You wouldn't have thunk it, would you. In the first months of his first term in office, Trump's critics were able to get my never-Trumper son to admit that the only thing that makes Trump look good is his critics. Nothing has changed, despite the shellacking the Left got in November. It's still pretty much scream Trump Nazi Holocaust with F-bombs and then refuse to do anything else.
I did arrive at one conclusion after the election. If you're going to so flagrantly ignore or downplay or mock the suffering of tens of millions just because your guy is the one in the White House, make sure they're not tens of millions of registered voters.
Nonetheless, though the Obama years marked that moment when the post-Western Left came out of the closet and made its desires for a post-Western world openly known, it's been rough sailing for them since. Part of it is, I think, something I noticed some years ago. Since the Left holds the orb, the scepter and the crown (entertainment, media, education), it's easy to miss its mistakes since none of the institutions that should be speaking truth to power are going to do so when the power is theirs. So you can make fools of yourselves, fail miserably, and more or less do terrible things and feel it's OK since the traditional outlets charged with calling you out won't do so.
But that only goes so far. As we saw in 2016. As we saw last year. As sane people are learning, among that number being Senator Fetterman. As for the rest of the Left? It's not looking promising.
Note the assumption. The assumption is that these 'white men' have been threatened by the gains of women and minorities. Now, is this what these white men have said? Have they said their complaints are based on feeling so threatened? Are there any editorials by these white men stating that they feel threatened, which is why they're complaining? I don't recall ever hearing any white man say he feels threatened by the gains of women or minorities. Yet note the ease with which this claim is almost on par with John 3:16 in terms of its quotability in the progressive narrative.
Fact is, preemptive assumption of bad motives and similar character defects has long been a primary weapon for progressives. You know, a man who questions the feminist juggernaut is merely threatened by women asserting themselves or succeeding. People who question normalizing non-heterosexual sex are accused of being homophobic bigots. Men who questioned it were accused of being closet homosexuals themselves. People concerned about the negative developments in our modern society are told they're only scared about losing their white privilege. Those who wonder if a Muslim going on a killing spree in the name of Allah could have something to do with his being a Muslim are smacked down as being motivated by Islamophobic bigotry. The point is, always assume some defect of character or morally problematic motivation for questioning anything to do with leftwing and liberal narratives or activism.
It reminds of a CNN discussion in 2016. Wolf Blitzer was the host. They were discussing the whole Rise of Trump campaign as we headed into the election. During the debate, one of the token conservatives brought up the rising suicide rates among white men in America. Without missing a beat, one of the women on the panel simply waved him aside, insisting it's just a factor of whites upset about losing their privilege. You know, not men who happened to be white actually struggling or suffering or such. Nope. Just racists sad to be losing their chance to be racists. She didn't even pretend to care. I imagined her dismissive attitude went a long way toward showing why Trump was gaining appeal.
I should mention that this sort of rhetorical claptrap prompted an early step that turned me from my proud days as a self-proclaimed liberal agnostic. In a winter quarter class in 1988, we were assigned to give a speech before the class touching on a hot button social issue. I chose an issue that was making waves then, a pushback against Affirmative Action driven by white business contractors losing their bids purely because they were white. It was my early encounter with the term 'reverse discrimination'.
As a liberal I supported Affirmative Action, but I also believed that any discrimination because of gender or race was wrong, never caring for the term 'reverse' discrimination. To me it was just discrimination based on accident of birth, and so wrong. I said in my speech there was a kernel of truth to the objections and if not acknowledged, it could eventually end up bringing down the whole of Affirmative Action.
Wow. You'd think I praised the Holocaust. One girl even got up and joked she's sitting on the other side of the classroom away from me (to much laughter of course). The only one who defended me was an older African American woman who said she wouldn't want to think her sex or race was why she got where she wanted to go. Certainly my very white professor didn't defend me. Though I got a decent grade (a B of sorts if I recall), she wrote something across the top of my paper that stunned me: "Why are you so afraid of women and minorities?" I was more than offended, and spent an hour after class arguing with her, eventually asking her if she's so worried about minorities why doesn't she leave her cushy tenured position and give it to a minority? FWIW, it was then that I first thought of what I've come to call the Left's cherished Proxy Martyrdom - hang your righteousness on causes that only cost other people and never yourself. I also learned it's the wise student who keeps his mouth shut when he's nothing more than a schmuck student. Though that lesson was forgotten once I went back to seminary and graduate school some years later.
Anyhoo, I left there more than a little ticked off and for the first time (but not the last), began to rethink the assumption I had been given in our 80s culture that progressive was the way to be because liberals were always the open minded free thinking ones. Which blew up in my face that day. I should point out that the problem wasn't that they said I was factually wrong, or my reasoning was bad, my arguments were poor, or it was a bad speech. No. Those I could believe. It was the accusation that I was - afraid. Scared you know. That they negatively judged what motivated my concern with nothing to go by other than I dared think outside of the progressive box. I chaffed at that then, and have never stopped as I came to realize just how universal this leftwing tactic is. As the good Ms. Lipman demonstrates all too well with its causal use in that opening sentence of her little rant.
I'll let others dissect the implication that somehow white men have no business complaining because they are white men, gender and ethnicity being all important for modern liberals in determining who can do what. For me, it was a reminder of a grave moral defect that has defined so much of the progressive discourse. A defect I've witnessed since I began paying attention on that cold winter day all those years ago.
So there was some disagreement about my post here regarding how we should react to the purges being wrought upon our bloated government bureaucracy. I expressed concern that our approach to certain professions, institutions, and those therein has been counterproductive. I also stated that I'm not a fan of mocking those who were just informed it's to the unemployment line for them.
First, thanks for keeping it civil. I never mind disagreements. One of the best parts of the Internet if used correctly - finding out that your carefully constructed ideas might not always pass the first test when contacting other views.
With that said, I think I wasn't far from the mark, even if some might quibble with a few details. There are two basic reasons for my concern about the reactions I'm seeing from those to the right of center. One is based on consistent principles, one on practical observations. Since the first post ended up looking at the more practical lesson of this approach not working, let's handle the principles part in this post.
First, my point wasn't that we can't - and shouldn't - look at the hot mess dumpster fire that is the modern status quo and its disastrous lack of ability to move our society forward. I have no problem cutting waste, undoing the abuses we saw, holding people accountable, putting an end to the mendacity of people arguing that free speech is dangerous because it might enable those fascists over there. And people, including conservatives, were right to look aghast at the treatment given to people who were suffering over these last several years. I think the outrage at that abuse was more than warranted, and the Left paid a big price for the haughty intolerance we witnessed for the last decade or so. But here's the thing. Let's step back to some story time for a minute, and then perhaps you'll see where I'm coming from.
I entered seminary in 1993. Contrary to lame media stereotypes, all Evangelicals are not the same. Nor are they all rightwing Republican conservatives. In fact, theological and social and political liberalism were well represented at the seminary when I came through the doors in my first J-Term in July, 1993. J-Terms being crash courses where an entire semester is crammed into three weeks in the respective 'J' months.
I entered the J-Term before Dr. Al Mohler began as president of the seminary. He brought in both a conservative, and a Calvinist, revival that sought to put an end to the influence that the more liberal elements of the denomination had enjoyed for the previous decade or two.
When I first arrived there, many of the students, and those professors who were a bit more conservative, told a tale of woe about their experiences during the previous years. They were marginalized, mocked, made fun of. Conservative professors were often hounded out of the seminary and had difficulty getting hired in the first place. Liberals held the power and used it unjustly, shutting down debate and hamstringing an open academic environment that allowed all views to be represented. Fair enough. Those were valid complaints, especially if the problems were coming from the top down.
But guess what happened once Dr. Mohler came into his office. That's right. Those same conservatives immediately began culling the herds of the more liberal professors and even entire departments. Professors were pressured to leave. No new professors anywhere close to center left were hired. And within a couple years, most had been eliminated and the few straggling students who were close to the left were as ostracized as a communist at a McCarthy cookout. So many professors were eliminated that when I went back to get my PhD in historical theology, there weren't enough qualified professors to fulfill the requirements for a tract in that subject.
Now, I have never liked that sort of thing. That 'you're stupid and evil for doing what is just fine when I do it' that has been mother's milk for the post-Western Left, but a cancerous rot on the rectitude of our society. It reminds me of this scene in the television series MASH. An AWOL solider trying to get home to his unfaithful wife holds up in the camp's mess tent during the weekly services. When the MPs arrive to take him back, he invokes the protection of sanctuary. The problem is, that appeal doesn't work in a mess tent church. Fr. Mulcahy, however, takes his side and demands every chance be given to him as they call up the chain of command for a second, third and even fifth opinion. During this time, the MPs get angrier, and those trying to help more desperate. Finally, the final word comes from the top - a mobile mess tent church does not warrant sanctuary in this case. And this is what happens next:
That's something I think the Christian Faith should tell the world as we witness all those lofty ideals the World has used against the Faith over the last century now being tossed aside like so many old shoes.
But the point is, don't claim a principle or idea when it is convenient, and then toss it aside when not. If you've followed me for any time, you'll know I'm convinced that the lack of integrity that defines our modern age is one of our modern age's Achilles heals. The idea that we can talk out of all three sides of our mouth, invoke 'words speak louder than actions', follow the 'do as I say, not as I do ' principle, or just call people sinful bastards because they call people sinful bastards, all chip away at the ability to ground the Church, society, our nation, even our families in a deeply rooted stone foundation that will stand against the storms and challenges of life and history.
During the last four years, the Left became almost giddy over its willingness to tell people to screw themselves when they were suffering or in some ways harmed by the developments being driven by our progressive institutions. At best, tens of millions of Americans were ignored who were suffering under the Biden administration, from Covid measures, from the border crisis, from rampant crime rates, from the disastrous skyrocketing inflation, all while watching the world blow itself halfway to hell and America stand by impotently unable to do anything about it.
At worst you actually had those on the Left - including Christians and Catholics - openly mock and attack those trying to speak to the suffering. I lost track of how many times I saw people informed that any concern on their part about floundering job prospects was merely the result of crying over losing their white, often male, privilege. Charges of racism, sexism, phobic bigotry, and anything under the sun were leveled at people observing that Biden seemed a bit slow on the draw or that the immigration crisis is hurting people on both sides of the border. Women concerned about being put upon by men in women's garb? Comes from being a transphobic fascist, don't it. Sucks to be you people I guess, get used to the street because that's where you belong having been part of the oppressing class for so many years. That approach to people hurting was something conservatives rightly condemned and, quite frankly, benefited from in November.
Again, I have no problem asking workers to account for their daily work, or cutting excess waste in anything, or even burning the Department of Education to the ground because it's clearly failed and failed miserably in its mission.
With that said, let's not forget these are people we're talking about. Because that was a major lament and valid criticism from the Right over the last four years. These women objecting to being thrown up against men in athletic competitions, or shower rooms for that matter, are real people. People being hurt by the crime and general upheaval brought by the immigration crises are people. Those who lost their jobs and livelihoods because of the lockdowns were people. People who were often ignored by the Left/Press, and sometimes outright mocked and derided as they watched their prospects dwindle, were people nonetheless.
So let's not turn right around do the same thing. Beyond admitting that not everyone being impacted is a leftwing commie, it's enough to acknowledge that many are no doubt just people. People trying to get by and earn a living. The importance of working hard and providing for a family is itself praiseworthy. People who are doing what conservatives value - trying to work hard, provide for the family, and make a better life for themselves and their loved ones - should be celebrated in this day and age. Even if it's in the government, schools, or heck, the media. Even, dare I say, if it's done on the other side of the aisle.
Conservatives gained the upper moral hand by pointing out the suffering over the last several years, and rightly condemning the outright smugness and dismissiveness of the Left to that suffering, not to mention those on the Left telling the ones suffering that they were getting what they deserved. Now don't do the same thing. Not because of the obvious fact that this could backfire on us - once again - in a few more election cycles. But because it's the right thing to do. As conservatives made clear for the last several years.
NOTE: I removed the last paragraph, in which I mused on the broader implications of the Christian call by invoking the Good Samaritan. One of the great teachings, it can be used to unpack an endless number of teachings and principles for the aspiring Christian. But in so doing, it can also bring many different views and discussions to the table. When the first comment out of the box is about that, I don't want a postscript paragraph to become the focus. Not that there is a problem with the comment. It's certain a fair one and a valid point. I've just learned that sometimes, on the Internet, you can write out War and Peace, and then add a Sunday comic as an afterthought, and the comic becomes the focus. So in deference to the larger point of not doing what we so rightly condemned when done by the Left, I'll bring that last paragraph back some other time when we can look at that most famous of parables and have at it.
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.
Top L to Bottom R: Our oldest, our married 2nd oldest, our youngest, the adorable baby, our third oldest.
And here's one of the young family:
And just because:
Always ready to embrace the coolness
I love my boys and have been proud of them for a host of reasons through the years. Not that I would ever pretend they are angels or don't have any rough spots that tarnish their perfection. Of course not. But on the overall measure in this present era, they are pretty good. So good I sometimes take it for granted that if I call on them to step up to the plate in a moment of need, I just assume they will.
Add to that my daughter-in-law, who is about as good as one could hope for in the 'first daughter-in-law department', and that's not bad. My son and daughter-in-law have had it particularly rough. They broke with modern trends and didn't wait until their late 20s to marry. Then, to add to the fun of starting a new life together, they opened their own book store with not much more to go on than hard work and prayer. Then they discovered, barely a year into the new life, that they would be parents. Even if things were at times up to their ears with stress, it was baby fore!
Then so excited was the baby to join us, she showed up several weeks early. Now that was rough. I know what it was being a first time dad, and I can't imagine what it would have been spending the first weeks in an ICU with our baby hooked up like that. When my son sat in the ICU and told me all he could do was watch the other new parents leave the hospital with their babies and all the balloons and flowers, it was all I could do to keep a grip on myself.
Yet they have shown, like my sons in general, a stunning resiliency that is to be admired. They've certainly done better than I ever would. I know they've had help, and her family is nearby and is every bit as good and grounded as one could hope a child's new in-laws and family would be. And, again, a shout out to our sons who have time and again dropped everything to be there when they've needed them.
But on the whole, I have to say my son and daughter-in-law have been splendid through the maelstrom. I remember being married, being a new dad, and just getting on in life and how crazy things could be. Multiply it a thousand times over and that's been their lives. And yet, this:
I adore their wit and whimsy when it comes to how they've promoted their store over the years. Yes, it's tough because they miss the extra time with the baby due to the pile of obligations that come with being entrepreneurs. But they've been troopers all the way, and I have to say that's a blessing from God I'm willing to trade many a trivial request for.
One of many skills our daughter-in-law has learned. That's a beat up old copy of LoTR fixed with her new custom designed, hand crafted cover
Oh, and as if all that wasn't enough, they decided to broaden their to-do list by embarking on writing a novel trilogy that's right up their ally. It's still in the editing stage, but I have to say their vision for the story has even this non-fan of the fantasy/sci-fi world curious. So we'll see.
Finally, for the shameless proud grandpa of it, I can't deny that the cuteness is definitely strong with this one:
Because no person in history apart from Nazis ever put their arm out like that.
It reminds me of 2017 when ESPN pulled announcer Bob Lee from the calling U. of Virginia football for fear someone might be triggered. Though he was of Korean ancestry, and Lee is by no means an uncommon Korean surname, the stellar leadership at ESPN was afraid that if you said his proper name Robert instead of Bob, and added an 'E' between his first and last names, then you'd have, well, you know. And violence, death, suicide, emotional and psychological trauma might just happen next.
Really. It's almost impossible to imagine just how low and worthlessly ridiculous is the modern class of malcontents calling themselves our superiors and leading our world's institutions and organizations of power and influence. The are every Hollywood stereotype of a useless ruler ever.
Our modern leaders in one photo (From The Great Race)
Worse, they encourage those who are on the Left to actually excuse such idiocy, as unfathomably moronic as it seems. It's as if the entire 21st Century Left was carved out of a David Lynch fever dream. But what is to call them out? They hold the crown, the scepter and the orb. And more than half that see the problems for what they are nonetheless lack the character, courage or convictions to call them out for what they are.
Remember, when you see the divisions, the hate, the idiocy, the conflicts, the violence, they destruction, the perpetual outrage, it's important to remember these things are desired and pushed for. When you begin to endorse, excuse and promote this level of bat crazy psycho madness, it becomes easier and easier to someday insist there just aren't any strange camps in the German woods and leave it at that.
Ed Feser notices the derangement and tries to joke about it, but humor falls flat when no matter how absurd you are, the reality is even worse:
Burns reminds me of the adage that history isn't so much
written by the winners as it is taught by the winners. Or at least taught by
those who want to keep in the good graces of the winners. Saying in 2025 that we need to focus more on the
negative of America's history is like saying McCarthy should have spent more
time focused on Communism. At this stage, the negative is all that most,
especially the young, ever hear. From
our schools and their curriculums, the media and press, Hollywood, and even
churches.After all, a growing number of
such venues as Evangelical churches are led by younger and younger leaders who
have, for most of their lives, heard that there is scant difference between the
Swastika and the Stars and Stripes.
As my sons said from their time in public school, and that
was in the 2000s: Pretty much everything America was a negative.And what heroism, or 'glorious' chapters as
Burns says, was mentioned at all was wrapped in the assumption of malice, bigotry,
and ulterior motives. In other words, we might have beaten the Nazis, but it had nothing to do with anything other than our own lust for power, empire, money for arms manufacturers, or other nefarious reasons. And that was going
on 20 years ago.
For those who spent years wondering what they would do if a
force of tyranny ever rose and sought to destroy our nation, our heritage, our
values and our freedoms, now we can see.Someone like Burns either knows what he is
doing, or is so oblivious to his own place in our historical context that it’s no longer
profitable to care what he says.
Fareed Zakaria, that oracle of obtuseness, who once declared in 2016 that the world never looked better and we owe it all to the Obama administration even as we were told ISIS was the new normal, comes out of the closet and speaks the words. He says it's time for Democrats to ditch those working class voters, especially the white ones, who the Dems lost ages ago. Increasingly it's hipster educated professional (read: wealthy) women, minorities and yes, even whites who have flocked to the Dems in recent years:
"They have a solid base of college-educated professionals, women and minorities. Many of the swing voters who have helped them win the popular vote in seven of the past nine presidential elections are registered independents and suburbanites"
And so:
"Biden failed to win the working class. Democrats might want to stop trying"
Just stop bothering with those working class types and catch the wave. Do working class Americans have concerns? Could they be hurting? Are they perhaps suffering and need attention? Aren't they part of that working poor scraping by that the Left has forever cared about? Perhaps. But the bigger question is can the Democrats win by giving two flying damns or a hell about them and their problems? Mr. Zakaria apparently thinks 'no' is the answer to that question.
Yep. Nothing like coming out and saying exactly who it is Democrats shouldn't care about for political expediency. It's almost like he's suggesting the Democrats never really cared about the working class in the first place, pandering to them only because it was convenient.
You know, whenever something happens or someone says something, even someone in a religious or non-political setting, journalists often frame it as being the result of politically driven agendas and expediency. As if people can't actually have pure motives because everything must be an ulterior, usually political, motive. It makes me think of the thief who assumes everyone else must be a dishonest crook.
Was the first time I saw anyone or anything officially mention the upcoming Martin Luther King holiday. I heard a brief allusion to it about a week earlier, but wasn't sure the context. I just remember it being referenced in some vague way. On the 15th, there was one story on the local news about a gathering for MLK Day, and a mention of some basic details. That was it. Since then I've heard and seen some other references to it, but nothing spectacular. A couple on the morning news on Saturday, including mention that the MLK parade was cancelled due to cold.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but in some ways this shows what we are up against with that thing we call the Left. Something is true today, false tomorrow. Something is nakedly evil today, no big deal tomorrow. A person is a veritable god today, who was that? tomorrow. We just have to admit that the 'here today, gone later' today approach to truth has been a tough nut to crack for those trying to oppose what the modern progressive movement has to offer.
So in my younger days, it was Kennedy who was the messianic god figure of the 1960s. It seemed that not a week went by that I didn't hear or see referenced the famous line 'Ask not what your country can do for you.' By the end of the 1980s, however, that sacred line was quickly being replaced by 'I have a dream!'
By the 1990s, MLK had become in many ways our substitute Jesus. As Christians were being told to put it under a bushel and happily complying, and as the J-Word was increasingly barred from polite society, MLK became that important person we could all quote, reference or appeal to in the most mixed of company, including in the highest profile media outlets. By the time I was in ministry in the mid-90s, it wasn't anything to hear entire sermons where MLK would be quoted or referenced more than Jesus. That was especially true among African American ministers I knew.
When my sons were in public school in the 2000s, I can still remember when they would begin prepping for that year's MLK celebration festivities. Often those preparatory activities began even before they broke for Winter Break (again, by then the C and J Words no longer part of our national discourse). In fact, it almost became one of those cultural signposts that told me Christmas was just around the corner when I first began hearing about the upcoming MLK celebrations in January.
In ministry, I remember being part of various groups and, even before Christmas, being asked that most crucial of all questions - what are my plans for MLK day? Is my church doing anything? Am I doing anything? I remember in an ecumenical group I served in, that question was poised once in our year end November meeting (we didn't have a December meeting, so that was always our final for the year). I shocked them when I said I didn't get into the whole MLK thing. I spent most of that meeting fending off questions about my real motives for not paying proper dues to the man.
All of this is to say that, since 2021, it's nothing for me to forget about the holiday until about this time. A week, possibly two, ahead of time. Mostly references to this or that community gathering and that's about it. Used to be I couldn't watch the news or read publications or turn on PBS without seeing someone quoting or referencing MLK in an interview, speech, lecture, or sermon at least twice or three times a week. I can't remember last time I heard that sort of a reference now.
Why? Because of 2020, that's why. Apart from Deacon Greydanus, who insists the 2020 protests were overwhelmingly peaceful, nobody was really harmed or killed, just some unfortunate coincidences with a little harmless vandalism and graffiti, most on the Left embrace the violence. Oh, they shed a tear. But it was destruction, and even death, to serve the righteous cause. Sometimes, it turns out, violence is a darn good answer.
Same with things like White Privilege or Whiteness as only a pejorative. We now know the only racist is the one who won't judge, exonerate, condemn or discriminate based on proper skin colors. Just like so many things that post-war liberalism called evil that are now called good, and vice versa.
So with that, where does the myth of MLK fit in? Oh, in 2021 there were some attempts here and there by activists to insist we had the MLK legacy all wrong. Turns out he was never averse to a little bit of the ultra-violence. Leading my boys to start referring to him as MLK: Ninja Warrior! And some of his family said that MLK knew sometimes you just have to judge based on the color of someone's skin as opposed to that content of character gibberish. But on the whole, it's just been tough to maintain the MLK myth in light of its growing inconvenience to the new BLM iteration of the postliberal Left.
After all, if you think about the idealized, almost deified picture that MLK enjoyed for the 80s through the 2010s, it goes down tough now that we're being told to embrace condemnation based on skin color and the occasional butt kicking for the cause. Even if it includes the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. I mean, do those famous quotes of MLK that were repeated so often for so many years really help in this context? I don't think so. Which is probably why, long before I heard any actual reference to MLK activities this year, I knew it was coming around the corner only because of this:
He was America's favorite underachiever. An athlete who embodied the joys of being lost in the team, but with a grin. A professional baseball player who made a lasting impact by perpetually mocking his own career legacy and himself. A man who taught the world the value of laughing louder at yourself than anyone else.
When I was in high school, he was a legend, more than you'd think from those crazy, hazy days of the 1980s. I don't know how many millions of times, when we would shift around in an auditorium or on the gym bleachers or move around in a classroom, you'd invariably hear someone say 'I must be in the Front Row!' Even as young and foolish teens, we saw the value in a man who had that sense of self deprecation, but not in a passive aggressive way of avoiding confrontation.
Truth be told, he was better than he suggested. Sometimes the better ones are able to be silly with their own reputations because they know the truth. He was with St. Louis when the won the World Series, and would also play with the Braves and Phillies.
Adopting the moniker 'Mr. Baseball', his career as an announcer for the Brewers, and as a comedian (the "Comic Bard of Baseball") surpassed anything he did on the diamond. But it was his lampooning of himself - and by extension, most professional athletes or celebrities with an inflated opinion of themselves - that I remember the best. And that endeared him to a generation of young Americans sometimes given the choice by our modern society of greatness or nothingness.
May he receive from God a portion of the blessings, and a little of the laughter, that he gave to so many of us.
"When I came up to bat with three men on and two outs in the ninth, I looked in the other team's dugout and they were already in street clothes."
"How do you catch a knuckleball? You wait until it stops rolling, then go pick it up."
"Sporting goods companies pay me not to endorse their products."
"I spent three of the best years of my life in 10th grade."
"I didn't get a lot of awards as a player. But they did have a Bob Uecker Day Off for me once in Philly."
People who go off emotionally half cocked over a bad experience and become the biggest cheerleaders against what they once embraced. I give you:
I knew little of Steve Skojec, except the occasional online references. And those were often from folks on the Left railing against him for his supposed frothing at the mouth zealotry on behalf of traditional Catholicism.
Then something happened. I've never gotten exactly what, though it seems to revolve around the ill treatment of one of his children at the hands of a Catholic Traditionalist leaning priest. Which isn't hard to believe. I don't think Traditional Catholics are immune to bad behavior any more than any other group.
But what has happened since has been a complete 180 reversal as Mr. Skojec has become everything anyone who hates Catholic Traditionalism ever hoped for. For non-Catholics, non-Christians, and those Catholics who have cheered Pope Francis's assault on Traditional Catholicism, Mr. Skojec has become as quoted as Shakespeare.
It puts me in mind of Rod Dreher, another who I see like a Thomas Paine character. A man who makes good points, but can't be counted on to keep things in perspective over the long haul or when the going gets tough.
So for years Dreher raged against the growing assault on religious liberty by the Left. Fair call. But when Covid hit, he embraced the mass hysteria, all but calling on any and all jack-booted thugs possible to kick down doors and drag away those reprobates gathering to worship God when our expert class strictly forbad such affronts to our wellbeing. Yes, he later conceded that there were serious problems with how Covid was handled. But as far as I know, he never came out and fully apologized and owned up to the part he played in that same oppression and persecution of dissenters.
Folks like this never quite settle for me. With Mr. S, how do I know that something else won't set him off with the latest group he now identifies with, only to see him turn on them? And with Dreher, who knows? He's too wild in his deviations far too often to rely on him beyond acknowledging when he makes a valid point. When ISIS managed to down a plane some years ago, Dreher came off as almost giddy because he insisted it proved Trump hadn't 'eradicated ISIS', the multiple deaths being an additional lament tacked on to his triumphant slam against Trump. A little loss of priority there, IMHO.
I know. Some might say 'But Dave, if someone was a Nazi or a porn star or a terrorist cultist, you would celebrate them leaving it and renouncing everything to do with it.' That is true. Because I consider those objectively evil things that are born of Hell and any who can escape their grasp are to be celebrated and prayed for and helped.
I don't, however, put people gathering to worship God or preferring the Latin Mass in that category. Something in other days, both Dreher and Skojec would have agreed with and fought bitterly against any suggestion otherwise. But then, something happened and they snapped, and became everything they once condemned in order to attack the very things they once cherished. And for me, that's just too unstable and fickle for my likes. They might, and do, make good points sometimes, but I'll look to others to ultimately stand up for the cause of Good when the time is ripe.
Yep. As any RISK player knows, N. America is the easiest continent to hold once you get it (at least that gives you more than two bonus armies a turn). And if you start with America, then you need Canada, Greenland and Central America to make it a full continent and get those five extra armies a turn.
My sons noted that, and joked that Trump must have been playing RISK recently. A much saner appraisal than the bat nuts psycho hysterics around the world and across the media and leftwing punditry we're seeing. Sometimes I think Trump does these things just to watch people make him look calm, reasonable and sane by comparison.
Personally I think it's how he operates. Throw a verbal grenade into the conference, create chaos, and then while your opponents are beating themselves senseless with lunacy and being distracted by their own nuttiness, he goes about getting done what he wants to do.
It reminds me of what one of my sons said back during Trump's first term. The only thing that makes Donald Trump seem grounded and sensible by comparison is his opponents.
You might want to reconsider where you've ended up in life:
Yep. Lewis is one of the contributors over at Where Peter Is. Mostly that site exists to remind us that only reprobates dare question the singular orthodox awesomeness of Pope Francis, with not infrequent reminders that the Left's appraisal of anyone or anything right of center is a reliable witness.
Nonetheless, Lewis's apparent defense of his dig is a good remedy for those who labor under the delusion that somehow one side of the ideological divide is where the beautiful people are, and the other side are the meanies. An argument not a few former conservatives have used over the years to justify their alliance with advocates of what those conservatives once so strongly condemned.
Despite those who try to insist that is why they have aligned the way they have, however, Mr. Lewis does yeoman's work showing why appeals to the better behavior on one side or the other as justification for taking a stand is generally a fool's argument. I suppose that's something.
BTW, we won't even get into the irony that, once again, those on the modern Left today sound more and more like the old fundamentalist stereotypes of yesterday - "they're suffering because God decreed it!" We'll leave it with Lewis's defense that he was only joking about Gibson losing his home in the LA fires.
UPDATE: So already I need to clarify. I'm not saying that this only happens to the left of center. Of course not. I'm pointing out that 1) those former conservatives who cling to the idea that history shows progressives are the good guys as opposed to those nasty rightwing types have reality against them and, 2) increasingly the modern Left acts very much like all the things it warned us about ages ago with its stereotypes of what conservatives and fundamentalists were all about. With that extra twist being that this is demonstrated here by none other than a former conservative.
