(Warning: Long, unfocused rant.)

The way the world works, in the broad strokes, there are people who’ve got power, and there are people who don’t. The former are vastly outnumbered by the latter, but the former exert an outsized amount of control over the lives of the latter. This is fundamentally what Occupy Wall Street in its various incarnations is really about; income inequality is just one facet of this power dynamic. There is a perception, and there’s quite a bit of validity to it, that the powerful don’t care about the powerless, and that things are getting way out of control in western society — that the majority, the people who don’t have the money and who don’t have the power, are stuck where they are with little hope for change or progress in the future. You have to have been living under a rock this past decade to not notice this. And in all probability, you are on the powerless end of things. You might not, personally, feel particularly powerless or vulnerable, but that’s circumstantial, not structural. You feel that way primarily because in your life, nobody has tried to exert that level of control over you.

This isn’t wholly dissimilar to a particularly cynical view of personal freedom and individual rights — the idea (or fact, if you like) that your freedom exists in the space between what the powerful could do to you, and the odds they’re not likely to care. The further out on the margins you are, the more worried you have to be under this system; the opposite is true, too, and it’s what leads the comfortably mainstream citizens of a theoretically free nation to wonder, aloud, why the innocent would ever have anything to fear from the police. If you’ve ever found yourself wondering what an innocent person might have to hide from the authorities, this is you.

I don’t understand what it is that drives a person to knowingly and willingly side with the powerful against the interests of the powerless. I get why Jamie Dimon and Michael Bloomberg have problems with the Occupy Wall Street protestors. It isn’t difficult to imagine why the media hegemons feel compelled to dismiss the protestors as bongo-drum carrying idiots — Zuccotti Park is a direct rebuke to the world JPMorgan and Bloomberg and News Corp. have created, and the protests are a threat. The world is OK as long as nobody looks at it too carefully, and I think the real worry amongst the hedge fund set is that people are starting to look a bit more closely at the way things are set up. It’s less clear to me why random citizens and members of the public would be inclined to oppose the protests, or what a random person would have invested in the aforementioned powerful-created world. You do not, by and large, derive any real benefit from this world, and even if you’re not suffering any specific harm from it, you’re only a few steps away from being squashed like a bug.

Which brings me to Air Canada. As you’ve probably seen, the airline is having a bit of an argument with its flight attendants. This is yet another in a series of labor disputes between Air Canada and its employee groups, and once again I’ve been watching it play out with a sick feeling in my stomach. The problem is that unions are involved, and unions seem to be this fundamentally unhinging subject in contemporary society — people love to hate on them, and they have become convenient scapegoats for all the ills in the world today. (The budgeting problems of most jurisdictions are due to… those overpaid school teachers. Right.) To be clear, I’m not a strongly pro-union person. I’m less than wholly comfortable with a lot of the ideas that underlie trade unionism, and I’m really uneasy with the way in which the more vocal trade unionists enjoy stifling dissent within their ranks. But at the same time, I recognize — now, more than ever before — that unions today are maybe the only institutions that are focused primarily on the powerless, and the only outfits these days that are giving voice to those who would otherwise be at the mercy of the powerful.

Every time the subject of unions in air travel comes up, there are inevitably people out there who venomously denounce their very existence and blame the unions for every last bit of woe and misery involved in travel — from indifferent service to rudeness to the fact you have to pay $25 to check a bag. The argument usually goes something like this: if the unions didn’t protect their inept members, the airline could fire anyone they wanted and we’d have great service. This isn’t even remotely true, but it’s beside the point, and it really doesn’t have anything to do with the issue at hand. The single biggest cost at an airline is fuel. Period, full stop. Salaries — the structure of which, in aviation, is so bizarrely complex it makes my head hurt — are a tiny portion of the operating costs of an airplane. And, unfortunately, it’s all your fault. Yes, you. You demand to be flown from Vancouver to Calgary for $129. I can promise you it doesn’t cost $129 to operate that flight — it costs a lot more. So other people pay more than you do. But under the existing fare structure, it’s entirely possible to be sending planes out fully loaded with passengers, and yet still lose money on the operation.

Sure, WestJet turns a profit, and WestJet doesn’t have unionized employees. But that’s not why WestJet makes money. WestJet has a very different business model from Air Canada (as legacy carriers typically have different models from low-cost carriers) — fleet commonality is one thing; not having to serve as wide a range of international destinations is another; not trying to connect every single point in the country with every other is a third. (Seriously, try getting from Victoria to, say, Hawaii on WJA. Unless you fly on a day where they’re operating that one flight a week, get ready to fly YYJ-YYC-YVR-HNL at a minimum. You could, of course, drive to Vancouver and leave on a non-stop from there, but that introduces its own problems and issues.) Mapleflot is also burdened with the responsibility of sustaining routes operated by its subsidiaries in the deep dark past, and if left to its own devices would probably be quite happy to abandon a lot of thin, low-density routes that on the whole likely cost it money.

If you ran WestJet the way Air Canada is run, serving its destinations on its timetable with its equipment, you’d probably discover that WestJet isn’t profitable either.

Firing the rude employees isn’t going to fix this. It’s true that cutbacks across the board have resulted in less service overall, but you’ll notice the number of cabin crew never really changes — and that’s because the number of crew is determined by federal regulation, and isn’t discretionary. Rest assured that if the airlines could get away with it, they’d replace the FAs with vending machines in a heartbeat and save even more money. But they can’t, so someone has to ride around in the metal tube all day and pour you a can of Coke, and the airline is going to do everything in its power to make sure they pay that person as little as humanly possible. And that person is, quite rightly, going to get a bit upset by that.

On a larger scale, I’m confused about why anyone would have an issue with unions, or with unionized employees trying to get wage and benefit increases. This is a capitalist society (or a reasonable facsimile of one, anyway). Isn’t the whole idea to get the best deal for yourself possible? Collective bargaining is just that — bargaining. Both sides have a position, and they argue about it until someone gives in. Lather, rinse, repeat. I do not grasp why the protections afforded by trade unions are so offensive to so many people: do you like living under the threat of immediate dismissal? Do you like having only the power to quit if you’re unhappy at work? Do you think your employer shouldn’t take an interest in your well-being after your term of employment? Maybe it’s those fat pensions. I know! It’s crazy to think that someone who spent a career, I dunno, lifting heavy people off the floor, staying up nights, and getting thrown up on should be able to retire comfortably without having to worry about how they’re going to manage the wheelchair ramp up to their front door (thanks very much, occupationally herniated disk).

I’d like to say that it’s jealousy driving these issues, but it isn’t. It’s an actual dislike for the fact that people can band together to try and extract concessions from the wealthy. And make no mistake, though Air Canada is perpetually broke, they are still wealthy, and they’re still a damn sight more powerful than 6,500 unionized flight attendants. I tend to think that in any relationship, when there’s tension, independent observers should probably side with the people who have less power — or, at the very least, give them the benefit of the doubt and view all claims made by the powerful skeptically. This isn’t a political position so much as it is a humanitarian one, and it’s something I try to remember in my day-to-day life. (Note this applies regardless of the relative position of both parties to you. In the NBA lockout, for instance, I’m on the players’ side — for the simple reason that, although many players are ridiculously rich, the owners are ridiculously rich and complaining about those goddamn players stealing all the money. Yeeeeah.)

Ultimately, the message of the anti-unionists seems to come down to this: “Be thankful you have a job. Shut up and don’t complain. If you’re unhappy, quit. Or we’ll fire you.” This isn’t that different from the position of a lot of employers today, who have the unfortunate habit of looking at their employees solely as payroll numbers. I cannot fathom why anyone would feel the need to flack for employers on the basis of this kind of thinking — and, let’s be clear, that’s what the anti-union sentiment really comes down to. It’s an implicit decision to cast your lot in with the very powerful and the very rich. And I really don’t get it, because unless you too are an employer, a government, or a major corporation, guess what? You aren’t part of that club. You can act like it, but you aren’t actually. In reality, you’re just like the rest of us — the only difference is that your situation is a bit more benign, right now, than ours is.

As the saying goes, “Just because you’re on their side doesn’t mean they’re on your side.” You might like the banks and the rich and the powerful an awful lot. You might wish them well. You might think they deserve all their success, and more, but they don’t feel that way about you, and if it’s convenient for them, they’ll quite happily kick you to the curb. And then, because this is the world we live in, you’ll whine piously about how unfair it all is. And I won’t care, because poetic justice is the best kind of justice in the world.
]]> http://fumbling.com/lost/2011/10/on-the-littler-guys/feed/ 0 http://fumbling.com/lost/2011/10/fail-on-fail/ http://fumbling.com/lost/2011/10/fail-on-fail/#comments Fri, 07 Oct 2011 20:14:34 +0000 Mike http://fumbling.com/lost/?p=902 Continue reading →]]> Vancouver Sun, Ex-MLA queries Christy Clark’s cleavage. This is the stupidest “controversy” I’ve seen or heard about in eons — it’s light-years beyond the whole Obama birth certificate nonsense — but the single worst part about it, in my mind, is the part where David Schrek, after picking on a woman’s outfit, decided to run and blame his wife for raising the issue in the first place.

“I’m not sexist! My wife said the sexist thing first, so it’s not sexist at all!”

Yeah. Nice.

• Globe and Mail: Truth, justice, and becoming un-American. “A series of tough new U.S. tax laws, designed to root out Americans hiding money offshore, is suddenly prompting many expatriates to consider the ultimate act of national repudiation – becoming un-American. In a move set for 2014, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service will require foreign financial institutions to identify all accounts held by Americans.” In Soviet Russia, state own you!
• David Sirota, Salon: The New Let Them Eat Cake. “10 shocking, illuminating moments that prove just how out of touch the powerful really are.”
• Julianne Hing, ColorLines: Raquel Nelson and the Aggressive Prosecution of Black Mothers. “After the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article raising alarm about the dangers of jaywalking, instead of, say, the dangers that poor urban design pose to transit-dependent families, the solicitor general decided to prosecute Nelson for endangering her children. Earlier this month an all-white jury of middle class folks who admitted they had limited experience taking public transportation in the area found Nelson guilty of second-degree vehicular manslaughter and reckless endangerment.”
• Fortune: What’s wrong with the airlines? “To say that the airports at San Francisco or Los Angeles are less squalid than Chicago is faint praise, for the difference is so slight that anyone passing hastily through would notice no real improvement. Almost all U.S. airports are utterly barren of things to do. The dirty little lunch counters are always choked with permanent sitters staring at their indigestible food; even a good cup of coffee is a thing unknown. The traveler consigned to hours of tedious waiting can only clear a spot on the floor and sit on his baggage and, while oversmoking, drearily contemplate his sins.” Guess the date on this article!
• And finally, I listened to this podcast while watching the fourth and fifth innings of this game, at the same time as I was working out at the gym. Which might represent the single most depressing combination of things I’ve ever had to do in my life.

I’ll be back with more depressing news later. Need to refill my Prozac and Jack Daniels.

• Of the many, many things that irritate me about the Harmonized Sales Tax, nothing is more irritating right now than the fact that the referendum isn’t a debate so much on the merits of the tax itself, but rather the implementation of the tax. Thanks a lot, BC Liberals! ’cause some people — maybe even most people — might have been persuadable when it came to the merits of the tax itself, given the need to ensure a healthy revenue stream to protect programs. But you guys managed to screw it up by sneaking it in, and now people are angry and just as likely to kick the thing to the curb. Way to go, dorks.
• On a related note, announcing that a 2% cut in the HST rate (effective in two years time!) will amount to savings of $120 per family per year is not actually a selling point. Most families can do math. Most families with more than one person in them are probably not so stupid as to ignore the part where inflation will quite happily eat the $5/month/each they get back from the 2% rate cut. It’s not the rate, guys, it’s the way you sprung it on the province. Nobody was complaining about the rate, so the idea that the province “listened” is, uh, flawed.
• The real reason why the FAA won’t move to an enlightened position on air traffic controller fatigue has less to do with human factors research and more to do with the prevailing political climate. Doy, right? But who’s going to complain about the fact that controllers can take naps? Answer: anyone who (a) has an axe to grind against public service employees and (b) has this vague sneaking suspicion that somebody, somewhere, is getting away with something — the politics of resentment, even a resentment that has no basis in reality, at work in fatigue management. I want to throw up, but… yeah, no, I just want to throw up.
• I’m reasonably sure that when the newsreader says that a person “suffered serious injuries after making contact with a grizzly bear,” they’re really looking for the most euphemistic way to say that a person “got chewed on by a grizzly bear.” “Making contact” doesn’t quite have the same visual punch, does it?
• As a somewhat interesting culinary experiment the other day, I shelled a pound of peas, minced a clove of garlic, sauteed both in a bit of butter, finishing it off with some chopped basil. It was surprisingly tasty: not enough “there” there to make it a side in and of itself, but I can easily see an application for it in (for instance) couscous or quinoa. The next time I have a bunch of leftover peas, I think I’ll try this again but throw in some panko to add to the crunch.

We’re done here.

The bad news is that the Tea Party’s political outrage is being appropriated, with thanks, by the Goldmans and the BPs of the world. The good news, if you want to look at it that way, is that those interests mostly have us by the balls anyway, no matter who wins on Election Day.

The true, central catalyst of the war, which lent it its moral meaning — that is, slavery — was pushed out of mind. Even Northerners came to believe in the myth of the South’s noble, doomed “Lost Cause.” Human bondage, wrote former Confederate President Jefferson Davis, was “in no wise the cause of the conflict, but only an incident.” Northerners proved willing enough to go along, and to transmute their past into an ennobling myth; there’s a reason that people in both regions, even now, try to deny what the war was about, or to say that slavery was going out on its own anyway, or that the Confederacy had black soldiers. “Gone With the Wind” and “Birth of a Nation,” which in one way or another dramatize this argument, were enormous national hits for just this reason as well. Reconciling white people meant writing out black people. White Americans looked at their black countrymen and said, in effect, “This is our story now, not yours.”

This is what’s just happened at the Mall. Nobody was in the wrong during the civil rights years; King was a happy saint in the American tradition, not a dangerous radical.

Winant goes on to connect this kind of historical revisionism to 9/11 and the manufactured controversy over the Park51 project. It’s a really interesting perspective — not something that would have immediately occurred to me independently. And I’m not entirely sure that he’s right (I am not informed enough about the history of the reconstruction and the social dynamics involved to be able to speak authoritatively on the subject). But in its broad strokes, his argument feels right, if only observationally: We don’t like to talk about the very real history of everyday discrimination and oppression that was a fact of life in that era — and we certainly don’t like to talk about the complicity of ordinary individuals in this whole sorry tale. What we will talk about are the most visible: those who had acts, and names, and deeds — like Bull Connor and James Earl Ray — that inexorably mark them as villains in the civil rights struggle, but we ignore the people who never got their names in the newspapers. They’re the approved bad guys. Everyone else just sort of fades away, and we can pretend — as Winant says — that the past was a time when everyone got along, and what we think of as the civil rights movement was simply an inevitability.

There’s a very interesting discussion about the way that 9/11 is being stripped of its significance, too: “The real meaning of the disaster on September 11 — the way violence begets violence and fanaticism begets fanaticism, the way geopolitical maneuvering makes victims of ordinary people — is all gone. In its place is the vacuous sanctimony that it the place is “hallowed,” but all that seems to mean is that it is not open to Muslims.” You would think that to properly venerate the victims of 9/11 (disclaimer: I am not one of them, nor do I have any real connection to the event beyond being shit-scared for a couple of weeks that year, which I don’t consider victimization at all, though apparently I’m coming to understand this may be a minority view), you might want to talk about these things — understand how geopolitics is played, how decisions made 20, 30, 40 years ago come back to haunt you, how the cycle of violence continues, unbroken to this day, and how this is a really shitty problem that isn’t going to get better anytime soon, unless we start making different choices for ourselves. The moral you’d think you’d want is that the people who were killed that day died so that we’d all have a better understanding of what this world is like, and so that we’d think hard about what we were doing, and thus choose to do something different.

But the morals we are actually taking away from 9/11 seem to be: that it’s important to blow up as many places in the Middle East as possible, that nothing bad ever happens from doing this sort of thing, that considering potential consequences when pondering an action is a sign of weakness, and that under no circumstances should anyone ever think that possibly there might have been a point to the whole thing. In short, we’re using 9/11 to reinforce ideas and beliefs that we held before the damned thing happened in the first place. It’s the whole epistemic closure thing all over again, just writ large. Based on this sort of logic, maybe what we need at Ground Zero is not a mosque, or a church, or anything else of the sort. We need a military base, preferably one with serious offensive power projection capabilities. Is Montana looking to get out of the missile silo business?

To be fair, everybody does this. It’s rare to encounter anyone who is willing to change their minds based on events or data, and thank goodness for those who are. If you thought that US foreign policy was too aggressive before 9/11, you probably saw the attacks as vindication for your views. If you thought the problem was that the Middle East hadn’t been turned into radioactive slag, well, the conclusions there are obvious too. But we aren’t even having this debate anymore — 9/11 Just Happened, and about the only thing that’s worth talking about anymore were the goddamned Muslims that carried it off. (Note, too, that we’re not even talking about the specific Muslims that did it! Everyone’s complicit!) And even that point got the volume turned down until a few months ago. So maybe it’s not surprising that we’re suddenly having this huge argument about the “mosque” “at” “Ground Zero”: we never finished having the argument we should have been having in the first place, and it feels kind of silly to pick it up now that there’s no point anymore. (The “blow shit up” side won the argument, we blew shit up, and uh, well, how’s that working out this week?)

We’ve just decided to not talk about it anymore. There’s an accepted narrative about what happened, and we’ve airbrushed out the gory details. Unfortunately, in doing so, we stripped the event of its power. This is understandable — nobody really wants to have to relive the emotions of that day — but it does mean we’ve lost something important about what went on back in September of 2001.

Hiroshima represents a great example of this in action. The museum there will work very hard to convince you that the nuclear bombing of the city was something that Just Happened, and I suppose to the victims it did. Although you’ll find some interesting discussion about how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were basically excuses to scare the Russians, you will not find any discussion at all about the savagery the Empire inflicted on its neighbors, the brutality of the War in the Pacific, and the very cold, very calculating decisions Truman and his advisers made in dropping the bomb. But any examination of the use of nuclear weapons needs to include that component; you simply can’t view their use in isolation. The point, however, is not to judge, to place blame, or to justify or defend the decision. Fred Clark, writing earlier this month, noted: “The least evil is still evil. The least monstrous is still monstrous. When, as will happen, you are yourself forced to choose between two bad things, then choose the lesser of the evils and choose it boldly. That will be the right choice and, if circumstances are truly as circumscribed as you believe them to be, that will be the right thing to do in that situation. But it still won’t be a good thing. It isn’t a good thing and cannot be made good.” You can’t score points off it, and shouldn’t try to. You just need to understand — so that maybe, just maybe, you can work towards a future where people don’t have to make the choice in the first place.

(I want to note two things, one relevant and one not: First, I’ve been reading a lot of Slacktivist and think everyone else should, too, because Mr. Clark has a brilliant writing style and a shockingly sharp mind. Second, Hiroshima might be an instructive example for 9/11, but for an entirely different reason — the idea of normality in the face of unspeakable horror and tragedy. Put another way, if — 50-some years later — teenagers can make out across from the Industrial Promotion Hall, in the face of something so symbolic, shouldn’t we be able to get past this other thing, too?)

Of course, the applicability of Hiroshima’s example to 9/11 isn’t perfect: there is actually an evil here, perpetrated by very specific people who had other options. The existence of that evil, however, should not blind us to the need to have the discussion about its origins in the first place. This wasn’t an ancient evil that some unsuspecting scientist let loose by accident — this was a man-made evil, and if we’re going to deal with it we need to understand it. I get this is not a popular sentiment, and I realize that The Talk is not going to happen anytime soon, if at all, and by mutual consent.

Here, too, Winant is perceptive. He ends his essay with a point that I suspect will be controversial, but isn’t really: “In the temples of Americana being built, the parts of our national past that don’t belong to the white, conservative population are being sacrificed.” He’s almost right; I’d say the correct construction is more along the lines of “in the temples of Americana being built today, the parts of the national past that don’t belong to the comfortable majority are being sacrificed.” It’s not exactly about race (except when it is); it’s more generalizable to the need of the comfortable to stay comfortable, and to never be challenged in their beliefs or confronted with unpleasant truths. You believe what you believe, and you’re never invited to consider the alternatives.

But then, as he says, this is nothing new.

“I think you’re going too far here,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. He was speaking in opposition to a bill that would keep people on the F.B.I. terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives.

Say what?

Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Graham accurately pointed out, “when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn’t consider flying.”

The subject of guns turns Congress into a twilight zone. People who are perfectly happy to let the government wiretap phones go nuts when the government wants to keep track of weapons permits. A guy who stands up in the House and defends the torture of terror suspects will nearly faint with horror at the prospect of depriving someone on the watch list of the right to purchase a pistol.

I give Graham partial credit for at least claiming that the enumerated rights in the Constitution (and relevant at the time of drafting) are the only ones worth defending, but I don’t suppose you’d have to work too hard to find other examples of sacred rights beloved by the GOP that aren’t specifically listed. That credit, however, does not go very far: of all the rights you want to defend, in relation to terrorists or terror suspects or people whom the government think might be possibly considering becoming terrorists, this is the right you choose to defend?

In my universe there’s a lot of political hay to be made over this. I do not live in the same universe as the Republican party, apparently.

(Note I have no specific opinion on Lautenberg’s bill itself; that’s not the point here.)
]]> http://fumbling.com/lost/2010/05/pleading-the-second/feed/ 0 http://fumbling.com/lost/2010/01/bigotry-not-so-bad/ http://fumbling.com/lost/2010/01/bigotry-not-so-bad/#comments Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:09:47 +0000 Mike http://fumbling.com/lost/?p=500 Continue reading →]]> San Francisco Appeal: SF Chronicle Columnist: Bigotry Not So Bad.

The Chron startled the Appeal today when their columnist Chip Johnson defended a bigot in Oakland. The situation is this: Lorenzo Hoopes, a Mormon, donated $26,000 in support of Prop 8, more than any individual in Oakland, a city with one of the country’s largest lesbian populations. (Really!) Hoopes faces re-appointment to the Board of Directors of the Paramount theater; but now that he’s shown himself to be an anti-gay supremacist, some community leaders are opposed to his continued presence.

After all, as we’ve seen during this week’s Prop 8 trial, discrimination against gays has real consequences — to society, to individuals, and to families.

But Chronicle writer and Oakland resident Chip Johnson is outraged! In an piece that might as well have been titled, “Aw, Give the Old Bigot a Break, He’s Probably Real Nice,” he lamented that anyone would actually dare hold Hoopes accountable for his actions.

Unlike many of our respected friends in the San Francisco news space, The San Francisco Appeal does not practice advocacy journalism. We have no dogs in fights, and do our best to report as objectively as we can without being totally boring and cheesy. However, we are, indeed “anti Prop-8 cheerleaders.” This is because we are not fucking bigots! Therefore, we called on Oakland resident Jip Chonson to provide us with a rebuttal to the Chronicle’s piece.

And then “Chonson” goes and re-writes the Chronicle‘s piece by doing a s/gay/Jew/ on it. Go ahead, feel uncomfortable. You’re supposed to.

I stole this link from jwz’s LJ. A commenter there writes, “Isn’t it interesting what happens to all of these initiatives and talking points when you take the word, “homosexual” and replace it with, “negro” or “Jew”? Why, you get the very bigotted language we used to hear back a century ago! Who’d have ever thought?”

Bigotry is bigotry. It is not an unfortunate social habit, nor is it in bad taste — it’s just wrong. This isn’t really complicated, yet the ability of a great many people to fully miss the point is sad.
]]> http://fumbling.com/lost/2010/01/bigotry-not-so-bad/feed/ 0 http://fumbling.com/lost/2008/11/raw-unfiltered-joy/ http://fumbling.com/lost/2008/11/raw-unfiltered-joy/#comments Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:37:00 +0000 Mike http://fumbling.com/lost/2008/11/05/raw-unfiltered-joy/ Continue reading →]]> The defining moment of Campaign 2008, for me: standing in the lobby of the Rio in Las Vegas, having just gotten out from Penn and Teller, watching mobs of people surge through the hallways, some of them crying, some of them laughing, some of them hugging, all of them chanting, in one voice, with the force and joy and certainty of the vindicated: “Yes we did.”

20-odd hours later, it still rings in my ears. “Yes we did.”

I could be cynical about this. I’m cynical by nature. But I can’t be cynical about this.

Way to go, Mike! Yeah!
]]> http://fumbling.com/lost/2008/01/now-it-can-be-told/feed/ 0