Now that some time has passed and I've read what others have to say, I have to weigh in with my take on how (badly) LOST ended.

But let me get something out of the way right up front: A neat Hollywood ending is not necessarily the sign of a good story and I didn't want as much from LOST. I like a little lasting mystery--fuel to fire repeated viewings and endless conversations with my friends. Having said that, the fundamental questions raised by the show should have been answered and the basic plots concluded. That is, after all, what "the end" means--it means the story you started to tell is over, so there should be pretty obvious clues that this is, in fact, true.

As I read this Reuters story on the financial reform efforts in Congress, I wondered how hollow the Republicans' -- and banks' -- objections would sound if the reform was actually aimed at curbing organized crime. Because let's face it, once you understand what these banks and financial organizations were actually doing, you wonder why it was ever legal in the first place (oh, that's right, it wasn't: that genius Clinton made it legal).

So here's the original story recast as if it was about organized crime. Pawn shops become the banks and the major lenders (JP Morgan Chase, etc) are the crime families. My only point is: Does it really matter one whit that the banks' profits may be hurt when we consider that they almost destroyed the U.S. -- and world -- economy to try and reap those profits?