Nolan's Odyssey - or why Conservatism will always lose

I've said many times over the years that there is one thing just as sure as death and taxes.  And it is that at any moment, about 1/3 of conservatives will fall into line with and support, endorse, excuse, or even agree with whatever the Left is doing or pushing.  Not always the same ones about the same issues.  But always about 1/3 can be counted on. 

So Nolan's The Odyssey came out, and almost all was as predicted.  Reviews have been mostly positive (mostly), and among more progressive or leftwing outlets, sometimes near gushing.  A masterpiece, the greatest ever, a new epoch in filmmaking has begun. It's Christian and pagan and rightwing and leftwing and pigs have wings and so on.  Meanwhile, many conservatives and those bothered mostly by the casting - or more importantly, why the casting - have either refused to see it, or did not like what they saw.  

With our postmodern tendencies toward things like film reviews clouding the issue, I won't bother with different aspects of the movie and what was good or bad. That is ever and always a matter of taste and preferences anyway.  And with so much riding on this movie's reputation, it will be tough to sift through how much of it was bona fide love of the product and how much was making sure the product would be loved despite itself.  The opposite being true for its critics.  Though from what I've heard, its various themes are pretty much every message you'd expect from an industry that has put fealty to the post-Western Left at the front and center of its priority list.  As one reviewer said, Nolan's The Odyssey fails to tell us where we came from, but it sure as heck shows us where we're going.  

Which brings us to my favorite group of conservatives.  The ones who will always be there when the Left needs them.  Especially, in this case, regarding the entire DEI mandate that Nolan was, in all likelihood, pandering to with his casting choices.  And that is the big - I mean BIG - issue here.

Those who know me know that I define 'Woke' (a term I don't care for) as the Left basically saying 'you heard post-war liberalism insist our only hope is when we accept that all animals are equal?  Well, we "woke" to how unjust and unfair that is, and now realize it's time to accept that some animals are more equal than others.'

We've seen that play out with 'never judge/you're the problem if you don't judge'; 'violence is never the answer/violence can be a darn good answer'; 'nothing is more sacred than free speech/sometimes we need some good old censorship', and on and on.  But the biggest coup has been 'it's time to stop being bigots and be a color blind society and judge based on content of character/if you're not willing to judge based on ethnic identity or other group identities, you're the bigot.'  

At which point we notice the Academy of Motion Picture's official declaration that henceforth, anyone wanting an Oscar nomination for Best Picture will make sure to cast actors and actresses according to group identity quotas (Bonus: Remember all those years when we were told Affirmative Action would never be about quotas?).  And these quotas include, but are hardly confined to, ethnic identity, skin color, and other accidents of birth.  What would have once been called bigotry or discrimination the way Goebbels used to bake it is now officially sanctioned.  With no pushback from academia, the media, the Democrats, or even no small number of religious traditions. 

It's purposefully eating away at the foundational values, principles, and even laws that have defined America and the trajectory of the overall Western Tradition for generations.  It's serious.  And nobody realizes this more than conservatives.  Heck, one of their favorite shout-outs to President Trump during this most confusing of all presidential terms has been his push back against DEI mandates.  And one of the most flagrant examples of these is the Motion Picture Academy's mandate to cast based on demographic quotas rather than, say, talent.  Something that has been being pushed for years mind you, much to the chagrin of those to the right of center.

Yet despite this, what do we get with The Odyssey?  Conservatives rushing out and giving a rousing thumbs up to the movie!  I know, I know.  So what if Sean Penn is a left of Lenin communist, the man can act!  So what if Oliver Stone would rather the hammer and sickle than the stars and stripes?  He's made some terrific movies.  I get that.

But aside from every other stylistic, messaging, plot or film choices that some may or may not approve, the casting was, again, in line with the Academy's insistence that DEI is alive and well and living through officially sanctioned prejudice and discrimination by group identity. Including ethnicity.  I mean, at what point do you stop saying 'messaging aside, I can't give a big enough thumbs up to Triumph of the Will'?  Sure, you can point out that it is a masterclass in filmmaking, as has always been admitted.  But must we endorse it or promote it or give it a rousing thumbs up?  

All I can say is, if a thumbs up must be given, then let's admit DEI isn't that big of a deal.  Already I've seen some on the Left point that out.  I caught some podcast pop up on that FB podcast section with a young leftwing firebrand saying the same thing.  For all the screams and protests and cheers for Trump's war on DEI, obviously it's not that big of an issue after all.  Just like churches shutting down and banning worship services during Covid.  Apparently not going to church is in no way a deal breaker.  Something non-believers and critics were eager to point out.  Just as I see them doing now about DEI being not so much. And you know what?  They're right. And the next time DEI comes up, I'm sure they'll be there to remind us.  

How terrible is the existence of women

That's certainly the impression you get from the modern Left and its embrace of transgender activism as a main column of attack against the Western Tradition.  Think on it.  Have you ever noticed that almost all terms and phrases that spin around the post-binary gender lexicon seem to tear away at the unique characteristics of women and womanhood?  Non-menstruating people. Non-Birthing bodies.  Non-lactating.  And of course the converse is true for describing those people formerly known as women.  Notice the dearth of terms like non-testicular people or, well, you get the point.  

It seems aimed at women far more aggressively than men.  Likewise, I know some feminists have chafed at the whole drag queen culture.  From those I've heard complain, they compare it to a misogynic version of black face.  Men dressed as, and presenting themselves as, a sexist caricature of the worst stereotypes of a woman.  

This doesn't include the horrifying things said to such prominent opponents of transgender activism as JK Rowling or Riley Gaines, that never seem aimed at men who oppose transgender activism in the same way.  Have you seen the things written about them?  Woof.  I know it's the age of the Internet and almost anyone can be threatened or attacked online.  But what was stunning was the silence of those on the Left, including the global press that once so adored at least Rowling and her liberal ideals back in the day. There was nothing, or stories about how she was merely receiving pushback over her 'transphobic comments.'  

Now it looks like the Global Government has stepped in and smacked down a center Rowling funded that helps women who are victims of rape.  Apparently, this is because she funded an organization to help women through the trauma of rape and sexual assault and similar violence.  The problem with that?  It's for women.  Because it's set up to help women.  Which made Amnesty International initially condemn the organization as 'anti-rights'.  Which is a euphemism for non-leftist.  Rowling being Rowling apparently fired back, and now Amnesty International is walking back the report, insisting it didn't go through proper protocol. 

But think on it.  Am I the only one who can't help but think it's women, and overwhelmingly women, who are in the crosshairs of the transgender revolution?  But then, it seems women have been in the crosshairs for quite a while.  After generations of being elevated as THE demographic group that could pretty much demand anything and get it, there has been some qualifying there of late.  Remember when I wrote, here, about that trend a few years ago of saying white women can't be raped.  That is, they can be sexually assaulted, and it's bad let me tell you.  But rape is about power, and no matter where she is under a black man violently raping her, she has the power.  There was a kerfuffle here in the Buckeye State when some local professor shared a post in 2020 saying the same thing about a local case of a young white girl named Reagan Tokes who was kidnapped, raped and murdered.  Though that does seem to have passed its sell-by date.  Nonetheless, you do have to wonder.  

Perhaps that's why more women voted for Trump in 2024 than had before.  Much to the chagrin of anti-Trumpers who can't believe they would vote for someone with a reputation with women like Trump.  How?  How could they vote for him when the Democrats are there with open arms? 

Then look at all this.  I mean, it's really hard to believe you give two swinging damns or a hell about women when such horrifying attacks are made against them as you say nothing about it.  Or when wanting to focus on the needs and safety of women is attacked for suggesting there is such a thing as women in the first place.  

Where Peter Is and a great big lie

We all heard Pope Leo a few weeks back say he's not going to obsess about some minor issue like sexual sins because there are bigger fish to fry in the world.  That's like standing in Europe in 1944 and saying armed conflicts are not the big issue right now.  The death and suffering toll of the sexual revolution almost boggles the mind, if one is willing to step back and honestly assess what we've seen.  More than that, Pope Leo's statement seems in reaction to a popular narrative - a false caricature - that Christians ever and only care about sins below the waistline and not much else. 

One of my professors said that he was having dinner with Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  During their talk, Dr. Mohler expressed frustration that the only time CNN or other news outlets wanted to talk to him was about sexual issues like the Lewinski scandal or homosexual marriage.  As a brilliant theologian and scholar in his own right, Dr. Mohler happily would have spoken to other, larger issues.  But no, not for the press.  They wanted sex or move on to someone else.  

Which is why I always chafe at the mendacity of so much modern progressive activism and its media talking points.  Who is it that only wants to talk about sex?  It's an age old pop culture stereotype that it's only those fundamentalist Christian puritan types obsessed with sex.  Which is laughable, as one need only look at pop culture to see who obsesses about sex above almost anything else including food and oxygen.  

Nonetheless, it's standard liberal tactics 101.  For example, kick down doors, leap through windows, shove gay everything in our faces, demand conformity, plaster gay everywhere, make every social function an outlet for advancing gay anything, and the second someone says 'But I sort of disagree', the liberal activist feigns indignation over the individual obsessing about homosexuality. 

So when I see a Where Peter Is headline that sexuality is not the only moral issue, I have to agree and happily report that no Christian I've met in the three major traditions - Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox - would disagree.  They never say that. Ever.  Oh, it might be a constant point of discussion, but only because of the 24/7 saturation of the topic in our modern world. 

Nonetheless, what this misrepresentation does is twofold.  For the secular, godless Sodom and Gomorrah era activists, it's a way of shutting down opposition by shaming people into thinking the real problem is thinking about sex when the only thing we're told to think about is sex (unless it's racism).  

The other boon of this falsehood is that it allows an out for those Christians who don't want to get within a mile of calling out our modern secular leftwing orgy of debauchery and narcissism (ahem, Pope Leo).  You see, all people ever want to do is talk about sex, so I'm boldly going to go a different direction that won't put me in the crosshairs of modernity.  And this isn't some assumption of malice or ulterior motives on my part. It comes from watching and listening these last many decades of my Christian experience. 

Oh, and just one more thing.  Before people say that sexual sin, as catastrophic as it can be, is still rooted in deeper, spiritual problems and eternal considerations, let me say I fully agree. The problem is, those who rush out and say 'it's about more than sex' almost never go there either.  Instead, it's off to this or that socio-political problem or policy issue that aligns strangely enough with the side that has used sex to entice followers for generations to begin with. Irony alert. 

Approaching America's 250th Birthday

Now that July 4th of our nation's 250th has come and gone, I thought about what I saw, didn't see, what I heard, didn't hear, and where it all came from.  I know that all was not unified happiness in 1976, but it's impossible not to see that things were wildly different this time around.  For the purpose of space and time, I'd say there were about five different trends I noticed when it came to people and our big semiquincentennial (I think that's the right word).     

Conservative commentators, bloggers, and various outlets   

Overall positive, but not afraid of looking  at things like Jefferson's words and his slaves.  Not through the lens of Presentism of course, but to understand the human condition and, to be honest, to use it to look at ourselves.  This included not just non-religious conservatives, but Christian, Catholic, even non-Christian religious.  Which, in the end, shouldn't be surprising.  

Businesses large and small

Two approaches.  Either overwhelmingly positive hurray for the Red, White and Blue, or just didn't mention it.  The majority gave shout outs however.  Especially as Independence Day approached.  That included various outlets or companies I follow in other parts of the world, giving shout outs to their 'American Fans' or 'American Customers.'  Again, I saw none that mentioned the day or celebration doing so in a negative light.  I'll assume those that mentioned nothing were smart enough to follow the Thumper Rule.  Though I'll also add that those businesses whose products aim at a younger, more postmodern and progressive audiences and services also tended to be rather quiet about the whole ordeal, or at least based on what I saw.  I should mention the same goes for educational outlets. I realize that in most cases, schools are out. But still, it didn't keep them for chiming in over George Floyd that summer. 

MSM Press Outlets

A mixed bag. Generally as the holiday approached, it became more of 'positive things and gatherings and a time to celebrate.'  Earlier on they treated us to the potpourri approach of 'America but its sins!' Especially America and Trump, Trump, Trump and his finagling here, there and everywhere.  Closer to the holiday, most contented themselves with the positives.  On our local stations there have been series of stories about the 250th and our history, which I'd say have been about 40/60.  That is, 40% of the stories have been something in the past positive or at least neutral (one recent story about the Wright Bothers and American invention).  But about 60% are either focused on the sins of the past, or wrap up the accomplishments with those sins.  Just like my sons said the schools did when they were in public school. 

Leftwing outlets and organizations and such.

These would be outlets like the New Yorker or SPLC or other leftwing venues and sites.  Easy. Almost 100% negative, focused on the sins, condemning the vile sinners of the past in this 400 year old racist Nazi state.  The odd nod to something good about America, but wrapped almost exclusively in the bad. And usually only if the good involved some liberal ideal or 'minority' group or something similar. And even then, that was the radical exception to the rule of simply 'Evil America - Never Forget'.  Clearly in these cases the mantra was 'not God bless America, but God d**m America!'.  

Leftwing Christians.

I actually spent time going around to various leftwing believers - Catholic and otherwise - I've known over the years.  I wasn't able to track some down.  Some I haven't bothered with for a long time.  But I tried.  Some outlets, like Where Peter Is, I took as a whole and didn't follow each contributor.  With others individuals I looked to see what they said.  Oddly, the bulk said nothing at all.  As if it was just a Saturday in the park with no mention of the 4th of July.  One focused on the Feast of St. Thomas.  Others just generic posts about nothing.  Some nothing at all, the entire weekend going by with nothing written.  Which I found interesting.  No trashing and hashing like the leftwing orgs.  Just nothing but blanks and silence.  And some of them I know full well would once have posted glowing praises for the US, or are not adverse to remembering the anniversary of something like Selma, or are inclined the send shoutouts to Juneteenth.  Yet silence here. 

And that was that.  It's noteworthy that while Corporate America seems to have split from the leftwing juggernaut of a few years ago, most of the traditional leftwing outlets are still that.  So even if the bulk of Americans were waving flags and singing God Bless America, unlike Columbus's Red, White and Boom this year, the key industries of information and cultural molding in our country still appear to have the country in the crosshairs.  

It was a happy 250th Celebration

As I said, fast on the heels of our third son's birthday came this year's 250th Independence Day celebrations.  Because we've been hit was some pretty hefty medical bills over the years, and the various boys have their expenses and lives and all, we were going to cut back on the fireworks that have become a thing ever since they were legalized here in the Buckeye State. But then we decided it just wasn't right, to cut out doing our own fireworks on none other than our 250th birthday as a nation. No way!  So my oldest found a buy 1, get 2 free deal and we jumped on it.   

Don't worry, we practice safe fireworks.  We don't get the monstrous kind.  Usually the type that make pretty lights displays.  We divided the whole celebration over two days.  On July 4th proper we went out while our town was setting off their own alternate fireworks display.  Even toned down, it was a pretty good show.  Better than some of the televised ones I'm sad to say.  And leaps better than the trash heap that has become Columbus's vaunted Red, White and Boom over the years (including this one). 

The next day, we had a grand multi-family cookout with my son's in-laws. That's the parents and one, two, three and four of their sons.  That's right.  The gremlins have six uncles. I'm not worried for their  well being in the upcoming years.  

It was a great time.  One of those weekends where everything seemed to work.  We even let the kiddos see some of the fireworks early on, particularly the quiet ones.  Their reactions are still being analyzed.  Otherwise, a fine time.  Because of schedules and folks going their own ways, we didn't have the usual 'patriotic viewing' of old.  But through July we'll try to catch up on a few things.  

One other odd note.  Some years it was customary for us to visit our big local cemetery and go around to the veterans, much like Memorial and Veterans Day.  Even if it would have been only our youngest with us.  But they had the cemetery closed on July 4th. I've not seen that before.  Strange. I can't help but wonder why.  But otherwise, a July 4th in our own humble way to be worthy of this country we've inherited on its 250th birthday. 

And now the pictures!

Impromptu baby cleaning with a couple of the uncles from the other family -
six in all, and not an aunt between them

Washing baby bucket is what happens
when babies eat July 4th picnics

My new official favorite pic of her

Dueling with giant sparklers - don't try this at home people

Looking more like a Victorian mystery than 4th of July

Our three oldest introduce our daughter-in-law to the
more dangerous ways to handle a sparkler

Our youngest tries to get fancy

Bad photo from dim lighting, but I like the effect

A Griffey family tradition: Build sculptures of sparklers and then burn away, 
trying to compete with the sun if we can

Another new tradition is run before the fireworks explode

A shot of our little finale for the year - a fine time

Though I seldom post any home videos, I figured it would be apropos to post this, the last of the fireworks we set off in our own humble display.  Happy 250th Birthday!

 

A shout out to our third oldest

It's that time of year again!  Our half of the year.  Though that has expanded to include May, due to our daughter-in-law and our granddaughter, with the storms of Pride/Juneteenth being a period where we have to hold our breaths from Memorial Day to our third son's birthday. And then it begins!

It's tough to separate our third oldest and his birthday from Independence Day that is always right around the corner.  Nonetheless, we managed to have a nice little gathering for him.  He's at once difficult and easy to buy for.  Easy because, with very few exceptions over the years, he loves whatever he gets.  Difficult, because on the whole he says he's basically happy and doesn't need much.  Plus his schedule, full time work, going to school, keeps him more than busy.  

Once he planned on going into law enforcement.  Then he was badly injured and had to miss part of a year of police training, and it was during that time that 2020 happened.  As he said, someday he might reconsider the police force once the country has decided to agree that it's always bad to kill police, rather than today where it's obviously up for grabs.

Instead, after waiting a few, he decided to pick up the baton that my oldest had to drop and go into the culinary world.  For whatever reason, all of our boys - the three oldest at least - have always done well in the kitchen.  While none of them match our oldest and his natural gift for mouth watering fare, they each have their areas of talent and expertise.  After working in restaurants to raise money for college, he concluded he already knows his way around that business model anyway, had already received promotions, and why not make it official.

He did hesitate for a time.  He felt bad going where our oldest now cannot go.  But I told him it's his life, and he can't not go somewhere just because his brother can't.  Once he announced his intentions, his brother was, for the record, happy and supportive.

Of course it being our third son, much of what he has is from sheer brute strength of will.  He managed to finagle a job at one of the premier restaurants in central Ohio.  It works along with the Cadillac of assisted living centers in these parts.  One of those centers whose family gatherings feel like a WEF meeting.  The head chef is one of the best in the area, and it is one of the locations that culinary students are sent to be tutored in the profession.  As my son says about his own situation, he gets paid for what others have to pay to get.

But being him, he doesn't hold back.  At one point he felt he wasn't where he needed to be.  That he was valuable enough to the company that he should be farther on.  So he went to the top and said they had best step up to the plate or he's out of there.  And they did, giving him more than he was wanting.  I joked with one of his brothers that they should try that in their jobs.  One said he could do the same thing, but they would know he didn't mean it. But that's our third son.  Of the four, the big, boisterous AAA personality.  Not one to hesitate, he tends to plow forth.  So here's to him on his latest birthday, may many blessings come his way over the upcoming year. Happy Birthday! 

Holding his first nephew

UPDATE:  As if to drive home the point of his big personality and can do attitude, even the gremlins concede the initiative to him!:

Happy 250th Birthday America

I was in third grade when our Bicentennial came along.  It was quite a show.  Half of our year starting January was taken up in a vast, lavish production our school put on.  Each grade did something different.  Our third grade did a combination skit of settlers traveling into the West (including what had to be a guffaw inducing attempt at the Virginia Reel) with a nod toward the 1812 era as well.  My best friend was Uncle Sam. I was the narrator.  We saw videos, read books, and it seemed the Spirit of 76 was everywhere.  It wasn't so much by the time I entered 4th Grade later that year.  In fact, I remember little about the Bicentennial being dwelt upon by then.  I suppose July 4th had come and gone and that was that.

That was a different time of course.  I hear there were divisions then, as I'm sure there were.  I do recall some talk about America's best days being behind us.  But that's about all.  Otherwise, when it was mentioned in my earshot, it seemed to be talked about rather enthusiastically.  And though that was the first time I remember learning about things like Indian Wars and slavery, the overall package was one of positive praise and thankfulness for our country and those who came before: 

The president on the dollar

That Yankee Doodle dollar

The president on the dollar

George Washington's his name

I still remember that song we sang at the time.  And it was just one of many.  Again, by then we were being given a kiddy portion of 'they weren't all saints and angels'.  But the overall focus was on the good. At least from a kid's perspective.  A focus that, at least officially, remained until well into my college days. 

Looking back at the pop culture output through my adults eyes, however, I'm amazed at how counterculture such an upbeat and patriotic celebration really was.  Certainly most things we were celebrating were, by then, held up to derision or mockery by our emerging post-Western social standards, if they were mentioned at all.  As Mark Shea once said, back then if you wanted to know who the patriots were in popular entertainment, well there was Archie Bunker.  He was a patriot.  Frank Burnes on the TV show MASH was a patriot.  

Other ideals like honor, duty, loyalty were as often as not punchlines, not life principles.  People wrapping themselves up in the flag and singing God Bless America must have been seen as freaks or losers or, well, how our popular media culture and progressive society today see those who want to make America great again.

Back then, however, I have a feeling there was still the benefit of a majority witness for those who wanted the bands and bunting and Kate Smith renditions of patriotic songs.  We weren't quite finished yet, and the arrival of Ronald Reagan in 1980 would make patriotism cool again.  It would also force a shift in the Left's anti-patriotism to a new manifestation of patriotism. That is, you declare your patriotic love of America, but insist that love is only valid when you focus on the evils and failures and horrors of its past and present. It's still patriotism, just patriotism done right.

Nonetheless, in 1976, to my third grade mind in a small Midwestern farming town, patriotism wasn't that bad.  And not only because the big celebrations got us out of the usual school doldrums.  Not that it wasn't lost on us. But I remember feeling genuinely good about being in America.  And even today, after everything for so many decades, and so many attempts to get me to think otherwise, somehow I'm able to feel good about it again.  So raise a cold one, thank - not curse, thank - those who came before who made this possible, and say happy birthday #250 USA.  I still think it's not a bad way to spend a fourth. 

Did I mention the Spirit of 76 seemed to be everywhere?

We do have a good bishop

I haven't agreed with all of his stances, though they typically align with the American Bishops as a whole.  But as I said, I try not to be a 'my side or the highway type.' Likewise, he has never called out any pope since he became bishop, though he has given viewpoints that were clearly not in line with Pope Francis all of the time.  

When he was made bishop of the diocese, it stands to reason that the MSM jumped on it - because of his ethnicity.  But well beyond what he was born looking like, he has brought a bit of a revival to the struggling diocese.  The boom in those entering the Church, and the priesthood, since he came can't be missed.  

A big reason? Long and short, he actually treats the Faith like it is real.  He trained as an exorcist, which I think it especially awesome.  Because he comes from a family of doctors and scientists, it shows by living it out that the two are not opposed to each other.  He's also pretty traditional in his views.  Sometimes he goes so far as to celebrate the customs and practices of our Eastern Orthodox brethren.  Probably due to the presence of Orthodoxy in India. 

He is also about the most energetic bishop I've seen. To quote a  character in the miniseries Jesus of Nazareth, go into a town, cross a street, go into the market and there he is.  Once a few year ago my sons and I were walking down a sidewalk in Columbus and lo and behold, here came Bishop Fernandes walking toward us. No doubt by the end of the day he had been at about a dozen different places and events.  

He also values the past.  More than once he has spoken glowingly of things gone by, including here in the US.  As well as more traditional Catholicism it's worth mentioning.  Which is why this video is hardly surprising, but put against the modern Francis Era Church as a whole, it's a delight.  It's him reading the Declaration of Independence.  Just because and our 250th birthday and all. Which I think, to quote the cricket, is just swell:

It's worth noting that initially he was asked to read a portion of the Declaration, but decided himself to read the entire thing.  Which is a very Bishop Fernandes thing to do.  

My political upbringing

Mom and Dad as I like to remember them

Despite being almost nine years younger than anyone else in my extended family, I did pay attention to the discussions.  The first news story I remember, in the sense that I was aware of it and understood that it was important, was Watergate.  Naturally I didn't fully comprehend it.  After all, I was only about seven.  But I knew it was important because my parents acted like it was important. They also didn't allow kids making light of it either.  I know that for a fact.

But the part that got me was listening to them in that old kitchen we had at the time.  While the story gained steam, I recall them both saying they hoped and prayed it was all hot air.  They hoped Nixon was not connected to anything and nothing would result in him getting in trouble.  Because, as they said, they feared it would be bad for the country.  But here's the punchline - they were both Democrats.  

I don't know if my dad's family voted Democrat or not, since the brothers went their own ways all over the country.  But my mom's family, who largely stayed around Akron, was deep into the Democratic Party.  That's why later my parents both voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 - the year of our country's big Bicentennial.  By then I was going on ten, and a little more aware of things.  One reason they chose Carter was the hope that it would stem the party's push toward extremism and what they saw as dangerous developments to the left of center.  

Both my mom and my dad had stood for things we would associate with 'liberal' in the pop culture sense.  For example, while serving in the army at Fort Knox and later Fort Hood, my parents had their eyes opened where racial segregation was concerned.  Especially Mom, who was sort the 'naive and sheltered' young girl of the day.  My dad, who knew his way around town and then some, was nonetheless also taken by the clear and naked legal discrimination he saw.  Now my mom might have been naïve, but she also inherited her dad's mouth, and was not afraid to let her opinions  be known.  At one point while in Texas, my dad stepped in and asked her to stop railing against what she saw, because many of the women she was confronting were the wives of his company's officers. Still, she got so upset about what she saw that on one Christmas, her family drafted up a fake application for the NAACP and gave it to her.

Nonetheless, in 1976 they saw many movements they had supported going in the wrong direction.  Directions they believed would be  harmful to the country they were raising their kids in. So they voted for Carter, hoping that the Evangelical would reign things in.  By the end, however, they were anything but fans of Carter.  Even though dad had seniority on the railroad by then (back when seniority in a job meant something), and the economic hits weren't impacting us, they were upset because they were hurting the country as a whole.  They were still weaned on the idea that we care about our fellow Americans.  And they concluded Carter wasn't the one to fix the problems that were impacting them.

So in 1980, both my mom and my dad became part of the legendary Reagan Democrats.  Jumping ship, they voted for Reagan, much to the chagrin of my mom's sisters and brother (her second brother had passed by then).  That led to some pretty intense discussions let me tell you. But here is the funny thing. It wasn't as partisan as you'd think.

The fact is, they all seemed to like Reagan.  Apparently he had visited the area once many years earlier, when they were all younger.  It was to visit the Akron Soap Box Derby, which used to be a big thing in its day.  I guess a couple of my aunts met him, and talked about how nice and down to earth he seemed.  They also went on about him being handsome. They just wouldn't vote for him because he was a Republican.  As they said, they didn't want their dad turning over in his grave. 

But even funnier was my mom and dad. Especially my dad.  A union man all the way, for the next eight years he frequently jumped up and down and yelled at the TV because of what Reagan had done.  Not all things.  There were things he openly supported, especially taking a hard line against the Soviets and other countries he felt had been pushing us around.  He also appreciated Reagan making patriotism cool again and pushing back at the 'Patriotism is for losers' movement pop culture had been peddling for years by that point.  But in other cases, he would become very upset at things Reagan did (we won't even mention his feelings about Elizabeth Dole).  Even though, unlike my mom's family, he voted for Reagan - twice!

So that was my experience with politics.  Democrat parents hoping the Republican president they voted against wasn't guilty because it might hurt the country.  Democrat parents actively supporting social causes but realizing such causes can turn down dangerous paths.  Democrat parents who weren't personally harmed by a floundering economy under a Democrat administration, but were concerned that it was hurting Americans as a whole.  So much so that those Democrats voted for a Republican in the 1980s.  And though my mom's family would never vote for Reagan, they generally liked him personally.  While my parents, especially my dad, who did vote for him twice, frequently became upset when he felt Reagan was in the wrong.  

If nothing else, you can see why I have little use for naked partisanship, or slavish devotion to this or that social movement, or defending one side to the exclusion of any other sanity.  I try my best to step back and see what is going on for what it is. Like Trump. I never had had much use for him, and there are things, especially this second term, which are worthy of criticism to be sure.  But neither will I go Never-Trumper derangement and wish for my plane to crash just because he's the pilot. Or fool myself into forgetting that many on the Left who call Trump Hitler had no problem partying with him, golfing with him, hanging out with him, and of course asking for money - at least before he put an "R" in front of his name. 

Divisions can be a "Both Sides" problem

 So I saw this make the rounds:

Basically, erase the FOX News logo and replace it with any other national MSM news outlet, and it's the exact same thing we heard daily during the Biden administration. 

In fact, one of the big laughs my wife and I had in recent years was on election night in 2024.   As it became clear that Trump was going to win, we were watching the ABC election coverage.  During one of the segments they discussed the economy.  One of the commentators said - I kid you not - that because people were struggling with rent and grocery prices it was difficult for them to see how healthy the economy really was.  My wife and I laughed and said 'Gee, people who can't afford food and shelter can't see how strong the economy is? You just can't figure people!'

But that had been the news coverage of the economy the whole Biden term.  So flagrant was it that various outlets would have stories about how to get help with rising grocery prices, or agencies to aid young parents with newborn expenses, or avenues to go for those facing a loss of housing.  Then when it was the economic news proper, Pollyanna was never more optimistic.  It was strong, healthy, wonderful!  Economist were elated, thrilled, excited about the future! 

Likewise, when it came to tackling the pesky inflation that was ravaging the already shattered finances of millions due to Covid, I saw many economists explain that inflation - it's a thing.  But healthy economies are made of more than just, well, grocery prices and inflation.  Just like above. Only this time it's FOX.  

Of course now that same MSM has been zeroing in on every negative spin on the economy for over a year.  Whatever good is happening, the stories always end with the bad.  Just like during Biden, no matter how bad, the stories typically wrapped up with a positive.  An old trick to be sure.  But it points to the bigger problem that it's not so much the suffering of millions that matters, but whether that suffering can be exploited or should merely be ignored.  One that obviously reaches across partisan lines in terms of priorities. Certainly where the modern media is concerned.   

That's why the trick is not to fall for it, or go along with it, just because your guy is in office.  Yes, we all know the thing we used to call the News Media is dead, and won't be coming back any time soon.  But that doesn't mean we should play along.  Because if we do, we're of no real use to anything, much less a Christian witness. 

A belated Fathers Day reflection

 

That's my dad in the lefthand photo when I was a tyke.  That chunker he's holding is me.  My older sister is next to him.  That was Atlantic City. I think the only family vacation we took in those early years.  At least the only one they ever talked about. Despite my dad's love of travel, we seldom did, at least as a whole family.  I think I can count on both hands the actual family trips we took. And several of those were after my sister got married the first time and moved out.  If memory serves, one point of contention with her was that she always wanted to stay home and talk on the phone - cell phones being distant science fiction at that point.

Anyway, the other picture is of my second oldest and his daughter this Father's Day.  As the uncles call her, the gremlin. 

Gratuitous pics of Gremlins 1 & 2

He's reading with her because he and my daughter-in-law are purposefully toning down their kids' exposure to electronics, including TV.  They might let her watch an older kid's show - Blues Clues or The Wiggles for instance - but that's it.  And that maybe once a day (twice on rare occasions), if at all.

When the boys were growing up, they were in public school.  We tried to jostle the difference between how we would raise them and the world in which they lived.  We wanted them to do other than just sit about on electronics, watch television or, heaven forbid, be on social media (not yet a big thing then).  But we also wanted them to at least have an idea of the greater cultural ocean in which they were swimming.  We wanted them to be aware of what was happening around them, if nothing else so they could relate to their classmates better. 

Part of this was finding things in the current day that weren't terribly offensive, like Harry Potter, or the Marvel movies, or some of the books of that era.  Part of this was also making sure at home they were exposed to older books, older movies, older TV shows.  It was no strange development that shows like The Andy Griffith Show were among their favorites when their peers liked shows I had never heard of.  Likewise, one of the teachers in their middle school told me how once he saw my oldest reading a book in the cafeteria.  He noticed it was leather bound, when he said kids by then were increasingly on tablets or at best reading graphic novels.  He went up and looked and saw my son reading Oliver Twist.  He was taken by that. 

When we decided to homeschool in the middle of the school year (long story there), I sent a bulk email to all teachers and staff concerned.  I explained why we were doing so, to a point, without being mean about it.  Most said they understood.  One teacher, who had all three of my sons, wrote back.  He said they were always good kids (and they were).  But while they got along well enough, to differing degrees based on the son in question, they were always a bit - off.  Different than the others.  Not in a bad way mind you.  They just always seemed to march to the beat of a different drum. And I never minded that.

If we were raising the boys today, however, I think we'd be closer to what our son and daughter-in-law are doing.  Because despite all the changes from that day in Atlantic City to the days of my older sons' childhoods, there were still similarities in culture, norms and expectations for the future.  Something they are the first to acknowledge.  Likewise, they are also the first to acknowledge - rather bluntly - that all of that has since changed in the last dozen years or so.  Which is why, raising kids today, I'm going with the books and music and walks through the park over exposure to anything produced in the modern era that requires electricity, except as a rare treat.  

A father's day thought reflecting on the world my father knew and the world my grandchildren will confront.  

From last Thanksgiving, but just as much fun

I was walking with Pope Leo and Billy Graham by the Tower of Siloam

And I noticed the tower had fallen and killed many people.  In my distress I turned to them, and Billy Graham told me there is much suffering in our fallen world.  I am no doubt suffering too.  In fact, if I'm honest, my whole life has been missing something, and as I look at that tower I can see the problems of the world that have always been.  But  it's time I admit that the only solution to my distress and depression is to turn to God by repenting and coming to Christ Jesus, to make Him Lord of my life, and then I will find what my life has been missing.  Oh, and then I should make sure I find a local church and become part of it.

I then turned to Pope Leo, who assured me that the world is filled with injustices and suffering.  He likewise assured me that God would be there for me in my own struggles and suffering, to give me the sense of His Presence, and to bring us all to be united as one family in this world.  Once I realize that, I can then get busy and start working on how to make sure no more towers like the one at Siloam fall, or that oppressive regimes can no longer mingle the blood of the innocent with their sacrifices as Pilate did.  

I thought of that when I heard some of the words of Pope Leo in Spain.  I've been listening to Pope Leo quite a bit, eagerly waiting that moment when he finally says 'Yes, Griffeys, the hell you went through to become Catholic was worth it, for there is no more pressing need in all creation than walking with God through Christ in the Catholic Faith.'  Or similar.  

Instead, I heard things that reminded me more of a Catholic version of Rick Warren's A Purpose Driven Life, with a touch of socio-economic and political concerns tagged on the end. Not horrible stuff, but in the end, I just keep getting the impression that it's all about me.  Not me in the sense that it's imperative I repent and draw near to God.  But somehow as if God is a means to an end that ultimately comes back to me.

In fact, it dawned on me that if it was up to the last couple popes we've had, I never would have become Christian, much less Catholic.  Not that they don't act like Jesus or God or the Christian Faith are important, at least from a Catholic POV.  They just aren't - necessary, at least from a modern POV.  Or at best they aren't exclusively necessary.  And there never seems to be any demand on me at all, apart from seeking justice for the oppressed and the immigrant and concerning myself about the world's climate and economic woes.  Big, lofty problems that never really put me on the spot for my own personal life choices and behaviors. 

Out of strange coincidence, as I've listened to Pope Leo, I saw an old clip of Billy Graham a few days back.  It's been a long time since I heard him.  It brough back memories.  Even as an agnostic, I always respected Rev. Graham.  As I told people then that I didn't believe in Christianity, but I knew he did.  And that meant something.  Especially compared to other prominent celebrity ministers in those days.    

Which is why, when he had his famous Crusades on television, I would sometimes watch.  Even in college, if other roommates were out and about, I'd turn him on and listen.  I must admit - and  I know people will probably find all sorts of problems with his theology or ministry style - but when he preached, something often stirred inside me.  He said much of the same thing the last popes have said. Hurting people, hurting world, injustices and all, feeling lost and alone.  But somehow he pointed past the worldly and material to the New Jerusalem (though I wouldn't have identified it as such).     

And he made it clear it wasn't a blank check. I  had to meet God halfway.  A covenant, so to speak. A new covenant, but covenant nonetheless.  God is eternal love and grace and forgiveness, but not on a one-way street. I would have to confess, to step out, to make Jesus Lord of my life for the world to see.  And let me tell you, as an agnostic, the thought of stepping out and saying I believe in Jesus publicly was like begin asked to go to the front of the class and do a calculus problem on the chalkboard.  Because something about the invitation made me think that would be a major decision on my part, nobody to hide behind or nowhere to run.  It was me and my decision or not, and I would have to live with the consequences one way or another.  Let me tell you, that was a powerful idea. 

Despite the dread I had when pondering that, I often entertained the thought.  I think, IIRC, I once actually called that hotline they had at the end of the broadcast. I don't recall if anything happened.  But that's how much it touched me.  I should say, as a Protestant minister, I often got the same zingers in my soul when I listened to Fulton Sheen.  I had never heard of him growing up, but in Louisville there was a station that showed reruns of his old TV show.  Wow, could that fellow preach.  As one from a denomination that put a huge premium on mach schau when it came to sermon delivery, I often stood in awe of Sheen's communication abilities.  A reputation Catholic priests were not always associated with. 

And, like a Catholic Billy Graham, he laid it on the line.  He didn't shy from the issues of the day. Far from it.  But it was always wrapped in higher things.  It was, you might say, a reminder that however many towers we lament or authoritarian atrocities we decry, we need to make sure we - that's me, Dave Griffey - are right with God.  And it isn't going to arrive in the mail with a picture of Ed McMahon on the envelope.  I was going to have to meet and accept God's gift; to be prepared to make the call and follow through.  

I just don't get that from so much of the Church today, including its popes.  As I said here, dignity seems to be the big idol before which our leaders bow (yes, I saw the headline). But is seems to reinforce that modernist idea that it's really all about me isn't it. God's here to give me a purpose driven life, which mainly means, in terms of obligation that I get with the picture and fix the things of the world, as opposed to come forward and confess Christ before men, or repent and sin no more.  

I should add one more thing.  I was chatting with one of my sons, as you're aware I often do.  We were talking about the heavy emphasis on such things as 'fix the problems of the world will you' that is everywhere today.  He said that's one of the things that drags so many younger people down.  The idea that they have no business being anything but miserable unless they invest themselves in fixing vast geopolitical problems that have evaded the leaders of the world since time immemorial. Again, I thought of that when I reflected on Pope Leo's call to trust that God loves us, but make sure we use this realization to get out there and be those social justice warriors that the world wants.  As opposed to focusing on anything terribly eternal in our own personal considerations.  

And now a few passages to ponder: 

For this reason, he added that those who allow themselves to be enlightened by the Gospel “also develop a critical perspective regarding a social system that does not place the person at the center and gives rise to situations of injustice and existential poverty on various levels.”   Pope Leo XIV  

"True repentance is a turning from sin... Humanly speaking, it is our small part in the plan of salvation. Our part is repenting. God will do the converting, the transforming, and the forgiving." Billy Graham

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”  Emphasis mine. 

To my thinking, one of these passages is not like the other two, even if there are similarities. 

BONUS REMINDER:  For those who grew up in the Faith, this is what people outside are often looking for when they've been primed to seek God.  It would be nice if modern Church leaders remember that: