We have an excellent example of chipping away at the Gospel to conform to the Left's narrative of Oppressed v. Oppressor as the only way to understand reality. Professor Kaye Oaks jumps into the growing post-2020 narrative that we Christians can have forgiveness, like almost everything else, all wrong.
She employs a tactic very common in modern post-Western thought. We're told that something generally considered a virtue has actually been a tool for the dreaded oppressor who alone has the power. People use this virtue badly or wrongly and cause more harm than good.
By now people trying to be of good will are getting nervous. This is actually a powerful way to undercut traditional virtue and holiness. People who want to do the right thing will begin questioning themselves. I thought forgiving someone was a good thing, but could I be causing harm? Might I be doing it wrong? Could I be guilty of aiding the oppression of the oppressed? I ran into that a lot in counseling ministry. People would tell me that so much was put on not doing or saying the wrong thing, they preferred to avoid the situations altogether.
I think part of the destruction of basic human interaction we see in our era of loneliness today has been by injecting the fear of a million subtle wrongs done in the name of doing the right thing. The road to hell and all, an oft quoted phrase in this context.
Professor Oaks turns to Judaism, which has become an increasingly popular place to run for those who remind us why Christians have been missing the mark all these years (in defending legalized abortion, M. Shea has argued extensively that Jewish Americans aren't hung up on all abortion being bad, so America shouldn't be either). Like most non-Christian religions and philosophies, Judaism espouses the idea of forgiveness, but nowhere as broad or absolute as traditional Christianity. The same goes for Islam. The same goes for most philosophies and moral systems in the world that speak of the virtues of forgiveness. Forgiveness is typically seen as a good thing, under particular conditions and within certain parameters.
But it was Christianity that threw down the gauntlet and elevated it to almost unachievable levels. For it was Jesus who said 'Father forgive them' as they nailed Him to the cross. A lofty standard to be sure. And because of that elevation, we've had a civilization that, no matter how often it failed to live up to those loftiest of expectations, still ended up shooting mighty high in the annals of human redemption and reconciliation in the attempts to reach such a high standard.
Since 2020, however, no small number of those on the Left openly excused and defended violence and harm and death for the worthy cause. Likewise, they have stood by as the heroes, heritage and history of our civilization have been scorched under the presentism of unforgiving judgmentalism and condemnation. Thus we're seeing people in the folds of Christianity scramble to tell us that when those in power say it's time to put the brakes on unfettered forgiveness, then clearly Jesus would agree. And this article is simply one of a growing number of Christian outlets reminding us that forgiveness, like anything else the Church has taught for 2000 years, has been misunderstood and should only be applied when in conjunction with modern leftwing sympathies and agendas.
Of course I'm not saying that forgiveness, like anything in the world, can't be abused or misused. Just like care for the poor or the widow and orphan. People can say they're doing the right thing or that they really care and it's obvious this isn't true. After all, for four years liberals, including liberal Christians, stood idly by and ignored or outright denied the pain, suffering and misery under Biden because, well, he was their guy with the power, that's why. Yet they still insist all was well and simply fulfilling the call to reach out to the least of these.
So it happens. And of course it can happen on any side of the debate. But don't be burdened by our busy-body intellectual class. The ones who endlessly tell parents everything they do will ruin their kids, who tell us everything we eat will kill us, the ones who tell us saying the wrong thing is so bad it's best to stand by and say nothing. The ones who do it out of intellectual hubris or subtle agendas. Just ignore them.
If you've been wronged, forgive. Jesus said so. He said seventy times seven when the disciples tried to pin him down on the limits of the teaching. He said God has forgiven us our tens of billions worth of sin, so it's the least we can do to forgive our neighbors their thousand dollar sins. Because that's really what the teaching has always been about. Our sins against God are grievous beyond our ability to understand, compared to what we do to each other in our worst of days, at least when seen from a spiritual, not a secular or atheistic, perspective.
So trust Him. Think as God thinks, not as men think. He has forgiven us, therefore there is nothing anyone else could do to us that that should excuse us not forgiving them. Forgive them in the same way God forgives us. Which is a forgiveness far and away removed from articles like this, where if that is what God has in store for us in terms of forgiveness - assuming Ms. Oakes understands that to someone else she may well be the oppressor in power - then my confidence of bliss in the hereafter can't help but be shaken.
I've seen this on several conservative pages over the last week or so. But I don't like it, for a simple reason. Because I don't think going up to a lion and punching it in the nose has ever been a good idea.
At the end of the day, conservatives have made it clear they not only have contempt for those who work within the government, and associated institutions like education, but they also proudly boast that the first thing they will do when they have a chance is take a scythe to those jobs and positions and entire industries. So would you believe it? Turns out the majority of people who work in the government, education, and other associated institutions overwhelmingly tack left, support Democrats, espouse leftwing activism and openly hinder where they can anything to do with conservatism.
Going way back to the 90s, when Rush Limbaugh was a big voice for the contempt dumped on our schools and educators, I just shook my head. If I want to make enemies with a group of people, it's not going to be the ones who get to educate and train the next generations coming our way. If I do, then I shouldn't be shocked that those generations will be taught to see me and what I hold dear as the enemy.
Just because I like strategy games doesn't mean I'm fit to lead the 4th Armored Division. With that said, you still can't help but pick up on a couple basic, common sense strategies. And one is don't make enemies of the ones who can do you the most harm.
Yet for reasons I can't fathom, conservatives have never tried to assert themselves into these areas, assuring the workers they respect them, espousing the importance of education and respect for those who make our government run. They never appear eager to go in and point out the excesses they see, while assuring those in the trenches that they are not the enemies and if they simply understand where conservatives are coming from, they'll see why what is happening is happening and may actually begin supporting the cause. Or let government workers know there are philosophical reasons that a bloated government is no good, but anyone making an honest living and trying to do good by their families is a good guy in our book. Heck no.
Oh I know, right now President Trump and his team are going about with their winnowing forks and clearing the threshing floor. But it won't last forever. And when the inevitable shift occurs, assuming the entire political Left hasn't gone off into the sunset, then it will be a bit like the proverbial spirit having been banished into the outer wilderness for a season, but then returning sevenfold to work even worse harm to the cause than before. And conservatives will have themselves to thank for making enemies of everyone who works the trenches of the institutions that pave the future of a country and its up and coming generations.
After all, making enemies of anything government has been a major selling point of conservatives for decades now. And consider where we have gone as a society. Think of those photos of the New York skyline displaying three crosses at Easter in the late 1950s, and think of our nation now. Think of where almost everything in our society has gone that conservatives have been resisting with this basic approach. I mean, there comes a time when you look at results and just have to question the strategies and tactics involved. Another thing I've picked up from watching sports or playing strategy games. If the thing you keep doing causes you to keep losing, even if you have an occasional win here and there, it might be time to try a different approach.
As a movie fan, I've seen my share of films over the decades. Generally I'm pretty lenient where movies are concerned. If they are engaging, or fun, or entertaining, I'll call them a win. I'm not one who tries to dissect and hyper-analyze a movie on every technical level. That's not to say I can't notice problems, even with movies I've enjoyed. I just try to find the better part of them because, in the end, if I can spend time wondering what was wrong with that movie I paid money to see, I'm living a blessed life.
That's not to say all movies are winners. Sometimes they are real stinkers, and that happens. Sometimes it happens with movies I imagined going into it would be stinkers. I'm thinking The Man With One Red Shoe. We actually drove to the city of Mansfield to see it, and had to brave almost blizzard conditions on the way home. We traveled in a beat up car with broken windshield wipers, where we one of our friends had to hang out the passenger window wiping the snow off so the driver could see as we trudged slowly through the night on that frozen country highway. For that movie? That's probably what makes it seem worse than it was.
Sometimes they look so bad you not only know they will be bad, but you wonder what they were even thinking to produce them. As I wrote on back some time ago. But sometime it's the opposite. It's those movies that look great, or you've heard so much praise about them that you're sure they're winners. And yet, perhaps because of the lofty expectations, they fall short. That's this list today. Movies that I watched, if for no other reason than the universal accolades and thumbs up. Some I might have only seen over the years and kicked around, some I might have seen briefly, but the appearance elevated my expectations. But whatever the reasons, I ended up coming away massively let down.
The list is purely subjective of course, which in most cases usually means correct.
Out of Africa
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. It's hard to say why it was a disappointment because I spent most of the movie trying to stay awake. This was one of those 'Oscar Darlings' as the age of the Blockbuster was beginning to lay a thick line between critically acclaimed movies and popular ones at the box office. The Academy praise was all about Out of Africa that year, and it was for those not dutifully impressed by the wonderful fantasy romp Back to the Future. Despite my distrust of critical stamps of approval, it did pique my curiosity. After all, I don't hate Robert Redford, and admit Meryl Streep is a wonderful actress, if not morally compromised in the post-Weinstein era. But who in Hollywood isn't? So after decades, being marriage, raising a family and welcoming new members through my son's marriage, my wife and I decided to get this and sit down for a watch. I'm typically pretty lenient with movies after all, and it did come highly recommended. Perhaps it was the level of hype, as is the case with other movies on this list, but it didn't just fail to live up to the accolades. It bored me something awful. At one point I actually found myself wondering how much wax I would have to put on the trees in our back yard to get the squirrels to slide. I'm not sure if it was all the hype's fault. It could have been one of those movies you just ask in hindsight what they were thinking with all the gushing praise. But hype or not, it was a big let down, only because I spent decades seeing it referenced positively and remembering the fanfare and adoration, only to spend the better part of the movie struggling to keep my eyes open.
The Godfather Part II
Blasphemy! Garnering more Oscars than the first, The Godfather Part II is often considered the greatest sequel of all time. It's hard to disagree. I've written on the fact that it is hands down one of the best sequels ever. I've watched it many times over the years, and enjoy it every time. So what in the world? How did this get on the list? Because after the first viewing - and subsequent viewings - it's easy to see that most of the hoopla revolves around the 'prequel' parts of the movie. The parts that deal with the rise of Vito Corleone as the great mob boss of legend. Filmed in a mild sepia tone, using subtitles for the Italian dialogue, and featuring an out of the ballpark performance by young Robert Di Niro, the 'flashbacks' are among the best scenes ever filmed. You easily believe Di Niro would grow up to be Brando's don Corleone. And I agree with the late Roger Ebert that the segment in which young Vito crawls along the rooftops toward his destiny, as he hunts Don Fanucci below in the street festival, is one of the best ever produced. So what gives being on this list? Because the problem is, the 'sequel' half of the movie is just what most sequels are - more of the same, only less so. It almost follows step by step the basic structure of the first Godfather film, but a notch down. Begin with a big family event, then attempted hit on the new don, backroom dealings, horses head dead prostitute in bed with power player involving Tom Hagen, more wrangling over complex mob dealings, tensions in the family, a mid movie assassination attempt, betrayal, relational problems between Michael and Kay, and a climactic 'multi-professional hits' wrap up montage. The highlight of the sequel portion was Michael and Fredo's volatile relationship and its preordained conclusion (Richard Bright's faithful hitman Al Neri does one small thing at the end that adds a letter grade to the punch, if you notice it). But otherwise, as if they had no ideas to run with, it was merely rinse and repeat. And on top of that, they had to shoehorn Michael Gazzo's Frank Pentangeli character in as the discount Pete Clemenza due to contract and salary disputes. You can just mentally scratch out 'Frank' and replace with 'Pete' and that part of the story barely misses what the writers most likely wanted. Had it not been for the prequel half, and the wonderful interaction between Pacino's Michael and Cazale's Fredo, I don't think it would be much more than a forgettable above average sequel. Which is quite disappointing if you think on it. And rather tough to admit.
Dead Poets Society
This was a Robin Williams vehicle plain and simple. Williams always had a feast or famine output when it came to movies. Either he was in wretched and unfunny cinematic drivel, or he batted it out of the ballpark, at least where critics were concerned. Especially when he cozied to the hipster avant-garde film world of The World According to Garp or Moscow on the Hudson camp. Here, he goes for the artsy crowd, but in a movie obviously produced for a wider appeal. In the appeal category it succeeded in promoting itself, and most of my peers at the time couldn't wait to rush out and see it. It wasn't bad. It was just - predictable. Within a half hour, I knew Robert Leonard had a giant 'I'm Doomed' sign around his neck. Not to mention it was pretty much taking John Lennon's Imagine and living it as the highest ideal. Even then, in my liberal agnostic days, I thought that sort of messaging was beginning to wear thin. On the whole, it was a watered down preachy movie, heavy on tropes, and fairly predictable as the characters do what they are obviously supposed to do based on the message the movie is obviously trying to convey. For all the hype and accolades, I expected much more.
Beetlejuice
Some of the movies on this list were likely victims of overhype on the part of critics and the Academy. This was not one of those movies. It was a more pop culture marketing hype you might say. At the time, Michael Keaton was one of the rising stars for our generation, having been in some popular teen oriented comedies. Plus, there was almost an unspoken contest between him and that other Tom Hanks guy as to which would emerge as the major star of their generation. By this time Hanks, who exploded onto the big time with his movie Splash!, was already drifting away from mere teenage comedy fodder and starting to dabble in more serious, at least by comparison, output. Keaton, however, was keeping it in the ground with comedy. And Tim Burton, who we first heard about with the offbeat yet strangely fun to watch Pee Wee's Big Adventure, had gained a positive reputation among those I knew. Therefore, this movie promised much to our young college age expectations. The commercials for Beetlejuice helped, and made it look like we were about to see a comedy for the ages. It might be something that could even overtake the monstrous success of Ghostbusters a few years earlier, in yet another 'cross genre' comedy triumph. But that was the problem. The marketing. A bunch of us went to see the movie together. Within half an hour we were all looking at each other and asking the same question - Michael Keaton is in this movie isn't he? The commercials we saw focused exclusively on Keaton. To see them, you imagined he would have more screen time than Scarlet O'Hara. But he didn't. Not that this is new or even a problem. Brando is in very little of TheGodfather, and Darth Vader has barely a handful of minutes of screen time in the original Star Wars. But in neither case did promotional material suggest that their characters were the hubs around which the movies turned. All of the promotional material and trailers for Beetlejuice focused almost exclusively on Keaton's role. So as we watched and waited, watched and waited, watched and waited, it cast a pall over the whole experience. Even once he was in it and finally began tying the story together, it was too late. We all left the theater, along with others around us that we could hear, grumbling about the movie that was supposed to have Keaton in it. Of all the movies I've ever been disappointed with, this was the biggest case of skewed advertising being the culprit. The problem felt even worse when we compared it to a filmgoing experience from a year earlier. That was when, to kill time, we went to see an offbeat fantasy spoof with Billy Crystal and, of all people, Andre the Giant, having only minimal expectations, but leaving with one of the most hilarious and entertaining movie experiences we ever had. But that's for another post.
Full Metal Jacket
It was Paths of Glory for the post-60s generation. This was a book/movie that many of the young fellows of my youth read and watched with zeal. Most loved it and couldn't get enough of it. So after years of being told I just have to see this masterpiece for the ages, I decided why not. And after it was over, I have to say it was a letdown. For me, the movie failed because, let's face it, Baptist tent revivals are less preachy. It seemed as if the different characters were more caricature than character. Did we miss that "Joker" Davis was the cool, superior counter culture rebel atheist hipster stereotype? Did we miss that? Like Paths of Glory, this is pure anti-war cinema. But somehow, Kubrick is far less subtle here than Paths - and that's saying something. It isn't like you come away from Paths of Glory wondering what the message was. But Jacket kicks it up a thousand notches. There's just a point where a movie 'over-does it' when preaching a message, even a valid one. And Jacket is one of those times, so much so that it ends up obscuring the movie itself. The messaging doesn't feel as if it flows from the events and people portrayed, but rather it feels as if those moments in the story are simply endless squire pegs to be pounded into the hole of the message whether they fit or not. As if every scene and person exists solely to be another bullet point in the sermon. Not that there aren't some good moments, some compelling moments and some memorable moments. It's just I've learned that even if you want to be ham-fisted with a preachy message, some restraint or limitations are still needed. Not to mention that preachy messages in an age of unrestrained sex, drugs, vulgarities, blood, guts, gore and cussing and middle fingers and drugs, are just a bit much.
Though I must admit, I'd have bet anything that you couldn't take the stupidly weird song Surfin' Bird and make it as riveting to experience as this. Kudos to those involved for the framing and pacing of this scene:
Joker
Yeah. Joker. Everyone raved about this when it came out. Perhaps one of the best fictional villains of the 20th Century, the Joker almost plays the part without trying. He is the perfect combination of villainy, intelligence, wit, panache, and offbeat sophisticated debonair - at an obtuse angle from normality. After Heath Ledger's brilliant performance as the clown prince of crime, it was hard to believe anyone would want a shot at it. Now the point of the movie was a confusing backstory to be sure, and whether this was supposed to be The Joker or not was never clear, at least to me. But Joaquin Phoenix, odd as he can be, is also a good actor when the stars align. In many ways he brought an extra level of interesting to the somewhat sterile epic Gladiator. Which helped it be a better movie than it might have been. So setting aside my reservations about modern movies, the hype was enough to convince me to watch it. I actually paid for it. Perhaps I still suffer from Pamela Ewing syndrome (or Bob Newhart withdrawal?), but when the SHOCK! ending was revealed, I just rolled my eyes and thought it was - lame. Even towards the end I was less impressed by the movie than I imagined I would be. But when the grand surprise ending came around, all I could do was think of how Mayer and Janowitz did it so much better with The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. And when something like that comes to mind when witnessing such a shocking Reveal!, you know things went seriously wrong before then. If I want legendary shock endings, I'll stick with The Usual Suspects, The Sixth Sense, the aforesaid The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Planet of the Apes, or heck, Newhart.
The English Patient
I heard about this for endless months when it came out. It was another movie that the critics and the media just couldn't love enough, and it put Ralph Fiennes firmly on the international film map. So a few years ago, I decided to see. We began watching it one night. About twenty minutes into it I stopped watching it. Enough said. Though I will say of all the films here, I'm willing to watch this again someday and give it another chance. Maybe it was the weather.
Raging Bull
Perhaps the biggest disappointment of all. My mom read the book back in my youthful days. I've heard about it for decades. It's been universally praised. I think it's an ultimate case of high expectations. Especially because in recent years it skyrocketed from 'one of the best' to 'fourth greatest ever!', behind Citizen Kane, The Godfather and Casablanca. Because of such a lofty leap forward, I was expecting something along the lines of Citizen Kane, The Godfather or Casablanca. And it just wasn't. Perhaps had it remained 'somewhere among the best', I would have had lower expectations and enjoyed it more. But since I only saw it after it rose to #4, IMHO it fell far short. Because nothing causes disappointment more than falling short of inflated expectations. And to quote Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.
Glen Gary Glenn Ross
So I didn't spend my life yearning to see this. But the snappy title had bounced around in my mind for years. You can't help it. Once you hear it there is almost a rhythm that keeps in your mind like an unforgettable tune. Not to mention the fact that the acting talent involved with it was, alone, a good selling point. Probably of all the movies on the list, I heard less about this one. A strange business drama poking at the usual foibles of a life revolving around money mixed with money. It was, however, one of those movies where you come away thinking 'it wasn't anything like I imagined.' That happens sometimes, and not always in a bad way. But with this, I just kept waiting for something to happen. With due respect to the legendary Groucho Marx, I wanted to say 'If you get near a storyline, film it'. It had plenty of cursing and expletives and everyone in the story was royally pissed off about everything at all times. But in the end, I felt I could have achieved more watching two hours of arguing on a cable news business show. Again, it wasn't something about which I heard endless years of praise from multiple sources. It was something that roused my curiosity over the years, simply because of the title, and then failed to do more than make me wish I left it with the title.
Gorillas in the Mist
Amadeus was one of the 'hip movies to watch' when I was in college. Especially in the first couple years. But in 1988 and beyond, even into my seminary years in the 90s, this took over as one of THE movies that people, usually left of center, gushed over. I remember them talking about it in different classes in college, especially one of the anthropology classes I took. Naturally. Perhaps it was because of that snotty 'it was soooooo meaningful' pandering I heard that I didn't go out and watch it like I did our Mozart based morality play. Nonetheless, over the years I would still hear about it, often as one of Sigourney Weaver's high points as an actress. Since I've always had an affinity for Africa anyway, and the continual repetition of praise, I finally watched it with my wife a few years ago. After all, I ended up loving Amadeus. But I dunno. Was Diane Fosse really that much of a - jerk? I'd like to think it was the screen writing and Ms. Weaver's interpretation, but boy did I want to grab a stick and hit her. Knowing how the movie - and her life story - ends, of course, I didn't want to go there. But there just wasn't anything in the way that Weaver carried herself that would ever make me want to love her character, much less the gorillas for which she fought. I get that the story was tying to be that 'impassioned crusader for the holy cause who can't let personal quibblings get in the way.' But there were times I thought Weaver's performance of this trope went too far. I kept thinking at some point in the movie the tone would change, and she would begin to endear herself to the hearts of those who might have sympathized with her and her cause. But she didn't. Again, I don't know the detailed, personal history of Diane Fosse. But this movie left me content not finding out. I prefer my image of her being poorly portrayed, rather than thinking the way she behaved toward everyone around her ended up being a self-fulfilling prophecy for what eventually happened. And for a movie whose message and desired sympathies are as clear as day, that's quite a downer when all is said and done.
Druids
OK, for sheer laughs, this was a resounding success in the disappointment category. Its badness is still the stuff of legend around the Griffey homestead. At least for the 40% of the movie I watched. When we rented it at the Blockbuster (yeah, back then), we noticed the tape hadn't been rewound. It was left just before the halfway mark. We wondered about that. Based on the tape box, it looked like another contributor to the Braveheart/Gladiator epic renaissance. A grand Hollywood treatment of the compelling legend of Celtic chieftain Vercingetorix. Which is pretty darn cool if you think on it. So after several times seeing it, we rented it and took it home to watch. As soon as it showed druids as if they had actual supernatural powers, we wondered. Then we saw unfold - the movie. I have never watched a movie where I began wondering if the catering for the film crew was as bad as everything else in the film. Everything was awful: The costumes, the acting, the action scenes, the plot, the cinematography, the editing, the score, the lighting, the sound, and especially the gawdawful wigs. Really. In all my life I never thought so much about how bad a job the hair stylist did than watching this. At first we were confused. Then we began to roar with laughter, imagining it to be some sort of Monty Python knock-off. A parody of the Braveheart/Spartacus genre. It certainly succeeded there, and I've seldom laughed so much, until about a third of the way into the movie. That's when we began to realize that this movie is real. It's actually trying to be a serious historical epic. That they meant it! With that, we burst out with another round of laughter, then stopped the movie. Life is just too short. We took the tape out and noticed it was stopped at about the same spot it was when we rented it. Yeah. It was that bad. Not a movie that really disappointed some age old expectation, because I hadn't heard of it as much as the others. But with even the slightest level of expectations, it was about as bad of a movie letdown as any I've ever had.
He is willing to call out the BS and mendacity that has come to define our post-Christian, postmodern era:
That we have taken an entire generation and told them that every word uttered should affirm them as the gods of their realities, or they should unleash endless hatred or commit suicide - either being an understandable reaction - shows just how low we've sunk. The only thing worse is how so many of our institutions that should know better (ahem, hello Christian Church), have pretty much gone along with it. And have done so no matter how disastrous the results.
We'll see how it goes. Vance better be good enough to die for the sins of humanity, because even the slightest discovered transgression will be hyped more than Pearl Harbor was. And more than that, almost everyone left of center, and the bulk of those who have settled into our post-Christian status quo, will jump on him like rabid inquisitors.
Everyone knew it - one of the best commercials of all time
It's really not a joke that a growing number of Americans are beginning to believe that sports, like so many things in our world today, are fixed. Yeah. It's true. And it's not something that just popped up in the last year or so.
Years ago, the New England Patriots were the media's hoist team. Rivaling the 49ers and Steelers dynasties, people couldn't figure out why, despite the media hoisting them with every ounce of effort, the Patriots didn't garner the love and even begrudged admiration that those teams did.
Of course, like most things, there are many reasons. One was that by the 2000s, the million cable channels, Internet and rise of Social Media had wrecked the easy way in which America could unite around a story without even trying. For instance, as a kid who never watched the show, I still knew that somebody shot JR. And my grandma, who hadn't graced a movie theater since Clark Cable was on the marquee, knew who Darth Vader was in 1977. We were just a more homogenous culture and it was easier to get the whole country talking. So even if I didn't follow the NFL back then, I knew the Steelers dominated, knew the reference when someone said 'Thanks Mean Joe', was aware that all the girls swooned over Joe 'Cool' Montana, and understood the Immaculate Reception.
That national breakfast table conversation isn't as easy to accomplish nowadays without strong, coordinated, even brutal, efforts - see Covid. But there were also other factors behind the lack of national respect, like the Patriots caught cheating and being smug, rather than contrite, about it. And, to be honest, even then, there were whispers that the Patriots just seemed to have it easier. That odd things like bad calls on the part of the officials just always seemed to go their way.
After a decade or so of watching the NFL once I hit college, I stopped following it pretty much when the Browns shut down back in the 90s. I would still watch the Super Bowl for some years after, but that was it. Nonetheless, during the Patriots' fifth run for the Super Bowl - which would put Brady ahead of all quarterbacks ever - I decided to watch for myself.
Yeah. I could see what they meant. There seemed to be a new rule in football called 'Tackling Tom Brady Penalty.' And on the other hand, I do think Patriots defenders could pull out a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and blow a receiver's head clean off and the refs just always seemed to miss it.
It isn't only the NFL. Has there been anyone shoved down our national throats like Lebron James in recent memory? Despite many saying he exemplifies the observation that statistics don't always tell the whole tale, the very openly left leaning James is all but treated like the greatest athlete god in history by the press because they say so. He is mentioned sometimes just for the sake of mentioning LeBron James.
Not that the press wouldn't pick its darling athlete or next new sports superstar over the years even before things happened. But there was a glitch there, that in the world of sports the athletes in question still had to win. So when Debbie Thomas crashed and burned at the 1988 Olympics, all the hype about her being America's next sweetheart faded away. And even though the press more or less ignored the two skaters who won gold at the 1998 and 2002 Olympics and focused on the endorsement laden Michelle Kwan anyway, it just never took because in skating, it's all about the gold.
Nevertheless, sometimes it seems like in recent years the 'storylines' laid out by the press have strange ways of coming true, no matter what is happening on the field of competition. From ESPN's promoting its own college conference and things often strangely going its way, to the odd World Series that just seems to fit that perfect scenario in a city ravaged by disaster, to, well, this Super Bowl this year. Many are starting to wonder just how miraculous all of these coincidences really are. I mean, I've watched the clips of the officials' calls against the Chiefs, and either they are the luckiest team in history where all of the crazy bad calls just went their way, or, well, you know.
Right now, the bets are that the Chiefs win, Travis Kelce retires but not before proposing to Taylor Swift, and Ms. Swift then launches another media promoted super tour based on her NFL inspired album. Though it will be in another year, to give Beyonce room. This coming year will be Beyonce's year if the press has anything to do with it. After all, was anyone shocked that she won best album for her foray into Country Music, the criticism of which was immediately labeled racist, and her award being yet another 'making history in our racist nation' moment? FWIW, people also see the awards shows with the same skepticism as the sporting world.
Of course whether it happens or not is hard to say. Some are suggesting the Chiefs must lose to allay the growing suspicion that the games were fixed. But just the fact that this alternative theory is gaining steam, based only on how the fix needs to be played, is telling. It suggests that a growing number of Americans are believing that the NFL, like sports, like pop culture as a whole, if not like our whole society, is one giant fix. And that shows where things have gone over the years since we stopped being like that bad country we were back in the day.
