AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Clooney Bird

So it occurs to me that since George “I heart refugees” Clooney and family are moving to Los Angeles, this leaves their mansions in the UK and Italy completely available to house at least 80 “refugees”.

Considering each mansion likely has about 10 bedrooms and you can probably comfortably sleep 4 “refugees” per bedroom, this means that George “I heart refugees” Clooney can personally take in 10 bedrooms X 4 “refugees” per room X 2 mansions = 80 refugees between his two mansions.

Now let’s expand that to all the celebrities out there who have either been activists for “refugees” or activists against the travel ban.

Let’s say there are 100 such ‘celebrities’. 100 X 40 = 4000 “refugees” that could be taken in by pro-“refugee” ‘celebrities’.

Better yet, Syria is surrounded by Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wouldn’t it be easier to just ‘immigrate’ to those countries?

Well, how many billions of dollars are all these ‘celebrities’ worth? George Clooney alone is worth $500mil. Well, the cost of living in all these Islamic countries is extremely low. Which means they can stretch a little amount of money very, very far.

So let’s say each ‘celebrity’ ‘adopts’ 100 “refugees”. And gives each of them $10,000 to ‘immigrate’ to one of the surrounding Islamic countries. $10k X 100 = $1mil.
Giving $1mil for George $500mil net worth Clooney is the equivalent of someone earning $100k giving $200. SURELY George “I heart refugees” Clooney can afford the equivalent of an average person giving $200 to change the lives of 100 “refugees”?

Not to mention, all the other “I heart refugees” loudmouth ‘celebrity’ activists.

So, what say you, Clooney bird? Put your money and your mansions where your mouth is.

Advertisements

July 10, 2017 , 3:49PM Posted by | Hollywood, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Clooney Bird

Dropkick Murphys, Apparently a Group of America-hating Socialists

So I went on iTunes last night to see if there were any new songs/albums out. I came across Dropkick Murphys, whose new album just came out today. I like some of their music and, like many others, am a big fan of their song Shipping up to Boston. So I decided to check out their new album.

I listened to the title track Goin’ Out in Style and liked it immediately. Next was Hang ’em High. Liked it. Next was Broken Hymns. Really liked it. So, I decided I was going to buy the entire album.

Well, while waiting for the download, I decided to go through the rest of the songs. I played Take ’em Down. Loved it! Thought it would be perfect for the TEA Party with regards to what we need to do regarding the America-hating socialists and Marxists in the White House and Democrat Party. But then came the ‘sucker punch’…

As I was searching for the lyrics, I came across this: Dropkick Murphys Stand with Wisconsin

Hey Everyone the Dropkick Murphys would like to take a moment to acknowledge the struggles of the working people of Wisconsin and to pledge our support and solidarity by releasing the song “Take Em Down” from our upcoming album. We think it’s appropriate at the moment and hope you like it.

We have also created a limited edition “Take ‘Em Down” t-shirt which will be available for sale shortly at MERCH. Proceeds from the “Take ‘Em Down” t-shirt sales will benefit Workers’ Rights Emergency Response Fund.

We’ll see you in Wisconsin in a few days,

The Dropkick Murphys Stand With Wisconsin !!!!!

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011 at 9:05 am

UGH.

So I immediately realize that I just purchased an album from a group of ignorant douchebags who stand not with the people of Wisconsin — who voted Governor Walker into office to do exactly what he is now doing and who are against the Fleebagger Democrats who refuse to do their civic duty for the people of Wisconsin — but a bunch of America-hating socialists.

Brilliant. You MotherF’ing idiots.

Go HERE to see some of the many YouTube videos already made with the song dedicated to the America-hating socialist protests in Wisconsin. Here are the lyrics:

When the boss comes callin’ they’ll put us down
When the boss comes callin’ gotta stand your ground
When the boss comes callin’ don’t believe their lies

When the boss comes callin’ his take his toll
When the boss comes callin’ don’t you sell your soul
When the boss comes callin’ we gotta organize

Let em know
We gotta take the bastards down
Let them know
We gotta smash them to the ground
Let em know
We gotta take the bastards down

When the boss comes callin’ you’ll be on your own
When the boss comes callin’ will you stand alone?
When the boss comes callin’ will you let them in?

When the boss comes callin’ will you stand and fight?
When the boss comes callin’ we must unite
When the boss comes callin’ we can’t let them win

Let em know
We gotta take the bastards down
Let them know
We gotta smash ’em to the ground
Let em know

We gotta take the bastards down

We gotta take the bastards down

When the boss comes callin’ they’ll put us down
When the boss comes callin’ gotta stand your ground
When the boss comes callin’ don’t believe their lies

When the boss comes callin’ his take his toll
When the boss comes callin’ don’t you sell your soul
When the boss comes callin’ we gotta organize

Let em know
We gotta take the bastards down
Let them know
We gotta smash ’em to the ground
Let em know
We gotta take the bastards down

Let em know
We gotta take the bastards down
Let them know
We gotta smash ’em to the ground
Let em know
We gotta take the bastards down

So apparently the “bastards” that need to be taken down are not the America-hating socialists and Marxists, but conservatives who are doing everything possible to try to SAVE each State of the nation and the nation as a whole from financial collapse created by the liberals in the Democrat and Republican Parties.

Again… brilliant. You ignorant Motherf’ing tools.

Also, take note… the “boss” of the public sector unions is THE AMERICAN PEOPLE… THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. So what Dropkick Murphys is endorsing is taking down the American people. The American people are “bastards” according to Dropkick Murphys.

It’s too bad the Boondock Saints don’t really exist, because I’d like to enlist their services to kick the ever living crap outta the America-hating, Socialist-supporting douchebags of Dropkick Murphys.

March 1, 2011 , 10:50PM Posted by | Democrats, Economy, Fascism, Hollywood, Liberalism, Socialism | 27 Comments

It’s Time for The View to get a Makeover

Someone I read recently made a good point about the women’s daytime talk show The View. They noted that the show is named The View and not Views. And that name holds great meaning. It represents the fact that there is only one view on each issue talked about on the show, and that is the liberal view of the three liberal hags: Joy Behar, Whoopi ‘rape-rape’ Goldberg and Barbara Walters. No other views are allowed to be treated with respect or are open for discussion. Oh, sure, they have conservative-ish Elizabeth Hasselbeck there as the token “conservative”. But they don’t give her any respect whatsoever and constantly talk over her, demean her and smear her.  And they do so knowing that she is too submissive to stand up for herself against their ridiculous bullying.

What would be a truly good show is to have four strong, informed, opinionated, yet respectful women on the show. Off the top of my head, I can think of Michelle Malkin, Kirsten Powers, Dana Loesch and Camille Paglia. That would actually be a good diverse panel of women to watch. Granted, Kirsten Powers is pretty much a liberal hack, but at the very least she can discuss things with a reasonable amount of respect and decorum. Which is much more than we can say for Whoopi and Behar.

Anyone else have some suggestions for some strong, informed, opinionated, but respectful liberal and conservative women who could makeover the show The View?

Some feedback from where I had this posted on Facebook:

I like that, though some alternates I’d throw in there are Megyn Kelly, S.E. Cupp, Laura Ingraham, Liz Cheney, or Ann Coulter for the conservative view. I’m much less well versed on liberal women, maybe Megan McCain‘s chunky butt, or Rachel Maddow. My only problem with this show is you know it’d devolve into a cat-fight eventually. I don’t see most of the conservatives suffering fools for long.

I thought of Megyn Kelly, but forgot about S.E. Cupp. She’s another good one. I left out Kelly, because I was trying to go for women who didn’t already have their own shows. Ingraham, Cheney and Coulter are good ones too though. Coulter especially, because I think she’d really surprise people about how intelligent and well spoken she is, if she had time on her own show to articulate her points, instead of always having to be on the defensive and be pressed for time when on the talk shows where she is interviewed. When Rush had her on for an extended interview, she did fantastic. I think she’d be great on a new The View.

Meghan McCain doesn’t fit, because I’m going for someone who is actually intelligent and informed. Meggy Mac is just an ignorant twit attention whore. I’m going for a new The View that combines personality, entertainment and intelligent, informed discussion. The only thing Meggy Mac would bring would be her boobs and her whining about everyone picking on her.

Maddow seems to be an even worse hack than Powers. She seems to be the female — or at least less male — version of Olbermann. Which is to say she’s basically a butch, unattractive version of Meggy Mac. Plus she has her own show, so she’s out.

Unfortunately, there just are not that many good liberal choices out there. I think Paglia would be good though. Even though I disagree with her a lot, she is respectful and makes her points well.

And here is a prime example of why I suggested Dana Loesch. Not only is she beautiful, but she’s sharp, intelligent and knows her stuff. And she doesn’t back down to anyone. Replace Hasselbeck with Loesch and she’d put Whoopi and Behar in their place.

October 18, 2010 , 2:48PM Posted by | Hollywood, The View | 3 Comments

Are There Any Truly Romantic Films Made Anymore Which Aren’t Tainted by Infidelity & Deception or Not Totally Overshadowed by Sexual Content?

I posted the following on my Facebook status last night and an interesting discussion ensued:

“Was flipping back and forth between Matrix, My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Runaway Bride tonight (yeah, I know, exciting SAT night) and I got to thinking… when was the last time Hollywood put out a good romance film? It seems nowadays, every so-called “romance” film is either some stupid, immature teen flick or one where the adults are divorced and sleeping together on the 2nd date. That’s not romance.”

———-

My Big Fat Greek Wedding actually is a decent romantic comedy. There’s no focus on sex, there are no divorces, just a focus on what matters in romance: seeing the real person and falling for that person.

Runaway Bride had that same good message in it (you need to know who you are and not change yourself to be whom you think the other person wants you to be… and you need to truly see whom is the other person and love them for them)… but, of course, they have to have both people have past divorces in order for this message to finally sink in.

Off the top of my head, 50 First Dates seems to be another one that is pretty good. No sex, no past divorces, just a focus on liking the other person and getting to know them and falling for them.

Think about some of the other so-called “romances”…

You’ve Got Mail — BOTH people cheat on their significant others by having a ‘relationship’ through e-mail with someone else.

Sleepless in Seattle — Meg Ryan’s character cheats on her fiance and then flies across the country to spy on a guy she heard on the radio! Ummm, can we say STALKER?

Titanic — She cheats on her fiance and has sex within a few days of meeting Jack. On top of which, the idiot doesn’t move her fat ass to allow Jack on the floating board with her so he doesn’t freeze to death. Love? I think not.

Twilight — Please. That crap is romance? I think not. It’s FANTASY. As in Dungeons and Dragons type fantasy crap. Anyone who gets caught up in that as some sort of romance is delusional.

That’s just off the top of my head, but I know I can think of plenty more.

When was the last time that Hollywood put out an actual *normal* romantic film?

I then had someone in the comments suggest The Notebook, to which I responded:

The end of The Notebook is okay. The rest of it is pure CRAP.

Let’s see… they have an immature teen summer romance, at the end of which, they try to have sex together. They end up not doing it, because she freaks out or something.

Then, later in life, she’s about to get married, sees his picture in the paper and then decides to go visit him. She doesn’t tell her fiance the truth of why she’s going there. While she’s there, she ends up having sex with her teen love numerous times… ie she CHEATS ON HER FIANCE!

On the flip side, the guy spends his entire life stuck on this chick he fell in love with years ago when he was a teenager. It ends up consuming his entire life. He fills his void by having an affair with a widowed military wife.

In the end, she chooses to leave her fiance and go back to her teen summer love.

Now, at the END of the movie, where the older version explains to his children that he’s not going to leave his wife, just because she is in a home… THAT’S love. THAT is a good message. A message that too many people simply don’t have a damn clue about. The message that “in sickness and in health, good times and bad, until death do us part” actually MEANS something.

But the rest of the movie is crap.

Someone then suggested Groundhog Day, to which I replied:

Groundhog Day was a FANTASTIC movie. It had a GREAT message in it.

You notice that he couldn’t wake up from his ‘Groundhog Day’ until he completely learned his message. Part of it was to stop being selfish and part of it was that he couldn’t get the girl until he truly saw her for her and loved her for her. And he had to be sincere about his feelings and not just use things for tricks (ie using info about the hot chick to get her into bed the next day).

He worked hard initially simply to get information about the woman he liked to trick her into liking him. But it was all shallow and empty and it backfired. It was not until he truly learned to care about others, and do things for the sake of doing something good and not to benefit from it, that he finally was able to experience what he wanted.

I wouldn’t call that a romance movie, but it sortof applies. Good example!

I then thought of a couple more:

MUST LOVE DOGS — Both divorced. Meet from online ad and then go to have sex on the 2nd date and the only thing that stops them is neither of them have a condom.

HOW TO LOSE A GUY IN 10 DAYS — Sorry, you don’t fall in love with anyone in 10 freaking days.

Then I tried looking for a list of films deemed “romantic comedies” by Hollywood throughout history and came up with this: Box Office History for Romantic Comedy Movies

I broke down and analyzed a few of them I had seen:

Some Kind of Wonderful (1987) — Decent. No focus on sex and it’s one of those typical “in love with your best friend, not the hot chick you know nothing about” storylines.

Can’t Buy Me Love (1987) — Another decent one. Best part of the movie is when she shares her poems with him, when she wouldn’t dare share them with anyone else, because she felt she had to pretend to be different around them, while she feels she can truly be herself around Patrick Dempsey’s character. Good message there and no sex. Thumbs up.

Pretty Woman (1990) — Um, sorry, NO. Falling in love with a hooker over the course of 1 week does not make a love story.

Doc Hollywood (1991) — Decent, though they do almost have sex at the end and only stop, because he doesn’t want things to end like that.

It Could Happen to You (1994) — Really liked this movie, but again we have Nic Cage cheating on his wife and then he and Bridget Fonda having sex near the end.

While You Were Sleeping (1995) — Decent. No focus on sex. No past divorces, I don’t think. And she fell for the guy for him, not for superficial stuff. So decent.

French Kiss (1995) — Meh. Fiance cheats on Meg Ryan, so she basically falls for the guy who helps her try to get back at him. Pretty lame.

The Truth About Cats and Dogs (1996) — Meh. Not really a love story. He likes her voice on the radio show and she likes that he’s hot and likes animals. Whoopdiedoo.

Jerry Maguire (1996) — Meh. He marries her out of desperation, she marries him out of desperation, at the end he misses her because he can’t share a special moment with someone he cares about. Bad message in both people marrying out of desperation and having a nice little Hollywood ending fix things in the end. Overall, stupid story.

Fools Rush In (1997) — Only reason they get together is because he gets her pregnant. Wonderful…

The Wedding Singer (1998) — Liked the movie, but if you break it down, she’s cheating on her fiance. Yeah, sure, he’s an absolute jerk, but she should have dumped him LONG ago. Instead, she ends up sorta cheating on him by spending all that time with Adam Sandler’s character prepping for the wedding.  Although there is a good message for women who choose jerks over nice guys in it.  Adam Sandler’s character gets fed up with Drew Barrymore’s character and decides that he has to change himself from a nice guy to a jerk in order to get women to like him.  Whenever women whine about there not being any nice guys left to date, I remind them that *they* are the reason for that.  Nice guys see women pass on them and choose to date jerks all the time.  It sends the message that jerks get the women.  So, women, in my opinion, are responsible for the evolution of gentlemen and nice guys into jerks.

She’s All That (1999) — Idiotic teen flick.

Forces of Nature (1999) — Kinda sorta has an affair in the couple days leading up to his wedding.  Yeah, brilliant.

10 Things I Hate About You (1999) — Stupid teen flick.  Though, a decent message in the end.  Stuck-up, shallow younger sister realizes the hot, cool guy is a jackass and ends up with the dorky guy from 3rd Rock from the Sun and Heath Ledger gets Kat to lower her walls and allow herself to fall in love after he learns to like her for her, instead of just to win a bet.  Decent, for a teen flick.

Never Been Kissed (1999) — Awful movie for most of the movie, but the message at the end was decent.  Still, you don’t form a good relationship by pretending to be someone else and then magically the guy forgives you at the end.

Notting Hill (1999) — I actually liked this movie, but looking at the details, she cheated on her boyfriend and she slept with him on about the 3rd or 4th time they were together.  The overall message was all nice and tidy in that she just wanted to be seen as a normal girl, not a movie star, but still, lousy overall with the cheating and sex.

Fever Pitch (1999) — Decent in that there were no divorces, but they were sleeping together pretty much after the 2nd date or something.  He did one nice thing for her parents and BAM! she’s ready to give it up!  Brilliant.  And then she’s all bent out of shape when she thinks she may be pregnant.

I then finished up with the following rant after first addressing the suggestion of Message in a Bottle:

I’ve seen bits and pieces of Message in a Bottle as it’s been on TBS quite a bit or TNT. I know I’ve seen it at the part where he finds out she’s a reporter and he gets pissed off at her. But I’ve never watched it all the way through, because it seemed to go too slow for me and I really don’t like the main actress in it (Robin Wright). I can stand her in Princess Bride, but that’s about it.

I like “Can’t Buy Me Love”. It is a roller coaster, but in the end they both learn good lessons, I think, so it’s a good overall movie. Plus, no sex involved, as seems to be the case in all the teen flicks nowadays.

Another thing that got me thinking about this was seeing the previews for that stupid-looking “Charlie St. Cloud” teen movie coming out. Of course, part of the preview shows him taking his shirt off and another of them about to kiss. Gotta sell the sexual and shallow physical parts of relationships to sell movies it seems.

And that’s really what got me thinking. There was an article a while back I partially read where they stated that women/girls nowadays have their expectations of relationships ruined by getting into stupid chick flicks. And that seems about right. When was the last time there was an actual romance or romantic comedy that focused on actually getting to know the person and there was no sex involved? Back in the days when they didn’t show sex in movies, they focused the story more on the substantial and deep parts of relationships. Now they just have girls fall for guys with their shirts off and have sex after a few dates and that’s that. The focus of “romance” is completely superficial and shallow.

What’s interesting is that it seems women and girls are MUCH more shallow and naive than guys. Guys who see hot girls just think “man I want to get with her!”. Girls, though, will see a hot guy and go “man I want to marry him!” Guys get a bad rap for being shallow, but wanting to have sex with a girl, because she has a hot body is a lot less shallow than deeming someone *marriage material* simply because they have a hot body.

I’m of the Dr Laura Schlesinger school of romance, where you need to date someone at least a year before you can truly know them. You have to see them in many different experiences in life, go through ups and downs, see how they react to good and bad experiences, etc before you can truly get to know their character and decide whether or not you are a match and want to spend the rest of your life with that person. This nonsense of movies like “Dear John” where they “fall in love” in 2 weeks or “The Notebook” where they “fall in love” over a summer as teens and then she leaves her adult fiance later in life for a guy she hasn’t seen in years… absolutely ridiculous.

People like to complain about the divorce rate in this country and blame marriage for being lousy, instead of looking at themselves and realizing that marriage is fine, it’s *people* who screw up their own marriages and don’t take things seriously.

So… what say you? Anyone else have examples of truly romantic films, which are “normal” and not muddied up with promiscuous sex, infidelity and deception?

UPDATE on 04/02/2011: Erin R. Brown at Newsbusters addresses this issue today: Hollywood’s Current ‘Romantic Comedies’ Heavy on Hook Ups, Light on Romance

August 1, 2010 , 3:21PM Posted by | Hollywood, Love, Romance | 2 Comments

Those Whining about LOST Completely Miss Show’s Message

I agree with Robin (whose LOST recap/analysis blog is by far the best on the net) in his latest ‘tweet’ via LOSTexplained:

“Sick of people griping over how much they hated the ending, answers not given, etc. Don’t blame #Lost for how poorly you paid attention.”

Exactly.

In one recent griping article at Big Hollywood, I read a snarky question that I have seen in other griping articles that are out there as well, regarding the origin of the polar bear on the Island.

“Five years of secret hatches. Ancient four-toed statues. Teleporting cabins. A string of lottery numbers popping up everywhere. Weird pseudo-science. Steampunk technology. The Dharma Initiative. (Remember that?)  And what the heck was a polar bear doing on a tropical island?”

These griping whiners put out this snarky question in order to feel so superior and clever, when it just exposes them as being ignorant fools. The polar bear issue was answered long ago (it was brought to the Island by the Dharma Initiative for test purposes and later escaped the cage in which it was held after the Dharma people left the Island). But let’s not let that obvious fact get in the way of a good whining session by these people.

I wrote this earlier after reading some of the comments to that article:

I’ve been reading a lot of comments on blogs regarding the TV show “LOST” and the series finale. A lot of people are whining and complaining and bitching and moaning about things not making sense and questions unanswered and this and that and the other. And it strikes me that this correlates greatly to the message of the show: stop complaining about not understanding life and just… live it.

And cherish your relationships with people along the way. Stop focusing so much on the all the ‘whys’ and ‘whats’ and ‘hows’ and just focus on living and loving and appreciating loved ones in your life. The people complaining about the show and all the unanswered questions and such are focusing on the negative. As such, instead of enjoying the show for what it is, they are complaining that they ‘wasted the last 6 years’. That’s ridiculous.

I would really be interested in a poll regarding people who liked the show and those who did not. My speculative guess is that those who are more inclined to Christianity and spirituality and faith probably came away from the show really liking it (as I did). But those who are more inclined to science-over-faith and atheism came away disappointed and angry.

Yes, it is good to ask questions about life, but not at the expense of enjoying the journey of life. That’s the message I took from “LOST”: Live and Love and don’t get too caught up with all the distractions of ‘why’ and ‘how’ and ‘what for’. Those are not as important as living one’s life, letting go of all that pains us and loving those who come into our lives.

And really, the same message can be made for the enjoyment of the show: just enjoy it for the amazing show that it was and don’t focus on negative distractions from the beauty of the show and its wonderful relationships and message of faith and spirituality and Love by complaining about unanswered questions and mysteries and such. If you do, you miss the wonderful beauty in the show.

The same message that LOST brought about Life is the message people need to take about the show: if you enjoy all its beauty, you can be fulfilled. But if you let yourself get caught up in all the why/how/what, you’ll end up unsatisfied and miss out.

It strikes me that the message of LOST is about Faith and Love and relationships in life. Those who focus their lives on that will be able to enjoy life. In the same parallel way, those who focus on the Faith and Love and the relationships in the TV show LOST itself will be able to enjoy the magnificence of the show and come away from its finale very satisfied.

I also found it interesting that the same smug arrogance of atheists towards theists is found in LOST-haters vs LOST-fans. Case in point, these comments left at the article to which I linked above:

“I will miss the superior smug feeling I got whilst listening to Lost devotees debate the endless contrivances knowing all the while it would mean nothing. Hmmm… kinda like the Matrix films, fun to watch only if you ignore the nonsensical philosophy.

———-

“I had the same feeling of smugness on occasion 🙂

All that wasted time, talking about all these nuances, all these weird changes in the rules of the island, and everyone trying to make sense of it. How could they not realize that it was all a whim? That the logic would not play out? And yet so many of those same people seem content that their endless debating over the details was essentially brushed away with a wave of the hand by the writers.

I remember a lot of the same sort of speculation going on in the middle of the Harry Potter series. The difference there being that we knew that we’d *know* at the end who was right and who was wrong. It was a wonderful, cathartic moment in reading that last book and being proved right (and wrong), and seeing it all come together. Losties will never have that. Maybe they don’t care, but I swear when they were all in the middle of arguing it all, they *did care.* So many of them swore there would be a reason. I think some of them are deluding themselves.”

The “smugness” in these comments and their message remind me a lot of how atheists mock believers about their faith. “Don’t you know that there is no God and there is no Heaven and there is no afterlife and all this squabbling you do over faith and religion is stupid and pointless and in the end we’re all just going to die and ‘it was all a whim’?” I have seen this mocking, smug condescension from atheists quite a bit on blog comments and in casual conversation. And now to see it emerge its ugly head again with regards to LOST, it is just as annoying.

And it goes back to what I stated that these people are missing the message of the show. They want to focus on the negative, while missing what makes life important: living, loving, cherishing relationships. In a way, these smug whiners are correct. In the end, we all die. Which is why it is so important to live our lives fully, to love one another and to cherish the relationships we make along the way in order to appreciate our gift of Life. Which is where faith plays a very big part of people’s lives. Faith puts us at ease in order to enjoy our journey through life, when questions arise, when situations occur which do not make sense to us, when pain fills our hearts and we have no logical reason to explain it.

There was so much about LOST that did not make sense. But just as in Life, instead of focusing on that, focus on the beauty of the show: the messages of Faith, Hope, Love and relationships. If you do, then you will realize that the last 6 years of being devoted fans of the show were not ‘wasted’ at all, but a fulfilling journey… just like Life.

From the comments of the above article, someone who ‘gets it’:

I’m (for once) not going to agree with the column. I suppose that means a bunch of thumbs down, but so be it. Fact is, I loved Lost from the start, got bored by the middle like a bunch of other people, but got sucked by in when the story got back on track in the last two seasons with a clear ending in sight.

I like a lot of TV shows, but the truth is that they rarely have satisfying conclusions. Some, like Firefly and Kings, have amazing potential but are cut short due to lack of viewer or network support. Others, like Supernatural or Buffy, run on well past their “best before” date. American shows are built around surviving for “one more season”, meaning there are rarely if ever good conclusions, or satisfying story arcs. It’s a shame, because they often have a lot more potential than movies.

Which brings me back to Lost. Lost had a vision, a purpose, and an overaching narrative with a beginning, a middle, and an end. It was deep, brilliant, original. It had countless fascinating mysteries, and managed to answer most of them. But what impresses me the most is the simple fact that the show managed to emphasize what was important with its ending: our daily lives, the choices we make, our friends, those we love. Sure, the mysteries and dangers were important, too, but that’s not what truly matters when life is over and you’re being judged, standing in the light and looking back at your life.

Lost was, to me, a wonderful, Christian, spiritual show that did what nothing else on TV has managed to do. It is more conservative, too, yet in an intelligent, profound way. The liberal elite want us to believe that liberalism is for the intelligent, while conservatism is for the ignorant. Lost proved the opposite.

I could not have expressed it any better than “Joey” did at The Young Oak:

[ … ] Thank you for allowing LOST to transcend genres and be what it was – a show about about people, a show about us. Lost people without all the answers, trying to make sense of our lives, trying to figure out the right thing to do. Lost people that are hurt, angry, and hopeful. Lost people that are better off together than alone.

Thank you for respecting us enough not to spoon feed us answers and lessons. Thank you for asking real questions about faith, reason, science, and why we’re here in the first place. Thank you for not solving those questions for us. Thank you for reminding us how to use our imaginations and how to disappear into a story. Thank you for reminding us how great it is to read.

Thank you for giving us something to talk about with our friends, and thank you for giving us an excuse to get together. In other words, thank you for LOST.

Amen to all of that. And that does remind me of that fact that LOST was the first show for which my friends and I got together to watch together each week. I suspect that is true for many, many people around the country and probably the world. As Joey notes, LOST told us that we are better off together than alone. LOST brought so many people together for an inspiring show with an inspiring message of Life, Love and Hope. Many of us will be forever grateful for that.

A great analysis by Jeff Jensen at Entertainment Weekly. An excerpt:

It’s funny that so many people cynically bitch about Lost not having ”a master plan” — the Lost story is all about the folly of ”master plans.” Anyone who has ever had a master plan on this show has failed catastrophically. Mother. Jacob. The Man In Black. Ben. Charles Widmore. Jack. Sawyer. The best we can do is live our lives with enlightened improvisation — to be so self-aware and fearless that we can live fully in the present and redeem our every moment and every human connection. Last night, Sawyer asked Jack if becoming island guardian made him feel any different. Jack thought about it and laughed and said, ”No. Not really.” He was right. Jack was still every bit the fixer junkie he used to be before he took holy communion from Jacob. But as he moved into the final conflict of his life, Jack was able to apply the best parts of him to the crisis at hand, and minimize the influence of his worst parts. Which isn’t to say he couldn’t make mistakes — and didn’t have more to learn. If there was something he had gained, it was this: grace for his own uniquely imperfect mess.

Absolutely great comment left by “Wintyre” in reply to this article at Big Hollywood. He summarizes how I felt about the show much better than I did in this entire post:

I think the Island really existed (in the show), and was a metaphor for the world – every answered question just leads to another question, and in the end, the mysteries of the world are impenetrable.

Another reason for the indecipherable mysteries was so that one couldn’t get an ironclad grip on who was good and evil, and what actions were right and wrong. Just as in the world such questions are difficult to answer, in the end all we have to go on is the faith in god, ourselves and others, and that there is a plan or purpose involved.

The ending – the sidewasy flashes, the “preliminary afterlife” scenes – showed that what was really important in life isn’t solving the mysteries of the world, but the love in our hearts for others; our capacity for forgiveness and redemption. In the afterlife scenes, nobody asked about, or even cared about what the smoke monster was, what the light was, etc., because “it doesn’t really matter, brotha”. What is truly important are how we have grown our own heart, and those we reach out to and connect with, because that is all we will carry with us forward.

Great article at Screen Rant by Kofi Outlaw: ‘Lost’ Finale Explained: Answering the Unanswered Questions [Updated]

An excerpt:

It must be noted that unlike sites like Lostpedia, I haven’t done years and years of research on this. I’m just a moderate Lost fan who happens to have a good mind for literary analysis. So here goes nothing. And in case you haven’t guessed already:

[MAJOR SPOILER ALERT!!!]

THEY WERE NOT “DEAD THE WHOLE TIME”

I don’t know why people are having trouble understanding this, as it is CLEARLY explained in the final minutes of the finale episode by Christian Shephard (Jack’s dad). The original Oceanic 815 plane crash happened. Everything on the Island through seasons 1-6 happened. The “flash sideways” universe introduced in season 6 was a sort of stop-over point between life and afterlife (referred to here as the “purgatory universe”).

Each person in this “purgatory universe” created a reality for themselves based on their lingering issues in life – that which they could not “let go” of. For Jack it was Daddy issues; Kate, the guilt of murder; Sawyer, the quest to find “Sawyer” and be a better man; Sayid, the unrequited love of Nadia; Charlie, looking for something “real” in his hollow life of fame, etc…

Everyone was still attached to their Earthly concerns (we’re getting very Buddhist here, bear with me) – but when they made contact with those people they’d met on the Island, they remembered the journey and growth they had experienced because of the Island, and could finally understand the connections and “purpose” brought into their damaged lives by being there. With that greater understanding of themselves, they were each ready to “leave” or “move on” to the next phase of existence – i.e., the true afterlife.

May 26, 2010 , 3:33PM Posted by | Inspiration, Life, LOST, Love, Relationships | Comments Off on Those Whining about LOST Completely Miss Show’s Message