Ah, the last LOST post (presumably). It's bittersweet. I think Terry O'Quinn said it best during the pre-finale recap special: "It's like when you're reading a book, you don't want to close it after the last chapter, but then you do and you say 'Man, that was a good book!'" (That's a paraphrasing). I love the show, but I'm glad to have some closure.

I've seen positive and I've seen negative comments about the finale. I won't be one of those people that says that if you didn't like it you didn't "get" it. Obviously not everyone is going to like everything. However, I'll say this: my initial feeling was "Ehhh… I'm not sure." After sleeping on it last night, I feel really happy with how it all ended because they didn't treat me like a little kid and spell everything out for me. I like interpreting meanings. I think spelling out metaphors ruins the metaphor.

That said, THAR BE SPOILERS AHEAD! If you haven't seen the finale and don't want to know how it ends, stop reading now. Also, I wrote this after only discussing with Rhea and I haven't read anything online yet. I don't want my opinions or theories to be tainted!

So, my general impression is that it was a great episode. I think if you ignore that it was the finale and look at it as just a regular LOST episode, you'll see that it was just all around awesome. The events that occurred on the Island were some of the best TV and some of the best LOST I've seen in a while. It was funny, it was sad, it was action-packed, it recalled old LOST standards like Sawyer nick-naming people. And it took six damn years, but I finally liked Jack. Jack was so awesome in the finale. Maybe it was his new confidence and acceptance, but even when he was being typical stubborn Jack in the LAX timeline and wouldn't accept is "awakening" I was still liking him. Another thing that took six seasons to finally happen: Kate said something intentionally funny that I laughed at. When she made the "Christian Shepard? Seriously?" joke, I laughed because it was sort of a nod from the writers to the viewers like "Yeah, we know…". I liked that.

So, down to brass tax: how do I feel about the absolute ending and how it ties everything up? I'm fine with it. I did think the glowing light in the doorway of the church was cheesy and totally enhanced the silly Heaven metaphor, but other than that, I was fine with it. As Rhea pointed out to me, series finales are always cheesy because they always have to bring back all the cast and they get all sappy at the end, like LOST did when everyone was hugging and reuniting. She also suggested that perhaps the light in the doorway at the church was the same (or related) light as the one at the heart of the Island. I can buy that, especially since the light itself wasn't what killed Jack: it was the electromagnetism. And, not only that, MiB became smokey instantly, Desmond did not and neither did Jack. This is likely because they were inherently good people and the universe turned MiB into smoke because while he had somewhat good reasons for his actions, he was a essentially an evil guy. So the light wouldn't have harmed the others. Plus, they're already dead.

Speaking of the Heaven metaphor, I'm not totally thrown off by it. For one, they never say it is Heaven. They never say where they're going from the church (BTW, is that the same church where Eloise Hawking had the room with the giant pendulum?) so it could be another plane of existence, it could be Heaven, it could even be the Island. Who knows? That's left for us to interpret. I think people get too bent out of shape with LOST getting similar to religious stories and they think the show was this big religious allegory. I don't think that's accurate. Similar to how South Park poked fun at the Simpsons because they've done everything already and no one can ever be creative without someone else saying "Simpsons did it!", the same can be said for the Bible. Nearly everything that happens in any modern story happened in the Bible. Just because a story features people rising from the grave or going to a special place when they die does not mean it is a religious reference. It just means that that's what happened in that story. I mean, how many movies have had someone kill someone because they were sexually promiscuous? How many movies have people come back to life after they've been killed? Bible did it!

I do have some questions, but they'll have to be interpreted. For instance, why isn't Ben going with the rest of them? Most likely he's not ready to let go. He got very happy when Danielle told him he was like a father to Alex, and he's always felt horrible that he got Alex killed, so he'll probably hang out in the LAX timeline for a while and be with Alex some more until he's ready to let go. Hurley seemed very much like he knew why Ben wasn't going, most likely because the two spent a long time on the Island together.

Speaking of Ben and Hurley, I'm mostly convinced that the LAX timeline (I don't want to call it a flash-sideways anymore. I feel that since the "sideways" stuff takes place after everyone died, it's technically forward in time, after they all got off the island (or didn't) and died. For that reason, the flash-sideways are technically flash-forwards, just a lot more into the future than the stuff we called flash-forwards. So, I'm calling it the LAX Timeline since it's the timeline where they landed in LAX, but "timeline" is probably a misnomer as well.) was created by Hurely and possibly with Ben. I think that once Hurely became the protector of the Island, he inherited some of the powers that Jacob had (and presumably Jack, though he didn't live long enough to use them) and was able to create this "world" for everyone to go when they died, which falls right in line with Hurley's ability to communicate with the dead.

So, what about the people that weren't at the church? I think Richard didn't need to go to the LAX world because he had already let go of everything. He let go of his wife when Hurley let him talk to her ghost. He let go of the Island long before he left. And he let go of everything once Miles found a grey hair on him and he knew he was aging. I think Richard discovering that he was aging let him die peacefully. He was hundreds of years old — I'm sure he was tired of being alive. So, since he had already let go, he wasn't there.

How about Michael? I think one of two things happened to Michael. One possibility is that he was "awakened" and remembered everything, but because he was pretty stubborn and also didn't like a lot of the Islanders, he probably didn't want to go where they were all going. Or, it's possible that Michael just still wasn't ready to let go, similar to how Hurley asked Desmond why Anna-Lucia wasn't coming with them and Desmond responded "She's not ready yet." I think that whole exchange between Hurley and Desmond existed primarily to explain to us why not everyone was in the church, like Arzt, Michael, et. al. Rhea, however, suggested the possibility of Michael's "soul" being trapped on the Island, since he was kind of a prick about everything, maybe that was his destiny? She also points out how Michael was always being trapped wherever he was, like when he got off the Island and he kept trying to kill himself, but he couldn't because the Island needed him still. Another idea we came up with was that if the LAX timeline is indeed the product of Hurley, Hurley would've done anything to help Michael because he liked him. If Michael wasn't in the LAX timeline at all, it's likely because either Hurley couldn't find Michael or Hurley wasn't allowed to take Michael from wherever he was trapped.

Ok, fine, that explains Michael, but what of Walt? Well, we know Walt was special. But that aside, everyone there was dead. Walt wasn't that old, so he probably wasn't dead. Or if he was, he was probably stuck with Michael. I also think this answers why Jin and Sun didn't have Ji Yeon with them — she was still alive in the real world. Rhea suggest that once Ji Yeon gets older, Walt may visit her to help explain everything to her. And who knows: they might even go back to the Island and Walt will become a protector.

But what about Aaron? Well, Aaron's a tough one to interpret. It's possible Aaron died at a young age and so he got to "start over" as an infant in the LAX timeline, but I don't think that's very likely. Aaron was probably still alive in the real world and so he didn't exist as more than an infant in the LAX timeline. Plus, Kate delivering Aaron made both her and Claire remember the Island, so maybe infant Aaron was just a catalyst and once Claire walks throw that glowing doorway, infant Aaron will cease to exist because he already actually exists in the real world and infant Aaron was just a figment of their imaginations to help move along the "awakenings." Rhea suggests also that Claire would only know Aaron as an infant and so he was in the LAX timeline as an infant to help make Claire the happiest she could have been and will now get to grow up with her wherever they are all going from the church.

As for David, Jack's son, once Jack realized everything and let go, David disappeared since he was just a figment of their imaginations because Hurley felt Jack needed a son. This explains why we never saw him once Kate went to go help Claire backstage at the concert.

Oh, and apaprently Mr. Eko was supposed to be explained, but he wanted five times the money they offered him. Way to go! Cuse and Lindelof should have worked around that, but I guess they can just put him in the "Wasn't ready yet" category.

At first, I felt Christian being there was a bit lame, but, Rhea pointed out that when you're dead and in a place where other dead people are, chances are you'd find your parent before your friends, especially if you're Jack and you started to want to fix everything with your dad, but it was too late because he was already dead. Plus, even though it was the Man in Black, Christian played a pretty big part in the story of LOST on the Island, and he was also a big part off the Island, having fathered two of the castaways and being grandfather to Aaron, and he met Sawyer and a list of others pre-crash.

All in all, I'm pretty happy with the way it ended. Did we really need every detail solved? Not at all. Every great story with a mythology as complex as LOST's in the history of story telling has always left some details up to the reader/viewer to interpret. It personalizes the story more and gives it more meaning to you. Plus, I feel that if they had explained everything to me and didn't let me figure some stuff out on my own, I'd have felt as if my intelligence was insulted. I'm a big boy — I can understand subtle hints and metaphors and allusions without you explaining them to me.

The thing is, LOST is in its own world. All stories are in their own worlds. Just because their worlds share similarities with our real world does not mean that all of our rules apply in their world. For instance, people feel like it's a cop out to say "It's a mysterious island" as a response to everything that can't be solved with science. But honestly, that's a totally valid answer. Why was the light in the middle of the Island and why did it affect the rest of the universe? Because that's what the Island does. It's a mysterious Island and these are its properties and aspects and abilities. Complaining that they answered questions with "That's just how the Island is" is like complaining that Superman can fly. "Why can Superman fly?" Because he's from Krypton. Everyones fine with that explanation. No one complains that you can answer every question about Superman's abilities with "he's an alien." Because that's how it is in the world of Superman — in the world of Superman, he can fly because he's an alien. The same goes for LOST: The island had magical properties because in the world of LOST, that's how that Island worked. Complaining that a story uses its own rules and mythologies to explain its own rules and mythologies is futile. You could do this with every single movie, book, or TV show every created if you waste enough time picking it apart. Take Star Wars for instance: The Force was a mysterious power that some people had and everyone wondered what caused it. And then, in Phantom Menace when Lucas finally explains that the Force comes from midi-cholorians, everyone was let down because it was just some microorganisms. Not that exciting. Wasn't it more exciting when you didn't know the source of the Force and it was just this fun, bad-ass power that certain people had?

Accepting the fictional realities of a story is what makes stories fun and exciting. Trying to constantly link them to our realities destroys the fun and mystery of the story and renders it dead. LOST explained the Island the best it could: mysterious center of the universe that kept the balance of good and evil in the world. Turning off the light in the center of the Island turned off all the rules of the universe which would cause the universe to crumble upon itself. Since the rules were disabled, this is why Jack and Kate were able to kill Locke — sorta like the shields being down in Independence Day (yeah, sorry for that simile). Jack put the light back on and everything settled back down, but someone still needed to protect it after he died, so Hurley and Ben did that. And chances are, they elected someone else before they died. And the cycle will continue forever. Just as Jacob protected the Island before Jack, and the woman who raised Jacob and the MiB protected the island before Jacob, and someone protected the island before her, and so on and so on. It's a cycle that will always be because it needs to happen to keep the universe in balance. (To cover one detail: I think when the Island started falling apart after the light went out, the rest of the universe felt similar shakings because the universe was imploding. When it all stopped after Jack put the pillar back in the hole, most probably attributed the shaking to an earthquake-type event). The whole protector of the light portion of the story directly mirrors the Dharma hatch button-pressing part of the story, which further pushes the cycle theory I outline above.

LOST explained everything necessary for us, as viewers, to understand the universe and the world in which the story takes place. They did not explain everything, like the washing machine in the Hatch being new, or the bird that said Hurley's name, but those are things that you can interpret for yourself and aren't necessary to understand the overall story of LOST, which is simply this: Some people go through life unhappy and fight this alone. Once they all find a common purpose and let go of the things in their lives that held them back from growing as people, they were happy.

So, contrary to what I've said in the past, Lindelof and Cuse were right: LOST was ultimately about the characters.

And, technically, Kate and Jack were dead at the end, so I'm happy.

Firstly, I'd like to congratulate ABC for using the word "penultimate" to refer to last night's episode of LOST.

So, here we are. After last night, only two and a half hours of LOST remain. This final season has been a rollercoaster of awesome and meh. A lot of people didn't like last week's episode "Across the Sea" and I'll admit it was a bit slow at times, but it was a very important episode. It could have aired earlier in the show's lifetime, but I think holding out until the almost-end created a bit more of "ohhhhhhhhhhh!" reaction from audiences than if it had aired earlier. This week's episode was great. it felt like an older episode, like maybe season four or five. It was action-packed, the acting was great, the story was great, had some laughs, set up some new questions and answered some old ones.

I'm not going to go through a full synopsis of the episode. If you're a LOST fan, you've seen it. I want to focus on the mysteries that got solved. The answers we got were mostly ones regarding small details, but those small details fill in some gaps to other questions.

We found out that the ashes that everyone always used to protect themselves from Smokey were Jacob's ashes. This makes sense since, as we learned in "Across the Sea", Jacob and the Man in Black's foster mother made it so that they could not hurt each other. If MiB's brother's ashes were encompassing people, he could risk hurting the ashes, so he'd back away. Now, how did so much ash of Jacob exist? No idea, but that's too tiny of a detail. The point is, as with all LOST mysteries, you have to suspend disbelief for a moment. The ashes protected people because they were Jacob's and Smokey can't hurt Jacob directly. That's all you need to know.

Jacob revealed last night that the reason he brought everyone to the island was because he needed someone to take over protecting the Cave of Light he had been protecting for so long. We knew this already, but it was finally spelled out for us. He said he chose all of those people because they were alone and/or unhappy and the Island would give them purpose, something real Locke had said from the beginning of the series and something Jack had started to feel once he wanted to go back to the Island in season five. What isn't clear, however, is whether Jacob nudged everyone into these unhappy lifestyles since he had visited so many of them when they were children and convinced them of certain "truths." Did he travel back in time to nudge them to make sure they came to the island? Or did he actually nudge them in the real original timeline? This isn't clear, but it seems like a detail that will never be answered and we'll have to interpret ourselves, which makes the story more fun. I like to wonder whether Jacob actually interfered with their future happiness or not.

We also found out that Kate's name was scratched out in the cave because she became a mother to Aaron, so she had a purpose in life. This also explains why only one of the Kwans had their name in the cave and not two. Sun was pregnant when all of this began and Jin was an angry man who felt he owned his wife, so he had a chance to do something real with his life on the island.

Speaking of being pregnant, I think it's safe to assume that what happened in "Across the Sea" last week with the biological mother of Jacob and his brother is likely the reason women couldn't properly give birth on the Island. Sort of like a curse. If you can't believe in a curse, then I don't know why you're watching LOST. There were polar bears in the jungle and a Smoke Monster. I think a curse is a valid excuse.

We half got answers about Charles Widmore and why he came to the Island. It still isn't very clear as to why he came in the first place (he's a miserable guy, so it's possible he was summoned just like everyone else and became obsessed just like nearly everyone else).

But perhaps the best thing that happened in "What They Died For" last night was we started to see the significance of the "Alternative Timeline." It's becoming more and more apparent that it isn't exactly an alternative timeline. The two … we'll say storylines… are closely related and tie together very well. Characters off the Island are have memories of being on the Island and they're noticing coincidences between each other. Desmond is very close to getting them all together again (the ones that are "ready" anyhow) and it seems a few of them will all be at Jack's son David's piano concert. And, David said his mother would be there, so there's a great chance that we'll finally see who jack's ex-wife is. It's obviously not Sun, Kate, Claire, Ana Lucia, Libby, Rose, or Rousseau. Could be Charlotte, but probably not. There's also the possibility of it being someone we've never even met, but I doubt we'll have too many new characters introduced int he final 2.5 hours.

Anyway, with that said, while things aren't totally answered, we're primed for an explosions of answers and "Holy crap!" moments on Sunday. As I've said before, I don't expect everything to be answered, but I think we'll get the general gist of everything on Sunday and tiny details can/will have to be interpreted by us. That, or, the tiny details don't really mean anything and they're just things that happened and so we shouldn't worry about them.

I'm just excited to watch the whole thing from "The Pilot" to "The End" on DVD eventually.

Oh, LOST, how I love thee. LOST is a TV show. No, scratch that — LOST is an awesome TV show. I like it because it's got some action. I like it because it's got some comedy. I like it because it's got some mystery and mythology.

I also like it because it's almost over.

Don't get me wrong, I really want to one day rewatch the whole series on DVD or Netflix. I'm also a bit disappointed that one fewer good show will be on TV. On one hand, I'm upset it's almost done, but on the other hand, I'm glad. LOST is very close to jumping the shark and I want to see it go out on top.

* Below here, there are LOST spoilers. Also Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade spoilers. Seriously. *

LOST creators Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse have repeated over and over that LOST is about the characters and not the mythology, that the mythology is just a vehicle to drive the character development. I can agree with that in some respects, but then I see a Jack or Kate-centric episode and then I quickly remember that I don't care about the characters. Jack and Kate are the most throw-away characters in TV history. Aside from Jack needing to exist for his father's appearance to matter to us, I don't need him. Until season six, he was the least dynamic character on the show, aside from love-triangle whore Kate. Jack and Kate could be buried with Nikki and Paolo for all I care. God knows I like Jack and Kate just as much.

And that's where I realize that honestly, some of the best characters have been the one-off or two-appearance characters that inevitably die or inexplicably disappear. And all the other likable characters that I care if they live or die have been the ones that have changed over the show's lifetime. Take Sawyer, for instance. Kind of a jerk in the beginning (okay, fine, the whole show) but he was mysterious. When we found out his secret, we realized he's got his reasons. And then when he and Juliet hook up, he turns out to be a good guy who's finally happy. And we still see glimpses of that guy in him when he cries about Juliet's death. Even Hurley has changed from lovable scardey-cat into take-charge ghost-whisperer. But no, Jack's still all whiny and I promise you he'll start taking charge of everything again just like on Day 1 and we'll see the same ol' boring Jack again. And Kate's still "oooh, I love him, oh wait, now this guy's unavailable? I love him now! Wait, he's single again? I love this other guy now!" I swear, Kate should've fallen into the giant magnethole of death at the Swan Station back in the 70s.

So no, LOST isn't just about the characters. It is most certainly about the mythology. If the same group of people had all the same character traits but they were just on this regular ol' island after a plain crash and there was no Smoke Monster or Dharma initiative, ABC would've canceled it faster than they canceled Kelsey Grammer's "Hank". The mystery of who Jacob was, what The Man in Black is, or what Charles Widmore has to do with everything, or where the hell Vincent is — those are the reasons people tune in to LOST each week. If you're the person that loves the love quadrangle of Sawyer, Juliet, Jack, and Kate, or watching Jack cry about not wanting to always be in control even though he's the first one to speak up every time, then you've been wasting almost six years of your life. This show is about the mythology; no doubt about it.

One thing LOST definitely isn't about, though, is wrapping up all the answers in a neat little package with a bow on it and handing it to you. This is a good thing. Could you imagine how boring the show would be if at the end of the series, you knew the answer to everything you've ever wondered? Where's the fun in that? Also, who has that kind of time? The point of LOST isn't to go through every nitpicker's grocery list of questions and check off each one. Its purpose is to answer key questions that will let you either figure out or conjecture on your own.

It's an adventure and adventures are about the ride, not always the McGuffin at the end. Sure Indiana Jones is happy to get his golden monkey head or whatever, but the thrill of getting is why he keeps doing it. Hell, look at The Last Crusade and when he almost gets the chalice of Christ. He lets it go. He lets it go because (aside from almost dying) he had a hell of an adventure and he didn't need a trophy to prove it. This is why I'm glad LOST is ending this season. It will end with stuff left unanswered. It will end with a handful of new questions. It will end with a bunch of idiots yelling at their TVs.

And hopefully it will end with Jack and Kate dying in a giant fireball.

A senate committee here in Louisiana approved today a bill to ban smoking in bars and casinos. Currently, it is illegal to smoke in any buildings that serve the general public, excepting bars and casinos.

This is obviously a controversial issue. On one hand you have non-smokers (and some smokers) who want the ban so they can visit bars or casinos and come home and not smell like smoke (and be healthier). On the other hand, you have smokers who want the freedom and convenience of smoking in a bar or casino. And on a weirdly located third hand, you have smokers and non-smokers alike that are against the ban because of the implications of having further government involvement in the personal lives of its citizens.

Before I dive into this any further, I have to make a few disclaimers.

1. I started smoking when I was 15. I had my last cigarette on July 11, 2009, so I am a recent non-smoker.


2. I msotly consider myself to be a libertarian, a political belief system that is generally against government involvement in the personal decisions one makes for one's self.


3. I work for a local non-profit that is a big proponent of smoking bans and general health consciousness.


4. Any comments or opinions posted on frobba.com are not the views of my employer and they should not be taken that way. Everything I write is wholly my own opinion.

Having said all of that, I am for this ban. Being for the ban does go against many of my political ideologies. Generally, I feel that whatever you want to do is fine as long as it doesn't hurt or bother anyone else, which is why I'm for the legalization of most drugs, even though I personally don't use them. However, smoking does bother and harm people other than the smoker.

If you go to a bar and sit down next to someone drinking a beer and you just want to drink a coke, you can drink your coke and the other person can drink their beer and you don't go home with liver problems or clothes smelling like beer. Now, if you go to a bar and sit next to a person smoking and you aren't, you still go home smelling like smoke and have lung problems. And yes, non-drinkers do go to bars. Four of my friends don't drink or smoke and they come out with us to bars quite often.

A lot of the comments on the NOLA.com article I link to above argue against the ban saying that this is the start of government control and that next they'll outlaw drinking or eating fatty foods. This logic is severely flawed. The reason here is that the smoking bans are not in any way created to save the smokers. They are created to save the non-smokers. It is scientifically proven that second-hand smoke can cause many of the same effects, diseases, and illnesses that direct smoking can cause. Smoking in a bar or casino does harm other people. Now, some argue "well, if you don't want to be around smoke, don't go to bars or casinos." The problem with that logic is that it infringes on non-smokers' rights to visit these businesses. Why should someone who doesn't want to be around smoke not be able to go to Parlay's or Mick's or the Bulldog just because there are smokers there? Sure, there are already a number of smoke-free venues in the state that have decided to go smoke-free on their own accord, but why should non-smokers be forced to a limited list of venues? By banning smoking, you are actually creating a compromise. If you don't want to be around smoke, you're allowed to be in the bar without smoke. If you want to have a cigarette, you are free to do so outside the bar where many places have outdoor seating or patios and in New Orleans at least you can bring your drink outside with you.

Your right to smoke ends where it infringes on others' right to breathe fresh air. It's simple.

Another angle of argument some have been using is saying that'll it result in lost revenue for bars and casinos. This is a terrible argument to make since being related to numbers, it can be disproved. According to this study, bans across the country did not harm revenue for businesses and in many cases, sales actually increased after the ban. I did find, however, one article about casinos in Illinois that claims that casino's lost some revenue after the ban due to the high percentage of gamblers that are smokers. However, the 2008 article does go on to say that it is unclear whether the decline in revenue is due to the recession or to the smoking ban. The only facts I could find that were found before the recession state that businesses did not lose any revenue after smoking bans and many increased revenue.

The fact is, drinkers and gamblers are going to drink and gamble whether they can smoke or not. Smokers will still walk into bars and order drinks, duck out for a smoke every so often, and then buy more drinks. The difference is that you'll probably have more non-smokers coming into the bars as well.

Some other NOLA.com commenters argued that this would hurt tourism and said that bans didn't hurt other cities because people come to New Orleans for bars and go to other cities for other reasons. While that last bit is half true, people come to New Orleans for far more than just bars. Conventions, Mardi Gras, Jazz Fest, historical landmarks, music, food — the list continues. Secondly, the people that do come here to party do it on Bourbon St. If you've ever been to Bourbon St. at night, you'll know that there are more people walking up and down the street outside than there are people in the bars. That's because people go to one bar for a little while and then barhop to another bar or club and continue that. Rarely does anyone stay in one bar the whole night on Bourbon. Because of this, people will grab their drinks, and go outside like they already do and they'll smoke while they walk to the next bar. As far as tourism goes, it's a moot point.

The main point of all this is: smoking is becoming less and less "cool" with younger generations. While the values are slim, the average age that kids start smoking is rising which means that younger kids aren't starting. I also know from anecdotal evidence that many people in my demographic (25-34) are quitting more than usual. This means that most of the people who smoke are older generations that are still smoking from a time when it wasn't a big deal.

People were upset when we banned smoking in restaurants in 2007, but now, no one really complains at all. In fact, most people love not having smoke around their food. I can't find the article, but there was an article where the owner of Tipitina's (New Orleans music venue that voluntarily went smoke-free last year) said that not only have his customers thanked him for banning smoking, but he's seen an increase in revenue since then. I've also heard, anecdotally again, that local bars and music venues that have been hosting smoke-free nights (single monthly smoke-free music events) have seen an increase in attendance. (I seem to remember this being a video report on either WWL or WDSU)

My overall point is, the ban seems silly to some right now, but in about 2 years, you won't even think twice about it. I honestly find it hard to believe that it's barely been 3 years since we banned smoking in restaurants. It sorta feels like it's been that way for a long time. It's not going to hurt revenue, it's not going to hurt tourism, and best of all, it's not hurting any people. Let's just pass this as law and move on so we can focus on other issues in this state, like corruption and education and crime.

I'll cut to the chase: I love New Orleans. It's a beautiful city, rich in culture that no other American city can dare replicate. Nothing beats a NOLA spring day at about 74 degrees with a slight breeze. Maybe grab a snoball from Plum St. Take a ride on the streetcar and people-watch from the neutral ground, letting the breeze hit your face from the windows of the car. Maybe head down to the Quarter during the day and listen to some street musicians battle it out back-and-forth, or wander down Magazine St. to grab a Gutter Punk from Juan's.

There's so much to do here. I love this city and I can not even begin to imagine living anywhere else. Every time I try, I start feeling homesick, so I've given into her and I'm staying in New Orleans. Of course, I've written a few love notes to NOLA in the past, so I needn't drone on and on about my love of this fantastically unusual city.

I do, however, feel the need to drone on and on about the fact we need to take this city back. Look, I'll be up front with you: I live in Metairie and have my entire life. My paycheck comes from an organization in New Orleans proper, Downtown and I spend the majority of it back in New Orleans. This is not a typical Jeffersonian attack on New Orleans or its people. Finances permitting, I'd be living in NOLA in a heartbeat and plan (and hope) to. No, I could never attack New Orleans or its people. Wouldn't dream of it in a million years.

But facts remain: there are flaws and they are flaws we all know but to which most of us turn blind eyes. The crime in New Orleans is steadily increasing every day. That short period after Katrina (well, after after Katrina) where crime was down because so many people weren't here (and, really, who's going to break into a house that had 11ft of water in it?) is over. It's been over.

The first mistake that any New Orleanian can make is that typical "Not in my neighborhood. I live in a good area." No, you don't. Ask the people of Lakeview how they felt after the string of burglaries back in February. That feeling of living in a walled garden suddenly dissipated. There are gorgeous parts of this city. There are better parts and worse parts, but thinking that the crime in New Orleans doesn't or won't affect you is the biggest mistake anyone can make. I don't say that to alarm anyone or make them scared to live here. I'm saying that apathy will get you nowhere. Even if your house doesn't ever get broken into or your car never gets its stereo yanked out of it, the crime in New Orleans affects you. It affects you because New Orleans has always been built on a sense of community. While K-Ville may have stretched a truth by referencing a "gumbo party", the fact is: that happens. People will, as they do in many Southern homes, cook huge pots of food and invite their neighbors over to have some. Heck, when I was living in Old Metairie, my neighbors brought us lasagna and stewed cabbage and stuff like that all the time, just as they always came over whenever we had a big BBQ or crawfish boil going. That happens in the Lower 9th just as often as it does in Lakeview.

Your skin color or zip code does not single you out nor does it exclude you from the effects of crime in New Orleans. This is a city that has and needs to again thrive on creativity and hospitality. "Mardi Gras Mambo" doesn't say this is "where the blues was born" just because it sounded good at the time. Tourism isn't listed as our largest industry because it looks good on paper and we're certainly not the 8th most visited city yearly because we don't know how to treat guests.

That original heart and soul — that creativity and hospitality — is still alive in New Orleans. Businesses keep starting up here. Artists and musicians and actors call New Orleans home more and more. Hollywood is taking an interest in using us as their sets. Hell, we've got the best football team in the league, to boot! Speaking of, what happened after those home games and the opposing teams fans went and hung out in the Quarter, win or lose? We welcomed them. Of course, we chanted a few "Who Dat!"s in their faces first, but after, we bought them drinks, we thanked them for coming here. We treated them like we treat family when they visit us here. Because that's what being a New Orleanian is about.

So why does a city so rich in creativity and hospitality struggle with violent crimes and corruption? Honestly, I think it all boils down to one thing: education.

Consider this: studies (and common sense) shows that education and crime are inversely proportional. The lower your education standards are, the higher your crime rates will be. The opposite is true as well. Hell, a newspaper from 1936 even knew this. Louisiana consistently ranks in the bottom percentiles on every education ranking. In 2009, the National Report Card ranked us at 47th in the nation. In case you're a product of our school system, that's 47 out of 50 states. This is only a slight increase from our rank as 48 a few years prior. This is despicable. Why are our area youth being given such terrible educations? Well, for starters, they aren't.

Every school has its problems, this is true, but there are so many amazing teachers at even the worst ranking schools. I can't speak for other schools, but as a UNO student, I can emphatically state that UNO is rife with amazing teachers that should be making a Drew Brees salary. So what's the problem if we have great teachers? Well, for starters, it's hard to teach without books or projectors or computers or chalk. Yeah, some teachers have to bring their own chalk because the school doesn't afford them that luxury. If you need to staple something, be careful with it because if it breaks, there probably won't be a replacement. (A teacher did say this, perhaps half-jokingly.) UNO and colleges and high schools and elementary schools across the state of Louisiana are having their funding cut. And not little trims here and there — over $300 million has been cut from education and health by Governor Bobby Jindal.

Here's the deal: Jindal touts himself as a fiscal conservative. I agree with that view and it's one of the pillars of my political ideology. But therein lies the problem with having ideologies: most people don't stray from them for fear of being called a "flip-flopper". (See: John Kerry). See, I see myself as a Libertarian. Libertarians have some pretty radical viewpoints (to some people) and I do believe in them, such as privatizing pretty much everything and leaving the government out of our daily lives. Some Libertarians tout privatizing the police and fire departments. On paper, it makes a lot of sense because it does create competition and leaves government corruption out of it. But in addition to being a Libertarian, I'm also a realist. Obviously in our world, privatizing the police and fire departments just wouldn't work. This is one area where I stray from typical hard-core Libertarian beliefs.

This is where Mr. Jindal fails. He refuses to stray even the slightest bit from his Republican views for fear of being chastised by the rest of his party for being too soft or, god forbid, liberal. Jindal is emphatically against raising taxes as he feels the government should try to cut its spending before even thinking about passing costs on to citizens. I applaud Mr. Jindal for this and I agree 110%. However, in his endless quest to never be even remotely mistaken as anything even sorta, kinda resembling a liberal, he has decided to cut one of the most important budgets: education (and health).

Now, since Mr. Jindal received his education from Oxford and Brown and not any Louisiana colleges or universities, I suppose I can see why he's not worried. I'm willing to bet that his children will have no problems getting into either of those schools, or any other excellent university in any of the other 49 states. So why should Mr. Jindal care about Louisiana education? Well, for the very reason I wrote this post: crime and corruption.

See, if kids spend more time in school, they spend less time in the streets. If we get to kids at younger ages, there's a better chance they'll have sense not to get involved in events and people that bring down the greater good of society. If kids are educated, they will feel empowered and they'll feel that, yes, even they can find a job and have a family one day. A lot of teens turn to crime because they feel like they have no direction or goal in life, so, what's the use? If they feel destined to end up in jail one day, why bother fighting it? Giving kids a goal and a chance will, in many cases, give them reason to avoid the temptation of crime or drugs.

So how does education help fight corruption? Well, New Orleans (as well as Louisiana on the whole) consistently has a poor voter turn-out. The reason most people don't vote is because they don't think their vote counts or they just assume that whomever gets elected will just be useless anyway, so why bother? Some people also will just vote for the incumbent because it's the only name they know. This is why criminals like William Jefferson got re-elected. People hear a name and just hit that button because they don't know any better. If you have an educated public, however, they can spot bad eggs easier and they'll feel more empowered to research a candidate before voting. In time, this would weed out corruption and, as a result, crime, too.

Obviously, nothing is flawless and this wouldn't eradicate crime and corruption, but I'll be damned if it doesn't curb it.

Mr. Jindal, I urge you to rethink your position on education funding. It's necessary to keep Louisiana a viable place for people to live and work.

People of New Orleans, I urge you to want this. I urge you to want this city to be amazing. It'll never be done overnight. It'll be years, I'm willing to bet, before noticeable changes happen, but things like Saturday night's shooting on Canal St. should never have happened. Here's the city, on the coattails of the Treme premiere and French Quarter Fest and right on the edge of the Quarter, seven people get shot. I'm tired of reading these stories about violent crimes. There have been 219 murders in 2010 so far. That's a little over 2 murders every day this year. This is a problem that needs to be handled and turning our backs on it is not going to fix it.

The HCR bill passed last night with a 219-212 vote. All 219 votes came from Democrats and of the 212 dissenters, 34 were Democrats and 178 were Republicans, meaning, not a single Republican voted for the bill.

This makes me wonder: how representative of the American people is this passing? If 255 votes are Democratic and 178 are Republican, it obviously means that the American people voted in more Democrats than Republicans, so, with that, one could argue that the majority of Americans have a Democratic slant.

However, since 13% of Democrats voted against the bill, along with 178 of their Republican counterparts, and since the voting was so very close, shouldn't that mean we should revisit the bill and revise it? I know it passed fair-and-square by the rules of the House, but this bill is important. It may be the most important piece of legislature in our lifetimes. Shouldn't we spend time on it?

Many Representatives that said they were voting for it said things like "No, I don't think this is the best bill we could have, but it's at least something, so I'll be voting for it." Um, as an elected official it is your job to fix bills that aren't correct. It is your job to propose changes. It is your job to vote against things that aren't as great as they could be. This bill will revolutionize health and healthcare in this country, be it for better or for worse. It is not something we should be half-assing. I am not an elected official, nor will I ever be, but I read the 1200+ page bill. I did my best to make sense of the all the legal-ese. It has good parts, and it has bad parts. Why is it that I can do this, but people whose job it is can't?

Everyone can agree that we need to fix our healthcare system; you'd be foolish to deny that. Any bill that passes will affect us for decades (at least) and as a result, we should absolutely spend every waking moment on this bill, fine-tuning and revising until it is 100% the best it can possibly be. And by that, I don't mean it's perfect because no bill will appease 100% of the people, but if we can make it be the perfect compromise and the closest thing to perfect we can, then and only then should it be passed.

I think the Representatives should also be given primer courses on the healthcare industry. There should be more doctors and nurses (and even owners of hospitals and executives from insurance companies) involved in every step of the bill's writing. I say this because of all the rumors and misinformation so many Congressmen spouted to the media. Things like how the bill adds "death panels" (which already exist in the insurance industry and happen every day. The bill just asserts their ability to exist and are not the grim executioners many want you to think they are.), or how it gives carte blanche healthcare to illegals (of which the bill actually says the exact opposite), or how you'll be forced to pay for the government plan no matter what, or how you'll lose your work-subsidized plan.

Well, let's focus on those last two, because those are half true. Yes, you will be paying for the government plan even if you don't use it. It's being paid for by a system referred to as "taxes". Yes, higher taxes are not the way to fix things, I agree. But guess what: stop sending mail through the USPS. Only get packages from FedEx and only send e-mails. You're still paying for the Postal Service even if you don't use it because it's being subsidized by taxes, in addition to the (currently lackluster) profits it makes. This is a fact of the American way of life: taxes pay for everything provided by the government, whether you use it or not. Yeah, it sucks. Move on.

A lot of people want you to think you'll lose your health plan at work. Some say it's because the government will force you to use the government plan (not true) and some say it's because your employer will be paying taxes on the government plan, they won't want to pay "double" by paying into the private plan you have. This is also not true. The reason is this: yes, your employer will be paying some taxes on the government plan by virtue of the way all businesses pay taxes and that money gets thrown into a tax pot. The part many opponents leave out is that employers will get tax cuts if they provide a private health plan, as most medium-to-large businesses do. Yes, if your employer says "Hey, we're sticking with Humana or Blue Cross or whatever" the government will say "Hey, Company X, thanks for providing something for your employees to keep them healthy. Here's some money back to help offset the costs." If you are a business that makes over a certain amount of profit per year (read: giant corporations with millions and/or billions), you will be penalized for not having a plan for your employees. The whole point of the bill is to make sure everyone has healthcare. If you work for a business that can afford it, they have to provide it. If they do, they get tax incentives. If they're too small (like mom-and-pop shops) and can't afford a plan, you can get cheap healthcare from the government. It's not a big deal.

The big problem is, of course, the taxes each of us will pay each year to fund the new plan. Will it be a lot? Will it be a small amount? A portion of my check already goes to Medicare (not to mention State and Federal income taxes…. How much more will I be paying, if any? The exact amount has yet to be disclosed by the Obama Administration and that's a thing that makes me weary. I don't like increases in taxes, mostly because there's so much misuse of funds happening already that, if curtailed, would free up probably millions each year which could help pay for good ideas.

Hopefully this all works out in the end. It's out of our hands as regular ol' citizens at this point. We've elected the weirdos up in Washington already, so now we've got to hope they won't screw this up. Which, if the past is any indication, there's a high probability.

But you know, no other administration has destroyed the fabric of America. Crazy Presidents like Nixon, Johnson, and Bush (pick one), while they screwed some things up, they didn't destroy America. Presidents with questionable private life scandals like Clinton and Kennedy didn't hurt the moral fiber of America either. Sure, lots of Congress-people are "drinking the Obama Kool-Aid" as some GOP-ers like to say (I bet Kool-Aid hates that) and they voted just because a Democrat pushed and backed this bill, and likewise, there were come Republicans that probably voted against it for the same reason, but I fail to agree that Obama or any one political party is going to destroy this country or anything upon which it is founded.

Last I checked, America was founded on the principles that everyone gets a chance at a piece of the pie, (not to mention, the Christian faith, of which most opponents are, has the same core values). So, shouldn't we be trying to do something that helps everyone get healthcare? There are three unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence and the first one is "life". Without healthcare, not everyone is given that initial right. People are arguing that this bill doesn't help the middle class or the upper class. Well, for one, it does, but is it a big deal that it helps everyone else? When people hear "those who can't get or afford healthcare" they only think of people on welfare or without jobs. There are millions more that have jobs, but still can't get healthcare because they work for a small business that can't afford it. There are some that own small business and can't afford it. There are college students that are no longer covered by their parents, but don't have a job yet, or are waiting tables to pay off student loans and don't get employer-subsidized healthcare. If they had a cheap alternative to private healthcare, they could get cheaper prescriptions or go get a regular check-up. What's wrong with that? The healthier other people are, the healthier you are because people aren't getting sick and then touching public areas or coughing on you. They can afford to get medicine for communicable diseases and help stop the spread of them. That's good for everyone.

Just by creating a program to allow affordable healthcare for those without the means, we have not started socialism. We have not started communism. Is our public school system socialist? Is our postal service socialist? Is our military socialist? These are all programs funded by taxes (in whole or in part) that benefit the masses and are run by the US Government. Yes, many public schools in America aren't good. FedEx and UPS are (often) more efficient than the USPS. And, well, some say the military hemorrhages money. But without a public school system, how many people wouldn't have jobs today? Without the USPS, how can important information get to every citizen with an address in an adequate amount of time? And without the military, how safe would we be?

I just hope that should this become law, it's done efficiently and does not cost more than it should.

In case you've missed it, the NFL has recently been claiming that they own the rights to the phrase "Who Dat?" especially when joined by the colors black and gold or any fleur de lis, not just the one they actually own. Obviously, they're full of it. As a result, New Orleanians are angry, and rightfully so. I decided to let the NFL know about my copyright claim. And for the record, yes, I actually sent this.

To: Dan Masonson <dan.masonson@nfl.com>
Subject: A Request to Cease Infringement of Copyrighted Materials

Mr. Masonson —

It was recently brought to my attention that your organization, the National Football League (NFL), has been infringing upon a set of phrases to which I have recently laid copyright claim. The infringing phrases are as follows:

This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited.

In this set of phrases, the acronym "NFL" refers to "Neanderthal Frisbee League". The Neanderthal Frisbee League is a sporting league wherein players dress as cavemen and play Ultimate Frisbee. While the league has never been officially formed nor have any games (or, "matches", as we call them) actually been played, I've long dreamed that one day the matches would be aired on national television, thereby forcing me to create some sort of protection for the content and events that may transpire one day. Please take note that the issue is not with our shared acronyms — I happen to be a big fan of coincidence and happenstance (primarily because it's such a silly word).

I've decided that, while your organization has been using the two phrases since 1998, after 21 years of very successful "Madden NFL" videogames and how football has just so recently become more popular than ever in its history (thanks to baseball having the same teams in the Series every year. Am I right?), I've decided that now would be the perfect time to randomly claim I own something that you've been using for about 12 years.

I know this will come as a shock to you because your organization has held these phrases so near and dear to your (legal department's) heart, but with the recent success of your organization and the upcoming Super Bowl, I felt I should pounce on this immediately so that my unsubstantiated claim could possibly hold water prior to the Big Game.

Please keep in mind, that my claim of ownership of these two phrases also encompasses the red, white, and blue colors typically shown on the graphic after each broadcast bearing this message, as well as the shield shape that your organization uses to surround the letters "NFL".

I hope that you take these matters into consideration and must ask that you cease displaying this message after each broadcast and discontinue all merchandise bearing the two phrases. (Why you thought those t-shirts would sell is beyond me, but, to each their own.)

Thank you for your time, Mr. Masonson, and I hope that your Big Game goes smoothly.

Geaux Saints,
Geoffrey Gauchet

I'll be sure to let you know of any responses.

I've uttered the words "Saints" and "Super Bowl" in the same sentence plenty of times in my life. "The Saints have never been to the Super Bowl" is a popular one. It's truly remarkable. This city has become electric. This city has become one. NOPD announced that there were no violent crimes before, during, or after the game last night. It's sad that that has to be news, but it truly is amazing. For half a day, we put aside everything and rallied around the same thing.

New Orleans is a one-of-a-kind city. We've got more than our fair share of problems, that's for certain, but we've got a charm that no other city in the world can begin to imagine. And no matter what adversity we've faced, there's always been one thing that has tied the fabric of this city together: our Saints. As far as I see it, there is only one type of Saints fan, and that's the diehard. Even during the bag-head days, the fans were still at the games, hoping for the best. Even when we called them the Ain'ts, we watched the games, hoping for the best. When it took 20 years for them to make the playoffs, the fans watched and hoped for the best.

And last night, we watched the game and hoped for the best, all while biting our nails and checking our pulses. And for the first time in history, our hoping and wishing finally paid off.

People exploded in joy when Hartly so casually put the ball through the uprights. People hugged complete strangers. Tears were shed. Fireworks for launched. People lost voices. A constant tone of horns honking resonated throughout the city as people honked with joy.

Last night was something that not only the team deserved, but something New Orleans deserved and needed. This win, this joy, has nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina. This win and this joy means so much to the city of New Orleans because after 43 years of waiting, we finally got our first Super Bowl appearance.

The city has been blanketed in Black and Gold (capitalized, out of reverence) for over a week. Professionals walk through the CBD with Brees and Colston jerseys with their sport-coats on over them. Schools and business have forgone uniforms and dress codes to allow people to wear anything Saints. "Who dat?" has replaced "hello" as the preferred greeting.

Before the game Sunday, the city had a friendly vibe about it. It felt like Mardi Gras. The city was crawling with New Orleanians and visitors alike, wandering the streets and enjoying the gorgeous weather and our fantastic city.

No, this win didn't signify the struggle this city went through after Hurricane Katrina. To say that winning this game helped heal the Katrina wounds would belittle exactly what Katrina did to this city. The Saints have done so much for this city — from player-run charities to boosting our economy, to boosting our emotions — but reversing such a horrible event is not one of them. This win may be a band-aid to make us ignore the fact that we're missing 15% of our population, or that there's 1000s of empty lots where homes once stood, or that our local politicians are some of the most corrupt in the country, or that our school system is lackluster (to say the least).

We love our New Orleans Saints. We love this town. Nothing can take away the excitement and happiness we feel today.

Not Vikings fans claiming the officials were on our side, despite our 100+ yards in penalties.

Not Vikings fans saying that we only won because of their failures, despite the fact that that's how ever game is won.

And not the national media focusing on Favre almost making it to the Super Bowl, despite the fact that we actually have made it to the Super Bowl for the first time in history.

And not even if we lost the Super Bowl in February. The fact that those boys finally brought us an NFC championship and are taking us to the Bowl is more than enough for the lot of us.

Of course, that Lombardi trophy sure would look great in Drew's hands in Bacchus.