The Reality of JAWS

THIS IS FROM AN EARLIER POST.

Since today marks the 50th Anniversary of the movie that started the whole Summer Blockbuster era that would eventually separate Oscar from Box Office, it's worth reposting.  FWIW, JAWS itself, like Star Wars, ET, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Rocky, and Raiders of the Lost Ark were also Blockbusters but widely praised by the Academy.  JAWS was, in fact, nominated for Best Picture (losing out to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).  So here it is, with the musing I had from the day: 

"None of man's fantasies of evil can compare to the reality of Jaws."

That was the line that opened one of the TV commercials for JAWS in 1975.  It was the movie everyone was talking about.  There are famous movies, legendary movies and great movies.  And then there are those historic movies.  Not movies about history, but movies that made history.  Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane, King Kong (33), Star Wars, the Ten Commandments, The Godfather, The Exorcist, Easy Rider, and of course JAWS.

At a time when many believed it would be endless years before the 100 million dollar mark was breached, when movies were aimed at general audiences, when realism was beginning to dominate and the R-Rating was allowing Hollywood to shatter taboos, a young Stephen Spielberg unleashed what many consider to be the greatest horror film of all time on an almost ill-prepared movie going audience.

Much has been written about the movie.  And next to Citizen Kane, few other movies have become as

known for the production as the finished product.  Everyone knows the mechanical shark didn't work.  State of the art for the day, salt water did it in, forcing Spielberg to adopt a more Hitchcockian approach to what would have been a 'monster shark eats people' disaster film of the mid-70s. Union problems, zoning problems, difficulties shooting on the ocean, cantankerous crew, bickering actors - Spielberg has said that for many months after the film's release, he would wake up in a cold sweat thinking he was still working on the set.

And yet, when it hit theaters in the summer of 1975: movie magic.  Hollywood realized there was a whole new way to package and market films.  The Summer Blockbuster, whose bastard children are still alive today, was born.  Spielberg became a superstar.  John William's iconic score went down as one of the greatest ever composed for a film.  One of the greatest monologues in movie history. Martha's Vineyard officially became a major tourist spot.  And in the summer of 1975, revenues for the beach industry took a sharp plunge.

And why not?  Even then it was recognized as better than your average horror thriller, garnering an Academy Award nomination (losing to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).  And though some criticized the lack of character development among some of the cast (though usually not the principle characters), today it looks like a Shakespearean drama by comparison.

Spielberg's insistence on filming on the high seas rather than a studio tank paid off, and the atmosphere and

the ocean become major players in the film.  Robert Shaw, Roy Scheider, and a young Richard Dreyfuss all give stellar and sympathetic performances.  Even though the movie relied on locals to round out much of the town's population, they actually pull their weight well.  And while the shark has gotten some ribbing over the years (sharks don't really have 'jaws'), when looked at as a model, it really isn't far off an actual Great White.  It was just the lack of information saturation that movie makers today would have that the model builders then weren't privy to.

Still, by the time the shark appears, it's lack of continual appearances keeps it menacing until the end.  The tension and stress of the movie keeps the audience alive, and just like other great films of the past - anything by Harryhausen, the original King Kong - most are able to mentally transfer the images and remember that this isn't really a shark, but it's a character in the movie.  Just like Shaw wasn't really a fisherman, or Dreyfuss a scientist, so the mechanical shark was an actor.  And what an actor it was.  Though modern CGI creatures have the benefit of unlimited access to any scholarship about any topic, and  of course the limitless bounds of CGI graphics, few have ever sustained the menace or the horror that 'Bruce' the shark managed off the coasts of Amity all those years ago.

Knowing the movie and its place in history and the quality of its production, it was inevitable that I'd want to see it with the boys.  Our oldest had seen it a couple years ago.  But our next two youngest hadn't seen it yet.  So last weekend, busy with Mothers Day and preparations for Confirmation this weekend and  Graduation next, we set aside any major plans, popped some corn and sat down to watch JAWS.  I was curious to see how my boys would react.  After all, in 1975, unless you were able to see Rated R movies, chances are you hadn't seen much in terms of blood and violence.  JAWS made some people leave the theaters because of the blood.  I remember my then teenage sister being utterly freaked out by the huge amounts of blood.  But this is 2014.  My boys grew up on a diet of PG-13 violence, and have actually seen some select rated R movies (or scenes from them, for instance battle scenes from Gladiator). Would this be old?  Would it be dated?  Would it be a bore?

When the movie was over, and Dreyfuss had tossed out his final quip, as the credits ran I looked and my eighth grader was literally clutching the arms of his chair.  My oldest, who had already seen it once, was shaking.  My ninth grader laid back as if exhausted.  So what did they think?  My soon to be confirmed eighth grader was first to speak, and he summed up something I've been think about since.  He said, "You got to like those guys.  You didn't want to see any of them killed.'   The others agreed.  Far from two dimensional fodder, you cared about them.  Almost half the movie was spent getting to know the main characters, and even though common sense said that at least one of them had to go, you didn't want it to be any of them.  But it wasn't just that.   It was intense.  How was it intense I asked.  Because it was, well, real.  They couldn't quite put their finger on it, but they said it wasn't just 'it was real because sharks are real.'  It was because the people didn't seem like today.

I pondered that and pressed on.  According to them, today many (not all, but many) characters are not overly sympathetic.  Bad guys are supposed to be bad and get what they have coming.  Good guys are good guys, usually because they represent PC values.  Characters aren't real.  They're like types.  They are either supposed to get what they have coming, or not.  And even though the gore and violence is more, it isn't the same.  They just couldn't but their finger on what made this 1975 movie so intense.

And yet, they've encountered that more than once.  Not that they don't enjoy movies and TV shows today,

but they have time and again admitted that, with few exceptions (Christopher Nolan being a consistent example), movies today lack something. They're not 'real.'  Yes, the acting quality in JAWS among the three leads is wonderful, and that helps.  But actors today are good.  Writers.  Directors.  What is it that so struck a nerve with my boys?  I'm not sure.  To quote Quint when asked if he'd seen a shark do this: I don't know.  But it's got me to thinking.  Thinking about the media pool in which our youngsters swim.  Maybe it's my boys.  Maybe others would just laugh and guffaw.  Maybe they would cheer whenever someone got taken down by the shark.  Part of me fears that might be true.  But I can't help but think it means something, and I'll be thinking about it over the months to come.

Maybe it's not fair to compare what many (or at least pre-internet many) consider one of the greatest movies of all time to the entire package today.   After all, there was more than one pile of lousy, superficial junk movies in 1975.  But for now, three men went into the water, two came out alive, and the reaction of my boys gave me something to ponder as I think of our culture, our society, and the world which we have given them as our oldest's graduation approaches.

Why the sudden attack on alchohol?

So by now I'm sure you've heard that the research is in, and alcohol leads to cancer.  I first saw it announced last year, and since then almost every other week I've seen news stories about how more and more research is drawing a thick, straight line between drinking and cancer.  So much so that, as this story says:

"There really isn’t a safe level of drinking when it comes to cancer risk."

You see that?  There just isn't a safe amount of drinking where cancer is concerned.  This isn't the usual 'research says a glass of wine is good for you/research says a glass of wine is bad for you' that we're used to hearing.  No.  This is a growing, concerted, coordinated assault on alcohol in general.

So I ask myself - why?  Yes, cancer seems to be on the rise, though you never know. I've heard it is on the rise one day, then I'm told it isn't on another.  I do know many things are getting worse - food allergies and Alzheimer's/dementia are said to be increasing and at younger and younger ages.  That much I can see and don't need research to point out the obvious. 

But for some reason, the press and medical establishment have gone pit bull on alcohol. Which is strange.  Because the processing of alcohol in some parts of the world, and perhaps even here in the States, is one of the few things left whereby traditional, more natural and less synthetic and artificially created chemical processes and preservatives are used.  Why in an age of most foods being injected with endless chemicals or pesticides or processed in ways hell and gone from natural, it's wine and beer that is the target has me scratching my head.

I brought this up in response to yet another story about the dangers of all alcohol, and received a puzzling answer.  I was told in the US it's often not the case that alcohol is processed naturally today. I was told we use as much artificial and manufactured chemicals in processing drinks today as with any other food group.  But to me, that seems like the problem is the artificial processing, not the alcohol. 

Yet the stories keep rolling out.  Every other week or more frequently.  So I ask, why?  Especially since it's impossible for me to think that if alcohol, something that has been consumed for thousands of years, is suddenly a problem, the rest of what we're eating and drinking should be off the scale and met with even greater warnings.  Yet little is being said there, despite a year long wave of broadsides against alcohol and alcohol alone. 

I should note that, at the end of the above story, it does say there are many, many issues in the research that need addressed, and much that is not known.  That's something I guess.  It's just that since last year, this more than anything has become a major point across the news media and in the medical fields, and I can't help but wonder why.  

Let it be known, BTW, that I'm not being paid by beer or wine companies here.  Nor am I encouraging people to drink.  It's just that in our modern age of post-truth and post-integrity, when something like this comes out of the blue when it seems so out of joint with everything else going on, it makes me wonder what is up.  What are they up to, and why. 

It must be Catholicism

Mike Lewis, over at Where Peter Is, chimes in about the whole kerfuffle in Charlotte.  That is where some documents were apparently leaked (a popular trend I'm no fan of) that suggested a willingness by Bishop Martin of Charlotte to go after the Latin Mass in a way that would make McCarthy blush.  There was backlash, not surprisingly.  

The whole assault on the Latin Mass and the traditions of the Church, that reached a fever pitch during the pontificate of Pope Francis, is one of those things that reminds me I'm Catholic. Because as goofy as Christians can be in living up to Jesus' observations about the Children of Light v. the Children of this age, Catholicism usually wins hands down.  

At a time when the world is pulling itself apart, suffering and misery exploding, paganism is coming back in vogue, global elitists are musing about euthanasia, human sacrifice and even cannibalism, and a growing number of people are leaving the Faith or staying and insisting they don't buy most of the BS anyway - an entire swath of Church leadership has decided the important thing is to abolish the Latin Mass.   You know, that part of Catholicism that even non-Catholics have traditionally associated with the Church.  It's like the Allies saying in 1944 that before we storm Normandy, we need to take care of these squirrels in the yard. 

Eh.  That's the Catholic Church for you.  Lewis' take is everything you would expect from Lewis or any contributor at Where Peter Is.  But most who visit my blog have likely seen responses from those upset at Bishop Martin's actions, so this is another point of view.  

FWIW, the only reason I went there was to see if anyone at the site has mentioned Pope Leo's June 1st emphasis on the families, babies, moms and dads and all, as the rest of the world moved into the month of pride as virtue where sex is concerned.  So far, unless they have a hidden page, the answer would be no. 

A first

A reminder of the passage of time. 

Yesterday was the first time I remember that the news didn't mention the anniversary of D-Day.  Not in the morning shows, nor in the local outlets.  

Granted, I couldn't watch every station at once.  And I didn't watch the entire broadcasts.  But in the past, I didn't have to.  At least once or twice, every June 6, just in casually having the news on and getting ready, I would see one or two mentions at least.  But not yesterday.  If it was brought up, it must have been at the bottom of the hour after I had gone. 

I wanted to wait and post on what I saw and see what they said, but I saw nothing.  In print media, the only major national outlet in the news feed that I saw was the NYT, using D-Day to criticize President Trump's relationship with our traditional allies.  But I guess at least it mentioned the day. 

I suppose this is what comes of time.  Especially today, where the past is increasingly remembered only to condemn, and as quickly forgotten.  When I was growing up, WWI was seen as ancient history, the Spanish American War even more so.  WWII was the dominant historical memory, at least until the 1980s, when Vietnam overtook WWII in the pop culture mindset.  I've often wondered if we would have remembered WWII as long as we did, had it not been for that Boomer penance period of Saving Private Ryan, The Greatest Generation and  Band of Brothers and similar (not to mention that all too brief wave of post-9/11 patriotism).   

Who knows.  Had those not brought WWII back into the public mindset, WWII might have been as obscure for my boys as the Spanish American War was for my generation. But it did get a boost and a generational round of attention in those days. So for the following years, at least December 7th and D-Day received the obligatory mention each year.

A few years ago, during the 2020 revolution, I recall some tried to insist it was time to stop remembering Pearl Harbor and instead remember the beginning of the Japanese American internments.  That didn't appear to fly. But I note that following that, no real mention was given of that day of infamy in casual news broadcasts in any event.

Now D-Day seems to have landed on the chopping block.  Whether we can draw a line between this and other events I've noticed that have received no media attention, I don't know.  I just know that yesterday, for the first time I ever remember, that Day of Days went without mention in anything I saw.  As, I suppose, all things must. 

All things must pass
None of life's strings can last
So I must be on my way
And face another day.

                           George Harrison

The nowhere pope of the postmodern age

So I noticed something.  In the months following the election of Pope Francis, the news media lit up like a solar flare.  This was especially true after his famous 'who am I to judge' remark about the LGTBQ movement.  Every week, if not every day, there seemed to be stories about Pope Francis.  All of which gushed with praise and adoration and optimism about how Pope Francis was beginning the good work of finally burning that old time religion to the ground.  For example, this one always comes to mind, from the rag dedicated to proselytizing our youngest into a world of Sodom and Gomorrah debauchery and nihilism: 

That was just part of the new age of post-modern propaganda that rotated around Pope Francis like a hurricane.  Reminds you of the messianic visions of Obama in 2008, don't it. 

Anyway, I notice in comparison to that, the press has been rather quiet about Pope Leo XIV. But so has everyone else.  Certainly in comparison to the almost daily posts unpacking the latest Pope Francis interview or talking point.  Oh, people mention Pope Leo here and there.  For instance, those of more traditional sympathies noted that on June 1st, otherwise known as our last month long foray into post-Christian paganism and dreams of a post-Western world for the year, Pope Leo chose to talk about families and mom and dad and having those babies.  

So naturally, this is what I saw after June 1st on most media outlets that bothered to mention him at all:

At least Vatican News added the family admonition to the important news

Over at Where Peter Is, where every word that proceeded from the mouth of Francis seemed to warrant its own special column (except his trashing of transgender activism), I saw no mention of his June 1st musings.  Just a column reflecting on how Pope Leo can effectively continue the reforms and activism of Pope Francis, and one reflecting on the real meaning of his emphasis on unity.  

Whether it's the Church righting itself, or people wanting to refrain from rushing in, or what, I don't know.  Clearly Pope Leo is not what the press initially hoped or imagined.  By now we know that thing we used to call the news media is merely tabloid propaganda.  They have no desire to cover news, merely promote.  And so far, it seems whatever they want to promote and what they see in Pope Leo XIV are not one and the same.  At least it looks that ways thus far.  So we'll see.  Just something I've noticed.  

For a bonus giggle, here is a Youtube video (posted on WPI) in which we realize Pope Leo and Pope Francis will be, well, the same but with different name tags.  And unity properly understood is when we realize it's the fault of those traditionalists and more conservative types misreading what Pope Leo no doubt intends to mean:

Heh.  That sort of thing always makes me chuckle.  The old leftwing trick of asking why can't conservatives stop being so damn divisive and just admit it's all their fault.  I find the stunning lack of self-awareness among those, including Christians, who tack Left is usually the most amazing thing.  And most annoying.  

Maybe it is time to stop with the talking points

We live in an era where violence and stigmatizing is across the board. We saw seen four policemen shot, one killed, in two days in our neck of the woods. We just witnessed two separate attacks on Jewish Americans, resulting in fatalities. People in every demographic are facing the results of our modern society's insistence that we break apart and hate each other. So why is this particular group somehow uniquely harmed by this so as to take it to the next level? Just saying 'mistreatment or stigmatized' - especially in our age where across our nation the LGBTQ community is almost deified, celebrated, defended and endorsed and supported - just doesn't cut it.  Again, the days of just yelling 'Bigots!' as the all explaining answer to everything is fading, at least if we really care and want to solve the problems.

I can't really speak to this

 

I don't know why people like picking on those things. When I lived in Louisville back in the 90s, I recall a news story from my old stomping grounds in Columbus.   Apparently some vandals tore down one of the Big Boy statues, dismembered it, and then drove around the city putting its parts in different locations. 

Now, I'm not one to make light of breaking the law or people engaging in property damage.  But I admit, that one made me giggle.  Still, I've never understood the glee people have in dissing on the Big Boy mascot, apart from the obvious. 

Liberals and conservatives and the infamous Fact Checkers

THIS IS AN OLDER POST, BUT I BELIEVE IT IS VERY PERTINENT TODAY

Especially since I notice a staggering dearth of Catholics who once screamed against the terrors of lying for Jesus to save innocent babies calling out the coordinated deception and dishonesty of the White House and Press over former President Biden's clear and obvious cognitive decline. That wasn't lying to save babies.  If nothing else, it was lying no matter how many babies and others might be suffering so that the sitting president they supported could dodge any trouble.  Yet go ahead and bring it up and see how far you get.  It shows how far the Christian Left is in their comfortable position of knowing the ones holding the orb, scepter and crown are on their side and will do anything by hook or by crook for their side to win. 

***********************************************************************************

When I consider the reaction conservatives have to what is humorously known as modern fact checkers, and compare it to the reactions of liberals, I think of this scene from the movie Amadeus:

Ah, a classic.  I wonder why that movie has fallen off the radar in recent decades.  In the 80s it was one of the most celebrated and influential movies of its time - bringing back both period costume pieces and kicking off a post-disco classical music renaissance.  Eh. 

Anyway, my point is that Mozart is appalled at such a nakedly stupid and false statement as 'there are only so many notes that an ear can hear in an evening.'  The emperor, looking for validation, turns to Mozart's rival (in the movie) Salieri.  A trained composer and musical genius in his own right, he knows darn well that the idea of too many notes per evening is garbage.  But in an effort to both suck up and stick it to Mozart, he goes along with the stupid.  Much to Mozart's outrage.  Note Salieri's smug smile as Mozart rants.  Salieri knows it's bunk, but he won, and the power of the emperor is on his side in this.

That's conservatives versus liberals when we see the joke-a-minute farce fest that is modern fact checkers.  Unless it really happens to be that liberals and Democrats are almost always right and honest, versus conservatives and Republicans who are almost always wrong and liars, I feel there is more to the fact checkers than bare naked facts. 

I get the gut feeling that, like Salieri, liberals know it too.  Including liberal Christians.  But the nice thing about aligning with a movement that almost flaunts amoral duplicity as a core value?  You get to indulge as well. Even if you aren't actually lying or spreading the lies you can look on smugly as conservatives rant and rave and know there is nothing they can do.  

After all, like Salieri in the film, liberals know they have the power of vast global corporate interests, billion dollar entertainment outlets, pols and judges, world leaders, the military and even a growing number of religious institutions and leaders at their back.  And when that's the case, you can be smug all day - until the final reckoning that is. 

Christopher Lamb and Salieri both know when to sneer

Food for thought

 Because this generation:

Indulged and even encouraged this generation:

We're now stuck facing the rise of this generation:

Yep.  It's not enough to be brave on the battlefield if you buckle and fold in the face of adversity on the home front when the shooting has stopped.  Exactly what went wrong is more than a blog post can handle.  And I'd never suggest that things were a step off the New Jerusalem until the war ended and then everything went to pot. But the speed with which it has unraveled since the closer of the war, and the growing movement all about destroying everything to do with the Christian world view, the democratic West and the American experiment, is nothing less than breathtaking in its scope and reach. Therefore whatever praise and honor that generation deserves for so bravely winning the battle for our civilization, it deserves as much criticism for losing so badly the overall war for which they fought that great battle in the first place.

A fitting image

 For Memorial Day:

That's the USS Arizona Memorial, the camera near the surface of the water during a rain shower.  I don't know why, but that evoked.  Who knows?  Maybe it's just AI.  In any event, it seems fitting for such days' usual memories.  

The muffled drum's sad roll has beat

The soldier's last tattoo;

No more on life's parade shall meet

That brave and fallen few.

On Fame's eternal camping-ground

Their silent tents are spread,

And Glory guards, with solemn round,

The bivouac of the dead.

    No rumor of the foe's advance

Now swells upon the wind;

Nor troubled thought at midnight haunts

Of loved ones left behind;

No vision of the morrow's strife

The warrior's dream alarms;

No braying horn nor screaming fife

At dawn shall call to arms.

    Their shriveled swords are red with rust,

Their plumed heads are bowed,

Their haughty banner, trailed in dust,

Is now their martial shroud.

And plenteous funeral tears have washed

The red stains from each brow,

And the proud forms, by battle gashed

Are free from anguish now.

    The neighing troop, the flashing blade,

The bugle's stirring blast,

The charge, the dreadful cannonade,

The din and shout, are past;

Nor war's wild note nor glory's peal

Shall thrill with fierce delight

Those breasts that nevermore may feel

The rapture of the fight.

    Like the fierce northern hurricane

That sweeps the great plateau,

Flushed with the triumph yet to gain,

Came down the serried foe,

Who heard the thunder of the fray

Break o'er the field beneath,

Knew well the watchword of that day

Was "Victory or death!"

    Long had the doubtful conflict raged

O'er all that stricken plain,

For never fiercer fight had waged

The vengeful blood of Spain;

And still the storm of battle blew,

Still swelled the gory tide;

Not long, our stout old chieftain knew,

Such odds his strength could bide.

    Twas in that hour his stern command

Called to a martyr's grave

The flower of his beloved land,

The nation's flag to save.

By rivers of their father's gore

His first-born laurels grew,

And well he deemed the sons would pour

Their lives for glory too.

    For many a mother's breath has swept

O'er Angostura's plain --

And long the pitying sky has wept

Above its moldered slain.

The raven's scream, or eagle's flight,

Or shepherd's pensive lay,

Alone awakes each sullen height

That frowned o'er that dread fray.

    Sons of the Dark and Bloody Ground

Ye must not slumber there,

Where stranger steps and tongues resound

Along the heedless air.

Your own proud land's heroic soil

Shall be your fitter grave;

She claims from war his richest spoil --

The ashes of her brave.

    Thus 'neath their parent turf they rest,

Far from the gory field,

Borne to a Spartan mother's breast

On many a bloody shield;

The sunshine of their native sky

Smiles sadly on them here,

And kindred eyes and hearts watch by

The heroes sepulcher.

    Rest on embalmed and sainted dead!

Dear as the blood ye gave;

No impious footstep shall here tread

The herbage of your grave;

Nor shall your glory be forgot

While fame her records keeps,

Or Honor points the hallowed spot

Where Valor proudly sleeps.

    Yon marble minstrel's voiceless stone

In deathless song shall tell,

When many a vanquished ago has flown,

The story how ye fell;

Nor wreck, nor change, nor winter's blight,

Nor Time's remorseless doom,

Shall dim one ray of glory's light

That gilds your deathless tomb.

"Bivouac of the Dead" by Theodore O'Hara

A sign of the times

2025 University of Maryland commencement speaker

Now, I'm fine with Kermit.  Grew up with him.  Before the dark days, The Muppet Show was a cultural watering hole in which everyone at school talked about last night's guests and mimicked the old geezers in the balcony box.  But Kermit?  And I know, that's Henson's alma mater.  Nonetheless, Kermit? 

Remember when this is what was considered a newsworthy commencement speech back in the day:

Solzhenitsyn's legendary 1978 Harvard commencement speech

Even high schools tried.  I recall one of our graduations (not mine, but a grade or two ahead) featured a young, starting out state politician named John Kasich.  Even in a small, rural high school, that's what we shot for.  But Kermit?  Oh, and flash - it's not Kermit.  It's a puppeteer and performer who delivered, and possibly wrote, the message.  Just saying since the news coverage this morning failed to point out that most obvious fact. 

Lowering standards, lowering expectations, discarding historically grounded values and common sense has been a goal of our ruling institutions for generations.  The result?  I think it speaks for itself. 

BTW, to show I'm not anti-Muppet, a little song from my kiddo days.  I've liked it since I first heard it on an old Sesame Street record I was given to cheer me up when we moved to a new home.  It wasn't Kermit, but it's a reminder that pop culture has it's place, as long as it stays in its place: 

I would like to think so

RIP George Wendt: 1948-2025

Happy birthday to the cute one

 

Hard to believe it was a year ago that we were in the NICU with her, seeing her hooked up to the tubes and wires that were keeping her alive.  She is certainly a fighter.  And about as happy a baby as I’ve known.  

I'm especially glad with the top corner pic of my mom and her playing together.  Right now Mom is in a skilled rehab facility, trying to help her get over her injury from turning too fast over the arm of a chair.  At her age, anything deviating from the norm is a problem.  But prayers are she'll be back with us soonest.  In the meantime, she still enjoys seeing pictures of the little'un when I visit her. 

I'll admit that being a grandparent is everything it’s cracked up to be.  For all the happiness she brings all of us, a blessed and happy year for her and her parents.

Heh

 

By the way, that's Oh - HI - oh! There's a joke that Michigan fans like to tell that suggests only in Ohio do we consider it an accomplishment to spell out our own state.  We like to say we do it for the sake of Michigan fans who might struggle with big words like Ohio. 

What I've been saying for years

John C. Wright, who sometimes can be a bit gruff for my tastes, nonetheless hits the nail on the head:  

The Left will support whatever causes the most harm to Christian civilization and likewise will oppose whatever most is needed to help it: whatever most degrades the social fabric, whatever spreads vulgarity and ugliness, whatever promotes vice and crime

Because: 

They hate the West and seek to dismantle it, because and solely because the West is Christendom.

Not that he's alone, or that I'm the first to say such a thing.  It's just something I've been saying for years now, especially in the last few years where it takes more blind ignorance to deny the fact than admit it.  

The Left is about the utter destruction of the Christian, Western democratic tradition.  The values, heritage, heroes, principles, manners, attitudes, beliefs, virtues, decency, common sense and base morals of anything vaguely connected to the Western Tradition are at best suspect, at worst in dire need of eradication.  And that includes apparently timeworn assumptions such as liberty, equality, the value of life and the abhorrence of violence.  All thrown upside down, changed or tossed in the trash.  Anything, anywhere or anyone that aids in that mission will be tolerated at worst, lionized at best.  

Whether it can be stopped or we're merely witnessing that next stage in history that moves into a dark age after a period of development and striving for the better remains to be seen.  After all, a growing number of Christian leaders today seem to begin every statement with an explanation that Christianity is best seen through a post-Western set of glasses.  

Nonetheless, know thine enemy, as the old saying goes.  And it's almost impossible to think of the manifold blessings and benefits that the Christian West brought to the world and not see the ones trying to undo it all as the enemy. 

"We are told to love our enemies, but Jesus never once said that in doing so they would cease to be our enemies."  A quote from an old Presbyterian colleague and friend from my ministry days. 

Some great news and then there is the news

 So why is she smiling?

Because she's going to be an older sister, that's why!  Yes, it's confirmed that the kiddos are going to be parents times two.  Due date sometime in November.  The first ultrasound confirms the happy news.  So blessings all around this Easter season!

Then we have a pope named Bob who is - I can hardly bring myself to say it - a White Sox fan.   I hear he also plays a mean tennis.  That he took the name of Leo, any Leo, to me is a bonus point.  I know, everyone is scared or thrilled or, in some cases, happy they have a new pope shaped cudgel with which to beat those reprehensible reprobates who pollute the beautiful Church because they didn't realize how close to God Pope Francis walked.  For now, I'm putting my thoughts together.  Since at least one reader seemed only concerned with me trashing Pope Francis, and wasn't interested in anything else I had to say, I might hold off with any 'Pope Francis: The Rebuttal' posts.  Instead, I might reflect on things over the last decade or two and where I think we might go from here.

But then the other news, which is why it might be a bit.  My mom, God bless her, is in the hospital owing to an injury from turning wrong in her chair, and a potentially tough diagnosis they're working through (she is in her 90s after all).  I was all night at two different ERs, and will likely be back and forth with long commutes for a few while they help her through things. Because if it is anything major, typically patients are sent to one of the big hospitals in Columbus proper. 

Prayers in both of these developments would be appreciated.

Until then, I appreciate those following things here, and will be back when I can.  Until then, a photo that is near and dear to my heart right now:

Our oldest and youngest.

Habemas Papam

By now the news is spreading.  My oldest said there was the white smoke.  He was right.  We'll have to see what happens next.  Prayers all around.  

If you get your news from the news media

You probably missed that this is the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. That's because I haven't seen a single news outlet mention it yet.  That's a far cry from when I was in second grade, and can remember hearing about the upcoming Bicentennial of 1976.  Even before the year 1976 began, we were getting ready in school and hearing about our nation's plans for the upcoming celebrations on both local and national outlets.  But then those who sought to destroy our nation and heritage, though coming into their own in various institutions of influence, were still a minority.  

Fast forward to today.  Since I haven't seen any television news outlet mention this yet, I Googled the actual 250th Anniversary of the American Revolution and this is what I got in the top results:

Thank goodness for the Cape Cod Times!  PBS is there, reminding us of our divisions and not too subtly giving a microphone to those who see the true revolution being against Trump.  But I failed to locate a story in any major, national newspaper or outlet. 

I think it's tough for us old timers to comprehend just how deliberate the war to destroy the Christian, Western Democratic tradition is.  And how much it has achieved.  Those cases of journalists and academics and others preaching the doctrine of racial discrimination, curtailing free speech, mitigating religious liberty, supporting government censorship, justifying proper uses of violence, and putting an end to the West and its bastard child America, have been doing yeoman's work to be sure.  I doubt for them that this notable anniversary will be anything more than a bump in the road, if they bother to mention it at all. 

Who knows?  Perhaps Ken Burns's Revolutionary War documentary will remind us how blessed we are and how wonderful our country and its founding truly was.  I won't hold my breath. 

FWIW, I could say the same thing about the anniversary of VE Day.  The 80th anniversary I should note.  I did find a slew of stories from British outlets, including the BBC.  But here in the US?  Reuters mentioned it, and that's all.  The call to either hate our history or at least forget its history is one of progressivism's key strategies.  From what I have seen over the years, it appears to be working like a charm.

The unfolding evil of the Left

Is best demonstrated by its almost knee jerk tendency to assume malice in anyone who strives for what common sense once said was good.  Here, NPR swoops in to suggest the sudden concern over our dangerously low birthrates could be - you guessed it - thinly veiled white nationalist white supremacy racist Naziism.  Because of course.  Apparently anyone thinking more babies are good must be motivated by wickedness.  Which speaks volumes about the NPR mentality, if you think on it. 

As a bonus, I love how the above artwork displayed in the piece has a white family, which obviously is suppose to elicit panic and visions of Nuremberg rallies on the part of the reader.  The idea that a white family is supposed to suggest something evil purely by being a white family is hilariously demonic.  But it shows how far the Left has come in its apparent conclusion that the only problem with the Nazis was that they race hated and mass exterminated all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons.  Remember kids, if you ever and only reference an ethnic group, skin color, or other demographic based on accident of birth purely in negative, accusatory or pejorative ways, then you're a racist. 

Naturally the content of the article is of no importance.  It's the usual building a false molehill by ignoring a mountain of inconvenient facts and suffering and human experiences. In other words, contemporary journalism.   I seriously doubt  that science can possibly invent an instrument able to gauge the utter worthlessness of the modern media. 

In praise of Pope Francis

There will be time in the future to unpack the issues I had.  But on the day of his funeral, I think it appropriate to look at the positive contributions he made to his time in this most famous of world offices.  I wouldn't say this is all the positive I could think of, but they were the main ones I noticed and never stopped thinking on.  

Focus on evangelism.  We won't quibble over just what message he was wanting to spread, but at least the focus was there.  Catholics are not known for their evangelistic zeal.  While like most things, Pope Francis sent mixed messages, seeming to come down like a hammer on proselyting to the point where you wondered if just mentioning the Faith was wrong, at least he kept the idea out there.  It wasn't as clear as Pope John Paul II's emphasis on evangelism, though that doesn't seem to have yielded the fruits many were hoping for either.  But in Catholicism, mentioning the E-Word in any capacity I'll take as a win. 

Focus on our consumer, throw away age.  He was right in this. Most of our society is throwaway, being a godless, secular age that makes the Tin Man seem heart filled by comparison.  Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about as they wise man said.  You're born if you're lucky, you live, life sucks and you die.  This isn't something corporations, institutions and much of our leadership today seem to dislike.  In fact, seeing everything as expendable and throw away - including people when they and their situations don't benefit the agenda at large - has come to define our time.  The same goes for truth, principles, and values.   I think it's tough for us, especially younger folks, to imagine there was a time when this wasn't true for most of humanity.  No matter how many corporations there were, or vast institutions, or elites in leadership rolls, there was an understanding of intrinsic worth of things that they had to pander to, if not believe in.  Not today.  And it shows.  

A fighter. One reason liberals win is because they fight.  They earn it.  They fight on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and streets, in the hills, and as long as it's not bad weather, they will fight again and again.  Conservatives score one victory and then go back to watching the game. Pope Francis, by his grit and determination to keep going to fight the fight, embodied a grit and determination that our modern age isn't always associated with.  But he did it to fight for what he cared about, which is a very liberal thing to do. Would that conservatives demonstrate a portion of his dogged determination to see the job through and the agenda achieved.  

Exposed his progressive Catholic supporters.  Perhaps unintentionally, he gave his 'we're not leftists' Catholic supporters a big reveal.  While he was often confusing, inconsistent and sometimes troubling in how he framed things, when it came to calling out the horrifying movement of transgender activism and its terrible impact on young people, he didn't hold back. Nor did he minimize what he said with an 'ah shucks, it's still not a big deal, no judging here.'  That was one thing he blasted with both barrels in ways that would make Jerry Falwell proud.  What an opportunity for his 'not leftwing Catholic' supporters to stand up to that element of the modern Left, knowing they had the pope at their backs!  Yet did they?  Was that when they said 'Hey, in keeping with our dear Pope Francis, we too much condemn this horrible movement!'?  Nope, not that I saw.  Most simply ignored it altogether.  Or they pulled the old 'well it's complicated but I love the transgender community, not like those transphobic bigots who only say they disagree because there are people who want to torture gay people', or some such.  Nope.  As far as the individuals I saw, not one used this to take a bold stand against transgenderism.  Which, to me, was more than telling. 

Again, I'm not saying there were only four things he did that were worth something, three that he planned to do.  But already the criticisms have been flying, and that's fine.  I have a hard time believing he is the one to illicit a dogged insistence on traditional behavior in any situation.  Nonetheless, I'll leave others to go there.  I'm just one who appreciates the olden days approach of waiting to critique him until a little down the road. 

Fun reference.  Here is a very early post I did when Pope Francis became pope.  Most I knew at the time were happy to see him become pope. There was very little in the way of problems.  It was his supporters who made it a case of total obedience to the pope or else, setting back a thousand years the Catholic insistence that Catholics don't just mindlessly and blindly bow before the papacy.  

Rest in Peace Pope Francis

Pope Francis has died.  Prayers for him and peace.  

December 17, 1936, - April 21, 2025

He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away. Rev. 21.4

Happy Easter!

 

A blessed and joyful Easter to all!  

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?” And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.  Mark 16.1-8

I sometimes wonder if we aren't properly afraid, given the immensity of what our Faith claims.  Just a thought. 

Everything about the news media and its coverage of Donald Trump today

 In one brief clip.  I'm thinking of this scene from A Fish Called Wanda.

Be aware, some language here.

I love that.  The shock.  The panic.  The hysterics.  And then - somebody just called!  Not even a fake name. 

That's the press right now.  Take anything - the economy, tariffs, Ukraine, deportations, cabinet shake ups, dogs and cats - you name it.  Just act like Jamie Lee Curtis.  Panic, hysteria, floods, fire famine, doom, defeat, despair! Doesn't matter the topic, just repeat the hysterics with every report.  You don't even have to sweat details. 

Not that I'm not worried of course.  Trump is taking a big risk.  There are three things that can happen.  This all works, very few are hurt and in a year or two the economy is roaring back in real life and not on media teleprompters, while other problems have been fixed and we're moving forward with a renewed hope for the future and love for our past.  I see a President Vance in that future scenario.   

Or, the tariffs and the upheaval do the job, but in the meantime millions are so damaged by the tactics that they will be left far behind the benefits, and in two and four years will vote accordingly.

Or, it blows up in Trump's and our faces, accomplishes nothing, causes endless damage and plunges things into far worse conditions than they were (which can always happen no matter how bad things are).  In which case, VP Vance can look for other employment in 2028 and we'll be looking at President Whoever-Isn't-a-Republican. 

That's about it.  Nonetheless, I'm certainly not stupid enough to buy into the manufactured hysterics and fearmongering that, for some reason, isn't being condemned by the usual sources that are often so quick to condemn such tactics.  Especially when compared to the 'forget about it all is well' from a year ago. We all know why this is and why trusting the modern press is for fools and nobody else.

In 2017, after weeks of protests, riots and violence, it became all about Trump and Putin having corrupted our democracy and stolen our election.  The election was fake, illegal, stolen, and every other week we heard stories of the latest scandal or leaked memo that was gong to topple Trump once and for all and undo the 2016 election.

This time, however, Trump's victory and, more to the point, the Left's defeat was far too decisive.  So now it's go straight to perpetual panic, the way they did in 1981 when Reagan took office.  I remember that well, as I was old enough to understand what was going on by that stage in life.  I remember the way they told us the only good thing about the Great Depression redux Reagan was about to plunge us into was that he would provoke the Soviets into a nuclear holocaust before it could ever happen. 

Having failed to experience such a depression or nuclear annihilation of humanity because of ol'Ray-gun Ronnie, I've learned that when it comes to being told to panic, the last ones I'll take seriously are journalists.  So we'll just wait and see and pray for the best.  Oh, and do ourselves a favor and ignore anything the modern press has to say about life. 

And that's that for topical posts this week. Again, it's a week for loftier things than concern about the obvious.  

A brief update

As we bundle up against yet more April evidence of Global Warming, I must admit it's been a whirlwind couple weeks.  Sometimes you must think we live in a circus. I would not say it was all bad.  Some of the developments have been wonderful. But, alas, we've also been hit with a couple broadsides, including in the health department, and that has drained the days and hours from me being able to put thoughts together.  I started a post a few days ago and will try to finish it before next week, which I think is more properly spent not fussing about trivial matters like geopolitical events, the global economy, and the latest hellish tricks to trip up the faithful remnant.  Thinking on the victory seems the better way to go.  I'll probably get back to musing on those conversion stories after Easter and all the celebrations thereof.  Otherwise, I hope all are doing well and enjoying the last Lentin push until that glorious day I've learned to love more than I did Christmas as a child.  Till then.  

The case against our "Hate Crime" culture mentality in one easy story

A two year investigation of the Covenant School Shooting, the shooter's manifesto never having been officially released to my knowledge, has come to an end.  Apparently the school, the traditional, conservative Christian school, was just a random target. Yes, the investigation found much rage and hatred aimed at targets that could be argued to identity with that particular school.  But apparently the school being targeted was just random and not for any other reason than dumb, blind luck.  

Remember, George Floyd was killed by a racist cop because of American systemic racism. The protests, riots, court case, condemnation of America as a 400 year old racist state, were all based on that verdict as soon as the story broke.  And how did we know it was racism?  Derek Chauvin is white, that's why.  That's all we needed to know to not only immediately label it a racist hate crime, but then move to tarnish by association everything up to the whole of Western Civilization. 

Yet time and again we'll see cases where something like the Covington shooting happens, and contrary to similar standards in other cases, it looks like it was just random fortune.  Or a shooter with reams of rage hate against religion in general or Christianity in particular opens fire on a church - and authorities are unable to pinpoint a reason for it. Maybe a mental health problem?  Or a black man kills multiple white people and is found to have endless posts hating on white people, but can we ever know why?  A card carrying Democrat and leftwing activists opens fire on a group of Republican politicians, but we can't really speak to motives can we?  Or a Muslim goes into a bar and murders multiple people because, according to the gunman, he is outraged at America's policies in the Middle East.  So perhaps it was homophobia?  

I'm no lawyer, but I recall the argument against the concept of hate crimes - and yes, youngsters might be shocked to discover that this was a debate in the 90s and not something universally agreed upon - was the pure subjective nature of it.  That it could be driven by very shallow, and trendy, opinions, narratives and nothing more.  Or it could be based on social prejudices or biases or ideological activism and not actual proof.  Of course there were other arguments, such as the severity of the crime being based on the demographic identity of the victim. The implication that a white man raping and murdering a white woman might be bad, but nowhere as bad as if he does the same exact thing to a black woman purely because of the victim's skin color, had a certain ick factor for some people.  Assuming, of course, that saying a white or black person has anything to do with skin color.  

But on the whole, the argument I remember repeated often was that the idea of 'hate' is just too darn subjective, and too apt to be based only on theoretical fashions, trends, and the latest talking points in a college bar rather than objective fact based assessments.  Nowhere is this more clear than here, or any one of dozens of cases where motives never seem able to challenge the dominant leftwing narratives of who will or won't forever be guilty based on oppressor or oppressed status. 

For my part - again, no lawyer here - that is the problem.  That it seems almost a stealth way of preemptively judging or exonerating people based on their particular identities and allegiances, only with legal teeth.  

Deacon Greydanus responds

To the piece by Mike Lewis explaining his swing to the left of center.  Apparently Lewis's piece is getting quite a bit of attention.

The response is copied from his Facebook page below. Ironically, I had blocked the good deacon some time ago because I grew tired of his playing fast and loose with honest discourse.  I hated to see him slip into the same pit I've seen far too many, especially to the left of center, slip.  That 'words speak louder than actions' trick that defines so much dialogue with those who tack progressive gets under my skin color.

Nonetheless, I thought better of it. I'm not a fan of blocking or banning people.  Especially fellow believers. It makes me think of retreating into a room in the church basement and locking the door to keep 'those other believers' out of our hipster church club.  I concede it must happen sometimes.  But it should be done like it was in the olden days of the Internet - rarely and only because of the worst cases (threats, calumny, personal attacks without stopping after multiple warnings).  So I unblocked him, only to have him block me.  That's because I finally called him out on his 'good cop/bad cop' tendency of threatening to block people who even challenge a leftwing mantra, saying he only wants the best behavior on his pages, while standing back and letting people like Shea and Rebecca Weiss and other leftwing readers rip into anyone challenging their leftwing sympathies with endless name calling, accusations and personal attacks.  So that was the end of me.

Nonetheless, there are others I know and follow who haven't been banned, and other sources that still follow him.  So from those sources this came to me, which I thought was every bit as telling as Mr. Lewis's piece (that's why no link, BTW).  What think you?  Do you notice what I notice in his reasoning?  

Apparently someone challenged the 'only those MAGA types are the real problem' template.  Deacon Greydanus's response is to that comment.  First the comment: 

All of this irritates me to no end. Fine, people on the right are too factional. So are people on the left. Every single Catholic group my wife and I ever been involved in (including breastfeeding groups, homeschooling groups, and pro-life groups) fall into the same trap of constantly pointing at someone else and saying “They’re factional!” The devil knows its a perfect trap: Factionalism is really bad, and to constantly complain about factionalism only deepens factionalism. It would be much better, I think, to spend time promoting the good that Jesus Christ offers the world and how that instantiates itself in various proposals. We never get to do that because we always say, “First of all, look what a jerk the other guy is. Now let me tell you about Jesus.

And his response:  

I have something to say about this. I don’t think your response is adequate. I don’t think you’re entirely reckoning with what this discussion is really about.

Here’s what I think you may be missing: People like Mike and me (along with many people in this thread, as you can see for yourself) are not just angry or upset about “factionalism,” or people being “jerks.” We are wounded souls processing trauma and grief over the loss of one-time heroes and friends whom we watched in dismay and disbelief as they turned against us, and against, so it seems to us, the heart of the faith we thought we shared with them, in the process of building a militant, powerful Catholic subculture organized around entrenched resistance to the pope (if not to Vatican II), a string of culture-war shibboleths (e.g., knee-jerk repudiation of anything associated with “wokeness”; deep hostility regarding any attempt to treat people who identify as LGBTQ with respect and welcome), unfettered enthusiasm for the hardest possible line on immigration, and, ultimately, uncritical, quasi-religious support of Trump/MAGA.

We have heard these things said from pulpits, from episcopal offices, and in Catholic media spaces. We have been told—by people we respected and cared about, whose words we used to hang on—that we are not really Catholic if we see things differently.

I’m not saying progressive, dissenting Catholics can’t be factionalistic. I’m saying we who don’t (or, in some cases, who once didn’t) dissent from the Church never expected progressive dissenters, or any dissenters, to model Christian unity and integrity. We did expect that of our heroes and friends. Their betrayal—compounded by their accusation that *we* are the traitors—is an open wound from which we continue to suffer.

Cardinal Burke was one of my great heroes, a rock star of fidelity, erudition, and sober judgment in my eyes. To see him brought low by so absurd a rightwing canard as Covid vaccine microchip conspiracy theories was bad enough. Worse was his violence to basic canon law principles—Cardinal Burke, doing violence to canon law!—by redefining “apostasy” to include Catholics like President Biden whom he considers to have “publicly and obstinately violated the moral law,” and his quite literally scandalous “just asking questions” engagement with sedevacantist speculation about Pope Francis being invalidly elected (in discussion with Patrick Coffin, who has repeatedly platformed the likes of E. Michael Jones, among other gross things).

That’s just one example—and I don’t even know Cardinal Burke. I’ve been insulted and attacked in every way imaginable by people I once called friends. I am a fallen and flawed human being who has made many mistakes, and not every ugly word flung my way has been undeserved or incomprehensible. But some of them are simply because I believe God is doing good things in the Church through Pope Francis. Because I believe my Black neighbors and brothers in Christ when they say racism is still a significant problem. Because I believe in treating people who identify as queer first as human beings created in God’s image. Because I believe that immigrants who have lived here for decades have rights that must be respected.

Cardinal Ratzinger, shortly before his election to the chair of Peter, talked about the danger posed by those who talk about God but live contrary to him, and how this opens the door to unbelief. He talked about the great need for people who, by the enlightened faith they live, “make God credible” in the world. Our crisis, our wound, is that the very people who once made God credible for us have now turned out to be people who talk about God but live contrary to him. This has led many to doubt, to struggle with unbelief, to fall away from the Catholic communion, or to lose their faith altogether. This is not about mere factionalism. This is about making God’s love visible in the world, or distorting it in the pursuit, ultimately, of political power.