Finale

I'm going to go ahead and say I think Natalie is a fitting winner for the title of Sole Survivor. Russell would also have been a fitting winner for the title of Sole Survivor. Natalie played the better social game, thus netting herself the votes to win the game. Yet, Russell played the better strategic game from day one. These observations are obvious.
Going a little deeper than strategy, let's try to gauge the amount of passion each player had for winning the game. Russell's passion for achieving the title was extremely prevalent, while Natalie's was not as glaring. This doesn't necessarily mean the reality of each players' passion corresponded with how much they showed it, but let's assume it does. Based on this, is Russell more deserving than Natalie for the title?

I struggling to properly articulate how I really feel about who should have won. There are too many factors to include to just say who I think is the most deserving. So, I'll just say this: in my opinion, both are equally worthy of the title of Sole Survivor.
It all comes down to the connections Natalie and Russell made with the other players. Those connections and what they entailed are what are responsible for how each jury member voted. Russell's connections were obviously more tainted than Natalie's, so he hoped the jury members would see the value of his strategy and give him the credit he felt he deserved. Turns out the grudges and bitterness stayed strong, influencing the jury greatly. As Jeff himself said, "The jury did not vote for Natalie, but against Russell."

Life lesson learned? Keep your connections with others clean and genuine and you'll find self-satisfaction in the end. But that's just my opinion, of course.

Final Five

Just like my previous post, I believe friendships can be made on Survivor. We're watching them happen. But, it can be very hard to separate strategy and emotion, as Natalie pointed out. She wants to move on to win the game, but she also wants to cultivate her relationships with her tribe members.

I thought Shambo's assessment of the Foa Foa's was a very fair one. Shambo regards loyalty highly, even if those loyalties work against her. I can respect her for respecting the gameplay choices of the remaining survivors.

Short post.. but, worthwhile nonetheless.

Morality

I'll start by saying this: I would not be a great player on Survivor. Sure, I could probably deal with all the negatives of being a castaway, but what would get me is the connections I'd make with the other people. Most people are social, and when socialization occurs, connections are made. Those connection are important to me, important to my philosophy of being successful in life. In my opinion, if one can make and honor genuine connections between themselves, others, and their environment around them, they can be called successful.

But enough of that. To the point:
Yes, I do believe real friendships can be made on Survivor. I believe this because I've seen it before, and I'm seeing it now. Simple as that. As for voting friends off, that depends on the individual doing the voting. If it were me, I would have a very difficult time voting off anyone I connected with. However, in Russell's case, it seems as though his priority for voting is to vote off those who pose a threat to his position in the game.
Just like honoring connections made with others, promises made to others should, in my opinion, be very important to follow through with. Breaking a promise to get oneself further in the game is not justified. At least, I don't think so. But, that's just my opinion. There are other justifiable reasons to break a promise, though.
Mull that over, reader. That is, if anyone will really read this.

What Would I Have Done

If I was apart of the Survivor Auction, I would have done the same as Jaison: use all the cash to procure the advantage in the immunity challenge. I can easily say that now, but, my decision might be different if I were deprived of food for 30 days. That said... my decisions would depend on many things.

The shower was negligible. In a game like Survivor, where simply surviving and getting along with the other tribe members are the most important objectives, a shower is a luxury that should be low on the priority list.

Concerning John's dilemma with the apple pie, I would have gone the high road and sacrificed the pie to share it with others. Intrinsic benevolence is more rewarding in a more spiritual sense than a fleeting piece of pie that tastes great for a few moments.