally, if you want to know my evaluation process and methodolgy: I grade movies based upon 1) entertainment value (whether it's fun to watch or funny), 2) emotional evocativeness (whether the movie connected with me on a personal visceral level or inspired me/got me bawling), 3) intellectual provocativity (whether the movie was thoughtfully prepared or the movie left me pondering/not wondering).

I take into account the plot, the story, the dialogue, the acting, the chemistry, the audio-visual splendor, the directing, and probably a few more things (and mostly in that order). For the purposes of this list, I evaluated how much I appreciated the movie at the first time I saw it, how rewatchable it was over time, and how much I appreciate the movie now. But, mainly, there is a strong emphasis on now.

Then, after evaluating all of those things in depth, I toss them out the window and just make decisions.

You'll notice that very few of these movies correspond with Oscar winners; though, I'm more surprised that some of them do, which proves that even the Oscars get it right some years. To be fair to all of the movies I listed below, I'm totally ashamed for listing every one of them for reasons varying from their sentimentality, their silliness, their cliched-ness, or their utter lack of realism, and yet simultaneously I'm unabashedly proud (except for the aforementioned shame) of these choices as well because these are movies, and there is no such thing as a real movie, or a truly original movie that is not overly sentimental or silly. They are movies, and even accurately depicted unedited documentaries are never wholly precise. The movies below as well as movies in general are simple in their complexity and that is what makes them awesome. So, deal with it.

Incidentally, melanism also has a list of favorite albums by year as well, but I don't know enough about music to make informed decisions.

Let's see... is there any other way to stall and buy me more time to think over my list? I guess not.

So...

Here goes...

I guess...


Mark's Favorite Movies By Year: Starting in 1980

1980- Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
1981- Superman II
1982- Gandhi
1983- Trading Places
1984- The Terminator
1985- Rocky 4
1986- Ferris Bueller's Day Off
1987- Evil Dead 2
1988- Die Hard
1989- Say Anything
1990- Edward Scissorhands
1991- Silence of the Lambs
1992- Bram Stoker's Dracula
1993- The Fugitive
1994- Ace Ventura: Pet Detective*
1995- Tommy Boy*
1996- Independence Day
1997- L.A. Confidential
1998- The Zero Effect
1999- American Beauty
2000- Gladiator
2001- Amelie
2002- About a Boy
2003- Big Fish
2004- Garden State
2005- Serenity
2006- Little Miss Sunshine
2007- Juno
2008- Dark Knight (as long as it doesn't suck)

It's a fun activity. But, clear a little time.
What's your list America? And, feel free to chime in, rest of the world.

Great big hug,
-The Papa Bear

* I made an error on the years and had to make a correction: I reluctantly erased Forrest Gump from my list, because I found out that possibly my favorite comedy of all time was actually a 1994 release (and not 1995). Also, I missed that Garden State was released in 2004, so I replaced Win a Date with Tad Hamilton. On the plus side, I was able to insert the most excellent Tommy Boy into the list. Enjoy.

Home Stretch

Dear Lost-fans,

this past Thursday, the final episode of Lost's 4th season aired, and it will probably be at least 6 months before I delve deeply into the topic again. So, I now present you with my final Lost blog of the season and as always,

SPOILER ALERT if you have not yet watched the entirety of the 4th season.

"So?"

Overall, it was a solid set of episodes, but, largely because of the unmatched excitement of last season's finale, I felt unfulfilled by the conclusions drawn out by the Lost folk.

Let's start with the thing that upset me most (and I will get to the things I appreciated as I move forward).

The lie...
Jack is utterly convinced, in part by Locke, in part by delusion, and in part by confusion, that lying is the right thing to do. But, as a viewer, I'm not that convinced. After, having extensive brainstorm sessions, I have concluded that it is feasible for Jack and the other five to believe that lying would protect those left on the island, but not the logical conclusion.

Why? Here are the facts
1) Charles Widmore knows about the Island's existence.
2) The Oceanic 6 do not know where the Island is.
3) No one who has the actual motivation of rescuing the Islanders knows about the existence of the Island.
4) Those potential rescuers have almost no chance of finding the Island and saving the Islanders.
5) Those potential rescuers would possibly have a slightly higher chance of finding the Islanders if they suspected they were alive and resumed searching.
6) Widmore is actively searching for the Island, and has some chance of finding the Island and potentially killing the Islanders.
7) With no rescuers searching for the Island and only additional Keamy's, doesn't that leave only two possibilities for the remaining Islanders? Eternal strandation or death by Keamy 2?

How is that helpful to Sawyer and Juliet and whoever else is still on the island (who wants to leave)?

My argument extends to the possibility that if the Oceanic 6 out a very evident conspiracy to deem the survivors dead, then they would put Widmore on the defensive against the authorities. And that would potentially diminish the power he had to send other Keamy's.

The counter-argument is 'who would believe' the extent of the story that might involve a magical island and a bloody corporate war? Further, the counter-argument extends to the fact that Abaddon (in the first episode of Season 4), who presumably knew of Oceanic survivors prior to his arrival on the island, approaches Hurley, (after Hurley's "rescue",) with uncertainty about the survival of any additional people or the island. That has presumably not stopped Widmore from looking for the Island, but it's possible, that he lost some of his fervor.
Furthermore, for whatever reason, Jack bought into it entirely, Kate bought into it and benefitted from the lie (in terms of freedom from prison), Hurley seemed to adamantly advocate the lie to Walt, Sayid did not seem to be too disturbed by it, and Sun, who might hate Jack's guts more than anyone else's in the world, consented to the lie. In the face of such universal agreement, who am I to question Jack's wisdom?

Bentham finally revealed.
The other thing that bothered me about the episode is the big revelation of the identity of Jeremy Bentham. Granted, the identity of the person in the coffin was a big reveal, but the release of the actual identity of Jeremy Bentham was not a big reveal. The use of the name was merely a strategic device employed to prevent the viewer from knowing Locke was off the island (and dead) until the end of the episode. That's fine, except I didn't care about who Jeremy Bentham was before the episode, and I still don't care who Jeremy Bentham is, so are we just going to drop the name? Speaking of name-dropping, since John Locke assumed the name of another famous philosopher, that would have to be a purposeful decision on Locke's part, wouldn't it? It was not just a writer's poetic license, but a writer's depiction of the character's intent. So, the only reason to use an alias for Locke other than to keep us in suspense for an hour is to demonstrate that Locke appreciates utilitarianism.

Weak destiny.
Locke's destiny with regard to the Island was as follows... Arrive at the Island to be healed for the following purposes... So that he can have faith in the Island... Begin understanding some of the island's secrets, mysteries, and histories... Allow Ben to move the Island in time(/space). Lead the surviving Islanders into or through some terrible tragedies (that he blames on Jack). Then, he leaves the Island to retrieve Jack and the Oceanic 6... Then die...??
That's a pretty weak fate, isn't it, for those of us who are expecting super-heroics or some sort of messianic leadership? Instead, it's like being 1 of the storm troopers in the empire thinking he has a destiny (or more aptly like 1 of the lame jedi in the earlier episodes.) Granted, Locke could still be alive on the Island and be the new Jacob, but in general, that's why I have problems with the person whose fate is special (and so I tend to agree with Jack. (Also see Eli Stone as an example of God intervening in human affairs to help 10 people at a time?) In a larger picture, we're all just ants, scurrying about with weights we shouldn't be able to carry. Even if there is a destiny for a guy like Locke and he's waited his whole life for it, it's bound to be a very human fate.

What did I like about this episode? Is it all complaints? No. It was a really good episode because it highlighted one of my favorite aspects of all of these characters, their badassery. Allow me to explain.

First, we have the most obvious badass of this particular episode, the guy who dies almost as often as Mikhael Bakunin (who may actually be dead from his grenade stunt killing Charlie?), Keamy. Let's start with the fact that he's a stone cold killer, who killed lots of Losties, and Ben's "daughter" with no compunction. But, in this episode, he went against a larger force, Alpert's hostiles (who demonstrated great stealth and aptitude to live up to Ana Lucia's fears). Then, instead of retreating, he continued to pursue Ben like The Terminator.

In the greatest hand to hand combat scene in Lost history, Keamy took a gigantic beating from Sayid, including being beaten with a log and stabbed with a knife, and yet emerged victorious from the fight. This monster was about to kill Sayid with a perverse smile on his face. But, Richard Alpert came and shot this machine several times until he no longer blinked. Guess what happened next? He wiped himself off and went after his target, following Ben to an isolated location. Then, he taunted his prey until he was caught off guard by Ben. With his final act of losing his pulse, he sunk his own entire battleship. That sounds a little like the Predator's self destruct button. Although, Keamy ultimately failed in his plight, he was an excellent hybrid of the most famous science fiction hunters of all time.

Sayid was the other performer in the fight and performed admirably. He demonstrated a lot of the skills he utilized in his ability to snap a man's neck with his hand's tied behind his back. He also picked the fight with Keamy, which almost got him killed and then in the flash forward killed another random guy in a car.

How about Kate's badassery as she charged into Keamy, who she knew to be a mass murderer, with only the hope that he would spare her before Alpert could save them all.

Then, there's Sawyer's reformed badassery. Sawyer was always the tough guy, but now, he's the same tough guy with the additional caveat that he sacrifices himself so that a helicopter could fly just a little bit longer. He blindly runs into into jungle-dangerous situations to save his friends.

We know about Jack's badassery, as he trailblazed through the forest with his recent surgery and probable infection. He managed to save Desmond and deliver him safely into Penny's arm. He brought eight people off the Island. And, of course, Jack, coldly stared down Locke in a battle of faith.

But, ultimately, in this season's finale, faith and Locke prevailed. First, of all, Locke (and Ben) were able to move the Island, then, Locke was able to convince Jack to lie "to protect" the Islanders. Then, Locke as Bentham, was able to convince Jack that the Oceanic 6 have to return to the Island. Sure, he ended up in a cardboard box, but just cause Locke and Keamy died in the episode doesn't mean that they were not badasses.

Speaking of dying, Michael finally got some redemption in going down with the ship playing his own kind of music. He had a nice moment with Jin and a nice moment with Sun about the magnitude of being a parent. Do anything and everything for the child, I suppose, except raise them.

Then, there was Jin, who now appears to be dead. He had several tough guy moments, including getting his wife and their child off the Island. Then, he got to stay with the boat too... maybe. So, I guess he's dead? Like Claire?

And finally, speaking of badasses, there is Sun, the new power broker. She stood up to Jack and then to her father. And she told her father that he is one of the two people he blames for what happened to her husband. Who is the other? Is it Jack, who wouldn't let the chopper go back for her husband, stranded on the doomed freighter. Is it Ben/Locke, who she might blame for the war and their part in Jin's death? Or is it Widmore, who she blames for sending mercenaries to kill them all? The end of the season demonstrated a nice transition for Sun from a person in fearful hiding to a person in command of her own life.

Desmond was not that tough this season; he was always a problem and was just a complete mess without Penny: leaving on his boat in Season 2, he had emotional problems (became a drunk), leaving the Island on the chopper early this season, he had mental problems (lost time), and then when he got on the raft, he had some physical problems (died). Now, he's going to try to spend the rest of his life running away from his girlfriend's daddy. Penny was admirably saving her man from her white horse of a ship from the balcony tower that her Romeo had to climb to be with her. These star-crossed lovers are finally together, which of course does not bode well for their health and well-being on this show.

Alpert continues to demonstrate his value and understated strength with a few shots at Keamy. Miles is becoming a valuable tool for us to understand the Island. His first revelation? Charlotte has been on the Island before. Was she Annie? She does look like Juliet, doesn't she? Faraday and his rafters were Lost between the Island and the freighter when the freighter blew up and the Island was moved. Obviously, the suspicion is that he was moved with the Island.

Or maybe, this place is not an Island, and it's just a giant whale that moved. It's got special properties, very unstable properties. The time travelling bunnies properties. Okay, well, at least, we finally heard in an official capacity (from a confusing and possibly untrue video) that Dharma was on the Island conducting experiments about the very unique properties of the Island.

I'll spare you the few things I garnered about the Ben-Widmore feud, except to say, I welcome the Paik's involvement in the corporate war. It does make me think there was some reason for the rich folks getting off the Island. On Gilligan's Island, who was saved? The Millionaire and his wife. I guess, that's life.

I also like how Lost has evolved or more aptly transitioned from Family Guy into How I Met Your Mother. In the first three seasons, the flashbacks were always "that reminds me of the time I..." or "I haven't seen anyone that desperate since..." Now, the flash forwards are more along the lines of "Listen kids... let me tell you about the time..." The reimagining woke the show up from a potential malaise and kept the flashes fresh.

So, I want to end my Lost blogging for the season by thanking all the people who make Lost for providing me fodder and the people who watch Lost for keeping Lost fodder-ful and my blog readers for accepting my crap over and over again.

Congratulations to the Lakers and the Celtics. Both teams won easy in part because of the injuries to Manu, Chauncey and to a lesser extent Rip Hamilton. But, I was wrong in both conference finals, so I'll take the heat. I'm rooting for the Celtics now. I've seen Ray Allen out-clutch Kobe and several other players quite a few times. Also, beyond the recent performances of Pierce, he also led the league in 4th quarter points a few years ago. This is a very capable Celtics team that has stars who could perform in the clutch. I'll spare my prediction because it does not bode well for who I am rooting for.

Otherwise, I'll be back soon with other material.
Thanks for listening,
ME PB

Clinton's Truth

Hello at last my Non-Lost Readers,

I wanted to take some time, a lot of time really, to address a few of the other interesting things going on in the world that have nothing to do with the TV show that has engendered a stranglehold on my attention. So, I'll address Hillary Clinton (at great length), Aaron Burr (at decent length), and the basketball playoffs (at good length), in that order.

I want to start by talking about the enigma that is Hillary Clinton. I have long been a Hillary-hater (for lack of a more appropriate term) for various reasons better explained in prior posts. But, here, I find myself, in a strange position upon consideration of her tenacity, in the face of presumably being doomed to fail in her presidential plight. There are two juxtaposed forces in my mind: the undeniable and impressive will to win of the flailing senator juxtaposed with my better judgment. I actually understand the Hillary-lovers in their admiration for her attachment to the candidacy with vigor that borders on lunacy (and the Republicans who wish to continue the Democratic in-fighting).

Of course, there is an open question about whether the continued campaigning harms the prospective candidate because the length of the campaign increases voter registration and the candidate get the additional "free" national exposure. But, overall, I would guess the continued campaign has to be net-negative, by removing certainty from an otherwise clear-cut Democratic presidential year with a Republican president suffering from historic lows in presidential polls and along with low morale for the national Republican Party. Add that to the fact that McCain could likely not bring together the same base group that Bush assembled to scrounge up his two victories and one would have to imagine the Democratic nominee as a dominant favorite. But, the extended delegate fight has allowed a lengthy debate about Obama's "electability" that would otherwise be a non-issue once he receives the nomination. The question will transform from "can the country actually elect a bi-racial man with an Islamic sounding name for president?" to "will the country elect a bi-racial man with an Islamic sounding name for president?" The change in the tense of the question is dramatic because while racists and xenophobes would not vote for him either way, there will no longer be the veiled specter of potential American racism. It changes the whole debate and the Republicans cannot make the, at times, not so subtle appeal to (American racists as well as) the people with the supposition that the rest of the country will not vote for him because "they", or "those people" are racists. That is the argument Hillary has tried to hammer home to her party to no avail.

So, it is questionable whether the lengthy campaign has helped any particular candidate, but it has brought added attention to politics. Most people seem to think the added attention to such an influential sphere of modern life is unquestionably positive. I tend to disagree because although attracting added informed attention to politics is a worthwhile endeavor, adding any attention such as attack ad attention or potentially embarrassing scandal-ridden attention, or "Paris Hilton-ing" politics is not in and of itself a value to society and may in fact be detrimental to the country. While character is an important part of presidential politics and choosing a candidate, a candidate's fame or noteworthiness has rapidly increased in its importance in the A.D.D. generation, even as noteworthiness is melded with notoriety.

So, to evaluate the efficacy and admirability of Hillary Clinton's strategery, I looked to sports analogies and games comparisons. Particularly, I looked to the end game of two competitive head to head match-ups: chess and basketball. I note that I have seen the basketball comparison in a Sunday morning news show discussion, but, I of course, will take the point and beat it to absurdity.

Politics is often viewed as a high-minded competition, and although there are appeals to the baser natures of various constituencies, there is a kinship that the politicians who serve together in Washington share. So, seemingly, the end game of chess would be an apt comparison to the endgame of the delegate process. In chess, even when the two players do not get along personally, the player about to lose tends to resign quickly when her imminent defeat has become apparent. This chivalric maneuver is a gesture of respect to the opponent and is an effort to minimize the torment of a slow painful game-death and create a more sudden-death. And chess essentially awards the "gimme" to the opposing player who is anywhere around the hole. While politics is not a physical contact sport, one would assume that chess would be the ideal comparison, but it is not. In politics, there are additional psychological implications of a beat-down that reverberate into the next election cycle or what the press has referred to over the course of the Obama-Clinton battles as "momentum". While Obama emerged as the near certain victor and nominee mathematically, he still contends with the idea of momentum, and Hillary continues to push the envelope of the idea's importance (a dramatic shift from earlier in the campaign). I have never heard of the concept of psychological momentum in chess (perhaps because I don't follow chess like I follow sports or perhaps because when there is momentum, it is more a product of mental factors than psychological ones.)

So, instead, I look to a basketball playoff series (not the individual psychological momentum known as the "zone" or a "slump"), a conference finals, to determine how basketball teams react to a likely impending loss. So, for the purposes of the comparison, we assume this race is a best of 7 series and we are in game 6 with Obama ahead in games and in the lead by a healthy margin late in the 4th quarter. (I would call game 7 the superdelegate game if it makes it that far.) Many teams acknowledge defeat early because of the same reasons discussed in the chess analogy, but those teams aren't Hillary Clinton. She looks down upon such chivalric ideals with contempt and scorn as a sign of weakness. Instead, she opts to try to foul her way back into the game. She commits foul after foul to slow the game down, stop time, and force her opponent to make free throws and not make mental blunders. Often times, in situations like this, mental weaknesses (and the inability to close out the game) are exposed to the victorious party's future opponents, but the current loser has no interest in the next series. She is totally focused on trying to get back into this game despite all odds. Apparently, most of America and even most of the Democratic Party agrees that such a strategy is optimal (despite the issue similarities between the two candidates). She, according to the polls, should stay in the game and stay in the series until she loses her 4th game. She commits fouls even as she lightens the rhetoric of the previously hard and abrasive fouls.

A very strong foul is the Florida non-vote. Assuming Florida's current unfair vote tallies are not counted or that a future vote is not imposed, Florida, a critical swing state had no part in nominating a candidate in a tightly contested race and Clinton's repeated exposure of this weakness is akin to badgering an opponent's persistent ankle injury. I'm sure McCain could manipulate the weakness, but not as effectively as Clinton can in damaging the credibility of the process over the next few weeks. Why is this so important? Because momentum is a factor and while Obama was riding a high for a long time, she has taken the wind out of his sails and brought him into a knockout bout (I was proud of that very mixed metaphor). Of course, the key is that few people seem to get dirty or hurt sailing, but in boxing, or in basketball, people get hurt all the time.

While mathematically, this does not look like a seven game series, she's going to extend game six as long as she can regardless of what it does to Obama's reputation or her reputation in the long term. But, I gather, considering, people out there are referring to her as a gritty competitor with tenacity rather than a dirty fighter with audacity, her reputation is less of an issue than Obama's is.

The length of the race, the desperation of the candidates, the pandering to so many groups and demographics, and exhaustion has led both of these people to raise the very fascinating strategy of telling the truth (as they perceive it), and reopened the McCain style debate of honesty's place in the lexicon and matrix political strategies. Seizing on the straight talk of McCain, both Hillary and Obama have utilized this method to ineffective ends over the past several months.

In the aftermath of the Rev. Wright scandals, where Hillary was delivering body blows and elbows to the face of Obama all over the country, Obama emerged scathed, but relatively unscarred because of a powerful, inspirational, seemingly intellectually honest, and almost comprehensive speech delivered by Obama about the state of race relations in the United States. But, that's not what I mean by truth telling.

Instead, what I mean, is that, in a closed speech to San Franciscans, Obama referred to the indigent and struggling Americans populace as bitter and he tied God and guns to economic desperation. I'm not up to date on the most recent sociological studies, but it's my understanding that rich people go to church and own guns too and that the pursuit of religion is not a response to a person's destituteness, but rather a response to a search for answers to (often all the) deeply philosophical questions about the universe and one's place in that universe. I would also think that Obama, a proudly religious man, who actually became devout after becoming wealthy, would agree with that assessment. If he wanted to say anything along the lines of what he actually said, he could have said the politically more appropriate thing (and quite possibly the more true point) that the financial despair has allowed the Republicans to politicize and capitalize on the issues of God and guns, rather than espousing the notion that these people are clinging to these things out of desperation. So, Obama made the vast leap academicians might make in a research paper to try to garner scholarly interest and get a research grant. However, while hitting a homerun in the S.F. crowd, he made a few enemies along the way and cemented his image as the ivory tower candidate. So, is this what I meant by truth telling; speaking perceived truths that are potentially harmful? Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for asking.

But, then of course, came Hillary's response to the race issue, which is essentially, that America is not ready to elect a Black candidate. In her brief dialogue on the issue, she acknowledged the potential truth that a portion, possibly a substantial portion of her constituency would not vote for Obama, and implied that racism was a critical factor in the decision. The undertone goes further into electability as, since Democrats, the allegedly racially tolerant party has such a large number of racists, imagine how many racists will cast an anti-Black vote among independents and Republicans. Is there truth to the notion that America might elect anyone but the Black candidate? I have no reason to not believe her contention, considering, to the best of my understanding: racism is a world-wide problem, our country is vast and sparse with lots of capacity for ignorance and intolerance in cities, suburbs, and rural areas in all the regions, and of course our nation has long tragic history of racism influencing political decisions and vice versa. But that does not make Hillary look any better. If anything, her answer to the racists is to pander to them and cater to them by giving them a White Democratic option. Is that what's best for the Democratic party? I'm not in a position to say. Is that some unholy possible truth telling that damages both candidates? I would imagine so.

Another theme that Hillary has played upon regularly is the potential misogyny in the media's portrayal of her. Has there been sexism in the depiction of her persona? In truth, I would imagine so. But, there are several points to raise. The same general election argument she implied with regard to racism in the Democratic party (being a potentially much larger problem in the general election discussed above) would likely hold true for sexism as well, wouldn't it? Next, it is important to address the notion that Hillary would not be in position to be president if she was not a woman (or Obama would not be in position to be president if he were not a Black man). Of course, both of these candidates have remarkable stories and Hillary has a strong political acumen and great will (and Obama has a vast intellect with a great speaking voice and a strong stage presence). But, would the American public really vote for a person for president whose sole executive experiences were failures and whose only other political experience was being a non-descript senator for a few years? The answer is, of course, it depends. But, I don't see how having a former president for a spouse didn't help her be in the dominant position she was in, which would of course, play upon the fact that she is a woman and she married presidentially. So, the complaints about Obama's Blackness being a boon to his election hopes, while her womanhood is a detriment to her chances seems counterintuitive. Additionally, while she often fights the stereotypes that women are forced upon women, she makes no apologies for using tactics such as literally crying about how hard it is to run a campaign and thereby feeding the stereotype of the frail woman when it suits her political goals (in that case demonstrating vulnerability to an otherwise streamlined veneer). So, again, this potential truth-telling was a tactic that Hillary may feel to be true and as I mentioned may indeed be true, but is ultimately bad for her campaign as she whines about the press coverage of her, she feeds the image and draws attention to her own duplicity.

Most recently, Hillary has delivered a damaging blow to both campaigns by stating that the potentiality of assassination is a valid justification for her continued pursuit of the nomination. We will assume for the purposes of argument, that Hillary has no plans to involve herself in any attack-planning and we focus on the potential truth of and the potential damage done by the statement. The comparisons to Bobby Kennedy are present, as both are inspirational figures speaking out about dramatic and controversial changes in the American political landscape. Beyond the Kennedy comparison, Obama is a bi-racial man (or a Black man, depending on who is doing the categorizing) who is a candidate with a legitimate chance at the presidency (and probably the likely favorite at this point). With all the race issues in our nation, how is this possibility not legitimate... that the man is a veritable lightning rod of potential animosity, whether it be from racists who wish to prevent his presidency or nutjobs who now, not only have the same old reasons to harm the powerful (such as impressing Jodie Foster), but also have the new reason of ending the life of possibly the most important political figure of our time (from a contemporary and historical perspective). What nut jobs are thinking about this historical perspective? Well, honestly, I don't know anyone in these categories, but the fact that he is rife and sought after target seems like sound logic to me and I could only hope and imagine that the Secret Service is being particularly protective of him.

So, Hillary's recent statement, may be the most true, of all of these perceived truths I just mentioned, and yet many pundits have labeled it the death knell for her candidacy. Why? In part, because politics and truth have a complex relationship. It's touch and go, people. In part, because, while it may be true, it's a very unpleasant and ignoble (and desperate) justification to continue such a bitter nomination process. So, with all her hail-mary attempts at winning the game, she couldn't accomplish the goal. And now, her purpose in staying the race is the very morbid possibility of his death. It's a distasteful thing to say, and to bring the comparison to light so soon after Ted Kennedy's near death experience was not thoughtful. (I myself am withholding many comments about Ted Kennedy in light of his condition and acknowledging the truths that he has been a strong and passionate advocate for his constituents for years and will go down as one of the most influential senators in American history.) Moreover, the Kennedy family, American royalty, is much more akin to the Bush and Clinton brand names than that of Obama.

Turning to Obama's lack of experience for the presidency: many have suggested including himself, that to alleviate these fears, that he employ an all star team of Democrats to unite the party in this time of need. Obama pointed to Lincoln's hiring of his rivals as a potential model for this idea. Of course he made the allusion to Lincoln, a junior senator from Illinois with no combat experience that led the country successfully through a devastating war. But, the notion is clear, that he might perhaps turn to Hillary as V.P. and Richardson as Sec. of State and Biden as Sec. of Defense and Edwards as Attorney General, and so on. Five years ago, the Democrats did not have an all star line-up, but now they do. That level of cachet bodes well for their future, but all star casts rarely make a quality movie, a team filled with all star players rarely make a quality team, and all star politicians... well there's only one microphone and several hundred egos among those people I just mentioned. But since elections are popularity contests, having more of the cool kids running on your ticket can be helpful (though endorsements are generally useless).

In my estimation, McCain and Obama are two well-meaning individuals with different visions for the future and both represent dramatic changes from the current presidency at home and abroad. (An enormous change for McCain, aside from policy issues is that McCain is running on the premise of opening up dialogue with the American public and Congress about the future of our country, while the current presidency has been marred by fiercely maintained secrecy.) I'd be satisfied with either candidate as our president, and though I have a favorite in the race, (I've been an avid unabashed McCain supporter for over 10 years), much to the chagrin of many of my known associates, I have no intention of fleeing the country should my candidate lose.

Even though I believe these are two well-meaning individuals, I have a strong feeling this race is going to be intensely personal, visceral, and vitriolic. McCain doesn't like Obama from some immigration bill they discussed at length that led to fireworks. Taking into account Obama's relative youth and popularity, I would imagine McCain perceives Obama as a person who has not earned his stripes, even in comparison to Hillary (who McCain strangely does like personally). Furthermore, neither McCain nor Obama has shown any inclination to pull punches or to hold back for the purposes of leading a united country. This is going to the mats.

Even assuming one of them tries to stay civil, it will not work because of a larger view of the Tragedy of the Commons. Allow me to explain. The tragedy or tyranny of the commons is a simple idea: where there are several shepherds (no relation to Jack Shepard, I promise) with grazing area of their own and a public grazing area, they will tend to use the public grazing area before using their own land to maximize their grazing. The same principle applies at the dinner table, where, if you want a lot of mashed potatoes, you should put some on your own plate, but then eat from community bowl. The problem is that the good guy who is trying to live off his own land and not take from the community unless he absolutely has to, gets less.

Well, the same is true in politics. Obviously, each side has a base of people who are going to vote for them on the issues. But, when it comes to swing voters, they look at character as well. There is an argument to be made that a candidate who rises above the fray has the real character, but apparently, we live on earth, where that is not the type of character we are looking for in our leaders (and it has always been this way). But, once one side's character is attacked, they start losing the community demographic as well (as the community notion of character). To earn the respect of the candidate, and not lose independent ground, the other must retaliate by also eating from the commons. You know who loses in this situation? The community, which is everyone. It's a tragedy. But, it's human nature. And if you read Animal Farm, it's apparently, animal nature as well.

Speaking of nasty political duels, I want to switch topics to the most famous political duel in American history. Recently, I was watching the John Adams mini-series, and I thought it was fantastic. One side plot/character to the miniseries was Alexander Hamilton (played by Rufus Sewell of Dark City, the poor pre-cursor to the Matrix) and his political machinations. The mini-series challenged my conventional wisdom on history's positive portrayal of this man. As an American history fan (and history major, perhaps even a buff of history), I have always thought of Alexander Hamilton as a great and powerful man, whose nationalist ideals shaped modern America, from the government to the economy. What I didn't realize, was that this strong leader, who was Washington's second in command for much of the Revolutionary War and Washington's political life, who was a self-made titan, who was a prolific renaissance man/entrepreneur, was also a huge a-hole.

The program made me look into the truth of Hamilton and Aaron Burr and recognize that Burr, while a problematic figure in his own right, was not quite the Benedict Arnold or even the crazy loon I previously thought he was. Sure, he might have committed some mild treason, but name a founding father or a Bluthe family member who hasn't. According to my sources, Burr's treason was exacerbated by trusting the wrong general, who was actually committing a grand treason, and then who eventually turned state's evidence to try take down the alleged arch-villain in Aaron Burr who had to live his life friendless in exile (despite a Supreme Court acquittal.) Why? Mostly because he killed the great mind of Hamilton in this duel. The terms of the duel were unclear and people seem unsure whether they were dueling for show or for keeps, but Burr won the duel.

How did it start, you ask? Well, apparently, future president James Monroe and future vice president Burr outed an affair Hamilton was having. Hamilton, of course, being a jerk, blamed the people who outed the affair rather than himself for having the affair. Hamilton successfully dedicated his considerable resources to defeating Burr's post VP NY gubernatorial election. Burr, who was a charismatic and respectable figure (an aristocratic snob), and who conducted himself in a gentlemanly fashion, basically gave Hamilton months to retract the negative things he and his newspaper smeared Burr with to no avail. Hamilton, who had a son who died in a duel only months before, knew the dangers of a duel and accepted possible death rather than retract his own jerkiness. Centuries have provided Hamilton with many vindications and policy victories, but apparently his biggest coup was rather instantaneous, as in death, he became the good guy in the scenario. In death, he got a name (Robert Poulsen?) and he became the man of honor. Burr was exiled and then, in time, became his mild treasonous self. And he is now widely perceived by the general public as one of the craziest vice presidents we've ever had, while Hamilton is more of the best actor never to have received an Oscar (or best player without an MVP). So, they gave him ten bucks.
Most of this knowledge is from wikipedia, so take it with a grain of deliciously scandalous salt.

But, as I switch to a topic on which I could write the wikipedia page, basketball, I am sure to lose some readers. So, feel free to tune out.

My picks for the playoffs this year were San Antonio beating Detroit in the finals (a replay of the finale from three years ago), which would be a nightmare for the NBA and ABC. But despite, the 2-1 tallies and the road victory requirements, I am sticking to my picks.

So far, I have already been correct about every series except for one (the Hornets-Dallas series). But, my vision for the future, my prophecy, and the balance of good and evil in the world may be tilted as the vaunted Lakers are on pace to crush the Spurs physically and mentally, leading the series 2-1. Sure, the Spurs are whiny floppers, and have Robert Horry, who has become a modern day Kurt Rambis-type thug. But, the team leader is Tim Duncan, who is a soft-spoken, wry-witted, team-first type player, person, and captain. That's gotta make him the good guy over the Kobe Bryant-led Lakers, who aside from incredulities of previous years, has made open criticisms of the lack of skill of his teammates within the past year. Kobe, who I have contended in the past has just about every skill Jordan ever had (though overall a substantially worse player for various reasons including the incredible field goal percentage disparity and team leadership issues,) has become less unselfish, and this year was the deserving MVP (and the second best player in basketball behind LeBron). Yet, he remains a flawful (I prefer it to flawed) human being and a generally me-first type player.

What has quelled his relatively unbridled fury (in the form of Hillary-esque whiny criticisms) from last summer? The realization that the assembled team is actually an excellent group of players. Odom is an all star caliber talent, and although, not a prolific scorer (and is terrified of clutch moments) is a presence, a rebounder, and an excellent facilitator. Bynum who emerged again for half a season to demonstrate a lot of potential and produced a low post-presence on both ends of the floor. Of course, when he went down, they traded some of their scrubs and a draft pick to steal Gasol, a prolific big man scorer. Complement those all-stars with the clutch shooting and toughness of Derek Fisher, the savvy of Luke Walton (a Shane Battier type player), two excellent outside shooters in Vujacic and Farmar, and a number of agile back-up big men, and the team has the makings of a strong playoff performer.

They are facing Tim Duncan, the best player over the past 10 years a little past his prime, but still a formidable post player because of fundamentally sound moves, smart passing, and the will to dominate a game, who is also the anchor on their potent defensive unit, where he is a leader calling out open spots and players, great at individual, and team defense. The problem is not Duncan. The problem is the other players. Tony Parker is streaky, in large part because he cannot hit outside shots with any regularity. When he gets to the rim, he is one of the best finishers in the game with an impressive array of floaters and layups. This outside shot infirmity would be acceptable and defensible if he was a player along the lines of Jason Kidd, whose responsibilities fall outside of the realm of scoring, but Parker is not a facilitator, and has never been much of a passer. So, if they can keep Parker out of the lane, they totally neutralize him. Easier said than done because of Parker's lightning speed, but if they can neutralize such an important offensive force on San Antonio, a team that often struggles for baskets, it becomes likely that the Lakers have an edge. To compare Parker to other players, I would use either Chris Paul without the passing or Dwayne Wade without the strength. Oh, and he lacks either of their intensity or leadership, but he has a really hot wife and more championships than the two others combined.

And then, we come to Manu Ginobli, who, many people believe is a top flight player, earning PER stats akin to Kobe Bryant (according to a Hollinger article from a month ago is the virtual equivalent to Kobe on the floor) and according to various sources is one of the most clutch players in basketball, and even made some sport's writer's All NBA ballot (best player at his position). I have long held the position that he is an excellent player, but he would be a borderline all star at best in the packed West. Sure, he has plenty of games like Game 3 of the series, but he has plenty of games where he disappears like games 1 and 2. They need him or Parker to complement Duncan, and he's more able to fully complement Duncan because of his wide array of skills. But more on him, after I rant about a tangential issue.

The PER stats (Player Efficiency Rating of John Hollinger's creation, the ESPN stats guru) are based on "efficiency", not "effectiveness", which would be the more appropriate measure of who is better for their team. Because, if a guy plays 20 minutes a game, and is very efficient during those 20 minutes, he is helping the team, but only providing 20 minutes worth of help, not a game's worth of help. A game is the lowest common denominator between a time span and a relevant impact on team success statistic, and providing per minute or per second or per 40 minute evaluations are valuable as Hollinger puts it, for the purposes of efficiency, but not for the more important statistic of a player's effectiveness for the team. Ginobli ended up playing plenty of minutes (about as many as Duncan), but not as much as the quality stars at his position often do. You could make arguments about more minutes translating into better efficiency or more overall stats, but those arguments are illusory because they are not of any actual impact. But, there is no question, that when he is on, he is extremely beneficial to the team.

There are lots of reasons that I disparage the PER stats even for efficiency purposes, mostly, the lack of defensive statistical data. Steals and blocks are often bad indicators of a player's effectiveness or efficiency at defense as Battier (who puts his hand in front of your eyes, not on the ball to make you miss and not block your shot or steal the ball, and also plays the angles and help defenders extremely well) and Bowen (who is extremely physical) are excellent defensive players that don't show up in the stats sheets. I have always believed rebounds are not defensive data, but more special teams data in part because of some rebounds are offensive, in part because of the majority of the hustle required for defensive rebounding is conducted after an offensive sequence has concluded, and in part because I like dividing stuff up into logical groups, which in basketball falls into the 2-2-1 variety, (e.g. blocks and rebounds are big-man stats, steals and assists are little-man stats and points are size-neutral or e.g. on offense, there is generally a point guard, two swing men, and two post players and on defense there is generally a center, two forwards and two guards).

Okay, back to Ginobli, he's quick, he's angular, he's got a decent outside shot, he finishes well at the basket, he passes well, and he's clutch. On defense, he has quick hands and quick feet, but he takes a lot of chances and his man can usually beat him off the dribble if he has skills. So what? Lots of top caliber players have flaws, look at Nash and 'Melo, they don't play defense. Look at LeBron, Howard, they only play D when they want. Look at Chris Paul, he doesn't have an outside shot. But, from what I have seen, I would want those guys as my best offensive player, carrying my team for me. Those other guys could do it for a season and they could do it for a series. Manu, for whatever reason can do that for a given game, but he's more of a John Starks type player, who if you're relying too much on him carrying your team, will run into road blocks. Luckily, the team has never relied on him too much, they play him roughly 30 minutes a night, keeping him rested and allow Duncan to be the consistent best player and Parker to intermittently shoulder the offense when Manu is not playing great ball.

The Spurs are helped out by a veteran team in Bowen, who lost a step, but remains every bit as physical on the defensive end and has a respectable spot up 3 point shot. Finley and Barry lead mishmash of 3 point shooters. And they have a few serviceable big men to relieve Duncan.

I have found Udoke to be a very weak link on the offensive end in particular, but worse yet, a defensive specialist that has no ability to stop Kobe from doing anything he wants.

If I were the Spurs, I would go to the Kobe ball denial on defense, and Duncan in the post on offense. Duncan will generally make the right decision about shooting or passing to the open shooter. On defense, once Kobe does get the ball, I would try playing some LeBron-ball against him, using some double teams and hard fouls when he drives the lane. He won't be intimidated from driving because he's mentally tough and is willing to throw his body into harm's way, but he'll start altering his shot to expect contact, and it might tire him out more than the jacked LeBron who barely feels the contact.

I have much less to say about Boston and Detroit. I picked Detroit because I figured Sheed could minimize KG, Tayshaun's length could minimize Pierce's truth, and Hamilton would outduel an aged Ray Allen. I accounted for a formidable Boston defense, but assumed that Detroit's myriad of above-average offensive options would prevent Boston's defense from stopping Detroit. I might be wrong, but prognostication is not an exact science, it's a pseudo-science or a "social science" like history. Like the history of Duncan or Shaq being in the finals every year for the last 9 years or Burr actually not being the bad guy in the Hamilton duel, or Hillary's chances of being president.

Take solace, people. Take lots of solace in stuff,
The Creaking Papa Bear, ME

Home Planning

Hello Lost fans,

Spoilers below.

"How many times do I have to tell you?... I always have a plan."
The writers of the show promise this to us over and over again. They know what happens next, even if we don't. They don't tell us about their design or how they get there. But along the way, they reveal little bits of information of their grand scheme and the role that each of these characters play in that scheme. At times, Ben, who also always has a plan, seems to represent the show, as well as anyone can, by being knowingly deceptive while still offering up hope. You never know whether to trust what he says or what he does. And each action or word seems to have an ulterior motive. Sound like Lost? Or sound like the Man Behind the Curtain in Oz?

In fact, the show is so much like Ben in those particular ways, that it has clouded the minds of great Lost interpreters and scholars. And like religious or philosophical texts, the show can be overinterpreted and thus misinterpreted. Jeff Jensen, formerly referred to herein as "Doc" seems to have fallen prey to this brand of overanalysis. In the latest noteworthy incarnation of Lost babble (of which I proudly partake), he is now espousing that the show has taken a political stance and is supporting a party in the upcoming election, which is really not a far cry from espousing that a religion or a philosophy is on your side. No, Jesus would not vote Republican, and no Lost would not vote Democrat (that's not to say that the creators, writers, directors, actors, etc. don't have pronounced, respectable, and respectful views; just that the show has not taken that turn... yet and hopefully won't go there. To extrapolate that there is an espoused party affiliation or even issue-based lobbying within the show, one would have to have quite a few tokes of the red bull, if you know what I mean, or one would have to have his own agenda that said person is pushing forth. You could make an intelligible, tangible, and strong political argument in any number of ways given the tenets, fictional facts, and ideas behind the show, and the point is... that that's not the point. So, says the Mysterious Sphynx. It's entirely possible that Doc Jensen has jumped the shark, though I doubt it and I hope not. But for the time being, I am left to rely on melanism.com for my Lost truths.)

Leaving the weekly entertainment portion of my blog, and returning to the meat of the episode: we now know who got off the island and how, kindof...
We don't know who helped them off. Was it Ben or Widmore that made a deal with, to got them off the island, and presumably protect/save those who are still there? Were those photographs of the 6 arriving at the second island real? Did they follow the same path that Michael followed to get rescued? Really, we know nothing about how they get off the island, and the Oceanic 6 are still totally separate (although we've been teased quite a few times with Kate, Jack, Hurley, and Sayid going towards the Orchid (of which we know nothing about except it might move the island in space or time and is probably guarded by Ben's hostiles).

What about these Oceanic 6? Was there reason in their choosing? Why did the two richest people get off the island: is that part of the deal? Did Hurley and Sun get off the island to use their money to benefit Ben in his war against Widmore and protect those left behind? (And that's aside from the Oceanic settlement for all of them). The fact that Sayid could be used as a ruthless killer would come in handy for Ben/Widmore as long as you play the right strings. I guess, Jin, Michael, and Sawyer could be used as killing pawns by Ben too, but not with the precision that Sayid could muster (Jin missed the tent bombs with his gunfire, Michael is quickly losing his cool, and Sawyer is unpredictable). Since these three characters all trust Jack, the mastermind would need him to get off the island to organize them. He can get them off the island with a sufficiently strong story and keep them sticking to the story (at least longer than anyone else could), and if need be, eventually bring them all back. Jack's George Washington-esque stature could get them all to follow because they know that even though he makes mistakes, he's the noble hero of the story. And if he's convinced something is the right thing to do, he might still be wrong, but there is at least a basis for that belief. Of course, he's not leaving without Kate. And none of them could afford to leave a baby behind on the island (probably without a mother and additionally, which could be used as a sympathy tool for Kate, to keep her out of jail). It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that these people were chosen for how they could benefit Ben/Widmore.

Speaking of Ben as Obi Wan Kenobe (Jensen's still got plenty of goods), and Alpert as Robinhood, and Jack as Superman, and Sawyer as Batman, and Locke as... (maybe I'll think of someone next week,) how about adding a gigantic villain? Keamy is not only a bloodthirsty mercenary, who indiscriminantly kills children, commits mass murder, starts forest fires, kills allies, shoots skeet, (I could go on), he is also a willing bomber, who planted a radio detection device to his body that would blow up the ship if the ship received the signal (whether it's a button or a pulse stoppage is unclear.) But, now, the villains are settling in nicely, with Widmore as a Luthor-type villain: very rich, out in the open, corporate, and in his greed and self interest is probably the most dangerous to the world. Ben, as the Joker type villain: you can never quite figure out his motivations, but he's always out there doing things that seem crazy and may or may not be part of some truly grand plan and may or may not be good for the world in what may or may not be his warped view of the world. But, he knows he's valued alive and he knows which buttons he can push. And then, he pushes them. Abbadon??? Keamy- resident badass. What about Mrs. Harper, the person who appeared to Desmond, preventing him from getting engaged and telling us all about coure correcting. Is she Jacob? No.

(Speaking of Michael Rosenbaum as Lex Luthor, as he's leaving the show Smallville's regular cast, I just wanted to celebrate his exceptional performance over the last seven (?) years and the fact that in his last episode as a series regular, he truly physically grew into the role. As he stood in front of Jimmy Olsen, he towered over him physically; and as he put in his hand on Jimmy Olsen's shoulder, it was one of those TV moments that played out exactly right. It was a nice moment. Of course, Luthor was lying to the naive young optimist, and we the audience strongly suspected he was lying (because of his character, not his acting,) and the listener he thought this was Lex's few good deeds (how Benjamin Linus of him). So Rosenbaum played the role perfectly throughout the series, and for the first time, in this episode, he no longer looked like the whiny little rich kid (his role through most of the show), but finally looked transformed into the strong, independant, and fully developed criminal mastermind he's actually been for the past several years. Kudos to his acting, the casting, and for that special moment in villainy history. Perfect way to go out.)

Speaking of Jack's badassery, how about this guy who is so committed to saving lives that he runs into the jungle days after a major surgery to try to save two of his flock. The blood begins pouring from his opened stitches, and Jack replies, 'tis but a fleshwound'. It's just your common infection; don't worry about it Kate. But you, the audience, pay attention. This guy is a glutton for punishment, and it's going to haunt him for a long time. It might even cost him a happy family life down the road. Just, you watch.

So, Jack lies to Kate about the blood. Isn't that very Ben-like? The twist is Jack lies to try to do good things, while Ben (probably) isn't lying to do good things. The other twist is Jack only looks you square in the eye when he's lying. Actually, I've noticed that Jack is always distracted and rarely looks these islanders in the eye at all. Not sure if it is a directorial/acting technique to make Jack seem preoccupied, distracted, busy, and concerned about everyone and not just the person he is talking to, or perhaps to demonstrate Jack's major failing, which is the interpersonal relationship. He's great in a crowd, but when he's talking to you, he's really only thinking about you peripherally, to make sure you're healthy. When he's looking at you (and not surveying the island, his other flock members, and his surroundings), he's really looking through you for problems to fix. And if you don't have current problems, he's looking directly through you, because someone behind you does. So, it is entirely plausible that Jack only does look people squarely in the eye when he's lying. So, it's not a politician thing, because they have good poker faces and look you square in the eye whether they are lying or not, it's a Jack thing.

But, the best scene of the episode was Jack meeting Claire's mom. We knew exactly what was coming, the truth that was about to be revealed, but we (I) did not imagine the devastating impact it would have on the still grieving (and still in shock) Jack. Jack was crushed. He was even more crushed because he seemed to be the only person who bought into the idea (and may have been the proponent) that they stick to the lie. Everyone else seemed mildly against the lie, or at least uncomfortable with the idea of lying to the world about the fate of their comrades. But, Jack, in his willingness to lie in general (to do good things: see above and see perjury for Kate) and his heroism, must have been convinced that he was doing the right thing. He was convinced that getting off the island and lying about it, straight in the face of the media and the world, was the right thing to do. And, he did not appear to have second thoughts about it, the way the other 4 did (the baby seemed fine with it too).

For a moment, this truth that Claire was his half-sister (which couldn't have possibly made a difference in his prior actions had he found out days before) along with the lies which he advocated, were more than he could handle. And eventually these small powerful truths, along with the intermixed lies (throw in a dash of his own self-destructiveness and some supernatural influences) would ultimately bring his world crumbling down. There he stood. He couldn't muster the courage to admit that he knew Claire, that he bonded with Claire, that he took care of her, or that Claire's child, this woman's grandchild was in Kate's arms. He couldn't hug her and say, we share our pain, Ms. Claire's mom. He couldn't say these things, but his face said it all. Anguish. (That is not to say the run of the mill despair and shock, that all of the Oceanic 6 felt on the plane back to civilization. That was something to behold as well.) But, Jack finally had his moment of doubt, and it was absolutely crushing for him, and crushing for a viewer who has come to know him and respect him over the past 4 years (few months). Well done.

Another great moment was when Jack and Sawyer had their verbal duel. As they duked it out in jests and mockery, right before they again majestically united like we were all back in the first season, I was left thinking about what their situation reminds me of. It's a pretty strong comparison too. Dawson's Creek. Jack is this straight laced guy who is destined for great achievement, but he is entangled by this desperate longing, teen angst for an on/off relationship with a strong independant female who has feelings for him. Along comes this guy, (in Dawson's Creek, it was Dawson's best friend, Pacey), who is a misfit, not destined for any great things, but who seems to be totally impacted and tranformed by the feelings that he shares with the same woman. This third guy is a better person in her presence, and with her, his prospects brighten. And she, who would have blossomed on her own regardless of who she chose, must make a life decision (over a period of several years). But, because of the nature of television, and the fact that they were stuck in high school, and often the same town, these two rivals (former friends) constantly had to unite to accomplish a task like putting together a dance or whatever. Spoiler alert for Dawson's Creek people. Joey chose Pacey, and while I totally disliked the choice because Pacey, who was a better character (and a far superior actor) didn't deserve the grace of her love, even though, he was better for having it.

Despite having seen the future, which has a Jack and Kate engagement, we still don't know the fate of Sawyer, and I suspect the three of them will meet again. And, my guess is that Jack goes off and works on movies with Spielberg, his lifelong idol, or accomplishes his ultimate goal of being a hero and getting all of these people off the island. Meanwhile, Sawyer, who becomes a decent human being with Joey in his life, needs her to stay above his old misfitty ways, and she adores being thus needed. So, while Jack and Kate might be soul mates, Sawyer and Kate are more compatible. And I will hate that decision too, despite it's rationality, with each of them being mildly satisfied in the end result.

Now, that I have appropriately embarassed myself by my intimate knowledge of Dawson's Creek, I can let you go home.

Yours,
PB#ME

PS: Why didn't the guy in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, drink from the wet cup, the cup that looked like Old Man River's been drinking out of it for the last few hundred years?

Moving Cabin

Hello Lost viewers,

After a dizzying, troubling week, I am relieved to be able to sit down and share a few Lost thoughts with all of you. So, I present to you my thoughts on the Cabin Fever episode of Lost.

Spoilers ahead.

As usual, I prefer to start with the Widmore-Ben war and how the mythology plays out over the course of years. It seems, Dharma and the Hostiles were at odds when Ben first arrived on the island. On one side, there was Horace Goodspeed, who worked for Dharma, and apparently built a cabin in the woods. He was a mathematician or something and he recruited Roger Linus to the island with no clear sinister (or hidden) objective. Ben was a tag along. At the same time, Richard Alpert, an ageless wonder, was a doctor/scientist/school teacher, who was trying to acquire gifted youth, John Locke for many years to his "Portland" based science camp called Mittelos, an anagram for time lost, for those of you new the show.

So, Alpert, who was apparently in the group that opposes Goodspeed tried to recruit Locke in the 50's and early 70's. Then, around 2000, when Locke began to despair, he was visited by Abaddon, who currently works for Widmore (not the hostiles or Alpert presumably, and possibly even works for the remnants of the Dharma Initiative) and was told to go on the walkabout, that leads John to the island (oh and John owes Abaddon a favor). Abaddon is much more than an orderly, he's also an Oceanic lawyer and a military strategist of sorts. Okay, so Alpert, who was one of the hostiles, possibly even their leader, wants John on the island (and later helped John kill his father to take command of the island folk). Alpert, in the current time, works for/reports to Ben. Then, Abaddon wants John on the island, and he may be working for Widmore. Then, to make matters more confusing, Goodspeed's ghost, who used to work for Dharma, now wants John to find Jacob.

So, all three groups at some point are pointing John to the same point, to finding Jacob (and possibly becoming Jacob?). The only thing that helps all of this make sense is Ben. Ben is consistently for keeping power for himself, which means hindering John from taking power. He's tried mental approaches, trying to make John kill his estranged passed, trying mental approaches, trying to deter John's self-confidence, and he's tried physical approaches, shooting John in the kidney-hole.

But, John was not ready for his ascendancy until the crash. Ben has in the meanwhile rose to power with his own specialness, and strives to keep that power. In his revelation that it was not his decision to purge Dharma, he revealed that he was no always in charge. In fact, since he's been in charge, it seems that the hostiles have made efforts to keep John away from the cabin (save for the sneaky sneaky efforts of Alpert) and now, it seems Dharma people and Widmore people are trying to get John to the island.

More and more, it seems Widmore is ahead of the game now, knowing where Ben is going to be after Keamy fails to extract him at the barracks. Widmore is apparently a very smart man, and likely has some of the island future telling magic that Ben seems to have lost.

John, the star of this week's episode, now seems back to accepting his role as superhero. It turns out he's special because he was born around the 6 month mark like Ben was (someone check Walt's medical history) and of course, that is the death knell for island pregnancies. But, John is special and because he's special, he gets to go see Christian Shepard and his daughter Claire in Jacob or Horace's cabin. John can find the cabin, he can go into the cabin, and he can move the island. Wait... what? Yep, that's absurd, or is it? Yes, it's absurd. Can he move the island spacially to connect with the other island that Ben imprisoned Ben on? What good would that do? Could it mean move the island on the time line, so that the island loses a day or something? It's very possible in this Lost world that centers around some sort of rift in the space-time continuum that some people like Ben and Widmore (and Jacob?) are able to exploit to know things about the future.

For example, Richard Alpert has some sort of eternal youth (or he's a ghost like everyone else seems to be, e.g.s Christian, Claire, Horace, Charlie, Echo's brother). Also, Alpert showed up and asked little John (the show called him that, not me, after the Robin Hood character of huge stature) to tell him what already belonged to him. Unfortunately for John and Alpert, John wasn't ready, either psychicly (meaning he couldn't read the future yet because he didn't understand his purpose, didn't have flashbacks, conscience time travel, or whatever yet) or because he wasn't psychologically ready for being special. Ben was refused his first time too.

Also, the Island is already moving in time. I'm not sure what I mean, but that's what the show does to me. I never exactly know what I mean. But, a good example of this is that the Islanders see a dead body and contact the ship, who correctly answer them, that the dead body of the doctor is alive and well. Hours later, after Sayid went to rescue the others following the proper bearings, and when he arrives, the body has already been there for quite some time. Entry to the island seems to be a space time rift, and changing the bearings, will likely move the island sufficiently to mess with the coordinates and with my head.

I want to note that they show various things that "belong to" Locke when he's a kid, as he's growing up and then actually owns them.

Doc Jensen proposed the idea of Ben as the island's back-up plan, which warrants further consideration, but not enough for me to delve into the theory.

My buddy from www.melanism.com suggested that Locke is going to switch the bearings after the Oceanic 6 get off the island, so they can't go back and find the island. That sounds about right to me, but I don't want to get too deep into that idea because it's not my idea and he should get credit for it, should the idea land him some sort of prize money. That is unless, the prize is something related to Lost, then, it was actually my idea. Nah, I can't even fake having an idea that is close to accurate. I saw this website where Lindeloff and Cuse (the 2 main writers) respond and grade various theories posited by write in emails. I tried to grade them too, and each theory that they thought was excellent, well-crafted and close to the truth- I guessed was ridiculous. And vice versa. So, I am not on the same page as these writers, so I trust other people's opinions more than my own.

Also, how's that for some lazy blogging, just using other people's ideas. I like it. Are there rules, saying I can't do that?

No one tells me what I can't do,
ME PB

Home Heaven

Hello readers,

although I have lots to report about my own life, I will spare you that boring stuff, and delve right into something much more exciting. TV. More specifically, the program, Lost... again. Send your complaints to your email address, in care of me.

SPOILERS! for those who haven't seen the last episode.

This Jack-centric episode reminded me again, why this show is not only the most intriguing plotline on TV, not only the most rewarding for people looking for religious, philosphical, literary, (etc.) meaning through a story and through cultural references, but it's also got a constant that brings us all back to the heart of the show, character connections. The show is filled with interesting characters, diverse in backgrounds and personalites, but what makes the show unique is how these players connect. I'm not just talking about the fun connections like Christian Shepard secretly being the father of two people on the island, and having met several other characters on the island before they arrived (although that begs a few questions about him and his almost supernatural influence on the Losties), I'm talking about how these characters interconnect in this forced island setting, and how their pasts affected them today. And for the first time, we see, how these characters every day life in the future are affected by this lost experience, not just when they are killers or rich lunatics, or on a celebrity trial, but how it affects their days and their relationships, having been on the island.

Enough with what I'm not talking about, and onto what I am talking about: Jack Shepard... his relationship with his father, with his love, with his child (half-nephew), with his lack of friends (where is Silverman?), with his co-workers, and with his flock. No on embodies this notion of connection better than Jack who has little tolerance for himself and thus depends entirely upon his connection with others.

Perhaps it all started with his genetics, or with his erratic relationship with his father, or perhaps it was his own choices, as when he tried to protect the downtrodden from a bully when he was just a boy, but Jack has been depending on people, needing people to need him for quite some time. He is constantly saved by these people who need him: saved by his first wife, who needed him to perform miracle surgery and then recover. He was saved by the Losties when his life was falling apart just as he came to the island, and they needed him to lead. He was saved by Kate/Aaron who needed someone to complete their fictional family unit. And ultimately, most likely, he will be saved one more time, by his friend Hurley who pointed out that he does live in a fictional world (in a constructed heaven and not a home goodness), and his happiness is not true happiness because of his deep personal baggage and the, as of yet, unfulfilled promise he made to the islanders.

My affection for this episode started because I personally enjoy Jack episodes, (aside from the episode about his arm ink), and grew when I saw that despite his agony, Jack stood up and faced his flock, and denied them a pound of flesh from the two lying scientists by treating them with compassion and dealing with the upcoming problem with his ever-present resolve, promising to prepare for any impending attack in an effort to get his people off the island.

But, the episode piqued my devoted attention and solidified its place in the pantheon (using a term crafted by the Boston Sports Guy) of Lost episodes with the reading of what I later learned was Alice in Wonderland. (For the purposes of this blog post, don't concern yourself with the context of Alice in Wonderland, which is a Lost favorite for many reasons, expounded in Jensen's column, as well as in previous blogs.) The passage was moving, but also extremely revealing. As we look at Jack (as well as all the other characters), we see the dramatic transformations that have occurred over the course of this trip to the island. And we learn about his constant struggle, and conversation with himself? Who is he in times of peril? Who is he in times of happiness? Who are any of us in these situations, when we are in a paradox or a quandary, or when we are in bliss. As we all have learned, in times of strife, Jack rises to the occasion and is revered by others who depend on him for his great strength. In times of joy, he becomes a monster, who is seemingly out to destroy that emotion within himself, but that is when he depends on other people the most. Jack seems to understand this dichotomy and he does not ignore it, but instead he turns inside himself for answers, and despite or perhaps because of his overanalysis of the situation, he magnifies his problems.

And who used to read this book excerpt to Jack that helped define his understanding of himself? His father. Christian Shepard is the most important single influence in Jack's life and over the course of many years and through a number of bouts with alcoholism, Christian revealed his lack of faith in his son, perhaps in large part because of his own failings as a man. Christian constantly recognized the disappointment in his ever-achieving son, while only rarely expressing his pride. But, was that what defined Jack? That Daddy didn't hug him enough? Is he out to make daddy proud? No, in fact, it was his resistance to his father's advice about heroism, and not his numerous similarites that made him so appealing a leader to the Losties. Nobody tells Jack (or Locke or Kate or Sawyer) what he can't do. It all hearkens back to "fate" and/or "course correcting". If there is some sort of destiny for Jack, whether it is to be a successful family man, or a first rate surgeon, or a dominant leadership position on the island, he is up to the task, but is contantly pushing it away and testing the boundaries; he is contantly revolting against the outside authorities trying to control him. Jack, in that way, is much like Winston Churchill, the man widely revered in America, and often denigrated in Britain, because America is aware of his bravado, strength and wisdom in wartime, while during times of peace, he was constantly actively seeking (anticipating) the next conflict. So, Christian's alcoholism, and bitterness left a resounding impact in Jack's soul and it echoed throughout his life.

His father even affects his love life. Jack and Kate are a pair that seemingly does not make sense, in that he is a respected doctor and she is an escaped convict. In order for her to get off relatively free, he had to drag himself through the mud and commit purgery on her behalf. But, again, knowing Jack, the decision is perfectly logical, and he jumps to the defense of a person in need and does whatever it takes, reasonable or unreasonable and miraculously saves the woman, and proposes to her. And through it all, he worries about whether or not he's the same person he was before the paradox of this day, and maybe in this topsy turvy world of Lost, and even our topsy turvy world, it would be better if he was not the same person, and he comes out of the Island trauma cleansed of the hero complex (the same one that led to Boone's downfall). Or maybe, like Charlie and Echo and Shannon and... Jin?, once you are cleansed of your dominant character flaws, you are doomed.

But, what about his relationship with Kate? Wwe've seen her have relationships in the past in which she appeared happy, even, downright content, such as the Nathan Fillion relationship, but Kate's natural inclination, when there is a problem in her life is to run, to flee. For the record though, when there is a problem in someone else's life about whom she cares deeply, ala her mother or presumably Aaron, she actively gets rid of the bad influence. So, Kate, determined to remain secretive and to live up to her baser instincts, flees from a potentially promising relationship with someone who loves her and her "son" deeply by getting rid of Jack, at least in part protects Aaron.

Speaking of father (type-person who is really an uncle) and son. Jack apparently acknowledged his blood kinship with Aaron (meaning in the future, he knows about his uncle-hood) and also decided to take an active role in child rearing. He reads to the little one, and maybe even cleans up Star Wars toys after him, cussing all the while. Like father like son. Jack starts drinking, starts questioning his own abilities as a father, and starts becoming a poor father. It is often the case (I will withhold examples) that great people are not good parents. It makes sense to me, because often in taking on the responsibilities of greatness, whether it is in leadership, science, arts, sports, or regular professional life, one has to devote incredible amounts of time, attention, and focus to achieving widely acclaimed success, and often taking the necessary "quantity time" away from living a well-balanced life. Can Jack be a great man? Jack's biggest lifelong critic, his father, once told Sawyer (in an Aussie dive bar) that he thought Jack could be a great man and he certainly is not panning out to be much of a parental figure with his late nights at work, trips to the insane asylum, and the drinking.

But, where is he great? Are his miracle surgeries what makes him great... or what about his, at times, questionable leaderhip? Well, he made a promise to his flock, the islanders, that he would get them off the island. Sure, we can explain how he came to be great by explaining his various skills, his caring, his dedication, and his obvious height advantage. But, actions make a person great. At the time of his appendectomy, Jack had already saved several people medically, led these people from fear and helped them survive and thrive in the face of terrible adversity: warding off internal strife on various occasions, often involving intently self-interested parties (a.k.a. Sawyer), potential virus scares, killers amongst them (e.g.s Ethan and Michael), various kidnapping attempts (i.e. Ben's kidnapping of pregnant women, children, and the big four), hostile others, potentially hostile lying freighteries, supernatural smoke monsters, unusual hostile wildlife (ala polar bears), scarce resources crises, failed rescue efforts, and general administrative and management concerns and using Locke's outdoor skills, Sayid's technical skills, etc. to maximize advantages to maintain hope, optimism, and civility and get his people ever closer to getting off this island that through supernatural, natural, technological, and multiple human methods are collaborating to keep them stranded and lost. Moreover, he subsequently succeeded in getting some of them off the island, and he is determined to get the rest of them off the island. I am hopeful that he will succeed (in Season 6).

Oh, and it's worth noting, almost none of these islanders have many friends. Even Hurley, who is eminently personable has an invisible best friend (Dave?). Jack's best man, (Silverman?) plays almost no role in any of his decision making processes, hence appearing in only one flashback. Kate's friendships are tied in with her love-life. So, on the island, all of these people are more than friendly; they are caring and dedicated and important to each other; they are friends. Before the island, and after the island, in all of the scenes of their lives that we are privy to (which are always the most revealing moments about how they came to make their current decisions) have almost nothing to do with their friendships. The show is telling us, sure, peers can pressure you into something you are not, temporarily, but families (along with your jobs and your loves) mold you into who you are and who you will become (whether by pressuring you to comply with the family tradition or by leading you to rebel against the family mold). So, what will become of Aaron? Is the Island telling Jack not to raise him? And if so, does it mean Jack is not well enough to raise him, and would exert a poor influence? No one tells Jack what he can't do.

But, what of his co-workers? Jack was actually co-workers with his father. Sure, someone precribed him some clonazepam for depression and to help him sleep, but she seemed surprised that they were talking. And his boss in the future really respects him before becoming suspicious of Jack's drug addiction. Because, ultimately, this guy is a maverick who works on his own. He works his own hours, doesn't really report to anyone, doesn't trust anyone else to get the job done (see Juliet, the star-crossed lover,) and although, he might be a masterful surgeon and a capable leader, he doesn't like any idea unless it is his own. He doesn't play well with others.

Sure, we can try and blame his father for his pitfalls, and for his lack of friendships, and for his trouble with women, but this guy is in plenty of torment of his own construction. He welcomes the pain of surgery and the agony of a woman who repeatedly chooses Sawyer over himself, as he continuously devotes himself to her, sacrificing himself for her. He revels in chaos. Not quite the average shepard, but perhaps it is more of a Churchillian trait?

So, who is Jack Shepard? Is he a leader, a healer, a family man, is he any one of us? Or is a contrarian? Perhaps, he is the guy who does good when he is surrounded by bad, and does bad when he is surrounded by good? I'm biased as his deep conflict and his stubborn desire to do good things and great things makes him a compelling character to me. (Contrary to the popular opinion, he is one of my favorite characters, probably second only to Ben.) So, I think he's good and though like many heroes, he is flawed, he will ultimately shine in even the more mundane family environment, along with the hostile conditions on this as of yet unnamed island, or the often even more harsh conditions of the hospital.

So, when is Jack in the paradox that he described from reading his passage to Aaron? I submit to you, that it is not when he is on the island, but when he is off the island. Hurley described the serene environment, and the peace in Jack's heart as heaven, as Jack was able to bring the goodness of home in Kate's house, and remember the goodness of his father beyond the torment. Jack, having realized he is "dead," and having realized that his issues are not resolved, is haunted by the actual dead, his father of course, just as Hurley was haunted by his best friend Charlie. And both come to realize that indeed, they have to go back. Who or what will appear to Kate, Sun, and Sayid? Or do only Hurley and Jack have to go back to save/live with/die with the Losties? Does the apparition have to be someone whose corpse is on the island like Charlie or Christian, so might Shannon come for Sayid, or can it be an off-island corpse like Nadja? Can it be someone who is on the island, but presumably not dead yet like Sawyer, who already is haunting Kate by having her run errands for him, but now haunt her in some physical manifestation or corporeal form?

And whose in the goshdarn box and why don't they have to go back to the island and why do they get to die, when the other Losties can't: Jack (tried to jump off bridge), Michael (tried to crash car, shoot self, and blow self up), Hurley (was in a minor car crash), Sayid (was shot pretty severely), and Widmore (who Ben couldn't kill, though "can't" kill is obviously up for interpretation)? The safe bet on that one is still that Michael is in the box as he has lost all of his friends, is living under an assumed name, has incurred the ire of Kate, and Jack would not call him a friend, has possibly served his purpose to the island by that point, and of course, is actively seeking death.

There are so many unanswered questions in the Lost world? Lost is incredibly entertaining, but is even more special because it occasionally points the finger at the viewer and makes the viewer ask him/her self: "Who am I?" What is my place in this world? Do I have a destiny? Can I change who I am? Should I try? Finally, those are questions I CAN answer for you. But, I would have to charge you for that little slice of heaven.

As always, I wish you the best.
Keep watching, look closer, and the truth is here, so find it,
PB ME