Web Commonerprogressive politics, social commentary, and ramblings on pop culture

One day after FOX News released their latest findings inferring that “Americans” do not want Barack Obama’s healthcare plan, FOX News figureheads, Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace, jumped on the air to do some usual fact-twisting, spin-laden analysis, asking why the White House might be snubbing their network in its latest press junket to promote the president’s proposals …

According to O’Reilly, FOX News is the only network today that really matters, thanks mostly to a mysterious migration of so-called “independent” voters recently to Fox’s viewership. In the interview, O’Reilly and Wallace do their best to pretend that the network’s coverage is fair, yet Wallace appears surprisingly unrestrained while making statements like the Obama administration is the “biggest bunch of crybabies” that he ever saw, or blatantly circumventing fact by stating that the number of participants in the recent 9/12 tea-party protests in Washington DC added up to a “million, or hundred thousand, thousands, or tens of thousands.”

Almost in the same breath, O’Reilly attempts to drive home the point that the so-called “power shift” in the media is now with FOX News and talk radio, all because so-called “independents who make the calls” are, apparently, in bed with a news organisation that consistently distorts factual data, intentionally manipulates its audience, and injects subjective opinion into every story that it reports. Of course, what O’Reilly neglected to point out is that the Republican party is in shambles, desperately seeking to separate itself from the party’s pathetic reputation garnished within the last ten or so years, and undergoing an elusive transformation that gives way to a new, so-called “independent” mindset.

By redefining themselves as Independents, disoriented Republican dissidents see an opportunity to save face after enduring eight solid years of embarrassing let-downs under a leader who originally gave them great hope and inspiration. In reality, these so-called “independents” continue to think very much like old school Republicans, which means that they still need to rely heavily on their beloved news network to act as an official microphone for their new and developing political branch. Fortunately for them, specific, strategically placed personalities at FOX are available to serve as official spokespeople for the new, smoke and mirrors faction, despite the reality of their audiences being little more than recycled Republican viewers.

Traditionally, professional journalists steered clear of announcing party affiliation in a more objectively driven industry, holding to an unwritten rule that a journalist might project bias into coverage by revealing their personal views concerning specific policy issues. This is precisely why Bill O’Reilly makes it a point to highlight Chris Wallace’s past credentials, siting 11 years with ABC News, and subsequently mentioning Wallace’s biological father, 60 Minutes staple, Mike Wallace, all to link the FOX News Sunday host’s connections and experience to his assumed ability to host a “fair and balanced” television news show in 2009. Of course, the game is not what it used to be, and broadcast news has come a long way since the days of Mike Wallace and the halfway-objective journalist. Today, personal opinion-driven talking heads rule the 24-hour news circuit and, of course, FOX played a tremendous role in creating that environment.

One of the most prominent and popular characters to embrace so-called “independent” voters at FOX News is Glenn Beck, who took up full time residence there after moving his freakish road show to the network following a two-year stint with CNN. Launching one of the most strange and all-together scary live broadcasts in American television news history, Beck regularly uses the medium as an outlet to spew outlandish conspiracy theories that target the Obama administration and their so-called socialist agenda. He often touts his audience as one that represents all political persuasions, encouraging them to set aside petty political differences, and calling them to arms in a fight to take back a corrupt government. Of course, behind the scenes, Beck is well aware of the fact that his core following primarily consists of bitter, paranoid, and virile Republicans and Republican outcasts frustrated with corruption and bureaucracy, which actually came to a head at the hight of the previous administration. Of course, there is also another sliver of his audience who likely represent nomadic passerby’s, popping in and out on occasion, hoping to witness that predictable moment of self-sacrifice when Beck finally goes off the deep end.

Meanwhile, those who isolate themselves as independents on their voter registration cards are moving away from traditional broadcast news outlets, along with progressives, and taking residence online instead, mostly out of frustration for a devolving medium in television. Unfortunately, the people left behind are those who demonstrate a stubborn unwillingness to embrace new technologies, and subsequently have little choice but to follow FOX’s coverage as competing network ratings fall and content suffers as a consequence. Their pockets ere empty, and they see a government spending unprecedented amounts of money in a sweeping quest to restore the country’s economy. They turn to so-called independent voices like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, or Chris Wallace, and what they hear in those voices, no matter how fantastical or irresponsibly manipulative, stirs emotions into patriotic action and renewed political vibrancy.

Spending a good portion of my day tracking an erroneous article about a new Fox News poll is not my idea of a good time, but sometimes a person has to bite the bullet and endure a little self-induced torture, simply to get the necessary results that they’re so desperately seeking. Yesterday, I found myself halted half-way through a daily ritual of scanning the latest headlines on Google News after coming across a new poll indicating, “Americans Prefer Current System to Obama’s Health Care Plan.” This should be interesting, I thought, and rashly clicked the link.

As expected, the site brought me deep into the heart of FoxNews.com’s political section and their so-called “fair and balanced” coverage of today’s news. I read the article, by Dana Blanton, which concludes that a poll released by FOX News on Thursday, September 17, found that, “Most Americans see no upside for their family in the health care reforms being considered in Washington and don’t believe President Obama when he says his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit.” Given the detailed wording of these and other claims, I decided to let the raw data speak for itself.

Of course, the raw data was not available, and neither was the full poll results. In fact, clicking these links on the page got the following disparaging result:

Page Cannot Be Found

Okay, maybe Safari simply had a brain freeze, so I clicked the ‘back’ button and tried the links again. Still nothing, and at this point, the blood started boiling inside my head. Isn’t it irresponsible for a major news network to publish fact-based claims based on polling data that is not available to the reader? This point of contention was enough to propel me into registering at the news conglomerate’s website for the first time and expressing my reservations concerning the report:

by webcommoner[Sep 17, 2009 5:01:02 PM]
Surprise, surprise … links to view the “full poll results” and “raw data” explaining who, exactly, was polled are dead. Page Cannot Be Found How convenient, and how incredibly irresponsible. 5:00 PM EST

I checked back regularly throughout the day to monitor changes, even reinstating my search on Google News several times, but to no avail. Each time that I returned to the site, the raw data and poll results links remained broken, and more and more commenters saw it fit to note this obvious indiscretion. In fact, one of the last comments on the thread posted by edrivcol2112 at 3:47 AM on September 18, still demonstrated Fox’s indifference to these complaints, despite its grammatic fault:

“Fix the link showing the poll numbers are admit this is a fabrication, Fox News.”

The following morning, a subsequent Google News search yielded even more FOX News Poll stories, all based on the same raw data that was inconveniently absent the day before. Of course, this time, the “Americans Prefer Current System to Obama’s Health Care Plan” story linked to a new and separate page, finally making the poll data available to readers, but apparently ditching the comments that previously accompanied the story. Buried somewhere within the depths of FOX News obscurity, I thought, is a page with accompanying comments that question the story’s validity based on data missing from their website, and only a handful of people know.

Having a quick look at the results, which are now available, I scanned through the raw data and found information that is likely typical of a “fair and balanced” FOX News poll, including nothing that indicates whether or not their sample is random or where the telephone numbers that they used to perform the poll actually came from. Then, of course, there is a significantly high percentage of Independents interviewed, which seemed strange given the size of that party’s constituency, and a proportionately skewed ratio of blacks to whites questioned, which is concerning given the fact that the poll addresses issues of race. Finally, it seems convenient, at the very least, that blacks and whites appear to be the only ethnic groups available when the poll was conducted, which reflects data dating back to January, 2009.

A scan of the questions asked indicate a gross manipulation of verbiage, likely used to evoke emotion and provoke specific answers, like when interviewers ask, “how much attention do you feel Congress pays to what regular Americans think when it decides what to do.” Shouldn’t pollers excuse themselves from injecting subjective classifications concerning who is and who is not a “regular” American? Or, how about when FOX asks its subjects if, “you are more likely to: Vote for the Democrat to help Barack Obama pass his policies and programs,” in the next congressional election. Project much? The question that takes the cake, though, is the one that asks, “what do you think the president should be spending more time on right now – fixing the economy or reforming heath care,” as if he is unable to do both at the same time or, better yet, that both are not linked. I could go on, but you get the point.

Then, of course, there is that explosive cherry bomb that most pollers always seem to neglect when it comes to reporting coverage based on poll results, which is the fact that those questioned are only among “likely voters.” FOX then deems it appropriate to relabel these individuals, “Americans,” in their reporting and headlines, rather than call them what they really represent, a small cross-section of a much larger population. So, does FOX’s label for this group inherently imply that unlikely voters are un-American? Of course, scrutiny of the numbers themselves likely requires an infinite amount of patience, time, and due diligence that I am unwilling to yield at this point, and my guess is that FOX News viewers share the same sentiment, if they even care at all to check under the hood and see what’s driving the engine. Undoubtedly, Fox’s, “We report, you decide,” cabal not only depends on that notion, but lives and dies by it.

I was only four years old when Walter Cronkite relinquished his post as anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” and it would be many years into his retirement before I would understand and appreciate the true value of his character, or the full weight of his worth in terms of contributions that he made to the world of journalism and the respect he received from a nation of millions. My memories of Cronkite’s most popular moments are not unique, just recorded glimpses of the man’s stern yet warm delivery of the news as captured in time for the history books to later relay. Many in the baby boomer generation held him in such high regard that he earned the nickname, “Uncle Walter,” a testament to his ability to invade their living rooms each night with the sense of a beloved family member. They welcomed him with open arms, sometimes to receive some of the most disheartening news to hit the nation in the last half-century.

In Cronkite’s time, television was different. People peered into CRT monitors spilling duotone images of black and white into their living rooms. Sound came from a single channel, and “rabbit ear” antennas topped TV sets to receive the only signals available to viewers at the time, broadcasts from three major networks captured over the air. Of course, three networks meant three channels, which broadcast news programming for little more than 30 minutes each night. There was no means for recording what you missed, which meant that information-savvy citizens always knew exactly where they would be and what they would be doing once Walter hit the airwaves to deliver the daily news. At the evening’s end, the sound of a single tone and a screen-saver-like image indicated the end of a network’s daily programming, as if acting as an alarm to alert sleepy Americans that they overstayed their visit to TV land.

This nightly ritual between Cronkite, his network, and his constituency continued for nearly twenty years, through the civil rights and women’s liberation movements, the first lunar landing, Vietnam, Watergate, the Nixon impeachment, and the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy Jr., Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He endured sweeping change within the business of broadcast news, including the introduction of new competing networks, finally relieving himself of his duty not long before federal action brought cable technology to people’s homes in droves, along with a multitude of new channels. Cronkite seemed to disappear from public life temporarily, but a new generation of news hounds were fortunate enough to rediscover the man after he broke silence to deliver opinion-oriented editorial pieces in publications and on the radio throughout the last decade, which focused on everything from politics to the media.

It was in these moments, on the quiet drive home from work, that I welcomed Walter Cronkite, now a seasoned veteran, into my world. I listened intently as his signature voice, confident and adept, brought me into those old living rooms to relive crucial turning points in our country’s sorted history. His radio essays drew heavily on decades of professional experience, reflecting the challenges that he and his colleagues faced as reporters tasked to cover emotionally charged and politically sensitive events with objective eyes and ears. As I look back at Mr. Cronkite’s career, it would appear to me that his legacy is not really about how he delivered the news to millions each night. Instead, it’s about how he delivered information to people that was pure and unfiltered. Walter leaves this world at a point in our history when an evolving news landscape seeks to, once again, change how we organize and deliver new information. His legacy will serve as a sort of signpost, steering us clear from selfishly seeking out information that we want to know and instead pointing us in a direction towards getting the information that we need to know.

Thanks Uncle Walter. We will remember you always.

New evidence of Michael Jackson’s influence is popping up throughout the Internet in the form of tributes to the deceased entertainer. Friends and fans alike are passing along links to websites like Eternal Moonwalk, where a continuous loop of home videos shows people performing Jackson’s signature move. Other homages highlight his artistic genius, and one particular YouTube user is publishing video mash-ups that combine Jackson’s music with old footage of song-and-dance icons perceived to be his artistic inspirations from entertainment’s past. Check out the following series of clips that chronicle evidence of a historical evolution behind what eventually came to be Michael Jackson’s “Moonwalk.”

Other videos on the page carefully combine edited clips of “West Side Story” with Jackson’s “Beat It” and “Bad,” or clips of Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse dancing to Jackson’s “Smooth Criminal,” all skillfully crafted to demonstrate the entertainer’s obvious affinity towards show tunes, and their influence on his music, dance and videos. The significant difference between those historical gems and Jackson’s own art are the media that presented them, the silver screen versus MTV and the boob tube, which invariably led me to ponder how artistic influence gets recycled over time and through different mediums. As technology evolves and cultures change, valued art from the past gets passed on to succeeding generations, and shared influence continues to turn the wheels of inspiration, progress, and innovation.

Recently, Coldplay’s smash hit, “Viva La Vida,” sparked controversy over whether or not the British band lifted their song’s signature tune from an earlier recording of Joe Satriani’s “If I Could Fly.” The Internet and, more specifically, YouTube, became a sort of advanced interactive medium for fans to compare the music, discuss its transference, and indirectly share its inspiration and influence. To make matters more interesting, convincing compositions by other musicians including Enanitos Verdes and Cat Stevens got thrown into the mix, spanning almost twenty years of artistic works that seemingly influenced other works. Much of the matter’s discussion seems reminiscent of conversations that took place at the turn of the century when advances in production technologies brought Hip-Hop culture from block parties to the recording studio as artists began sampling old recordings to create entirely new music compositions.

In a society that sets high standards on the use of copy-written material, technology is once again testing the limits of artistic progress, and rekindling conversations that take place over the influence of past works. In the United States, arguments over copyright material are historically settled within the confines of America’s courtrooms, but new ideas fostering the free sharing of information via the Internet threatens to blow the hinges off the system’s doors. In the not-so-distant past, peer-to-peer sharing showed signs of destroying the business of record companies, which held a monopoly on music distribution, and lawsuits only gained them enough time to restructure their business models. Today, social networking sites like YouTube are excellent examples of mediums that allow for gross sharing of artistic property and ideas. Meanwhile, a new generation of entrepreneurs is setting aside outdated practices of intellectual protectionism by embracing a culture of sharing, most notably in open-source software development.

Regardless of which way the wind blows on future copyright law, shared influence among artistic works remains a powerful force that inspires human progress and innovation through time, a sort of transference of such subtle references to the past that they can quickly and easily be forgotten. Throughout human history, the past is what shapes our future and, since the day we learned to stand upright and speak, that yearning to share what we know and how we came to know it lingers within, like the blood flowing through our veins. It’s generally accepted that you cannot get something from nothing, especially within the spectacular realm of the shared human experience. So, without Copernicus, there would be no Galileo. Without Greek philosophy, no Roman democracy. Without Chuck Berry, no Beatles and, of course, without Fred Astaire, no Michael Jackson.

You try to avoid it as much as possible. You change the channel to another program or record the one you’re watching just to have the ability to fast forward through the commercials later. You watch cable, or maybe wait for the DVD’s release. As a last resort, you mute the live program and engage your friend, family member, or significant other in conversation while setting your internal clock to two minutes.

Deep down, we all know that inside those dimmed, artificially lit corridors of the marketing department that contains the pusher poised to sell their next ad space to the highest bidder, it’s not really a product they’re pushing, it’s you … and that’s not very cool at all. Still, sometimes an ad comes along that grips your psyche and actually solicits feelings of admiration and respect.

Guilt usually follows, along with fantastical images of some vibrant young intern fulfilling a secret goal to use advertising as a medium for unearthing hidden or forgotten cultural gems. In your head, it’s sort of an advertising coup, where a marketing intern conspires a clever ruse unbeknownst to his or her culturally devoid superiors and successfully surfaces or resurfaces iconic works of musical art to the fresh ears of millions. All the while, convincing their client that it’s the perfect supplement to their silly slogan.

Sure, I know it’s a dream and it doesn’t really happen that way, but it’s my way of justifying an industry that primarily drives profit through means of deception and manipulating people’s emotions. Regardless, some ads are simply worth their weight in BS, and here are five that made me sit back and say, “The song I just heard in that commercial was pure bliss to my eardrums, and makes me want to go outside and offer free hugs in the street.”

5. Porcelain – Advertised in a car commercial, I think? Moby absorbed a lot of heat for this, especially among his most loyal fans, after taking a firm political stand against the clutch of corporate interests. As I recall, he justified the use of ‘Porcelain’ in the ad with arguments that its revenue would supplement his cause, aiding in education and creating awareness about corporate greed and corruption.

4. Big Rock Candy Mountain – Okay, this composition didn’t compel me into the streets in song, but the ad was unforgettable and the tune was a familiar ditty. Burger King had me completely stumped after seeing this one, with Hootie and the Blowfish’s Darius Rucker decked out in full psychedelic cowboy garb, guitar in hand, and strumming an alternate version of a song made more famous on the ‘O Brother, Where Art Thou’ soundtrack than in this commercial. Still, I couldn’t help but think it was a clever nod.

3. Daydreamin’ – Another psychedelic manifestation, this song worked its way into a mobile phone ad and gave me an instant sense of deja vous. I never got to experience the late sixties, but if I had, this is how it would sound, and we have Lupe Fiasco and Jill Scott to thank for covering a track originally recorded by Wallace Connection at Abbey Road Studios in 1968.

2. Ain’t Got No, I Got Life – If you’re not familiar with Nina Simone, it’s high time to jump on iTunes and secure a collection of her music. The ardent impresario of jazz vocalists implants within her listeners a sort of history of the human soul. I was already familiar with her art through the musings of rappers like Mos Def, Talib Kweli and Common, and it took no time for me to recognize her distinguished tone after hearing it in a dairy ad in England. Something tells me that the “High Priestess of Soul” would not be too keen on her music being put to commercial use. She took a hard-lined position in the civil rights movement, and left the United States shortly after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

1. Lovely Day – Sorry Gap, but I haven’t stepped foot inside your store, immediately making a bee line for any corner where an employee would not find me, in over XXL number of years. Still, I have to give you credit for introducing me to this song, or at least the remix. Up to this point, the only Bill Withers tune that I could correctly identify was ‘Lean On Me,’ and that had more to do with Club Nuveau. I derived great pleasure whenever your happy dancers graced the screen to the smooth stylings of Mr. Withers, and I quickly familiarized myself with his music thereafter. Thanks.

WARNING: This post contains LOST spoilers. If you have not watched the show through the final seconds of Season 5, it is strongly recommended that you turn back now.

“They’re coming.”

That was the last line of special significance spoken by a character on LOST prior to Juliet’s screeching whimper as she pounded away at a stubborn nuclear reactor that Mr. Fix-It, Sayid, promised would detonate on impact. Apparently, all it took was some good old-fashioned elbow grease to make the thing act right, despite a compelling fall from grace. It’s a good thing she let go of Sawyer’s hand, and I guess those frustrated with the quadrilateral love connection can at least take comfort knowing it was a necessary plot twist that would pave a path towards their expulsion from 1977. I’ll certainly miss our cultish, psychedelic Dharma ladies and gents, but it’s time to move the story forward. Cue the cut to … white?

That’s right, Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof can’t take credit for pioneering the technique, but let’s at least pay homage to their use of a mere transition to advance the series into its final season, at the same time reminding us not to forget other television success stories that made excellent use of the cut or fade to white effect, including the Sopranos and Six Feet Under. So, what does it all mean? We know for a fact that the creators of LOST have been dangling the black and white theme in front of our faces since John Locke first introduced Walt to the game of backgammon.

There was the discovery of Adam and Eve, when Jack found black and white stones among the possessions of two decomposed skeletons in the caves. Claire once had a dream about Aaron on the beach, with Lock staring up at her sporting black and white eyes and breaking bad news that the survivors would pay the price for her shucking responsibility and giving up the baby. Now, enter Mr. Black, literally. In the opening scene of “The Incident,” we meet Jacob face to face for the first time, and he has a friend. By design, both characters contrast perfectly, with Jacob decked out in a white linen shirt, and Mr. Black wearing, well, black.

We have to assume that these two characters are at odds with each other after Mr. Black tells Jacob that he wants to kill him, implying that there is no easy solution to fulfilling this desire. Even more disturbing is the fact that this revelation does not appear to surprise or even remotely phase Jacob. Of course, I’m approaching this conversation from the East when it really should be read from left to right, so let me find Richard’s compass.

Okay, after we see Jacob working diligently on weaving a tapestry to decorate the walls of his humble stone hideaway, he heads outside to catch dinner. Next, we see him fillet a fish, cook it, and plop down on the beach to enjoy the meal. He stares off into the horizon as the infamous Black Rock sails a few miles offshore, and Mr. Black walks up and takes a seat next to him. Then, throw in the main ingredient that we all come to expect after 5 seasons of LOST … complete and utter confusion.

Jacob: I take it you’re here because of the ship.
Mr. Black: I am. (pause) How did they find the island?
Jacob: You’ll have to ask them when they get here.
Mr. Black: I don’t have to ask. You brought them here. Still trying to prove me wrong, aren’t you?
Jacob: You are wrong.
Mr. Black: Am I? They come, they fight, they destroy, they corrupt. It always ends the same.
Jacob: It only ends once. Anything that happens before that … is just progress.
Mr. Black: You have any idea how badly I want to kill you?
Jacob: Yes.
Mr. Black: One of these days, sooner or later … I’m going to find a loophole, my friend.
Jacob: Well, when you do, I’ll be right here.

Wow, this snippet of dialogue seems to suggest that these characters are at either end of a philosophical tug of war. One of them apparently has an advantage, and it’s the guy who presides under a larger than life four-toed statue of Taweret, the Egyptian Goddess of birth and rebirth. Meanwhile, I will take a shot in the dark here and say that Mr. Black is a representative of Anubis and Co., the Egyptian God of afterlife and the underworld. As we witnessed when Ben’s daughter accosted him under the temple, hieroglyphics adorning the wall revealed that the smoke monster and Anubis are, at least, acquaintances and, at most, one and the same. So, friends, we just might have on our hands a classic struggle between black and white, light and dark, life and death or, dare I say, good and evil.

To restate, it only ends once, and anything that happens before that is just progress. Okay, but progress towards what? If you take Mr. Black’s words at face value, the mates aboard the Black Rock are not the first Losties to reach the island, and they will not be the last. Still, let’s start with them. Apparently, they will come, fight, destroy, and corrupt until some sort of end-game scenario. I have a sneaky suspicion that the only person who could likely shed light on this subject, other than our beach bums, is the person whose job seems to be holding his tongue. After seeing Ricardus, or as we know him, Richard, set the sail of the Black-Rock-In-A-Bottle, it seems safe to assume that he was aboard the vessel when it finally landed, literally, on the island.

So, If Richard arrived on the Black Rock, maybe he knows how the statue came to be “destroyed,” and as far fetched as it might seem, maybe a nuclear reactor coupled with a spastic release of electro-magnetic energy just might be what it takes to thrust our Dharma infiltrators through time and space, and back to the day of Richard’s arrival. Maybe, just maybe, the incident thrusts the entire island physically through time, landing just beneath the Black Rock. Inconceivable! But is this progress?

If you believe Faraday’s theory, humanity’s ability to exercise free will is what makes us unique, and this might just be the constant in life’s awesome equation for humankind. In LOST lure, human survival hinges on a bet between ancient adversaries who represent contrasting philosophies, a wager that pits humans against themselves to see if they can overcome self-destruction by making the right decisions. The island is our casino, and Jacob seems to be the pit boss. As long as he is around to monitor progress, there is no limit to the amount of time that the game can carry itself out.

If Jacob and Mr. Black are, in fact, light and dark manifestations of a single entity, call it God, Ra, Apollo, or just humanity itself, then they cannot kill each other. Like the yin and yang, their existence depends solely on the sum of their parts, and each part has a unique task to carry out. Humans, however, have access to free will and, therefore, can choose between tasks. They can choose between practicing good or evil, knowing right from wrong, turning left or right, going up or down. To be or not to be, kill or be killed, live together, or die alone are all choices that we make. These options exist within the proprietary structure of the human brain, and our ability to choose between them makes us unique in the universe or, in its simplest form, on the island.

In Buddhist mythology, the twin concepts of karma and dharma are associated with reincarnation, with karma dictating that a person’s actions, or lack thereof, result in later effect. In other words, life is what you make it, either in this life or the one that follows. While karma leaves little room for blind chance or fate to determine the future, dharma leaves everything up to destiny. Mr. Black believes that doom and self-destruction is the ultimate fate awaiting humanity, while Jacob is confident that karma will prevail. Out of respect for dharma, Mr. Black is no longer interested in entertaining the idea that free will can save humans, and he sets in motion a plan to end the charade between himself and Jacob.

Black concocts an elaborate scheme to take advantage of humankind’s predetermined weakness, infallibility, doubt, and insecurity, planning to use it against Jacob when the time is right. He employs Smokey to seek out the island’s inhabitants and catalog their memories, document their secrets, manipulate their emotions, and manifest their darkest fears right before their eyes. The smoke monster is Mr. Black’s eyes and ears, and John Locke becomes his most vulnerable and receptive target.

Upon the arrival of the flight 815 survivors, Black finds an opportunity to become the unofficial surrogate father of a human child, Claire Littleton’s son, Aaron. Many believe that Claire died in the explosion back in Dharmaville. If so, it’s quite possible that Mr. Black or Smokey use Claire as a means to convince John that he must move the island to ensure its safety. Smokey’s manipulative capabilities are limited in scope only by its mechanical nature. Still, it obviously has the ability to utilize snippets it carries within it’s memory banks, like a camera, and manifest itself in other forms, which could explain Claire’s seemingly uncharacteristic behavior in Horrace’s woodland retreat.

Unfortunately, Mr. Black’s “Plan A” flies out the window the moment Aaron makes it off the island. Then, to make matters worse, Locke allows Ben to knock the frozen donkey wheel off its axis, which eliminates the problem of Widmore’s offshore army but regretfully sends the island flashing back and forth through time. Still, thanks to clever strategy, Black manages to get Locke placed next in line to lead the island’s people, and convinces him that bringing back his friends would stop the time shift. Oh yeah, John, and don’t forget that you will have to die to make all of this happen. Your body is very important to me and, unbeknownst to you and everybody else, it will serve as a mechanism in my plan to make Ben kill Jacob.

Luckily, he who “lies in the shadow of The Statue” also has an ace up his sleeve, and they share common ancestry. Their names are Christian and Jack Shephard. If Mr. Black can infiltrate a human being, there should be no reason that Jacob cannot do the same. Originally, he finds his loophole in Christian, who’s body landed on the island the day Flight 815 crashed. Through Shephard, he knows Jack, and understands their relationship, regrets, and unresolved issues. Despite his selfish misguidance and irresponsibility as a father, Christian understood Jack to be a great man, capable of great things. He also introduces Jacob to Claire, who will now do everything in his power to make sure her child does not fall into the hands of Mr. Black. He cannot be raised by another.

Maybe this is why women are slated to die after bearing children on the island. With the forces currently at play, all of that free love would be too risky as long as Black is scheming to find a loophole. While it would appear that Jacob manages to hold Black at bay, safely exiled within the confines of the cabin, encircled in ash and powerless to leave, Smokey roams throughout the island freely via a network of underground tunnels and caves, like an elaborate system of security cameras that aid in Mr. Black’s search for a “candidate.” Of course, someone eventually breaks the line of ash, and we all saw the new Locke disappear into the jungle while Ben awaited the arrival of Smokey with Sun and Lapidus. That sneaky devil.

Meanwhile, our friends in 1977 are poised to set off a nuclear bomb that could potentially dissolve the island in poisonous radiation, possibly a part of Jacob’s plan to discourage women from reproducing. Sun becomes the exception to the rule, though, which should be a red flag that Jacob’s plan succeeds in the end, only after everything is finally said and, dare I say, done. Our Losties manage to eradicate the Black issue, which we are yet to witness, and in all likelihood, this brings back some of our favorite characters including Michael, Walt, Penny, Desmond, and Charlie. I would love to see Mr. Eko again, but his story has already been told, having stubbornly proven to Mr. Black that human beings are perfectly capable of using free will to shape their own destiny. No thanks, scary smoke monster, I have nothing to confess.

The haunting question that remains is how Jack will lead everybody to defeat the seemingly unflappable and cunning black crusader, and our clue lies in a simple fade to white. After all this time, it’s Mr. White’s turn to take the wheel. Jacob “lied,” or schemed, in the shadow of The Statue for a long time, planning the suppression of Black and his plan. Now, in the show’s final season, we will learn how Hawking and Widmore became cogs in the massive wheel that is Jacob’s plan to get his variables to the island.

Jacob needed Mr. Black to accomplish his task, which explains why Eloise put Locke’s body on the plane. He recruited Illana to warn Richard of Black’s ruse, who will dutifully fulfill his role as adviser once “they” arrive. Jacob’s death becomes the culmination of a faithfully executed plan to set in motion events that, he hoped, would lead Jack and our free-will yielding variables to prevent Mr. Black from carrying out his plan and, potentially, destroying humanity in the process. The outcome of this battle serves as a stepping stone in humankind’s progressive journey towards nirvana. He, who will save us all.

In the end, Jacob clears the board for the next game’s pieces to be set and secures the human soul long enough for the next group of Losties to try their hand at fate within the confines of the great snow globe that is the island. Its original inhabitants, the “Hostiles” or “Others,” are simply those who came before, and the decisions they made permeate the jungle as haunting whispers, like memories of past mistakes that lay deep within the human subconscious. Thus ending a carefully concocted, highly successful, television series nod to mythology and, more specifically, the hero’s tale as described by Joseph Campbell in his book, “The Hero With A Thousand Faces.” Undoubtedly, Cuse and Lindelof will give the book the proverbial product placement that it deserves in the final season, offering up the same debt of gratitude to Campbell that George Lucas gave when he wrote Star Wars.