Contact Me

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

I am a candidate!

Edit 4/6/10: I received another one, slightly different- see below.

OK, not really.

Gotta love how this thing is so general. Complete with spelling errors, as all good scam letters are. I just signed up for LinkedIn, so I'm thinking this could be something floating around there.

Read the text:

From: info@newyorksamplesuite.com
Subject: Jennifer - Your Recent Nomination Into Distinguished Professionals
Date: March 30, 2010 4:49:17 AM EDT
To: xxx@xxx.com (my work email)
Reply-To: info@newyorksamplesuite.com

Dear Jennifer,

You were recently chosen as a potential candidate to represent your professional community in the 2010/2011 Edition of Distinguished Professionals Online.

We are please to inform you that your candidacy was formally approved March 15th, 2010. Congratulations.

The Publishing Committee selected you as a potential candidate based not only upon your current standing, but focusing as well on criteria from executive and professional directories, associations, and trade journals. Given your background, the Director believes your profile makes a fitting addition to our publication and our online network.

There is no fee nor obligation to be listed. As we are working off of secondary sources, we must receive verification from you that your profile is accurate. After receiving verification, we will validate your online listing within 7 business days.

Once finalized, your listing will share prominent registry space with thousands of fellow accomplished individuals across the globe, each representing accomplishment within their own geographical area.

To verify your profile and accept the candidacy, please visit here. Our registration deadline for this year's candidates is April 25th, 2010. To ensure you are included, we must receive your verification on or before this date. On behalf of our Committee I salute your achievement and welcome you to our association.

Sincerely,
Robert Patterson
Vice President, Research Division

Distinguished Professionals Online
26 Bond Street
Westbury, NY 11542, USA

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the communication and unsubscribe from the mailing using the options available in this email.

To remove yourself from future mailings, please visit here to use our automated removal system. You will be removed from our mailing database within seven (7) days.

***

I was selected due to "current standing, but focusing as well on criteria from executive and professional directories, associations, and trade journals."

What trade? What standing? Do they know what I do? Why would being in a directory be criteria for being a candidate, anyway?

Relief! There is no fee! This can't possibly be a scam. (sarcasm)

The catch: They need verification -click on the hyperlink. There is no way I'd click that. I mean, they have selected me as a candidate but need verification since they are working from secondary sources? If I'm a candidate, shouldn't they have talked to my boss or others in this mysterious directory that won me this esteemed status? Am I unreachable by phone to bestow such an honor? :)

By the way, the two things I link to are these, not the bad phishing one in my actual email! :)
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt127.shtm

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/phishing.htm

So, the only question left is- is this a scam from this country or abroad?

I'm certainly no computer expert, but I think this is the IP: 173.224.211.218

http://www.dnsstuff.com

Location: United States [City: Milton, Wisconsin]

OrgName: Psychz Networks
OrgID: PSL-86
Address: 20687-2 Amar Rd. #312
City: Walnut
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 91789
Country: US


A week later, I receive this one:

From: info@newyorksamplesuite.com
Subject: - 2010 Nomination Into The Global Directory of Who's Who
Date: April 6, 2010 1:59:18 AM EDT
To: xxx@xxx.com (my work email)
Reply-To: info@newyorksamplesuite.com

***
This was the IP address 173.224.211.207 ; I didn’t get a location, but the same Psychz Networks in CA showed up with the unknown location.

They didn't use my name on this one. :( I'll try and highlight the differences from the one above. Basically, the company, sender and address, approval date and deadlines are different. The exact wording, including the fact that they are "please to inform me" are the same.
***

Dear , (To their credit, they sent me a duplicate right after with my name in it.)

You were recently chosen as a potential candidate to represent your professional community in the 2010/2011 Edition of The Global Directory of Who's Who Online.

We are please to inform you that your candidacy was formally approved March 30th, 2010. Congratulations.

The Publishing Committee selected you as a potential candidate based not only upon your current standing, but focusing as well on criteria from executive and professional directories, associations, and trade journals. Given your background, the Director believes your profile makes a fitting addition to our publication and our online network.

There is no fee nor obligation to be listed. As we are working off of secondary sources, we must receive verification from you that your profile is accurate. After receiving verification, we will validate your online listing within 7 business days.

Once finalized, your listing will share prominent registry space with thousands of fellow accomplished individuals across the globe, each representing accomplishment within their own geographical area.

To verify your profile and accept the candidacy, please visit here. Our registration deadline for this year's candidates is April 30th, 2010. To ensure you are included, we must receive your verification on or before this date. On behalf of our Committee I salute your achievement and welcome you to our association.

Sincerely,

John Franklin


Vice President, Research Division 


The Global Directory of Who's Who
4250 Veterans Highway, Suite 2050

Holbrook, NY 11741, USA

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the communication and unsubscribe from the mailing using the options available in this email.

To remove yourself from future mailings, please visit here to use our automated removal system. You will be removed from our mailing database within seven (7) days.

Monday, March 29, 2010

US to abstain at UN on settlements???

Quote from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8591461.stm


"Meanwhile, the US is reportedly considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlement expansion in East Jerusalem. The US usually blocks Security Council resolutions criticising Israel."
Part of me says- Wow. Really? Amazing.

On the other hand, since we are so opposed to this, shouldn't we be voting NO instead of just bowing out and abstaining???

Boycott! Sanction! Divest!
Link

U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
http://usacbi.wordpress.com/


http://www.stopthewall.org/boycott/bds/cupe.shtml


http://www.bdsmovement.net/?q=node/9


http://www.bigcampaign.org/


Friday, March 26, 2010

Patreaus talks about Israel/Palestine??

As with other American involvement in the Middle East, I'm still pretty pessimistic, but every time another high level official dares to publicy challenge in any way our one sided approach to peace in the Middle East, that is good news.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/17/bacevich_on_petraeus_israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157108.html

***

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story

Some quotes from FP:

The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders
that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly
Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence
on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."

"Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer
familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but
its military posture in the region was eroding."
The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American
lives.

--Cetainly this is a wake up call? The situation has never publicly been framed this way by a top dog.

--Can the US military lobby win over the Israel lobby, AIPAC?? I had never thought about the military stepping in, not only in a more diplomatic fashion, but at all. Plus, I had never thought of them in the lobbying mix, but they are. ARe they the game changer we need? That would be unbelievable if that's what brought peace to the region. But I guess it would accomplish what many have been trying to do for some time- get the Arab opinion, history, and narrative to be considered equally with the Jewish one rather than ignoring it or relagating it to a footnote.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

AIPAC 2010

AIPAC 2010 / Harsh messages wrapped in love
Wow. Look at those pictures. Are they going to kiss? So much love. The harshness had dissipated (from the settlement crisis) in the space of about 24 hours. It’s back to the same old love fest. Let the lovin’ begin. Here's my take.

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/


Some quotes from Secretary of State Clinton at the most recent AIPAC Conference:
Netanyahu's are below hers.


"And I'm very pleased that you will be hearing from a good friend of mine, Congressman Jim Langevin, a great champion for Israel. And let's hear it for Jim."
-- ??? Let it be known throughout the land we love Israel no matter how they spit on our faces or disregard law. We are proud of that? I have to look into Langevin to see what the deal is with the odd shout out...



"Petitioning your government, expressing your views, speaking up in the arena - this is what democracy is all about."
--Lobbying for the interests of a foreign government? There are debates (with good reason) that it should be registered as an agent of a foreign government…



"And therefore, we firmly believe that when we strengthen Israel's security, we strengthen America's security."
--Even if this is true, one has to ask- are things such as the Palestinian birth rate (just one example) something you want to support Israel in combating as a security threat??? Israel has a very broad definition of security and even a very broad and generous definition of Israel for that matter, as it often includes land the international community has defined as Occupied Territory. Even if our interests are close, we need to be clear and stand firm in where we deviate and choose international law over Israel’s hearts desires.



"So from its first day, the Obama Administration has worked to promote Israel's security and long-term success."
--What is success? Everything needs decoded in this conflict. For Israel to stay Jewish primarily or stay democratic? Which is more important- peace and democracy or keeping Israel Jewish? Sometimes I’m not sure where we are on that.



“our commitment to Israel's security and Israel's future is rock solid, unwavering, enduring, and forever”
--We should never declare such a thing to anyone. This seems to strike a rather religious tone. You should only declare this sort of devotion to God. Sometimes people confuse modern Israel and God it seems. It’s sad.
Our diplomatic relations should be determined by how well our goals match up, mutual trust, mutual respect, etc; not by whatever is currently governing this relationship. In the trust and respect department, Israel is sorely lacking. I would argue we don't have goals either, but another time...



"Americans honor Israel as a homeland for a people too long oppressed and a democracy that has had to defend itself at every turn, a dream nurtured for generations and made real by men and women who refused to bow to the toughest of odds. In Israel's story, we see our own. We see, in fact, the story of all people who struggle for freedom and the right to chart their own destinies."
--Why, then, can we not see Palestinians struggle for a homeland?? This sounds like their current struggle. I guess we can't see the similarities because we share with Israel the bond of ruthless colonizer. Native Americans probably can see the Palestinian story as their own more easily than we. The bond of colonizers is apparently stronger than more noble values and peace, justice and human rights!


“desert bloom”- Yes, she used these words! Twice. This is one of the biggest lies people still believe is true in the history of the Middle East. This language refers to the big, fat, deliberate lie that the desert was uninhabited, devoid of people, structures, flora and fauna when Israel’s first terrorists turned statesmen arrived on the scene in the 40s and Israel is responsible for all that is good- all greenery, fruit trees, olive trees, industry, trade, culture, food, etc. ??? This is definitely not the case if you know anything about the history of the region.


She gives an account of meeting an IDF soldier, going to a graduation of first responders, visiting the sites of suicide bombings, seeing the faces of the Israeli victims. Though this administration has used the term Palestinian suffering, they don’t stand up and say these sorts of things in solidarity with Palestinians who want peace. Either Clinton hasn’t bothered to visit the sites and people affected by Israeli violence or Palestinian suffering is just words to them. Granted such imagery would not be well received at this engagement, I don't see her saying this anywhere. They constantly give a face to Israeli suffering, while just paying minimal lip service to the massive range of Palestinian suffering.



"Under President Obama's leadership, we have reinvigorated defense consultations, redoubled our efforts to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge, and provided nearly $3 billion in annual military assistance."
--She boasts about US military aid to Israel (even though Amnesty said Gaza-and probably other- attacks couldn’t have happened without it) ??? She should be reminding them that because of this, they owe us- at least to follow international law and our laws so we don't look like total idiots and funders of massacres for doing this!

--Finkelstein boils the Amnesty report, Fuelling Conflict down to 3 points:
1. US is the top supplier of weapons to Israel
2. Supplying weapons to Israel has proven illegal under international and US law
3. Gaza attack could not have happened were it not for US taxpayer money



"New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need."
--The much publicized tough talk and rebuke. We have again backed down in the face of Israeli pressure. They clearly have learned their lesson. Israel is going to do what it wants and there's nothing we can do about it.


She almost praised Arab leaders, but fell into a comfortable and familiar refrain:

"But their rhetoric must now be backed up by action."
--In the next breath she uses “momentum” toward peace to describe Netanyhu’s actions. ??? In what alternate universe is this remotely possible? He has only nominally accepted the two state solution. Official Israeli policies show disregard for international law and human life and rights. It is with him also that she should use such inflammatory language as “rhetoric” and backing words with actions!

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/


Some quotes from Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu at the most recent AIPAC Conference:


"In recent decades the hatred of the Jews has reemerged with increasing force, but with an insidious twist. It is not merely directed at the Jewish people but increasingly at the Jewish state."
--Criticism of Israel = anti-Semitism. Everyone's favorite way to avoid meaningful discussion.
--Also, many people think Israel is criticized and reviled becaues it is Jewish, but it is actually hated due to the murder and poverty of the Occupation, disregard for internaitonal law, other countries' allowing them to get away with breaking internaitonal law.



"But Israel should be judged by the same standards applied to all nations, and allegations against Israel must be grounded in fact. One allegation that is not is the attempt to describe the Jews as foreign colonialists in their own homeland, one of the great lies of modern times."
--I agree with that first sentence wholeheartedly. However, Bibi believes Israel is being judged more harshly than other nations when in fact it is catching more breaks than anyone ever has. Clearly, there is a disagreement on the facts vs. myths in the Israel-US relationship as well as the Israel-Palestine relationship. The second sentence is pretty subjective and against modern law and conventional wisdom.


"The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel cannot be denied. The connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem cannot be denied."
--And the Palestinian connection to the land? If the land was empty upon your arrival in 1948, then who, praytell, did you fight so valiantly against?? And what are the refugees in your area refugees of??



"This is what my government has done for peace. What has the Palestinian Authority done for peace? Well, they have placed preconditions on peace talks, waged a relentless international campaign to undermine Israel's legitimacy, and promoted the notorious Goldstone report that falsely accuses Israel of war crimes. In fact, they're doing right now in the UN in the grotesquely misnamed UN Human Rights Council."
--Ahhh. The old "we've done everything; they've done nothing" refrain. Gotta love 'em for trying. Preconditions. Ask that you follow international law? Is that really too much to ask? If so, who is really the problem, here? That must have been satisfying to slip in another swing at the meticulous Goldstone report and UN. It's international law. You don't have to like it. You have to obey it, though. Unless you deal with the US. Then, you can do whatever you want- provided you can deal with our Presidents' frownie face now and again.



"Regrettably, the Palestinian Authority has also continued incitement against Israel. A few days ago, a public square near Ramallah was named after a terrorist who murdered 37 Israeli civilians, including 13 children. The Palestinian Authority did nothing to prevent it."
--I wonder how many public squares and streets and buildings are named (renamed, that is) for Israelis who have killed, massacred, or ordered such on Palestinians?? Hmmm… Not only is nothing done, they are celebrated as patriots, not the terrorists they were known as before 1948.



Tuesday, March 23, 2010

NPR: Diane Rehm Show: Perspectives on the U.S.- Israel Rift


Perspectives on the U.S.- Israel Rift


This was a more interesting show. At least the Israel love fest was tempered a bit.


I'll just comment on some callers, here:


Dave in MA- I thought he had a very valid concern. 25%, though? Cut it all!

“Insults don’t get any worse than what Israel did to us last week. Israel has done this before. They continue to do it because they know there are no ramifications to its actions. This has to change. President Obama should withdraw 25% of Israel’s massive foreign aid immediately.”

Guest Ziad Asali: The US has to make clear what the interests are and it has an obligation to defend those interests. We need to assert the leadership of the President which is being challenged. Israel needs to be part of the solution and rearrange the political situation and be a player in the region with Arab states.

David Makovsky: That would be true if Israel didn’t want to negotiate, but they do. It was an unfortunate result of a perfect storm that they have to be sure it never happens again.


But it does happen! All the time! Israel may well want to negotiate, but it’s actions always make this impossible to see!


Eddie in MD is on the other side…

"I feel, as an American Jewish person, that Israel has made many concessions and continues to do so. Israel has had its back pushed to the waters, to the sea. I think it wants to have peace talks, but I think its made concessions and I don’t think the United States or anybody else should bully them into giving up what they feel they need. And I think somebody ought to think about the little guy, and that’s Israel, who’s trying to fight for its life in this world."

Israel is the little guy. (???) I'm glad he clarified, because I wouldn't have guessed that. Fourth largest (or best?) military in the world and attached at the hip to the world's superpower doesn't exactly scream little guy.

"what they feel they need" ??? What about the law? Jewish national aspirations have always been respected and supported. What about Palestinian national aspirations? Are Jews the only ones allowed to fight "for what they feel they need?" For Palestinians, now, it is less about what they feel they need and more about basics- water, food, shelter, employment.

And, really, who's pushing whom into the sea these days? When was the last time Palestinians were condemned for creating life threatening poverty, demolishing Jewish homes as government policy, occupying Jewish land and moving and building such that it can claim it outside of negotiation? When you can talk about ethnic cleansing openly and speak of another population's birth rate as a threatening to you as a bomb, you have truly arrived. You are no little guy. Actually, you are quite the bully by that point.


Ann in Washigton DC mentioned- Israel bringing extreme Jewish settler groups to worship at al Aqsa- a guest said that had stopped – he does admit it happened, though, so to call it conspiracy theory may not be truthful.

A guest called it conspiracy theory fueled by Rabbo, Dahlan when it isn’t true… ?
--I need to check this out..more research needed on this thing to see who is remembering incorrectly or stretching the truth.

Settlement announcement, Biden embarrassment, Israel apology, and after...

When this story broke, we saw these sorts of headlines:

As Biden Visits, Israel Unveils Plan for New Settlements- March 10, 2010


Israel Apologizes To Biden Over Settlement Announcement: We Didn't Mean To 'Taunt An Important Man' – March 10, 2010

Several headlines since have read ‘Clinton: Settlements Undermine Peace’ or ‘Settlement Announcement Insulting’.

And?? When are we going to do something about it?? Isn’t this same old, same old with this “special” relationship with Israel? When are we going to realize that this is a trend or indication of Israel’s motivation (or lack thereof) to be a part of the solution rather than an isolated, rare event that we (or more importantly, Palestinians) can afford to overlook?

And what of the insult? This is a continued, serious and blatant trashing of the Geneva Convention. Is this not a cause for concern on that front??

Israel announces new settlement construction just in time for one of Israel’s biggest fans, Vice President Joe Biden, to visit.

I remember writing him when he was head of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. He had a statement on his website mourning the “massacre” by Palestinian extremists of 10 Israelis on a bus. It is sad, for sure, but why no mention (not to mention mourning)- ever- of the scores and at times hundreds of Palestinian civilians that die in “unfortunate accidents” involving the Israeli military???

In return for this snub, he apparently arrives to dinner with Netanyahu 90 minutes late. Ooooh. That’ll teach ‘em. Is this how they hope to get Iran to slow or regulate its nuclear ambitions?? Yikes! Probably not. We don’t tend to cut Muslim countries any slack. Israel, on the other hand, would have to invade our country, take over Washington and begin Occupation and “Judaification” there, too, before we’d wake up and see there might be a problem and we just might have to do more than slap Israel on the wrist. I still think we might defer to them in this case. They are a tiny country under such an immediate existential threat, after all! (--I say sarcastically.)


And after the crisis, Israel is more defiant than before it:

Netanyahu says 'no concession' on Jewish settlements – March 21, 2010

"As far as we are concerned, building in Jerusalem is like building in Tel Aviv," Mr Netanyahu told his cabinet.


His position on the UN and international law is clear. Ignore it.Link It doesn’t exist- or at least it doesn't apply to Israel. It does exist, when it tells Palestinians to do something. The US allows them to indulge in this fantasy world.


Netanyahu reaffirms 'right to build' in Jerusalem- March 23, 2010

Settlements in occupied East Jerusalem were an "inextricable" part of the city, he said, and would remain part of Israel under any peace agreement.

"Therefore, building in them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution."


If you are a magician, maybe…

He said Israel wanted Palestinians to be "our neighbours, living freely" and called on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to "come and negotiate peace".


The existence of settlements, their barricades, walls, towers, armed guards, Jewish only roads kind of precludes the whole “living freely”… not to mention that stuff takes up more stolen land and Palestinians are expected to be happy Israel is “ready” (in words) to give them a sliver of desert it can't for the life of them make bloom plus some towns isolated by massive Jewish-only fortresses??

“Come and negotiate peace” sounds like more of a dare than an actual extending of a hand in peace. Come and negotiate peace, I dare you. See how much more of this land we can take right out in the open under your nose with US approval while spitting in their face! Or maybe it’s an invitation to be a part of this spectacle.



NPR: TOTN: Tough Talk Between U.S. And Israel

March 18, 2010 NPR Talk of the Nation

Tough Talk Between U.S. And Israel

Transcript:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124828535


The costs and benefits of the US Israel relationship was the call in topic.

If you want an Israel love fest, you can listen to this. A lot of garbage. Neal Conan was none to pleased (a bit agitated?) with the caller criticizing the US Israel relationship and allowed the guests to pretty well marginalize his view without asking any insightful questions to slow their attack. At least Diane Rehm had herself to moderate and Ziad Asali to try to balance out Miller and Makovsky.

Miller does comment at the beginning that we have lost the balance and the relationship should not be exclusive as it has become.

When someone questions the foreign aid to Israel given what atrocities they've committed, Conan steps in and talks about the treaty with Egypt and how that’s a relationship we need to support. Who started that conflict, though? Israel. And never mind the extra aid, loan guarantees, military agreements, full support of Congress for whatever they want from settlements to the Gaza massacre, and many other perks of this very special exclusive relationship.

One caller made reference to the Goldstone report in their criticism of Israel and one guest or the other made sure we knew that the reason the Gaza massacres happened was because Israel pulled out of Gaza and “Gaza” attacked even though it wasn’t the main point of the call. Oh, and Israel restrained itself for 4 years, blah, blah, blah... The guests addressed lobbying (in general) and justified the Gaza massacres, but missed the point of the call- the lack of balance and the preferential treatment of Israel by the US while trying to be fair, etc.

Anti-semitism, not by name, mind you, was mentioned as the reason for the belief that the Israel lobby is pushing Israel’s agenda in opposition to the American people’s wishes. ??? Did they miss Mearsheimer and Walt's work??

Some pinhead brought up the “demographic threat” as a real problem or reason why we should support Israel.

So, I wrote a letter to TOTN about that:

Dear Neal,

A caller on that show brought up the “demographic threat” as the "biggest challenge" or reason why we should support Israel. The birth rate. How racist is that? Or bigoted if you prefer. Some Jews are afraid of the Arab birth rate. If someone here said they feared a high Jewish or black birth rate such that it would cause white or Christian influence to be less, you would be immediately and rightly called out and condemned for it. When you say it about Arabs, it’s apparently ok, though. ???

I was appalled that there was no comment on that by you or your guests.

Israel should be a democratic state for its people. If we support Israel as a Jewish state as some consider us a Christian nation, then so be it. If Israel is to be a Jewish state for Jewish people at all costs, we will soon find ourselves supporting Israel in measures amounting to ethnic cleansing to combat this so called "demographic threat." I would hope we wouldn't follow them down that path, but some might say we already are... (denial of Arab housing permits, house demolitions, visa problems, etc)

You had two advocates for Israel; an Arab perspective would have been refreshing and could have made the show a little more educational.

Sincerely,
J



Conan also downgraded the crisis to kerfuffle. Why would we want to make a big deal about Israel's flouting another international law?

There were so many annoying things, I'll leave it at that for this show. There is so much annoying coverage of this latest slap in our face by our best friend.

More on the messy Mossad operation - Dubai, Mabhouh, passports, tennis, etc


Britain to expel Israeli diplomat - BBC

Israel has promised to not clone British passports before. This is not some rogue group or terrorist organization. This is the Israeli government and or its security force. At least Britain has the guts to do something about it. Sort of.

Israel calls it hypocrisy to accuse it of killing someone considered an enemy or terrorist by Britain...

***

From
http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/29778/mk-calls-british-dogs-over-dubai-passport-row

Mr Eldad compared the British to “dogs” and accused them of having no loyalty. He also said that he believed a British diplomat should be expelled in return.

He added: “I think the British are being hypocritical and I do not wish to insult dogs here, since some dogs show true loyalty. Who gave the British the right to judge us on the war on terror?"

Hmmm… What gives them the right? They are messing with British passports and disregarding British citizens’ rights and security. Are they hypocritical? I’m going with no. While they may regard Hamas as a terrorist organization, we in the civilized world don’t employ hit men for all of our security needs. I’m not saying the US hasn’t done some horrible things with mercenaries, hit men and the like, but we and Britain, in general (I like to think), value the rule of law, peoples’ rights, and bringing people to justice rather than executing them on sight without a trial in another country (violating another’s sovereignty as well).

Also different is that Palestinians are like the early Israelis (terrorist turned statesmen) in that they are trying to win their freedom and statehood. Terrorism on our soil isn’t for that end. It’s just terrorism.

In thinking about Israel's "fight against terrorism," I always have to think- are they fighting terrorism or Palestinian statehood?

It always amazes me how similar accounts are of Palestinians being forced from their homes in 1948, most notably (one could add other dates) and of Jews being rounded up for work camps. Another striking similarity is that of Palestinian “terrorists” and Israeli terrorists turned statesmen (early PMs and leaders were Haganaagh, Irgun, Stern, etc terrorists).

And yet another is how Israeli Occupation and oppression is very similar to Nazi rule. Israelis want to Judaify and say Jews are superior; Nazis wanted only Aryans and considered themselves superior.

I always wonder how a people who has gone through so much tragedy and loss cannot see the similarities or want to guard against becoming so like the people that were the cause of their own tragedy.


Monday, March 22, 2010

LOST Episode 616: What They Died For/ SPOILERS from the Transmission

Post episode:

Ok, so I am again in the minority. I didn't love the episode. I didn't even like it as much as I liked Across the Sea. I wouldn't call it a comic episode. I did laugh a few times, but it was more disbelief than funny, ha ha. A wild ride? I don't think so. It was ok.

A lot of things were clarified that we already assumed. I do realize they had to set up the last episode, so I'm not saying it was pointless or that I hated it. We did get some classic Ben, not the whipped, scared version.

Jack again notices a cut on his neck in the flash sideways, this time at his house. I think it happened on the airplane last time? Either way, David doesn't pop in on him the first time. Same cut of different one? I didn't get a good look. He has noticed an appendix scar in the flash sideways. What does all of this mean??

I thought we'd get to see or find out who David's mom is when they were talking about his piano concert and his parents were going and Jack wasn't to "act weird" around her. No luck on the mom still! That and the MIB's name- will we find out Sunday?? Will it kill me if we don't? No.

Oceanic calls Jack about his "cargo" and says it will arrive in LA at the end of the day.

It's really Desmond! Nice. What is he planning. Toward the end, he is getting everyone to come to the Widmore's concert event. Is this the concert David is in? I had assumed it was a recital, but LAX and Christian's body wouldn't help Jack reach the other people, so maybe the concert is the Widmore's? Or does he want them all to go to LAX fo rsome reason and Jack will take the more direct route?

Jack is stitching Kate up- like when she stitched him up in Season 1. Nice touch. Also I believe this is a spoiler scene described in a Forward Cabin of The Transmission. They both agree they need ot kill Locke, with Jack adding they need ot get Desmond. A plan. Things are moving.

Desmond's going to run over Locke again?? Noooo! But, Ben intervenes... and gets beaten up by Desmond for it. A scene also described in the Forward Cabin. Ben gets his island vision moment.

Ben is leading Miles and Alpert to his house to get the C4, but he seems to return to the old Ben, not the weak and scared one that we saw when he faced MIB. Miles indicates dead people are buried here- I thought perhaps he was hearing everyone from the Purge along with Alex talking to him or something, but he doesn't say and doesn't even get Alex's thoughts for us. It couldn't have been good, though.

At Ben's secret secret closet, he reveals this was how we was told he could summon Smokey, but he realized it was summoning him. Interesting...

Widmore is strangley calm at the other end of Ben's gun. (In the kitchen) We find that Widmore was the one who rigged the plane. Wasted trip, Ben!

Locke sees Ben in the hospital- he "saw something" while being beaten. His expression is of the old Ben (or Henry Gale with the beating)- did he see what he did, how he killed Alex, etc? He tells Locke that he wasn't trying to hurt him, but to help him let go. I wonder if Locke was at the hospital to see Jack originally (we know he saw at least the button portion of the island life), or did he make the decision about getting fixed when Ben told him that?

Desmond turns himself in to Sawyer and is quite pleased to be locked up with Sayid and Kate.

On their way to find Desmond, Jack and Sawyer talk about the Rules:
S: If Locke wanted Desmond dead, why not kill him himself?
J: Maybe it's one of his rules.
S: Thought he couldn't kill us. (Yeah, what's up with that??)

It was nice to see Sawyer realize Jack may have been right about not touching the bomb. He just wanted to do teh opposite of what Jack said because of Juliet and who wouldn't have done the same, but bad move, Sawyer. I say Sawyer killed those 3.

Hurley sees young Jacob in the jungle. This one's not a weak type, but very commanding and he takes the ashes out of Hurleys' hand. Why the kid form? Jacob didn't want him to know it was him??? Suddenly there is old Jacob, as though he needed those ashes so that everyone could see him (later) and to put himself to rest for good? He says that




***

Leaked screenplay of the last two LOST episodes!!! Is it real or not? I don't know. Is it fun? Yes.


http://www.macchianera.net/2010/05/01/scoop-macchianera-pubblica-6-pagine-della-puntata-finale-di-lost/#pages-call


***
Description:
(From ABC Television Network) While Locke devises a new strategy, Jack's group searches for Desmond.

***
Analucia and young Rousseau are in this episode?? Crazy. And more flash sideways? We will find out if that leaked script is legit or somebody's big joke!

Guest Cast:

***
From The Transmission: Across the Sea - also see Mar 21 and 28 episodes of podcast

These are just a few clues from the viewing of this episode that was done not long ago:

Actor readings from message in a bottle (?)
One of the top episodes (that's said of a lot of them!), amazing, satisfying.
LOST's comic episode. People were laughing a lot? I don't know if I like that.
Laughter, shock, sadness were expressed in the crowd.
Coincidences revealed (comicly), deadpan dialogue, winks and nods to the fans (don't know if I love those...), soon to be classic LOST lines..
Good pace, many characters.
"When a certain character was shown on screen it elicited a collective groan from the audience, eventually followed by outright cheering."
Ending was anticipatory. (Figures)
Wild and highly enjoyable ride.

***
Part 1 of the Finale? Or the episode before the finale?

A fan sighting says Jack and Kate were lying on the beach and Hurley was sitting on a crate. Kate had an ipod, though, so it may have been just them resting rather than filming? Of course this is from The Transmission- see sidebar.

Zoe will play a big role in this episode or part 2, whichever is the last one.

*** *** ***
The Transmission LOST podcast: Forward Cabin from Ab Aeterno edition

Probably the last week of filming? This is a rough copy. There hasn't been much editing and I haven't had a chance ot comment...

I apologize for the butchering of the spelling of Hawaiian locations! Here is a transcription of sorts:

RYAN: "On Monday the 22nd, they were still at Waikanae, this is by the pier again, north of Kooaloa. This is where they were at the end of last week and again they were well out of sight. I can say that at the trailers the folks did spot Kate and Hurley and Sawyer. And specifically noted that Kate seemed to have some kind of injury or blood on her left shoulder, but that's pretty much it for that day. Thanks to Jan as well as Francie for that report."

"The next day, the 23rd, it was Jack, Kate, Sawyer, and Hurley, but they were filming on the beach. Now, interestingly enough, they covered the sand up with boxes and life jackets and again things that kind of looked like the results of a shipwreck of some kind and they were all sort of staring out at the ocean."

"In the scene, Jack basically goes down near the water to pick up a backpack and he opens it up. He then goes to the other three. He tells them something and starts walking away and they all follow him."

"Later, a separate scene was Jack and Kate filming alone on the beach. Now first they were having a conversation, but then Jack was on his knees, basically bending over Kate, who was kind of lying down or against a log and he was basically doing something that wasn't clear, but it looked like he was sewing up a wound. Basically sewing up an injury that Kate had. And that kind of jives with an earlier report and is a nice parallel of Kate sewing up Jack in teh pilot episode. And thanks to Francie for that report."

"Now Wednesday was a fun day- or not. They were at Judd Trail. That's a very popular filming location. Now, interestingly enough, for the last week, Judd Trail, that location was being used for another production. It's a George Clooney movie. It's being called The Descendants. I'd been so used to people calling me and saying, "Hey, I think LOST is there and it took me awhile to baiscally figure out it was them. So when I heard there was, yes, film crew working at Judd Trail, that oh, that's probbaly George Clooney and his buddies. Unfortunately it was not. It was LOST, but nobody went to see. But I can tell you there was a jungle scene on Wednesday."

"Now on Thursday, it was an interesting day. They were down in Waikiki. And interestingly enough they revisited and rebuilt a set or a location from the past. It was the Flightline Motel. That was Locke's motel basically where he lived near the airport. We saw the Oceanic plane fly over. And where he basically tried at the last minute to propose to Helen and got shot down. So I thought that was interesting. It was Locke's motel, but nobody saw any fiiming. But spotted on the scene was Hurley's yellow Hummer. So, I'm not sure if Locke's involved, but Hurley was definitely involved in a scene at the Flightline Motel near the airport. And I do want to thank Steven for that report."

They were also on that day supposedly seen at Sacret Hearts Academy, that's on Waiaili, but unfortunately that report came in well after the fact. I do want to thank Eric for letting me know. "Now Sacred Hearts Academy has been a location before as well. The exterior was the exterior of the church under which the Lamp Post was hidden, so maybe that was it? The church right next door was also the church where Christian Shephard's funeral as held. So maybe they were using that location. No way to know, but that's where they were. I just share what I have. "

"Now Friday it gets more interesting. They were at Rehab Hospital of the Pacific that's on Kuakini Street, up in Nuauno Valley. The scene included Sawyer and Juliet. So, yes, Elizabeth Mitchell back in town. Back working and for whatever reason at that set. Now again we don't know if it was actually a hospital or if it was playing something else. I guess we're going to see. According to a guard there were also scenes with Kate and Jack as well."

"That same day they were also out at Police Beach. That's the famous beach camp once again. And for that scene, Claire, Miles and Lapidus were at work. And in the scene, Claire comes out of the bushes with a rifle, and, well, unfortunately everybody got moved off the beach at that point. But certainly at some point there was a shot fired in that scene."

"And finally, that day, still Friday, they moved down the beach to near the Ajira plane once again. And actually they set up rain machines, so it sounds like another sudden storm. And in that scene at the plane, Miles and Lapidus once again. Not sure if Claire stuck around for that. And I do want to thank Billy and Francie for their reports."

"On Saturday, actually that's today, as we record this podcast, they were again back at the base camp which is parked along Nuananu Avenue and this is where they've been for the scenes that I just mentioned filming at the Rehab Hospital and a number of actors were sighted there. They include: the actors for Locke, Jin, Sun, Sawyer, Claire, Kate, Desmond and Juliet. Yes, Elizabeth Mitchel back in town working again. Now, what makes this interesting is that was again the base camp for the hospital shooting, but there was also a shoot today downtown Honolulu at O'Toole's which is an Irish bar right there on Merchant Street. Also a previous LOST location."

JEN: "That's where Desmond was thwhacked in the head."

RYAN: "Right. It was Desmond's bar. Although I'm presuming they're not in London in this case. In any case they've been there before. But since they were in two locations along Nuananu Avenue, the actors that I just listed, we're not entirely sure which scene or which location they were necessarily working at. They could be at either. We can say that at least at the trailers Kate, curiously enough, was dressed in a robe or maybe a hospital gown. So that was kind of curious. And perhaps she's in the hospital scene."

"But, let's move back downtown again to O'Toole's. They were basically setting up for a stunt or fight scene for Sayid, so Sayid was there, Naveen Andrews as well as Jorge Garcia or Hurley and his yellow Hummer of course omnipresent, now it seems in that scene. And basically what seems to happen is that a bunch of men are having a brawl or a fight on the sidewalk there and Sayid jumps out of Hurley's Hummer and basically gets involved. And he fights with a dark haired man. And perhaps most curiously also on that scene toward the end, Shannon turns up. Yes, Boone's sister, or I guess better said Sayid's on island love interest turns up. She was dressed a little, shall we say, ..."

JEN: "...provocatively?"

RYAN: "...provocatively in that scene. Maybe she was the cause for the brawl and perhaps Sayid gets involved to come to the rescue. I don't know, that's kind of an interesting development for Shannon to turn up and for Sayid to be in the scene, but certainly a resolution I think that a lot of people are hoping for or imagining in their head. "

"And a late report just in that they were filming at a church I'm not sure where. This comes in by text message, but there was a church scene as well because they had extras they were all dressed up as if they were going to, say, a wedding, which would be kind of cool because we're looking for the Locke and Helen wedding perhaps. But it could also be unfortunately, a funeral. And as we've learned on LOST, the wardrobe and locations for both of those events are essentially the same, so we're going to have ot wait and see if we get more details, there. That's just hot off the presses. I do want to thank Wanda for her report, going down and checking it out, and again Francie."

"Now that's the shoots for this week, and certainly I think there's quite a bit to chew on, but I did want ot share one last tidbit that actually comes from an earlier shoot because it was at the Rehab Hospital, the one where they were filming this week, but this was several weeks ago. And as I reported on out podcast, that scene involved Locke and Jack as well and Helen. And now I'm getting basically details on what was gong on at that time. In that earlier scene, Locke was at the hospital because he got injured, and we're presuming that that's the car accident that we also reported on. But he's in the hospital and Jack is there because he happens to be there making his rounds. He wasn't specifically there to see Locke, but he does indeed get into a conversation with Locke to try and get him to take him up on the offer for that free consult that he mentioned at the beginning of the season. And of course Locke was resistant to that. In this scene, he tells Lcoke that you have to have faith. So, a neat little tidbit of dialogue from another scene at that same hospital where it seems everybody is starting to converge and come together. And I do want to thank Billy for his report there as well. So, that's it for the Forward Cabin."

LOST Episode 515: Across the Sea- SPOILERS

Edit May 2010: LOST spoilers - 6 pages of leaked LOST screenplay!! No idea if they are real or fake. The blog is in Italian, the script pages below it are of course in English.
http://www.macchianera.net/2010/05/01/scoop-macchianera-pubblica-6-pagine-della-puntata-finale-di-lost/#pages-call

I think this is the Jacob and MIB history with the previously discussed spoilers I heard on the Transmission with them having conversations between themselves and one talks to his mother and another talks to a woman who killed his mother. Same actor that played the boy with blood on his hands plays young Jacob.

There were more spoilers from
The Transmission podcast- the one for "Recon." They mentioned tighter security as we get to these last episodes- they are filming 15-finale now I guess. There were more so and so seen leaving set sighting than juicy bits at the end.

I don't know if they are all for episode 15, but that's the earliest episode they could be from...

On Judd (?) trail among the bamboo, Jacob is wearing a light color outfit with a ruffled collar shirt and MIB's wearing a brown tunic and shorts. Jacob's got MIB in a headlock and MIB looks pretty beat up.

Given what we saw in Ab Aeterno, Jacob has beat more people up than I thought. It doesn't really fit with him being the "good one," but we don't know the whole story.

At a resort with a beach cove, Kate's with Sawyer who has a rifle. Wonder what's going on? Are they talking about leaving the island together or is romance in the air?

Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, Jack, Claire, Sun and maybe Frank are on a boat and Jack and Sawyer have a confrontation. Pretty predictable. I hope they're not talking about Kate. Are they talking about escape or who's camp to join?


On the windward side of the island there are scenes filmed that convey several years. A pregnant woman with dark curly hair and a long brown dress limped away from the beach. Then and 10-13 year old boy in black runs ot the water to get a silver box and carries it inland. Is it the temple dagger?

Young Jacob and young MIB play backgammon in the trees. The woman with curly hair (no longer pregnant of course) in a coral dress calls out ot them. MIB jumps up, brushes himself off and goes to her.


One fan spoke with a crew member. The crew has been known to give red herrings, so don't know how one hsould take this...

He/she said the sub sinks and fills with water, Kate is thrown around, Desmond tries to save Analucia much like he did Charlie.


On March 9 they were at Waikiki at the Lotus Hotel (that's where Sawyer and Charlotte had their date). Jack and Widmore were there. A pregnant Claire and also David, Jack's son, were seen leaving the set. Wonder what that's about. I thought there wasn't going to be much going back in time... beyond Richard and the Jacob/MIB thing.

They were at the school- stunt doubles were there. Desmond begins beating Desmond up- what's that about?? Locke in the wheelchair was in the parking lot, but didn't do anything.

There is a Ben and Alex scene. Ben's arm is in a sling. It's after school with the school bus and cars picking up kids. A blue car comes up, Danielle gets out, Alex introduces Ben to her mom. Ben is flustered and drops his papers, they offer Ben a ride, and he gets in the car. Ben likes Danielle?? Wow. What if he becomes her stepdad and is "destined" to be a father figure to her.


Macrh 11- New Otherton- several scenes.
Miles, Ben and Richard are carrying guns, enter camp, pass picket fence where the swing set was supposed to be. Miles senses something, touches the ground, talks to Ben who looks down at the ground for awhile, Ben says something to Miles and they keep walking. I wonder if Miles heard Alex or Ben's dad or if we will know the final thoughts of one of them?

In a second scene, Ben and Unlocke talkin front of the cabin.

In a third scene, Richard is walking around by himself (bad sign...) looking around nervously when something hits him and knocks him to the ground. Oh no! Smokey!? Not Alpert! This doesn't look good for him. The last scene of the day was supposedly all camera work, a lot of quick movements, so it seems like it was a Smokey-cam (POV) or something.


March 12. Jack and Locke are on the beach. There is a scene with Claire and Locke and a canoe where Locke is trying ot get her to get in and she resists, but eentually get in the canoe together.

Last week (week of March 22?). There are crates and life vests washing up on shore. Maybe from a boat or sub wreck? Jack, Kate and Hurley were seen.

Thursday- Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sawyer, old and young Jacob seen leaving the set.

Friday- Hurley and Jacob

Michelle Roderiguez is in town "this" week. "This week" equals the week of
The Transmission's "Recon" hash/re-hash. So that crew member may have been giving real info?? Still didn't make sense. I'm more eager to see how this all comes together- or what comes together and what doesn't. :)

**************************************************
Post episode:

615 Across The Sea

A lot of people weren’t fond of this one. I actually liked it. I’ve been dying for more on Jacob and MIB and jungle boy that this scratched and itch somewhat. Ab Aeterno was by far the better of the flash backs and flash way backs, though. Anyway, I think that regardless of whether MIB is evil or not, he has good reason to be. He was deceived and manipulated all his life and lost his real mother. And rather than being strong and all knowing, we see Jacob as (he really is???) a weakling who was born to follow. Or is he the most good and forgiving person on earth? But he seems a bit dull, not the sharpest tool in the shed, not just docile or forgiving.

Are we to take from this that MIB is justified in what he is doing in the present time or that he chose the evil path of vengeance and Jacob chose the good path of peace and forgiveness?

Opening shipwreck is like the Losties arriving on shore after the sub sinking.

No name for MIB! Still! Doesn’t have one or we don’t know name?

Jacob and MIB are born on the island to a very pregnant, shipwrecked mom. Aaron was in the same situation an born on the island. WIll that mean anything? He was taken by The Others, but only temporarily (did they do a Dogen style test?), unlike the twins' mom and Mother situation. Kate ended up taking Aaron off the island, though, so he still got taken like the boys. All three were raised by another. MIB makes the comparison of crazy moms with Mother and Claire an adoptive and real mom, but he still identified with Aaron. MIB said the cause of his issues was being raised by a crazy mom, not being raised by another, interestingly.

Jacob and MIB are brothers! A reveal. I forgot to add this at first. I guess I had been leaning that way anyway. But, are they Cain and Able, or Jacob and Esau, or Benjamin and the rest of Jacob's children, or Romulus and Remus, etc. One innocent, one deceitful; one who is content to trust, the other who knows the truth and takes action; the firstborn Jacob gets the job, but MIB was favored; Jacob draws blood and makes MIB worse than dead, but MIB kills Mother.

Jacob is more than just a momma’s boy, he’s got no spine or personality really. We thought he was all knowing all powerful, but really, he’s just the equivalent of a clone or robot or something. I wonder if he’s being inhabited like Sayyid. The exchange where Mother says “Do you love me, Jacob? (Yes) Then tell me what happened,” is where we get that first glimpse. And he seems a bit dumb in the encounter with the boar and other men- he’s all loud and BIB has to shush him. A different picture of Jacob for sure.

“Jacob doesn't know how to lie. He's not like you.” BIB is special because he can lie? That doesn’t sound good. The keeper of the light has to be a good liar? With Jacob as the keeper, we have thought that was a good and righteous position, but it sounds as though Mother is not so good, what with the murder of the boys’ mother and all the lying. There’s always the question of the greater good- we don’t know for sure she’s not doing that for good reason, but it sure looks bad. Something I have thought about MIB since we met him.

BIB asks what’s dead. Mother says, “something you will never have to worry about.”
Sounds like she gave him the gift of living forever, like Jacob gave Alpert. BIB didn’t ask for it, though. What’s up with that being no problem and bringing people back to life is a no go? Does she have this “gift”? Did she give it to Jacob as well (before drinking the cup at the light)?

Teenage Jacob is the boy in the jungle. What’s up with teenage Jacob showing up to MIB in the present?? Still don’t get that.

Mother says: "They're not like us. They don't belong here. We are here for a reason."

BIB wants to know the reason and she says it’s not time yet.
Sounds like Widmore talking about timing with the testing, etc.

We assume the reason, though, is to protect the light which we see in the next scene. Maybe time had passed and it was time? Or was she not supposed to reveal the light until time for her to pass on guardianship and her doing so early is what caused some deaths later and the worse than death of MIB?

Mother says (when boys find they aren’t the only ones) : "The same thing that makes all men dangerous. They come, they fight, they destroy, they corrupt. It always ends the same."

Sounds like what MIB tells Jacob or Alpert.

She has constructed a different reality for them- it makes me think of Shamalan’s The Village. But, then so did the things the Others or Dharma would say from time to time… In any case, her lies (or truths?) about the men on the other side of the island are the same

Ben’s choice as a boy to go with the others or the hostiles is kind of a parallel to MIB’s choice to go “home.” Ben saw his mother and that seemed to make him want to leave the Dharma camp. Was that a ghost or MIB or Smokey or what?

"Does that mean that we can hurt each other?" Teenager in Black asks.
The woman stops and takes off their blindfolds. "I've made it so you can never hurt each other."

How did she do that?

I felt a bit let down about the light in the cave. Is that really what this is about? Really? And it looked a little cheesy, too. ☹

"Light. The warmest, brightest light you've ever seen or felt. And we must make sure that no one ever finds it." (This was also super cheesy for me)
"It's beautiful." BIB says.
"Yes it is, and that's why they want it. Because a little bit of this very same light is in every man. But they always want more."
"Can they take it?" Jacob asks.
"No, but they will try. And if they try, they can put it out. And if the light goes out here, it goes out everywhere. And so I've protected this place, but I can't protect if forever."
"Then who will?"
"It will have to be one of you."

Jacob’s the island is a cork thing doesn’t really hold true. Did Jacob learn to lie?

They are playing the game, senet, backgammon precursor.
"You can't do that, Jacob."
"Why not?"
"Because it's against the rules."
"You made the rules."
"I found it. One day, you'll find your own game and everyone else will have to follow your rules." (Did Jacob "find" the game he's playing with real people as pawns? Is he making the rules to this game his mom forced him to "play"?)
Teenager in Black sees Claudia over Jacob's shoulder. She says, "It's alright, don't be afraid."
Jacob turns, but doesn't see anything. "What?"
"I'm going to take a walk on the beach. I'll meet you later."
He runs down to the creek and sees her standing there. "Hello," she says.
"Why can't Jacob see you?"
"Because I'm dead. Will you come with me? I'd like to show you something."
(It seems it’s not just the lying that makes BIB different?)
"Show me what?"
"Where you come from. Across the island. A place you've never seen."

BIB tries to get Jacob to come with him to the other side of the island to live with their people. Jacob sticks by Mother and beats up BIB. Can they really not hurt each other? Or just not kill each other? Or is that a lie? Mother is a pretty big liar….

That was the scene described in the forward Cabin on The Transmission that intrigued me so much.

Mother holds Teenager in Black and says, "My love, you need to know this. Whatever you have been told, you will never be able to leave this island."
"That's not true. And one day, I can prove it!" He picks up his stuff, looks at Jacob, and then walks away.

Is that what MIB’s deal is? Does he just want to prove he can get off the island? Or is it Jacob who just wants to prove there is good in everyone and that all people aren’t corruptible? Either way, both seem to think anything goes to prove their point.

Mother admits to killing Jacob’s real mom with no real reaction by Jacob and Jacob seems to know Mother favors BIB. She insists she needs Jacob to stay in order to “stay good.” Does she know she is corrupted and that’s why she needs to find a replacement guardian of the light?

Mother never asks about MIB. I wonder is she “just knows” about him because they are good liars and alike somehow. Does she see dead people, too? I wonder if Jacob always spilled the beans or if she knew before he told on BIB.

MIB tells Jacob Mother was right about the people being greedy and manipulative, but Jacob isn’t so sure. Weird. He ends up bringing people to the island continually, which Mother probably wouldn't have been happy about. Did he end up changing the rules to defy Mother in a less bloody and overt way than MIB?

Mother knocks out MIB? Is it against the rules for her to kill him, too?

When Mother finds that people know about the light and are about to use it to get off the island, she determines it’s time to hand off her guardianship to Jacob. She made a point of telling Jacob she “said goodbye” to MIB. Did she know she was going to die?

At the light:
"You're going to protect it now." She hands him the torch and sits on a log.
"What's down there?" he asks.
"Life. Death. Rebirth. It's the source, the heart of the island."
He sits next to her. She says, "Just promise me, whatever you do, you will never go down there."
"Would I die?"
"It'd be worse than dying, Jacob, much worse." She pulls out a wine bottle and pours some liquid into a cup and chants over it. She offers him the cup. "Here, drink this."
"What happens if I do?"
"You accept the responsibility, that you will protect this place for as long as you can, and then you'll have to find your replacement."

She says “it has to be you Jacob.” (Didn’t Sayid say that to Jack or something last episode?)

Mother didn't give him a choice. Jacob seems intent on giving people a choice and not interfering (sort of). Sometimes his choices aren't great either way, though, so he could be like Mother not giving him a choice.

Mother also said he'd realize he was the one and she 's not just making him do it because he's all she's got left. This reminds me of MIB saying he'd find a way off the island, you'll see. I think Jacob realized it, but MIB hasn't gotten off yet. Hmmm...

When he drinks the cup, Mother says she and him are the same. What does that mean, exactly? I thought MIB was more like her, so are Jacob and MIB alike? If she was corrupted, did she think MIB was the one because they were liars, etc but really Jacob, the good one was more like her before?

The idea of finding a replacement to protect the light is like in the hatch, replacements were sent to keep pushing the button. Both Desmond and Jacob were unwilling participants. Desmond did something to end the need for his job. Will Jacob?

Mother burns MIB’s village. How does she do that? Can she summon Smokey like Ben? He retrieves his game, then stabs Mother as she looks at the black stone. She thanks him...for killing her? That sounds like Alpert wanting to be free of his eternal life when he finds out that this plan he thought Jacob had was all junk (or so he thought?). Did she thank MIB for killing her because Jacob, then, wouldn't do it? Or she had to die and she knew Jacob couldn't do it?

She wouldn’t let him leave because she loves him? Is she lying even in death? What’s up with that? Did she just want company or would something catastrophic happen?

Jacob is mad and throws MIB down toward the light and he I think we can assume turns into “something worse than death,” the smoke monster.

Jacob positions Mother and MIB’s bodies in the cave, touching hands, with the pouch with the game pieces. Adam an Eve. Finally.

Could have done without the flashes of Jack, Kate and Hurley discovering Adam and Eve. We remember already! We’ve only been speculating about this since that episode!

***
On the Official LOST Podcast (May 14), Damon and Carlton mentioned a few things:

Mother's "answers only lead to more questions" comment was definitely for us. I really don't like the nods to us. Focus!

Their response to people not liking this episode was that it was done to say that they are done with the mythology; it's all about what happens to the characters now. I'm kind of ready for that.

There was a question about the magic light's water and the temple water an they responded that they could be the same and that that could be the lifeblood of the island.

A question was asked about the turtle. They pointed out that in Stephen King's It and other novels, turtles represented a force of good. Another point was made that it was on the beach on filming day and they are protected- no one can move or touch them. So is that really an answer?

On the May 7 podcast, Damon and Carlton answered a question about the rules. Some, characters would make clear, but others that aren't important to the plot won't be listed in any way. They didn't really answer the question- is this a rule that will be told- in The Shape of Things to Come, Ben and Widmore exchange words and one says, "I'll make you wish you'd never changed the rules for killing Alex" or something like that.

On the same May 7 podcast, they said that "why is Kate not a candidate" will be answered by the characters.




LOST Episode 614: The Candidate

There appear to be 5 candidates revealed: Sawyer, Jack, Hurley, Sayid, Jin or Sun and another (Ilana has said there are 6 left). Though, Ilana and MIB aren't sure if it's one or the other Kwon or both. If it's both, then we have 6 already.

Is the title referring to the one that is ultimately chosen to replace Jacob? That would be interesting if we were to find that out.

MIB wants these 6 to get off the island with him so he can leave. He apparently wants them to stay alive. Kate's not a candidate, but he'll use her to get people off the island, then he appears not to care if Claire kills her.

I don't know what Jacob wants, really.

MIB understood that if Jacob died, he (MIB) could leave. Jacob said someone would replace him so that MIB couldn't leave, but Jacob's been dead... is there a grace period or something in these mysterious Rules? I guess that (loophole?) could be why MIB wants to get the candidates out now and things have been put into motion at the temple and with mention of an escape plan, but I would think if THE candidate wasn't ready to take over right at Jacob's death that MIB would be free to leave. That's how it would work in the real world I guess. But I guess one would need to be able to predict one's own death for that to happen. Jacob can grant eternal life, though, so is it really a stretch to say he would be able to predict his death? Jacob thought Ben wouldn't kill him, though, so maybe he died before he finished the selection process- if he's the one picking. Do we even know that? Not that Jacob's being alive or not seems to matter since he can talk to Hurley...

***
On the Official LOST Podcast (May 7) Damon and Carlto made a few relevant points.

They wanted to take out half the candidates in one fell swoop and to show that Locke was bad.

They wanted to leave no doubt that he is a force of antagonism. They wanted to show Locke finally putting his plan into action to get all the candidates together to kill them.

I would say that he definitely has opposite goals to some, but is he evil? I don't know.

LOST Episode 613: The Last Recruit

(From ABC Television Network) Alliances are forged and broken as the Locke and Jack camps merge.

Ilana said MIB was recruiting.

Recruits for what??

  • Killing the candidates after he gets off the island because he can't kill them and doesn't want them to return to the island
  • Getting rid of or sinking the island so the candidates can't return and that way he won't have to have them killed
  • Replacing MIB
  • Appointing a person to balance out Jacob and his candidates


Are Jacob's candidates the same as MIB's recruits?

Or must he get the candidates off the island and his recruits help him do that?

MIB didn't necessarily say Kate was a recruit, but he told Claire that she could get some candidates to come with them.

Must his recruits be taken over with the sickness or the darkness that eventually goes to the heart? Does the sickness cause/allow one to be a recruit or are recruits made sick?

In the same vein, I wonder if the Oceanic 6 became that because they were candidates or they became candidates as a result of being the Oceanic 6. It can't be coincidence.

***

IMDB's list- The Last Recruit (IMDB-Lost)

***
post episode 4/20/19:

So Jack's the last recruit. Claire foreshadowed and Locke seems to confirm at the end after a death or near death experience.

We had gotten a heads up from Damon and Carlton that this wouldn't have character centricity.

Hurley was leading, but upon meeting Unlocke again, Jack takes the reins. We have another instance of an answer dump, but I guess it was smoother than in the last 2 episodes.

1. Jack: Why do you look like John Locke?
Unlocke: He stupidly believed he was brought here for a reason, was killed, body was brought back to island.
2. There is confirmation that Locke had to be dead to look like Locke. No answer on who else MIB has looked like. :(
3. Jack's real question- when he chased his dead dad in the jungle the first time, was it MIB?
Unlocke says yes!
In answer to why, Unlocke says Jack needed water. He has only ever wnted to help him. (Like with Ben, I'm asking can we trust him?)
Jack: Help to do what?
Unlocke: Leave. More answers- Before Jack arrived, Jacob chose him, so he was trapped on the island. This is at odds with what we're thinking for Michael and MIB, that they were trapped on the island for doing something evil. Of course Jacob and MIB always say opposite things- who knows who is right? Locke continues that since Jacob's dead, they can get on the plane anytime.
Jack: If that's true, why don't you just go?
Unlocke: All of them have to go. That's not the first time we've heard all must go together...
Jack: Still insists Locke believed in the island and did all he could to keep us here.
Unlocke: Locke wasn't a believer, he was a sucker.

It's interesting that Sun and Locke arrive at the hospital on stretchers at the same time. What does Sun know that makes her respond- no...no! and it's him! She looked pretty scared.

Claire talks to Jack in the jungle after Unlocke does. Claire seems to know Jack is with her and Unlocke. Jack says he isn't sure and Claire proves it by saying he let him talk to him just like the rest of us did. This calls back to what Dogen tells Sayid and I think MIB tells Richard about stabbing a person before he speaks.

Sawyer (of Team Sawyer) is apparently going to play with Widmore for now so he can take the sub. He will kidnap a captain for it, which answers another of our burning questions. Claire and Sayid aren't invited of course.

Sawyer's talking ot Kate in the police station. I thought a significant line was "someone's trying to put us together" in talking about their 2 run ins. Kate says what we all thought was the case- Sawyer didn't arrest Kate at LAX because he didn't want anyone to know he went ot Australia.

Jack (talking ot Kate in jungle) isn't sure if Unlocke is telling the truth that they all have to leave and have to do it together.

Zoe raids MIB's camp and if I heard correctly, asks for "Man In Charge"?? Unless there was a "the" in front of that, I guess MIB should be MIC? Demands for Desmond cryptically with pyrotechnics- deadline is night fall. Unlocke says "well, here we go." A confrontation is imminent?

Desmond runs into pregnant Claire and very obnoxiously insists she see his lawyer. His smile when his lawyer, Ilana, confirms that yes, he's instigating this meeting. But since Ilana was looking for her for Christian's will, perhaps someone else was actually instigating this meeting. He says something that could be significant or a clue- "you may find yourself in a situation that's irreversible." Is this because she is supposed ot raise Aaron or does it have meaning for the two realities?

Unlocke addresses his people and refers, like Widmore, that this is happening early- who made the schedule anyway- Widmore or MIB or someone else? He said they forced our hand, claimed we stole from them- he knows Desmond is the package- maybe Sayid wasn't supposed ot kidnap him??

In another confusing move, Unlocke picks Sawyer to get the boat even though he probably knows Sawyer's not really with him. I'm guessing Unlocke knew and wanted Sawyer to rebel. That way, he gives the candidates to Widmore (if they are working together) or whatever his goal is while still looking like he is trying to help?

Unlocke tells Sayid to kill Desmond to get what he asked for (Shannon, Nadia?). First off, the well wasn't nearly as deep as I thought! Second, I thought Sayid would get his wish after giving the message inside the temple. Perhaps the deal was to do whatever and however much is asked of him to get what he wants? I'm going to say it is Nadia, since we flash to her and not Shannon.

I'm sensing tension between Sayid and Unlocke. Sayid even lies to him. Unlocke seems to know it, though. What motivation would a man who can't feel anything have ot lie? Weird, since Sayid supposedly can't feel anything. Perhaps Sayid is getting impatient or thinks MIB won't deliver. Richard switched sides when MIB asked a lot- Jacob delivered on his end of the deal quicker.

From the well, Desmond asked Sayid what MIB offered him. This reminds me of when Dogen and Sayid discuss what was promised to them. Desmond makes a good point that probably saved his life- if Sayid tells Nadia what he did to be able to be with her, she probably won't want to be with him. This reminds me of the sacrifice some seem to make- to be with their loves or save them, but they can't really be with them. Also a few minutes later a cool parallel is that Sayid in the flash sideways tells Nadia that he will leave and not come back because of what he did though they don't name the deed.

Possibly another answer- Sayid says he believes MIB can bring Nadia back because Sayid was dead and he brought him back.

They threw me a bone! Miles' name is in fact Straume. Can we assume he lived with his divorced mom with his dad being in the area?

2 other reveals:
1.Claire trusts Unlocke because he's the only one who didn't abandon her. This reminds me of Ben saying Unlocke was the only one who'll have him.
2.Unlocke denies causing Sun's run-in with the tree and or her language difficulty. ???

Claire makes it on the boat with the candidates. Kate invites her. Does that mean she's allowed to come, like Jacob inviting people into his lair? Does she still want to kill her? I get the impression she doesn't just then...

David and Jack are at the courthouse - still don't know who the ex is, though. Ilana, the lawyer, says "do you believe in fate." She's talking about finding Claire, but it could have greater implications.

On the boat, Sawyer confronts Jack.
Jack: this doesn't feel right
Sawyer: What?
Jack: Leaving the island. A part of him is missing, like last time. They were brought here because they were supposed to do something.
He is sounding a lot like Locke, the man of faith...or the sucker.
Jack: Maybe Unlocke is afraid of what happens if they stay.
Sawyer: You have a decision to make- be with us and keep the crazy talk to yourslf or get off the boat.
Jack: This is a mistake.
Sun and Lapidus had similar talk about a mistake.
Jack: The island isn't done with us yet.
This has been said over and over about Desmond and the Oceanic 6, etc.

Jack takes the leap of faith and jumps off the boat. He apologizes for Juliet's death like he's going to die and he's making amends.

I thought I was going ot hear the thud here, but it was just a commercial.

Sun's alive, the baby's fine and Sun and Jin fonally reunite on the island! Yay!

Jack recognizes Locke just before operating. He seems overly confident. We don't get to see the results or other reactions. Does he know him from the Oceanic flight or does he remember the island time, too?

Zoe has Sawyer's people at gunpoint, stands down upon recognition long enough for the Jin/Sun reunion, then gets Widmore's command to take them at gunpoint- the deal's off. Sun can speak English upon meeting Jin. I expected that. The writing on paper was getting old.

I thought Jin and Sun were going to get killed at the sonic fence, like most people. I heard Zoe say to turn off the fence, but those guys must not be the sharpest science nerds ever- they killed that one guy in the EM generator after all. I don't think it was an unwarranted assumption we all had. I'm glad we were all wrong!

Zoe gives the word ot blow Unlocke up. Of course he's unharmed. He rescues Jack. Is Jack dead or back from the dead or alive?? Has he taken a deal like Sayid or is the deal yet to come since Sayid was brought back before being offered the deal? Unlocke said everything will be ok, Jack's with Unlocke now. Is he really ok??