Friday, May 28, 2010

look for tagging...

Now that I'm reposting other blog entries (in particular, posts about LOST and the job market) I think there's a need to start tagging the articles. This weekend I'll take some time to add tags noting not just the general topic, but also where they're from. Hopefully that will make it easier to find just the entries you're looking for.
 
Of course, it would be easier to do this if I could blog from blogger instead of my email account.. oh well.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

More on the employment front...

It's looking good if you're looking:

6 Ways to Keep Your Employees From Jumping Ship

usnews
, On Tuesday May 25, 2010, 2:45 pm EDT
With layoffs declining to a number lower than that of employees quitting, companies are going to have another issue to face in the coming years. This is especially true for companies that have taken advantage of the recessionary employment situation in the handling of their own employees.
 
I know people who have lowered their employees' salaries because "they have to keep this job," or have added on work duties to an already stretched workforce because "they don't have the option to leave, since there are no jobs available."
Mr. Employer: This is changing fast. According to the latest data from LinkUp.com, there are more openings than ever. There are jobs out there, and companies must realize that a few years of pent-up demand is about to be unleashed.
 
So, if you are an employer, what can you do now to stem the tide of employees shouting "I Quit!?"
Six things come to mind.
1. For one thing, as quickly as you can, make meaningful, if small, adjustments to salaries and work schedules. Certainly, opening up lines of communication and holding one-on-one meetings will be helpful to reestablish your company.
2. Remember that pay is always far down the list of reasons why people quit. "Soft" things like respect, culture, and environment all affect the employee who is daydreaming about greener pastures.
3. Do not threaten or lie. I know companies like to describe how evil another employer might be, or how bad the products are. Typically this backfires when the employee realizes later that they were misdirected.
4. Be sure you make the effort to keep your key people. Sometimes in the frenetic pace we all keep, we often forget that our best performers--the people upon whom we depend so much--are also looking. It is almost human nature. We all want to be loved--at home and at work. So, don't forget to show your key people some love at work. Simple things help: update them on new ideas and projects; compliment them; ask for their opinions; give them tickets to a game. Even a brief but sincere showing of gratitude will work wonders.
5. Next (and this is touchy, but I recommend it) I think you must let it be known that if someone quits, there is a company policy against hiring quitting employees. Before I get flamed here again for this, let me be clear that I do understand that every company is different and I know some make a practice of hiring ex-employees back. In fact, in my own start-ups, I have not followed my advice in every case.
But far too often, someone, particularly a younger employee, will quit just to try out a new job. If your company functions as a safety net, and you will always hire people back, rest assured that more people will test this part of your policy manual. Of course, doing so sends bad messages and creates all sorts of problems for you with the people who stay and remain loyal to you.
6. What else can employers do? I think now is the time to start new projects. New product development efforts should be increased and more people included in the process. Nothing excites employees more than belonging to an organization that is always investing the future and trying new things. If your people can't brag about what is happening at the BBQ this summer, they might be looking around.
Obviously, if you have taken advantage of your employees during this crisis, and that management style has been pervasive among senior leadership, you are going to have some people quitting. And for you, I have a simple question.
What did you expect?

Edumacation...

See? I've been saying for years that these "schools" are at best diploma mills, and at worst they're out and out theives. If the guy who bet AGAINST U.S. homeowners calls them "socially destructive and morally bankrupt" who the hell am I to argue? I wonder how many students can't get funding (other than loans that barely cover tuition and books) because these "schools" are siphoning off of the pool? I'll see if I can find the article in which the people in the registration office were "enrolled" at the school (i.e. the school was being paid to have them as students) but weren't attending classes or seeking any kind of degree. Sickening.
 
Also from Slate (their emphasis), excerpted from Mother Jones at http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/steve-eisman-big-short-michael-lewis

 

Big Short Investor Bets Against For-Profit Colleges

In a speech on Wednesday, an investor who made billions betting that the subprime mortgage market would collapse predicted that for-profit colleges are well on their way to suffering a similar fate. "Until recently, I thought that there would never again be an opportunity to be involved with an industry as socially destructive and morally bankrupt as the subprime mortgage industry. I was wrong," Steve Eisman told the audience at the Ira Sohn Investment Research Conference. Eisman, who was featured in Michael Lewis' book The Big Short, argued that for-profit colleges—the kind that are advertised on TV and on buses—are not so different from the subprime market. They have access to federally backed debt, and face little oversight from the government, or anybody else, for that matter. Despite having a fraction of the country's post-secondary students, Eisman noted that last year "for-profit educators raked in almost one-quarter of the $89 billion in available Title IV loans and grants." To boot, Eisman noted that the degrees mean little in the real world, and that dropout rates are well over fifty percent. Like bad mortgages, "the for-profits have become increasingly adept at pitching the dream of a better life and higher earnings to the most vulnerable." Finally, Eisman says, with new government regulations in the works, for-profit schools could face a 40 to 50 percent financial hit this year. "We just loaded up one generation of Americans with mortgage debt they can't afford to pay back, Eisman concluded. "Are we going to load up a new generation with student loan debt they can never afford to pay back?"

Mother Jones | Thursday, May 27, 2010

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

another from Slate...

This time from DoubleX. 
 

Please Create a Registry

 

I'm in a dilemma that I'm sure many have experienced: There's a 3-4 month period when everyone near and dear to me seems to have a birthday, one right after another. And while I know them like the back of my own hand, I have trouble thinking of that perfect gift, and the pressure of thinking up a one perfect gift after another can prove to be too much trouble. In that light, weddings can feel like a blessing, a break from the game of trying to surprise someone with a perfect gift. Which is why, when I see articles about couples who find the gift registry distasteful, I want to scream. We have to get dressed and drive out there and make small talk with your elderly relatives and dance badly to some corny music. Please let us have the relief of knowing what to get you for a wedding gift.
I realize that people who shy away from the registry mean well. On paper, the registry seems greedy and presumptuous. But in reality, what's way more greedy and presumptuous is wanting the ego-fluffing of the surprise gift that happens to be just what you wanted—wanting someone to have spent the time and energy listing out what they know about you (or researching to find out) so they can come up with their own ideas. In the real world, the registry signals that you respect your guests' time and energy and don't want to give them the headache of having to guess at what pattern of towels you'd prefer or research whether you already have a certain kitchen gadget.
I usually adore Miss Manners, but her war against the registry is simply misplaced. If she honestly thinks that it's delightful to go to Crate & Barrel and figure out which painfully tasteful set of coffee mugs will delight the bride, then she needs to get out more. And as for the woman in the article who objected to couples listing silly items like cupcake spatulas on their registry, I have to ask who has the time and energy to sit in judgment on someone else's kitchen supplies? Maybe the bride really likes cupcakes. They are quite fashionable right now.
 
 

Lost finale... I LOLd

Again from Slate:
 
From: Seth Stevenson
To: Chadwick Matlin and Jack Shafer
Subject: Season 6: I've Had Time To Let It All Sink In, and I Still Think the Finale Sucked

So I've given it another day to sink in, and I'm still profoundly irritated by that ending. It rendered this whole season of Lost pretty silly. And it barely made sense on its own terms.
For instance: How did Sayid graduate from purgatory to Heaven when he was actively snapping necks? God smiled on this behavior? And why does Sayid end up spending eternity with Shannon, his ditzy island booty call, instead of with Nadia, his one true soul mate? If I were him, I'd want a do-over.
Why did Jack react so calmly when he realized with finality that he'd never had a son? Wouldn't he be angry? Or at least extremely disappointed? He changed all those diapers, had all those stilted father-son conversations, paid for all those piano lessons … and the kid wasn't real? If I were him, I'd want a refund.
I think the writers of Lost, as they pondered possible conclusions, realized their only shot at making everybody happy was to employ a tried-and-true method that the world's religions have been on to for millennia: Tell us there's a heaven where we'll be reunited with our loved ones after we die. Everyone likes to hear that. Who could complain? Best ending ever!
I've seen the idea posited that there are two kinds of Lost fans: 1) those who watch for the sci-fi twists and surprises, and 2) those who watch for the characters and relationships. If you watch for the mysteries, this theory holds, you were disappointed by the finale. If you watch for the characters and relationships, you were thrilled to wallow in those happy reunion hugs in that nondenominational spiritual venue.
But who on earth watches Lost for the characters? That has always been the show's evident weakness. If you want strong characterization and believable relationship arcs, you were tuning in to exactly the wrong program. (I suggest you flip over to Mad Men or Friday Night Lights.) Lost had six seasons to develop its characters, yet many of them haven't changed one iota. Jack is exactly the same dour, earnest martyr that he's always been. In fact, that character hasn't even developed since Matthew Fox played him on Party of Five [CC: zing!!]—he's still got the weight of the world on his shoulders, trying to do the right thing, hoping to be the glue that holds everyone together, smiling approximately once per season.
I can only hope that some pissed-off, enterprising Lost fan will do for the final season what other irate fanboys have done for the Star Wars prequels: re-edit the whole sloppy mess into something better. [cc: me too.]

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

finally- I don't disagree...


More Workers Start to Quit

by Joe Light
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
provided by
wsjlogo.gif
As the job market begins to loosen up, human-resource managers might increasingly be surprised by an announcement from employees they haven't heard in a while: "I quit."
 
In February, the number of employees voluntarily quitting surpassed the number being fired or discharged for the first time since October 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Before February, the BLS had recorded more layoffs than resignations for 15 straight months, the first such streak since the bureau started tracking the data a decade ago. Since the BLS began tracking the data, the average number of people voluntarily leaving their jobs per month has been about 2.7 million. But since October 2008, the average number dropped to as low as 1.72 million. In March, it was about 1.87 million.
makingmove.jpg
And recent sentiment indicates that the number of employees quitting could continue to grow in the coming months. In a poll conducted by human-resources consultant Right Management at the end of 2009, 60% of workers said they intended to leave their jobs when the market got better. "The research is fairly alarming," says Michael Haid, senior vice president of global solutions for Right Management. "The churn for companies could be very costly."
Adecco Group, a world-wide staffing firm based in Zurich, has seen several of its clients ask for candidates for key positions after employees made surprise departures, says Vice President Rich Thompson. Although so far there haven't been widespread departures, Mr. Thompson says his company is readying itself for large-scale changes within the next few months. "We're preparing for a massive reshuffling of talent at all job levels in all industries," he says, noting that the recession earlier this decade was so short and shallow that the turnover this time around is likely to be much greater.
Recruiters and human-resource experts say the increase in employees giving notice is a product of two forces. First, the natural turnover of employees leaving to advance their careers didn't occur during the recession because jobs were so scarce. This created a backlog of workers waiting for better times to make a move to better jobs. The median monthly voluntary turnover rate in 2009 was 0.5%, half of the rate in 2008, according to the Bureau of National Affairs, a specialized news publisher for professionals.
 
During the recession, even if they heard of an opening, employees were reluctant to switch employers, says Peter Cappelli, director of the Center for Human Resources at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. "The idea of moving when the world was already in uncertainty was quite scary," he says. But those hang-ups are disappearing, and employees are becoming more receptive to recruiter calls and beginning to tap their networks again for signs of opportunities, he says.
Another factor making it harder for companies to retain employees is the effect of the heavy cost-cutting and downsizing during the downturn on workers' morale. A survey conducted last summer for the Conference Board, a management research organization, found that the drivers of the drop in job fulfillment included less satisfaction with wages and less interest in work. In 2009, 34.6% of workers were satisfied with their wages, down more than seven percentage points from 1987. About 51% in 2009 said they were interested in work, down 19 percentage points from 1987.
"Employees feel disengaged with their jobs, which is going to lead to a lot of churn as we come out of the recession," says Brett Good, a district president of Southern California for Robert Half International, an executive recruiting firm.
Mr. Good, who worked for Robert Half in the San Francisco Bay Area earlier this decade,says his company saw a "tremendous amount" of departures from technology companies that needed to be refilled when the dot-com recession ended. Already, Mr. Good says he's received calls from executives who nine months ago felt trapped because of economic conditions and didn't want to lose sure-thing positions, but now feel they're able to move on. "They feel like 'a bird in the hand' isn't good enough anymore," he says.
An increase in turnover can be costly for companies. It typically costs a company about half of the position's annual salary to recruit a person for that job, but the cost can run up to several times that if the position requires rare skills, says Right Management's Mr. Haid. Convincing employees to stay might not be cheap either. Nearly 5,400 members of TheLadders.com, a job board for positions that pay $100,000 or more, responded to an April survey that asked how much more money it would take to convince them to stay if they wanted to leave. More than 20% said it would take a raise of more than $25,000. In all, about 50% of respondents said it would take more than $15,000.
To re-engage employees, Robert Half International is advising clients to hold town hall meetings and one-on-one sessions with employees to hear grievances and try to rekindle interest in the company among workers, Mr. Good says. Some clients had made broad-based cuts in departments based solely on salary or without regard to employee tenure, damaging the trust of the employees who survived, Mr. Good says.
Florida Hospital Flagler, an 850-employee hospital in northern Florida, faced a 30% turnover rate in 2008, almost double the average for area hospitals, says Alyson Parker, director of human resources. That dipped to 20% in 2009 as the economy suppressed voluntary departures, but the hospital still spent $3 million in 2009 on covering open positions, and finding and training new employees. The average search for a new nurse, for example, costs the hospital between $52,000 and $60,000, Ms. Parker says. This year, the hospital implemented regular town hall and department meetings, and one-on-one "stay" interviews for employees to air grievances and give ways to improve the work environment. So far, the measures have helped the hospital to lower its turnover rate by about 2 percentage points. "We're trying to catch people before they even start looking for a new job, which will become even more important as the economy improves and more opportunities at competitors open up," Ms. Parker says.
Human-resource managers often have trouble getting resources from top management until employees actually start to leave, says Mr. Cappelli. In the late 1990s, companies that were losing employees started to offer concierge services, discounted lunches, and hiring bonuses in a mad scramble to keep employees and recruit new ones, a trend Mr. Cappelli says could come back if the job market continues to improve. But this time around, Mr. Cappelli says companies might try to deal with more nuanced employee requests, such as lowering stress at work, improving work-life balance, and creating more opportunities for career advancement within the company.
For some employees, it might be too late. Dice.com, a job board for tech professionals, asked members what could persuade them to stay in their jobs if they found another opportunity. More than 57% of the 1,273 surveyed said nothing could persuade them to stay. Of those who said they could be persuaded, 42% said they wanted a higher salary and 11% wanted a promotion.

My solution to the oil spill...

Blow it up. The Russians used nukes. We can use a conventional weapon, but it's time to stop pussyfooting around. The environmental damage from a bomb will be far less than allowing the Deepwater Horizon well to continute to spill oil into the Gulf. Tough shit for BP and their ability to tap that reserve- they should have thought about that when they were bitching that a $500,000 emergency valve was too expensive.
Food for thought: BP is a foreign company. They take the oil off of our coast, have it refined in the US and then sell it back to us- are there really NO American companies that could be doing this work? Is it time for the gov't to get into the oil business a la Venezuela? Now WE get to pay for the cleanup because there's some bullshit cap on damages of like $75M and this is going to cost billions (plus, like Prince William Sound, the Gulf won't ever really recover).

Monday, May 24, 2010

LOST Finale... still continuing

more from the folks at Slate:
 
From: Chadwick Matlin
To: Jack Shafer and Seth Stevenson
Subject: Season 6: The Bomb Did Not Work

Well, shit.
Jack, for the last two years you and I have been engaged in our own struggle of reason vs. faith. At nearly every turn, you told me that the show had written itself into a corner, and the only way out was through a hackneyed trick-door. I didn't believe you—Lost had righted itself so many times that I was convinced it could do it again.
Now I say to you the same thing Locke said to Eko in Season 2: "I was wrong." Last night Lost crashed, and crashed hard.
Granted, for about two hours there, I thought the show might just find an abandoned runway to make an emergency landing. Contrary to your disgust, Jack, I was enthralled with the episode until His Holiness Christian Shephard showed up for a heart-to-heart with Jesus Jack. Like Seth, I thought the cliffside skirmish was one of the highlights of the season. The flashbacks were surprisingly emotional, like looking through a high-school yearbook the night before graduation. Seeing all the different characters arrive at the concert was like watching a gang of superheroes assemble for one last hurrah.
But then … well, it's nearly too painful to revisit. Tomorrow, I'm going to write a full missive on those final 15 minutes and what it tells us about the show's larger message. (An advance abstract: Fates are discovered; choices are destined.) In the meantime, let's all agree with Seth: The revelation that the flash-sideways were visions of a collective purgatory was sudden, abrupt, and rude. This season wasn't a long con. It was a weak trick.
The purgatory scenes are a symptom of what, in retrospect, was Lost's greatest flaw. It refused to follow its own advice and let dead be dead. In the early seasons, Lost prided itself on its willingness to kill off any character it wanted. This, we were told, was proof that on the island the stakes were high. But then Lost's writers fell in love with their characters, and people started wearing bulletproof vests, recovering from harpoons to the heart, and returning as Demon Spawn. By granting the characters' souls eternal life, in purgatory or elsewhere, the writers diminished our interest in their actual lives—the ones audiences spent six years watching. Lost's writers should have taken a lesson from their characters and learned to let go.
In the end, though, the purgatorial clusterfuck was relatively self-enclosed. It's tempting to let it ruin the entire series, but it was more of a discrete miniseries than an integral part of the show. This is not the kind of thing that invalidates all that came before. It merely taints it, providing nagging proof that maybe the writers weren't actually the geniuses you hoped/expected/thought they were. If you edited the flash-sideways scenes out of the season, the show would still stand on its own and would be a stronger, more cohesive piece of television.
Imagine, for example, a final season that doesn't feature the flash-sideways at all. (ABC, please make this an option on the DVD set.) This final season then plays out relatively nicely. (Though, Jack, you'd still take issue with much of it.) The final scene of Dr. Jack closing his eyes in the bamboo forest is poignant, as is his martyrdom. The characters on the island meet different fates (unlike the one-note purgatorial lovefest), but they all attain some sort of emotional resolution. And although there are an astounding number of loose ends (I think of a new one about every hour), the key questions—What is the island? Who will win? Who will Kate ultimately suck face with?—have all been answered.
Most importantly, the finale answered the question we all wondered about heading into this season: Did the bomb work? Now that we know the purgatory stuff has nothing to do with what happened on the island (besides a vampire bite here and there), we can say that the bomb absolutely did not work. This was the most important but underplayed revelation of last night: The incident—the one that Chang talks about in the Dharma training videos—was always the nuclear bomb. Faraday was wrong about everything. Whatever happened, happened.
Unless it happened after you died, in which case it's just a figment of your anxious subconscious. Was anyone else extremely confused by the disappearance of Jack's son? I haven't rewatched the finale yet—and don't know if I'll be able to for some time—but I don't think Jack Jr. reappears after Locke tells Jack he doesn't have a son. And what are we to read into Locke's comment last week that JJ looks just like Jack? Is Jack's son nothing more—and nothing less—than the ultimate expression of Jack's narcissism? I say yes!
There are, as always, plenty of other things to discuss. These questions are even more rhetorical than usual, since now we know they'll never be answered.
  • We've seen the church that they all assemble in before. It's the same one that Ms. Hawking uses to guide the castaways back to the island in Season 5. (It's called "The Lamppost," which is another C.S. Lewis allusion.) What's the significance of that? Are they actually headed back to the island, or some version of it? And what will it look like when they get there?
  • Why do they all need to leave together? Couldn't Desmond smooch Penny, get her to remember their old life, and then shack up in the eternal light? Why wait for everybody else (sans Faraday and Charlotte apparently) to have the same awakening? This was the hokiest element of the purgatory segment to me—the idea that they all loved each other so much they wanted to spend every moment for the rest of time together. This also means the Jack-Kate-Sawyer staring contest is sure to flare up again a million years from now.
  • Where are Michael, Walt, and Eko in this collective purgatory? Does their absence mean that they don't cherish their island-mates the way the rest of the characters do? Or that the producers hate black people? Discuss.
  • So if removing the plug broke all of the island's rules (the Man in Black becomes mortal, etc.), what does that mean about Jacob's off-island actions? Does Juliet's sister suddenly have cancer again? Is Dogen's kid no longer brought back from the dead? Am I the only one who still cares about these things?
  • Speaking of the plug, it had hieroglyphs on it. Who put them there? Smokey in his spare time? The skeletons that were lying around down there? Presumably it wasn't Jacob, since he was told never to go down into the cave.
  • One last plug question: Why did it sound like a motor stopped when Desmond pulled it out? Could the light have been powering some type of hell-stopping machine?
  • Why does Kate change outfits in the church? Does she not want to wear a little black dress for the rest of eternity?
  • What was the point of having everyone look into mirrors in the flash-purgatories? Is it a symbol of self-evaluation—the mirror as the place where we can reflect on ourselves and on our souls?
  • Why does Jack's neck actually bleed? I don't mean to ask about the parallel, I get that. But why is Jack the only character whose island death carries over to purgatory? If Jack's neck is bleeding, Boone's leg should be falling off! Charlie should be coughing up water at all times! Then again, maybe that's why he's drowning himself in alcohol. Those Lost writers, so clever.
  • Oh, and I suppose Jack's appendix scar was not only a result of Juliet removing it in Season 4 but of Smokey stabbing it in Season 6.
  • Why is Juliet the only character who spoke from beyond the grave when she was on the island? Last night we saw that her "Let's grab coffee" line was an artifact from purgatory. Are there other characters that had a similar thing happen to them? Somebody assemble a YouTube mashup of everyone's dying breaths. Eko's final words—"I saw the devil"—seem especially worth investigation.
Gentlemen, we'll talk again tomorrow, when hopefully this stuff will make a little more sense or hurt a little less. Until then, I'm playing "The Constant" on repeat so I can remember the good times.

LOST Finale... continued

This was on Yahoo, looks to be from the AP:
 

'Lost' addresses years of questions in finale

Mon May 24, 3:54 AM PDT
The premiere of "Lost" ended memorably with Charlie's plaintive question to his fellow island castaways: "Guys, where ARE we?"
Six seasons and some 120 episodes later, many viewers might be wondering the same thing as the much-awaited "Lost" finale brought the series to a rapturous close Sunday night.
Viewers, where are we? The answer: Almost anywhere we want to be.
(Spoiler alert for what follows.)
If ever a TV series could be likened to a journey, "Lost" is it, and as it came to the end of the road it left its audience with comfort and inspiration more than hard answers. There was also, not surprisingly, a sense of being lost in the maw of a show that henceforth will give up nothing more, a show whose sweep and ambiguity will fuel debate and theorizing from its viewers for years to come.
That, dear viewers, is where you are.
Led by a two-hour retrospective, ABC's Super Bowl Sunday-scale drama event was capped by the two-and-one-half-hour-long finale.
As they have all season, story lines overlapped between the characters on the island and in their parallel lives in the "normal" world back home in California.
On the island, Jack (Matthew Fox) has volunteered from among the designated candidates to take over from Jacob (Mark Pellegrino) as the island's protector.
The Smoke Monster, occupying the body of Locke (Terry O'Quinn), wants to stop the candidates, kill them, destroy the island and sail away.
Back in Los Angeles, Jack, by profession a surgeon, is about to operate on Locke, who (in this incarnation) is crippled.
"If I can fix you, Mr. Locke, that's all the peace I'll need," Jack says.
But then back on the island, Jack and the Monster-Who-Looks-Like-Locke have a tense confrontation.
"So it's you," says Monster-Locke, meaning the island's new protector. "I assume you're here to stop me."
"Can't stop you," Jack says, but promises instead, "I'm gonna kill you."
Well, he doesn't. But a bit later, Kate (Evangeline Lilly) somehow kills the monster-who-is-mortal-again with a single gunshot after a fierce cliffside fight between him and Jack.
Back in L.A., Locke's surgery is a success. From his bed, he gratefully tells Jack he has feeling back in his legs.
"Jack, I hope that somebody does for you what you just did for me," Locke says to a disturbed-looking Jack, who seems to be having flashes of memory of his alternate existence. It's the sort of memory bursts all the characters are having: island recollections invading their consciousness.
A few minutes later, Jack runs into Kate, his island love, as they, too, play the haven't-I-seen-you-somewhere-before game.
"What is happening to me?" says Jack, bewildered as she looks at him adoringly. "Who are you?"
"I know you don't understand, Jack," she says. "But if you come with me, you will."
Come with her where?
To a church where the former castaways are gathered for what seems a beatific funeral reception for themselves. At this reunion, everyone is smiling and embracing. The room floods with light.
And Jack reconciles with his dead father, whose body he had been bringing back from Sydney when Oceanic flight 815 crashed on the lost island at the start of the series.
Jack has a tender conversation with the man he had clashed with so often before.
"I don't understand," says Jack. "You died."
"Yes, I did."
"Then how are you here right now?"
"How are YOU here?" his father (John Terry) replies.
"I died, too," says Jack, beginning to weep.
"That's OK, son."
And yet it's all real, his father assures him.
"Everything that's ever happened to you is real. All those people in the church, they're all real, too."
"They're all dead?" Jack asks.
"Everyone dies sometime, kiddo," his father replies gently.
Through the run of the series, there was much talk among its characters of being on the island for a purpose. As it draws to a close, "Lost" has sustained the eerie feeling (eerie for TV, anyway) that it was on the air for a purpose — a special purpose beyond selling products and filling time, or even entertainment.
Its cast, producers, writers and the rest seemed drawn to create "Lost," and keep creating it year after year, thanks to fate as much as show-biz urgencies.
Deeper and wider than any TV series should dare to be, it has been thrilling, captivating, confounding (and, at times, pretty tedious), while it challenged its viewers to think, talk and feel.
The series ended where it began six seasons ago after the plane crash: with a close-up of Jack's eye opening as he lay on the ground. But this time, his eye was open and it shut.
That's where "Lost" leaves us viewers as it shuts down. Maybe not so clear about all we've seen, but challenged. Still a little lost, but reassured.

LOST finale... continued

 
From: Jack Shafer
To: Chadwick Matlin and Seth Stevenson
Subject: Goddamn You, Lost

After six seasons, you call a prom of the dead in a chapel of love where everybody is farting rainbows, where all the primary Oceanic 815 survivors are redeemed, where a loving "Dad" opens a Spielbergian door of light to the greater beyond ("Where are we going?" "Let's go find out.")—a finale?
I'm sure that you, Chad, will attempt to untangle the Mobius strip and smash the Klein bottle that is Lost and map some coherence onto tonight's episode, and hence the whole series. But I'm here to tell you that the island doesn't need you to protect it anymore. Set your chalice down. Toss your bag of white stones into the sea. Stop touching people. And you, Seth, may make efforts to say, hey, it's not as bad as the Star Wars prequels or the last Indiana Jones. But again, please stop. It's not worth it.
The series, which started with so much promise, stalled some time in its third season and will now be remembered as a monstrosity that fused kitsch to camp. The temples! The super powers of little Walt! The talking dead! The pendulum! Eternal life! Zombies! Ludovico brainwashing! A giant statue and a temple! The lighthouse! Time travel! (Time travel!) More gunplay than a Sam Peckinpah western!
As Johnny Rotten once put it, "Ever feel like you've been cheated?"
Join me, Chad, and I'll get you off that godforsaken island. But you must choose. I can't force you.
How many times did you groan during the finale? How did the audience at the Lost viewing party that Slate hosted in New York City take the disappointment of the last episode? Did they run into the streets after the show, hoping to get mowed down by a car or bus speeding by? Did they shoot themselves in the torso?
I've been bitching all season about all of the improbable and impossible nonmagical things that have happened, but the closing scene of tonight's episode, "The End," completely defies logic. How did the people who are in the chapel qualify for inclusion? Not because they were on the plane—Penny wasn't on the plane, nor was Desmond, and they're reunited in the chapel. If Penny and Desmond are reunited, why aren't Daniel and Charlotte? Is the deal that if you're in love and somehow connected to the plane, then you get to take the trip out the Big White Door? But what about John Locke? He's in the chapel of the dead and he has no love unit with him. If Locke, why not Vincent? If there is no logic behind the reunion, why the hell not reunite Sayid with Nadia? Ben with Rousseau. Alex with Karl. Lennon with McCartney.
Don't get me wrong, Chad. I've found your Lost lessons invaluable this year, as I did last year when you e-mailed them around to your Slate colleagues and others. I still expect to learn a thing or two from you about parallels between scenes in this episode and scenes from previous Losts. Dr. Jack and "Locke" staring down the waterfall as they did the blown shaft at the end of Season One, for instance. Or the "surprise" of the show ending the way it began, only with Dr. Jack closing his eye instead of opening it. But no matter how fast you run around a Mobius strip or how many times you traverse a route through a Klein bottle, you keep coming out at the same place.
Can we also spend a minute discussing how heavy-handed the last episode was? Ending in a chapel! With a looming Christ. Meanwhile, back on the island, Christ figure Dr. Jack staggers around with Christ-like wounds on his torso.
Everybody has their favorite moments from Lost. But did the finale really have to rescreen so many of my least favorite moments? I'm talking about the flashbacks to the schmaltzy, luminescent love scenes among the couples as they discover one another. These were even worse than the promos for ABC's summer lineup that the network kept running.
And can we spend a few seconds discussing how unsatisfying the episode was as a free-standing work of drama? All season long, the show's creators worked hard to turn the simpleton Locke into the personification of evil as the smoke monster. And you know what? They succeeded. Locke was evil. He was frightening. But then when Kate blasts him in the torso (natch!), and Dr. Jack gives him a kick and his last vertical ride, did you feel … anything? Did the viewing party audience cheer or did they just shrug? Or did they pass out from boredom, as I did?
Finally, did not Lost's creators promise again and again that the survivors of Oceanic 815 were not in purgatory? They did. So where do they get off making the whole sideways world of Season Six a purgatory in which the inhabitants must come to grips with their lives and deaths before they move on? I call this cheating!
It's time to call crap crap—and for the estate of C.S. Lewis to protest the shameless lifting by Lost's creators from his Chronicles of Narnia. Before I surrender the floor, allow me to quote from Book 7, The Last Battle, where Lewis writes:
[Aslan] went to the Door and they all followed him. He raised his head and roared 'Now it is time!' then louder 'Time!'; then so loud that it could have shaken the stars, 'TIME.' The Door flew open. …

LOST finale... continued

From: Seth Stevenson
To: Chadwick Matlin and Jack Shafer
Subject: Season 6: Hater Hell

Jack, I'm prepared to join you in hater hell. Let's walk together through those double doors into the murky abyss. We'll enter that place beyond space and time, where Lost apostates like you and me are forced to view all 120-odd hours of the show on Blu-ray in an endless loop.
But first, the things I liked:
I thought the breezy, action-comedy humor that has always been a strength of the show (and had disappeared to some extent during this final season's grave denouement) returned in force, with plenty of one-liners to keep the mood buoyant. Hurley referred to Jacob's enigmatic reticence, calling him "worse than Yoda." Miles, attempting to repair the Ajira jet, proclaimed, "I don't believe in a lot of things. But I do believe in duct tape." (A powerful testament to duct tape, given that Miles has good reason to believe he can communicate with the dead.) Sawyer bestowed nicknames at a furious pace, dubbing Hurley "Bigfoot" and Miles the cop "Enos." (I welcome any and all Dukes of Hazzard shout-outs.)
I found the reunion between Sawyer and Juliet a little bit heartwarming. Out of all the relationships on the show, theirs worked best for me—largely because those two actors have enough natural charisma to overcome the flat dialogue they're often given. I was dismayed when Sawliet's flowery 1970s island idyll came to a tragic end, and happy to see them rejoined, suddenly awash in all the sweet moments they'd shared together.
I enjoyed imagining Hurley's reign as the island's protector. No doubt the big man would be a fair and decent ruler. He has the sort of empathy that President Obama craves in a Supreme Court justice. Hugo would mold the island into a less paranoid, more joyful, much gentler place. Like Burning Man crossed with a Montessori school.
I also liked the fight on the cliff.
That's about it.
Contrary to your expectations, Jack, there was little anger and no rioting among the attendees of the Slate-hosted Lost event in New York City last night. (By the way, many thanks to all those who came—it was a spirited occasion, and terrific fun for us Slatesters.) A few minutes after the episode came to an end, we asked for a show of hands. More than half the people in attendance indicated they were "happy" with the manner in which the show concluded. The remainder of folks seemed split between mild disappointment and deeply felt frustration.
I count myself among the frustrated. Or worse. Frankly, I was insulted by the revelations about the sideways universe. I'm still attempting to sort everything out, but as best I can tell, the upshot of last night's episode was this: The alternate world we'd been watching intently for the past few months—looking for clues, sussing out meanings—took place entirely within some airy consciousness created collectively by the Lost characters after they'd died. So when Sayid snaps necks in the back of a restaurant, or Jack works out issues with his son, or Ben maneuvers to become principal of a high school, or Daniel Widmore (nee Faraday) plays a horrific prog-rock concerto … that was all a dream world. We were watching the neural twitchings of the dearly departed.
Fine, OK. Everyone likes a good Sixth Sense/Jacob's Ladder-style exploration of the restless meanderings of dead souls who've not yet let go. But how does this connect to the intricate plot we've been following for six long seasons? Ultimately, the sideways universe is a world completely apart from the saga of the island, and it illuminates nothing about the island's mythology. It's simply a place where people who've shared a meaningful experience—could be a band of plane crash survivors or could just be some folks who did Outward Bound together—can gather for a final, ethereal hurrah. Presumably, anyone who dies with some issues left to work out enters this dream world along with their friends and loved ones, living a shadow life until it's time to walk into the white light.
That spooky island that so much blood and treasure were spilled over—the one that holds the key to life and transfixed 20 million viewers each week at its peak? Oh, it's still out there. Don't trouble yourself about it. Just join us in this cheesily nondenominational church and let the good times roll. In lieu of a truly clever conclusion, please enjoy watching a minute of slow-motion hugging between the characters. Is that Penny we caught a glimpse of? She doesn't get any lines, and we have no idea what became of her in the timeline we actually care about, but she's smiling and her hair looks great, so that's cool.

LOST Finale...

This week I'm collecting other bloggers' thoughts about the series finale of lost... mostly because I knew a) it would be a huge letsdown and b) they'd pull the bullshit "it was all a dream" cop out. I'm glad I stopped beign interested midway through season 2. From Slate's latest spinoff doublex.com at http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor

What Happened to All the Women and Minorities on "Lost"?

  • By Sady Doyle

 

Of the many bad decisions on display in last night's Lost finale— that weird Sixth Sense ending, the lack of resolution for the show's mysteries, Dominic Monaghan wandering around in skin-tight vinyl—perhaps the most telling was its opening: Five straight minutes of melancholy white people. We start with Jack, a white man; we pass it off to Ben, a white man; from Ben we go to Locke, a white man who is also occasionally a smoke monster; we visit Sawyer, a white man, before going to Kate, a white woman—hey, a woman!—sitting in a car, shortly to be joined by Desmond. For those who haven't seen Lost, a spoiler: Desmond is a white man.
Lost didn't always look like this. When it first aired, in 2004—trigger your inner airplane noise, we're going on a flashback—it seemed like one of the more progressive shows on TV. Its core cast was composed of 14 people; only eight were white. It asked us to maintain interest through hours of subtitled Korean dialogue. One of the main characters, Sayid, was an Iraqi soldier. An Iraqi soldier! Eighteen months after we declared war on Iraq! And he was awesome! In the beginning, Lost seemed downright subversive.
"Seemed" being, of course, the operative word. Lost had a reputation for being clever that it never quite backed up; its diversity, in particular, began to seem like a gimmick that the writers didn't know how to handle. So they got rid of it; by the final episode, Lost had narrowed its focus down to a handful of white dudes. Everyone else was a sidekick. Or worse. The American Prospect's Michelle Dean also took note of the show's shift away from women and minorities: "While Lost occasionally focused on those who were not white males in flashbacks," Dean writes, "it became clearer and clearer that when the series' final climax came to a head, they would be dispensable."
Consider: All but two of the show's core female characters were shot, blown up, drowned, or driven mad; while they lived, their plot lines were all about giving birth, raising babies, and finding men. Spunky, disobedient Kate was passed between Jack and Sawyer like a football before motherhood gave her life true purpose. Rose, the only remaining black character, disappeared into the jungle and resurfaced only to give wise lectures to white folks. As for the other folks of color, well: Sun and Jin ditched the subtitles and gasped their final "I love you" in English, and Sayid was killed, resurrected, and then forced to re-kill himself with a bomb. A "suicide bomb," you might say. Yeah.
Sure, all of the characters were dead by the final scene, but at least Jack got to stand around and process his feelings about it. Ben—a mass-murdering dictator—was given co-rulership of the Island and invited into Heaven. Ana-Lucia didn't even show up.
 

Thursday, May 20, 2010

dumbest weight loss "tip," ever...

I'm probably not going to post links to Yahoo articles anymore, becuse they apparently go away pretty quickly. however, while reading an article about losing weight, nestled in with gems like "try to stop drinking alcohol for a week," this "tip" caught my eye:
 
Do 45-60 minutes of cardio 5 or more days per week.
 
Wait. Exercise might make people lose weight? No shit...

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Douche!!

Check this out:
 
That's a link to an embedded video. This chick is named valedictorian and takes it as an invitation to propose to her boyfriend. I mean, you don't already have enough attention? you think it's alright to take what is supposed to be a day to honor ALL graduates and make it EVEN MORE about YOU? Man, if someone had pulled that shit at my college graduation, I would have walked the fuck out.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Sounds about right....

I'm just going to reproduce this one in its entirety. I've told my boss for -years- we aren't asking for big raises or elaborate employee-related celebrations, but we are asking for a pat on the head once in a while, and to be kept in the loop when there are changes. Most recently our new CEO guy decided that an email wasn't appropriate for relaying what the new office layout was going to be, so he scheduled meetings. Clever. Now there's not a record of what was said and even people who bothered to attend are caught off guard when something new happens. For your reading enjoyment:

5 Ways to Ensure Mediocrity in Your Organization

by Liz Ryan
Monday, May 17, 2010
provided by
bw_124x26.gif
The recession is no excuse for ignoring, misusing, or demeaning talent. But hey, if that's what you really want to do, follow these suggestions.
The last time I checked, the U.S. led the world in productivity per employee. That's the good news. The bad news is that much, if not all, of that boost in productivity has come on the backs of workers, especially salaried types viewed by too many management teams as infinitely elastic resources. As one management consultant told me: "The average company takes better care of its copiers than it does its talent."
 
Many chief executives use the tough competitive environment as a handy excuse to put off salary increases, tighten the screws on performance, and generally drop any pretense of creating a human-centered workplace. But the tough-economy picture has two sides. Only those companies that make the effort to keep their employees productive by treating them decently can expect to see continued productivity gains. Much of the workforce has tuned out, waiting for a more welcoming job market to make career moves. Those organizations that haven't wavered on their commitments to flexibility, recognition of talent, and transparent leadership will keep A-list players on board as the job market improves. Their competitors may be wishing they'd paid a little more attention to employee TLC as employees start peeling off for greener pastures.
Here are five of the most insulting leadership practices, the ones that virtually guarantee a business will end up with the most self-esteem challenged, optionless team members when the dust settles.
 
1. If you desire a mediocre workforce, make sure your employees know you don't trust them.
Nothing spells "You're dirt to us" like a corporate culture that screams, "We don't trust you as far as we can throw you." I refer to company policies that require employees to clock in and out for lunch or software that tracks every keystroke and change of URL in case a molecule of nonwork-related activity squeaks into the workday. When employees know they're not trusted, they become experts at "presenteeism"—the physical appearance of working, without anything getting done. Congratulations! Your inability to trust the very people you've selected to join your team has cost you their energy, goodwill, and great ideas.
2. If you want to drive talented people away, don't tell them when they shine.
Fear of a high-self-esteem employee is prevalent among average-grade corporate leadership teams. Look how hard it is for so many managers to say, "Hey Bob, you did a great job today." Maybe it's a fear that the bit of praise will be met with a request for a pay raise. Maybe it's the fear that acknowledging performance will somehow make the manager look weak. Whatever the reason for silence, leaders who can't say, "Thanks—good going!" can plan on bidding farewell to their most able team members in short order.
3. If you prefer a team of C-list players, keep employees in the dark.
Sharp knowledge workers want to know what's going on in their organizations, beyond their departmental silos. They want some visibility into the company's plans and their own career mobility. Leaders who can't stand to shine a light on their firms' goals, strategies, and systems are all but guaranteed to spend a lot of money running ads on Monster.com. Marketable top performers want a seat at the table and won't stand for being left in the dark without the information they need to do their jobs well.
4. If you value docility over ingenuity, shout it from the rooftops.
I heard from a new MBA who had joined a global manufacturer. "They told me during my first week that I need a manager's signature to organize a meeting," he recalled. "They said I'm too low-level to call a meeting on my own, because unauthorized meetings of nonmanagers are against company policy." How fearful of its employees would a leadership team have to be to forbid people to gather together to solve problems? The most desirable value creators won't stick around to be treated like children. They'll hop a bus to the first employer who tells them, "We're hiring you for your talent—now go do something brilliant."
5. If you fear an empowered workforce more than you fear the competition, squash any sign of individualism.
When you go to college, you learn about Economic Man, but in the corporate workplace we see that real people don't always act rationally. Lots of individual managers and plenty of leadership teams fear nothing more than the idea that a self-directed employee might buck authority. That's equivalent to shaking the organizational power structure to its foundation, possibly a fate worse than death. Leaders who want the most docile, sheep-like employees more than the smartest and ablest ones create systems to keep the C players on board and drive the A team out the door. They do it by instituting reams of pointless rules, upbraiding people for miniscule infractions ("What? Twenty minutes late? Sure you worked here until midnight last night, but starting time is starting time.") and generally replacing trust with fear throughout their organizations. Companies that operate in fear mode will never deliver great products and services to the marketplace. Their efforts will be hamstrung by their talent-repelling management practices.
How long will it take these enterprises to figure out they're shooting themselves in the foot? It doesn't matter—you'll be long gone by then.
Liz Ryan is an expert on the new-millennium workplace and a former Fortune 500 HR executive.

Friday, May 14, 2010

it's LOSE/LOSER goddamnit...

For shit's sake, people. There's only one fucking "o" in loser or lose. "Loose" and "Looser" don't have anything to do with what you're talking about.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

stop it- you're not really allergic to that...

 
May 11, 2010

Doubt Is Cast on Many Reports of Food Allergies

Many who think they have food allergies actually do not.
A new report, commissioned by the federal government, finds the field is rife with poorly done studies, misdiagnoses and tests that can give misleading results.
While there is no doubt that people can be allergic to certain foods, with reproducible responses ranging from a rash to a severe life-threatening reaction, the true incidence of food allergies is only about 8 percent for children and less than 5 percent for adults, said Dr. Marc Riedl, an author of the new paper and an allergist and immunologist at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Yet about 30 percent of the population believe they have food allergies. And, Dr. Riedl said, about half the patients coming to his clinic because they had been told they had a food allergy did not really have one.
Dr. Riedl does not dismiss the seriousness of some people's responses to foods. But, he says, "That accounts for a small percentage of what people term 'food allergies.' "
Even people who had food allergies as children may not have them as adults. People often shed allergies, though no one knows why. And sometimes people develop food allergies as adults, again for unknown reasons.
For their report, Dr. Riedl and his colleagues reviewed all the papers they could find on food allergies published between January 1988 and September 2009 — more than 12,000 articles. In the end, only 72 met their criteria, which included having sufficient data for analysis and using more rigorous tests for allergic responses.
"Everyone has a different definition" of a food allergy, said Dr. Jennifer J. Schneider Chafen of the Department of Veterans Affairs' Palo Alto Health Care System in California and Stanford's Center for Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, who was the lead author of the new report. People who receive a diagnosis after one of the two tests most often used — pricking the skin and injecting a tiny amount of the suspect food and looking in blood for IgE antibodies, the type associated with allergies — have less than a 50 percent chance of actually having a food allergy, the investigators found.
One way to see such a reaction is with what is called a food challenge, giving people a suspect food disguised so they do not know if they are eating it or a placebo food. If the disguised food causes a reaction, the person has an allergy.
But in practice, most doctors are reluctant to use food challenges, Dr. Riedl said. They believe the test to be time consuming, and worry about asking people to consume a food, like peanuts, that can elicit a frightening response.
The paper, to be published Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is part of a large project organized by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to try to impose order on the chaos of food allergy testing. An expert panel will provide guidelines defining food allergies and giving criteria to diagnose and manage patients. They hope to have a final draft by the end of June.
"We were approached as in a sense the honest broker who could get parties together to look at this question," said Dr. Matthew J. Fenton, who oversees the guidelines project for the allergy institute.
Authors of the new report — and experts on the guidelines panel — say even accepted dogma, like the idea that breast-fed babies have fewer allergies or that babies should not eat certain foods like eggs for the first year of life, have little evidence behind them.
Part of the confusion is over what is a food allergy and what is a food intolerance, Dr. Fenton said. Allergies involve the immune system, while intolerances generally do not. For example, a headache from sulfites in wine is not a food allergy. It is an intolerance. The same is true for lactose intolerance, caused by the lack of an enzyme needed to digest sugar in milk.
And other medical conditions can make people think they have food allergies, Dr. Fenton said. For example, people sometimes interpret acid reflux symptoms after eating a particular food as an allergy.
The chairman of the guidelines project, Dr. Joshua Boyce, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard and an allergist and pediatric pulmonologist, said one of the biggest misconceptions some doctors and patients have is that a positive test for IgE antibodies to a food means a person is allergic to that food. It is not necessarily so, he said.
During development, he said, the immune system tends to react to certain food proteins, producing IgE antibodies. But, Dr. Boyce said, "these antibodies can be transient and even inconsequential."
"There are plenty of individuals with IgE antibodies to various foods who don't react to those foods at all," Dr. Boyce said.
The higher the levels of IgE antibodies to a particular food, the greater the likelihood the person will react in an allergic way. But even then, the antibodies do not necessarily portend a severe reaction, Dr. Boyce said. Antibodies to some foods, like peanuts, are much more likely to produce a reaction than ones to other foods, like wheat or corn or rice. No one understands why.
The guidelines panel hopes its report will lead to new research as well as clarify the definition and testing for food allergies.
But for now, Dr. Fenton said, doctors should not use either the skin-prick test or the antibody test as the sole reason for thinking their patients have a food allergy.
"By themselves they are not sufficient," Dr. Fenton said.

iPhone leaks...

Seriously you guys? how can people think that these iPhone "leaks" are anything other than free advertising for aPple? I guarantee there was a marketing strategy meeting at which someone said "what better way to generate buzz than to have a 'top secret' iPhone 4G be 'found' in some likely unlikely place, like a bar?" So they plant the phone, call "frantically" to see if it had been found and BAM! it shows up on Gizmodo.
Same shit today out of Vietnam, except we don't know the particulars yet of where/how it was found... and it's an upgraded design.
"What about the blogger whose house was broken into by the cops?" What about him? Apple doesn't give a shit about some penny-per-word blogger for a tech blog. Hell, keeping him in the media associated with the product is additional free advertising. The iKiddies will keep drooling over guesses about specs and designs so there's no loss there. Leaked advances will probably lure more people into the aPple fold, regardless of whether those pesky Constitutional amendments and civil liberties are being stepped on (no matter how lightly).