I'm old enough to remember when it was offensive that Western women, like journalists, had to don such apparel when visiting a Muslim nation. Heck, I can remember when the very appearance of such apparel was seen as an affront to women's universal equality. But I do believe that if that the Left, or some ally committed to the demise of the Christian West, said here wear this:
that liberal women would fall over themselves to do just that. And not just feminists. For instance:
Yep. Because we know that nowhere in the Muslim world do those within the LGBTQ lifestyle enjoy anything close to equality, if not the ability to survive. But the enemy of the West is the Left's friend. Better the Muslim world thrive even as it crushes gay rights than the country that panders to gay rights not be destroyed.
Oh, and I'm not stupid. I know one of the Left's talking points is that if anyone not Euro-American does something bad, like oppress homosexuals, browbeat women, murder Jews - it's because they learned it from the West. That is not only a common retort, but an increasingly accepted one. But that sort of BS that only an intellectual could believe is for another time.
At least if a cookbook can inspire an entire family's focus on establishing long traditions and our celebrating our heritage. We received this as a Christmas present the year our first boy was born. Up until that time we really didn't 'do anything' as a family, at least in terms of traditions. Flying by the seat of our pants best described things through our early years.
Though not terribly imaginative, somehow it clicked. It's presented as a faux cookbook from the Mary Cratchit of A Christmas Carole fame. The very loose premise is that somehow Mary Cratchit, Bob's wife, has compiled the recipes by experience or interviews, including a post- redemption Scrooge (hence Fezziwig's ball). It has seven complete dinners, with accompanying beverages and desserts, and they are centered around the key figures of the book and the days of Christmas: Fezziwig's Christmas Eve Ball, Nephew Fred's Christmas Dinner, Cratchit's Christmas Dinner, Tiny Tim's Caroling Party, Young Marley's Boxing Day Breakfast, Mary's Afternoon Tea, Scrooge's Twelfth Night Celebration.
I must admit, I wondered about the origins of young Marley's breakfast, since no explanation is given for how Mrs. Cratchit comes by it. It's noteworthy, and a sign of the times, that the cookbook includes a brief nod to Boxing Day, its origins and how the tradition of giving to the poor remains today in the practice of employers giving bonuses on that day or the Christmas holiday in general. Funny stuff. Because of course today, the tradition has emerged that Christmastime is a fine time for companies to lay off employees and cut down on staff. I guess a subscription to the Jelly of the Month club doesn't sound too bad after all.
Anyway, back to the book. Each meal features a seasonal or regional favorite main dish, like Roast Beef and Yorkshire Pudding, Roast Turkey with Sage and Onion Stuffing, or Roast Fresh Ham with Thyme. While other entries, such as the afternoon tea sporting such dainties as Cucumber Sandwiches with Watercress Butter, Herbed Egg Sandwiches and Scones with Devonshire Cream and Strawberry Preserves, and of course Plum Pudding pad out the rest of various menus.
It's not particular to actual cooking methods, and doesn't pretend that this is some gourmet publication. For Mincemeat Pie, canned Mincemeat Pie Filling will do (rather than making from scratch). Likewise frozen veggies will do. So it wasn't even some 'cook the way they did in Victorian England' book.
Yet for some reason, it clicked. For the record, our first foray was the Roast Beef and Yorkshire pudding topped with Wassail and Plum Pudding - none of which, save the Roast Beef, I had ever had. I doubt we've used all of the actual recipes, or even most to be honest. But somehow, in some way, it lit a fire in us that would blossom and overflow in an ever growing number of annual traditions that defined our family over the years.
Oh, there were times when the traditions became unwieldy, especially as we tried to cling to ones that the older sons did when they were young so the youngest could enjoy them too. At the same time the older ones were growing and pushing into new areas so that the whole began to feel almost logjammed.
Nonetheless, over the years many of those traditions stuck, and it always did my heart good when I heard one of the boys speak to how this or that tradition meant something. From the thrill of getting the first apple cider in fall*, to the excitement they had as kids when they heard Trick or Treat play on the old Disney tape, to the opening chords of the Carpenters' Christmas album right after Santa drives by in front of Macy's, to the smell of roast lamb at Easter - they spent years letting me know that for all the bumps, those traditions were what they associated with good times through our annual journeys. And for that, I'll always be glad. Therefore, I will always prize the book that started it all.
You can trace their inconsistent enthusiasm even on behalf of their youngest, but they're still fun memories
*I've told my sons that some things are written in stone. That no matter what they do in life, even if they become some corporate zillionaire, there is no reason in the world they should ever have cider outside of the fall and Christmas holiday seasons.
Or any media narrative for that matter, is because when I see this:
I'm reminded of the recent explosion of these and similar stories:
If years of a particular group being attacked and murdered by the tens of thousands leaves the press scratching their heads and wondering if it rises to the definition of massacre or persecution, then I'm sure not going to believe them when they insist the January 6th Capital riot was an existential threat to life and democracy and the worst terrorist attack in America since 9/11. The fact that so many outlets zero in on the word Genocide and ponder what it could mean in the way Gary Johnson pondered what Aleppo could mean only exacerbates the mendacity. They never seem to worry about terms like white nationalism, white supremacy, fascist, authoritarianism, or even genocide when applied to anything right of center or historical America. No complications there.
Oh, and for those using the excuse that Muslims have also been targeted by these groups in Nigeria, I remember when pointing out that white Americans are also killed by police each year didn't matter in the wake of George Floyd. Call me silly, but I reject the whole notion so common among the Left that declaring X to be true only matters until it's not convenient for X to be true.
It was 30 years ago this last New Years Eve that this wonderful strip came to an end:
As they say, time does fly. True to form, Watterson has never attempted any big comeback. By all accounts, he took the tremendous fortune he received from the strip and retired into a quiet life and pursing what projects interest him.
In its day, Calvin and Hobbes emerged as the comic strip that everyone was reading. From the blue collar to the Ivy League. It had come about in that golden age of comics in the 1980s. You still had the politically charged Doonesbury. And the grand dame of all comic strips, Peanuts, still dominated the top front page of the comics section. Also came Bloom County, an edgy and surreal comic strip that wasn't afraid to offend everyone. At the same time, you saw debut that strange unreal world of the Far Side. But among them all C&H skyrocketed to the top of the class.
The good news is that Watterson did what so few ever seem to know to do - he got out while on top. Oh, looking back you could see the cracks. You could tell he was losing his edge, becoming more preachy, and beginning to betray some of the rules he had laid out for the strip early on. But that was only toward the end. There was still enough good that when he finally closed up shop, he was still near the top of his game. And that's never bad.
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.Isaiah 9.6-7
Once again, I write to offer solace and hope to people shocked by loss of life in places where our brothers and sisters sought to gather in places of peace and learning, yet were subjected to violence. On an Australian beach, terrorists consumed with hatred rained bullets on a celebration of the first day of Hanukkah, killing 16 and injuring many more. If anyone doubts the ancient sin of antisemitism is alive and strong today, here is proof.
Closer to home, two students preparing for final exams and a joyful holiday were murdered and a dozen injured by a gunman in the latest of a too-long series of college-related shootings.
We pray fervently for those directly affected by these attacks. But we also resolve to act against the circumstances that gave rise to them. In one case, hatred was strong enough to overcome even Australia’s strong firearms regulations. As we make ready to welcome the birth of the Christ Child to Jewish parents, let us recognize our own roots as people blessed with this tradition, speak against hatred and stand with our brothers and sisters as they claim their right to respect, safety and religious liberty.
And may we not be immunized to murder, including the latest United States campus shooting at Brown University. We must recognize that our leaders may say life is precious but act in ways that communicate it is cheap, that our children and the terminally ill are expendable. We cannot roll back mental health services and keep firearms more accessible than health care and then display outrage when the predictable consequences occur. Only if we soften the hearts of those in power can we hope to see a future where parents no longer send children to college with equal parts pride and terror. Only if we safeguard freedom of worship, including for minority faiths will we live up to the principles on which our nation was founded. Until then, we are speaking hollow platitudes about an America that is an ideal, not a reality.
Not surprising in the least. It says everything we would expect, and carefully avoids saying everything we would expect. Unlike his reaction to the Charlottesville shooting, in which we were treated to a lengthy essay that included Naziism, white nationalism and the history of racism in our country added to by a pinch of ISIS reference (read it here), he joins the mainstream Left by using the vague 'antisemitism sure is a problem' assessment, never bothering to mention the specifics. And we all know why.
But it's what isn't said that's even more telling. He does mention the coming of Christmas, with the standard progressive emphasis on the group identity of the Christ Child being Jewish. He brings up the terminally ill, though no clue why, since I'm not aware of that entering into the motive for any of the shooters. Of course he mentions guns, and the obvious assumption that gun control is the single hope for solving the violence we witnessed, which is why it's almost always the only thing we will talk about. And mental health. Apparently because the almost exclusive emphasis on mental health and subsequent tens of billions of dollars in funding we've seen over recent decades, even as the problems mental health is supposed to help have gotten worse not better, suggests the solution is more of the same.
Nonetheless, it's that this could have been released from a politician's office. It could have come from a mayor, a concerned corporate CEO, a celebrity. I wouldn't be surprised if some informed and invested pop culture figure had something like this released. There just isn't any 'there' there. Certainly not if 'there' means even Christianity in a generic sense, much less a Catholic sense. Heck, I've taken in more Christianity watching the original Ghostbusters than this.
If there is any truth at all to the historical Christian Faith, or if there is any need for the Catholic Church to exist, then I'd say this whole release was nothing but a hollow platitude. It certainly didn't suggest there was any hope beyond accepting progressive activism, narratives and policy solutions. And it isn't as if this is the only example of such a statement I've seen since we became Catholics.
Once again, allow me to tap into something one of my sons observed some time ago. He said we became Catholic almost 20 years ago. And in that time, we have yet to hear a contemporary pope suggest there was any pressing need for us to do so. Upon reflection since he mentioned that, I have to say he's right. And the good Cardinal Cupich simply adds one more page to the question of 'why did we become Catholic in the first place?' that has yet to be answered by those you'd think would provide such an answer.
Really, I'm not a lawyer. This came about on a Facebook post by Gloria Purvis:
It has to do with this press release from the DOJ. Again, I'm no lawyer, but something about 'neutral on the face but discriminatory in effect' strikes me as, well, not clear. So if anyone does understand this sort of thing, I'm all ears.
Because it's as much a tragedy that Justin and Stephanie Shults from the United States died as it would have been if I had died. And as an American, I try to remember that they were my neighbor, my kin in country. As were all who were killed in Brussels. But they were doubly so, since they were also fellow Americans, archaic as that phrase may sound.
I realize we don't want to fly into a panic over terrorism, or overreact, or shut down and refuse to live. But going on as usual with the evil assurance that statistics show if terrorists strike, it will be some other poor, dumb family who suffers the loss is a verdict against our post-modern age, not a valid comfort based on realistic perspectives. After all, as much as we might hate to read what happened to that bright, happy couple, the fact that it was them and not me is one of the main selling points from our leaders over why I shouldn't get worked up and let terrorism change me.
If we're honest, we would admit that, despite the popular narrative, terrorism is thriving due to our post-modern detachments to anything beyond ourselves as much as it is to our overreactions. In fact, it is our detachment, our willingness to shrug and accept whatever as long as it doesn't personally impact us, that the terrorists seem to be counting on the most.
I've often wondered if that's why since the Iraq Invasion it seems as though the insurgents went out of their way to cause casualties, but cause them on a limited basis. It's why ISIS does what it does, periodically, with purpose, over the course of weeks and months. No major attacks killing in the thousands that might jolt us into action. Though 9/11 didn't do the trick. No matter how many of us hoped that such a nightmare vision as watching the towers fall would jolt us back into a nation with something more on its radar than the next smartphone app, it just didn't do it. But perhaps as long as terrorists keep the body count regular, but low, they can count on a civilization that actually takes mathematical assurance of others' deaths as a basis for comfort to be the civilization they ultimately can overcome.
I have no doubt that there will be a nuclear strike some day in the future. I fear I will live to see it. And yet, even then, I fear more that our complacent, apathetic society of perpetual denial will find a way to crunch the numbers and remind us that 20,000 people killed is still fewer than the number of people killed on the roads every year. So go on and don't worry. Focus on yourself. Know that even a nuclear strike will likely impact someone else. Or something like it.
So yes, I want things to be different. I want our lives to be different. I want us to be every bit as shocked by the deaths of the Shultses as we should have been by 9/11 and that were on that sunny Sunday morning at Pearl Harbor all those decades ago. And I want us to be worried, not because it could happen to me, but because it will happen to somebody. If we were to break the chains of post-modern apathy, then who knows? The prospects of eternal terrorism from the religion of peace might not seem so inevitable after all.
NOTE: The above post is a repost from almost a decade ago. Sometimes old posts suddenly get a surge of views, and I don't know why. But I thought it was interesting what I was observing then, and how it falls into line with what I am more and more convinced has gone wrong in our society.
It's that day. I almost forgot. Last year this day was actually swallowed up in some quarters by those wanting to ignore this particular anniversary in preference of remembering the beginning of the Japanese (not Italian or German) Internment Camps. This year there seems to be more focus on that day which will live in infamy.
I'm not a big Hawaii guy. I've never been particularly interested in going there. But if one thing could get me, it would be visiting the Arizona memorial. It was WW2 that got me interested in history. And it was Pearl Harbor that captured my attention more than anything else. I saw it as one of those thick dividing lines in history. There was America and the world on December 6th, and then there was an entirely new age in the world on December 8th. And what happened that day in between became one of my focal points in college and much of my younger life.
I'm of that group of historians who actually disagrees with the old adage that for Japan, the attack was a tactical victory but strategic disaster. Given America's predictable reaction, the strategic disaster is certainly true. But I've often disagreed that it was some wonderful tactical success for Japan. It wasn't.
And not just because those carriers famously weren't there. It failed on some levels because, in the end, Americans reacted far better than the Japanese imagined, and because the Japanese did far worse than we sometimes remember.
The iconic image of Pearl Harbor: The USS Arizona crumpled and burning
Almost as soon as the first strikes from the first wave (the attack came in two separate waves) finished, the American anti-aircraft fire made subsequent attacks by Japanese planes far less effective. In fact, much of the damage inflicted on the legendary Battleship Row happened within the first minutes of the attack. Within about 20 minutes of the attack's opening, the AA fire was beginning to force the next flights of Japanese planes to improvise or abandon their planned runs, or to be less efficient with hitting their targets.
By the time the second wave came, the AA fire had formed a veritable canopy of explosions in the air over the harbor, and the second wave proved subpar at best. This was because they weren't prepared for the stiff resistance. Mitsuo Fuchida, the commander of the attack, said years later that the Japanese air crews were stunned by the speed of the American response.
Remember, the Americans had everything against them. Caught flatfooted, a blindside in a dark room, with the custom of locking things up on Sundays, or recovering from the previous night's festivities, and the general unawareness that comes with being at peace, led the planners of the attack to believe most of the first wave would meet with little if any resistance.
True, only 29 Japanese planes were shot down (roughly 8% - not a bad number if you're Japan) in the entire attack. But that's because the AA fire, while brutal and constant, was still from often antiquated or outdated guns that were better suited for old biplanes than the nimble Japanese planes in the attack. The real consequence of the AA fire was in breaking up the attack runs following the first dozen minutes or so and causing more and more of the Japanese, as often as not, to shoot wide of their marks.
Plus, you just had poor decisions on the part of the Japanese aircrews. The reasons have been kicked around for years. Were they just kids trying to go after big targets when there were none left? Was it being ill prepared for the US response? Was it simply Japanese military planners overestimating based on training versus what happens in actual battle? Hard to say. Probably yes.
But whatever the reasons, they missed many opportunities, especially in the second wave. Not just the oil fields, but the repair facilities and the all important cruisers. An often overlooked workhorse of the Navy, the Japanese could have added a dozen more ships to the casualty list, but seemed to almost purposefully avoid the less glamorous (but so crucial) cruisers in preference for battleships - even though most battleships by then were already sunk or were damaged or sinking.
The Pennsylvania sits behind the Cassin and Downes
In any event, it was not the great tactical smash hit that many suggest. It was a success. The Japanese did inflict casualties. They sank a few ships, a couple permanently. But almost nothing that had long term lasting consequences. If anything, it was the air bases around Pearl Harbor that marked the biggest success for the Japanese. The disastrous decision to pack the planes together in the middle of the airfields rendered them almost useless and, as one book put it, not just sitting ducks, but ducks in rows.
Still, in the end, only a few ships never returned to service. The Arizona, the Oklahoma and a training ship that was an ex-battleship - the Utah. They were the only total losses. Every other ship was eventually returned to service before the end of the war. Some of them seeing action against Japan itself. The planes were a big loss. 188 were destroyed and a similar number damaged. And worse than anything, 2,403 were killed. Almost half of those killed came from the two battleships Oklahoma and Arizona.
Compared to that, Japan lost 64 men, including the crews of several minisubs. 24 aircraft were shot down, but it's worth noting that over 70 aircraft were damaged. That's 30% of the air strike force destroyed or damaged. Again, the faster than expected response of the Americans.
Admiral Chuchi Nagumo, the commander of the actual Pearl Harbor strike force, received much criticism from Japanese in later years for not launching a third wave of attack. IMHO, he was correct not to. Already the second wave was far less successful than the first, and most of the planes destroyed or damaged came from that wave. It is unlikely the next wave would have capitalized on much more than the second wave. Plus most of Nagumo's worries about losing more planes and running up against logistical problems (like fuel) were reasonable concerns.
In the end, it also wouldn't have mattered. Unless a really lucky hit manifested itself, there likely would have been no more lasting damage, and the real harm - the rage ignited in the American mindset - was there and couldn't be taken away.
Japan - being a not-Western nation - has at times suggested that the attack was never meant to be a surprise. This is something it has bounced about for decades. If you watch the film Tora, Tora, Tora, it takes Japan's view that not only was the attack reliant upon surprise, but it clearly didn't want surprise and the lack of forewarning was simply a sad case of bad typing. That's non-Western nations for you.
Whatever was intended, however, the final assessment is one of ultimate failure. Little lasting damage was done, beyond the sad death toll. The attack could have been worse for America in the short term, but a series of failures and subpar performances on the part of the Japanese air crews caused many opportunities to be missed. And with all that, the horrible strategic nightmare of filling America with that famous terrible resolve was in the books and couldn't be taken back. Something that citizens of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would discover all too sadly before the end of the conflict.
For a bonus, I found the below photo. It is a photo I have not seen before. I always appreciate things I've not seen before. It is of Battleship Row three days after the attack:
The fires are gone and the smoke cleared. You can see the multiple rivers of oil, most pouring out of the Arizona. The Arizona is on the bottom right of the ships. If you look closely, you can see the shadows of its superstructures, striking that iconic image with the fore mast crumbled over into its bow. The explosion literally obliterated the front of the ship, causing a catastrophic breach straight down through the decks. The harbor waters rushed into every level and nobody below decks had a chance. Except for one sailor, nobody in the entire front half of the ship survived. Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, the highest ranking officer killed in the attack, was last known to be on the bridge. His body was never found.
In front of the Arizona is the Tennessee, nearest the island. It was damaged, but not badly. It was one of the first ships to return to duty, early in 1942. Next to it is the hapless West Virginia. Hit by everything, it almost capsized. The captain's decision to counter-flood kept it from doing so, instead it settled straight down, and you can see much of its port side is under water. It would be until 1944 before the West Virginia was back in service.
In front of them, nearest the island, is the Maryland. It was also lightly damaged and returned to service by early 1942. Next to it is capsized Oklahoma. Next to the Arizona, the Oklahoma had the largest single loss of life in the attack. 429 died, despite the best efforts to rescue them. Farthest ahead is the California, which actually sank, but returned to service in 1944.
The other two battleships are out of the picture. The Pennsylvania was in a dry-dock and barely touched, though two destroyers in front of it - the Cassin and Downes - were blown to pieces and would take several years to return to service. The Nevada was the other battleship. The fleet's flagship, it was located behind the Arizona. The only one to try to make a run for it, fear quickly arose that it would go down in the channel and block the opening to the harbor. Therefore it was ordered to cease its desperate gamble.
That's the gist of the battleships. It would be carriers, not battleships, that made the difference in the Pacific War. And by luck, fate or providence if you prefer, the American carriers were not there that fateful morning. The USS Enterprise was supposed to be there, but a sudden storm at sea damaged several of its escorting ships. Instead of going forward and keeping schedule, the captain decided to stay behind and help the ships damaged by the storm. As a result, the full wrath of the Japanese aircrews that morning fell on the capital ships - the battleships. Even when there were none left untouched, the subsequent waves would still attack targets that would have been better to ignore.
One final musing. Here is a scene from the movie Tora, Tora, Tora. A flop at the box office, it tried to be as accurate as two separate tellings of the same event - an American and Japanese perspective - would allow. On the whole, it succeeds. This is near the end of the attack. I've always loved the lone American machine gunner. His fellows are all dead. All around him is destruction and carnage. Explosions are everywhere. His cloths are in tatters and he is wounded and bleeding. But he'll be damned if he gives up. And the choice of the pilot he finally hits, as well as the gunner's own actions, perfectly embodies the attitude and grit and determination both sides would bring into the conflict. Wars are horrible things, but sometimes they bring out the absolute best in people. A lot better, as we've discovered, than peace and luxury and leisure tend to do.
Get hold of old speeches and publications from Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s. Scratch out the words 'Jew' and 'Jewish' and replace them with 'White' and 'Whiteness'. Then you can be invited to any hipster leftwing party. Or, apparently, get a cushy job at one of our fine modern institutions of higher learning.
Thus. Yep. It's not even trying to act with a wink and a nod. It literally speaks of the plague of whiteness in ways reminiscent of the warnings against the corruption of Jewishness in Nazi Germany. From the university page:
Racism is an epidemic (CDC, 2021) that can also be considered a pandemic given its large cross-national proportion and spread (APA, 2020). However, there is another pandemic lurking behind and driving the racism pandemic – the Whiteness Pandemic. Whiteness refers to culture not biology: the centuries-old culture of Whiteness features colorblindness, passivity, and White fragility, which are all covert expressions of racism common in the United States. Naming the Whiteness Pandemic shifts our gaze from the victims and effects of racism onto the systems that perpetrate and perpetuate racism, starting with the family system. At birth, young children growing up in White families begin to be socialized into the culture of Whiteness, making the family system one of the most powerful systems involved in systemic racism.
Compare:
The Jew caused our misery and lives from it today. That is why we nationalists and socialists oppose the Jews. The Jew has corrupted our race, soiled our morals, undermined our values, and broken our strength. He is the reason we today are the pariah of the whole world. As long as we were German, he was a leper among us. When we forgot our German nature, he triumphed over us and our future.
I'll let you guess who said that last one.
Sure, people will point out that many (though notice not all) on that university page are white. White professionals happily ensconced in their own careers it should be noted. I've noticed that many white liberals who have no problem demanding we correct the unfairness of white privilege are, themselves, quite privileged. And while they might bemoan the unfair advantage they have in life owing to their whiteness, it never seems to lead them to relinquish those careers and go flip burgers so a minority could be hired instead.
Why did white Americans flock to Trump and the GOP last election? Why did young white Americans, that age group historically tending to swing left of center, swing to the right? Because the white American liberals who look like them with six figure salaries seem hellbent on making sure those white American liberals are the last people who look like them who will be able to have six figure salaries. That's why.
Proxy Martyrdom in a nutshell, and apparently a staple for white liberalism
Rather than prattle on about the problems with the holiday and the issues surrounding us, perhaps just a time to stop and say thanks. Just like those first puritans spending three days celebrating and partying and thanking God for their blessings. Considering the losses they experienced and the hardships, they still found time for endless thanksgiving. And that's not a bad thought to remember.
For fun, here is an article attempting to delve into the past and figure out just what it is that those immigrants and Indians actually ate on the famous feast. I'm sure it wasn't green bean casserole, which is why we never eat that on Thanksgiving. But I'd like to think among all the venison, a nice plump turkey the way we breed found its way onto the table.
For a reminder, the reasons my wife and I have to be thankful, among many others:
A little dose of laughter courtesy of Steve Martin and his many talents on the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour:
And yes, a reminder that he didn't always have that plume of white hair. Martin is one of those cases of how, when you're young, time seems to be somewhat telescoped. His mega hit album A Wild and Crazy Guy came out in 1978 when I was in elementary school. A year after Star Wars, and the height of Star Wars Mania (yes, that came a full year after its release), Martin seemed to be everywhere. His novelty song King Tut caught the King Tut wave that was all the rage back then, with the Treasures of Tutankhamun museum exhibit tour in the late 70s. A year later he would star in his own vehicle movie The Jerk, and only solidify that feeling for me and my peers that he had been everywhere forever.
Looking back, I realize how brief his time in the national spotlight was. Oh, he would go on and make a zillion movies of varying quality and redefine himself and become, nowadays, that elderly gentlemen of entertainment. But Martin as center of attention in the world of pop culture was only a couple years. But to youngsters at the time like me, where time seems to go at a different pace, it felt in the late 70s as though he had always been the biggest thing since the dawn of time.
If you sound like this when someone on the other side does something wrong:
But sound like this when someone on your side does the same thing or worse:
Then yeah, you're a big part of the problem. I thought of that when I saw this:
Pretty rough condemnation. And not unwarranted. I know little of the reporter in question who was murdered. I recall it from back in the day. But I think that, unless the guy was Himmler redux, he deserves a little more than a shrug and 'things happen'. Especially from our president. And I'll stand by that. But I don't think Trump's response is anywhere near what we have seen regarding some activists' and prominent professionals' reaction to transgender shooters in schools, or women who cross transgender activism, or heck, the Charlie Kirk murder. Yet regarding such things as the Charlie Kirk murder, the good deacon's response was:
Now, maybe it's me, but I see a definite tonal difference in how the actual murder of Kirk was addressed versus responding to President Trump's statement. Again, I think, as usual, President Trump's response was lousy. It goes a long way toward conveying a disregard for human life and suffering at a time when we need just the opposite.
But so did the murder of Charlie Kirk, only a million times more! And that includes those who defended and celebrated it. But what did you get from Deacon Greydanus the day Kirk was murdered? A platitude. Something that would fit on a bumper sticker. And not even his own. He had to quote others, saying he was too busy to address Kirk's murder. I note he wasn't too busy to comment on President Trump's statement. As for condemning such things as, say, the horrifying attacks on JK Rowling from transgender activists, I've asked for examples from him doing so but as of now have not received any.
That sort of morals by partisan plot point has no place in the Church, or decent society. If we want to bemoan President Trump or the society we've built that saw Trump's ascent, by all means. But that is only worth anything if we look at the broader culture and society we've built, even if the evidence for that declines points sharply back to the side with which we clearly sympathize.
At least traditionally for the young'uns. Now that we have our first November baby in the family, that title will pass to him. Nonetheless, October, in addition to having my late Grandma's birthday, the month of my best childhood friend's birthday, and the Feast of St. Francis to boot, was also the month our oldest son was born.
Not the one born to the best fortunes, he suffered from ill health in his early years. We never knew why. But endless doctors visits and hospitals and surgeries were his lot in his youngest days. A lot of it was respiratory, and we began to think that living in the Ohio River Valley, known for its panoramic vistas of endless coal plants and thousand foot smokestacks, might be part of the culprit.
In 1999, while I was pastoring a church in southeast Indiana, and quite frankly one of the most pleasant of all the congregations I ministered to, we nonetheless decided to move away. We came up to Ohio, where skies might be gray more often than not, but without the same industrial blanket covering the air.
And things turned for him. Within a year, most of the problems he had vanished, which was nice. Of course being the first child he was what all first children are, and that's our guinea pig. You look back when you're a parent at your first kiddo and just shake your head. By the time the other ones come along, you're already getting your parent's feet on firm ground. But those first ones are the ones who bear the brunt of your learning.
Nonetheless, with all the ups and downs he lived through, I can't deny he makes us proud. Everyone here knows how he had planned to go into the world of gourmet cooking, only to be torpedoed by an out of the blue seafood allergy. After wondering for a year or so what to do then, he finally found his new path and has been working toward it, where he stands today.
But he has a knack for excelling whenever he puts his mind to it. In middle school, though already involved in school activities like band, he decided to go out for track in order to enter the sports side of life. It was a dismal performance. At one point during a race, he actually veered off the track and slipped and fell. The good news was that he was so far behind everyone else, nobody noticed. Not to be beaten, however, he went out for cross country the following year. He asked me - who had run track and such in my day- to train him. And so I did. By the end of that season, he was second in his school only to the boy who was a freak of nature when it came to running, with our son often coming in near the front few even with multiple schools competing.
But that's been him. He may start out slow. Sometimes he takes forever to start. And that wasn't the only time he began with a trip and a fall. But once he hunkers down and sets his mind to it, even if life throws him a curve ball that makes him change his entire life's plans, he ends up graduating, and with honors to boot.
By request, a family outing for our yearly pumpkins
And off to a local college football game
Not OSU, but a great game and a great time nonetheless
For old times' sake on our way from the old apple orchard
A nice shot that captures his thoughtfulness
Getting her own pumpkin right before her brother arrived!
Right now he is in the process of going back to graduate school, the application being quite an undertaking, given his major. More on that down the line. As it is, he's still that oldest son. And while we have always loved our sons equally and have made sure to divvy out our attentions across the board, there is no denying that there will always be something about that first child - no matter how old they are.
Obligatory gloating over the grandkids picture, speaking of birthdays - now that they're both here to cause endless mischief:
In thinking on the murder of Charlie Kirk, something jumped out at me. How many - and I personally saw it dozens of times - rushed out and with almost joyful sneering pointed out that Kirk died while defending gun rights. The point was supposed to be irony. You get it, right? He was all about gun rights, and then he was killed by a gun - Ha! That'll teach him!
But did it ever occur to them that he was aware of the possible dangers of his very position, yet he held it anyway because he actually believed what he stood for? That he was willing to even die for his cause?
As so many rushed out with that supposed gotcha take-down, and so more many nodded ascent and gave thumbs up when it was said, all I could marvel at is how someone willing to stand by a conviction even if they died for it was so foreign to these people. How standing firm on a cause even to the point of the greatest sacrifice apparently wasn't even on their radar screen as a possibility.
I thought of those as I saw this:
Could it be that, like it or hate it, the NRA is merely being consistent? That the NRA advocates for gun ownership and gun rights - period? Be it a Bible thumping Baptist or a transgender queer Marxist - and they have his back where gun ownership is concerned? It's almost as if anyone sharing this and finding something negative to say about the NRA's position is as good as saying 'Because it sure as hell wouldn't be me! You bet I'd change my principles the minute they weren't convenient. My values never last longer than their inconvenience!'
Things like that, I fear, are what plague our modern age. An age of punditry over principles. An age where people make sure to stake their lives on crusades that will, at best, cost others everything if they cost anything at all.
It's one thing when bad morals, bad actors and bad motives can be found in a nation or society. It's another when those things define a society. A few weeks back, I was talking with one of my sons about the state of things in our nation. He made a funny quip. He said virtues come and go, but vices last forever. In some ways he's right. In our effort to cleans ourselves of the vices of our past we seem to have thrown out all the virtues and yet, in an odd twist, the vices in many areas remain. And when we realize how ubiquitous they are, what we are seeing go wrong in our modern day should surprise no one.
So today, it's worth going back and remembering something like this:
If you have the time, you'll be glad you did
That is the television series finale for the 1960s British spy thriller The Prisoner. Created by Patrick McGoohan, my second oldest said it's what you would get if Lewis Carroll wrote 1984. The finale is one of those things that you have to see to believe. We've watched some crazy things in our lives, but this has to rank near the top.
Which is a nice thing to remember, since we all know what day this is:
Yep. I mused on that here. It still sticks in my mind as perhaps the single worst television broadcast of my life. Compared to that, even the finale for The Prisoner comes off as tame and ordinary.
The reading of this in the film My Boy Jack always brings home Veterans Day and the risks and costs behind it:
It's been said that the problem with 'Nothing to kill for' is that it is inevitably followed by 'Nothing to die for', which is a backhanded way of saying 'Nothing in this universe more important than me'. As foundational as this is for our post-war secularized liberal society, it's antithetical to not just core Christian values, but the values shared by most of humanity throughout most of time.
Yet when we see things like Veterans Day or Memorial Day or even the daily sacrifice or risk people take to help or save others, I notice that our kneejerk reaction is seldom 'what an idiot.' No, we usually, almost instinctively, cheer them on or remember those who have served or sacrificed with reverence. From the top of our pop culture down.
So it's almost as if, despite the uber-narrative that I must love me first, think of me first, prioritize me first, and heaven forbid think there is anything out there worth dying for - we really don't believe it. Just what it says about a society whose formal instructions aren't even believed by those instructing us, I don't know. I just know when days like this come along, it never seems to mesh with the usual tripe we hear from our best and brightest about how the greatest love of all is the love I should have for myself, everything else being a distant second.
As yet another study shows that no alcohol is safe, now where dementia is concerned. This being among an apparent growing number of ailments driven by booze. Pretty soon alcohol will be why Adam and Eve really rebelled and Napoleon lost at Waterloo.
Now, something is definitely wrong in the dementia world, that I admit. More and more people are being diagnosed with dementia and Alzheimer's than ever before. And these diagnoses are happening at ever younger ages. My grandma - born in the late 1800s - had a stroke and became confused and, based on what we know, stricken by some form of what we now call dementia. Of her siblings, however, she was the only one. The rest of her generation passed, many at very old ages, as sharp as tacks. Her brother Earl was well known for being completely together mentally until he passed (he was a consummate story teller).
The next generation, my parents' generation, have had only a couple who didn't end up with some form of dementia or Alzheimer's. Including both my parents. And while my dad drank like a fish when he was young, he gave it up after an accident involving my sister. Though it had nothing to do with him drinking, he was playing cards and drinking with his brothers when it happened. He felt his reaction time to her injury was compromised, so he never drank again. And that was when he was still young. Except for a few parties and wedding receptions when they were young, I don't believe my mom drank at all. Yet they, like their siblings, were struck with dementia, albeit at very old ages.
Now we have an increasing number of people having these elderly ailments at younger and younger ages. And unlike some things, perhaps cancer or some diseases which we could argue are simply easier to detect now, you can't miss dementia. Long before the diagnoses, you begin seeing the signs. As we did in both my parents' cases. Yet suddenly, it's alcohol! You know, that thing people have been doing for thousands of years before dementia began spreading like wild fire among younger and younger people. The thing that, per the same stories going after alcohol, fewer and fewer people are indulging in today.
Yet the assault continues. So as I said last time, my cynical historian's mind asks - why? Why out of the blue, over the last year or so, has the medical community (and the media) suddenly come out and said burn beer burn! Do not drink wine nor strong drink thou, whether ye go into the corner tabernacle or not! What's up?
First up? The conspiracy explanation. Why do people drink? Apart from alcoholism, to enjoy, to relax, to unwind. To indulge in the giddy side effects of the product in a troubled and difficult world. Also, just because they like a cold beer on a summer day or a nice wine with a fine meal. Sometimes they take Paul's advice when perhaps having stomach problems or other difficulties like sleeping.
But if we don't have alcohol, then what to do about all of those reason? Well, apart from the enjoyment around meals and for culinary peasures, we have - drugs. The media push for legalized recreational drugs continues apace with some pretty impressive wins. And in terms of other problems, such as difficulty sleeping or stomach issues or any such things, we have - drugs. Prescription drugs. The cynic in me has a hard time thinking there isn't some connection there.
Others have suggested it's a way to deflect from the increasing health problems plaguing more and more people. I mean, it's almost normal now to see at least one or two celebrities or well known persons die of cancer, heart disease, suicide or unknown reasons in a given week. Things that decades ago would have made the news for weeks because it was so rare. The deaths of celebrities were typically reserved back then for the elderly celebrities whose days had passed. Exceptions to that rule being exceptions to that rule. But today? I can't think of a week where I haven't seen someone, often well under 50 or even 40, dying in such a way. It seems connected to the observation that we are becoming less and less healthy overall. Why? Nobody seems to know, or dwell on the details much, but blaming alcohol could certainly work.
Some have suggested it deflects from the catastrophic results of our Covid measures, including questions about vaccines and the overall response from our medical communities. It isn't hard to see that things have definitely spiraled in some areas of life in recent years, and over a host of issues. If already we've seen alcohol linked to cancer, dementia, anything you want - why not anything else?
But one thing I'm sure of, it isn't an accident. It's not some bizarre coincidence out of the blue. There is a reason that alcohol is being targeted and fast becoming the latest cause du jour of all problems in the world. And whatever the reason - and it can obviously be more than one - it's those reasons being deflected from that we should likely be focused on.
Also, I'll add that this is not an advertisement to drink. If you don't, great. I'm not being paid by Paul Masson or Budweiser. I just see things like this in our day and age and have a very difficult time believing it's just good old medical science discovering the truths of the world that we need to know in order to thrive. As I've said before, sometimes it takes far more naivete and credulity to disbelieve a conspiracy theory than to believe in one.
_burning_after_the_Japanese_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor_-_NARA_195617_-_Edit.jpg)
,_USS_Cassin_(DD-372)_and_USS_Pennsylvania_(BB-38)_in_Dry_Dock_No._1_at_the_Pearl_Harbor_Naval_Shipyard,_7_December_1941_(306533).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
