I had planned a long, pedantic post about what annoyed me about the series finale of LOST. But it’s late and I’m tired and I’ve been writing all day and it’s just a stupid television show.

Let me just say for the record that I’m not confused about the ending of LOST. (Many commenters on the message boards seem to assume that if you had problems with the finale it’s because you don’t “get it.”) Trust me, I’m crystal clear about what we are supposed to understand about what happened to the Lostaways. And that’s the problem.

My beef is with the ethics of the story telling done by the writers–who are clearly brilliant and talented, by the way. But there is a difference between talent and integrity. (paging Tiger Woods)

In pre-Postmodern times, there was an unwritten pact between storytellers and the readers/hearers of their stories. The pact was simple and threefold.

(1) The teller would be clear about what kind of story they were telling. (2) He would be faithful to genre in the telling. (3) Any prominent details or themes presented in the story would ultimately prove to be meaningful.

The writers of LOST eventually violated that pact on all three counts.

What kind of story were we being told? Science fiction? Fantasy? Supernatural thriller? Apocalyptic religious drama? Yes to all. Was the underlying theme thread good vs. evil? Game theory? Philosophy? Particle Physics? Alice in Wonderland? The Wizard of Oz? The Chronicles of Narnia? Star Wars? Jacob and Esau? Yin and Yang? Yes to all and much more. Take from the smorgasbord of iconography whatever appeals to you.

Re: the 3rd part of that pact . . . The previous five seasons of LOST were filled with details and themes which proved in the end to be little more than red herrings designed to keep ratings bolstered by teasing, tantalizing and bewildering us.

The deal a story teller makes with a hearer is that if, for example, in Act 1, I present a character who seems to be using four different names.  (e.g., Edgar Halliwax, Marvin Candle, Mark Wickmund, Pierre Chang) then at a some point in my story I will reveal why that is so and what it has to do with the story I’m telling. It must matter, otherwise I, the storyteller, wouldn’t have gone to all the trouble of coming up with four different names for this character.

Unless, of course, I’m just screwing with you. There are hundreds of examples of this in LOST.

The other thing I find irksome about the finale in particular–besides the fact that the writers finally revealed their religious worldview assumptions as Buddhist/Taoist–is that it chose sentiment over logic.

The 2.5 hour episode did a brilliant job of yanking the heart strings of all of us who were emotionally invested in the characters. And the series did a masterful job of getting us to make that investment. But the “Purgatory” of the flash sideways really just served as a contrivance for allowing all our separated couples to have their tender “awakening” moments.

Most fans loved this finale precisely because it provided one “feel good” moment after another, even if the overall premise made no sense to the integrity of the story.

Thus the finale was a celebration of sentiment. A triumph of love over logic. Feeling over facts.

Which I guess in a postmodern culture makes the LOST finale, pretty much perfect.

Well what do you know, I had a long, pedantic post in me after all. Good night. The Christian Shephard is leading me into the light now. And I must close my eye.

First things first. Here is a visual depiction of the “prophet” Mohammad:

I have just flouted Islamic law.

I obviously didn’t draw the image above but today’s protest is about challenging the threats and intimidation (and in some cases violence) being directed at those who violate the Islamic sharia ban on artistic depictions of Mohammad.

It is a 1699 woodcut by a French artist named Pirideaux and I felt it was an appropriate one. Here we see the founder of the Islamic faith with sword in hand, and with one foot triumphantly planted on the world and the other crushing a cross and the Ten Commandments–respective symbols of the Jewish and Christian faiths.

Indeed wherever the Islamic faith is dominant Christians and Jews suffer oppression and literally dying by “the sword” is still alive and well in places like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

A number of prominent conservatives and Christians have expressed reservations or opposition to the “Draw Mohammad Day” initiative. For example, conservative blogger Ann Althouse explains why she thinks it “is not a good idea” here and here.

Much of this opposition seems to be based upon the “Golden Rule’ principle. That is, we don’t like it when people mock or defame Jesus, (which occurs in the American entertainment/art/media world roughly 10,000 times each day) therefore we shouldn’t do it to others.

That’s a legitimate argument and I respect those who find it valid and applicable here. I am not among them. Here’s why.

Muslim are offended not just by mocking or profane depictions of Mohammad. The argument is that all depictions are a violation of their religious tenets and that all people of all faiths everywhere must abide by them or face violent punishments.

As Mark Steyn wrote today:

I’m bored with death threats. And, as far as I’m concerned, if that’s your opening conversational gambit, then any obligation on my part to “cultural sensitivity” and “mutual respect” is over. The only way to stop this madness destroying our liberties is (as Ayaan Hirsi Ali puts it) to spread the risk. Everybody Draws Mohammed Day does just that.

Steyn also reminds us that the Danish political cartoons that sparked riots and killing several years ago were very benign. The truly outrageous cartoons were fabrications by Scandinavian Muslim clerics who needed something more incendiary with which to inflame the anger of the Islamic masses.

Over at BigGovernment.com Nick Gillespie explained his support this way:

There comes a point in any society’s existence where it must ultimately, to paraphrase Martin Luther (who himself was more than happy to see opponents put to death), dig in its heels and say here we stand, we will do no other.

I believe this broad-based cultural effort actually sends an important message to three distinct groups of people.

1. It says to Muslim leaders that efforts at getting compliance with Sharia through threats and intimidation may have been effective in Europe, especially the U.K., but they are counterproductive here. The more you threaten and shriek, the more you are going to see of this kind of thing.

2. It sends a message to capitulaters and the white flag wavers and the wobbly within our culture to buck up and grow a backbone. (Yes you Comedy Central.)  Like Canada to our north, we have plenty of folks who have such a low opinion of Western Civilization and have so fully bought into the premise that the United States is the only evil presence in the world that they will gladly endorse anybody’s cultural grievance–especially those coming from imams. To those who want to resist creeping sharia but aren’t sure they’ll be supported, its message is, “hold the line.”

3. Finally, it serves as a reminder to those in our culture who are always crying and bellyaching because they think Christians are trying to suppress artistic freedom because we lamely complain about some performance artist getting tax payer money to wipe himself with pages from the Bible or some other such foolishness.

Since the creators of South Park are at the center of the current controversy, it is instructive to know that Parker and Stone got their big break because of a cartoon short that depicted a violent fight between Jesus and Santa Clause. In the 13 years South Park has been on the air, Jesus has been portrayed in mocking or ridiculous ways scores of times. But not once have the producers at Comedy Central felt compelled to pull one of those episodes because they feared for the safety of their personnel.

Christians complain. They write sternly worded letters to the editor. If they get really inflamed, they organize a pointless boycott which actually brings coveted publicity and rebel street cred to whatever it is they are boycotting.

The controversy, fear and trepidation over “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” serves to make those who try to portray Christians as intolerant zealots only look more absurd.

“. . . that Every American is Dependent Upon for Survival.”

Here’s a guy who says a major stock market crash is imminent (two days to two weeks away). He may be wrong but he’s no flake either. His charts are pretty sobering.

Here’s his chart with the 1929 market overlaid with the current market:

More here.

Victor Davis Hanson on the Obama administration’s lemming-like rush to duplicate all of Europe’s mistakes:

What is surreal is that, having been given the great didactic gift of seeing the Europeans go off the cliff ahead of us, this administration has hit the accelerator, not the brakes — almost as if it wishes to beat Europe down into the abyss.

Read the whole thing here.

For what it’s worth, Elena Kagan is an anagram for “An anal geek.” Perhaps she is an obsessively neat nerd.

My profound thanks to Stephen Mansfield for bringing this to my attention.

“Sunday’s Coming” Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

I’m finding myself experiencing zen-like calm about the upcoming confirmation hearings of for Elena Kagan–our president’s pick for the latest opening of the Supreme Court.

Why? First of all Kagan is replacing a ultra-liberal justice in John Paul Stevens. She doesn’t change the ideological balance of the court in any way. Second, there is no reason to believe that, had John McCain been elected, his pick for this opening would have been much better. “Moderate” Republicans have an appalling track record in picking nominees to the court. In fact, the out-going Stevens was a Ford pick.

Until Republicans start nominating the most electable principled conservative for president instead of whomever’s “turn” it is, it’s just going to be more of the same.

So . . . yawn . . . whatever.