Bad movies are upsetting. After being disappointed with Jodi Picoult’s book My Sister’s Keeper, I had high hopes for the movie. Not since The Shawshank Redemption has a film outdone the book (or novella in Stephen King’s case). The streak continues.

Before going further, this review is filled with spoilers, both of the book and of the movie.

One problem with debate in America is the injection of emotion. Without a doubt, emotion is the reason for bloated ratings for My Sister’s Keeper. Even I bawled like a baby throughout the film. Having a friend die recently of cancer, seeing a young girl and her family struggle did evoke plenty of emotion. Those tears, however, were more a result of real life tragedy, and less the result of a poorly made movie.

To begin with, the movie seems to take some of the worst parts of the book and leave out some of the more interesting stuff. The book and the movie both jump around between the characters. Or at least the movie begins that way. Not long into, it as if the writer’s got tired and just decided to drop that particular gimmick. Why they even tried it escapes me.

Then there are the character flaws. Naturally, the book examined this a little more thoroughly, but even it used cliché to narrowly define key characters. The movie takes this a step further, barely giving the viewer a glimpse of the actual characters. The only hints we get are a series of very specific actions. The mother in both manages to be despicable in both the book and the movie, but with limited development in the film, is even less likeable.

There are major components of the book left out of the film. Most noticeable is the changed ending. I gave Picoult, as did many others, grief on her manufactured and implausible ending in the book. Credit to Nick Cassavetes for changing the ending for the movie, but it seems wrong to take a book and make such a dramatic change for the silver screen.

In both the book and the movie, one cannot help but fall in love with the sick Kate. The book provides some catharsis and an accident ends up leading to her rescue. Expecting this same ending in the movie, I was surprised when she died. Oddly enough, the movie leaves an empty feeling once she dies. Maybe that is because of the expectation created by reading the book.

Also absent is the love interest between the attorney and  a former lover involved in the case. I thought it cheesy that Picoult would insert such a side-story into a novel about a family dealing with cancer, but we all know love stories sell. The female half was not included in the movie, which still managed to stretch for nearly two hours. I am actually thankful she was not carried over to the film, or I might have wasted an extra hour watching that part of the story.

The brother in the book is a cookie-cutter juvenile delinquent. Not getting the attention he needs, he turns to drugs and arson. This is even more dramatic given that his father is a fire fighter. The film downplays the level of delinquency, and the arson story is completely dropped.

Finally, the attorney is given much more character in the book. The movie does feature his service dog named Judge, but missing are all the false reasons he gives for having a service dog. When it is finally revealed why he has the dog, the scene lacks impact since it is not played up throughout. Again, they had no real reason to put it in the movie if they could not give it full justice.

The movie making itself also fails. Not since Passion of the Christ have I seen a film that so obviously tries to manipulate my feelings. Gilded lighting, long, action-less, sweeping scenes on top of piano-driven sob songs, and focus on Kate’s face are attempts to evoke emotion. It might have worked if the movie were to take on an epic quality, but with choppy scenes and mediocre acting, they merely make all involved look a little silly.

The book is not written in chronological order. It skips around between characters and across time. They try this in the film, and it is sometimes hard to distinguish when they do so. They also do it frequently enough that it is impossible to get a real feel for the characters, and often difficult to weigh the gravity of a situation.

In the end, the viewer gets a movie that can generate tears. It is not a complete failure. There are some touching scenes, some decent observations about illness, and everything starts with a great premise: one young girl wants to die with dignity and her sister does not want to give up a kidney. It is, though, poorly constructed, often poorly acted, and completely manipulative when it comes to eliciting that emotional response.

You will see high ratings for this film: the average viewer will cry, and though those tears are probably more about someone they knew, they will credit the movie. As a movie watcher, I was able to distinguish between the two, and give My Sister’s Keeper two out of ten stars.

Every so often, I find a book that absolutely moves me. Unfortunately, Jodi Picoult’s “My Sister’s Keeper” failed to do that. Still, I read the 430 or so pages in four days, so surely that means something.

Of course, this book was made into a major motion picture. Another book of this sort comes to mind: I have read/listened to most of the Nicholas Sparks books. While the puffy non-reality of said books is bothersome, it is fun to drive deserted roads and act out the scenes with more realistic dialogue. Anyway, I did finish “The Notebook” in one sitting, the only book that make that claim, but the movie was terribly disappointing.

I am no book critic, but Picoult’s book starts with a great premise: a young girl wants to take control of her body at the cost of denying her sick sister a chance at a healthy kidney.

As I am not a book critic, I will stay mostly away from critic-type thoughts. Briefly, though, I hated all the little quips. Just coming off Maugham’s “Of Human Bondage,” I like long, thoughtful paragraphs. So many contemporary authors put in little quips of this and that to draw out the characters or make something relevant. It seems like weak writing to me, and it’s made all the worse when a 13-year old is the one having these profound thoughts.

Most of the characters seem pretty cliché: the attractive, self-centered attorney; his overly attractive love interest; a brother who lashes out criminally to garner attention. The book changes viewpoints frequently, yet the writing styles do not change much from a 13-year girl to a high-level attorney.

Then there is the ending. Honestly, I did not see it coming. I will not be a spoiler, but I thought the last few pieces of story really brought down the entire book. There are about three things that all seem better fit for filling pages with twist ending than for the rest of the story.

Regardless, I do like the book for one reason: it makes us think about death. I cannot give too many details regarding the book without being a spoiler, so I will use generalities.

A few weeks ago, Newsweek’s cover story was about killing granny. It was a poor choice of words, but got your attention. The article was a response to the idea of death panels and health care rationing.

In college, I learned of the Nancy Cruzan case and subsequently read the book “Long Goodbye: The Deaths of Nancy Cruzan.” Already a believer in right-to-die, this book cemented my ideals. Years after she finally died, Terri Schiavo’s case was put into the spotlight in a similar set of circumstances. She died in 2005, after being declared brain-dead in 1990.

Picoult’s book reraises these issues though not in the same manner. A young girl has had many bouts of life-threatening illnesses by the age of 16, and a battle ensues to determine how far her family can go to attempt to save her life. All the while, I am thinking maybe death is the best answer.

I consider myself a thoughtful humanitarian, but it seems like this is a late-20^th century problem. Prior to that, a child plagued with these illnesses would have died early on. Obviously there are cons with that, but I think there are pros as well. For one, that child’s suffering would be limited. The child would not have to battle years of terrible illness just so the parents could avoid death. She could die in relative peace, and the family could move on as well.

This is precisely what the Newsweek article was about. We don’t want anyone to die, especially when we have the means to keep them alive. But think about that: with today’s technology, we could virtually keep someone “alive” infinitely. Schiavo had no brain waves for 15 years. Her body was kept “alive” by a breathing machine and nurses who probably could have helped someone else. This could have continued for decades longer. Who among us really wants to exist and cause so much difficulty for others? A paraplegic can still communicate and such. In other words, he can still offer a reward for his existence. A brain dead body offers nothing. To be kept alive by machine merely means those who make that decision do not have to deal with death.

All this life may be killing the world. This planet was not made to sustain so many billions of people and their wants, needs, and byproducts. That a fundamentally destructive gene mutation or illness can live long enough to reproduce goes against millions of years of evolution. It is not a pleasant thought, but the greater reality is this: people die. Perhaps it is not in our best interest to live beyond life expectancies, suffering through illness but remaining alive because of technology. Likewise, it is sad, but maybe some babies should not be strung along by science for years. Who benefits from this other than the families who cannot handle death?

This is not to say I am entirely pro-death. What about the 30-year old in a car accident. Sure, save him (assuming he’s not brain dead). At all costs if necessary. An accident is not the same as an illness. An accident victim can recuperate and get better. A terminally ill patient merely struggles.

Obviously, this is a tough topic. I’ve had family and friends with serious illnesses (cancer, leukemia, etc). One person had leukemia as a child and fully recovered. A friend from college had cancer and battled for a couple years before dying recently. In both these cases, I cannot argue against treatment. The leukemia was beat. A rational adult made the decision to fight his cancer, and he was able to live a great life while doing so. But what if the leukemia came back, in a rare form (I am no doctor, but in Picoult’s book, this is the case, and the medical problems are never ending…use that example)? The child in this book never did lead a normal life. And what if my friend had been reduced to endless pain and immobility from the beginning? What if he’d wanted to give up? What if it were a child who did not have control over his own care in that same situation?

I’ve long believed there should be a certain dignity in death. If a person wants to fight it, so be it. But that same right should exist to those who don’t want to fight. The problem arises when the young or old are the sick ones, and decisions are being made for them. Like society, it seems Picoult, despite hundreds of pages of medical jargon and emotional scenes, wasn’t quite ready to face the realities of this heavy topic.

Often, reactions tell me more than the event that inspired the reaction. The event in question this time is Newsweek’s cover story about the three-year degree. Lamar Alexander wrote the story for last week’s edition, and readers have responded.

Alexander relates college to automobile manufacturers: not adapting to the present could mean failure in the future. For example, since the American Revolution, universities have closed for the summer so students may return home to work in the fields. That is no longer the case for most students, yet colleges go vacant for months at a time, racking up utility and maintenance costs with no students around to use or pay for such.

As a three-year graduate myself, I was glad to see someone supporting the cause. In the following pages, however, presidents of several universities seemed to fudge on the idea of the three-year degree. Reader mail supports these officials. The thinking from both seems to be that students need four years or more to do two things: learn and find themselves.

This arouses what I’ve long felt as myth in the American education system: that schools are all about learning. In their world, maybe most learning is done in schools. Students attend class with the sole intention of learning and take education seriously. Maybe they picture students lying out in the sun next to some rustic creek, pondering the ways of the world and the future.

I’ve observed the opposite. First, there is the myth that the students who do the best in class are the most intelligent. I just had this conversation today, debating with a coworker whether National Honor Society is a true marker of intelligence. While it is not a marker of stupidity, I argue it is more an indicator of ambition than true intelligence.

Obviously, I was never in NHS, just missing the boat. Had I qualified, I probably would not have joined. Robes and candles just seemed kind of…creepy. That said, I thought certain classmates in NHS were smarter than myself, and I knew some to be not-so-smart. That they had high GPAs and wanted to join an organization, however, probably meant they were more ambitious than me.

Take the classroom: in high school, I asked a fair amount of questions, but nothing to the degree of the ambitious kids. I knew it impossible to memorize every trivial fact I would never need to recall again. Blessed with a good memory, I was able to take notes, not ask questions, not study, and get good grades. Had I been ambitious, I have no doubt I could have scored higher on tests. My theory: the kids who asked the questions about the minutia back then were quite ambitious and at least intelligent. Those are the two ingredients to get places in life. For myself and others without the ambition, we struggle to amount to anything, but we’re solid, and arguably more intelligent, people.

In college, the tables turned for me. High school was mandatory and I never really paid the bill. College was expensive, and society told me I needed a degree to succeed. All things considered, it was not enough for me to sit idly by and listen to someone’s theory, or to take notes without question. When something did not make sense or seemed incorrect, I challenged the professor. Most teachers seemed to enjoy the discourse, and I think most would agree I made good points. The student response: a big sigh to let me know my questions were keeping them from more important things, namely sleep, alcohol or girlfriends.

I also took control of my courses. In high school, I refused to take college-level classes because I disagreed with the material or the concept. I was a non-fiction reader at the time. Why read fiction and analyze it to death? Why make a diorama or similarly childish product about a book I could not like? Beyond that, why is society pushing me to be a college student when I’m still in high school? Even then, I thought it cheapened the idea of the college degree.

In college, I became my own advisor. I picked all of my classes. At one point when I signed up for 29 hours in one semester, my advisor did step in. He said if I began to falter, he would pull me from some of the classes. I never faltered, and I graduated with honors in three years.

Am I using my degree? Absolutely not. I have a BS in justice studies with a minor in psychology. Presently, I’m employed as a sports writer. I have worked in my field of study, but it only proved one thing: college was essentially unnecessary. Two years on the job and 14 weeks at a mandatory academy would have been more than sufficient.

I am not alone here. One argument for the four-year or longer degree is that high school students cannot know what they want to do in three years. Maybe they can’t, but when will they know? Many of my friends have made careers outside their fields of study. Like me, many of those friends were gung-ho about what they wanted to do. Unfortunately, college cannot teach real-life. The graduate often learns that a desired career is not all it was supposed to be. Maybe no one is hiring, and a short-term gig becomes long-term.

To argue the four-year degree is necessary for students to learn what they want to do is just nonsense. Interests are born in childhood and sustained with experience. The student who goes to college wanting to be an artist, but learning to be a school teacher because he knows of a job is hardly a story of desire. In this case, the university may actually impede, or even kill off completely, the dreams of a young student.

Then there is the degree itself. I once had a job driving a truck and carrying books. My employer told me I might not have landed the job without my degree. Really, I needed college for that? More likely, my college degree was an indication that I played the game. For at least a while, I dressed probably like an adult, interacted with other people, and showed some degree of intelligence. On top of that, my employer must know that I ended up thousands of dollars in debt. Can an employee with bills to pay really raise a stink a work?

This raises the question of the bachelor’s degree in 2010. 20 years ago, one needed a high school diploma to get a job. A degree was a plus. The degree is now something anyone can obtain with a little money. Therefore, we are now led to believe a degree is okay, but we need a post-graduate degree to get the good job. Why? Maybe it’s online courses. Maybe it’s open admission.

The online class seems farcical to me. Really, I can sit at home, never talk face to face with anyone, never even get dressed, and graduate with honors? How, exactly, does that prepare me for the world? Some of the online professors are not even university professors. I took a few online classes and had community college professors with whom I had little contact. That’s hardly how I expected to earn a degree.

As for open admissions, this could mean a few things. To me, it just means a college will take on anyone as long as it stands to profit. So you attended half your classes in high school and show no real motivation to learn? Oh, you have a government loan. Welcome to college!

As with most traditionalists, it seems that some still hold the romanticized view of college: a place where kids go to grow up and become responsible workers. Undoubtedly, some students do. Many others merely party for four years. Do or don’t, it’s hard to deny: young adults are inheriting bigger and bigger debts for degrees they probably don’t need and/or will never use. If society wanted to emphasize education, trade schools would be much bigger than they are today. Instead, society has emphasized the game. For those of us who are too smart or too apathetic to play the game, we get a really expensive piece of paper that tells us how smart we are. I’m glad I got mine in three years and saved thousands of dollars doing so.

Humans ruin everything. Today at work, I chatted with a not-uneducated coworker about some of the major theories of society. She could not believe some prominent media figure suggest capitalism does not work.

She is a conservative, and that is fine. Though I do not agree with most of her views, one can generally find a base principle or other similar characteristic in opposing viewpoints. Though she may not have agreed (she may have), she at least remained civil when I suggested the capitalism is just one idea that does not work because the human race is involved.

Capitalism is a good idea. Let the people run the show, and the free market will regulate itself. If a company sells worthless goods, people will shop elsewhere. If a store has overpriced items, consumers will go to another store. These concepts and others will lead to reliable and cheap products. These ideas work in a fair society.

Unfortunately, humans are anything but fair. Let’s say a company does sell worthless goods. Maybe they are toxic. Maybe they fall apart. What if, due to volume of sales and cheap manufacturing, this company has more money than the competition to promote its products. What if it has the power to run smaller businesses out of town?

The argument may be that it’s not possible for a company like this to thrive. It would not be if things were fair, but again, they are not. Take a woman shopping for clothes. The nice clothes, made by workers who are paid and treated properly, and whose fabrics and threads are of high quality, naturally cost a lot of money. This woman, unfortunately, works for a company that does not pay her well, even though she works very hard. On top of that, she has been sick lately and has to pay high medical bills (that capitalism did not do a very good job of regulating). Though she is a worker, and though she wants the nicer clothes, her situation is not dictated by what she wants but rather what she can afford. Through really no choice of her own, she perpetuates the cycle of abused employees and cheap products. Take this woman times hundreds of millions of people on the planet and capitalism clearly begins to benefit a certain group.

That is just one example of how a less-than-ideal business can thrive in a free market. The market is not based on what is best for consumers, but what is best for business. Therein lies the flaw. Businesses, run by humans, can corrupt the system by controlling the variables that dictate behavior. If the above woman’s employer paid her what she truly earned, she could afford more expensive clothes, and the store exploiting cheap labor and products would have to up its ante to compete. Instead, the cheap store usually wins out with sheer volume merely because it can run the other shops out of business.

True capitalism assumes there are standards by which businesses work. Perhaps in the beginning, this was the case. In 2009, that is no longer the case. Mass media makes possible countless ways of advertising. Again, the company with the most money, which is often not the best company for the people, has the most ability to promote itself.

Fortunately, our system is not true capitalism. We have regulation. Though we have become a fine print society, at least companies are forced to tell the truth in some twisted form. Unfortunately, we do not have enough regulation. This is why companies can continue to exploit workers and consumers.

That is the other part of capitalism: the consumer. Why feel sorry for the consumer? It is up to him/her to control the market. The people working for companies that do not pay well must deserve the substandard pay. To the contrary, those earning high salaries, through school, hard work, or other ways, earn their pay. It is the common psychological principle that good traits are credited internally (I work hard, therefore I make a lot of money), and bad traits are external (He does not make a lot of money, therefore he must not work hard).

When this mindset is added to the other capitalistic equations, you end up with a society that does not care for one another. Instead of improving the plights of others, maybe with higher pay, more nutritious foods, etc., the lesser groups are viewed as inferior. The become tools to further individual growth. This explains how so few in a society can grow so wealthy while the masses get progressively poorer.

When all is said and done, a capitalistic society is supposed to create wealth for some. If fairness were incorporated completely, we would not see the levels of wealth and poverty we see today. The salaries of company owners would be limited because of fair pay to employees who run the company. But, somehow, we do not see that capitalism is not a fair idea, and we have allowed many dishonest companies and people to take advantage of others, resulting in the growing disparity between the rich and the poor.

Humans ruin capitalism for two reasons: greed and ignorance. One group uses whatever tools it can to gain more. The other group does not realize the power of itself and begins to listen to the viewpoints that ultimately benefit the class in power. How else could a worker with two jobs vote for candidates that vote against a wage increase?

What is the answer? Time has all but proven that western ideas do not work. Communism is another great idea. Individuals work for a collective good. Like other systems, this always results in a certain power structure. Power corrupts, and soon you have a class of people taking advantage of another class.

Religion is but another good idea gone wrong at the hands of humans. Instead of being used to increase the quality of life, certain humans use it as justification to hurt others. Religion, money, and nationality are the three main causes of war in history.

It seems there is no answer, but there is: regulation. Call it socialism, call it whatever you want. With an independent body to govern greed and force honesty, a society can create a natural series of checks and balances. If the body is failing, it can be replaced through election. Sound familiar? Vaguely, but it is not the American system, which is controlled not by everyday people, but by special interest.

Again, call it socialism, but there is another name for a truly independent government that looks out for all and not just a few: fair.

As a watcher of news, and one who frequently regurgitates such, it is convenient when I sometimes stumble across a few items that tie some thoughts together. Monday’s “Larry King Live,” and an article by Daniel Lyons in last week’s Newsweek did just that.

King’s show featured a discussion about the safety of eating meat. At the beginning, several families affected by meat-related illnesses such as e. Coli were highlighted.

The back half of the show featured several panelists in a debate-like structure. On one hand, Dr. Colin Campbell, a Cornell professor, argued that humans need to revert to a plant-based diet. Campbell quotes several studies that show adverse health effects due to heavy meat consumption. University of Connecticut professor Dr. Nancy Rodriguez, an expert in nutrition, countered that a meat diet can be healthy.

At this point, both experts seem to be about on equal ground. Campbell brings a scientific background, and scientific studies to support his side. Rodriguez brings common sense about a topic she has studied extensively. From there, it goes downhill.

King next brings on Anthony Bourdain, chef, author, and host of Travel Channel’s “No Reservations.” Jonathan Safran Foer, author of “Eating Animals,” also joins the panel.

Bourdain is one of my favorite television personalities. In general, he seems to appeal to my logical way of thinking, and has experience the world over. Foer, through research for his book, also seemed knowledgeable.

Bourdain opens by saying humans are obviously designed to be hunters, and that includes eating meat, but we are not designed to consume bacteria. He also says, “I think the standard practices of outfits like Cargill and some of the larger meat processors and grinders in this country are unconscionable and border on the criminal.”

Foer agreed for the most part, adding, “What Anthony didn’t say, and I wish he had, is that 99 percent — upwards of 99 percent of the animals that are raised for meat in this country come from factory farms.”

At this time, the panel seems to heading in the right direction. Bourdain and Foer have offered no real expertise, but what they say rings true. Then it goes back to Campbell, who again says humans need a plant-based diet, and a plant-based food industry could replace the present animal-based industry.

This is where things go a little haywire. Campbell is obviously a smart man. Perhaps his research indicates meat is bad. So what? Science has long said cigarettes and alcohol are bad, yet humans continue to use these products. This is precisely why Bourdain answers, “People eat meat because it’s delicious. Let’s not forget the pleasure aspect of this argument. People eat meat because they like it. It tastes good. It smells good when it’s cooking. I think to — people are going to disagree along those lines alone, regardless of the health aspects.”

King then asks Rodriguez if it is true that many e. Coli outbreaks have started with vegetables. She answers that this is true.

Foer then says, “Nancy, surely you know the CDC has said all of those, the primary source was animal agriculture. It may be true that the vehicle was spinach. But if we’re wondering where e. Coli — we know where e. Coli comes from, right? It comes from poop. It’s not coming from the spinach. It’s coming from run off from factory farms.”

Rodriguez answers that her area of expertise is nutrition, and she cannot comment on Foer’s charge.

This is where my expertise comes in. Keep in mind I have none, but I can throw together an argument. Campbell and Rodriguez, though they hate to admit it, are on the same line of thinking. Meat is probably not the healthiest, but in small quantities, probably is beneficial to humans.

Bourdain’s common sense approach is right on. Humans are not designed to maximize health. We take risks daily. On matters of diet, health is rarely the top consideration. Of course people will continue to eat meat, probably in large quantity.

Not one panelist raised this issue to the degree it should have been emphasized: it is not necessarily the meat that is unhealthy, but the way in which it is produced for consumption. Crowded farms, antibiotics, pesticides, hormones, etc, etc. Not one panelist fully put together the idea that, yes, people may be designed to eat meat, but the American corporation has corrupted even this with its need to produce something that generates profit. The most practical solution is not to cut meat consumption, but to improve the way it is processed.

To cap things off, King brings back Patrick Boyle, president and CEO of the American Meat Institute. Boyle does his normal public relations work: Cargill is part of the AMI, and the industry has spent tens of millions of dollars to keep food safe. Boyle also adds, “And hamburger is compromised of trim from more expensive pieces of meat like tenderloins and roasts. It’s perfectly safe, perfectly wholesome.”

Yes, Mr. Boyle, this is obviously why one has to heat hamburger to a certain temperature. Whereas steaks can be enjoyed pink, hamburger must be fully cooked due to risk of contamination. Only in a PR world could we believe, and have aired on a major news network, that hamburger is perfectly safe.

And that’s how Lyons’ “Newsweek” article ties everything together. Lyons writes about director of the White House Office of Science, John Holdren, an MIT undergrad and Ph.D from Stanford. Holdren has won several awards for his scientific studies in areas of energy use.

“But now he must sell his ideas to people who couldn’t pass high-school algebra–and who believe they know more than he does,” Lyons writes.

On King’s show, one credible scientist didn’t have the sense to incorporate human desire into his equation. One credible nutritionist could not admit that e. Coli outbreaks tied to plants originated with animals. Only when a celebrity chef and author joined was there any semblance of balanced reason.

Unfortunately, they were all trumped by a public relations wizard who just happened to have the last word. Is Boyle an expert in his field? Maybe. But he’s also out for profit.

All arguments are not created equal. It took a few experts losing to a chef and author to prove that Monday night.

Click here read the full transcript of the episode of Larry King Live.

Saturday Night Live, for all its recent irrelevancy, struck it rich this weekend when a Barack Obama imposter went down the list of all the things our new president has not accomplished.

Just how big a skit that was became clear today when Obama was announced as the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner. The most common reaction from critics? What has Obama done?

Forget that he is the first black president in a nation that used to have slaves and promoted the equality of man in its founding document despite including that slaves (blacks) would be counted as three-fifths of a person for population purposes.

In my opinion, Obama won because he is not Bush. The world hated the United States in December 2008 and prior to that. I remember watching the World Cup in 2006, and the American soccer team was the only team out of 32 that needed a fully-armed escort. By February 2009, it seems to have made a pretty substantial turnaround.

Then there are the issues. Sure, Obama has not accomplished a whole lot…yet. He is a meager nine months into his presidency of a country that values money over just about everything. Were he a king, maybe we would see change. Instead, he has to argue with politicians who have their own interests, paid for by corporate America, and not the interests of the American people.

Even without accomplishment, one can feel the hope Obama generates. Take the insurance debate. For so long, American workers have been trampled by growing insurance and medical costs. Most of Europe, and most of the other industrialized nations have figured this out. Are we naive for not following suit? No, they are socialists whose governments pose a danger to the populace. If nothing else, Obama is trying to get this nation’s poor some standard care.

Then there is Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. For a country that loves war as much as this one, this is a notoriously bad policy that denies qualified soldiers a chance to serve. Though it has yet to be overturned, Obama is on board.

Also there is Guantanamo. Another human rights issue. Obama wants the makeshift prison closed, but who disagrees? Republican congressman scared us into believing these prisoners would be released in our own backyards.

So maybe Obama has not accomplished a lot. I say getting elected on progressive ideas in a backwards country is progress enough and explains why the world might appreciate our president more than we do.

I avoid “reality” television like former President Bush avoided books and Vietnam. The Jon & Kate Plus 8 saga, however, has recently crossed over into the ‘interesting’ category.

There are many allegations coming from all parties involved, and I am not hip enough to know about all of them. After watching Jon Gosselin on Larry King this weekend, I am able to string together a few questions about the entire drama.

First, it remains to be seen who is the true monster in this story. Did TLC, in all its corporate glory, find a couple it could exploit? According to Jon Gosselin, that is just what happened. Naturally, parents of eight children could use a few easy bucks. Jon alleges he was not allowed to consult an attorney per the contract, so does anyone really expect corporate attorneys to draft a fair contract? Did the Gosselins really know what they were getting into?

Then there is Jon’s behavior. Though I do not make excuses for such behavior, let everyone remember that sudden celebrity and access to money is often a road to infidelity and/or substance abuse. It is easy for the common person to say he will never do drugs or cheat on his wife. Put in a situation where attractive women are constantly available, however, and many a strong men have broken.

Again, I do not condone that behavior, but it would seem odd that America wants to chastise a man for doing what so many men in history have done; seemingly a bit of human nature, if the corporation truly is the monster in the room.

Then there are the legal issues. Did TLC have the right permits? Permits are not necessary to film documentaries. Jon Gosselin’s statements prove that these shows are not ‘reality’ at all. If they are directed, rehearsed, written, etc., then TLC would have needed a permit to shoot the show when it seems they did not. Another case of a corporation trying to cut corners to make some money?

On the matter of money, what are the eight children being paid? According to Jon, the children are paid nothing directly. The family of 10 makes about $1 million a year, to be divided evidently how Jon and Kate see fit. Some experts say the show brings TLC $186 million a year. With so much income generated by the show, how is the family, especially kids who should not be employees at their respective ages, not compensated accordingly?

Finally, there is the issue of renaming the show. According to Jon, he made the decision to cancel the show on some of the grounds stated above. He says the papers were filed before TLC decided to pull his name from the show. He seemed rather adamant about this, and it would be easy to prove. Will we find that TLC is merely pulling his name from the show to undermine his attempts to cancel the show for the sake of his children?

As this show and others have proven, ‘reality’ shows are a joke. Though the Gosselins may be repugnant characters willing to sell the privacy of their children, what about the corporation that would offer to buy such a thing? Though the story of this family of 10 has never interested me, the new legal issues have caught my attention. Will the verdict point towards Jon Gosselin’s lack of character or something far more sinister: the character of a network willing to exploit a family, and the Americans who would enjoy such a concept?

Being a columnist is rarely easy. There are the writers who do puff pieces, maybe drawing a smile but never really making anyone think about anything, and there are those of us who tow the line to make our points.

Mark Whicker, a columnist of 22 years, is the latest to draw national ire for a recent column in the Orange County Register telling kidnap victim Jaycee Dugard what she missed in the sporting world during the last 18 years.

Critics say Whicker was insensitive. What was a sports writer even doing writing about Dugard, who was kidnapped at age 11 and held captive for 18 years before recently finding freedom? In that time, she was virtually cut off from the world.

It does not take but a quick reading of the column to see that Whicker was not being cruel or insensitive. He was merely putting 18 years in perspective. Sports analogies are the rage. The media and our government officials love to use sports analogies because most of us can relate to winning the big game or getting the big hit.

Part of the column is a list of some of the bigger stories in the last 18 years. Barry Bonds, Tiger Woods, Magic Johnson. I know these stories because I have had access to the world all of my life. Still, I had forgotten how big these stories were in their time. They seem like ages ago. If a simple news story seems to have happened decades ago, how long must have those 18 years in captivity felt to Dugard?

Whicker is experiencing another American pasttime. Running the mouth (or in this case fingers…probably most often with anonymous emails and comments) without really thinking about what is being said. Yes, the column at first reeks of bad taste. If you stop there, Whicker probably deserves some hate mail. But if you actually read the column, and you have the ability to think, you begin to see that Whicker’s unique column simply puts 18 years in perspective more than the faux emotional reporting from the networks could ever do.

Not bad for a sports writer.

The liberals have done it again. We’ve offended those poor, persecuted right-wingers. This time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the recent outbursts at health care-related town meetings “un-American.”

First of all, what a stupid thing to say. What, exactly, is un-American? Not all bad is un-American. The United States has a very seedy history. Slavery, oppression of women and minorities, all of the nonsense wars we’ve fought just to name a few. To call an interruption “un-American” is to put the blinders on and pretend that everything “American” is good. Sorry, lady. Wake up and smell the people you govern. We smell freshly of soap, but only because some third-world child slaves away in a sweatshop for pennies a day so we can have cheap clothes.

Then there is the reaction. Typical. Overdone. Just as each Christmas the right pretends they are being persecuted when someone uses “X-mas” or “Happy Holidays” instead of Christmas, the right now claims that Pelosi has crossed the line. Nevermind that the right-wing talking heads say the same thing, often times much worse, when the left makes a reasonable attack. A few years ago, O’Reilly called left-wing protestors Nazis. What they were doing paled in comparison to what is going on right now.

Therein lies the problem here. The right is not being reasonable. It is reasonable to ask questions to gather more information. It is unreasonable to disrupt a meeting just because you disagree. The right offers no proof of any harm from Obama’s proposed health care, just propaganda heard on right-wing radio and television. As per usual, the truth goes out the window with this group, and we are left with nothing more than a bunch of angry, hateful bottom-feeders who vote against their own interest because they eat every word out of talk-radio’s mouth. Who can argue against someone who pulls facts out of the air, gets angry when confronted, and always ends up yelling?

Congressman Henry Waxman was recently on The Daily Show. Jon Stewart made fun of our government, and instead of agreeing with Stewart and showing anger that such a joke could ever be made, Waxman offered some weak rebuttal. Another problem: Congressmen and women who either cannot see the problem or do not have the courage to be adamant about fixing it. Where is the outrage when these clowns invade these meetings or spew their nonsense? Fire a little anger back occasionally. Oh well, it’s not like our health care is on the line or anything.

Just tonight, I watched three guests on Lou Dobbs’ show discuss Pelosi’s comments. At the top, each agreed that her “un-American” comment was un-American in and of itself. Finally, what must have been the brightest in the bunch said he agreed with her comments. Dobbs stuttered a response as if he could not believe someone just admitted on record that he agreed with Pelosi. He asks the man if he really agrees. The man puts the comment back in context and says yes, the behavior very specifically defined by Pelosi is “un-American” and stupid. They went to commercial before Dobbs could say anything else, but it was clear he thought he nailed the guy. The only thing he did was make himself and anyone who agrees with him on this point look terribly sad and naïve.

I used to think “We the people” deserved a better government than the one we have elected. I have since come to disagree with my earlier thinking. A people who cannot separate fact from lousy, emotion-driven fiction does not deserve a working health care system. A people who vote for the same money-hungry politicians who lie to them every chance they get does not deserve a government that works for them.

A few years back, I saw George Carlin on CNN, and realized his dark-humor was not just an act. Carlin unabashedly dismissed all the things I held dear at the time, namely government and humanity. He made a living making humorous the corruption and hypocrisy associated with America and humans in general, but on CNN that day, he made it evident that he really believed those things. At the time, I wondered how anyone could be so cynical. Now I know. Hearing the rhetoric coming from the right since Obama’s election, and seeing so many people believe it has devastated my outlook on humanity.

A girl I recently tried to date said I took things too seriously. Too seriously? Oh honey. We can never be together. No reasonable person could ever take any of this seriously.

In a world of fake reality television, the truth is still easy to find. With has-been and no-brain celebrities taking up most of the spots, Biography Channel’s I Survived…, with its real people and candor, leads the way of compelling reality television.

Like any good story, I Survived… does not mess around with complicated gimmicks. The show is mostly comprised of just the survivor, set against a black background, retelling his or her story. There is the occasional vague piece of scenery to help establish the setting, and the stories are set up using plain white narrative text, but mostly the show is an hour of raw humanity.

The stories are incredible, topped only by the survivors themselves. There is the woman who, while driving down the highway, was shot by a stranger. After watching the man shoot and kill her younger cousin, the woman gets the man to believe he actually helped her from the shooter and gets him to call an ambulance.

There is the elderly couple, attacked my a mountain lion while out for a walk. While the cat has the man’s head in its jaws, he pokes at its eyes and she beats it with large branches. Despite losing a large piece of scalp, the man survives.

There are the two young men who get lost at sea without food or water for seven days. After contemplating eating their own fingers and using a fishing tool to carve farewells into the boat, the boys are rescued.

Those are just a few of the stories. The program, with originals airing each Sunday, usually features some kind of accident and some form of crime. The accidents would be boring if not for the extreme conditions endured by the survivors. The crimes offer both the best and the worst sides of humanity.

Unlike many so-called reality shows that feature washed-up celebrities, or regular people trying to become washed-up celebrities, in scripted dramas that in no way model reality, I Survived… is as real as it gets. These are normal people that never asked for trouble but, once it found them, managed to get away and share their stories.

Watch it for inspiration, but beware: in the real world, not everyone survives. Several stories involve the deaths of those less fortunate than the storyteller.

I Survived… is a unique kind of show in that people do die, and details are not held back for the sake of the viewer. It also sets itself apart from other reality shows for another reason: it’s actually worth watching.