Those who search for justice in this world are doomed never to find it.

Keeping to the subject of Lost (see below), Flavorwire offers “a guide to the best [JJ] Abrams-approved, Lost-themed books worth reading.”

With sixty-two years between them, A Merritt’s The Moon Pool and Philip K Dick’s Valis, in particular, offer readers an idea of the wealth of vastly divergent scifi created in the 20^th century.

Like a few million others, I’m ecstatic that Lost returns tonight for its final season.

As I was reading über-geek Doc Jensen’s latest over at EW.com, the writer in me was equally ecstatic to read his hopes for the last of Lost:

I hope the writers execute season 6 in such a way that first and foremost pleases THEMSELVES, because that will be the most interesting permutation. Then, secondarily, I hope they write the show to please ME.

I believe that the primary calling of any writer is to please himself. His audience, therefore, must come second. If a writer can’t please or entertain himself, what hope of pleasing or entertaining others?

I am compelled to write; part of what compels me is the desire to uncover the mystery of the story and the world I am creating. I have to be my biggest fan. If I let myself down . . .

Back in March of 2009 I predicted:

The next “trendy” sandwich (à la the now ubiquitous and utterly worthless gourmet burger) will be some variation on the following: braised cheap cut of meat, super melty cheese, and pickled or confit’d onions, sandwiched by artisanal bread, and cooked either in a skillet with butter or in a panini press.

Our version, chez Martin, uses braised grass-fed beef cheeks, Taleggio cheese [since revised to Sharfe Maxx which adds more piquancy], and house-pickled red onions, sandwiched by homemade (almost) no-knead bread, and cooked in a panini press.

So I wasn’t the least bit surprised when I saw the covergrub of February’s bon appétit: “Grilled cheese and short rib sandwich with caramelized onions.”

Beware pale imitations coming very soon to a “restaurant” near you.

Nice though the iPad may be, I can’t help but think how many novels I could buy for $499.

The Millions converses with an online book thief:

I do not pretend that uploading or downloading unpurchased electronic books is morally correct, but I do think it is more of a grey area than some of your readers may. . . .

I think that regular people will never feel very guilty “stealing” from a faceless corporation, or to a lesser extent, a multi-millionaire like [Stephen] King. . . .

One thing that will definitely not change anyone’s mind or inspire them to stop are polemics from people like Mark Helprin and Harlan Ellison—attitudes like that ensure that all of their works are available online all of the time.

No matter how many excuses this thief offers, he has none for stealing. This thief’s attitude simply validates my belief that humans are fundamentally evil.

I also find it particularly wretched that this thief considers himself the final arbiter of how much money Stephen King should make from writing. What unbelievable arrogance. I can only hope this thief gets caught.

Over the years I’ve grown to share very little common ground with Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, so I was pleasantly surprised and pleased to read his views regarding the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday declaring “unconstitutional (on First Amendment grounds) campaign finance regulations which restrict the ability of corporations and unions to use funds from their general treasury for ‘electioneering’ purposes.”

Take it away, Glenn:

The First Amendment is not and never has been outcome-dependent; the Government is barred from restricting speech—especially political speech—no matter the good results that would result from the restrictions. That’s the price we pay for having the liberty of free speech. . . .

I’m also quite skeptical of the apocalyptic claims about how this decision will radically transform and subvert our democracy by empowering corporate control over the political process. . . . The reality is that our political institutions are already completely beholden to and controlled by large corporate interests. . . . All of the hand-wringing sounds to me like someone expressing serious worry that a new law in North Korea will make the country more tyrannical. There’s not much room for our corporatist political system to get more corporatist. Does anyone believe that the ability of corporations to influence our political process was meaningfully limited before yesterday’s issuance of this ruling?

Indeed, the gnashing of teeth over the coming corpocalypse (corporatacalypse???) seemed a little naïve. My yanqui friends, the USA’s always been a corporatocracy.

When it comes to the First Amendment, however, I don’t think there can be any wiggle room.

Free speech can survive without democracy; democracy cannot survive without free speech.