Welcome to summer

Highs have been consistently hitting the low-to-mid 90s for the past two weeks. Kirby's last days of school was Thursday. Memorial Day is tomorrow.

Thus, I am forced to accept the fact that summer has begun. (The "summer doesn't begin until the Solstice" myth has already been debunked on this blog.)

I, of course, never exactly welcome the oppression that is the Houston summer, and this year that was especially the case due to the unseasonably cold weather that lingered well into February and even March and made the spring relatively short.

I'm not excited about the beginning of hurricane season, either. Prognosticators expect that it will be a busy one. Then there's the complicating factor of that oil spill.

Nothing to do now except stay indoors as much as possible and otherwise make the most of it. Kirby and I are accompanying my parents to New Orleans for a few days next weekend, and at some point I'm sure I'll make my way up to Denver to visit my brother for a few days.

Where I get a time machine, go back about 20 years, and kick my own stupid teenage ass

So the cute Mexican girl I met in South Padre Island when I was 16, but broke up with later because she "wasn't worthy" or whatever?

Just found her on Facebook.

She is absolutely gorgeous.

And did I mention that she's a lawyer?

Yeah, I kind of screwed up on that one, didn't I?

My thoughts on the LOST finale

Okay, after having watched it and thought about it for the past 24 hours, I've come to a conclusion: I was somewhat underwhelmed by last night's 2.5-hour series finale of LOST.

Not horribly disappointed, mind you; I think in many respects it made a lot of sense. But I came way a bit unsatisfied.

To be sure, I didn't expect every question to be answered or every detail to be resolved. I know that no ending is going to satisfy every fan of the show. And I know there are a lot of folks who absolutely loved the way it all ended. "I cannot help but give this episode a major WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!" LOST Addicts blogger Mike V. gushes. "I think what we saw last night was the best ending a superfan could ask for," cbs.com's Jessica Derschowitz opines. I can't say I feel the same way, however, and there are indeed a variety of opinions about the show's finale.

To be technical, the show actually had two endings - the ending of the "original" island timeline, and the ending of the "sideways" timeline that has now been revealed as a sort of "purgatory" where the show's characters all went to "let go" and reunite with one another after they died. The island timeline's ending mirrored the show's beginning, with Jack lying in a bamboo forest, only this time, instead of opening his eyes, he closes them as he dies. The sideways timeline ends with the main characters reunited with their loved ones sitting in a church, as Jack's father opens the doors and lets "the light" in so that these characters can move on to heaven or nirvana or wherever.

And on the surface both endings seem sensible and complete. Jack killed the Man In Black / Smoke Monster and saved the island. Before he dies he sees the Ajira airliner carrying his friends home. He dies with satisfaction, knowing that he accomplished what he was brought to the island to do. Island plot resolved.

And then, after Jack dies, he goes to purgatory, where he is eventually reunited with Kate and his father. The other main characters are, likewise, reunited with one another, and, having worked out their mortal issues, are "Shepherded" into the next plane of existence. Character plots resolved. Considering the show's religious undertones - the struggle between good and evil, the failure and redemption of humankind, the clash between faith and science - this seems like an appropriate ending.

But I still can't help but feel like something's missing. For a show as complex as LOST, the ending seemed a bit simplistic and left a lot of storylines hanging. Fans of the show who have been so emotionally involved in these characters over the past six seasons probably deserved something more, especially with regard to the surviving characters in the island timeline. I would have liked to have seen something - even if they were a series of short vignettes - that, however vaguely, wrapped these storylines up.

Maybe Hurley and Ben go back to re-inhabit Dharmaville. Maybe Rose and Bernard and anybody else who is left on the island join them. Maybe they help Desmond get back on that sailboat and return home to Penny. Maybe Frank lands the Ajira plane safely, and they concoct another story to the press and authorities to explain their disappearance. Maybe Claire finally gets to meet Aaron, and Sawyer sees his daughter Clementine, and Kate and her mother resolve their issues, and Richard gets to live life as a mortal for the first time in 150 years, and Miles does whatever he does. The creators of this show developed a lot of time developing these characters over the past six seasons, so don't viewers deserve at least some closure?

It's fine and well to say, as the show's creators seem to be doing, "don't worry about what happens to the surviving characters, because everybody's together and happy in the afterlife," but it still seems like a something of a cop-out. I mean, couldn't you theoretically end EVERY show with that kind of ending? As a commenter on an online discussion forum described it: "Take your favorite book. Rip out the last chapter. Replace it with one page that reads: And they lived happily ever after. The end."

And speaking of the "sideways" ending: we know that Ben is not among those in the church because he had decided to spend more time in purgatory doing penance. Daniel and Charlotte are not there because Desmond told Eloise Hawking he wouldn't take them. We know that the ghost of Michael is stuck on the island, and that Ana Lucia (according to Hurley) isn't ready to leave purgatory yet. But what about, say, Richard and Isabella? What about Michael's son Walt? And why, if Sayid's true love for the past six years was Nadia, was he paired up with Sharon, a long-forgotten character who was killed off early in the show?

I realize I'm beginning to sound like an obsessed LOSTgeek and that's not my intent. As I said before, I didn't expect every question to be answered and, to be fair to the show's creators, the DVD set that comes out later this summer is supposedly going to contain some extra footage that might answer some of these questions.

It's just that I don't watch a lot of television. LOST and The Sopranos are really the only two series that I've followed religiously over recent years because, for whatever reason, I found them interesting enough, fascinating enough and stimulating enough to invest time in following them. And even though I didn't hate either of them, both endings left me with a "is that really IT?" kind of feeling.

I was just expecting something more, I guess.

UPDATE: the folks at collegehumor.com have a four-and-a-half-minute list of unanswered questions from the show:

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

RIP Jose Lima

Like many other Houstonians, I was shocked and saddened to learn about the sudden death of former Astros pitcher Jose Lima this past weekend.

There's no way any Houston sports fan can remember the Astros of the late 1990s - the excitement of three straight NL Central titles or of Bagwell and Biggio playing in their prime - and not remember Jose Lima. His flamboyant personality, not to mention his strong pitching during the 1998 and 1999 seasons, made him a fan favorite and gave rise to the notion of "Lima Time." He loved Astros fans as much as they loved him and never tired of interacting with them and signing autographs. He was known for his animated antics in the dugout - I'll never forget the time I saw him wearing a backwards, inside-out cap and repeatedly slamming a bat into some outfield wall padding in an effort to rally the team on a day he wasn't pitching - and for his humorous interactions with the press in the clubhouse. And then there was him singing in a Casa Olé commercial.

Jose Lima joined the Astros in 1997 and, in spite of being upstaged by the late-season acquisition of Randy Johnson, had a good 1998 season with a 16-8 record and an ERA of 3.70. 1999 was his best year, as he notched 21-10 record, a 3.58 ERA and an All-Star appearance. However, as the Astros moved from the pitcher-friendly confines of the Astrodome to the hitter's paradise of what is now Minute Maid Park in 2000, Lima struggled. He went 7-16 with an ERA of 6.65 that season and was traded the following year, ending the phenomenon of Lima Time in Houston.

His fortunes on the mound waxed and waned in the following seasons as he bounced around between major league teams and their minor league affiliates. The last time I remember watching him was during the 2004 postseason, when he pitched a five-hit shutout for the Los Angeles Dodgers in their NL Division Series against the St. Louis Cardinals: the Dodgers' only victory of that series and their first postseason victory since the 1988 World Series. More recently, Lima had relegated himself to international and independent league baseball. With his baseball career coming to an end, he had reportedly been planning on a singing career. Unfortunately, that never came to pass. "Lima Time," however, will live in Astros lore forever.

Jose Lima apparently died of a massive heart attack. He was only 37. Kind of sobering, considering that I'll be 37 in a few months.

Continental and United to merge

Even though I knew this was coming, I still feel like I want to puke:

United and Continental confirmed this morning that the airlines would merge, a combination that will create the world's biggest airline. In a press release, the carriers say the all-stock deal – worth about $3 billion – will bring the airlines together in a "merger of equals."

The Associated Press writes "the new airline would jump past Delta Air Lines in size and have flights reaching from Shanghai to South America. That should lure more business travelers, who pay higher fares. The United name will live on, although the planes will have the Continental colors and logo." The sides hope to finalize the deal before the end of the year.

I was really hoping that the hometown airline would avoid doing this. Aside from the fact that I'm not thrilled about an airline as crappy as United tainting Continental's corporate DNA, the fact that Houston is losing a corporate headquarters, a lot of jobs and probably a lot of flights is going to suck. In that regard, my feelings are well-described by Chronicle cartoonist Nick Anderson.

I realize that it's all about business, and the airline industry is a business that continues to struggle. As the Chronicle's Loren Steffy explains:

Continental's approach has long believed that happy customers and happy employees will generate happy profits. So it continued amenities such as in-flight coach meals long after other carriers abandoned them. But the carrier still hasn't been consistently profitable, and it certainly hasn't benefited shareholders.

Continental's shares closed Friday at the same level they were trading at in 2006, and the carrier has reported losses in three of the past five years.

What's more, it faces a consolidating market. Delta's 2008 acquisition of Northwest gives it a larger global network, making it more formidable in competing for lucrative corporate travel contracts. If Continental walked away from the United deal, and United merged with someone else, Continental could have found it even more difficult to compete for these high-paying customers.

Indeed, as a stand-alone carrier Continental would have found itself in a tough position, so I understand why it decided that it needed to merge with another carrier. I just wish it wouldn't have been United.

Bah.

Giving nature a helping hand

I mentioned last month that, due to extreme winter weather conditions in Mexico as well as here in the southern United States, monarch butterflies might be a rare sight this year.

Kirby and I are doing our part to help the monarch butterfly population recover by raising and releasing monarchs. Here's Kirby with four of the recently-emerged insects, right before we let them go last weekend:

Is the Double Down really that unhealthy?

Because I'll try anything once, and because I wanted to see (or, rather, taste) what all of the fuss was about, a couple of days ago I went to KFC and purchased their infamous Double Down, a bacon-and-cheese sandwich notable for the fact that the bread is replaced by two slabs of chicken.

I ate it and thought that it really was pretty good. I got the grilled version, instead of the breaded-and-fried version. It was spicy, but not overwhelmingly so. The chicken breasts were tender and the cheese was freshly melted. Its taste reminded me of chicken-smothered-with-cheese dishes I've eaten at sit-down restaurants, such as the Monterrey Chicken at Chili's (grilled chicken topped with cheeses and bacon).

Its taste aside, the Double Down has been controversial ever since it was introduced earlier this month. Why, when the United States is struggling with an obesity epidemic, would KFC unapologetically introduce a food that is so seemingly gluttonous and unhealthy?

Well, the obvious answer to that is that KFC thinks it will sell. They are a for-profit business, after all, and for all the fingers we as a society point at the fast food industry for its role in the nation's obesity epidemic, the fact remains that we as consumers are the ones buying their food.

But compared to other fast-food fare, is the Double Down, with its chicken, bacon, cheeses and sauce, really that unhealthy? The Original Recipe version weighs in at 540 calories - the same as a McDonald's Big Mac - and the grilled version comes in at 460 calories. Not health food by any means, but in terms of calories, fat and sodium, you could do a lot worse when it comes to fast food. The Consumerist had no trouble finding ten fast food menu items that were less healthy than the Double Down, including Burger King's Tendercrisp Garden Salad (so much for salads being healthy...) and Wendy's Baconator sandwich.

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com took the analysis a step further, comparing the Double Down to other fast food (and even some sit-down restaurant) offerings in terms of the amount of fat, sodium and cholesterol. He argues that, while in absolute terms the Double Down does not deliver as much "unhealthiness" as items such as a chicken burrito from Chipotle or a Monster Thickburger from Hardees, on a calorie-to-calorie basis it really is unhealthy, because it contains more fat, sodium and cholesterol per calorie. He concludes:

So, is the Double Down the most gluttonous fast food sandwich ever created? It depends on how you measure it. At the margins, consuming one Double Down almost certainly isn't as bad for you as a Triple Baconator, a Thickburger, or even a fully-loaded Chipotle burrito. But while those products should, in theory, fill you up for at least half the day, the Double Down might leave you hankering for seconds. It's a high bar to clear, but it's the closest thing to pure junk food of any "sandwich" being marketed today.

I'm not sure I completely agree with this, because his analysis has one glaring omission: carbohydrates. Considering the growing body of research regarding the unhealthy effects that simple carbohydrates - like those in the refined-flour buns on most sandwiches - have on the body, the low-carb Double Down might not be that unhealthy after all (in that regard, the grilled version is probably perfectly fine for those on the Atkins Diet).

But, as I said earlier, the Double Down is not anyone's idea of health food, and, while I thought it was tasty, it is not something I'll be eating on a regular basis. But at least now I can say I've tried it!

UH-Downtown's new name

Will either be "Houston City University" or just "City University."

Of the two, the former makes perfect sense. The latter is pretentious and is just going to cause confusion.

The purpose of the name change is, among other things, to eliminate confusion with the University of Houston's main campus (the two schools are completely separate) and to raise the visibility of the downtown school.

By the way, had UH-D listened to me about a year ago, they could have saved themselves a lot of money in consultant fees. Thanks to Kuff for the shout-out!

A sign of the times

I guess this was inevitable - in many respects, it's surprising that it hadn't happened sooner - but it still makes me sad:

Gone are the days when you could stroll around the Capitol and casually walk in to see what your elected officials were or were not up to. Now it will be metal detectors.

Tela Mange, spokeswoman for the Department of Public Safety, says the State Preservation Board has approved a plan for detectors and other security measures.

DPS director Steven McCraw says the measures won't hamper the ability of the public to "timely access the State Capitol building."

I remember back to the spring of 1998, when I was a graduate student at the University of Texas. That semester, I had a morning internship at the Downtown Austin Alliance. I did not own a car at the time, so after my internship duties were over and it was time to get to my afternoon classes, I had two options: either walk over to Congress Avenue and wait for the 'Dillo (Capital Metro's since-discontinued free downtown circulator) or walk. If it was a nice day, if I had enough time and/or if I didn't feel like waiting for the next bus, I'd do the latter.

It was a 15 or 20 minute walk, and the most direct path from downtown to my classroom took me up Congress Avenue, through the Capitol Building, across MLK and up Speedway to 22nd Street, which I would then take to get to Sutton Hall.

The Legislature was not in session that spring, so the Capitol was oftentimes empty. Sometimes the only thing I'd hear were my own footsteps echoing through the rotunda as I walked past its terrazzo mosaic. Occasionally, I'd pause to look up into the impressive rotunda or to examine the plaques, statues and portraits along the building's granite and wood-paneled walls; even though I walked through it on a regular basis, the building never ceased to impress me. Not to mention that I enjoyed the couple of minutes of shade and air conditioning that my walk through the Capitol provided during my trek.

Now, with these new security measures in place, I'm not sure that such a walk would be possible anymore. The extra time required for me and my backpack to go through scanners and detectors would probably eliminate the time savings of walking through the building rather than around it, and the fact that I was gaining entrance to the Capitol just to walk through it would likely raise the eyebrows of security staff; nobody, not even university students, are above suspicion anymore.

It's just a sign of the times.

Spirit to charge passengers for carry-on items

I guess this was inevitable, but it still annoys me:

With many airlines now charging a fee for checked luggage, the next step had to come sometime: A carrier asking passengers to pay for the privilege of bringing carry-on bags on board.

Well, that time is here.

Spirit Airlines announced Tuesday that it will charge its customers $20 to $45 for items they place in the overhead bins.

The cost depends on whether passengers are members of the airline's ultra-low fare club and whether they "pre-reserve" their carry-on bag in advance.

Each passenger will still able to bring one personal item that fits under a seat for free, such as a purse, briefcase, backpack or laptop computer. They also won't have to pay extra for items such as diaper bags, pet containers and cameras.

Airline officials called it a "bring less; pay less" policy that would ultimately benefit customers.

"In addition to lowering fares even further, this will reduce the number of carry-on bags, which will improve inflight safety and efficiency by speeding up the boarding and deplaning process," Chief Operating Officer Ken McKenzie said in a statement.

In the airline industry's zeal to wring more money from their customers by charging to check baggage, they overlooked the most obvious consequence of such a move: that it would cause more people to pack all their belongings into rollerboards and other carry-ons, thereby crowding overhead luggage compartments and making the boarding and alighting process longer as people tried to cram impossibly overstuffed bags into overhead bins. It was only a matter of time before airlines addressed this issue by doing what they do best: charging their customers another fee. And although I hope it backfires, I'm afraid that Spirit is just the first of many airlines that will attempt this. We've simply come to the point in the ongoing degradation of the commercial aviation industry that, if you deem to do something as extravagant as actually take things with you when you travel, regardless if you check them or carry them on, you'll need to be prepared to pay up.

I wasn't ever planning on flying Spirit before this announcement - they don't even fly to Houston, after all - so I'm sure they won't miss me or my carry-on bag fee.